1972 Planning AGENDA
V l LLA~'~E OF ND/ HOPE
PLANNING CONI41$SION HEETiNG OF JANUARY 4, 1972
I. 7:00 p.m. Call fo Order
2. I~oll Call
PUBLIC HEARINGS
it
6. Repor~ of Land Use Comml-r+ee
of December 27, 1971 ~leefing
8.
9. Add
and
I0. Announcements
I I, Adjournmen~r
la$ioners
Council Minutes - I December 3, 1971
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council
of the Village of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the Village Hall,
4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village, on Monday, December 13, 1971,
at 7:00 p.m.
The meetln§ was called to order by Acting Mayor Johnson.
All persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: Bosacker, Nokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Absent: Erickson.
Mot on by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, to approve the
m nutes of November 22, 97 , subject to the inclusion a~ an am~ndmen~
to Item 4 thereof, of ~he following comment by Councilman P ufka:
"Councilman Plufka stated that he felt that the Village
Counci had an olligation during the period before the
'Ban the Can' Orcinance became ~ffective to look at its
method of solid ~aste d sposa . He felt the eventual
solution of thi~ problem is full cycling Of all solid
waste. He stat~ it places a responsibility upon the
Counci as Vill~ e pt~nners to help develop whatever
recycling is ne~ ed".
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Erickson.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
No ~ublic hearings were scheduled.
PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
Consideration was given to the request for re ease of escrow for two
lots in Allan Hills Addition. The Village Engineer in a letter of
December 3, 1971 stated that boulevard sod, trees and driveways on the
two lots at 6043 and 6073 Hillsboro Avenue in Allan Hills Addition have
been comp eted and it was his recommendation that the bond requirement
for this work be released.
~t~otion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, authorizing
he release of bond requ rement for boulevard sod, trees and driveways
on the two ors at 604~ and 6073 Hillsboro Avenue North in Allan Hills
Addition, as reCOmmended by the V age Engineer.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Erickson.
Motion carried.
Counci I Minutes
-2 -
December 13, t971
=
A letter dated November 24, 1971 was received from Meedco, nc. request-
ing release of $500 escrow deposited with the Vii age of New Hope ~0
insure completion of sidewalk installation on the southeast cor~er of
46th and X~lon Avenues North. A etter from the V lage Engineer dated
December 3, 1970 stated he had checked the apartment d~velopment at
8100 45th Avenue North and that on December I , 1971 he recommended
establishment of the $500 escrow pending completion of the follow ng:
The expansion joint material in t'he sidewalk and
driveway joints should be trimmed in severa
locations to minimize the danger of tripping.
3.The water shut-off box north of the building should
be lowered to match the sidewalk grade.
4. A manhole in the sidewalk south of the building
should be raised slightly to match the sidewalk grade.
5. The boulevard sod needs some correction in several
locations.
The 3, 1971 further stated that
Item is a
of the pole. The
recommended that
can be completed
the radius
Motion by C~uncilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, that the_S500
escrow on the apartment b~;lding at 8100 45th Avenue N~rth be re
rained until sp~ing ~hen the radius Can be completed and the remaining
items covered by the escrow can be checked by the Village Engineer,
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None,
Absent: Erickson.
~4otion carried,
Consideration was given to the request for final payment and acceptance
of work on the 1971 Seal Coat Project. The Village Manager read a
letter from the Vi lage Engineer recommending fina payment in the
amount of $2,049.27 t~ Allied Blacktop Company for the r work in con-
junct on wit~ the 971 Seal Coat Proj~ct. Th~ Village Engineer stated
the final contract amount included a payment of $48 .60 for sealing
the streets in the Twin Terra Linda Add tion, for which the V age has
been re mbursed by the developer.
Council Minutes -3- December 3, 1971
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Counci man Plufka, to author ze
final payment Of $2~049.27 to Al led B acktop Company for the r work
in conjunction with the 1971 Sea Coat ProjeCt, a~ r~commended by the
Vii age Eng neer,
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Erickson.
Discussion held regarding considerat on of request for fna payment and
acceptance of Gordon's Lake¥iew Terrace Storm Sewer Project N~. 261.
The ~illage Engineer, in his letter of November 29, 1971, stated that
since some corrective work has been completed, he would recommend that
the project be considered as c~mplete and the final payment of $ ,636.82
to H~tr~ Contracting, Inc., be m~de.
Eh,
stor
ha:
extension cou
done at the t
not cost
there is one thing the Village would have n the
has ~equested the Village to
feet in~o Northwood Lake. Since the
lng and
it could be
Lake. He said it could
he recommend-
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, author zing
acceptance of GOrdon's Lakeview Terrace Storm Sewer Project No. 261 and
auth~rizlng final payment of $1,636.82 to Metro Contracting, Inc., in
connection with that project, as recommended by the Villag~ EnginEer.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr,
Voting.against: None.
Absent: Erickson.
Motion carried.
Johnson, Plufka.
Consideration was g yen to the request for informal presentation on the
proposed development of the property west of Louisiana at 30th Avenue
North.
Mr. Theodore R. Goldman appeared with reference to the item o~ the agenda.
He stated that a few months ago they had had a meeting w th the Counci
regarding rezoning of the property west of Louisiana ~venue between
30th and 32nd. He said he asked if the Council would allow them to have
some sort of a feasibility study taken on the property, possibly an FHA
feasibility study, or if a reputable mortgage company could analyze the
property and come up w th some suggestion as to what wou d be best
suited to dave opin~ the property. Mr, Go dman sa d he contacted th~
FHA and explained the sit'orion, asking them f they would do a teas bi -
tty study. The FHA asked h m i~ there was a rezoning involved, and
when they learned there was, they sa d t was the r policy not to get
involved in making a feasibility study if there was ~ rezoning question
Counci I Minutes
- 4 - December 13, 1971
involved. Mr, Goldman stated as the next step he contacted a reputab e
mortgage company which has offices throughout the United States and
which has dealt with commercial, industrial and residential property.
He asked them to make a study of the eh? re area and to g ye them some
idea of what they felt wou d be best Suited for the area. Hr Goldman
introduced Mr. Orville J. Hall of the IDS Mortgage Corporat on~ who
belonged to the American Institute of Appraisers and w~o s Vice
President of IDS Mortgage Corporation. Mr, Go dman said Mr. Ha has
taken several Weeks of time th check and analyze the area.
Mr
~r a little over 15 years.
was with their City
what
business was
-cial
taught
his firm's
life
and
the
the Va
ear,
Iding at
'ict
Park, the
industrial development around
the and
cu~ land.
separated
In his
He
projects.
~ renterS,
lief
cant Offer,
~UnCilman BeSacke~ sa d he had expressed to Mr, Goldman h s concern
tyPeS; He S~a~ed 45% of
S~id it se~d Viilage ha~ ~d ~ P~OVide
sort att~a~
P~Ople who Wo~E in nduStry in NeW H~pe; Wh Ch they ~an af~6rd. He
i had foil e~ ts 0blig~fi5ns Wi~h regard
tO aP~n~ DUi de~S;
Council Minutes
- 5 - December 13, 1971
Mr. Goldman stated the Federal Housing Authority has several programs
available. One would be the 221-B-4 type, which would be more of a
middle income type rental; ~hey a so h~ve 236 group which would be
more of a subsidized apar~ent renta . Mr. Hall m~ntioned that he felt
the rents in Crystal Village certain y cou d be pa d by the peOple who
work within a ~ive-mile radius of New Hope. He sa ~ tfe rents are
$160 for a one bedroom apartment and $200 for a two bedroom apartment,
which fie felt were not n~cessari y h gh rents.
Councilman Bosacker stated the rents were beyond the capabilities of the
peOple he was thinking of.
~ouncilman Hokr asked what the Village would do with the traffic in
hat area.
Mr. Hall said his experience w th projects of this type s that the
phase development ac~omp ishes pro,er flow of traffic. He said
certainly Winnetka is a gOOd ar~er a north-s~uth street; 32nd
to Douglas Drive, which is another good north south thoroughfare; and
Medicine Lake R°~d is a good east-west road.
Acting Mayor Johnson stated he fe t the Counci needed a clarif cation
of what Mr. Goldman Was asking, and whether Mr. Go dman was mak ng an
informal request other than a Statement at this ~otnt.
Mr. Goldman mentioned they had wanted some outs de advice or informa-
tion as to why the land had not or wou d not go for muir p e zon
Mr. Hall looked at the property and he has been nvo red in ndustria
sites in New Hope itsel~ a~d sites in other areas in the Twin Cities
and the united States. He said Hr, Hall's feeling is the site does
not lend itself for an industr a s te and t wou d lend tself more
for an apartment site.
He
sa additional
zone
Ii scuss
te the best
Councilman Hokr asked Mr. Ha whether, n anafyz ng the land in
question~ he thought of the poss bilit~ of a cesta n portion of this
area being developed into industrial.
Counci I ~linates
- 6 - December 15, 1971
Mr. Hall said he felt tha-
would end up with sma let
land available in smaller
they are a spotty type at
industrial site COme'red
isn't the best plan ulti~
project, planne~ for one
into part industrial and
Mix.
ould not be feasible, that the Village
dustrial parcels, that Mr. Krause has
rcels, an~ that although they are needed,
o not give the Vi age the t~pe of
Science ndustry Center. ObVious y t
ly. The area I~nds itself to a planned
e of development, but if it is sp it
t residential, ~ s is not a compatible
Counci man Bosacker asked Mr. Ha f from a mortgagor's standpoint
it woud be reasonable to mit density to ;igh~ con~mini~m ~;~s '
or rental units per acre.
Mr, Hall stated that townhouse development is s owly coming a ong in
the Twin Cities area. He said he hasn't had mbch e~ erience with t.
He said condomin um homes are new n the Twin CitiesPa~a; peop e n
the Twin Cities Want free-standing homes. Projects are b~i~g ~r ed
and he said he wouldn't say they are not going to be successfu . He
said the rental on townhoU~es w~uld be mere e~pens ye than the same
space in a home. You can rent ~hem for more f~om an ownership stand-
point than a person can pay for a single family home,
Mr, Hall advised the Council the co~t is less for an apartment unit
than for a townhouse or condominium
Acting Mayor Johnson mentioned the applicant may wish to come back
with another request for rezoning fo~ a planned unit development.
The Village ~anager mentioned that the request for rezon ng had been
denied at the March 8~ 1971 meeting and t~e reso ution denying the
request had been adopted at the April 26, 1971 meeting,
Mr. Arnold Lefor stated that since the last meeting he had contacted
several firms about locating n the area, but after ooking over the
site, they decided thev wer~ not interested.
Councilman Plufka said Mr. Ha I pointed out that the topography is
not conducive tO industrial d, velopment. He said he thought t~e topo-
graphy lends itself tO any ty e of housing that is com ng a ong and
until those avenues are expo ed, he just was not wi lng to see
anothe~ Crysta V lage ,~n~rt ~nt complex there. He said he was not
downgrading the Crystal Vi a e Apart~ents, but felt that in the
apartment area. New Hope has Jone its share. He fet the area had
v~ry unique characteristics t~at could be utilized very well.
Councilman Bosacker mentioned poss bly coming in with another plan
showing a townhouse approach with a d~nsity of 8 per acre.
Fo
Counci I Minutes
- 7 - December 13, 1971
Mr. Goldman stated that one problem with townhouse developments where
there are a less number of units per acre, is that the cost per unit
is greatly increased. Normally a townhouse development is done in a
more econom ca land pr ce, The and in question is high in value, so
there is a problem here. There are some Iow spots and some work will
have to be done, not as much as would have to be leveled for an
industrial site.
Councilman Bosacker stated that either Mr. Goldman is interested in
that sort of development or he is not, He said he for one feels
that if the zoning is left as it is, eventually it is going to develop
industrlalo
Messrs. Goldman and Hall stated they appreciated having the opportunity
to have this informal discussion with the Council and wanted to thank
them.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
the
was the~
an animal.
1971
s wi Id
wild animal. He called
trained but cannot
tad to say
ping
Mr. Lon Heinitz,
that in the
of legislation per-
their
the
strictly
said there is
Hr, Kern handed the petition to Acting Mayor Johnson, who read it,,
said it was dated December 13, 1971, and was signed by seven neigh
bors who stated they had no O~jecti~ns to Mr. K;rn's having the
cougar in his home at 7724 - 45th Avenue North.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker, accepting
the petition and placing it On file.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr,
Voting.against: None.
Absent: Ericksono
Motion carried.
Johnson, Ptufka.
Councilmen Plufka stated the proposed ordinance was not intended to
outlaw the animal, and said t~at it seemed to h m Mr. Kern's primary
complaint was that the animal had to be caged, which he believed was
not intended, and also that Mr, Kern objected to the licensing fee.
Council Minutes
- 8 - December 13, 1971
Mr. Kern stated that what he would like is to be able to Keep his animal
in the house, and f the Counc felt it necessary, he could put some-
thing over tl~e windows.
Mr. Kern advised the Council the animal was locked in the basement at
night.
~rn had developed a
to its
natu rocked; some-
time~ rted
the ~ ' re-
duction ' I to dis-
regard
Acting Mayor Johnson stated he did check w th the Poi ce Department.
The only inc dent was the unfortunate one where one ch d d d get nto
the house; otherwise, the police have h?d no ca Is at all. He sa d t
s not as uncommon as he thought it was; there are many wi d anima s
kept in homes in the area.
Mr. Kern stated a Mr, Spitz from St, Paul was present, who has had a
couple of cougars and other wild animals. Mr. Spitz has trained animals
for the Zoo.
~r. Spitz appeared before the Counc and stated there are an awfu ot
f wild animals kept aS pets in the Tw n City area rang ng from ions
to everything else. He ~aid the only thing ~bout w d anima s, cats
espec a y, s the fact tha~ they scare eas y. t isn't that they are
vicious, If a person is wel enough acqua nted w th wi d an ma s, he
can calm them d~wn readi y and has no p~oblem.
~r. Spitz said he wou d strongly suggest that if t was poss hie, to
ass ~n ordinance that on y qua tied people who pass renu at OhS aid
down by known aninal dea e~s or handle~s ~ould ha~e a wild animal.
Councilman P ufka stated what Mr Spitz was suggesting was that the
Council license the owner rather th~n the an mai, and wondered who
would be qualified to determ ne the ab ty of a person to own and keep
a wild animal. Who wou d determine the qu~lif ca~ions and what kind of
test would have to be given, he asked. ~e asked whether any governmen*a
agencies wou d be able to handle this type of matter,
Mr. Sp tz said there were a number of qua tied peop e n the Tw n Cty
area ~nd Mr. Fletcher of the Como Park Zoo knows mo~t of the people who
are qualified to make the necessary judgments.
Counci I Minutes
- 9 - December 13, 1971
Councilman Hokr stated he was not as concerned about a qualif ed person's
being licensed as he was about not a Owing some person to get hu~t. His
concern was that some nnocent person, such as a Eh d, d d not get
molested by the an ma , and thai a i~ensed person took every pre-
caution to protect the neighbor's children.
Mr, Spitz mentioned that he had $20,000 iabil ty to cover the an mals
he ha~. He said possib y the proposed ordnance could state the person
involved has to h~ve a minimum amount Of liability *nsurance.
Councilman Bosacker stated he would like the Village Attorney's opinion
as to the Village's liability n The matter. The Vii age Attorney
stated he did nat think the ~tllage would have any liability from that
standpoint.
Councilman Bosacker stayed if his child were molested by a wild animal,
he thought the first thing he wou d do is sue the Village.
Councilman
run
or
po~
it should be
thing. He
rdinance
insurance coverage, which
nce. He said he wou d pro-
try to ~,ncorporate these things
The Village Manager stated the staff strongly feels this is a minimum
ordinance for the Village. Any amendement o~ change would make t
difficult to enforce.
Councilman Bosacker introduced O~dinance No. 71-18 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE REGULATING THE KEEPING OF W LDANIMALS IN THE VILLAGE OF NEW
HOPE" and moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by COuncilman
Hokr.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Acting Mayor Johnson, to table
the motion for two weeks.
Voting in favor: Plufka. Johnson.
Voting.against: Bosacker, Mokr.
Absent. Erlckson.
Motion failed (~ie).
The Village Attorney stated the question has a lot of open areas: Once
the ordinance Is pa~sed, i, could be amended to enable the council to
add whatever safeguards would be necessary.
Councilman Bosacker called the question.
Council Minutes
- I0 - December I~, 971
Vote was then taken on the ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING
THE KEEP NG OF WILD AN MALS IN THE VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE". Upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bos~cker,
Hokr~ Johnson, Plufka; and the fellow ng voted aga nst the same:
None; Absent: Erickson; whereupon the ~rd nance was dec ared duly
passed and adopted a~d ~as signed by the Acting Mayor and attested
~y the Village Clerk Treasurer. (P~ge £x~ract Book).
Messrs. Kern and Spitz thanked the Council for their consideration of
the matter.
7. The Counci.I considered areso ution urg ng part c pation by the Metro-
politan Council n fund nga recodification of a I ocal crim na and
traffic codes in the metropo itan area. The V I age Manager exp a ned
that the City of St. Louis Park had in tiated this proposed rec~d fi-
cation and that the Director of Police thought it would be a good idea.
The Metropolitan Council has the fund ng ab ty through the L, E. A. A.
to financ~ such a program. He stated there would ~e a great deal of
benefit from such ~ study.
Councilman Hokr stated it seemed to him this should have been done a
long time ago.
Co ilma
OF
on for adoption
' and
against the
'ion was declared
and attested
NEW BUSINESS
Acting Mayor Johnson stated that the rem re at ng to o
of th~ lease for the ice skating fac lity n the vicin
Quebec would be discussed at ~his time Mrs. Verna NcC
Rhode Island Avenue North, stated they fet there was a
skating rink, as chi dren from the east side of Winnetk
that busy street to reach the rink n Lynncroft Park on
of Winnetka. She stated she had contacted a number of ~
they were all in favor of an ice skating rink near 45th ~
derat on
~f 45th and
)11 of 4608
,d for this
~d to cross
he west side
sidents and
~d Quebec.
The V Ilage Manager read an agreement dated December 3, 97 between
Reino L. ~erry and Barbara M. Perry, Lessors, and the V I age of New
Hope to lease Lot 15, Block 2, Perry's Sprucewood Terrace f~r ce
skating, wi~ the provis on that within 60 days after term nat on,
the Village would ~estore the property to approximate y its present
condit on The renta w be $ .00 ~nd th~ Vi age frees t~e lessors
from any liability on its use of the premises.
10.
Council Minutes - II December 13, 1971
The Vi Itage Attorney stated he might mention Paragraph 2-A had been in-
advertently omitted, and this should read:
"Lessors may cancel on 30 days~ notice,"
Councilman Hokr stated he would like to send the Council's appreciation
to the Perrys.
Motion G uncilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, author zing
the Vii ge to enter into an agreement w th Reino L. Per~y and Barbara
gl. Pert fo lease for the sum of $1.00 the property described as Lot
15, Bio 2 Perry's Sprucewood Terrace~ said ~remises to be used by
the Vii ~e 3f New Hope for ce skat: lng, authorizing the addition o~
Paragra.p 2 A, Lessors may cancel On 30 days' notice"; and authorizing
the Acti 3 ayor and the Village Manager to s gn the agreement on beha f
of the V I lage,
Voting Jn favor: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Eri ckson.
Motion carried.
OFFICERS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
ince Mayor Erickson was absent~ his appointment of a memberto the
uman Rights Commission was held over ~til the next Council meeting,
Onday, ~]ecember 27, 1971.
Counci Iman Plufka stated he would have an appointment to the Youth
commission right after the first of the yea~.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Consideration was next g ven to a proposed agreement regarding study
of the Shingle Creek drainage area. ~he Vi age Manager mentioned
that the Counc at its November 22, 1971 meeting quest oned the cost
formula applied to the study. He thought they cou d argue proceed ng
on an are~ basis when the study is implemente~l. He said th~ Council
would have the opportunity to Choose not to participate ~urth~r in the
program if they so wished.
Motion by Counci Iman Bosacker, second by Counci man Hokr, authorizing
the Village to enter into a Jo nf Agree~nt for sh ngle ~reek Drainage
Area Study and author zing the Acting Mayor and the Village Manager
to sign tl~e agreement on behalf Of the Vi Ilage.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Eri ckson.
Motion carried.
Council Minutes 12 - December 13, 1971
NEW BUS NESS
The Council next considered the matter of Village participation n the
community schoot program. The Village Manager explained ~he staff
recommends th s part cipation h ghly,
Councilman Hokr stated he felt it was a worthwhile program, and said
the program is an.extremely good start on what the ~ntire ~illage has
atwa~s wanted~ which is to use these buildings in which they ha~e so
muchmoney in~ested.
Councilman Bosackar stated he th nks it ret acts the exce ant job
which the Village representatives have done to make the proposa to
the schoo board and fet this should be noted in the minutes.
pMOtion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, approving
articipation by the Village ~f New Nope in the Community SChOOl
Program.
Voting in faro? Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: ErickSOn,
Motion carried.
12. The Village Manager explained that approva of specifications and
authorization to adver~ se for bids ~r the 1972 Towing Contract is
a matter that is brought up each year at th s time. The V I age seeks
proposals for its towing s~rvice ~nd the Council s asked to authorize
advertising for bids, after which ~be name of the qua iliad b dder
and his bid will be ~resented to the Council.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Counc man Plufka, to approve
specifications and authorize the Vii age Manager to ad~ertiS~ for bids
f~r the 1972 towing contract.
Voting in faro[: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: No~e.
Absent: Erickson.
Mo~ion carrie~.
13.
tha
the
por~i ve
The I
'sup-
~ truck would
ton truck could
The Village Manager stated the bids would be brought back before the
Council at a later date.
Council Minutes - 13 - December 13, 1971
14,
15.
I 6 ·
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Counci man Hokr, approving the
specifications for a I/2 to~ pick-up ~ruck for the Fir~ D~ari~ent
a~d authorizing the Village M~nager t~ advertise for bids.
Voting in faro[: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson Plufka.
voting.against None. '
Absent. Erickson.
Motion carried.
Consideration of the lease for the ce skating facility in the vicinity
of 45th and Quebec had been handled earlier in the meeting.
The Village Manager presented Change Order No. I to Vii!age Street
Improvement Project ~qo. 269 providing for the following:
45 sq. yards of sod ~ $1.00 sq. yd. $ 45.00
2 each catch basin casting adjustments ~ $50/each $100,00
I gate valve box repair ~ $50
2 hrs. backhoe @ $2~/hour
50.00
40.00
The Village Manager stated that the Village Eng neet had recommended
approval of this change order
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Counc Iman Plufka~ to approve
Change O~der No. I to Street Improvement ProJect No. 2~9, as ~resented.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None,
Absen+: Erickson~
Motion carried.
is very
ed patti )artly
Motion by Counci man Hokr, second by Counci men Plufka, requesting the
Village Engineer to prepare a feasi6 ty rePort regarding the insta
tion of sidewa k on ~2n~ Avenue North, a~d t~ fake into consideration
parttcipat on in the improvement by B~ooklyn Park.
Voting in faro[:
Voting against.
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Erickson.
Councl I Minutes
- 14-
December 13, 1971
17.
18.
The Vi lage Manager exp a ned that cons deration of the acceptance
Of the bond for the new Bui d ng nspector was sim lar to th~ bond
transfer for the Assessor. The coverage would be e~fective through
1973.
Acting Mayor Johnson asked f the Manager felt $500 wa~ adequate
coverage. The Vi age Manager stated he thought the V Ilage shou d
review the matter. ~he Village Attorney stated $500 was a min mum
figure set by the State, but that the Village could exceed the minimum
if it so desired.
Motion by Councilman P ufka, second by Counc man Hokr, to approve the
transfer of $500 surety bond to the I~w Build ng nsPe~tor t~ cover
the period frOm NoVember I, 1971 to January I, 1973.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson,
Voting.against: None. Plufka.
Absent: . Erickson.
Motion carried.
the Tax
Vii
rst of
The Village Manager advised the Counc he would call the members no
ater than Thursday, December 16, 197 , regarding time and date Of
the meeting.
19, Relating to the cons derat on of retaining Wa kef Publ cations for the
Vitlage newsletter, Councilman HOkr noted that their quote was for 90
days and the b d was dated June 7, 97 , more than 90 ~ays ago. The
Village Manager stated he had ~a ~ed w fh the Pres dent of the Company
and the June 7th bid would app y to this service for 1972.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Counc Iman 8osacker, retaining
Walker P~blications to prov de the Vi age of New Hope new~letter,
at a total COst of $863.78 per issue, as indicated bl their bid.
Voting in faro?: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson,
VOting.against: None. Plufka.
Absent: Erickson.
Motion carried.
20. Motion by COunc Iman Hokr, second by Counci man Bosacker, approving
the Fire Department payro for the month of November, lg?l in the
amount of $~,~60,00 ~s shown on records on f le in th~ office of the
Village Cler~ Treasure~.
CoUncil Minutes - 15- December 13, 1971
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson,
Voting.against: None.
Absen+: Erickson.
Iv~tion carried.
21. Di
fees
to
on
o~ Hi
Plufka.
lan;
I i cense,
that the
peF
Voting in favor of the amendment to the motion: Boaacker, Hokr,
Johnson.
Voting against: P ufka.
Absent: Erickson.
Amendment ~o ~he motion Carried.
Voting in favor of the original mo~ion as amended:
Vo~ing.against: None.
Absent= Erickson.
Notion carried.
Johnson
Council Minutes - 16 - December 13, 1971
22.
23.
#1642
#1646
~1648
#1649
~1652
#1654
#1655
#1656
~1657
#165B
#t662
#1663
carried,
n favor.
t'
agains .
rs:
Councilman h~kr, approving
$ 16.28
8.14
81.00
8.14
8.14
20.00
5.00
81.00
26,74
195.50
24.87
128.56
· Pl ufka,
records
Plufka.
Je
CONI~[NTS AND SUGGESTIONS FRO~ CITIZENS PRESENT
All comments were heard earlier during the meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS
Councl
more problem would be t~a~ ~he
Council Ninutes
-17-
December 13, 1971
by the
rot!rig in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
t4°tion carried,
ADJOURNNENT
Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
No~e+
Eri ckson.
Respectfully submtt~red,
1971
Planning Commission I December 21, 1971
Minutes
A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the
Village Hall, 4401Xylo~ Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday,
December 21, 1971, at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Barniskis.
Chairman Ostlund arrived.
Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: Barniskis, Meyer, Ostlund, Oswald, Rauch,
Cameron, Oster, 6hman.
Absent: Sueker, Zila (Zila arrived shortly).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Case No, 71-67, request for var ance n he ght m tation
for industrial building~ at 4630 Quebec Avenue, Reo Plastics, was
considered at this tim~o The mat~er had been referred to the
Industrial Commission for recommendation as to granting the variance
for the construction of two 60 foot silos for the storage of plastic
materials.
Commissioner Zila arrived.
Mr. Ron Narveson, Reo Plastics, appeared representing the petitioner,
Mr· Narveson said that he had ~ot~ing further to add to th~ case pre_
sented at the last meeting.
The Vi lage Manager ad¥ised that he had a call from Weldon Hultgren
of the Industrial .Comm~ss on. Mr, Hu tgren said members of the
Industrial Commission had visited several of the sites that were given
to them to look at. None of the silos were over 32 feet and that one
would have to trave to Denver to see one that is 60 feet hlgh, The
IDC has recommended against the granting of the var ance, The DC
felt that the cost of shorter silos wou d not be an extraordinary
burden an? they felt that the 60 foot high silos would not be con-
sistent w~th either the Village Code or the other development in the
Village.
Discussion held as to the silo at the Bemis plant with it being noted
that this silo is about I/2 of the size that is being proposed.
Mr. Narveson said that it would take four 40 foot silos to replace
the two sixty foot silos and would cost an additional $40,000 to
$50,000 more than the 60 foot silos.
Discussion held as to whether it would be necessary to readvertise
to authorize variance for four 40 foot silos. Mr. Robert Miller,
Attorney, advised that he did not think a new advertisement would be
required.
Planning Commission - 2 -
Minutes
December 21, 1971
Commissioner Cameron said that he had looked at the Bemis silo and
felt that this was ~oo large for th s section of New Hope. He noted
that the school administration building was about 45 fe~t high. He
said at 40 feet tall if they put a light on it, it will match the
'Crystal Ball~. Mr. Cameron also said that Reo Plast cs should have
thought of this problem before they decided to bui d the plant here.
He said that at the last meeting he asked the question three times
as to why the silos had not been d scussed with the initial presenta-
tion, and that this had not been recorded in the minutes. Hi said
this was a point and that his question was never answered.
In reply to Mr. Cameron, Mr. Narveson said that Reo Plastics is not
planning on ~ny sign whatsoever and that they do not advertise from
their plant in Oss~o at the present t me. ~ fact, the president of
the Company said that if the Village wants to write New Hope on the
top of ~he silos, they would put New Hope on them.
Commissioner Oswald said that he felt he could "live" with a 32 foot
silo,
Coa~nissioner Meyer inquired as to whether eight 40 foot silos would
be required eventually.
Mr. Narveson said that the firm would run out of space and that they
would have to forget about the expansion and I°°k Somewhere else for
expansion.
Commissioner Rauch said that he was familiar with the Bemis installa-
tion and that it is located in a heavy industrial area and since it is
in such an area it does not offend any of the surrounding d~velOpment.
He noted that the Eeo Plastic New Hop~ site abuts residential
property, He felt that unless the h~ight of the silos were c~t to 30
feet or below, nothing much would be a~complished and that 40 45 or
50 feet ~ould be too high.
Chairman Ostlund said that inasmuch as the silo feed through a vacuum
he did not understand why half of the structure could not be be ow
ground and the other hal~ above ground.
Mr. Narveson said that he had discussed this point with the contractor
and that it was his understanding that there is bad water table in the
area. He felt that trying tO put something underground would be a
problem.
Chairman Ost!und said that he wop!d !ike to see the petitioner get soil
bo~ihgS and that a tittle more S~u~y~ the site on the part of Reo
Plastics ~as in o~der. Wi~h the ]ihvest~nt invo!ved~ H~. Ostlund
help with ~he ~ater p~b!em a~d still ~ne~ ahead plus maintaining
r~ for expansion.
Planning Commission - 3 -
Minutes
December 21, 1971
Mr. Narveson said that at the last meeting he had tried to explain that
the development had been a "rush" affair and they had not or ~inally
planned to build in New Hope. Upon quest oning, he said that their
budget was at the point that the additional expense for the towers
would mean elimination of one machine in the plant. Mr Narveson
noted that they we~ ta king about four 40 foot silos versus two 60
foot silos.
Further discussion held regarding soil testing and studying possibility
of burying I/2 of the silos.
Mr.
had
the
bui
bulldi
Discussion held as to Reo Plastic's time table.
Motion by Ohman, second by Zila, to table Planning Case
until the meeting of January 4, 197t. Motion carried by
NEW BUSINESS
the business
No. 71-67
voice vote.
Mr,
invited to the
The proposed sign ordinance was the next item on the agenda. Chairman
Ostlund turned the meeting over to CommissiOner Oster, Chairman of the
Codes and Standards Committee.
ago to
been
ign
p
Copies of the proposed changes were presented to the Commission members.
Mr. Oster said that he woL
would be able to act
from all concerned, He noted that there were peop ~ audience
that had been at the meeting held a month ago. T~ese people were
invited to speak at this ti~e.
Planning Commission - 4 -
Minutes
December 21, 1971
Mr. Lowell Ridgeway~ Assistant Secretary of Hinnesota Petroleum
Council, spoke on behalf of the major oil companies. He apologized for
not being present at orevious meetings and asked for the opportunity
He also noted
had possibly
been Mr. Glen
Hubbard, -. Hubbard would
be )resenting pictures
to il
Mr. Ridgeway then commented on the following sections of the proposed
ordinance.
Subd. 3, Para. 2--on illuminated signs.
private business r
written
sign I oca~ed
hours of 12
but if hours
felt that these are the hours that should be imf:
He said he noticed that
but this did not apply
i should be re-
is a redundant
· illuminated
district
Signs
between the
sentence was
Ished it is
Subd. 3, Para.
The
in a gl
service station was for lease or sale.
coul
tied In with i
sale" or "to rent" signs.
ambiguous.
way
a o~ should be permitted
sign could be pos?ed if a
He said that if such a sign
be
"for
Subd. 13 -- Re:
ordinance one of the
area no closer than
setback area to be
He said that according to the proposed
) the front setback
ne. He pro-
in the
right line.
Commissioner Oster asked Mr. Ridgeway if it would be possible to para-
phrase his points. Mr. Oster noted that a letter covering these
mat.t~.rs had been presented to Re Con~issioners just prior to the
meettng and that consideration would be given to the points in the
letter.
Mr. Ridgeway then continued with his points. He said that it is recog-
nized that a service station identification sign is the single most
Important factor In our credit card economy in advising approaching
motorists of the availability of an advertised product, thereby per-
mitttng an orderly safe ingress to the station site. The setback pro-
vision of this section does not allow for certain visibility situations
Planning Commission
Mtnu?es
Mr
Subd.
e
should
vic
busi
?hey do
day operations.
-5-
December 21, 1971
and ?ends to defeat ?he
such
igh? of way line.
ground
J$
Id be the same
d not find
~ definl?ion of a roof
; accessory
that
pump island. He
should be allowed for use of
lng only. He further stated ?hat
flyers as part of day-?o-
Planning Commission
Minutes
-6 -
December 21, 197
Subd. 18
le if a new business
sign ordinance.
I, 1976.
Mr. Ridgeway stated that
Himineted
He strongly recommended
s just un-
just prior to the adoption
then said he thought Mr, Hubbard of Union 76 and a member
Petroleum Council Engineering Advisory Committee would
say at this time.
Mr. H
several
hat he had picked out
· ould particularily apply to
perhaps apply to
inition of a roof
stations,
a roof sign.
sign. He
be
brace
station.
building, it is not a roof
would
ith an A frame
said the Union 76 sign
the design of the
Mr.
by their company
o~dinance
the building.
that the sign used
d that the proposed
Jid not think
out of balance with the rest of
Mr. n 76 woul~ with the
pole is used on
the it would give
and would be
of 25 feet
Mr. Hubbard also questioned what was meant by "no signs blocking re-
quired windows or doorways".
Further discussion Ri dgeway regarding height of signs
being noted that the sign ordlnan~ was for
all just certain interests.
Commissioner oster asked whether there were any other peoDle here
representing the be no other oil
Mr. Oster again noted that
just been received prior to the
meeting tonight.
Planning Commission - 7 -
Minutes
December 21, 1971
Mr. Shaw of Naegle Sign Company spoke at this time. He noted that his
company has three signs in New Hope, all of which are located on G8
property, He was concerned with Subdivision 17 regarding the need to
remove a billboard when a structure is built on the site. Discussion
held regarding the billboard standing on the Sheridan Sheet Metal
property. He noted that Naegle Sign had a fairly substantial capital
Invest~nt In the sign at the Sheridan Sheet Metal site, and that In
1976 it would be in non-conformance. It was suggested that steps could
be taken to create two parcels of 9reund instead of the large parcel,
thus bringing the sign into conformance. Discussion held regarding
the two Naegle signs located on the tract of land next to the liquor
store. Mr. Shaw asked if it would be possible to provide for specia
use permits to cover the Naegle signs so that the signs might remain
after 1976. Mr. Shaw suggested that a distance might be established
to indicate how far a sign might be constructed from a building. He
said that Naegle Sign Company does not want s'gns on buildings and
that they do not want signs close to buildings.
Commissioner Ostlund inquired as to the position of the Commission
regarding billboards in New Hope. Mr. Ostlund said that the Naegle
signs were already there and that the ordinance reads "constructed on".
Mr. Robert Miller, Attorney, said that this point in the ordinance
should perhaps be changed to also include "maintained" as well as
"constructed on", since this was the intended spirit of the proposed
ordinance.
It was noted that therewere two other billboard signs in New Hope,
both advertising the C~Ystal State Bank. Mr. Shaw pointed out that
these signs differed f~Omthe Naeg!e Signs in that the sign is sold
to the customer. He further n0ted that the industry does not con-
sider signs such as the Crystal Bank signs as outdoor advertising.
The Village ~r noted that the proposed ordinance does provide for
the placement of billboardS in GB districts as did the old ordinance,
Mr, Loren Schiebe, Northwest Chamber of Commerce, was asked for his
comments.
He said that since this meeting was so close to Christmas it was
dl!~f!ii~ult to have merchants i~ attendance, He said he noted that the
Com~Sslon had taken into consideration the points that were brought
up at the last hearing.
No further comments were offered by persons in attendance.
Discussion held as to Commissioner Sueker's comments regarding window
signs.
Chairman Ostlund stated that Commissioner Sueker had called him with
his recommendations regarding same, Mr. Sueker said that with all the
retailers and the sign people he had contacted in the last two weeks
it ~as unanimously their reoommendation that we have no illumination
from the rear to the window and ~h~t sign letters are not to exceed five
inches by one inch. This is what they considered to be acceptable
window signing.
Planni ng c0mmi ssi on
Min~te~
-8-
December 21, 1971
Discussion held as to definition of a sign, with concer~ being expressed
as to the possibility of large inside window signs. Ostlund again
poi ~tion coming forward from Mr. Sueker is
I not have lettering exceeding 5 inches
by one inch and that no light shall come from within to the exterior
to illuminate the window sign.
not covered in the amendments
thls point were
then sc
atto
stated that he would like an opinion ~rom the
definition of a sign.
Mr.
s ordinance as presently
hind
or similar i
you
o,k.
is strictly an exterior
reads, if
, of a service station, this is
Oster saying
fha probability of
so at this time
ordinance on this
nto the
~, these signs
fraff ~e concluded
gns might be treated the same as
signs.
Further discussion held with the attorney as to how this might be
included in the proposed ordinance.
Attorney Miller said that it might be possible to have a prov sion
~hat the light, or source of light, be no closer than five to ten feet
from the window itself. It might be possible to draft something along
this line.
~issioner Oster inquired as to whether ~here might be some problem
with unlform~ consistent enforcement of a Provision against flashing
or moving signs in a window.
Mr. ^myx said that he thought flashing or rotating light could be
drafted into the ordinance. Mr. Amyx pointed out that if that pro-
vision applied to the interior sign, it would still be possible to
have the advertising type sign in the windows. He thought the pro-
vision against flashing and rotating signs in the window could be en-
forced.
commissioner Oswald suggested that we take the preSent provislon re-
lating t° no flashing rotating signs and add onto t
Indoo~ signs a~e Visibi& f~ ~e ~Ublic street,,.
Planning Commission - 9 -
Minutes
December 2l, 1971
Commissioner Cameron said that he agreed that flashing or rotatlng
signs visible from the public street should be controlled but that
he saw no need of controlling flashing or rotating signs visible from
a private parking lot such as at Midland. Upon questioning, Mr.
Cameron said he would not modify the ordinance any further as it per-
tains to window signs.
Commissioner Meyer stated his agreement with Messrs. Oswald and Cameron
on this point.
Attorney Miller stated that he would be able to come up with the
language for this modification to the proposed ordinance.
Chairman Ostlund expressed concern with windows being covered with
advertising, thus ~king it impossible tosee what is happening inside
the store sUch as a burglary, etc, Discussion held as to display racks
blocking windows. He qUestiOned whether th s type of th ng should be
controlled in the sign ordinance or in the enforcement area. Mr.
Ostlund said that he thought window signs should be looked at under a
different category.
Commissioner Oster stated that he would agree with Mr. Ostlund in the
main except for flashing and moving signs.
Mr. Ostlund then agreed that when the flashing or moving window sign
was near the road, that it should be controlled, but not when it is
back in a shopping center.
Commissioner 8arniskis said that he agreed with Mr. Ostlund and that
he did not feel there would be that much problem with window signs.
Commissioner Rauch said that he raised the point that Mr. Sueker had
brought forth at the last meeting.
Commissioner Oster said that the Commission seems to be divided as to
whether the ordinance shou!dibe modified or le~ as is. He stated
that this matter cou/!d be inc!uded at the time the Commission votes
on whether to recommend the ordinance to the Council for adoption.
Commissioner Oster then stated that all members had the proposed
changes before them and that as far as he could see, the instructions
from the last meeting as to changes were pretty welt incorporated in
the memo as to the changes and that the Planning ~ission's intent
seems to be coming through. Mr. Oster suggested that the Co~nission
just review the changes rather than go through the ordinance again
on a paragraph by paragraph basis.
Planning Commission
Minutes
- I0 - December 2t, 1971
Commissioner Barniskis inouired as to whether those things that had
been asked to be deleted were deleted since this type of change is
not shown in the memo. Upon questioning, Mr. Barniskis said that he
was concerned with the statement of the gentlemen from the petroleum
company about the liquor store being treated differently than private
enterprise asking if we deleted that provision so that the liquor
store is accorded no special privileges.
The Village Manager replied that any business that is open between
I1:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. may still have their business
sign, but any business that is closed between these hours and is
involved with a light violation, that sign must be turned off. The
municipal liquor dispensary would be no exception.
Discussion was then held as to Page 6, Paragraph 6, relating to
property for sale. The Planning Commission had previously asked that
the ordinance be changed to read that the for sale sign must be re-
moved immediately upon consummation of the sale.
Attorney Miller stated that "sale" means when the deal is closed. Up
to that point it is only an agreement to sell. No change required.
Commissioner Oswald questioned whether the change had been made as to
"no such sign shall be illuminated in residential districts".
(Page 6, Subd. 6, (I)). The Manager said that the change was noted.
Commissioner Oster noted that a change had been made to Page 6,
Subd. 2, Paragraph 2 to incorporate the language of the present
ordinance, and that a Paragraph 3 had been added talking about "for
sale" and "to rent" signs in commercial and industrial areas. Mr.
Oster noted that in these areas we are permitting a 120 square foot
sign while the residential "for sale" sign is limited to 80 feet.
Discussion held as to whether these signs could be illuminated.
The Village Manager noted tha~ at the last meeting it was decided
that the Village Manager was to confer with Mr. Oster and they came
up with ~he changes in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Subd. 6. Following
further discussion it appeared that the consensus of the Commission
was that illuminated signs be permitted in commercial and industrial
districts but not in residential districts, such illumination~to be
subject to the I1:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. restriction, with refereece to
be made to the glare standards. Paragraph 3 is to be changed to
Incorporate these provisions.
Commissioner Oster inquired as to whether all members were satisfied
with the provisions relating to the front wall signs as to maximum area
since this was such an important part of the ordinance. No questions
were raised regarding front wall sign restrictions.
Discussion held regarding illumination standards and reference to 4.66
of the Code. The Village Manager noted that this reference appeared
on Page 9 of the proposed ordinance, Subd. I0, Paragraph 5.
Planning Commission II -
Minutes
December 21, 197t
Page 3, Subd. 3, Sub-Para. (2). tt was felt that glare standards
should be included in this paragraph or reference should be made to
4.66 of the Village Code, The Village Manager is to review this
paragraph, in light of this recommendation.
Attorney Miller also stated that the glare standards as recommended
by Mr. Tuma will be incorporated into 4.66 of the Code, inasmuch as
he feels this is necessary.
Commissioner Oster asked Attorney Miller to explain what had been
done regarding the compression of Subdivision II. Mr. Miller said
that the language had been taken from Page I0 of the present ordinance
for side walls and merely put in the new Paragraph (2) referencing
regulations in Subdivision I0 of the Code. Mr. Miller said that rear
wall signs had been handled in the same manner. This was agreeable
to the Commission.
Discussion held as to the limitation of nine square feet for side
walls. Attorney Miller called attention to the fact that side wall
signs were only permitted to designate delivery areas and not for ad-
vertising, This also applies to rear wall signs. Mr. Miller also
noted that the only time an advertising sign can be on a side or
rear wall is when you do not have a front wall to utilize.
Comments were called for on ground signs. Commissioner Oster stated
that this is another section of the ordinance that is important.
The Village Manager stated that except for the deletion of the words
"main body" in Sub-Paragraph 5, Page 13, there have been no changes
made relating to ground signs. No further comments were heard.
Subd. 14, relating to roof signs
Oster noting that in the present
there is a total banning of roof
was discussed, with Commissioner
language of the proposed ordinance,
signs.
Commissioner Oster stated that in Subd. 15, rela~ing to awning or
canopy signs, we are stating in our changes that such lettering shall
be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible
watt sign. No further comments were heard relating to roof, awning
or canopy signs.
Discussion held regarding Page 16, Subd. 18, relating to non-conform-
ing signs. It was noted that non-conforming signs must be eliminated
by February I, 1976. The Village Manager said that this date would
provide the amortization period as was originally discussed, when
the Commission commenced work on the proposed sign ordinance.
Commissioner Oster then said that the Commission had skipped over
most of the first page of the proposed changes and inquired as to
whether there were any comments on these points at this time.
Planning Commission
Minutes
-12-
December 21, 1971
Commissioner Meyer said he had one point on Section I and that relates
to Mr. Cameron's comments on political signs. He said he felt Mr.
Cameronts points were valid, that political signs should be exempted
from provisions of the ordinance and that such signs should be allowed.
Commissioner Barniskis agreed that political signs should be permitted,
but that there should be a maximum size established.
Commissioner Ostlund also agreed that political signs should be allowed
because, if they don't acco~lish anything else, they do make people
aware of a forthcoming election, as stated by Mr. Cameron.
Commissioner Oster then inquired as to how the language of the ordinance
should be changed to provide for political signs.
Further discussion followed, with it being decided that the amendment
should be made to Subdivision 2 to allow political signs on private
property with the owner's permission required, maximum size to be 8
square feet, limited to 30 days before the election and 5 days after
the e!ection, with the property owner responsible for the removal of
the political signs.
Attorney Miller said tha~ he would have to check the state election
laws as to regulations on election signs to make sure that our provisions
are in conformance wi~h state !aw. Mr~ Miller was instructed to make
the change to the ordinance regarding permitting political signs, pro-
vided such change is not pre-empted by state law.
Mr. Miller also noted that it would be necessary to define a political
sign.
Commissioner Oster then inquired as to whether there were any questions
which should be answered.
Commissioner Zila inquired as to how church signs would be handled.
Chairman Ostlund stated that the church signs wouldihave to conform with
the Code the same as the businesses with the exception that no fee
would be charged for a permit.
Commissioner Oster asked Attorney Miller for his comments on the pro-
posed ordinance. He stated that he thought the wording was basically
clear. The basic criteria is whether the ordinance is reasonable, and
that it might be reasonable as i~ applies to 60 people but unreasonable
as it applies to the 6!st case. He was concerned with mall type
shopping centers and interior stores not having front wall space, but
noted that this could be handled under the variance procedure.
The Village Manager stated that basic enforcement of the ordinance
would not start until about mid-1975 when the Village will be looking
for those signs that are non-conforming, but that new signs would have
to comply with the new standard, and permits must be obtained over the
next few years-after the adoption of the ordinance.
Planning Commission
Minutes
- 13 - December 21, 1971
Commissioners Ostlund and Oster again spoke on the variance procedure
and the necessity for having this prevision.
Commissioner Oster then called for comments from the audience.
Mr. Merle Brinkman, representing United Hardware and also Vice President
of the Chamber of Commerce, inquired as to whether a survey had been
taken to determine how many signs would be non-conforming if this
ordinance is adopted.
Commissioner Oster stated that this matter had been considered but
that it was felt that reasonable standards should be developed rather
than drafting an ordinance based on existing signs. Mr. Oster said
that the Commission does not have a count as to the number of signs
that will be in violation. He also said he felt a much larger percentage
of the signs will be conforming than was originally thought.
Mr. Brinkman said that he agreed in principle with first establishing
standards but that he was concerned with what percentage of the signs
will be non-conforming.
The Village Manager noted that the Chamber of Commerce had done an
excellent job in its newsletter of informing its members and that the
highest number of business interests attending a meeting was three~
which was the last meeting. Hr. Amyx said he thought that this implies
that the business men feel their signs are in conformance and that they
have no problem with the proposed ordinance; this is the only thing
he can read into the response we received.
Further discussion held as to the percentage of non-conforming signs,
with Mr. Oster asking whether the Commission would have acted differently
if there were 50% non-conformance versus 5% non-conformance. He said
the Commission had tried to come up with fair standards.
Mr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, again expressed concern with the sign
at Sheridan Sheet Metal and as to whether signs which will be in non-
conformance of the new ordinance can be painted.
Attorney Miller advised that painting of the structure would be allowed
but that a 50% improvement to the strucuture wouild not be permitted.
Mr. Miller also advised that there was a dollar amount under which a
permit was not required.
Mr. Shaw also asked for clarification as to the definition of excessive
glare. The Village Manager read the definition to Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Shaw also said that he feels roof signs should be defined. Attorney
Miller said he did not feel this was a problem--a roof is what you can
see when looking down from overhead; the other portion is the side wall.
Mr. Miller again said that he thought the language was about as clear
as one can make it.
Planning Commission - 14 -
Hlnutes
December 21, 1971
Further discussion held as to previous instructions given to define a
mansard roof, with it being noted that the Attorney has adequately
answered this point, with no additional language being needed.
Mr. Shaw then asked the Commission to fully consider all points brought
up by himself and other persons present, and not just to pass the
ordinance because the Commission felt that the ordinance had been
overworked.
Discussion held regarding the letter from the petroleum interests.
Commissioner Ostlund noted that the points covered in the letter from
the petroleum people had been taken into account in the building of the
ordinance. Accessorv signs and new product Signs had been considered,
the Commission was fully aware of the functions of a service station,
and the ordinance as drafted has the standards wanted. Mr. Ostlund
commented that he did not think it was fair to tell the petro eum people
that we are going to act on your comments of this evening. He sa d
that while the ordinance might be new to the petroleum people, their
comments had basically been considered.
Commissioner Oster stated that i.deally the Commission should have be-
fore it a listing of the specific points where deviation is to be made
from the documents before the Commission this evening.
The Village Manager stated that the suggested changes have been recorded,
both from the December ? meeting and the several points that were
mentioned this evening. He said that the ordinance could be retyped
prior to Council action and that copies would be issued to the Planning
Commission in time to allow several days for the Commission members
to look it over. If there are any problems, the Commissioner could call
and the problem areas would be looked at. We want to make sure that
you have the finished document in your hands and that each Commission
member has read it and feels that the language included therein is i~
agreement with the consensus of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Oster said that he had hoped that the Commission might
act on the proposed ordinance this evening.
The Village Manager said he thought this was possible and that a copy
of the proposed sign ordinance incorporating all changes would be sub-
mitted to the Planning Commission before it wes placed on the Council
agenda. This would assure that the document was in the form recommended
by the Planning Commission.
At this point, further comments were called for. Mr. Brinkman, United
Hardware, asked whether the copies of the redrafted ordinance could
be made available to the Chamber before it was presented for Ceuncil
action. Mr. Brinkman was advised that a copy would go to the Chamber
and the Chamber could then prOVide for distribution to its members.
Mr. Shaw, Naegte sign Company, again asked that Subdivision 17 be re-
Worded,
Planning ~mission
Minutes
- 15-
December 21, 1971
¸5.
Mr. Shaw was advised that if was ,he intent of the Planning Commission
to limit billboards to GB districts and that Mr. Shaw had said his firm
did not want to put signs on buildings or adjacent to buildings.
Mr. Shaw then said he was concerned with the provision for removal of
the sign when the land is improved with a structure and that two signs
could not stand on the same tract.
Commissioner Ostlund said that such matters as were brought up by Mr.
Shaw would have to be considered under the variance provision oH the
merits of an individual case.
Mr. Mil er again noted that the ordinance is to be changed to read
"constructed or maintained" and that under the present zoning code, we
I of land and that it seems to be
do not permit two homes on one parce
a reasonable restriction whethe~ it be homes or billboards.
Motion by Commissioner Oster that the Planning Commission recommend to
the Council adoption of the sign ordinance as amended up through the
present. The motion was seconded by ~ommissioner Meyer.
Commissioner Cameron expressed concern that the commission did not
have the fin shed document in front of it for reviewal and inquired as
to the procedure tha~ would be followed if a Commission member finds
s°methi~g in the finished document which he does not feel was agreed
to by ~h~ Planning CommissiOn.
The Village Manager stated that if any commission member finds a problem
w th the ~rdinan~e as redrafted, he should call the Village Manager and
a meeting cou d be set up to discuss the problem.
It was decided that the ordinance would be sent forward to the Council
at its second meeting in January.
Upon voice vote the motion was unanimously carried.
Discussion held regarding North Hennepin Jun or College planning
courses and seminars. Discussion was also held as to at'ending
meeting relating to Iow inc°me housing. This meeting is fo be on
January II, 1971. Commissioners Meyer, Ohman and Barniskis are to
attend same.
tC~mmissioner Oster, Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee, said
at the Committee would have its recommendations regarding home oc-
cupation standards ready for the second meeting in January
,
Commissioner Barniskis, Chairman of the Land Use Commit~cee, reported
that the Committee had met and reviewed the land use of the northern-
most portion of the southeast corner of County Road 18 and 42nd Avenue
(Co ier-Carpenter Property). A report, dated December 2 , 971, re-
lating to this matter (Planning Cases Nos. 70-75 and 70-76), was then
read by Commissioner Barniskis. In this report, the Land Use Committee
recommends that the subject property be rezoned to TR, and in addition,
that the entire southeast parcel (now zoned MR with some SR) be also re-
zoned to TR at the earliest possible date, The reasons for the recom-
mendations were then sum=,.arized~ in said report.
Planning Commission
Minutes
- 16 - December 21, 1971
Motion by Barniskis, second by Meyer, to forward this report to the
~unci! for ~nsideratiOn at its se~nd meeting in January, together
With lega! advice on the matter; Moti°n Carried by voice vote.
The Council minutes of ~he meeting of December 13, 971, were reviewed
by the Ptanning CommiSsion.
Motion by Commissioner Barniskis, second by Commissioner Oswald, ap-
proving the Plann ng Commission minutes of the meeting of December 7,
1971, as printed, Motion carried by voice vote.
I0. Additional comments and requests were heard at this time.
Discussion held a~ to the possibility of straightening out the Crystal-
New Hope boundary
Discussion held regarding outside storage and parking at Cornelius
Engineering plant.
Discussion held regarding on-street parking adjacent to skating rinks,
especially on Boon~ Avenue.
The meeting was adjourned at I0:10 p.m. until January 4, 1972 at
?:00 p.m.
Respectful ly sub,~itted,
Recording Secretary
Council Minutes
- I December 27, 1971
A#
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council
of the Village of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the Village Hall,
4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village, on I~nday, December 27, 1971,
at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Erickson.
All persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the
flag.
Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: Oosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Absent: Hokr (arrived later in the meeting).
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker, to approve
the minutes of the meetings of November 15th, December tst and December
13th, 1971, as presented.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Mayor announced tha~, since no one was here for the open forum, the
Council might discuss miscellaneous items at this time.
Mayor Erickson mentioned that it would be necessary to hold a m~eting
before the end of the year to handle '!end of the year" business. It
was suggested that the time of said meeting be on December 30, 1971 at
3:00 p.m.
Discussion was held regarding the effect of the new tax levy limitation
law on the Village budge~ andestimated reductions in property taxes
for the home owners, were discussed.
Discussion held regard ng poss b ity of ice arena being built in New
Hope. Mayor Erickson noted NHAA is working on possibility of going on a
bond fund raising type of situation so they can get started. He also
said that the school district has expressed willingness to lease the
3 acres of ground just south of the school bus garage for this type of
facility. The Council would only be involved with moral support for
the project. The Mayor explained that this type of approach had been
taken at Elk River.
Counci I Minutes
-2 -
December 27, 1971
Councilman Plu~ka announced that the Village Manager and himself would
be going to a CATV meeting on Wednesday, December 29, 1971 with the
other communities inVO!ved. He said that there is such a cable tele-
vision operation in St. C!oud which traverses several political sub-
divisions and a!so ~Veral sch~l districts, that he and the Village
Manager aneed ~O gO ~ St. ClOUd and talk with the school people.
Mr p!U~Ea Sa ~hat; in cOnn~iOn with ~his cable TV operatio%
ex~ensive use had been made °f local prOg~a~ing and actually worked
it in~0 the ed~ca~ion~i system, M~. plufka asked Whether the Council
~ers w°Uld ~ interested in g0ing al°ng to st. Cloud to look into
the program.
There were no further miscellaneous items for discussion at this time.
Discussion held regarding app~Qva! Of Change Order No. I to Storm
Sewer Project No, 252A (Storm se~er in the Royal Oak Hitls area). The
Vi!!age Enginee~ Fe~ded that the change order be approved, that the
pr°~ect be COmP!e~e and ~hat final payment in the amount of
$2~748~95 be aUthOriZed; The change Order provides for an increase of
$400, $500 of Which Was for an add t Dna manhole and $100 for picking
up several foundation drains and tying these into the storm sewer
system.
Counci Iman Hokr arrived.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, Second by Councilman Plufka, approving
Change Order No. I to StormseweF Project No. 252A in the amount of
$40O, accepting the pr°Ject as ~!nal, authorizing final payment in the
~mount of $2~748.95, and authOr i zing the Mayor and the Manager to sign
the Change Order.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Discussion held regarding app~vat of Change Order No. I to Storm
Sewer Project No, 228, The Vi!!age Engineer stated that the Change
Order covered constrUCt on work on aport On of Boone Avenue that was
broken up: The COn~ractor 6n p~o~ect NO. 228 did the work at the re-
ques~ o~ the Village, Mr. Rosene sai d the Change Order had previously
been approved on estimated quantities and the Change Order before the
CoUncil this evening co~ers;a~Ua! quantities and prOvides for an
addition to the Pro~ect Of $1;534~75; The Village Engineer also
recommended that ~he project be accepted as complete and that f i nal
payment in the amount of $1,254,75 be made to the contractor.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, secopd by Councilman Bosacker, approving
Change Order No, I to S~orm iSewer prOject No. 228 in the amount of
$il,534.75, accepting the project! as co~lete, authorizing final payment
in the a~unt of $1,254.75 and authorizing the Mayor and the Manager
to sign theChange Order.
Council Minutes
-3-
December 27, 1971
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
The Village Engineer rec~ended that the bond for Barrett's Terrace
be reduced from $4~650 to $800 or that the bond be released subject to
furnishing cash escrow of $640. Mr. Rosene said that the streets were
completed, the settlement in the curb on 41st Avenue had been repaired
and that $640 would cover the remaining boulevard improvements on the
undeveloped lots. The estimate includes 5 boulevard trees and 330
square yards of sod.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Plufka, approving
reduction in bonding requirements for Barrett's Terrace in accordance
with the recommendation of the Village Engineer.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Consideration was given to recertification of the tax levy for 1972,
as required by the recently enacted State tax law.
Discussion held as to the effect this revised levy would have on the
1972 budget. The Council was advised that the budget would be cut
$10,257. The Council asked that the reduction in the budget be further
discussed at the meeting of December 30, 1971 and that the budget
document be amended TO reflect the reduction.
Councilman Bosacker introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED 1971 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE
IN 1972 AND AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR". The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilman Hokr and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka; and the
following voted against the same: None; whereupon the resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and
attested by the Village Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book).
Motion by Councilman BOsacker, second by Councilman Hokr, authorizing
transmittal of Form 279 and 280 to the County Auditor and State Com-
mission of Taxation.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
o
I0.
Council Minutes
December 27, 1971
Discussion held regardi~ng proposed ordinancerelating to unattended
vehicles with key in ignition.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, to table
the proposed ordinance relating to unattended vehicles until the
m~ting of January I0, 1972.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
OFFICERS, COMMISSIONS AND COHHITTEES
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Plufka, to appoint
Mr. Donald A. Johansen, 7695 - 42nd Avenue North, to the Environ-
mental Commission.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Mayor Erickson announced that he had appointed Ms. Claudia Lindberg, 4309
Rhode Island Avenue North~ to the Human Rights Commission, this
appointment being effective January I, 1972.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Motion by Councilman Hokr, se~nd by Councilman Johnson, to purchase
the 34 horsepower tractor from Long Lake Ford Tractor, Inc., lowest
responsible bidder in the amount of $2,768, as recommended by the
Village Manager.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker, to purchase
the 3/4 ton truck for theiPark and Recreation Department from Suburban
Chevrolet, lowest responsible bidder in the ameunt of $3,078.40, as
recommended by the Village Manager.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Discussion held relative to purchasing an air compressor and jack
hammer for the Public Works Department. Two bids were received as
follows: (I) Arrow Equipment, Inc,--$3,801, (2) Hayden-Murphy
$5,095,25. The Vitlage Maoa§er recommended that the Iow bid submitted
by Arrow Equipment be accepted.
16.
Council Minutes - 5- December 27, 1971
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Hokr, authorizing
purchase of jack hammer and air compressor from Arrow Equipment, Inc.,
Iow bidder in the amount of $3,801 as recommended by the Village
Manager.
Voting in favor:
Voti~§ against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson,
None.
~lufka.
The Village Engineer presented a report from Hennepin County regarding
recommended traffic i~provements for the K-Mart DeVelopment at 42nd
aha Xylon Avenues. A preliminary layout prepared by the County showing
suggested widening and signalization of 42nd Avenue was reviewed by
the Council. The total estimated cost of the improvements was given
at $98,575, including traffic signal but excluding right of way ac-
quisition, Mr. Rosene further advised that the County does not plan
to participate in the cost because they do not feel traffic volume war-
rants this construction on a County basis. The County feels the cost
should be paid by the Village and K-Mart, suggesting that K-Mart bear
the major share of the cost.
Engineer Rosene was requested to continue discussions with the County
and K-Mart as ~o paying for the improvements to 42nd Avenue near Xylon.
Discussion was then held regarding the parking layout for the K-Mart
store. Engineer Rosene showed the Council the parking layout as pro-
posed by Barton-Aschman versus the latest parking layout proposed by
K-Mart. He noted that the K-Mart layout only showed two entrances
onto Xyton, while he thought three h~d been approved. He thought
this was eot good from a stanepoint of handling traffic. He also noted
that the site at the corner of Xylon and 42nd was not being provided with
access and he thought this should not be allowed to happen.
Discussion held as to the number of parking sDaces approved by variance.
Engineer Rosene noted that the Barton-Aschman layout showed 945 spaces
while the latest K-Mart layout shows 868 spaces, The concept is changed.
The K-Mart site is not as big as the site shown by Barton. (This is
the 80 feet reduction in site). Mr. Rosene said that, if the Barton-
Aschman layout were to be put on the smaller site, it would result in
743 parking spaces, He said that the Barton-Aschman layout was superior.
The K-Mart plan would result in cars backing onto the perimeter roads,
and that the plan should be such so that there is no backing onto the
perimeter road. While the K-Mart plan would handle more parking, the
Barton plan would handle more shoppers,
Mr. Rosene said he baa met with the people from K-Mart and recommended
that the third access to Xylon be opened up. He said he and the K-Mart
representative had also met with the people from the New Hope Shopping
Canter regarding access between the two sites and that the shopping
center people had agreed to this access. Mr. Rosene said that, grade-
wise, it will fit in well. The grading plans will not be followed
exactly,
Council Minutes
- 6 - December 27, 1971
13.
14.
Engineer Rosene was asked to determine what had been approved and to
check back into the minutes relating to the matter.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Plufka, to accept
the report.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion held with Mr. Ron Lehman, Park and Recreation Director,
regarding purchase of a greensmower for the golf course. Mr. Lehman
discussed labor savings if the larger greensmower is purchased and
advised the Council that the type of mower budgeted was now a discontinued
model.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Bosacker, to table
the matter until the meeting of December 30, 1971.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, approving
issuance of business icenses as listed, except for taxL:driver
licenses, approval of business licenses being subject to staff findings.
Motion by Councilman Plufka TO amend the motion so that garbage and
rubbish haulers' licenses would not be included in the approval.
Motion lost for lack of second.
Vote was then taken on the motion.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, to grant
taxi-driver license to Mr. McLean, in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the Director of Police.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Ptufka.
None.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Hokr, to approve
payment of relief bills as follOWs:
#1644 Food Stamps $ 20.00
#1647 City of Minneapolis 5.00
16.
Council Minutes
-7 -
December 27, 1971
#1653
#1659
#1661
#!664
#1665
#1668
#!670
#1671
#!672
#!673
#1675
#1676
Crema's Conoco $ 5.00
Piggly Wiggly 34.22
Crema's C~noco 5.00
Penny!s Food Market 8.14
Crema's Conoco 5.00
Western Investment Co. 116.00
Northern States Power 9.02
penny!s F°°a Market 8.14
Crema~s Conoco 5.00
Tyra~s Super Valu 7.44
Crema's Conoco 3.00
Crema's Conoco 5.00
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka,
None.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, to approve
payment of Village bills in ~he amount of $650,585,77 through check
number 18459 and dated through D~cember 27, 1971 as shown on records
on file in the office of the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
COMME~Frs AND SUGGESTIONS FRDMCITIZENS PRESENT
It was noted that the New Hope bank hearing wou d again come up on
February 15th. The council ~Sked to have a resOlution drafted for
consideration at the next regUlar meeting supporting the New Nope
bank.
MISCELLANEOUS
Councilman Hokr inquired as to the progress of the 56th Avenue pro-
posed project. The Village Attorney advised that an appraisal should
be ready by January 15, 1972.
Councilman Ptufka inquired into the status of preliminary report on
the improvement of Winnetka Avenue lying north of the Bass Lake
Road. Engineer Rosene said that preliminary plans have actually
been drawn and his office is currently working on cost estimates.
Councilman Plufka asked that specifics be given to the Counci re-
garding end of year reappropriatlons of 1971 budget.
Council Minutes
December 27, 1971
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, and carried,
to adjourn the meeting at' 8:33 p.m. until Thursday, December 30, 1971,
at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Be t ,~y Pou I~ ot
Vii lage Clerk-Treasurer
Council Minutes - I December 27, 1971
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council
of the Village of New Nope, Minnesota, was du y he d at the Village Hall,
4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village, on IVk~nday, December 27, 1971,
at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Erickson.
All persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the
flag.
Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Absent: Hokr (arrived la,er .n the meeting).
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker, to approve
the minutes of the meetings of November 15th, December Ist and December
13th, 1971, as presented.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson. Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Hokr.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Mayor announced that, since no one was here for the open forum, the
Council might discuss miscellaneous items at this lime.
Mayor Erickson mentioned that it would be necessary to ho d a meeting
e
b fore the end of the year to hand e end of theyear~' bus ness. It
was suggested that the time of said meeting be on December 30, 1971 at
3:00 p.m.
Discussion was he d regard ng the effect of the new tax evy Imitation
law on the Village budget and estimated reductions in property taxes
for the home owners, were discussed.
Discussion held regarding possibi ity of ice arena being built in New
Hope. Mayor Erickson no~e~ NHAA is ~orking on possibility of going on a
bond fund rais ng type of situation so they can get started. He a so
said that the school district has expressed wi ngness to ease the
3 acres of ground just south of the ~chool bus garage for th s type of
facility. The Council would only be invo red with ~oral support for
the project. The Mayor explained that this type of approach had been
taken at Elk River.
Council Minutes
- 2 - December 27, 1971
Councilman Plufka announced that the Village Manager and himself would
be going to a CATV meeting on Wednesday, December 29, 1971 with the
other communities involved. He said that there is such a cable tele-
vision operation in St. Cloud which traverses several political sub-
divisions and also several school districts, that he and the Village
Manager planned to go to St. Cloud and talk with the school people.
Mr. Plufka said that, in connection with this cable TV operation,
extensive use had been made of local programming and actually worked
it into the educational system. Mr. Plufka asked whether the Council
members would be interested in going along to St. Cloud to look into
the program.
There were no further miscellaneous items for discussion at this time.
Discussion held regarding approva of Change Order No. I to Storm
Sewer Project No. 252A (Sto~ Sewer in the Royal Oak Hills area). The
Village Engineer recommended that the change order be approved, that the
project be accepted as complete and that final payment in the amount of
$2,748.95 be authorized. The Change Order provides for an increase of
$400, $300 of which was for an additional manhole and $100 for picking
up several foundation drains and tying these into the storm sewer
system.
Councilman Hokr arrived.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Plufka, approving
change Order No. I to S~O~m se~er project No. 252A in the amount of
$400;aCcept ng the project as f nal, authorizing final payment in the
~mount of $2,748.95, and authorizing the Mayor and the Hanager to sign
the Change Order.
Votin9 in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Discussion held regarding approyal Of Change Order No. I to Storm
Sewer Project No. 228. The Vi!ilage Engineer stated that the Change
Order covered construction Work on a port on of Boone Avenue that was
broken Up, The con~actOr on P~ject NO~ 228 did the work at the re-
quest of the Village. Mr. Roseoe said the Change Order had previously
been approved on estimated quantities and the Change Order before the
COUnCil this evening covers a~ual quantities and provides for an
addition to the pro~ect of $1,534~75; The Village Engineer also
reCOmmended that the Project be accepted aS complate and that final
payment in the amount of $1;254.75 be made to the contractor.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, approving
Change Order No. I to Storm Sewer Project No. 228 in the amount of
$1,534.75~ accepting the projec~ as complete, authorizing final payment
in the amount of $t,254.~5 and authorizing the Mayor and the Manager
to sign the Change Order.
Counci I Minutes
-3-
December 27, 1971
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
The Village Engineer recommended that the bond for Barrett's Terrace
be reduced from $4,650 to $800 or that the bond be re eased subject to
furnishing cash escrow of $640. Mr. Rosene sa d that the streets were
completed, the settlement in the curb on 41st Avenue had been repa red
and that $640 would cover the remaining bou evard improvements on the
undeveloped lots. The est ma,e includes 5 boulevard trees and 330
square yards of sod.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Plufka, approving
reduction in bonding requirements for Barrett's Terrace in acCOrdance
with the recommendation of the Village Engineer.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Consideration was given to recertification of the tax levy for t972,
as required by the recent y enacted State tax law.
Discussion he d as to ,he effect this rev sed evy would have on the
1972 budget. The Council was advised that the budget would be cut
$10,257. The Council asked ,hat ,he reduction in the budge, be further
discussed at the meeting of December 30, 1971 and that the budget
document be amended to reflect the reduc, ion.
Counc
adoption:
IN
motion for th~
Councilman
in favor th
a,tested by ,he V
Hution and moved its
TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE
COUNTY AUDITOR". The
ion was seconded by
g voted
Johnson, Plufka; and the
the resolution WaS
the Mayor and
Extract Book).
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Counci man Hokr, authorizing
transmittal of Form 279 and 280 to the ~ounty Auditor and State Com-
mission of Taxa, ion.
Voting in favor:
Vo, ing against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Council Minutes
- 4 - December 27, 1971
=
I0.
Discussion held regardi, ng proposed ordinance relating to unattended
vehicles with key in ignition.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, to table
the proposed ordinance relating to unattended vehicles unti the
meeting of January t0, 1972.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
OFFICERS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Plufka, to appoint
Mr. Donald A. Johansen, 7695 - 42nd Avenue North, to the Environ-
mental Commission.
Votin§ in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
Mayor Erickson announced that he had appointed Ms. Claudia Lindberg, 4309
Rhode Island Avenue North, to the Human Rights Commission, this
appointment being effective January I, 1972.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, to purchase
the 34 horsepower tractor from Long Lake Ford Tractor, Inc,, lowest
responsible bidder in the amount of $2,768, as recommended by the
Village Manager.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
~otion carried.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker, to purchase
the 3/4 ton truck for the Park and Re~reat on Department from Suburban
Chevrolet, Iowes~ responsible bidder in the amount of $3,078.40, as
recommended by the V I age Manager.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Discussion held relative to purchasing an air compressor and jack
hammer for the Public Works Department., Two bids were [ece ved as
follows: (I) ~rrow Equipment, nc.- $3,801, (2) Hayden Murphy Co.--
$5,095,25. The Village Manager recommended that the Iow bid submitted
by Arrow Equipment be accepted.
Council Minutes - 5 - December 27, 1971
16.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Hokr, authorizing
purchase of jack hammer and air compressor from Arrow Equipment, Inc.,
Iow bidder in the amount of $3,801 as recommended by the Village
Manager.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
The Vi!!age Engineer presented a report from Hennepin County regarding
recommended traffic i~ro~me~s for the K-Mart Development at 42nd
and Xyton Avenues. ^ preliminary layQut prepared by the County showing
suggested widening and signalization o~ 42nd Avenue was reviewed by
the Council. The total estimated ~st of the improvements was given
at $98,575, inc!oding traff ic s!goa! but excluding right of way ac-
quisition. Mr. Rosene f~rthe~ ad~ised that the County does not plan
to participate in the cost because they do not feel traffic volume war-
rants this cons?ruction on a ~unty basis. The County feels the cost
should be paid by the Viiiage and K-Mart, suggesting that K-Mart bear
the major share of the cos~,
Engineer Rosene was requested to continue discussions with the County
and K-Mart as to paying for the improvements to 42nd Avenue near Xylon.
Discussion was then held regarding the parking layout for the K-Mart
store. Engineer Rosene showed the Council the parking layout as pro-
posed by Barton-Aschman versus the latest parking layout proposed by
K-Mart. He noted that the K-Mart layout only showed two entrances
onto Xylon, while he thought three had been approved. He thought
this was not good from a standpoint of handling traffic. He also noted
that the site at the corner of Xylon and 42nd was not being provided with
access and he thought this should not be allowed to happen.
Discussion held as to the number of parking spaces approved by variance.
Engineer Rosene noted that the Barton-Asch~an layout showed 945 spaces
while the latest K-Mart layout shows 868 spaces. The concept is changed.
The K-Mart site is not as big as the site s~own by Barton. (This is
the 80 feet reduction in site). Mr. Rosene said that, if the Barton-
Aschman layout were to be put on the sma ler site, it would result in
743 parking spaces. He said that the Barton-Aschman layout was superior.
The K-Mart plan would result in cars backing onto the perimeter roads,
and that the Dian should be such so that there is no backing onto the
perimeter road. While the K-Mart plan would handle more parking, the
Elarton plan would handle more shoppers.
Mr. I~osene said he had met with the people from K-Mart and recommended
that the third access to Xylon be opened up. He said he and the K-Mart
representative had also met with the people from the New Hope Shopping
Center regarding access between the two sites and that the shopping
center people had agreed to this access. Mr. Rosene said that, grade-
wise, it will fit in well. The grading plans wilt not be followed
exactly.
Council Minutes
. - 6 - December 27, 1971
Engineer Rosene was asked to determine what had been approved and to
check back into the minutes relating to the matter.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Plufka, to accept
the report.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
I. NEW BUSINESS
13.
Discussion held with Mr. Ron Lehman, Park and Recreation Director,
regarding purchase of a greens~wer for the golf course. Mr. Lehman
discussed labor savings if the larger greensmower is purchased and
advised the Council that the type of mower budgeted was now a discontinued
model.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Bosacker, to table
the matter until the meeting of December 30, t971.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
14.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, approving
issuance of business licenses as sted, except for taxL:drtver .
licenses, approval of business licenses being subject to staff findings.
Motion by Councilman Plufka to a~nd the motion so that garbage and
rubbish haulers' licenses would not be included in the approval.
Motion lost for lack of second.
Vote was then taken on the motion.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
Motion by Councilman Bosacke~, second by Council~man Hokr, to grant
taxi-driver license to Mr. McLean, in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the Director of Police.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Hokr, to approve
payment of relief bills as follows:
#1644 Food Stamps $ 20.00
~1647 City of Minneapolis 5.00
Counci I Minutes - 7 December 27, 1971
i6.
Jo
#1653
#1659
#1661
#1664
#1665
#1668
#1670
#1671
#1672
#1673
#1675
#1676
Crema~s Conoco $ 5.00
Piggly Wiggly 34.22
Crema's Conoco 5.00
Penny's Food Market 8.14
Crema's Conoco 5.00
Western Investment Co. 116.00
Northern States Power 9.02
Penny's Food Market 8.14
Crema's Conoco 5.00
Tyra's Super Valu 7.44
Crema's Conoco 3.00
Crema's Conoco 5.00
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson,
None.
Plufka.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, to approve
payment of Village bills in the amount of $650,585.77 through check
number 18459 and dated through December 27, 1971 as shown on records
on file in the office of the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
VOting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
It was noted that the New Hope bank hearing would again come up on
February 15th. The Council asked to have a resolution drafted for
consideration at the next regular meeting supporting the New Hope
bank.
MISCELLANEOUS
Councilman Hokr inquired as to the progress of the 56th Avenue pro-
posed project. The Village Attorney advised that an appraisal should
be ready by January 15, 1972.
Councilman Plufka inquired into the status of preliminary report on
the improvement of Winnetka Avenue lying north of the Bass Lake
Road. Engineer Rosene said that preliminary plans have actually
been drawn and his office is currently working on cost estimates.
Councilman Plufka asked that specifics be given to the Council re-
garding end of year reappropriations of 1971 budget.
CounCil Minutes - B -
December 27, 1971
L. ADJOURN~NT
i~tion by CoUncilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, and carried,
to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 p.m, until Thursday, December 30, 1971,
at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Vii lage Clerk-Treasurer
EXHIBIT "C"
I, t972
Variance - See Exhibit
inic.
Provision for allowing such variance is provided through
the Board of Appeal~ and Adjustments by SectiOn 4.602, Subd.
of the Vii age
Subd. (2) Variances
th
protect
J without
an d I ding
~n
difficult if r with the I axis
of the tot.
Site Plan Review - Exhibit "A"
Parking:
of
appears
si
Drainage:
manuverlng area to
is to be extended to
site Plan,
lot
~se
and
Review of Building - Exhibit "B'
Exterior: Brick exterior to match existing building as
close as possible.
Fire Chief Re i m er has no,ed that the dead end wall exceeds
~he safety eng~h requiremen~ by the uniform code. Also ail
xtecior doors will have to swing Out, Lighted exi~ signs
will be required.
The following suggestions are made in the interest of safe~y
and security. The building would be more secure if exterior
doors wer~ fitted with dead bolt locks having a thumb knob
opera?or on ?he inside. Hos?medical offices have foot operated
valves on lavatory sinks in operating rooms.
it would seem ideal if a pollution control approved
residential incinerator could be incorporated into ?his plan for
?he 'incineration of bandages, dressing~, etc.
Pans for this bu d:tng will have to conform ?o the State
of Hinnesota regulations requiring provision for accom3dattng
the physically handicapped or aged SFM 501 where epplicab e.
Each page of al plans (structural, elect~ica and
mechanical) will require the certification of a rag staffed
architect o~ engineer.
0
Z
N.
Z
EXH I B I T "C"
DATE: February I, 1972
CASE: 7~-I
LOCATION: 56th and Wisconsin Avenue North
REQUEST:; Planned Unit Development, Site Plan
Approval, Building Permit Authorization
STAFF F NDtNGS AND COF~ENTs:-
Site Plan Review
div
res
how
re CROSS
I ch
~rly
un
of
planned
thin
to
4 foot high
g
the
It s recommended that two foot cand es of light be pro-
vided at the surfaces of all parking areas, driveways, and
walkways, Secu[ity lighting should be provided so ~hat every
side o~ each building would have light and such lighting should
not illuminate adjacent property, All exterior lighting
should be controlled by photo electric cells, All parking lots
and dri~veways are to be ~urrounded by concrete curbs. De~eloper
is to provide County approval of driveway opening onto Bass Lake
Road.
(Exhibit A-3) Del nes fire lanes and signs as required by
the fire chief. He also requires a five foot wide emergency
lane through the parking stalls. Concrete curbs of all fire
lanes are to be p~inted yellow.
Bond required for site improvements are as follows:
Blacktop lots and drives $12,000.00
Concret~ curbs and walks - 7,000.00
Sod and plantings - 3,000.00
Fencing - 2,000.00
Lighting - 3,000.00
Parking lot striping 200.00
Fire land paint End signs -
400.00
Storm sewer - 2~000.00
$29,600.00
$29,600.00 X I I/2 = $44,400.00 total bond
Exterio~ ck,
The build ng appears to be structurally sound and the layout
of units and buildings is good~ The apartment buildings w II
require a scuttle fo~ access tO the ro~f. Security and fire
alarm systems will be required.
prey
It is felt that
using
thus
S
lan exits
Final plans required for structure, e ectric wiring,
lighting, plumbing and survey must show the certification of
a ~egis~er~d architect, engineer or surveyor on each page,
The above referenced exhibits together with changes or ad-
ditions required by the Village Council will become part of the
deve opmen~ contra~t for this development.
STAFF FINDINGS
~h
Ao
Council Minutes I - January I0, 1972
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meet ng of the Counci
of the Village of New Hope, Minnesota, ~as du y he d at the V age Ha ,
4401Xylon Avenue North, i~ said Village, on M~nday, January I0, 1972, at
7:00 p.m.
All persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag,
The oath of office for Mayor Of the V age or,New Hope was admin stored
~o Mr. Edward J. Erickson by the Vii age ~lerk .Treasurer, Fo low ng the
taking of the oath, Mayor E~ ckson was seated.
The oath of office for Coun¢i man of the Vi age of New Hope was then
administered to Mr, Met e E, Johnson by the V age C erk-~reasurer
Following the taking of the oath, ~un~t man Johnson Was seated.
The meeting was then called to order by Mayor Erickson.
Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: nson, Plufka.
Absent:
Voting in favor
VOtin§~against:
Absent: Hokr.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
by
The matter was
recommendation
of January 24, 1972, pending
the bid Tabulation for a I/2 ton truck
noted that one bid had been race ved; this
the amount Of $2,947.89 a~d reCOmmended
d to Brookdale For~.
tMotion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Counci man Plufka, awarding
he bid for purchase of I/2 tOn *tuck f~r the Fi re Department to
Br°okdale Fo~d.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Vo*ing against: None.
Absent: Hokr.
Motion carried.
Council Minutes - 2 - January I0, 1972
Discuss on held regarding purchase of greens mower for the golf course.
This matter had been previously discussed at the meeting of December
2?, 1971. Messrs. Ron Lehman, Park and Recreation Director, and Richard
De§plinter, Greenskeeper, were in attendance to discuss the proposed
purchase with the Council. A performance comparison showing individual
greens mowers versus the proposed triplex greens mower was presented by
the Vii age Manager.
Councilman Johnson commented that when the Village purchased the golf
course, it was agreed that capital outlay would be kept at a minimum
and that at this tme, he would oppose the expenditure for the greens
Motion by Councilman Bosacker that, inasmuch as the n~del of the greens
mower wh ch the Village was plann ~g to purchase is no onger available
and because of the projected Savings in part time labor costs, the
Village purchase th~ triplex greens mOwe~ from R. L. Gould & Company
in the amount of $3,095. The motion was seconded by Counci man P ufka.
Further discussion held with the Vii age Manager~ stating that there
had been substantial savings in other areas of the golf course budget
and that the Staff feels that the new greens mower cou d be purchased
within the present appropriation. The Village Manager assured the
Deuncil tha~ the all'cared appropriation for the golf course would not
be exceeded,
Vote was fhen taken on the question.
The Mayor then commented that the Vi lage wi I have to come up with
some t~Pe of purchase for greens mowing and asked that the st~ff in-
vestigate types of mowers used at other courses and advise as to what
is available]
Councilman Bosacker noted that the matter could come up at The next
meeting at which time it is expected that Councilman H~kr will be present,
The matter is to be placed on the agenda for the meet ng of January 24,
1972.
Discus?on held regarding purchase of an electronic calculator for the
Assessing Department. M~. Barry Hasti, Assessor, was present to answer
any questions. I~ is proposed that this calculator be purchased from
Typewriter Sales Company ~t a cost of $1,161. The Village Manager
reCOmmended in favor of the purchase.
It was noted that a demonstration on the use and capabilities of the
machine had been given prior to the Council meeting.
Council Minutes - 3 - January I0, 972
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Plufka, to authorize
purchase of the electronic calculator at a cost of $1,16t,
Voting in favor: n, Plufka.
Voting.against:~
Absent:
Motion carried.
PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
their
that
con-
I sere
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, to table
tie request for special use pe~it for ~he hOme beauty shop at 3996
Wisconsin Avenue, i~ accordance with the s~aff recommendation.
· Plufka.
Motion carried.
the
is proposed
In ad-
ilable
such
rent
for $
hould
Mr. Godin asked that ,he Counc I pass a reso ution say ng that the
Village is co n zant of the need for this t e of hou~in , des rous
g YP g
Of it and that shou d the project be found feasible the proper zoning
will be made available.
Council Minutes
- & -
January 10, 1972
plan for
~ of the build-
urt
hey
3pen
Councilman Bosacker questioned the availability o~ public transporta-
tion to the site.
Mr. Godin said that, if a bus does not run on 62nd Avenue, it would
be their intention ~o get the bus to extend service to the site.
s. He
and
this n and
45
~aid that
I would
housing lie.
Councilman Plufka said that this plan seems to be a much better use of
the land than ~he plan prey ous y proposed in terms of open areas and
keeping in character w ih fhe surrounding area. He then asked what
assurance we have that ~he subsidy fbr t~e elderly stays w th elderly.
Mr. Godln said that, once the government give the subsidy, it is
there for forty years, the lif~ of the mortgage.
Councilman Ptufka then inquired as to whether there is a control on
age and income as to occupancy in such a project.
Council Minutes - 5 ~ January I0, 1972
Mr. Godin said it was their intent, as part of the zoning, to have
a stipulat on that th s shal be for the elderly. In exchange for
the concess on on the garages, it would be agreed that the housing
would be for the elderly. Failing the ability to tie it down in
that manner, just the f~ct that t is all one bedroom apartment
units dictates that you not have people with children. Mr. Godin
said a deed restrictiQn or some such device could be written into
the c osing documents with the government.
The Mayor noted that 62nd Avenue was the only major east-west street
in the Village which does not have a cloverleaf ~r diamond at County
Road #18, He said we now have the advantage of trying to keep that
street as quiet as possible and he felt that, with the elderly housing,
the traffic Would not be increased that much on 62nd Avenue.
Councilman Johnson said that from what he had seen of elderly housing
it almost required a zoning classification in itself because there
are a number of changes from a standard apartment bui ding. It is a
little bit smaller, there need be no garages, and less parking is
required.
Mr. Godin said they could build the units under the existing code but
smaller units such as 500 feet would provide lower rents and they may
come back with such a request. He noted that an elevator and wheel
chair ramps would be provided
Councilman Plufka asked whether it might be appropriate to have the
staff draw up an appropriate resolution on this matter and refer that
resolution to the Planning Commission for public hearing.
Discussion held on feasibility of this approach.
Comments were then heard from people in the audience.
Mr. Ron Sandeen, 8901 - 62nd Avenue North, said that the people of
~he area do wan~ a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
They are concerned with aesthetics, ~inancial impact on their property
and traffic.
~rs. Richard Helland, 9101 - 62nd Avenue North, said that she knew
that the 236 program was very complicated. She asked who would qualify
for the rent ~upplement
Mr ives the project a mortgage at
in effect lowers the rent by
program
ca
A rent supplement is just
a deeper subsidy ir n with an income of $160 would
pay I/4 of that f( Mr. Godin also sale that
said that up to 40~ of
supplement on top of the rent
Council Minutes - 6 - January I0, 1972
reduction. He further noted that by administrat ye decree th s works
out to be about 20% of the tenants ~tt ng the rent supplement. The
people that qualify for the additional supplement are ~he sam~ people
that qualify for the project in the first place.
Mrs. Helland then inquired as to whether the 20% additional supple-
ment was mandatory,
Mr. Gedin said 20% of the tenants almost always receive the additional
supplament, It is available, so it is used.
rs, Helland then inqu red as to whether M nneapo is people would be
ligible for the suburban etde~ly housing since our people are not
ligible for the Minneapolis hou~ ng.for the e der y.
The Mayor said it is his understanding that we cannot restrict it to
New Ho~e citizens,
~r, Godin noted that Minneapolis has two types of e derl¥ housing,
ne of Which is the 236 pro, ram sponsored ~ the C ty.
Mayor Erickson again spoke on need for housing for the elderly in New
Hope.
~iscussion held as to what type of zoning wou d be used for the project
nd as to what effect a resolution supporting housing for the elderly
might have and how b nding the resolution would be.
Councilman Bosacker spoke on the need for housing for a lower ~ncome
groups. He also said that voting for a resotuti~R such as is re
quested does not mean that he would be bound to the 70 units proposed
or to the mix proposed for the site.
Further discussion he d as to whether a reso ut on should be prepared
by the staff and then sent to the P arming Commiss on for hea~inb
with the matter to come back ~o the Council at the next meeting.
be
of h
lar
COU
si
PI
af the
~tions
ur or non-passage a~ our next
I meeting,
The motion was seconded by Councilman Plufka.
Discussion held regarding notification to the people in the neighbor-
hood.
Council Minutes ? - January I0, 1972
Motion by Councilman Plufka, to amend the motion so that the Village
staff, working w th the citizens present here tonight, make every
effort to let the balance of th~ ~eighborhood know that it will be
considered on January 24th at 7:00 p.m. or as soon after that as the
Council can get to it. The motion to amend was seconded by Council-
man Johnson.
Further discussion held.
Vote was taken on the amendment as follows:
Vet ng in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
~Voote was then taken on the motion as amended:
ting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
voting against: None.
Mot ion carried.
The Mayor cai led a five minute recess of the meeting,
The meeting was cai ted back to order.
8. A
The
correction has been
seal
the
age
~ seal
the projec
hal
final
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Johnson, accepting
$100 check from Parck Construction Company to cover seal coating on
Project No. 207A, accepting ~he project as complete and authorizing
payment of 8th and final estimate in the amount of $5,693.14, as
recommended by the Village Engineer.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against.' None.
Absent: Hokr.
Motion carried.
cl~ePetition was received from David J. Butler, President of The Butler
airy Company, I'nc., for the installation of blacktop street and
oncrete curb and gutter o? Gettysburg Circle to serve Lots I through
8, Block 2, Sharon~s Addition.
Council Minutes - 8 - January I0, 1972
It was noted that Mr, Butler is not currently the fee owner of the
p rope rty,
it was more practical for the
I0.
SUC
~ soon
Mr. Butler also noted that
I and addit onal bocks
need the Village to do
the property in order to build
in s area.
Discussion held as to whether the street would hold up if installed
prior to h°me construction. Engineer Rosene said that t might be
better to place the gravel in the spring and do the surfacing and curb
and gutter later in the summer,
Councilman Plufka inquired as to whether the Village could develop a
bond to recover for any necessary repair as a result of construction.
~ngineer Rosene said that he could come up with a reasonable estimate
nd that a bond would need to include boulevard improvements.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker, that a .
preliminary report be prepared for the nstallation of street imProve
~nts for ~ett~sbu~g circle in Sharon's Addition and the preliminary
report include reference to bond requirement for maintenance and
boulevard improvements.
Vo lng In favor. Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Ptufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Hokr.
Motion carried.
ORDtN/~ICES AND RESOLUTIONS
Discussion held relative to a proposed resolu,ion supporting a bank
charter for New Hope.
Councilman Plufka, asked that the fifth paragraph of the proposed
resolution which reads as follows be stricken:
"WHEREAS~ we understand an application is currently being
made for a Charter to locate ~ bank in New Hope".
Discussion held with the Mayor stat ng that this particular resolution
was intended to direct itself to the application that is up for
consideration. He felt that the paragraph should remain in ~he
resolution.
Council Minutes - 9 - January I0, 1972
introduced the following resolution and moved
to deletion of the fifth paragraph above noted:
~OPE". The motion for
the
gned by the
I1.
The Village Manager was requested to forward the resolution on behalf
of the Council.
moved its
' the
favor
atto
12. (
and
Extract Book).
its
the
;
reasurer.
13. The proposed ordinance re ating to unattended vehicles with keys in
the ignition was again considered by the Council.
Motlon by Councilman Johnson, second by Counci man Plufka, to refer
the proposed ord nonce to the Village A~torney to redraw so that
vehi~le~ may be left runn ng if the doors of ~he veh cie are locked.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, E~ickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Hokr.
MOtion carried.
14. Councilman Plufka introduced Ordinance No. 72-1 entitled "AN ORDINANCE
ADOPTING THE CODIFICATION OF NEW HoPE VILLAGE ORDINANCES AND GIVING
NOTICe[ OF THE AvAILABILI3~f THEREOF". The motion for the adoption of
the foregoing ordinance was seCOnded by Counci man Johnson a~d.upon
VOte being taken thereon, the follow n~ voted in favor thereof.
Bosacker, Erick~on, JohnSon, Plufka; a~d the roi owing voted
against
the same; None; A~sent:- H~kr; whe~upon the ordinance was declared
duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by
the Village Clerk-Treasurer. (Page E~tract Book).
Council Minutes - I0 - January I0, 1972
15.
16.
was ~
in
Extract
~he following resolution and moved its
VILLAGE
~ foregoing resolution
being taken thereon,
Erickson, JohnsOn,
Absent: Hokr;
was
r Clerk-Treasurer.
and moved its
FIRST
The
seconded by
the following voted
sigr~d by the
17.
19.
Its
r the
Councilman
Jo i In favor
voted
Extract Book).
its
The
voted g
pon
~ and was signed by
the Mayor
(Page ,,,
Councilman Bosacker introduced the following resolution and moved Its
adoption: "RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CONMISSI~)NER AND ALTERNATE CON-
MISSIONER TO SUBURBAN SANITARY SEWER COMMISS ON". The motion fnr .h~+ha
adoption of the foregoing resoluti°n was seconded by Councilman Johnson
and up~on. vote being taken thereon, the following vo~ed in favor
thereof: Bosacker, Er?kson, J?hnson, P ufka; and the tot owing voted
against the same: None; Absent: Hokr; whereupon the resolution was
d~clered duty passed an~ adopted and was signed by the Mayor and
attested by th~ Village ciera-Treasurer. (~age Extract Book).
Council Minutes II January I0, 1972
20,
21.
Councilman Plufka introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoptios DIRECTOR
TO of the fore-
BosackeF,
the same:
s declared duly passed
and attested by the Village
Clerk-Treasurer.
Io~tng resolution and moved its
the adoption
0
22.
du I
Cou~
reasurer,
its
23.
was
attested by
n favor
the resolution
/ the Mayor and
Extrect Book).
resolution and moved its
of
upon
~ctared
tested
OF
the following voted
Plufka;
whereupon the resolution was
signed by the
(Page Extrect Book).
wes
Extract B~ok).
tS
ICIAL FOR THE VILLAGE
of the foregoing resolution
vote being taken thereon,
Erickson, Johnson,
None; Absent: Hokr;
y passed and adopted and was
the Village Clerk-Treasurer,
Council Minutes - 12 - January I0, 1972
25.
reasurer.
and moved its
for
i Iman
I Iow-
the
signed by the
26.
None;
its
27.
P
its
28. Cou~
moved i ts
~ded
Hokr;
wh J and was
29.
Councilman Plufka ntroduced the roi ow ng resolution and moved, ts
adoption: ~RESOLUTION APPO NTING VILLAGE DEPUTY WEED NSPECTOR ~
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing reso ution was seCOnded
by Counci man Bosacker and.upon vote being taken thereon, the fo ow-
ng voted n favor thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka;
and the following voted against the s~me: None; Absent Hokr;
whereupon the resolut on was dec ared duty passed and adopted and
was si~ned by the Mayor and attested by the Village C erk-Treasurer.
(Page . Extract Book).
31.
32.
Counci I Hi ~utes
-13-
January 10, 1972
OFFICERS, COmmISSIONS AND (~3HMITTEES
Hotion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Plufke, to elect
Counciln~n Johnson es Acting Hayor.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Plufka.
Voting aga!nst: None,
Abstaining: Johnson.
Absent: Hokr
Hotion carried.
Consideration was given to appointment of members to the Planning
Commission.
l~otion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman P ufka, to appoint
the following persons to ser~e a three year term on the P
Commission:
Hr. Scott l~eyer 4689 Gettysburg Avenue
Hr. Jerome O~ter 3501Xylo~ Avenue No. No.
Hr. Dennis Ostlund 8508~ 36½ Circle No.
Voting in favor: Bosaoker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting.against: None,
Absent: Hokr.
I~otlon carried.
Discussion held regarding appointments to the Industria Commission,
Councilman Johnson suggeste~ thaw conSiderat on should be given to
making appointments f~ two year ~er~s On an alternating basis,
~uncilman ~osacker said that he would be interested in comments from
e Industrial Commission regarding membership, vacancies and methods
of appointment.
Councilman Plufka suggested that it might be we for the Counci to
meet wi~h the Industrial C°mm ssion tO discuss these matters and also
Industrial Commission plans for 1972.
Hotlon by Councilman Bosacker, second by Coun~i men Plufka, appointing
the f~ll~ing persons to serve on the ndus~r~al CommissiOn a~d asking
the Village ~anager to write otters of ~hanks to those persons ~ho
have completed their service fo the Industrial commission and th~
the Village Hanager COnvey to the Industrial commission the Council's
ln~eres~ as to the Industr!al Commission,s comments regarding vacancies
and appointment of members:
Council Htnutes
- 14-
January I0, 1972
~r. Pierre Demeules
Mr, George EIden
Mr. Weldon Hultgren
Hr. Eugene Johnson
Hr. Gerald Laurie
Mr. Richard Narum
Mr. Jack Price
Mr. Verne Rudolph
8109 - 39th Avenue No.
3846 Independence Ave. No.
8817 - 40~h Avenue No,
4709 Oregon Avenue No.
3530 Yukon Avenue NO.
8808 - 40th Avenue No.
3060 Boone A~enue No.
5930 Wisconsin Circle No,
Voting in favor: BoSacker, Johnson, Plufka~
Voting.against: None, Erickson,
Absen+: Hokr.
Motion carried.
33. Mo, ion by Councilman Plufka, seCond by Councilman Johnson, to appoint
the fOllOWing people to the Park COmmission:
Mrs. Irma Gawboy]]three year term--4512 Aqu la Avenue NO.
Mr. Jim Lundborg one year term-]~542 Aquila Avenue NO.
Mr. Greg Chrysler--one year term. 4617 ~ettysburg Avenue No.
Vo lng in favor. Bosacker, Er ckson, Johnson, Plufka.
Vo,ing,against: None.
Absen+: Hokr.
Motion carried.
34. Notion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Johnson~ to appoint
Councilman Hokr to serve as lie son member to the Park Commission.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Votin~ against: None.
Absen+: Hokr.
Motion carried.
The follOWing appointments were made to the Human Rights Commission:
Counci No.
Counci
line
36.
Discussion held relative to existing v?cancies on the Youth Commission.
APpointments were then made as follows:
Councilman Johnson reappointed Mr. Fred Hayes, 3996 Wisconsin
Avenue North
Councilmen Johnson appointed Miss Kathy 8enson, 8900-40th Avenue
North, 9th grader at Plymouth Jun Or High
Hayor Erickson reappointed M~. Steve Vagasky, 8955-47½
Avenue N~rth
He
37.
38,
Council Minutes - 15 -
Councilman Plufka appointed Mr. Dean Lilja,
e~ an adult member tO the Youth CommissiOn.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
January I0, 1972
8919 - 47} Avenue North,
for the air
Notion by Counci
bid for +he air
Fos?erCOmPeny,
Voting,in favor:
Voting.against:
Absent:
M°tt~ carried.
$3,826.95
$4,801,00
$5,095.25
Johnson, Plufka.
total of three
John Henry Foster
as
the
liability
the
Plufka.
39.
NEW BUSINESS
to approval of appropriate
Council Mlnu?es - 16 - January I0, 1972
Johnson, Plufka.
Johnson, Plufka.
41.
byCouncilman Bosacker, approving
8.14
8.14
5.00
8.14
Bosacker, Erlckson, JohnSon, Plufka.
Hokr.
Johnson, Plufka.
COI~NI'S AqO SUGGESTIONS
K. Mi SCELLANEOUS
Council Minutes - 17 - January I0, 1972
43. Councilman Plufka introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
agencies, and
definite need for planning on an area wide
more comprehensive services directly to
hated source for information on
of
retardation and
44.
45.
46.
visor
ed.
Johnson, PI ufka.
ce.
Councitm~nadoDtion: Plufka introduced the fol ow ng resolution and moved its
BE
pality
Com-
Council Minutes
-18-
January I0, 1972
was seconded
the following
ufka.
Discussion
program?
"Mayor for the Day"
5?ufka, to refer
Respectfully
Johnson~ and
January 24,
Planning Commission - ~ - January 18, 1972
Mi nub'es
rman Os?lund.
for the ensuing year
I0.
Plannin~ Commission
may
a
the
no~,?
lng.
-2 -
January 18, 1972
Intent
't~tt
the
by
-3-
January 18, 1972
7~ --3
~O&t~
EXHIBIT
DATE: 1972
CASE:
of'
EXH I B I T
DATE: March 7, 1972
CASE: 72-5
PETITIONER: Shell Oil Company
LOCATION:' 5600Winnetka AVenue North
REQuEst:T, Specie Use permit, Site Plan
ApprOval and Building Permit
AUfh°riza~i°~
STAFF FINDINGS AND C(3~IENTS:
avail-
and
Sec.
spaces.
the site
as shown.
With the approval of this car wash the petitioner agrees
surface the remaining lot behind the buildin~,
be
Times 1½ =
Blacktop at $1,80 = $761,40
Lot = I00.00
To~al Bond $t,292.10
Bond Required
should
FRONT VIEW
EXHIBIT
1972
They
sign
ENGINEERING
For
,Scale
GEOYECHNICS
P 00SSEO MINN,%aT^
LAND SURVEYING
PHONE (612t 425-2181
CERTIFICATE OF
SURVEY
k
hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation ora survey of the 13oUndories of the land described
above. It does not purport to show improvements or e~croochment~ if any As SurveYed by me this ....
doy ot _ , 19 CASWELL and ASS~IATES
· 2
DATE. March 7, 197
CASE: 72-7
STAFF FIND
few
DATE ~ 972
CASE:
Trailers
for
recently
and trail
The a?,ached dra~ing indica,es ,he proposed s,orage
areas.
T ·
his Is
shown on ~he
ordinances.
on this site.
parking spaces are
Only nine by our
could be parked
trucks and
ORDINANC~ NO. 71.z~
The V~llage Council of the Village o~ I~ew Hope
,, $
live en~er~ain~en~ and
8. ~60
' 8 .,:I. 6-]L
-2-
on ,i
On ~
'8 .'164
~he
8. I6S
loca-
:~rUcks
on¸
a
to:¸
Subd,
Subd. (16) The use' of the
area fo~ vehicXes)
other ~$ {.
Prior to the
be in
of New Hope, Minneso'ta
· 1971.
Attest
, 1971).
EXHIBIT
DATE: March 7, 1972
CASE: 72~9
PETITIONER: Jerry cameron
EQUEST. SpeC!el Use ~OA! !ow Renting of
·
STAFF FINDINGS AND ~ENTSi
24, 1972. At this time
con d i t 1 on.
not placed in a
tion. There was one
yard behind the bu
these violations i
on March I0, 1972.
This station is sL
and whi
s service station on February
in a very orderly
~1 which were
viola-
in the
made
~lex
there i s
which varies in
five ~
because vn at
the si Skelly Oil Company
states that
because of the neighborin~ of bond
or parking
area wot
site
lng fence which
All of this
Exhibit 'B' aho~s that there are a total of 15 parking
spaces plus an area to park trailers. Two bays require six
spaces and three employee spaces are required by ordinance.
EXHIBIT "A"
DATE: March 7, 1972
CASE: 72-10
PETITIONER: William Corrick
REQUEST: Waiver of Platting to Create Three
· Lots Adjacent to Homestead
LOCATION. Vicinity of 3300.Flag Avenue North
STAFF FINDINGS AND CO~ENTS:
The petitioner requests a waiver of the Platting Ordinance
fo permit division of property in the vic n ty of 3300 Flag
Avenue North into four single family residence parcels. The
petitioner's residence would be Ioc~ted on one ~f the parcels.
The attached drawing indicates the proposed parcels, All
sites would exceed the required minimum lot size if 9,500
square feet, the minimum lot depth of 125 feet and the minimum
lot width of 75 feet with the exception of the parcel fronting
on Ensign Avenue. This parcel varies in length from 100.87
feet to 161.38 feet (131. foot average) and in width from
59,12 feet to 188.48 feet (123.8 foot average)· All parcels
abut public right-of-way.
Legal descriptions for each property are shown on the
survey certificates provided by Lot Surveys Company, a regis-
tered land surveyor,
Refer to Exhibits "Bi', "C", I'DIt, ~IEII and "F".
S~vey for:
J
t/~ t/~ !9,TOwnshi~ :118, Range 21, West of
a South of %he Nor%h line of
~=eo~.
SUb~ec~ ~o F%~ Avenue t~O~h~
LOT Sft, JEV~S COI~PANY
LAND SURVEYOr,S
,t
BROOKLYN PARK.
I~IlNN, REG. NO. 6743
~: :kmtheaS~ i:/~ o!' t~e Northwes~
of :2ect;ion ;L'~ Township Ranje fl, ~est of the
Frincipal. ,qeridjan , Henn~Pin County, Minnesota.
:jubjeCt to Fi[:~d Avenuo Nor'th.
COMMERCIAl. - TO~OGRAfiHICAL
CITY LO~S - PLATTING
RAYMOND A.
6917 iDAHO AVE,
BROOKLYN PARK, MINN.
MtNN. REG. NO. 6?43
I, rtiticat
for:
WILLIAM J. CC~{~ICK
INVOICE
F.B. NO.
SCALE 1"
E
~,' Of b?!e Nci:rthwe:;% ]//A of Section.
/" . !.9, Town~hip~. i.j~, Range. 2I, Hennepin,
, / ' ~O~2bY, ~nnesota, described as [o].lo~s;
~ // CO~mn~rlCing at tlfe SOuthwest corner of
;SOutheasterly along ~ne Sou~hSrlv iine of
.~ot, ta~nce oou~ne~5: aio~ the ~e~sterLv
Ensign Avenue as dediegted ~ Said ~,/=, i0
to r. be raost Northerly o' ,
.... C ~ner of Lot 4, Block J
-westerly alon~ ~hu No~thwesteriy line of said Lo%
161..j8 ~'eet %o the Northwest corner of said Lot
thence North 188,48 feet to t~e point of beginning.
~iNN~ REG2 NOi 674~
Survey for:
iO
of said Section
13 feet o£ the
/~ of
of the 5~ Principal
J~outh of a line
Nort,~ line
75.0
Council Minutes
February 14, 1972
Do
Pursuant to due call and notice thereef, a regular meeting of the
Council of the Village of New Hope~ MinnesoTa, was duly held at the
Village Hall, 4401Xyton Avenue North, 'n said Village, on Monday,
February 14, 1972, at 7:00 p.m.
All persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the
flag.
Roi call was taken as follows:
Present: Bosackar, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Absent: None.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second ay Councilman Johnson, to approve
the minutes of the meeting of January 31, 1972, as presented.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The proposed resolution concerning the contemplated development of
the property located at CSAH #18 and 62nd Avenue North, by Mark Z.
Jones & AssOciates, was considered by the Council.
Mr. Scott Godin, Vice President of Mark Z. Jones & Associates, Inc.,
appeared before the Council to discuss the proposed subsidized
housing for people with limited income with the development to be
done under Section 236 of the Federal Housing Act. t is proposed
to build one-three story building with sevent? one-bedroom units.
This building would have an elevator. Thirty townhouse units are
to be two~bedroom units and ten of the units are to have three
bedrooms each.
Mr. Godin stated that the present zoning of the property is RB but
that County Road #18 plans had changed for this intersection and
access is now at 63rd Avenue. He said this changes the nature of
the site ane his firm has pre~iously petitioned for rezoning to MR
housing of one form or another. Mr. Godin also said that the stream
across the property had been re ocated and part of the property was
bad ground for building. He said the proposal before the Council
tonight is for a resolution from the Village Council declaring a
general interest in this type of housing on this site.
Mayor Erickson inquired as to whether Mark Z. Jones Company would
maintain ownership of this ~articular project for the Term of the
mortgage and whether the retention of ownership was a requirement of
the program.
Council Minutes - 2 -
Februat"y l&, 1972
Mr. Godin said that he had talked with Mr. Ken Wolfe, FHA, who inform-
ed him that no sponsor has been relieved of his responsibility under
the act as long as they have done the program. Ur. Godin said the
peculiar thing that really ties down the project is that 20% of the
units have the capacity f~r "really" Iow rent under the rent supple-
merit contract, The rent supplement contract runs between the federal
government and the sponsor, ~o that they are tied together on the
project for the life of the mortgage. Mr. Godin said that is not to
say the sponsor could not pull out, but that has never happened.
Mayor Erickson then asked, since it is customary to depreciate such
a project over ten years, could the developer at the end of ten
years sell the project.
Mr. Godin replied that he did not believe this was possible from the
information he had from HUD. He said one could convert the eauity
in some other manner but the original sponsor must remain as the
sponsor and take the responsibility. T~e government is looking at
the matter from the same aspect as the Village. They are providing
the subsidy for a 40 year period and when they underwrite the project
they ook at the capacity ~f the sponsor to manage the project, etc,
Mr. Godin sa d that he thought the only way a sponsor c~uld get out
would be for cause, such as going out ~f b~sine~s. He said he did
not think one could just COnvert after I0 years, redepreciate the
project and get out of the responsibility; but that he thinks there
s a method by which one can constantly redeprec ate the project
and get your original nvestment back. The ~riginal sponsor must
stay.
Mayor Erickson inquired as to whether Hr, Godin had received any
reaction, either negatively or positively, to the proposed mix,
having housing for the elderly and townhouses.
tCounci man Johnson asked whether Mr, Godin had investigated whether
he MPC would run a bus to the proposed site.
Mr. Godin said he did not have an answer to this Question.
Councilman Johnson then commented that there must have been some
type of comment from HUD on transportation.
Mr. Godin said that HUD would be concerned about the transportation
but at the same time the things that make the site attractive are the
seclusion and its buffering, and the distance from the central city
which reflects itself in a transportation problem,
Councilman Plufka aske~ Mr, Godin whether he was saying that in no
time during the 40 year mortgage term could the project be subverted
to another use, other than the 236 elderly housing. He also asked
whether the project could be refinanced through somebody else with
a pay*off on the government part of the mortgage and the contract
relating to supplements then being terminated.
Council Hinutes - 3 - February 14, 1972
Mr. Godin said this could not be done without the consent of the
government and the government has yet to give such consent. He
noted that the government was careful in underwriting the program
in the first place.
Councilman Bosacker stated that the rent supplement and the reduced
amenities make the project feasible from the standpoint of Iow COST
to the renter. He also said that a project with the reduced amenities
would not appeal to anyone at a substantially higher rent.
Mr. Godin noted that the construction of the proposed units would
not be significantly different than other apartment units that
could Pe built under the existing codes and today's conditions.
These would be serviceable units and would probably be rentable on
the market for a little less than projects with swimming pools,
saunas and party rooms. Mr. Godin noted that it was important to
emphasize that they might build a unit that is physically smaller
because of the tenants they propose to serve, otherwise the
quality of construction and of materials would be exactly ~he same
as other buildings.
Councilman Hokr asked the Village Attorney whether he agreed with
the financia program for the 236 housing as described by Mr, Godin.
Attorney Corrick stated that he had worke~ on several such projects
for private clients and 'n general Mr. Godin's summary was accurate.
He said he did not know of any situation where these programs have
gone back away from the subsiay type program. With the rental
subsidy, it isn't really too feasible to change the program because
you have a built in high occupancy rental right from the start.
Councilman Hokr stated that his biggest concern would be for the
upkeep of the buildings and The grounds.
Mayor Erickson said that the entire Council was concerned with the
upkeep of such a project and that is why they are so concerned
that Mark Z. Jones Company be responsible for the project for the
ire of the mortgage so that we do not nave an absentee landlord
a few years from now who is only concerneo with a tax write-off.
Councilman Plufka noted that thus far this evening the discussion
had related to senior citizen housing and rent supplements, while
actually a proposed resolution was before the Council. Mr. Plufka
then asked that the resotutior De read before it was discussed and
comments heard from the people present. He commented that there
are not too many aeople looking to provide more of the kind of
apartment housing that we currently have in New Hope. If there is
an opportunity here to provide housing for a specific segment of
our population which fits into the topography and general attitude
of the surrounding areas, and if it can ae made to work right, qous-
lng for the elderly in this aarticular place has a lot of things to
recommend it-over and above a standard apartment project. He thought
housing for the elderly, if it could be guaranteed that it would De
available for the elderly, would be a wholly different aspect.
Council Minutes
- 4 - February 14, 1972
Councilman Johnson suggested that Mr. Wolfe, or a representative from
FHA be asked to come out to a Council meeting and actually explain
the 236 program. He said he would like to talk to such a repre-
sentative before the Council acted on the resolution, because he
thought that if the Council passed the resolution and HUD did not
see fit to finance the project, the Council had taken one step toward
acknowledging that the property could be suitably used for MR.
Upon questioning, the V llage Manager advised the Council that the
Planning Commission had not met w ~h representatives of FHA re-
garding this proposed development and the 236 program.
Councilman Hokr inquired as to whether it is ~ossible to finance a
236 project for eSS than forty years and still meet the govern-
mental ~equirements. Attorney C~rr ck commented tha~ he had not
seen such a project financed less than forty years.
Councilman Bosacker said that he did not believe that if the resolution
were passed we would be in any manner obliged to proceed in a
form other than set forth within the resolution, should HUD either
approve or d sapprove in theory their approach. Mr. Bosacker then
a~ed that the ~oposed resolution be r~d and thst the discussion
be limited with n ~eason to the scope of the resolution.
The proposed resolution was then read by the Mayor
RESOLUTION CONCERNING HOUSING
N VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE
WHEREAS, the Village of New Hope is cognizant of the need for
housing for the elderly and for Iow income families and is desirous
of working toward fulfilling this need,
AND WHEREAS, Mark Z. Jones & Associates have presented a pre-
liminary p an for the development of Outlot I, Allan Hills, in the
Village o~ New Hope for assisted elderly and family housing,
AND WHEREAS, the Village of New Hope considers such use, on the
basis of prel m nary reports, a reasonable development for this
property, presently zoned RB, provided essential ~riteria such as ac-
cessibi ity to necessaries and amenities are available, and other
facets of the Village policy are met,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Mark Z. Jones & Associates
are encouraged by the Village of New Hope to take the necessary
steps to prov de the type of essentia ly governmentally assisted
financing~ together Wi~ necessary analysis of the fea~ibi
and suitability of the said site for the proposed use, and the
Village of New Hope pledges to explore the described proposed use,
through its customary procedures and channels.
Council Nlnutes - 5 - February 14, 1972
of t
The Village of New Hope further respectfully requests that the
~te officers or entities
the interest
re-
available to all;
of feasibility
s a vital
I; that
in scope, and
red and
uate housing
That the
the De~
Village end
feasibility and fi
explore the zoning
i red.
of
the
Village will
Councilman Plufka said
for
an
whether
families. Families mean
that I do
in question.
for Iow income
is to be.
between the elderl
Mr. Godir
J nc
been talking
refers to housing
the pro-
type of
i, is
things
of property
need exists
ea where it
rentiates
families for rent subsidy.
not
for*
does
Iderly
the reason
Councilman Hokr
a good deal.
was
~, we were talking
would change
Mr. Godin said that their proposal is to build and design the 70
one.bedroom units the elderly. He noted that the
the one-bedroom units:
1~o people two people; they
cannot be the handicapped are
eligible their age.
Council Hinu?es -6 - February 14, 1972
Is
is el
HUD.
~here
Is
and
for the
no
proposed proJec?
I0~ income
that *he
more
he
stated
has
8811
own merits.
was in favor of
· that he
no~ as
Council Minutes 7 February 14, 1972
Councilman Bosacker said that, from his knowledge of the 236 program
and the requirements established by the FHA. there are definite
limits imposed on the kind of occupancy by the amenities available
and by the program itself, as well as the income of the families
that hope to occupy it. He said he thought that Mr. Godin had said
as much and this Was his understanding of it as well, that there is
no way a young married couple could live in that 70 unit building
that consists of one'bedroom apartments.
Mr. Garin then asked why it was that young married couples were
living in apartment buildings under 236 program out by North Hennepin
Junior College.
Councilman Bosacker said that he was not aware of the project by
North Hennepin or the program under which it operates.
Hr. Garin said he would like to summarize what they had found out
as citizens Of the area. They had cai ed the people from HUD and
the gentleman in charge of model city. He said they had never
menti?ned any particular area or contractor but had just asked
questions. They were told that HUD would basically consider a
236 senior citizen strictly on a senior citizen basis only and that
they were not too much in favor at this time to let out t~ese klnds
of loans because they thought there was more need at this time for
Iow incOme type of facility. HUD also said that if this were to be
senior c!tizen or elderly housing it would be critiqued on an en-
tirely d~fferent basis. At the last meeting it was mentioned that
this was for senior citizens and that we would have a smaller square
footage than in an apartment bUi ding. In this case we Wouldn't
necessarily have senior citizens in the building. There is a lot
of things - such as what happened to the garages. Hr. Garin said
he thought Hr. Johnson had a good point in his suggestion to have
someone out from HUD and that we need someone to answer the questions
for us.
Councilman 9o~acker said that he agreed with having someone out from
NUB but that In the meantime there was nothing~stopping us frOm
letting these gentlemen proceed with obtaining answers frOm the
f nanc ng agen+, because until we know whethe~ it is HUD approved
we are still unable to decide on the matter. He again said that he
felt that the answer we get from HUD would in no way obligate the
Village and he referenced phrases of the proposed resolution as
follows:
"The Village of New Hope pledges to explore the described proposed
use through its customary procedures a~d channels~' and thered'''VillageHe
wll explore the zoning and building code changes requl ~
said that he would definitely not approve anything that did not
provide the necessary amenities cOmmensurate with the type of use.
He also stated that. franklY, he does feel there is a greater need
for Iow income housing than for housing for the elderly and he thought
this was the need the Village should be fulfilling but this was not
the question before the Council tonight.
Council Minutes - 8 - February 14, 1972
e
Councilman Hokr said that it seemed that we were back to where we
were two months ago when the Council turned down the request for
rezoning because we were back to a program where we were obviously
going to have automobiles. One of the reasons the rezoning was
turned down before was that we felt we could not actually cope with
that much traffic.
Counc Iman Plufka said that, f we are ta king about family housing,
we do not need this resolution but instead should be putting the
matter up for hearing for rezoning to MR. The idea of housing for
families brings along with it certa n problems whereby we must look
at the land that is cons dared for use and set up some criteria,
Mr. Plufka noted that rezoning had been considered and that the land
does not fit a multiple use from a planning standpoint. He said
he felt the resolution could not stand until the Council understands
the 236 program.
tMotion by Councilman Johnson, second Dy Councilman Plufka, to table
his matter until the next Council mae+lng and ask the Village
Manager to set up an appointment with the HUD rearesentative to be
here at the next COuncil ~eeting.
Further discussion held with Mr. Godin saying that if there was a
chance that the project was to be fundamental ly Changed he would
just as soon see the matter tabled until the auestions have been
answered by HUD.
Mr, Art Dyson, 6024 Allan Circle, inquired as to whether sewer
facilitie~ could handle the proposed project. He was informed that
there would be engineer ng studies prior to going ahead with such a
project.
Vote was then taken on the motion to table.
Vottng in fay r. Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
The proposed sign ordinance was considered by the Council. The
Mayo~ s~ated that there had been a couple of proposed amendments
since the ordinance had been presented to the interested parties.
These proposed amendments were reviewed at this time.
Councilman Plufka explained the amendment that he had offered. He
suggested that the fo ow ng be added,to Subd (9) Sign Variance'
onpga e t2 of the proposed ordinance except that areas designated
shopping centers as defined in the Vitlage Code shall present full
and complete sign plans for the entire center before consideration
of any variance shall be entertained. Such plan, when adopted,
shall constitute the permitted signs for that center and any future
change to such plan shal be submitted under the variance procedure
and when adopted shall become part of the ~lan".
Council Minutes - 9 - February 14, 1972
Councilman Plufka said that his intent here is that because a shopping
center constitutes a multiplicity of signs within one given shopping
of varying, which
said that, in such
cente
'ances in
; for any
igning
or some other method
Plufka
~rall
variances, so
in any
then become a
Flexibility into the
shopping centers.
d modify the whole
package as to signing
· such an arrangement would
~ance as it relates to the
Mayor Erickson ~
po~ed sign ordinance
of
be
an~
offering an amendment to the pro-
)res to establishing a maximum height
Erickson proposed that the maximum height
in
· of the
the ordin-
· if
now exist in
if
of 20
With a 25
Councilman Plufka said
father clause in te
ations where
also concerned with the grand-
this
~all
~ere are situ-
to
the
big
that is
deprecia
these in a shorter perioO of time woulc result in an economic loss
that would be depriving the sign company of their property without
due process of law and that a shorter oerlod for depreciating such
signs would not stand up in court. He said we would be unwarrently
depriving sign companie~ of economic benefits. Mr. Plufka stated
that the Council should took at this portion of the code in terms
of trying to set some realistic standards for signs that are already
here and are nonconforming, thus acheivlng a more enforceable
ordinance, one less readily attacked by court action.
Council Minutes
I0 -
February 14, 1972
~m~uncilman Hokr said that we should be trying to help the business-
n of our commun ty rather than hinder them and tha~ we should not
force replacement o~ signs unti such time as it is necessary as far
as the I~oks and workings of the sign itself.
Mayor Erickson then opened the discussion up to comments from the
floor.
Mr, Dennis Ostlund, Chairman of the Planning Commiss on, being
oresent, asked Councilman Hokr to clarify his last statement.
Councilman Mokr said that there are som~ s gns n our Vi age that
are used by national companies, such as CoaSt to Coast, that will not
conform to our code. He said ~e should not be imposing a hardship
on any particular company, at this time, by making them take down
the sig~s until such ~ ti~e as it is necessary to repair or replace
the sign.
The Mayor then recognized Mr. Lowell Ridgeway.
Mr. Lowell Ridgeway said that he was the Assistant Secretary with
the Minnesota Petroleum Council. He said this Council represents .
the major oil companies that have stations in New Hope an~ through
out the Twin Cities and Minnesota. He then presen~e~ a written
statement offering recommendations for changes in the proposed sign
ordinance. (See attached letter).
Mr. Glen Hubbard, Union 0 I Company, presented pictures to emphas ze
points brought out by Mr. Ridge~ay. ~e Said that the roof si~n
restriction could present a probt~m for Union 76 and for Ph ps
66, and that there Should be a distinction be*ween the canopy a~d
the building roof.
Councilman Hokr commented on the Burger Chef sign. The Village
Manager sa d the Burger Chef sign does meet ordinance requirements.
Councilman Hokr asked Mr. Lowell Rtdgeway if the comments presented
this evening had been presented to the Panning Commiss on Mr.
Ridgeway replied that ~hese comments had been presented to the
Planning Commission.
~C~uncilman Johnson noted that when you talk about a 25 foot sign
rsus a 35 foot sign, as proposed ~y Mr, Ridgeway, a 35 foot high
sign could be allowed in a~y ~rea an~ that when t~e¥ say ~' a
possible variety of visibility situations~ this could entail just
about any service station on any corner.
Mr. Ridgeway said that what they meant was that in some instances
there were buildings or some other structures obstructing the
motorists~ view.
Council Minutes
I - February 14, 1972
Councilman Johnson noted that if there were such an extreme case,
we do provide for that in the sign variance provision.
Mr. Glen Hubbard, Union 76, said the concern for the 35 foot high
identif cation sign was in connection with freeway oriented stat ons.
If such a station were set back off the diamond, ~ 25 foot sign would
not be seen from the freeway. He sa d this would apply to CoUnty
Road #18 although it was not actual y a freeway.
Councilman Plufka said that the comments made by the M nnesota
Petroleum Council as to Subd._ 3, both in terms of the he ght and
the projection nto the right or'way I ne, make for consideration
by the ~ouncil as to possible standards to be set nto the variance
p~ocedure. Mr. Plufk~ suggested that we might vary the posit on and
~he height of the ID sign, but only to .meet the vi~ib li~y require-
merit an~ that it wou d take more than five minutes of talk to come
to grips with this problem.
Mayor Erickson said that the ntent behind the proposed sign
ordinance was not to be restrict ye or damaging to anybody but to
afford some kind of control and~ wh e some parts sound restrict ye,
there is a variance provision t~ hand e, for exam01e, a filling
station along a freeway,
Mr. Ridgeway, Minnesota Petro eum Council, commented that, for the
most part, ~ supposed that all of their ~ecommendations ~ould be
set a~ide and ju~ taken one at a time, when the need arises.
Mayor Erickson said that the Council would like to get away from
a lot of variance hearings, if possible. Th s s one o~ the reasons
for the recommendation for a 25 foot maximum height lim tat on
instead of 20 feet. He said that Mr. P ufka's proposed amendment
relating to filing a signing p an for the ent re shopping center
wou d also el m nate indiVidu~ variances.
Councilman Ptuf
open i
rather than handled as potenti~
out by someone
a case could be made
Avenue becauE
as much as a 25 foot si
grand
ordinance
said that when you
ty, and being screened
~ sections. He said that
sign for a station on 36th
a hill, and still not impose
a hilt. Mr. Plufka said
that we are talking about cri*eria for granting a variance, whereas
the other suggestions should stand or fall on their merits.
Council Minutes - 12 February 14, 1972
Mr. Jack this time.
He
ordir was written with
any consideration and the
busi
out the
inn
asked
ege Sign
Mr.
was
He then
yn Park and
Laurence
ature.
Councilman Hokr advised Mr. Laurence that the Planning Commission
had spent much time on the proposed sign ordinance and had con-
sider~ble feedback f~om other peop e d~ring fha process of drafting
the ordinance.
who mi
this,
of
S~
timg an ordir
qui re consi
intent to be enforced and its
for those present
some
Chamber of
business~
;acker then
3e
ired
ations or some
rned
this
that
start with should
s its
Mr. Laurence again expressed interest in ordinance uniformity and
suggested that 30 feet be the height Imitation and that structura
strength requirements be defined nc uding w nd pressure. He again
asked to ha~e some input nto the proposed ordinance through a c°m-
mittee working with the Village.
Council Minutes - 13 - February 14, 1972
Councilman Bosacker noted that the sign industry had not taken time
to propose or nitiate reasonable action to solve the sign ng
problems and tibet the Village had to initiate this on its own.
Mr. Laurence again sa d that he had been unaware of the proposed New
Hope ordinance unti a short t me ago. Counc Iman Hokr ~he~ noted
the newspaper Coverage that had been given the matter.
Councilman Johnson said that he, ~oo, was concerned with different
sign ordinances from village to village, not ng that th s type of
thing had brought about the state Building Code,
Councilman Bosacker commented that it seemed to him we were more
likely to achieve some sort of state wide Concurrence in s gn
regulations if mun cipal Ties such as New Hope pass ordinances of
their own instead of ~aiting, thus forcing t~e ~eed for overall
state legislation.
Mr. Dennis Ostl und, Chairman of the P anning Commission, reviewed
the process followed in the drafting of the proposed si~n ordinance.
Hr. Loren Schi(
priori
ned
that
rand
up
be e I con-
nection with
Mr. Sc~iebe also spoke in favor of changing the deadline for removal
of nonconforming signs to conform with the value of the sign rather
than a specific ~ate.
~r. Frank Fraze, LeR?y Signs, said that he had a request for a per-
it for the K-M~rt si+e awaiting action at this timE. He said ~hat
he needed to obtain the permit by March 7, 1972.
The Village Manager advised the Council that he had a conversation
with Jim Karabec, Diversified Developers ~ K-Mart project, ap-
proximately three weeks ago, Mr, Ka~abec had ndi~at~d that he
would be c~ming in to see~ a variance for the K-Mart sign and that
Mr. Karabec was well aware of the necessity to get the request in
for proper allowance for public hearing publications. Mr. Amyx said
that the first date that could be arranged was the March 7th date.
The Vii age Manager a so said that Developers Diversif ed had known
for months of the s'gn difficulty they might face. Developers
Diversified is taking the approach that the proposed sign ordinance
Council Minutes 14 - February 14, t972
will be approved in supposedly the
a variance on tna~ bas S, this bei
Amyx f Jrther adV Ged tha~ the star
that h come in .,)ver the past sew
p.resen y being c, msidered and t~e)
vision He said ,the Vi lage has
compar s to the ~ffect that if
wer~ ~ e aware a ~d would expect
date ~ ht be set.
3resent form and they are seek ng
g their decis on to make. Mr.
has indicated to any sign company
ra mOnths tba~ an o~dinance ~
are made aware of these pro_
sked for a attar from th~
h an ordnance is passed, they
comp y whenever t~e amortizatio~
~. Doug Flaa, owner of the Coast ±o Coast store in the Mid and
~ opping Center, said that he wou d ke to make a bt ef statement
concerning the ~r°posed sign Ordinance.
He front wall
large sum
in-
his
Y done"
too big,
the proposed ordinance that
Mr. I the
not be
chance
munity
his one
if ~he ordinance
impose
0
Mayor Erickson told Mr, F aa that he thought the proposed change ~o
the ordinance relating to a s gn ng p an for a sh~pping center would
help solve his proble~ and tha~ it wou d even be p~sib e that the
pre~ent signs at Midland might be approved just a~ they now are under
this provision.
Mr. Berle Lund, Nelson Paint and Wal paper, Midland Shopping Center,
inquired as to how the sign ng plan for the Mid and Shopping Center
wo~ld work and whether it would become the respons bili~ of the
landlord to furnish the sign.
Council Minutes - 15 - February 14, {972
Mayor Erickson told Mr. Lurid That the owner of the shopping center
would be required to furnish a plan for signing of the entire
center, including vacant square footage.
Councilman Plufka said that if Mr. Lund had a lease and also the
ordinance grandfather clause which gives a certain number of years
to keep the present sign, the shopping center could not force him
to cha~ge him sign and the sign, a~ it exists, becomes part of the
shopping center signing plan, as do the other signs.
Mr. Lund then inquired as to the disnosition of the ordinance at
this meeting.
Councilman Plufka noted that the Council had several possible
options as regards the proposed ordnance, tab lng, rev s ng, re-
studying or adopting it, a~suming that a majority ~f the Counc
woul~ vote for ~ny ~ne course of action this evening.
Further discussion held regarding poss bility of future amendments
to the s gn ordinance.
Councilman Bosacker said that a comment had been heard inferring
that a large store would obtain benefits over a sma I store from
~he standpoint of influence on the Council with respect to obtain-
~ng variances from the s gn ordinance, He said he took exception
to this remark. Mr. 8osa~ker also said he would be against adopt-
ing the ordin could be readily
amended, He
ordinance that
would mean that,
in concul
un fa i r l y
That he had al i~
mi(
stanc
These cc
the passage of the ordinance.
an
enforced fairly
Des
nance
y puts himsel*
a requirement
this Council
;rent view.
taken ir respect to
Councilman Hokr asked Mr. Flaa, Coast to Coast store, what the
square footage of his sign was in comparison to his store frontage.
Councilman Johnson inquired of Plann ng Commission Cha rman Ost und
whether the Commissio~ had discussed a definition for mansard roofs.
Mr. Ostlund replied that the mansard was part of the side wall.
Mr. Laurence again spoke on the proposed sign ordinance as it re-
lates to roof signs and the date fo~ conformance by existing signs.
Mr. Laurence said that if signs as built under the existing code were
permitted to remain, one would find you would still get rid of over
80% of the older signs over a period of from five to ten years and all
of a sudden the whole Village would be under the new ordinance, if
There were not too many variances.
Council Minutes - 16 - February 14, 1972
The Village Manager said that it should be noted that the Village
Attorney's office interpretation is that a mansard roof with a sign
would not be a roof sign and a sign other than a mansard type roof
sign, projecting above the roof tine would~ of course, be c~nsidered
a ~oof sign. t s our interpretation of the ordinance before you
this evening, that a mansard ~oof wou d not present any prob em f
it projected a§ove the required roof tine.
Councilman Hokr nquired as to what the position wou d be if the
mansard roof extended above the roof, fr~m six to twelve inches.
The Vi age Manager said it wou d be part of a s de wa with re-
spect to this ordinance and would not be in v olation of the ordinance,
even though the mansard roof might possibly extend above the roof line.
Mr Laurence lnqu red as to how a shopp ng center w th an rregular
roof ina wou d be handled. (One roo~ dropping down lower than the
other).
The Village Manager said that we had no such shopp ng center in New
Hope, nor were any panned, but this is an exampl~ of something that
wo~ d require a v~rianca.
Councilman Bosacker mane a motion that, unless there were more com~
merits from the audience, the matter be tab ed until the next fo ow ng
meeting although we have had more than adequate study and a very
respectable from the standpoints of its c~nsiderati~n, recommenda-
t on from the Planning Commission, I, for one, woutd kea chance
to review the comments made ton ght and the ad'it ona mater a
submitted, even though Some of t was considered by the Plann ng
Commission, some of it was not, and I wou d ke the opportun ty
to review ~hat in context. The motion was seconded by ~ouncilman
Plufka.
Councilman Plufka asked that excerpts of the m nutes of the comments
or statements made this evening be ~urn shed to the Count I as far
in advance as pOSsible, so that the Council will have time to review.
Councilman Bosacker said that although t was not part of h s
motion, he did not contemplate any additional meetings be ng held.
He said he thought the Co'nc I had been given sufficient informat on
coupled with th~ Planning Commlss on recommendat on, that a decis on'
could be made on that basis.
Planning Commission Chairman said that Hr. Shaw of Naegle Sign
Company had not been given the opportunity to present his comments.
The Mayor the~ recognized Mr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company.
Council Minutes - 17 - February 14, 1972
Mr. Shaw said that he realized that there had been a great deal of
input into the proposed sign ordinance and that the Counci now had
a motion before it to table until the next meeting. He also noted
that he was aware that the Planning Commission had put a great deal
of work into the ordinance, but that he was not totally satisfied
with the ordinance. Mr. Shaw said that if the grandfather clause
could be changed somewhat in accordance with what Mr. Laurence had
suggestedj this would accomplish a great deal. (No fixed date when
the signs must come down-but leave in a maintenance clause). You
would then allow the merchants to maintain their signs, as they are,
until that time when the merchant has to remodel the sign because
of changing business needs, the sign wears out, or a new identifi-
cation is needed. At this time, the sign must conform with the
ordinance. He said he thought this would accomp ish conformity on
the sign issue in the Village.
Mr. Shaw then addressed himself to Subdivision 17 relating to bitl-
boarde. He said he had a difficult time with the point that, even
though we are allowed to do business in a GB district, we can re-
main in that district, or in that particular area, only so long as
that particular piece of land is not improved by the erection of a
building. He noted there was no provision that has to do with the
distance from the buitdin§, but it is strictly the fact that, as
soon as a building is erected on a particular piece of land, we
must remove our advertieing device. He said he had a difficult
time to rationalize this, since the three struc?ures they do have
in the Village are in general business districts and are in no way
close to residential structures. Nor are the signs close to any
buildings, yet the signs would be non-conforming if this ordinance
is passed with the particular paragraph in it.
Councilman Hokr said tha~ he had intended to bring this point up,
notin~ that the tract of land could be anywhere from the smallest
lot to three hundred acres, if such size tracts were available in
the Village. He said he thought this paragraph could stand to be
worked on.
Councilman Bosacker said that he thought the points mentioned by
Mr. Shaw could be considered through variances.
Mayor Erickson said that allowing the existing signs to remain until
they must be replaced or repaired did not bother him too much. He
cited, as an example, the change in electrical code~ with the up-
grading done when repairs or additions to the electrical wiring was
made. He said he thought the Council should look strongly at this
area--as opposed to 1976 for total replacement.
Vote was then taken on the question.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried. (Sign ordinance tabled until the next meeting).
Council Minutes 18 - February 14, 1972
The Mayor then announced that there would be a five minute recess.
The meeting was called back to order by Mayor Erickson.
Planning Case No. 72-1~ request from Preferred Dave opers foe approval
of site plan and planned u~t~ development for a muir ~ e development
at Wisconsin and 56th Avenues was considered by the ~uncil.
Mr. Les Baker, Preferred Developers, presented a revised plan which
incorporated ~he recOn~nendation~ of ~he P anning CommissiOn. Mr.
Baker noted that the entrance at the northeast corner of the s te
had been eliminated and the drive~ay run through the site. Fifty-
two units are to be built, 28 one b~dr°°m units and 24 two-bedro~m
units.
The previous apartment pro~ect plan, wh ch had been approved sometime
ago ~o~ the same site, ~as reviewed. Discussion was h~ld as to the
feasibility of having traffic run through the site. t was dec dad
that i~ wo~ld be be~ter0 from a traffic stan~pOint, to revert to the
first plan submitted ~o the Planning Commission at the February
1972 n~eting.
Hessrs, Arthur Grapentin, 5619 Wisconsin Avenue and Hr. Ferdinand
Davis, 5615 WisconSin Avenue, were at the meet ng and were given the
oppor~unity to review the panS for ~he proposed dave opment site.
N~ssrs. Grapentin and Davis expressed ConcePn w[th traf~lc from the
proPOsed apartment cOmplex.
Further discussion held as to traffic flow and emergency vehicle ac-
cess within ~he site.
the
ttions:
(I) ( emer-
in
the
to be
Councilman Bosacker said tha~ since the planned unit dev~ opmen* con-
ceP~ did provide for aesthetic considerations he would like to study
th~ proposal with respect to its pr°Xi~ity to the Schoo , traffic
pa~t~rn~ and the division of the ~raff C ~etween W sconsin Avenue and
~he Bass Lake Road. Counci man Bosacker said he would lke to reso ve
?he mat~er of fencing along the westerly edge toward Wisconsin.
Vote was then taken on the question as follows:
Counci Minutes - 19 - February 14, 1972
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Erickson, HoAr, Johnson, Plufka.
Bosacker.
Discussion held regarding approva of the p armed unit development
for Preferred Developers as ~equested under P arming Case No 72- .
It was noted that the exterior treatment of the build ngs was to be
brick, with stucco above and be Ow the windows and by the patio
doors, and the corners and fascia will be of texture -I exterior
cedar. The cedar is to be stained. The buildings are to be three
stories, flush with the ground.
Motion by Counci man Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, approv ng
the planned unit development as requested by Preferred Deve ~ers under
Plan~ing Case No. 72-1 ~nd authorizing issuance of the building permits
subject tO the approval of the Fire Marsha , Vi age ~ngineer and
Building and Zon ~g D rector and to their r~commen~ations inc uded in
the staff report dated February I, 1972 relating to said Planning Case.
Councilman Bosacker said that he would like to see the buildings set
back further.
Vote was then t~ken on the question.
Voting in favor: Erickson, H°kr, Johnson, Plufka.
Votin~ against: Bosacker.
Motion carried. (Planned unit development approved).
Mr. Baker advised the Counc that the fencing on the norther y side
was to be cyclone type with slats. Councilma~ Bosacker suggested that
the developer check ~ith the neighbors regard ng the type of fencing
to be installed.
A request for a revision in the s tep an for Post Haste Shopping
Center, CSAH #18 and 36th Avenue North, was considered.. The ~equest
is for permission to place the Shell Service Stat on freeway sign at
the northwest corner ~f the Post Haste Site rather than the prev ~us y
approved southwest corner. The Village Manager advised the Council
that the Planning Commission had reco~mended denial of the requested
change.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Hokr, denying the
request ~rom Post Haste Shopping Center for re ocation of She Serv ce
Station sign to the northwest c~rner of the ~ite, in accordance with
the Planning Commission recommendation. (Re. Planning Case No. 7t-45).
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None
Council Minutes - 20 February 14, 1972
5. Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, authoriz-
ing payment to Margolis Brothers in the amount of $800 for drainag~
swal~ ~epair work on the back and side lot nas of 47th Avenue b~
tween Hillsborough and Independence, as recommended by the Village
Engineer in his letter of January O, 972. (Tota b s $890.00
with 10% w thheld u~fil final co~ple~ion in the spring.)
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
6. A request was received from Mr. Kenneth Benson, Benson-Orth ASsociates,
Inc., for the improvement of Quebec Avenue, between 42nd Avenue and
49th Avenue. Th~ Village Manager noted that this portion of QUebec
Avenue was part of the State Aid street system.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Counc Iman P ufka, requesting
the Village Engineer to p~epare a p~eliminary report for t~e improve-
ment of Quebec Avenue from 42nd to 49th Aven~e.
Voting in faro[: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Ptufka.
Voting against. None.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
7; Discussion held regarding the proposed ordinance re ating to unatten-
ded vehicles with key in the i~ni~ion.
Councilman Hokr commented that, f a person left his car parked an?
running in front of the garage door a~ a ft ng stat on and went
side, th s would be a violation of the proposed ordinance. He said
he did not feel this Ordinance could be enforced.
Councilman Johnson said that he had contacted Representat ye Hein tz
to discuss the proposed ordinance and the possibility of state eg s-
lation instead. Mi. Heinitz had agreed that We shou d be able to get
such a state law passed.
Councilman Plufka spoke n opposition to the proposed ordinance, say-
ing that we Would not get the cooperation of ~ur citizens.
Mayor Erickson said that he thought this was a nuisance type ordinance
as to enforceability.
Councilman Bosacker noted that the proposed ordinance had been reques-
ted by the police department and the s~aff and it had been revise~ so
that a person might let his car run in his own driveway.
Council Minutes - 21 - February 14, 1972
Councilman Johnson noted that the Police Department had said that
there were 45 cars sro en in New Hope last ~ear but did not furnish
the information as to how many of these stoien cars had keys 'n the
ignition.
The Village Manager said keys eft n the ignit on was a sign f cant y
contributing factor espec a y for teen-age,s. F gures cou d be pro-
vided but would take m~ch staff time.
Councilman P ufka suggested that, nstead of adopting the ordinance,
an educationa campa gn be conducted with the po ce department war-
ning people that i~ is a bad practice to eare una~-~end~d cars with
keys in ~he ignition.
~c~rttOn by Councilman Bosacker, second by Counci man Hokr, that the
d nanc~ relating to unattended Vehic es w th key in the ignition be
adopted.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, to amend
the ordinance by substituting the wo~d "re'acted" for the word 'a
,. J do ted
and the motion De amended accordingly. P
Vote was taken on the amendment as follows:
Voting in favor: Ertckson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka, Bosacker.
Voting against: None.
Amendmen+ carried.
Vote was then taken on the motion as amended.
VotingV°ting against:in favor: None.B°sacker' Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Motion carried: (Ordinance rejected).
Motion by Councilman Hokr~ second by Counci man Bosacker, that the
matter b~ reviewed n 30~ 4 months and that an educat o~a program
be started regarding earing of keys in the gnitio% w th a report
to be given at time of revi~wat as to cost an~ results of the e~uca-
tional program.
Discuss on he d with Councilman Bosacker suggesting that the motion
be amended to inc ude the suggestion that ~he keys be picked up and
taken to village hall. It was noted that since ~here ~ould be no or-
dinance there wou d be no violation and the keys cou d not be picked
up and ~aken to vi age ha I. Counc Iman Bosa~ker then wi~hdr~w h s
second, saying that he cou d see no purpose at a in p ac ng a war-
ning on th~ car because he did not t~in~ it would have any effect.
The motion was then seconded by Councilman P ufka.
Council Hinutes
- 22 - February 14, 1972
Vote was taken as follows:
Vofing in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson,
Voting against: None.
Notion carried.
Plufka.
The Hennepin County Alcoho Safety Action project was explained
by the Village Manager, The Vii age Manager said that the fund-
ing would be through the federal government.
TO
Bosacker,
3sT
ssed
IJage
OFFICERS, COMmiSSIONS AND COF~41TTEES
(None)
~FINISHED BUSINESS
Cheney property
Parcel to the north
OWS:
- $5,748
- 4,332
ion
Ible
d be
benefl,,ed
accept the
soon aS
a publi
to
Storm
to be
Council Minutes
- 23 -
February 14, 1972
Voting in favor: Bosacker~ Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka~
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
IO. The Village Engineer gave a status report on the proposed 62nd
Avenue sidewal~ improQement. Eng nee~ Rosene sa d that the fie d
work had been completed, tgat a preliminary report could be
prepared ~nd a pub c hearing da~e established. He suggested
tha~ it might b~ better to wait unt I spr ng at which time the
site could be reviewed. Mr. Rosene als~ nformed the Counc that
Brooklyn Park did not intend to oarticipate in the sidewalk
project.
~otion by Counci man 8osacker, second by Counc Iman P ufka, that
the Village Engineer br ng n a feasibility report regard ng side-
walk improvement on 62nd Avenue for consideration at the second
meeting in March.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion c~rried.
II. The Village Eng!neer gave a status report on the proposed
improvement of Winnetka Avenue north Of the Bass lake Road. He
said that soil borings had been taken and they wi I be getting a
re~ort from the High~ay Department ear y this week, Mr, Rosene
said he should be able to proceed with ~ preliminary report for
the second meeting in March.
I. NE~ BUSINESS
12. Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Counci man Plufka, c~ang ng
the star~ing time f0~ Planning Commission meetings from 7:00 p.m.
to 7:30 p.m. as requested by ~he Panning commission.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, ~ohnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
13. The staff report on keeping of dangerous an male was considered
by the Council. The Village Manager recommended that minimum
liability insurance coverage for owners of dangerous anima s be
set at $25,000 per injury and $50,000 per Occurrence He a so
recommended that each applicant for a license be required to
specify on the license application his experiences and qualifi-
cation~ that would ensure that he could p~0perly handle and care
for a dangerous animal with the particulars of such a statement
to be evaluated by the staff prior to the actual license granting
consideration by ~he Council.
Council Minutes
- 24 -
February 14, 1972
Motion by Councilman P ufka, second by Counc man Johnson,
asking t~e Village Manager to prepare a su table amendment to
the dangerous animal ordinance n~orporating the above recommen-
dations as to insurance and cense app ic~t on and that a
suitable application form be prepared ~ ch in the opinion of the
staff Will ~rovide informatio~ a~ to the qualif cations of the
owner.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
14. Motion ty Counci man Hokr, second by Counc Iman Bosacker, accept-
ing the ~ire Department Annual Report for 197 and cOmmend ng ~he
Fire Chief and ~ s aepartment for the excellent report.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
15. Motion by Councilman Plufka~ second by Councilman Hokr, approv ng
issuance of business licenses as shown on attached e×hib ¥, subject
to the approval of the apPropriate department heads.
Voting in faro[: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
16. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Counc man Bosacker, approv-
ing the ~ re Department payro for the month of January,
th~ amount of $2,774.
Voting in faro?: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion c~rried.
17. The Village Manager stated that there were no relief orders to
process at this ~eting.
18. Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Plufka, approwng
the payment of Village bi s n the amount of $ 62,727.34, through
chec~ humber 18945 and dated through February 4, 972, as shown
on records on file in the office of the Village Cterk-+reasurer.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
Council Minutes
- 25 -
February 14, t972
20.
21.
22.
23,
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
All comments and suggestions were heard earlier in the meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mayor Erickson announced that he had appointed Mrs. Marsha
Hinitz, 2880 Valle Vista, t° serve as an adult member on the
Youth Commission.
Discussion held relative to updating our Civil Defense plan,
with such an updated plan to be made available to the Council.
Councilman Hokr inquired as to the status of the project relating
to the improvement of 56th Avenue in the proximity of Hosterman
Junior High. The Village Attorney advised that he was waiting
for an appraisal of property involved, which should be ready
next week.
Councilman Plufka introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MINNESOTA LAW
PERTAINING TO UNFAIR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES." The metion for
the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilman Bosacker and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Flokr,
Johnson, Plufka; and the following voted against the sam~:
None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted. (Page Extract Book)
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker,
accepting Torrens Certificate No. 472081, title to the golf
course, and instructing that the document De placed in the
safety deposit pox for safekeeping.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Mayor Erickson and carried,
that the meeting be adjourned at 11:05 p.m. until February 28,
1972 at 7:00 p.m. or until the call of the chair.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Pouliot,
Village Clerk-Treasurer
Planning Commission - I -
Hinutes
February 15, 1972
A regUla~ meeting of the NeW Hope Planning Con~isslon was held at
the ~illa~ Hall, 4401 XYI~ A~enue North, in said Village on
TueSday, February 15, 1972, at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to o~er by Chairman Ostlund.
2. Roll call was taken as follows:
e
Present:
Absen~: None.
Ostlund, Oswald, Cameron,
PL~LIC H~RINGS
~ion by Ohman, second by SUeker, to continue Planning Case No.
72-2 to later in the meeting~ Notion carried by voice vote.
NE~ BUSINESS
that the
to acti
7, 1972
explained
of
as:
residence,
Discussion of estab-
lishing ~ structural changes or
modifications that would require a home o~ner to request a special
use permit if value limit exceeded.
Hr, Oster explained that this subJect represents a matter of degree
and that the Committee felt that at the ~oint an activity in a
residence goes from a strictly residential use to a use character-
ized by the above charactert permit should be
required, sc?ivtHies should
replace as it better describes
the intent of the Code provisions.
Hr. Oster noted that the
line bel~een permitted
shou
Village Code in
was seeking to clearly dra~ a
and those activities that
Hr. Ostlund suggested
is not needed in the
legal decisions on this matter.
Discussion of standards for non-residential generated traffic that
should be allowed for a home occupation as to maximum number of
vehicles all o~ed.
Planning ~i sston
Minutes
-2-
February 15, 1972
Motion by Oster, second by Cameron, that the Village Attorney and
Staff evaluate nUmerical standards for non-residential generated
traffic as related ~o home Occupations' Hotion carried bY voice
vote.
Discussion on legal opinion of Village Attorney with respect to
Plannlng CaSe No; 71~64.
Noti~ uekeg, that the VI I !age Manager re-
ques; ) the Vi Ita~ Code provisions
this matter wi th
pertly!er refefence to Section 4.30 (Permitted Uses). Hotion
carried by voice VOte.
Consideration of 72-2. Mr. Samuelson appeared
on behalf that on further evaluation
tha~ the
thUS, he ~as only seeking si~e plan ap-
prove that !9 parking spaces would
be provided which meets Vi requirements.
Motion by ohman, second by NeYer to approve site plan.
Discussion on sc
cep~able wood
vote.
against the motion.
property I ina. ~lotion
I fence of ac-
ktotiOn carried by
requested recorded as voting
NotiOn as to recommending approval of site plan was approved by
voice vote.
Land Use Committee Report. Copies of League of Women Voters merger
report and Iow cost hOUsing information was discussed and passed
around.
Council minutes of January 31, 1972 were reviewed.
Notion to approve ~he Planning COmmission minutes of February I,
1972 was offered by Cameron and second bY Oswald. Notion carried
by voice vote.
Additional C~n~s/Reques?s from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff,
In reference to theHa~k Z. jones PropoSal, Chei~n OstlUnd felt
that the meeting held Februa~ 14th was a pub!lc hearing because It
was listed as such. It was ~la~ed bY the Viii age ~4anager that
this was not so. It was decided no~ to send a memo to the Council
regarding san~ at this time, It was noted that the Council had
~ebled ~he discussion of the Mark Jones proposal for t~o weeks until
the February 28th Council meeting.
Planning Commission - 3 -
Minutes
February 15, 1972
I0.
II.
The slgn ordinance was discussed an0 it was agreed that the Commission
should response to issues raised at the February 14, 1972 Council
meeting.
Mr. Meyer passed out copies of the seminar summary. He felt this
seminar was very worthwhile and would highly recommend more members
attend these. If anvone is interested in attending these at .he
North Hennepin College, they are to inform Mr. Amyx.
Chairman Ost~und requested there be a change in voting at the
Commission meetings, Instead of everyone saying "aye" and "nay" he
would tike those Commissioners for a motion listed and those against
also listed by name.
Mr. Barniskis mentioned he has heard several complaints on the car
wash on 45th next to the Village offices. They are: they are
broken, dirty,.the garage doors don't function, and no heat,
Besides that, it seems to be abandoned, Mr. T~ma noted that his
office had received numerous complaints on this matter and that a reg-
is*ered letter would be sent out on the 16th of February. Not only
would this letter state the complaints but it wo?d also request the
owner to list his name in each wash area along with his phone number
so that he could be the one to receive complaints Instead of Mr. Tuma.
The meeting was adjourned at I0:00 p.m. Motion was made by Sueker
and second by Ba~niskis. Motion carried by voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Ba~ pal ider
Secretary
Counci Minutes I - March t3, 1972
Bo
Pursuan~ TO due cai and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council
of the Village of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the Village Hall,
4401 ×ylon Avenue North, in said Village, on Monday, ~arch 13, 1972 at
7:00 p.m.
All persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
Roll call was taken as follows..
PresenT: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Absent: None.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of February 28, 1972, as presented.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Ptufka.
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Mayor welcomed a group of Boy Scouts from Pack 526, Winnetka
Elementary School, who were in attendance at the meeting in connection
with work on their citizenship badge.
I. The first item on the agenda was the discussion of the 236 Federal
and Housing Program. Mr. Glaser of the regional office of the Department
2. of Housing and Urban Development had not arrived.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, to table items
Nos. I and 2 until later in the meeting pending the arrival of the HUD
representative.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr,
None.
Johnson, Ptufka.
The proposed sign ordinance as redrafted by the Village Attorney n ac-
cordance with directions from the meeting of February 28, 1972, was
considered for adoption.
Discussion held relative to a further change to Subdivision (18)
Adverti$inq Siqns (Billboards) to read as follows:
(18) Aidvertisln~ Siqns (Billboards),
All Advertisia9 Signs hereafter painted, constructed,
erected, remodeled, relocated or expanded shall comply with
the following standards lin addition to those established in
Subdivision (3) of this section.
Council Minutes - 2 - March 13, 1972
and
2.
(I) The minimum setback requirements for the
General Business districts.
(2)
Not more than one back to back advertising sign
shall be constructed upon one lot or tract of
ground.
(3) The total area of sign shall not exceed Three
Hundred Fifty (350> square feet.
(4> The ma× mum he ght of any advertising sign shall
be twenty~five (25) feet from the ground.
(5>
Advertising Sigps are a permitted use in General
Business Disitrilcts, Advertising Signs may be
permitted in other Commercial and Industrial areas
by special use permit only.
The Village Manager noted that this revision provided for three changes:
(I) Concept of a double panel instead of a single
panel.
(2) Aspect of allowing a sign on property that has an
existing structure.
(3) Addition of provision for special use.
Discussion held.
Councilman Bosacker then moved for the adopt on of Ordnance No. 72-5
entitled ',AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.67 AND SECTION 4.92, SUB-
DiVIsION (53> OF NG TO S GNS" w th sa d
ordinance to inc ude the amendment to Subd v s on (18) as shown above,
The motion for the adoP~i0n o~ the foregoing ordinance was seconded by
Councilman Plufka; a~d upon vo~e being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka;
and the following voted agaios~ the same: None; whereupon the ordinance
was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayer and
attested by the Village Clerk-Treasurer. (Page __ Extract Book).
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Plufka, to take items
I and 2 off the table.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Mr. Glaser of the regional office of HUD was present to discuss the
236 Federal Housing Program and housing.
Council Minutes - 3 - March 13, 1972
Mr. Glaser said that the office in St. Paul is responsible for imple-
menting all HUD programs, which includes the 236 program, as well as
other public housing programs. He said the 236 program is designed
to assist private developers and private non-pro~it groups to build
private y financed housing for Iow and moderate income people. An
interest subsidy is used to get the rents down to where people with
moderate incomes can afford them. The government agrees to pay the
lender a subsidy reflecting the difference between what interest
rates are today at 7% and what this mortgage would be at I% interest
rate. The net effect of this s to reduce, by about /3, those rents
that it would take to build conventionally financed projects. In
other words, the one bedroom unit of toaay is built for about $175, and
may be rented for about $115 to $120 or thereabouts by using this
interest subsidy. Ur, Glaser said that, to date in the State of
Minnesota, we have probably done about 3,500 to 4,000 un ts. About
60% of the units ar~ built in the metropolitan area - the suburban
area as wel as the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
It is possible to use the 236 program for profit motivated sponsors or
non-profit people, for family type housing, for housing for the elderly,
Iow rise construction, townhouses or elevator Type housing for the
elderly. There is a great deal of flexibility in the program. Mr.
Glaser said the difficulty is in getting the funds so that all the
projects can be financed that are submitted. He said that in a fund-
ing session today 700 or 800 units were funded and that there are
probably another 2,000 units that were not funded. There is a great
deal of interest in the program and a big demand on the money.
Mr. Glaser stated that it is important to work with the Metropolitan
Council to the extent possible. HUD is trying to avoid putting all
of the subsidized housing, whether it be ow rent publicly owned
housing or privately owned subsidized housing, in the central cities.
The concept is to distribute to those communities which do not have
subsidized housing so as to get the Iow and moderate income prople
out of the central cities. This concept affects the funding patterns.
Locations which are near metropolitan centers, near employment and
have all the location amenities which we think any type of housing
should have, whether it is subsidized or not, are favored. An effort
is being made to stay away from the concentrated core city's urban
renewal type locations as much as possible. HUD is also trying to
achieve a geographic distribution in the metropolitan area, and in
the State of Minnesota, SO that no community does mQre than its share
of subsidized and Iow income housing. He said HUD is also Trying to
give priority to those projects which can serve family needs. It is
very easy to build a high rise development for the elderly. Out of
twenty applications, fifteen are probably for the elderly. HUD is
trying to get projects in those localities where a balance can be
served, some small families and some larger families.
Council Minutes - 4 March 13, 1972
Mayor Erickson asked if there is any way that it could be guaranteed,
is we were to rezone this particular piece of property, that the
building would be used for the elderly and not for something else,
either now or in the future~
Mr. Glaser said there were ways to make this guarantee.
Councilman Johnson inquired as to whether Mr. Glaser was familiar
with the proposal for this particular project; this being a mix of
Iow income units and apartments for the elderly.
Mr. Glaser said HUD has not received an application yet.
Mayor £rickson explained that we would have a rezoning request to
multiple for this complex. The Council is attracted to the idea of
housing for the elderly, that if the ~roperty were rezoned there
would be 70 one bedroom apartments as one part of the project, but
it was the Council's understanding that we can not guarantee that the
seventv units would be rented to the elderly.
Mr. Glaser said that such a provision cou d be written into the
regulatory agreement under which the mortgagee would operate.
Councilman Hokr explained that sometime ago there had been a request
to rezone the property to MR and that he and other members of the
Council felt that we couldn't handle traffic in the area if it were
used for multiples. If the property were used for housing for the
elderly, we would wot have the amount of traffic one would anticipate
under normal conditions. Then the Council questioned whether housing
for the elderly could be specified and held to housing for the
elderly, in view of the circumstances.
Mr. Glaser said that one probably could specify just housing for the
elderly but that it would probably never be funded.
Councilman Beeacker suggested tha~, if the HUD representative had the
time, it might be well to have Mark Z. Jones Company briefly present
their program so that specific questions might be addressed to Mr.
Glaser.
Mr. Scott Godin, Mark Z. Jon~s Company, presented a drawing of the
site. He said the property i~ a~]!~he northwest corner of New Hope,
at 62nd Avenue and ~unty Road #!8, I~ is basically a piece of
property which sit~ up a l i~le way from the ~reeway and that there
is some bad ground in the southern part of the site and good ground
in the northern portion. Seventy one bedroom units to be located in
one building are proposed, Also there are to be thirty townhouses,
twenty of which will be two bedrooms and ten units to have three
bedrooms. Mr. Godin described the stream running through the
property serving as drainage, and that open space is left where the
Council Minutes 5 March 13, 1972
property is basically aon-buildable. Townhouses and some garages
would be located to the east side of the property-abutting the single
family homes to the east. Mr. God in said it is ~lanned that, as to
the apartments for the elderly, the garages would be eliminated, with
one outside parking space being provided for each apartment. Two
for one parking is provided for the townhouses. He said the density
planned is fairly Iow, nine acres with I00 units. He further noted
that the property is presently zoned for retail business, belongs
to Standard Oil and was zoned for retail bus'ness some time ago in
anticipation ofthe crossing af County Road #t8 at 62nd Avenue. Now
the crossing is at 63rd Avenue.
Mr. Godin said there were reasonable amenities in the area. It would
be some distange to shopping, schools are in good relationship with
a grade school just down the road and within a reasonable distance to
high school. Access is goo~, there being access to County Road #18
at 63rd Avenue. He said they have talked to the transit people but
have no commitment from them although they seemed reasonably amenable
to putting some kind of bus route to the site. There is a bus route
in the vicinity now, but not to the site.
Mayor Erickson again inquired as to restricting the project to the
elderly and the availability of financing if restricted.
Mr. Glaser said that he had not been aware of the proposed townhouses
when he said he thought the project would not be financed if re-
stricted to the elderly. He asked for clarification as to whether
the codicil for the elderly was to apply to the seventy unit single
structure only. He said this would alter the funding possibility
because now family housing is prooosed. The thirty additional units
which will serve families puts a different light on the situation
and gives it a different priority. He said the fact that seventy
units would be restricted to the elderly would have only a minimal
impact on the priorities, because one bedroom apartments are usually
rented by the elderly anyway.
Councilman Hokr asked what chances we would have of holding the
housing for the elderly through the length of the financing and asked
what perioe of time would be covered by the financing.
Mr. Glaser said HUD will underwrite forty year mortgages on this type
of project, but it would De questionable whether it would remain a
subsidized project for forty years, He thought that would be very
unlikely. The economics of this type of project is that at the end of
ten years most are refinanced. When the HUD mortgage is *erminated,
it is no longer a subsidized project.
It was noted that the developer does have the option of refinancing
after a period of ten years and that, after that period, there is
nothing to prevent the building being used for normal apartment
housing.
Council Minutes - 6 -
March 13, 1972
Councilman Bosacker inquired of Mr. Glaser whether the construction
and the amenities would have some bearin§ on the use that could be
made of the seventy one bedroom apartments.
Mr. Glaser said that, by ane large, these 236 programs provide just
as many amenities as do conventional projects.
Councilman Bosacker then said that the fact that these were one
bedroom units would have a certain effect on the use of the units.
Hr. Glaser agreed that there is aot a great deal of flexibility with
one bedroom units.
Mr. Scott Godin, Mark Z. Jones Company, asked whether the subsidy
would be attractive to the second user and suggested that a way might
be found to sell such a project without refinancing.
Mr. Glaser said that, since the program was just three years old,
nobody really knows what happens after ten years. He said he thought
the program was designed with the rate of inflation in mind. The
cost of operating the project should remain fairly constant except for
the taxes. Amortization remains constant and incomes would
rise. As incomes rise, subsidies would decrease and after a period
of time, many of the people in the project would be paying market
rent without a subsidy. He said he thought this was a real possibility.
Councilman Plufka inquired as to whether a provision that the project
could not be refinanced for ten years was written into the mortgage
contract.
Mr. Glaser said that this provision was written into the mortgage
contract, that there was a regulatory agreement with a clause that
refinancing is not oossible in the first ten years. Refinancing is
then legislatively prohibited.
Councilma~ Hokr commented that, under the Mark Z. Jones proposal, there
would be concessions asked as to parking and that if the project re-
verted to regular apartment use after ten years, we would be back to
the traffic problem. He said that one bedroom apartments are usually
occupied by newly married people who usually have two cars, with the
husband driving to work one way and the wife another way. He said
this was his biggest concern.
Mr, Glaser said this was probably a valid concern but that if this
was a 236 project, with or without elderly restrictions, the car
ratio would be less than one for one, this being the experience with
fully occupied 236 housing.
Mr. Godin inquired as to whether it might be provided that if the
project were no longer used for the 236 program, any variances would
be brought to code.
Council Minutes
- 7 - March 13, 1972
The Village Attorney said this would be similar to contract zoning
and if, the matter were to be worked out, it would take some study.
Councilman Plufka said that he found it hard TO approve because if it
were to be rezoning and the proposal for 236 fal s through we would
be back to where it had been de~ided we didn't want to be. We don't
feel that normal density apartment bu Id ngs fit that part cu ar
piece of property, with if~ access to roads and services. The
multiple zoning wou d not be consistent with the abutting ne ghbor-
hood. He said the thing that made the elderly housing appeal to the
Council at the beginning was the experience with car ratios in such
projects.
Councilman Bosacker stated, as a point of clarification, that the
Council is asked, this evening, merely to state its support v a
resolution for the concept of 236 housing being emplov~ here for the
specific purpose. Rezoning is not asked at this time. He also said
rezoning ~on~iderations wou d be eft un-infr nged by the proposed
resolution and the rezoning would rece ye the norma consi~erat on
as to proper Iocat on with respect to services and other fac t es,
the m~ac~ on traffic patterns and schools, He said the statement
had been made that the only thing that engendered the interest on the
part of ~he Council, to this extent, was the housing for the elderly
and that, for his part, he felt New Hope had done its fair share with
respect io multiple dwellings but tha~ we had failed to meet obli-
gations in the area of Iow and moderate income housing. Councilman
Bosacker then said he understood that New Hope was a ~umber one
priority suburb with respect to the need for 236 housing.
Councilman Bosacker said that he understood there was no 236 housing in
suburban Hennepin County-by percentage.
Mr. Glaser noted that this was not quite true because Hopkins had
some 236 housing. Such housing in suburban Hennepin County was
nominal.
Councilman Bosacker then said his study shows that while approximately
28.1% of the population for the metropolitan area is in suburban
Hennepin County 3.2% of the approved or proposed subsidized hous ng
is in suburban Hennepin County. He said th~se figures came from
Metropolitan Council's Data Log.
Councilman Bosacker asked Mr. Glaser for an estimate of the percentage
of people in the metropolitan area who cannot afford regular, adequate
housing for their family size.
Mr. Glaser replied that 40 Or 50% of anyone looking for housing
today in the metropolitan area would be eligible for 236 housing.
Councilman BOsacker then asked whether the percentage would not ex-
ceed tha* of those eligible for 236 housing and what the income line
would be for this group.
Council Minutes
8 March 13, t972
Mr~ Glaser said that ne would refer to the 236 program. Income level
limits under 236 are geared to family size - which does have a very
real impact on what you look for in housing and your ability to buy
or rent housing. He said the income level would be about $9,000 and
that a person who is making $9,000 and under today, who does not
already have a home which was purchased under more favorable con-
ditions, would have a very difficult time finding standard adequate
housing.
Councilman Bosacker then said that his point was that the problem
that exists today is not something that affects only a minimal por-
tion of the population. He had read reports that the percentage
was over 50%, and that the top income level of this group would run
more in the neighborhood of $11,000 to $12,000, who cannot afford
average housing for a four member family.
Mr. Glaser said there have been a number of studies that support Mr.
8osacker's opinion -- for this area.
Councilman Bosacker noted that we are not talking, as in the past, of
the poor family in south or north Minneapolis, or the ADC mother, but
about the white collared clerk behind the counter of a grocery store
in suburban New Hope. He said this is a problem that has to be
solved and that, as long as the federal government is making funds
available for that purpose, t is incumbent upon the local govern-
ment, to a greater ~eg~ee than it is upon the state and county, to
try to step in and fill that gap. He ~a d the one area where New
Ho~e, like all of suburban Henn~pin County communities, had failed
to meet its obligation was in the moderate and Iow income housing,
particularily as it takes in elderly on fixed incomes and the "white
collared clerk".
Councilman Besacker said that, by adoption of the resolution, we have
an opportunity to express our interest in this proposed solution
while ~taining the right to give rezoning further condideration on
the basis of avai~abl~ amenities and traffic pattern impacts and
the like. He sugggsted that if we fai I to do that, we may not have
another opportunity to do so in the near future.
Mayor Erickson inquired as to ~hat HUD's reaction wou!d be to a
reso!u*!on from this Counci! sqpPort!ng, in theory, this particular
projec~ - as far as HUD going along ~ith ~he funding or agreeing to
the funding of theprojec~i He asked whether HUD would accept such
a resolution in lieu of rezon]ingu
Mr. Glaser said that ultimately the property would have to be per-
missively zoned. The Council endorsement would give the sponsor a
"leg uP" in getting it funded. He noted there have been incidents
where 236 housing projects have been put into communities and the
communities had no knowledge of it. The land was adequately zoned
and nothing was needed from the city for the proposal. Mr. Glaser
Council Minutes -
- 9 - March 3, 1972
said it ~s now the policy that a sponsors get the city to endorse
the proposal. He noted that they would like the city to endorse
the proposal to the extent that they agree to additional subsidies
for at least 20% of the units. They would like to see 20% of these
units serving very Iow income people. If this were done, it is one
of the things that gives a project a great deal of priority. Such
subsidy is not just for Iow income families, but for social security
type elderly people. If rent supplements are not used in this seventy
unit building you would end up with rents of $110. This is a good
rent, but it is not really helping people on social security and that
is why HUD likes at least 20% of those units to be additionally sub-
sidized. This could provide housing for people whose income is $1,200
and whose rent might be as Iow as $25, al to be included in the
same project.
Councilman Bosacker asked under what circumstances the rent subsidy
comes into play.
Mr. Glaser replied that the 40% is being used for those projects
where we think it is most necessary and it is simply a matter of
funding. It is very difficult for every project to get a 40% rent
supplement because that is, in effect, a dual subsidy and would cost
the government just too much money, t is used where HUD thinks there
is a real need. GeneralJy, 20% is the sought after percentage.
Councilman Plufka said that we have been talking tonight exclusively
about new construction. He asked if there were any subsidy programs
available for the buying of existing structures to be brought into
the 236 program.
Mr. Glaser said the only way you can do that sort of thing is to have
the local council sponsor a housing authority and proceed as a public
body.
Councilman Plufka asked if the local government could lease the
existing units and then offer a subsidy on subleasing to the
individuals, with no ownership of the property involved.
Mr. Glaser said that was correct and was a ~ethod for providing Iow
income housing in lieu of the municipality owning the housing.
Councilman Plufka said that we have found that one of our problems is
that we have housing tha~ was built prior to more stringent building
codes, and this housing becomes housing for the poor or for the less
econQmically fortunate - by default. ~Unfortunately, it isn't adequate
housing. It is cheap, but it is "cheap" in a lot of respects, not
only what it costs but what they get for it. Councilman Plufka said
it would seem to be a worthwhile project to take some of these
existing projects, and through such a subsidy program, be able to
renovate the buildings and use them for that purpose. Some day we
are going to run out of space to build new buildings.
Council Minutes
I0 - March 13, 1972
Mr. Glaser said that major rehabilitation was considered the same as
new ce~st~uction but he did not think anything existing in New Hope
qualifies for major rehabilitation.
Counci !man Johnson said that earl ier the Counci I had a developer on
a project in a Vi lage nterested n 236
of intention. This reZoning, That developer
!nd~ated thatHUD w0u!d oot initiate any action until the p~perty
had aCtua!!Y been rezoned; Cou~ci!man Johnson noted that this pro-
posal tonight was the same type
Mr. G!aser said ~hat was ve~y~rue~ ~e property is ~ing to have to
be rezoned for ~he intended use be~o~ we will really entertain an
appl i cat i on.
Councilman Bosacker asked whether HUD would be able to give the
developer a statement of general feelings in regard to his application,
in light of the Council's support, as to the funding.
Mr. Glaser said HUD probably would not give a stater~nt of general
feelings. He said there were enough applications where the zoning
was right. Mr. Glaser also said HUD has a system now which s mOre
scientific than it has been, in that we rate the applications based
on eight different points. The rating is the only basis for any en-
couragement from the HUD office. The resolut on wou d ndicate that
suCh housing is a concern of the Village.
Councilman Bosacker asked whether if the FHA would, in making the
final decision, regard the amenities in this particular location as
sufficient, inasmuch as it is off an existing transit line and has
no immediate adjacent shopp ng foci ities. He said, in his view,
it does not fu fill these requirements, but that if the financing
agency disagreed and felt there were suffic ent amenit es to warrant
financing, he would, in addition to support of the concept, be for
rezoning for that specific use. He said, however, he ser ously
doubts that the financing agency would find the amenities sufficient.
Mr. Glaser said that they had not seen the site, but they do I o ok over
the factors that you think makes the site marginal and that, even if
it were rezoned and had the city'S support, d~es not mean it would be
financed.
Councilman Plufka said that th s is not the only vacant and w thin
tMe Village and he ~h0Ug~ that i~ ~0Uld be necessary to make the
decision based on of What kind of MR is proposed,
be it elderly, Iow income or standard, since HUD was not going to look
at it un~il it is reZ°ned. ~uncilman piufka then expressed concern
for ~ezonlng because it could happen that the land might be sold or
no~ developed as~ow proposed. He said the proposed project would
have to stand on the merits for reZOning without any consideration as
to whether it woutd be for elderly or iow income families.
Council Hinutes
- II March 13, 1972
Mayor Erickson then opened the discussion to the floor.
Mr. Ron Sandeen, 8901 - 62nd Avenue North, asked whether it was during
the first ten years only that stipulations written into the agreement
would hold. After further discussion on this point, it appeared that
perhaps the restriction of the housing to elder y would not hold up
In COUrt and that ~t was conceivab e that the use could revert prior
to the expiration of the ten years.
Mr, Bob Garin, 6101 Gettysburg Avenue North, nquired as to what per-
centage of the applications to HUD for 236 housing do meet all criteria,
proper zoning and so forth, and are approved.
Mr. Glaser said there was a fall out of about 60 to 80%, with some of
the applications carried for a long time.
Mayor Erickson noted that the Council had previously denied MR zoning
on this particular piece of property because it was felt that the
proper~y could not ~upport high density apartments, particularity In
view of the 62nd Avenue problem. He said that the Village did want
~o provide housing for everybody, and did recognize the problem of
housing.
Councilman Hokr said that New Hope had some areas that fit the HUD
criteria better than the property under consideration.
Mr. Jim Sommers, 6136 Gettysburg Avenue North, asked whether HUD would
approve 236 housing so close to County Road #18, which is built fo
freeway standards.
Discussion was held relative to the Village of New Hope setting up a
housing authority and how th s cou d be accomp ished. It was noted
that R~bbinsdale, St. Louis Park, Columbia Heights and Hopkins have
housing authorities. Mayor Erickson said this is something the
Village should look into.
~ncl Iman Bosacker again said that he was greatly concerned that the
Vi liege does not miss an oPpo~tUn ty to express concern for a vel id
need for housing for !~ and ~derate inc~ families. He said he
thought it was Mark Z; J~neS! problem as to what use could be made of
the reques~d CoUncil resOlut on, He als° said h® had doubts that
the PrOPosed Pr°jec~ wouid get HUD f~nding because of the lack of
amenities.
Councilman Bosacker then moved for the adoption of the resolution
entitled: "RESOLUTION CONCERNING H~SING IN THE VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE".
Council Minutes
12 - March 13, 1972
Councilman Plufka seconded the motion and spoke against the adoption.
He said the Council had been told by the HUD representative that the
resolution would not do the developer any good and that, in order to
bring this matter to a head and find out the citizensI reactions to
It, Mark Z. Jones Ccmpany should proceed w th a request for rezontng
and a public hearing on same. Counc man P ufka sa d that the resolu-
tion f~ils in that it deals with a specific piece of property and the
only way this piece could be dealt with would be through the public
hearing-rezoning procedure.
Mayor Er ckson asked Mr, Godin what use could be made of the resolu-
tion if it were passed after hearing the comments of the HUD repre-
sentative.
Mr. Godln with the
statement. Mr. Godin
business and it
doe~ belong Z, Jones ( does
feel He noted
thal ~g Corn-
and capricious and
~e said the Vi age has obviated the zoning and in so doing there
ad been an econo'mic hardship worked on th~ owner of the property
and th s had not been given ~onsideration. He noted that Ma~k Z.
Jones had c°me along with an alternative which was much "softer"
by anybody's standards and less of a nuisance. Mr. Godin said it
make any difference who owned the land, Standard Oil or "a ittle
old lady". He added that at this po nt the requested resolution did
him no mood and he thought his f r~ would have to drop the proposal
for this housing and they wou d not be back ~o reques, the ~ez~nlng
as suggested by Councilm~n Plufka. What happeded from this point on
would be out of Mark Z. Jones' control since they would drop the
optlon. He noted that he had put nine months of effor, in,o the pro-
p~sed project and that it had ~een one of his pet projects and some-
thing they really wanted to do as a test since they had been tn a
different market. He further commented that he thought this was the
last 236 program his company would try because the hurdles are insur-
mountable. He noted that the New Hope Land Use Committee had recom-
mended in favor of multiples on the site. He said he thought the
Council was making a grave mistake from the standpoint of land use as
Council Mlnu,es
- 13-
March 13, 1972
well as ,he Opportunity ,o provide ,his type of housing.
Counci ~ed ~he
Is a quirk~
have
rig.
purpose.
to take away
and
with I~
Id be
~ouncll could
lit would be
that
Mr.
portation to the ~
,hat
for the
in favor of
want to
~ans-
housing.
as g 236 federal
Vote was then taken on the mo, ion:
Voting in favor: Bosacker.
Voting against: Erickson, Hokr. Johnson. Plufka.
Motion defea,ed.
The CounCil then ,hanked Hr. Glaser for coming to the mee, lng ~o
explain the program and answe~ qbestiohs.
Council Minutes
- 14 - March 13, 972
Planning Case No. 72-3, request from Green Giant Company for waiver of
platting ordinance to permit the division of the Green Giant property
at 5620 Winnetka Avenue No~th into two separate parcels, was discussee.
Mr. Melyn Synder, Attorney representing the Green Giant Company, was
at the meeting to explain the request. Mr. Synder said that in March
of 1971 the Green Giant Company had sold the property to ;irst National
Bank of Minneapolis, as Trustee under Trust Agreement and Declaration
of Trust dated March 9, 1971 for Rural Security Life Insurance Company.
Then the Green G ant Company leased back the portion of that property
on which the Garden Center is now located together with the 50 foot
strip which was to be retained for access to the residue parcel at
the southeast corner of the tract.
The Village Manager said that the Planning Commission had expressed
concern with holding the 50 foot access from Winnetka to the undeveloped
parcel since access would not be from Sumter Avenue.
The Village Attorney noted that the easement aver the 50 feet was a
private easement, not runn ng to the V t age, and by their own actlon
they could release the easement. The Villag~ Attorney also said he
did not think the Village wanted the easement for a public alleyway
either.
Mr, Melvn Snyder said that as a practical matter, they would not want
to use the fifty feet for any.thing other than an easement. He said that
if the petitioner gave the Village its right of access onto Sumter
then they would have to keep the easement for access to the undevelope¢
parcel.
Discussion held as to the possibility of including the fifty foot
strip with the new parcel it is intended to serve. Mr. Snyder said
Green Giant would be opposed to this because they do not own the
strip, they simply lea~ it.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Johnson, approving
the division of the property for Green Giant Company as requested
under Planning Case 72-3, conditioned upon conveyance of the right of
access to Sumter Avenue and subject to the approval of the Village
Atterney.
Voting in favor:
Voting against~
Motion carried.
Bosacker, ErickSon, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Planning Case Ne, 72~5, request from Shell Oil Company for a special
use per,nit to allow a ear wash at ~he ~hell Station at 5600 Winnetka
Avenue North, was discussed, The Vi!llage Manager said it is planned
at this time to construct a s~orag~ room to the rear of the station
and place an overhead d~r in ~he third bay which will then be used
for a car wash. Cars would enter the washing bay from the rear of
the station and exit to the front so that cars will not stack to the
front.
Counci Minutes - 15 - March 13, 1972
Discussion held as to screening for this station. The Village Manager
noted that screening was not necessary since the station did not abut
residentia property~ He said the available parking exceeds the code
requirements and that the petitioner had indicated to the Planning
Commission willingness to landscape the rear portion of the site.
The balance of the property between the roadway to the rear of the
station an0 the north property line would be landscaped.
Councilman Hokr inquired as to whether the Village had obtained an
additional seven feet along the Winnetka side of the Shell Station site.
Engineer Rosene commented that it was proposed to improve Winnetka
Avenue without obtaining additional right-of-way. The Village Manager
is to check whether we do have the additiona seven feet from the Shell
Station, Councilman Plufka said the giving of the seven feet would
result in the 10ss of one parking space.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, secon~ by Councilman Hokr, granting a
special use permit for car wash at the Shell Station, 5600 W nnetka
A~enue North, approving the s te plan and authorizing issuance of
building permit for the storage to the rear and installation of the
overhea~ ~oor, as shown on Exhibit B, dated March 13, 1972, subject to
the giving of the additional seven feet along Winnetka Avenue, if
needed, furnishing of a performance bond in the amount of $1,300, land-
scap ng to the rear of the station and to the staff report dated
March 7, 1972 and approval of the Village Engineer and Fire Marshal.
(Planning Case No. 72-5).
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Planning Case No. 72-7, request from Vern Donnay Realty for variance
in side yard setback to permit construct on of a house w th an at-
tached g~rage On Lot 7, ~ ock 2, West Oak Terrace with the
garage side of the house to come within three feet of the south
property tine, was discussed. The certificate of survey show ng the
pro~ose~ location of the structure upon the lot was reviewed. The
house is to face Ensign Avenue and a twenty foot setback is required
on the Ensign Circle side, which s to the north ne. The Vi age
Manager said that the staff recommended that the house instead be
move~ to the north two feet thus maintaining the five foot setback
requirement on the south line. The two foot variance would then be
needed on the side street setback requirement. The petitioner has in-
dicated that he is agreeable to this change and the Planning Com-
mission recommended in favor of granting the variance for the Ensign
Circle side of the lot.
Motion ~y Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman 8osacker, to grant a
two foot variance on the north property side of Lot 7, Block 2, West
Oak Terrace, 2704 Ensign Avenue North, Planning Case No. 72-7 in
accordance with the recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Council Minutes
- 16-
March 13, 1972
Voting in favor~
Voting against:
Motion carried°
Bosacker, Erickson, Mokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Planning Case Mo. 72-9, request for special use permit for rental of
utility trailers and trucks from the Skellv Oil Company Station at
3535 Winnetka Avenue Morth, was discussed. Mr. Jack Mancini, Safe
Enterprises, Inc., a su0sidiary of U-Haul, was at the meeting. The
Village Manager noted that the ordinance relating to this matter
stipulates that three trucks may be stored but does not stipulate
the number of trailers wh ch might be stored. The Village Manager
stated that there was enough parking to meet code requir~ments~
Discussion was held as to why fencing had not been required at this
site. The Village Manager said fencing between the station and the
residential property was not requi ~ed because of the grade differential.
A rock retaining wall was installed instead.
The Village Manager noted that the special use permit would reouire
the str ping of the parking spaces and the grade differential pre-
cludes the backing of the trailers onto the adjoining property.
was noted that the rock wall belongs to the apartment site.
Discussion held as to feasibility of requiring concrete stops so
that trailers would not be backed into the rock wall. Mayor Erickson
noted that any damage to the rock wall would be a matter between the
two property owners.
Councilman Plufka inquired as to whether the deficiencies found at
the station during nspection had been corrected. The Village Manager
said these had been substantially corrected.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Bosacker, approv-
ing the issuance of a specia use permit to allow the rental of three
trucks and four trailer~ from the ~kelly Oil Company Station site
located at 3535 Winnetka Avenue North with permit to be conditioned
on arrangement as shC~n on Exhibit B attached to staff report.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka,
None.
P!ianning Case No. 72-10, request from Mr. William Corrick for waiver
of platting etd nance to permit the div sion of h s property at 3300
Flag Aven~e in~o four ?ra~] Was diSCussed, Mr. Corrl~k said the
proposed division was in accordance with the overall plan for the area
and that no variances were needed. He sa d he had discussed with the
Village Engineer the reqoir~et for a bond or cash escrow to guarantee
comple?ion of driveway approaches and boulevards. The cash escrow
would be required prior to th~]issuance of a building permit for a
Council Minutes
- 17 - March 13, 1972
specific lot. Mr. Corrick said he would be agreeable to furnishing
cash escrow. Mr, Corrick al~O said a five foot drainage easement would
be given over the most northeri~ fi~e feet of the property. Mr. Corrick
requested that four resolutions be passed, one covering each ot,
since the ai~isio, of the properf~ ~OUid be aCcomPliShed as lots were
sold.
~ouncilman P ufka ntroduced the fo tow ng reso ut on and moved its
doption subject to granting a five foot dra nage easement over the
most northerly five feet: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF PLATTING
REGULATION WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA, PRESENT PLAT
62219, PARCEL 2015 (FOR WILLIAM CORRICK) (LOT D)", The mot an for
the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Counc mman
Hokr an~ upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka; and the following
voted against the same: None; whereupon the resolution was declared
duly passed and a~opted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by
the Village Clerk T~easurer. (Page Extract Book).
Councilman Plufka introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: ~'RESOLUT ON AUTHOR ZInG WAIVER OF PLATTING REGULAT ON
WITHIN THE V LLAGE OF NEW HOPE, M NNESOTA, PRESENT PLAT 622 9, PARCEL
2015 (FOR WILLIAM CORRICK) (LOT A)~, The mot on for the adopt on of
the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilman Hokr and upon
vote being taken thereon, the ~ollowing voted in favor thereof:
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka; and the following voted
against the same: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the
Village Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book).
Councilman Plufka then introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF PLATTING REGULATION
WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA, PRESENT PLAT 62219, PARCEL
2015 (FOR WILLIAM CORRICK) (LOT B)." The motion for the adoption of
the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilman Hokr and uoon
vote being taken thereon, the fo owing v?ted in favor thereof
Bosacker, Ericks~n, Hokr~ Johnson, P ufka; and the fo lowing voted
against the same. None; wher~upo~ the resolution was dec ared du y
passed and adopted and was signed by the l~ayor and attested by the
Village Clerk-Treasurer, (Page . Extract Book).
Councilman Plufka introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZ NG WAIVER OF PLATTING REGULATON
WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA, PRESENT PLAT 62219,
PARCEL 2015 (FOR WILLIAM CORRICK) (LOT C)~'. The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilman Hokr
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka; and the follow-
ing voted against the same: None; whereupon the resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and
attested by the Village Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book).
Ceuncil Minutes
18 - March 13, 1972
I0.
II.
12.
Escrow for boulevard improvements was set at $125.00 per lot.
Planning Case No. 71-67, request for a variance in height require-
ments for industria structures at 4630 Quebec Avenue North, was
discussed. The Village Manager advised that Reo Plastics said they
were going to look at alternatives to the proposed structures and if
an alternative were found a variance would no longer be needed. Mr.
Amyx noted that the Planning Commission had denied the request at its
meeting of March 7, 1972.
Motion by Councilman Hokr~ second Dy Councilman P ufka~ to deny the
request for variance in h~ighf limitation for industrial building at
4630 Quebec Avenue North, Reo Plastics. (Planning Case No. 71-67)o
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson,
None.
Hokr, Johnson, Ptufka.
The Village Manager presented the bid Tabulation for janitorial
services at the Village Hal , bids having been opened on March 13,
1972 by the Village Manager and the Village Clerk-Treasurer. The
Villag~ Manager recOmmended that the bids be held for the meeting of
March 27, 1972 to provide time for staff investigation·
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, to table
the bids for janitorial services for the Village Hall until the
meeting of March 27, 1972.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
~otion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
Motion by Counci Iman Plufka, second by Counc man Hokr, accept ng
Rece pt for Subst tuted Co atera n connection w~th Pledge No.
401 and Pledge No. 1743 with First Robbinsdale State Bank in the
amounts of $200,000 each.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Co~nc:i!man Hokr introduced ~he lQ!lowing resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLU~!ON [STABE!SH!NG SPEC!AL POLICE DEPARTMENT FUND FOR
STATE MONIES". The mot~oo for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was seconded by Cou9c[Iman Johnson and upon vote being taken ?hereon,
the roi lowing voted in favor ~hereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Mokr,
Johnson, Plufka~ and the following voted against the same: None; where-
upon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed
by ~he Mayor and attested by the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
( Page Extrac~ B~k).
Council Hinutes
-19-
March 13, 1972
13.
14.
15.
OFF I CERS , COMMI SS IONS AND COMMITTEES
The Village Manager said that the Environmental Commission had
recommended that Mrs, Joan COngdOn~ 3949 Wisconsin Avenue North and
Dr. Melvin E. DavisOn~ 4109 Flag Avenue North, be appointed to the
Commission.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by C~uncilman Bosacker, appointing
Mrs. JOan Congdon and Dr. Heilvin E. Da~isOn to the Environmental Com-
mission.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Village Manage? said ~ha~ the action suggested on the agenda for
the corre&~iOn iOf a street easement was not needed.
Discussion held regarding proposed mprovement of 56th Avenue running
west from Wisconsin AVenue~ The Village Manager stated that if the
CoUncil wan~ed to CO,sider making ~his improvement, a public hear ng
shOUld be schedUled~ The On Proposed Street
Improvement NO. 260, dated AUgust I0, 1970 was rev ewed by the Counc I
.an~ diScUSsion was held °n th~ apPraisal report relating to th s
imp rovement.
Discusston was held as to woFk ng out the p~oposed improvement with
the abutting Pr°Per~Y owner. It was noted that Mr. Digatono had not
been contacted for approximately 1½ years.
Motion by Counci Iman Hokr, second by Counci Iman Bosacker, to instruct
the Vi I lage Attorney tO ne~iate with the property owner with, the
thought in mind o~ giving consideration t° the property owner s
wiSh~s and to ge~ing th~ pr°~ec~ Under Way.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, ErickSOn, Hokr,
None.
Johnson, Plufka.
Motion by CoUncilman Bosacker, seCond by Councilman Pl ufka, to estab-
lish the public hearing for Proposed Street ImprOvement No. 260, to
be scheduled no later ~han APril 24, 1972.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Council Minutes
- 20 - March 13, 1972
16.
17.
The Vi Itage Engineer presented a preliminary report on Proposed Street
Improvement NO. 268, Th is @roj~ct covers the upgrading of Winnetka
Avenue ~rom the Bass Lake Road to 62nd Avenue and cons sts of base
re~S~ruCti°n, wid~ni~g~ PlaCement Of COncrete curb and gutter and
surfacing for a 9 ton capacity, s~ate Aid road. The Village Engineer
stated the PrOject as it relates to engineering aspects
and is in accordance with the Village of New Hope State Aid Street
Program.
It is proposed that this section of Winnetka Avenue be widened to 44
feet. Some storm sewer will be required.
The total estimated coat of the project was given at $246,000, The
City of Crysta abuts on 1,345 f~et along one side and Crystal's share
would be 17,5% or approximately $~3,000. Crystal has indicated that
they wilt participa~ in the project.
Proposed assessments were given as follows:
Single family
Multiple family
Commercial
$ 8.00 per front foot
$ll.85 per front foot
$12.40 per front foot
It is anticipated that $57,073.50 would be gained through assessments,
Discussion held regarding availability of State Aid Funds.
Motio~ ~y Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, to accept
the preliminary report and that State Funds be re-evaluated prior to
public hearing on Proposed Improvement No. 268.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Discussio~ he d regarding engineering report on pr vate driveways
which have been adversely affected by th~ overla~ment on Boone Avenue
road surface. The Village Engineer recommended that approximate y 8
driveways need modifications in grade and that the work be done in
conjunction with the t972 seal coat project. The Village Engineer
said the problem o~ ginated with the manner in which the developers
origina t~ graded the boulevard. A* that time sidewalk had not been
contemplated on Boone Avenue. The installation of sidewalk then re-
sulted in driveway grade problems. The Eng neer sa d there were four
driveways with ~'h~avy~' problems and four driveways with moderate
problems. The Engineer estimated that the cost would be about $700
per driveway.
The Village Engineer noted that the driveway corrections could be
done under the Hardrives contract Or by Village personnel.
Council MinUtes
- 21 March 13, 1972
18.
19.
It was noted that a staff report was needed covering the cost of doing
the work with Village employees.
The Village Manage~ was asked to turn sh the Council with the addresses
of the problem driveways, The matter is to be placed on the next
agenda.
Discussion
ordinance.
liability
feasible.
held regardiog proposee revision to the dangerous animal
The Village Manager advised that the recommendation for
insurance coverage for owners of dangerous animals was not
He said such insurance was ~ot available.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Mayor Erickso~, that the portion
of the amendment to the dangerous animal ordinance requiring liability
insurance be deleted.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr,
None.
Johnson, Olufka.
Discussion held regarding determination by the Village of the qualifi-
cations of persons keeping dangerous animals.
The Village Hanager said that this would be handled with the licensing
as an administrative matter. Questions relating to the qualifications
of the handler would be on the form and the information could then be
forwardea to the Council. I~ is thought that this could be done with-
out a change to the ordinance.
Councilman Plufka then commented that since dangerous animals could
not be covered under liability insurance perhaps they should be out-
lawed in New Hope.
Status report was given on the~prop9sed traffic improvements at 42nd
Avenue and Xylon AveDue, The Vi~l!lage Manager said that he and the
Village Engineer had me~ with K-Mart]aDdiHennepin County representa-
tives o~ several occasions. The V!itlage Engineer then summarized
the discussions.
Enginner Rosene said ~he County i5 in the process of preparing plans
and specifications fO~ the ~ide~i~g of County Road #9 on the north
side. K-Mart intends to conStruct th s wholly at ~heir cost. The
County is also coming ~P with pians ~or a signal at the intersection
of Xylon and County Road ~9. K~Mart had indicated a willingness to
share in the cost but have not indicated a willingness to pay the
total cost. Engineer Rosene said he thought it would be appropriate
for K,Mart to pay the total cost. This is not settled from that
s~andpoi nt.
Council Minutes
- 22 - March t3, 1972
20.
Engineer Rosene said the County feels it wilt eventually be necessary
to widen County Road No 9 on the south side and to allow a left turn
lane and a median island in ~hi~ intersection for eventual future
traffic. K~Mart does not feel that ~hey should be obligated to share
in the cost.
Engineer Rosene said he had made the initial approaches to the cemetery
to see what Problems there might be n acquiring additional right-of-
way, The County will be coming up with cost estimates on the widening
to the sOUth.
Whether the widen ng to the south side of the road will be done, de-
pends on the future ~affic VOlume and how much through traffic there
is,
Discussion held as to whether the additiona widening to the south
will be necessary and who would pay the construction costs.
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion held regarding the ice arena facility report. Mr. Floyd
Touminen, NHA~, asked the Council for formal acceptance of the ice
arena report which had been presented on February 28, 1972. He also
said he would like to state the objectives at this time.
Mr, Touminep said the non-profit organization would fund the con-
struction of the arena. The Village would enter into a lease with
the non-profit corporation to operate the arena. When all the
funding is paid the facility ownership would automatically revert to
the Village of New Hope. With this concept set forth we believe the
burden of pay~nt of the arena is put on the users and not the public.
With today's tax burden on all come, unities we feel through this ap-
proach the citizens of New Hope will have a recreational facility we
can be proud of and not burden the citizens who do not want to use
the facility.
Mr. Touminen said the ice arena committee had approached School
District #28! for a]po5~ib!e !and si~e and if the Village does con-
sider th is approach ice arena he suggested that the Vi I lage
approach School District #281 ~Or a possible building site·
Mr. Touminen said he would like to have the staff report on the pro-
posed ice arena available for Co~n¢ii consideration at the meeting of
March 27, 1972.
Motion by Councilman Flokr, second by Councilman Plufka, that the ice
arena report be accepted.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Council Minutes
- 23 -
March 13, 1972
21.
22.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, that the
report from the ice arena committee be referred to the staff for study
and that they immed ate y make contact with School District ~28t to
discuss the feasibility of acquiring the site in question and that
they be prepared, if possible, to bring back at least a preliminary
report on March 27th with the idea of taking final action at the first
meeting in April.
Discussion hula as to time tab e and site work that might be necessary.
Mr. Touminen indicatad that the committee had done some preliminary
site work and they were on a tight time schedule. He said core
samples were available and the site looked better than originally
thought.
Further discussior he ~ as to financing and operation of such a
facility.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried~
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr,
None.
Johnson, Plufka.
The Mayor thanked the ice committee for the work put into the ice
arena report and pointed out that a public information meeting should
be scheduled. This meeting to be scheduled later.
Mr. John Angel, Secretary of Firemen's Relief Association, appeared
before the Counci regarding approval of the revised by-laws for said
Association.
The Village Manager noted that the revisions were written along the
guidelines of the legislation passed last session and incorporates
the new pension benefits.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Johnson, rati-
fying the revised by-laws for the Firemen's Relief Association.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker, as
follows:
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED that the Villag~ Council of the Village of New Hope,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby accepts the proposal of NORTHERN
STATES POWER COf~PANy, a Minnesota corporation, to furnish street
lighting service with all lights located or to be located in said
Village, and hereby a~proves all rates, terms, conditions, and
specifications in the Street Lighting Contract made a part of the
Council Minutes
- 24 - March 13, 1972
23.
24.
25.
26.
proposal of said Company and the proper officers of the Village are
hereby authorized and directed to execute the aforesaid Contract
for and in the name of the Village, and to affix the corporate seal
thereto.
Voting in favor: Bosacker,
Voting aga nst: None.
Motion carried.
Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Councilman Plufka said that he would like to see the staff study the
placement of mid-block street lights.
Councilman Hokr asked that the staf~ I o ok into placement of a light
at 36½ Avenue and Northwood Parkway.
Councilman Plufka asked that the staff also consider placement of a
light on Boone Circle, north of the Bass Lake Road.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Hokr, to issue
business licenses as shown on attached list and subject to approval
of staff as indicated thereon.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilma~ Bosacker, approv-
ing payment of the following relief orders:
#1686 Country Club $ 8.14
#1687 Crema's Conoco 5.00
#/691 Food Stamps 44.00
~1692 Country Club 8.14
#1693 Crema's Conoco 5.00
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second Dy Counc Iman Hokr, approving
Fire Department payroll for the month of February in the a~ount of
$1,764 as shwon on records on file in the Village office.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Ptufka.
None.
Moti(~n by Counci Iman PlUfka, second by Mayor Erickson, approving pay-
19234 in the amount of
· 6'587.50, dated +h~0 ~ch 13; 197 shown records on fi le
in the office of the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
Council Minutes
- 25 - March 13, 1972
Ke
2g.
L.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
COF~IENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Mr. John Angel called the Council's attention to a drainage problem
at 47th and Independence. The Village Engineer said he would have
his office look into the matter.
M I SCELLANEOU S
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, to authorize
the staff to proceed with a lease agreement to lease exterior property
at the Meadow Lake School site as park property and generally ind ce-
ting tha? we will look toward a three y~ar program*to fully place equipment
in this area.
During discussion it was decided that the PTA at that school could be
approached next year for participation in this project.
Voting in favor: Bosacker,
Votin~ against. None.
Motion carried.
Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Discussion held regarding realignment of th~ Council table.
ADJOURNMENT
Motlo~ by Councilman Bosacker, second by Hayor Erickson, and carried,
to adjourn the meeting at I0:~1 p.m. un~il ~arch 27, 972, at 7:00
p.m. or unti the ca[~ of the chair.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty P/ouliot
Village Clerk-Treasurer
Planning-Commission I March 7, 1972
Minutes
A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the
Village Hall, 4401XYlon AVenUe North, in said Village on Tuesday,
March 7, 1972 at 7:30
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund.
2. Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: Ostlund~ Sueker, Meyer, Ohman, Barniskis, Oswald.
Absent: Oster and Cameron.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Plannin~ Case No. 72~3 (Request for Waiver of Platting Ordinance).
Sii~e]'~ sum~e~ Aven~e and BaSs Lake Road - Green Giant Home and
Garden Centers, lnc,, petitioner. Mr. Melyn Synder, representing
Green Giant, stated that his company proposes to include 50 foot
ease~t in division to p!a~545 so that access al lowed to plat
~550 from Winnetka. It was noted that division of property re-
quired by Hennepin CoUnt¥1Assessor's Office. Commissioner Sueker
recommended approval wi~hrestrictive covenants toprotect 50 foot
easement to proposed plat 4550. Motion second by Barniskis.
Motion carried.
Planning Case No. 72~5 (ReqUest for Special Use Permit for Car Wash).
56"O~"~i~ne~l~ A~nue ~h ~ Shel I Oi I Company, petitioner. Mr.
Stan Johnson representing She/I Oi I requested drive through car wash
and storage addition~ Discussion held as to required parking and
entering proposed wash bay front or rear. Mr. Johnson proposed high
lighted driveway to rear of station with shrubery. Commissioner
Barniskis made a motion to approve proposed site plan. Motion
second by Commissioner Ohman and the motion was carried.
Plpnnin.q Case No. ?2-6 (Request for Variances in Height, Size and
N~er ~f signs fO~ K~Mar~)~ 4~0 Xylon Avenue No~th -Leroy Signs,
Inc,, petitioner. Mr, Dennis Steigerwald represented Developers
Diversfied and Mr. Frank Freeze represented LarDy Sign Coff~oany.
They were requesting 52 foot iden~! fi cation sign, 282 square foot
sign area per side. Also available 35 foot sign which has 177 square
foot area per side.
Discussion as to height, size and rotating of pylon signs. Donald
Sauer from New Hope Shopping Center expressed no objection to K-Mart
pylon. Mr. Ostlund and C~issioner Meyer expressed the opinion
that they would not propose any variance from the ordinance as the
new proposed ordinance refers to pylon signs. Mr. Sueker pointed
out that there are no obstructions to the view of this sign.
Mr. Oswald stated that he approved of the 35 foot pylon sign because
of the size of the building.
Planning Commission - 2 - March 7, 1972
Mi n utes
Mr. Steige~wald, petitioner, asked that all signs be discussed at
this time.
Commissioner Sueker computed that 10% of the total front face In-
cluding mansard roof would not be excessive in comparison to the
size of the building.
At the request of the petitioner, Ohman moved that this case be
tabled until March 21, 1972 Commission meeting. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Cameron and carried.
Planning Case No. 72-7 (Request for Variance in Side Yard Setback).
7300 36th Agenue NOrth - Vern Donnay Realty, petitioner. Mr. Frank
Liptak represented Vern Donnay Realty and requested setback variance
for proposed home site of three feet instead of required five feet.
Discussion as to suggestion of staff report to approved variance
on the north property line from 20 feet to 18 feet rather than
petitioner's request. Commissioner Barniskis noted that he approved
of any request if home be moved in a northeasterly direction so
variance would be 2 feet on 20 feet side yard setback. Commissioner
Oswald moved to carry this motion and Ohman second it. Motion
carried.
Planni~ Case No. 7208 (Request for Special Use Permit for Rental
of Utility Trailers and Trucks). 7901 Bass Lake Road, Texaco Oil
Company - Ralph Zachman, petitioner. It was explained that there
was no site plan available on this case. Commissioner Ohman moved
that this be tabled until the March 21, 1972 Planning Commission
meeting. This was seconded by Commissioner Sueker and the motion
was carried.
planninq Case No. 72-9 (Request for Special Use Permit for Rental
of Utility Trailers and TruCks). 3535 Winnetka Avenue North, Skelly
Oil Company - Jerry Cameron~ petitioner. Mr. Jack Francini
represented Safety Enterprises which has a subsidiary called E-Z
Haul. His purpose in coming to the meeting was to get the approval
for the placement of trailers (utility) and trucks at the Skelly
Oil site. The Village Manager stated that the staff saw no reason
for the 6 foot screening fence, Commissioner Barniskis moved that
the special use permit be granted and that it include a provision
of limiting the station to employing three trucks and four trailers
(utility). Commissioner Meyer seconded this amendment. Motion
carried.
Plannin9 Case No. 72-10 (Request for Waiver of Platting Ordinance to
create Three Lots Adjacent to Homestead). Vicinity 3300 Flag Avenue
North - William Corrick, petitioner. Mr. Corrick stated that he is
requesting 5 foot easement on the north property line of the north
parcel. Mr. Watson , 3304 Flag Avenue No., indicated that he feels
such an easement is necessary. Commissioner Sueker recommended that
the Commission recommend this to the Village Council to approve four
separate lots. Second by Oswald and the motion was carried.
Planning Commission - 3 - March 7, 1972
Minutes
t0.
II.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Planntng Case No. 71~67 (Request for Var ance n He ght Limitation
for 4~30 Quebec Avenue North (~ntinued from
December 7, 1971 meeting). Mr. Meyer moved to deny this case and
Mr. Cameron seconded it, Motion carried.
Discussion of selection of Planning Commission members. It was
decided that article would be placed in newspaper noting there are
two openings at the present time on the Planning Commission.
Codes and Standards Committee Report - no report.
Land Use committee - no report.
Council Minutes of February 28, 1972 were reviewed.
Motion to approve Planning Commission minutes of February 15, 1972
meeting by Ohman and second by MeYer. Motion carried.
A~nouncements - Discussion as to problems with Winnetka Avenue
sidewalk (west side) between 40th and 42nd Avenues as to snow
removal.
Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p,m. Mr. Cameron moved
to adjourn and Commissioner Sueker second it. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Barb Palider
Recording Secretary
~AN
72 i&
~!~ AVE~U£ NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
DATE: April 18, 1972
CASE: 72-16
PETITIONER: Gordon C. Johnson
REQUEST: Variance to Front Yard Setback
LOCATION: 6133 Utah Avenue North
STAFF FINDINGS AND CO[~DIENTS:
The petitioner requests a variance of I0 feet from the minimum
front yard setback of 30 feet required by the Vi I lage Code for a
Single Famity Residence zoned lot at 6133 Utah Avenue North.
There are only six lots in the Allan Hills Second Addition
(see attached drawing), A variance has been allowed for a
similar setback on the lot directly across the cul-de-sac. The
house to the north will still be forward of this house if this
variance is allowed.
The proposed house has a nominal depth of 26 feet. Because
of the curve of the cul-de-sac this lot is only approximately
84 feet in depth and will require either a front yard or rear yard
setback variance.
With the proposed variance there will be ample depth to park
cars in front of the garage.
Council Minutes
- I April I0, 1972
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council
of the Village of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the Village Hall,
4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village, on Monday, April t0, 1972 at
7:00 p.m.
Ail persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Absent: Hokr.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Bosacker, to approve
the Council minutes of the meeting of March 27, 1972, with the following
correction:
Item 17, Page 17, Paragraph 9 should read "setting Monday, May 8, 1972
as the date for public hearing for proposed Improvement No, 266, the
dredging of Northwood Lake, and authorizing the Clerk to advertise for
Voting in favor:
Vo~ing against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Village Manager presented an affidavit showing publication in the
Newi Hope-Plymouth Post of the "Revised Notice for Public Hearing for
Storm Sewer and Lateral Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. 275", published
on March 23rd and 30th, 1972; which affidavit was examined, approved
and ordered placed on file in the office of the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
The Village Manager then presented an affidavit which evidenced mailed
notice to the owners of the property to be benefitted by the making of
the proposed Improvement No. 275; which affidavit was examined, approved
and ordered placed on file in the office of the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
Mr. Robert Rosene, Village Engineer, appeared before the Council to
explain the nature of the improvement; this being the installation of
storm sewer and lateral sanitary sewer, including manholes and other
appurtenant works and services reasonably required, to serve property
in the vicinity of 3240 Winnetka Avenue (Cheney Building-Blaine Carey
property). He gave the estimated cost of the improvement at $10,080,
with assessments estimated in accordance with the preliminary report
presented to the Council at its meeting of February 14, 1972. ($5,748
for the Cheney parcel and $4,332 for the parcel to the north of the
Cheney site).
All persons present who desired to do so were afforded the opportunity
to express their views as to the making of the proposed improvement.
Appearing were:
Council Minutes
- 2 - April I0, 1972
Mr. Lyle Cheney said that he did not understand the need for the storm
sewer installation since his property had natural drainage.
The Village Engineer advised Mr. Cheney that if a storm sewer was not
installed there would be a drainage problem caused for the adjacent
property. Presently there is just surface drainage and if the Village
does not put in a storm sewer there will be difficulties created for
the property to the east of the Cheney property.
Mrs. Lyte Cheney told the Council that they were much concerned with
the elevation of their building and were concerned that they would have
water problems in the building. She thought the building had been set
too Iow.
Mr. Blaine Carey, owner of the property to the north of the Cheney site,
said that water from his property would not flow into the proposed
storm sewer, but instead flows to the north.
The Village Engineer advised Mr. Carey that, when the Carey site is
developed, the site will drain into the proposed storm sewer.
Mr. Carey then said that plans for an office-warehouse are now being
drawn and that the drainage would go to the north and to Winnetka.
The Village Engineer stated that he would I o ok at both the properties
in question.
Mr. Carey stated that he was in favor of the sanitary sewer installation.
Mo~ion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, to adjourn the
public hearing until the meeting of April 24, 1972, at 7:30 p.m., so
that the Village Engineer might have the opportunity to review both sites.
Voting in favor: Bosacker,
Vo~ing against: None.
Absent: Hokr.
Motion carried.
Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Councilman Ptufka introduced Mr. Fred Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors serves
on the KTVA Committee and is also wi~h the Hennepin County Library
sysitem. Councilman Plufka stated that Mr. Neighbors had offered to
corae to the meeting and discuss the library system and answer any
questions the Council might have.
Mr. Neighbors outlined some of the services available to the public.
He also advised the Council that the Rockford Road Library should be
opening early in June. Included in this building is a 75 seat audi-
torium as well as conference rooms. Mr. Neighbors said that there is
a need to emphasize to the communities continuing adult educational
facilities available through the public library system.
Council Minutes
- 3 - April I0, 1972
The Council thanked Mr. Neighbors for appearing.
Planning Case No. 72-11, request from Anderson Oil Company for a special
use permit to allow the storage of trucks at the filling s,ation site at
7305 - 42nd Avenue North, was considered by the Council. The petitioner
was not represented at the meeting. It was noted that the Planning Com-
mission had recommended in favor of denial.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Plufka, to deny the
request for special use permit reqoested under Planning Case No. 72-11.
Dlscussion held as to ordinance requirements and upkeep of the site.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, that Planning
Case No. 72-11 be tabled until the meeting of May 8, 1972 and that the
staff prepare findings of fact in connection with this request for con-
sideration by the Council.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, ErickSon, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
Planning Casa No. 72-12, request from Knutson Companies, Inc., for a
waiver of platting to deed trackage easements in the Science Industry
Center to the Soo Line Railroad, was C°~idered by the Council.
Presently the Soo Line holds easementsion the trackage in question.
Mr. Ray Kirkman represented the Knutson Companies, Inc. He said the
easements for the trackage are perpetual and run exclusively to the
Soo Line, the easements ~mplicate the chain of title, and to give fee
title to the Soo Line would take care of this problem.
Discussion held relative to combining certain tracts of land within
the Science industry Center. It was thought that the 3.88 acre, 3.80
acre and the 5,43 acre tracts should he,me separate parcels with
divisions a~d combinations being e~e~ted so as to accomplish this.
The 1.72 acre tract is to be connected by an easement across the
trackage to the 7,65 acre parcel. (proposed parcels shown on map at-
,ached to Exhibit C, Case 72-12, dated April 4, 1972).
Engineer Rosene asked that the combination of the parcels and the
deeding of the trackage be handled throggh the platting procedure so
,hat simple legal descriptions resul~ and divisions of special assess-
merits can be handled in an intelligent manner.
Mr. Kirkman said that it would cost approximately $2,000 to do the plat-
ting as requested by the Village Engineer. Ne said that he had been
unable to locate any existing boundary surveys of the property. Engineer
Rosene noted that such information would be available through 'the County
as regards County Road 18 and the Bass Lake Road. Mr. Kirkman again ob-
jected to the platting of the property. Engineer Rosene suggested that
the 34 acre tract might be left as an outlot at this time.
Council Minutes 4 April I0, 1972
Further discussion held.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Plufka, approving
waiver of the platting ordinance so that trackage may be deeded to the
Soo Line Railroad as requested under Planning Case No. 72-12, subject
to residue lots of 3.88, 3.80 and 3.53 acres being created as separate
parcels and that the 1.72 acre tract be joined to the 7.65 acre tract
by roadway or easement across the tracts, that the petitioner present
a map drawn to scale and acceptable to the Village Engineer, and such
waiver further conditioned upon staff approval.
Discussion held with the Village Attorney noting that platting of the
p~pe~ty would help from an administrative standpoint. He also
questioned whether waiver of the platting ordinance could properly be
used in this manner.
Vote was then taken on the question.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
Discussion held regarding the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to
provide for an animal hospital use as a special use under the Limited
BuSiness zoning classification. The Village Manager noted that public
hearing on the proposed amendment had been held by the Planning Com-
mission on MarCh 21st and April 4th, 1972. Following the public hear-
ing, the Planning Commission recommended in favor of amending the
Zoning Code,
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Plufka, that the
matter be referred to the staff and the Village Attorney for prepara-
tion of an ordinance to include an animal hospital use as a special
use under the Limited Business zoning classification, with considera-
tion by the Council at an early meeting.
Discussion held with the Council agreeing that outside runs should be
excluded. Noise control in connection with animal hospitals was also
discussed. Councilman Plufka said that the noise control criteria
established for apartment buildings should also be reasonable for
animal hospital control.
Councilman Johnson questioned whether noise controls written into the
Code would be enforceable after the State Code is in effect.
Further discussion held with Councilman Bosacker stating that his
motion had just asked that an ordinance be drawn as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Vote was then taken on the motion.
Counci I Minutes
-5- April I0, 1972
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
It was noted that the staff could still comment as to construction
standards for animal hospitals.
PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
A request was received from Mr, James Bartlett for the release of
escrow in the amount of $350 deposited by Richard and Barbara Linn to
guarantee completion of boulevard improvements in Bartlett's Addition.
The Village Engineer recommended in favor of releasing the escrow.
Motion by Councilman 8osacker, second by Councilman Johnson, authoriz-
ing release of passbook held in connection with Bartlett's Addition.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Nokr.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Mr, Tom Oas, New Hope Sanitarian, appeared before the Council to dis-
cuss the proposed public swimming pool code. He said there are about
22 public pools in New Hope and he has noted problems with clarity and
adequate chlorine levels, unsafe gates and fences and lack of good
safety equipment. He said that the present code on swimming pools is
inadequate to handle these problems. Mr. Oas stated that the State
Swimming Pool Code was passed in August of 1971 but the local official
does not have the authority to enforce it and the State does not have
the personnel to get around to check these pools.
Mr. Oas suggested that the State Code be adopted by reference with
amendments as necessary.
The Village Manager advised the Council that Mr. Oas had been conduct-
ing an educational program as regards the public pool operations in
New Hope.
Mr. Oas advised the Council that the proposed code does not cover the
private backyard swimming pool.
The staff was directed to prepare the proposed swimming pool ordinance
for action by the Council.
Discussion was held regarding revision of the animal control ordinance.
Revisions are proposed so that the New Hope and Crystal ordinances will
be compatible and workable under the joint animal control program.
Council Minutes
- 6 - April I0, 1972
I0.
A copy of the proposed dog ordinance was distributed to the Council for
study. The Village Manager noted that the same type of ordinance is
being considered by the City of Crystal. The joint program will start
the first of next month.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker,
consideration of the proposed animal control ordinance until
lng of April 24, 1972.
to table
the meet-
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson,
None.
Hokr.
Plufka.
Councilman Johnson introduced the following resolution and m~ved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO REDUCE SPEED
LIMIT IN THE VICINITY OF SUNNY HOLLOW SCHOOL AND PLACE PROPER SIGNS
THEREFORE". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was seconded by Councilman Bosacker and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson,
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 Village Clerk-Treasurer.
(Page Extract Book).
The Village Engineer told the Council that Medicine Lake Road was
scheduled for upgrading to a four lane highway in 1975. Coun!cilman
Plufka questioned whether the County has the proper priority estab-
lished for that road.
OFFICERS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
None,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
The Village Engineer presented a preliminary report for proposed 62nd
Avenue Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 272, dated March 27, 1972.
This project provides for sidewalk on 62nd Avenue from Winnetka
Avenue west to Gettysburg Avenue in the Village of New Hope. The
Engineer stated that the project was feasible and in accordance with
the Village sidewalk planning.
The Village of Brooklyn Park was contacted in regard to possi~ble cost
sharing since students from both Villages would be utilizing this side-
walk in going to and from Meadow Lake Elementary School. The Village
Engineer advised that this proposal was turned down by Brookl!yn Park as
presently they are only placing sidewalk on State Aid streets.
Council Minutes
- 7 - April I0, 1972
The Village Engineer gave the estimated cost of the project at $45,860;
$42,000 for the sidewalk and $3,860 for storm sewer needed in connection
with the sidewalk installation. The Village Engineer noted that there
are 3,937 lineal feet of assessable property resulting in a cost of
$11.60 per assessable foot.
Assessments against the residential property were proposed at $1.00
per front foot with the school property being assessed $tl.60 and the
Village to pay the remainder of the cost out of General Fund. It is
estimated that the General Fund share would be $35,180.
The Village Engineer recommended that inasmuch as the Village of
Brooklyn Park was not willing to participate in the cost, the School
District be approached in an attempt to obtain a greater share than
that indicated°
Discussion held as to the proposed location for the sidewalk and
whether further street upgrading would be needed. The Village Engineer
said that curb and gutter would be needed at a later date and storm
sewer would be necessary.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Johnson, that the
matter be tabled until the second meeting in May at which time con-
sideration wilt be given as to whether or not to go to a public hear-
ing.
Voting n favor~
Voting against:
Absent~
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
Motion by Councilmen Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, to issue
business licenses as set forth on attached schedule with the exception
of the garbage and rubbish haulers' license, subject to approval of
appropriate staff members.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Mayor Erickson, to amend the
motion so as to include the issuance of the garbage and rubbish haulers'
license to Blueboy Service.
Voiting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Hokr.
Amendment carried.
Vote was then taken on the motion as amended.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erlckson, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Absent: Hokr.
Motion carried.
Council Minutes - 8 - April I0, 1972
12.
13.
14.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Bosacker, to approve
payn~snt of the following relief orders:
#1695 Crema's Conoco $ 5.00
#1696A Penny's Market 15.34
#16968 Crema's Conoco 5.00
#1699 Country Club Market 8.14
#1700 Crema's Conoco 5.00
#1703 Crema's Conoco 2.00
#1704 Crema's Conoco 5.00
#1705 Malone Funeral Home 250.00
#1706 Country Club Market t0.00
Voting in favor: Bosacker,
Voting against: None.
Absent: Hokr.
M~tion carried.
Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Motion by Councilman Plufka,
the Fire Department payroll
amount of $1,463.
second by Councilman Johnson, to approve
for the month of March, 1972, in the
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker~ s~cond by Councilman Johnson, approving
payment of Village bills through check number 19527 in the amount of
$760,086.36 and dated through April I0, 1972, as shown on records on
file in the office of the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
All comments had been heard earlier in the meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS
Discussion held relative to the disposition of boulevard trees along
Winnetka Avenue.
Discussion held relative to detouring of traffic on Boone when County
Road 18 and Winnetka Avenue are closed for construction. The Mayor
said that when Boone is carrying this extra traffic he would like to
see a police officer stationed at 47th and Boone when school is open-
ing and closing. He also thought there might be the same type of need
in the vicinity of Hosterman Junior High.
Council Minutes - 9 - April I0, 1972
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, requesting
the Village Manager to send a letter of thanks and appreciation to
Floyd Tuominen from this Council and previous Councils for all his
work in connection with the New Hope Athletic Association.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Hokr.
Discussion held as to the status of again leasing land in the Science
Industry Center for riding of mini-bikes. The Village Manager stated
that he is working on this matter.
Councilman Plufka reminded the Council that there would be a hearing
on Bassett's Creek Watershed plans on May 18, 1972 at 8:00 p.mo at the
Golden Valley Village Hall.
Councilman Plufka also mentioned that the Council should have a
discussion relating to cable TV to determine whether we will continue
with the joint concept or take some other approach.
Discussion held relative to the status of Ellerbe ice arena proposal.
ADJ O~JRNMB'~IT
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, and
carried, to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. until April 24, 1972,
at 7:00 p.m. or until the call of the chair.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Pouliot
Village Clerk-Treasurer
Planning Commission I ~pril 4, 1972
Minutes
A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held ox Tuesday,
April 4, 1972 at 7:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund.
2. Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: Barniskis, Meyer, Ohman~ Ostlund, Oster, Oswald and Sueker.
Absent: Cameron.
Planning Case No. 72-11 (Request for Specia Use Permit to Store Trucks)
7305 ~ 42nd Avenue North, A~derson O Company, pet toner, No one rep-
resenting the petitioner appeared at the m~et ng Mr. Sueker noted that
the screening fence around ~his property is only four feet high and
should be five feet high. There was discussion as to the existing service
station site and this operation.
A motion to recommend denial of this specia use permit because the
petitioner was not at the meeting was made by Oswald and seconded by
Sueker. Motion carried.
Plannin~ Case No. 72-12 (Wai~er of Platting Ordinance to Deed Trackage
Easements to the Soo Line Railroad) Sc ence ndustry Center, Knutson
companies, Inc., petitioner. Mr. Ray Kirkman of Knutson Companies
sta~ed that tax s~atements on these easements are difficult ~o divide.
The property cannot be used for any other purpose and there is con-
siderable additional legal work requ red whenever any and n this center
is sold. Mr. Kirkman explained that an industrial area like this is
sold in area sizes to meet the needs of the purchaser and therefore,
cannot follow the or ginal patting of the a~ea. These railroad ease-
ments are complicating future sales. He further explained that the 1.72
acres along the south line of this center would be connected to the
adjacent 7.65 acres by an easement over the railroad tracks·
The Building and Zoning Director po ntee out concern of the three p aces
of property which would be isolated in the 3.88 acres bounded by the
International Parkway and the tracks and asked Mr, Kirkman if these
pieces couldn't be consolidated into one to insure there would be no
unused property. Mr. Kirkman agreed.
Commissioner Sueker moved for approval of Planning Case No. 72-12,
second by Commissioner Ohman.
Commissioner Oswald moved to amen~ the motion to include that al property
in the 3.88 area would have To be legally tied together and that the 1.72
acres be connected to the adjacent 7.65 acres by an easement over the
tracks. The motion was second by Oster. Vote o~ the amendment was
carried. Vote on the main motion was carried.
Planning Commission - 2 - April 4, 1972
Minutes
w
Planninq Case No. 72- 3 (Wa ver of P att ng, Site Plan Approval and
Building Permit,Authorization) 7700 - 42nd Avenue North, ~m-Cal Con-
struction Corporation, petit oner Mr. John Waters represent ng Am-Ca
Corporation a~peared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the
proposed building would be a Kinney Shoe Store and that his client did
Jot have need for all the land. They panned to use the property front-
~ng on 42nd Avenue to a depth of 98.73 feet and would need a waiver of
platting to sell the ba an~e of the property,
The Building and Zoning Director said that the easement road to serve
the apartments to the north was blacktop to its entire w dth of 30 feet
and there was no place to pi e snow whe~ plowing, The site plan pro-
vided for an additional I0 foot easement which will make a boulevard
for this snow. He also stated that the petitioner did not intend to
~rede or landscape the large rear portion of the ot and t s marked
s "surplus". t~ stated that ther~ would be no advantage to the V Ilage
to have this vacan~ land, The petitioner has entered nto an agreement
for the joint use of the road and boulevard easements.
The general feeling was there would be a use for the surplus area.
ComMissioners Oster and Ostlund stated that they felt the property
should be divided, Ostlund felt that the shoe store should face eas~,
as did some others. Mr. Barniskis said that he is curious about this
surplus area being in demand because the property to the east is zoned
Industrial. Oswald felt there was a market ~or the land if divided.
Mr. Water stated that he would check with his client as to the possi-
bility of facing the building to the east so that a building on the
surplus area would not be alone in facing the easement road.
Oswald stated that he would like to be assured that parties concerned
have agreements allowing them all to use the private road and boulevard
area.
Mr. Jones stated that he and Mr..La. here were sell in9 the property to
Am*Cal corporation Wh° h~d an ~P~i~ ag~e~nt for th~ purchase.
~missioner ohman ~de a motlon to tab e this case to May 2, 1972.
Ba " is k is aco,d *he ton.
Plannin~ Case No. 72~14 (Site Plan Approval and Bui ding Permit
A~hO~iZ~i~) 54i0 ;~er~a~io~a ;pa~a~; Nedmac, Inc., pe~it oner,
N~One Was p~sent fo rep~e~enf ~iOn by~s~Eer tO table
this i~em u~+i 9:00 p:m, Or ~UCh ti~ as ~he per, tither arrives.
Second by ~yer. ~tlon carried.
Planning Case No. 72~6 (Request for Variances In Height. Size and Number
of'signs f0r K;Marf) ~300 X~l°n A~enUe NOrth, Leroy Signs, petitioner.
Hr. Frank Freeze represented LeroY S gnS, petitioner and Mr. Jim Karabec
rePresented Developers Divers i find.
Planning Commission - 3 - April 4, 1972
Minutes
Commissioner Barniskis brought up the point once again about the visi-
bility and proximity of a large sign in a residential neighborhood being
rather useless.
Mr. Karabec pointed out that his company had changed the pylon sign's
height from 52 feet to 55 feet.
Commissioner Oster asked Mr. Karebec to state his reasons for the large
should have a separate sign.
Mr. Freeze stated that he felt the only problem the Planning Commission
had with his sign requests was with the pylon sign. A discussion ensued
regarding all of the signs.
Mos? of the Commission members felt that with a building of ,hat size,
there was ample visibility without a large sign.
Mr. Karebec stated that when the sign ordinance was being discussed he
obJected and was told that there -es a variance possibility.
at the March 7, 1972 meeting.
Commissioner Oswald feels the K-Mart sign should be for identifica,ton
purposes; therefore i, need not be so large.
Commissioner Sueker feels ,hat the signs' sizes are not objectionable
in this special case. At the time the ordinance was made Ce felt the,
a case might come up whereby the sign would have ,o be larger because
of the size of ,he building.
store.
Commissioner Meyer does no, see ,he need to go above the sign ordlnance
of 200 feet.
Chairman Ostlund feels there should be recognition from the east, I0 feet
from the ground and 15 feet of "K" sign.
Mr. Karabec feels that for the looks of the bui Iding, the sign should
be large (propOrtionate With the building).
Planning Commission 4 April 4, 1972
Minutes
Mr. Freeze spoke about the food s,ore a, K-Mart. The name wi II be Farmers
Market and the sign will be four,, foo~ high,, ette~ on the "F" and "M" with
the remainder of the letters armers and arket being 3 feet high.
Commissioner Barniskis and Oster thought the petitioners should review
next meeting. Chairman
Ostlund felt that they still uld have had alternatives ready.
Mr.
the bui tding.
in the sign ordinance gave him reason
,gttimate variance because of the size of
Commissioner Oster
were not
· eetlng and also at the
had been stated and the opinions
petitioners proposed at this
1972 meeting.
Commissioner Sucker moved to table this case until I0:00 p.m. Commissioner
Mayer second it. Motion carried.
nimal Hospital Use. This is con-
. 1972.
Chairman Ostlund asked if members of the Commission had comments as to
adding ~his as a special use in Limited Business zoned areas.
Vice-Chairman Sueker stated that he would like to inform those Corn-
miss meeting that this case was
would be acted
upon. and Standards Com-
mittee to study this item ~ at this meeting.
Mr. Oster stated that the Committee did not have en opportunity to meet
and there was not a report.
Chai
He
residences
in the area.
audience had any comments. Dr.
· He stated fha* he would like
He
srected animal hospitals.
. and that the old image
id not want to locate in an
he felt his business served
b it would be better to locate near
building should be compatible with the homes
He stated that today these buildings are air condlt oned, do not have
wind°ws in ~he ken,el areas, a~d Id in sound ~ontrol to ellminete
°bjeC~ionab!e noise~ the high cost of ~rClal
and industrial land would eliminate ne animal hospital use.
Planning Commission - 5 - April 4, 1972
Minutes
Chairman Ostlund asked if anyone in the audience was concerned with thls
ordinance change, Mr. Clarence Schmitz of 8 15 Bass Lake Road said he
was concerned about the Planning Commission's attitude that the area of
Wisconsin and Bass Lake Road would probably end itself to multiple
dwellings. He stated that no one would ever build a single family
home on the lot on the southeast corner of Wisconsin and Bass Lake
P~ad.
Chairman Ostlund told Mr. Schmitz that the Planning Commission was not
discussing this property and that only discussion of the subject at
hand would continue~
Commissioner BarnJskis moved to recommend to the Village Council that
animal hospitals be inc uded in Limited Business distr cts by specia
use permi, t. Commissioner Oster second it. Motion carried.
~lannin~ Case No. 72-6 was moved to be brought off the table by Com-
issioner Barn iskis and second by Commissioner Sueker. Motion carrled.
Mr. Karabec and Mr. Freeze stated they had reduced their sign sizes:
K-Marl' sign:
The "K" and the "T" would each be 7 feet, 6
inches in height with a total length of 58
feet (balance of the letters would be con-
densed between the "K" ane the "T". (Ap-
proximately 370 square feet).
Food Store sign:
"Farmers Market": The "F" and the 'M" would
each be 4 feet high (balance of letters would
be 3 feet high) with a total length of 60
feet (approximately 186 square feet).
~utomotive sign facing south side ef building would be five
feet, five inches high and 9 feet long (approximate y I10 square
feet),
Pylon sign would be 35 feet high (127 square feet each side).
Mr, Karabec requested that the signs be voted on separately.
Commissioner Oster felt that Mr. Karabec and Mr. Freeze should return
to K-Mart and bring sketches of definite plans to the next meeting.
This was the general feeling of the Commission.
Chairman Ostlund suggested that before the Monday, April t0, 1972 meet-
ing of the Village Council, a meeting be held at 6:00 p.m. with members
of the Commission and Mr, Karabec and Mr. Freeze, if possible, for
recommendations to the Council.
PlanNing Commission - 6 - April 4, 1972
Minutes
A question ~rose regard ng the Garden Shop s gn on fences. Mr. Freeze
said this sign was a wall sign and would ~ot be attached to the fence.
Mr. Karabec asked that this case be tabled for two weeks.
I0. Land Use Committee Report,
II. The Council minutes of
12.
13.
Chairman Ostlund reported that
informing peeple that the Comm
should b~ ~en~ to Michae Amyx,
Use Committee.
1972 were reviewed.
S
to be
should be publlshed~in the paper
seeking tw~ new members, R~s~mes
Manager,
15. There being no further business, Comm ss on~r Oswald moved to adjourn.
It was seconded by Commissioner Oster at 1:48 p.m. Mot on carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Barb Palider
ReCOrding SecreTary
Counci I Minutes
- I May 22, 972
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council
of the Village of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the Village Hall,
4401 X¥1on Avenue North, in said Village on Monday, May 22, 1972, at 7:00
p.m.
All persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Al legiance to the Flag.
Roll call was taken as fol lows:
Present: Bosacker, Hokr, Erickson, Johnson, Plufka.
Absent: None.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, ~econd by Councilman Johnson, to approve the
Council ~inutes of the meeting of M~y 8, 1972 with the following correc-
tions:
Item 2, Page 15, Paragraph 6 be amended to read as follows:
"Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Mayor Er ckson, ap-
proving site plan and authorizing issuance 6f building permit
for Tool ProdUcts building (Planning Case 72-17) with the
understanding that the front yard of the site for setback
purposes shall be deemed to be that port on of the site
fronting on Boone Avenue, and that future expansion of the
building to the south will be controlled by ~he Village's
side yard setback restriction (could extend building to
the south to within 20 feet of possible road through the
site or to within 80 feet of the south property line), as
recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to staff
approval".
Item 5, Page 17, Insert after Paragraph 2 so as to record
motion omitted from the record (Planning Case 72-13):
"Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Mayor Erickson ap-
pro~ing variance in building size, v~riance in lot size,
site plan and authorizing issuance of building permit for
the Kinney Shoe Store bu ding as requested under Planning
Case No. 72-13 subject to a ten foot ut ity easement run-
ning to the Vii age for extension of utilities to the
northerly marcel and subject to the approval of the staff".
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried,
Bosacker, Ertckson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plufka.
Vote was then taken on the corrections to the minutes.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
Council Minutes - 2 - May 22, 1972
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Mayor announced that the rules of conduct of the meeting would be
suspended and that an open forum would be held.
Appearing were a group of citizens concerned with the improvement of
Winnetka Avenue from 42nd Avenue to the Bass Lake Road.
The Mayor said these people were primarily concerned with two problems.
The first question relates to a reta ning wa I for the ast house on the
east side ~f Winnetka near the Bass Lake Road. The owner of the property
is asking that a retaining wall be provided instead of sloping to the
roadway. Mayor Erickson said that he had asked the Village Engineer to
check this out with ~he County,
Engineer Rosene stated that the County said th s was contrary to their
normal policy. With the elevation of the lot in question the County
prefers to use a slope. Mr. Rosene also sa d that if the Village stated
~his was an unusual situation, he thought the County would g ye further
consideration and hopefully t~e retaining wall would be granted.
The Counci was unanimously in accord with the construction of said re-
taining wall and urges that the County put it in as requested by the
property owner.
Mr. Rosene is to convey this message to the County.
The Mayor said the second concern of the group was the width of curb
cuts for driveways along Winnetka Avenue,
Engineer Rosene stated that the County po icy has been that the curb
cu~ was to match the existing driveway. Mr. Rosene sa d he had asked
the County to use 20 to 22 feet curb cuts so that one could have an 18
foot driveway and he thought the County would be willing to go along
with this proposal. He also noted that the Village uses 22 foot curb
cuts on Village projects.
Mr. Waterhouse~ 5532 Winnetka Avenue North, said that he wou d ike to
get a list of whom the County has settled With as to the tak ng of the
~roperty. The Mayor said he wou d advise Mr. Waterhouse who he shou d
~on~act at the CoUnty regarding this matter.
Mr, Waterhouse also asked if the Vii age Engineer would talk to the County
relative to dust control during construct on. Engineer Rosene said that
he would discuss this with the project engineer.
Discussion held as to why the pending assessments were given out as an
approximate figure instead of a firm figure. Engineer Rosene advised
the people that there are certain variables until the project is finish-
ed. At this point it is not possible to deal with other than approxiI
mations and that definite costs would be available for the assessment
hearing.
Council I~inutes - 3 - May 22, 1972
Further discussion was held as to the cost of the project and the method
of paying for the wider dr veway approaches. The proposed assessment
for sidewalk benefit was also disc~sed. Mr Rose~e ~eviewed the
division of cost between the County, the Village and the abutting
property owners·
The peop e present a so asked what effect the mprovement of the road
woul~ h~ve ~n the value of their homes for rea ~state purposes. The
people were advised that such matters can be discussed ~t ~he Board of
Review meeting.
he meetmg was cai led back to order at 7:30 p.m.
The Village
the
on file in
ed
lng the existing 24 foot mat
in this area.
reconstruction to
section into
an affidavit evidencing mailed notice to
be improved by the proposed
daced
The Mayor announc-
Rosene,
n the nature of
Bass
ion,
g for a 9
nnetka Avenue. The street will be
tiz-
of the roadway will recuire complete
to blend the new
Storm sewer is required
inch storm sewer cross-
ing~ Severa catch basins will be required at~cr~t cai col ection po nts
al~ g the roadway. Additiona permanent r ght of way is not requ red
for the 44 foot ~idth street. ~emporary construction easements wi be
needed. A five foot sidewalk is p~oposed on each s de of Winnetka from
62nd Avenue ~o the Bass Lake ROad. ~he bou evard between the s dewa k
and the back of the curb will be 4.5 fee~ wide. The Engineer gave the
estimate cost of construction at $246,000 with the City of Crystal to
pay $43,000 and the balance to be financed by State Aid and assessments
against the benefited property. T~e amount to be assessed is estimated
at $57,073.50 with ass~ss~nt~ estimated as follows:
Single familv
Multiple family
Commercial
$ 8.00 per front foot
$11.B5 per front foot
$12.40 per front foot
Discussion held by the Council.
Councilman Bosacker asked whether it might be possible ~o construct a
seven ton street· Engineer Rosene said that the street must be g tons
to conform with State Aid requ rements and that if a seven ton street
were built it would only effect the cost of the project by I0 to 15%.
Council Minutes - 4 - May 22, 972
Councilman Bosacker asked whether there would be a problem with the
4,5 foot between the sidewalk and the gutter as far as snow removal is
concerned, Engineer Rosene said that we might need to do some snow
removal but the other course would be to acquire additional right-of-
way.
Engineer Rosene said it Is anticipated that the project would be done
this year if we moved quickly with just restoration work to be done next
spring,
Councilman Hokr inquired if it would be possible to get the sidewalk
poured this year.
Engineer Rosene said yes and that the road should be travelable and
usable all winter.
Councilman Bosacker inquired as to whether it would be economically un-
feasible to go to an 80 foot right-of-way,
Engineer Rosene replied that his firm had assumed that it would be
economically unfeasible.
Discussion held as to Crystal participation in the cost of the project.
All persons present were then afforded an opportunity to express their
views to the making of the proposed improvement.
Appearing were:
Mr. John Bauer, 5539 Winnetka Avenue North, asked whether State Aid
Funds were available for the improvement of Winnetka Avenue south of
the Bass Lake Road. Mr. Bauer was advised that they were not inasmuch
as Winnetka Avenue. south of the Bass Lake Road was a .County Road and
that the County was participating in the cost.
Mr, Earl Hubbard, 7900 - 6tst Avenue North, asked whether the project
would involve moving of utility lines or trees.
Engineer Rosene said there would be no major changes in the utilities
and that he does not believe that any major trees wil be removed.
Mr. Earl Hubbard said he would like a positive answer on this. Mr,
Rosene said that a positive answer could not be given until the final
plans are drawn but that he does not think so. He said he would be
glad to check specifically and call Mr. Hubbard.
Councilman Plufka pointed out that the trees under discussion might be in
the boulevard instead of on the private property.
Council Minutes - 5 - Way 22, 1972
Mr. Earl Hubbard then asked if the entire $8.00 per foot would be
assessed against the property. Mr~ Rosene said that it would be. The
construction cost is estimated at $32 per linea foot and that it is
proposed to assess $8.00 per front foo~.
~rs. Marguerite Kearn, 790t - 60th Avenue North, inqu red as to how
orner lots would be ~ssessed. Mr. Rosene told that the po icy was to
assess I/2 of the footage on the side yard.
Mr. Jerry Anderson~ 7911 - 60½ Avenue North, said they have three fruit
trees within 3 or 4 feet of the te ephone po es and said that there
might be root damage to these trees. He a~ked whether reta!n ng wal s
would be built or if tapering would be done. Mr. Rosene sa d that n
most cases the lawn would be tapered, this being the best solution on
a long term arrangement.
Mr. Pate Messman~ 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, representing Green Giant,
~sked whether traffic wou d increase after the improvement. Eng neet
osene said he did not anticipate more volume fro~ the mprovem~nt but
rather from the natura growt~ o~ the Vi age. Mr. Messm~n then in-
quired as to the timing of the construction.
Engineer Rosene said that the Vi age ~ou d try to mainta n ocal
traffic and the e~fect on the Green Giant stor~ shou d be m nima
cause we will not be doing any excavat on there just an over ay~ The
work should be done by the miad e of Nevember and restoration ~ould
be done by m ddle of June o~ 1973 depending on when the project s
ordered a~d we can get the work star~ed.
Mrs. Kearn 7901 - 60th Avenue North, asked whether the residents
would be able to get in and out of t~e r garages during construct on.
Mr. Rosene said that generally access would be provided.
Mr. ~yle Swanson, 7901 - 59th Avenue North, asked that the assessments
be clarified and inquired as to ~hy ~he project was necessary.
Engineer Rosene replied that ~here were severa reasons why the project
was necessary: (I) this section of Winnetka is becom ng a ma n~nance
problem because it is break ng up n a number of p aces. Th s con-
d tion will not mprove and the ~aintenance costs will accelerate. (2)
With the improvement of Winnetka Avenue to the south, t s felt that
it is appropriate that this sect on of Winnetka Avenue also be completed.
(3) The ~illage is maturing and densifying and it is necessary that th s
improvement b~ made to keep up with th~ g~owth of the community.
Councilman Johnson noted that th s section of W anetka Avenue was
about the last major street in the Village that had not been upgraded.
Councilman Hokr noted that the Village was also concerned with the
safety of children walking up and down Winnetka Avenue.
Council Minutes - 6 - May 22, 1972
The Mayor noted that this section of Winnetka used to be a County Road
but that the County had returned it to the Village.
Mr. Earl Hubbard said that he did not think the proposed upgrading of
Winnetka Avenue was worth $800 to a property owner with a I00 foot lot
and that if the concern was for the safety of the children walking to
school, a little tighter traffic contro wou d do more to protect the
children than the sidewalk would. FI~ thought that first the traffic
should be slowed down to the legal speed limit.
Discussion held as to maintenance of the sidewalks during the winter
months.
Mr. Richard Doolev~ 5841 Winnetka Avenue North, said that if we now
have speeding on Winnetka, the problem would increase with the improve-
m~nt of the street.
Mr. Jerry Anderson, 7911 - 60½ Avenue North, asked how the improvement
of the south portion of Winnetka affected this section of Winnetka.
The Council noted that Winnetka was used to travel through the Village
and that the present traffic warranted the upgrading.
Mrs. Jan Lepinski, 7901 - 59th Avenue North, inquired as to how drive-
ways would be handled during excavation. Engineer Rosene said we will
have to reshape some driveways, blend them in and repair them back to
any disturbance we may have caused. Mrs. Lepinski said her driveway
was at an extreme angle now.
The Mayor stated that all the problems noted here would be viewed
individually before the work started.
Mrs. Lepinski inquired as to the effect the upgrading of Winnetka
Avenue would have on property taxes.
Councilman Plufka noted that because of a change in state law, property
will be again revalued as of January I, 1973, Assessments are being
changed to the odd numbered year instead of the even numbered year as
it has been in the past, He pointed out that the assessor would be
aware of the street improvement and would take it into consideration.
Mr. Earl Hubbard suggested that the Couccil ask for a show of hands
as to whether the people that would be effected by the improvement
were for or against.
It was noted by Councilman Plufka that inasmuch as 80% of the cost was
being borne by the whole Vitlage we would not have a representative
sample. He said that he had talked with people in the area and that
there was a lot of sentiment in favor of improving Winnetka Avenue.
Council Minutes - 7 - May 22, 1972
Councilman Bosacker noted that there were people concerned other than
those here tonight and that the Council must be equally concerned for all
interested parties.
Mr. Colin Christie, 7900 - 59th Avenue North, asked whether grade change
and driveways would be considered before or after final commitment to
the project. Mr. Rosene said this would be after the V Ilage had decided
to go ahead with the project, because it would have to be after detailed
plans were drawn. Then we would go to the property owner concerned and
be able to discuss details as to what is to be done. If it is possible
to accomodate fha property owner, +his will be done.
The Mayor a so noted that before the project commences the Council does
have to approve the final plans and that the Village cannot afford to
pay for the final plans until it is decided to go ahead. There could
be further consideration of driveway problems at that time.
Engineer Rosene said that there is not going to be a great change in
the grade and that problems to driveways will be minimized.
Further discussion held as to grades.
Mr. James Wahl, representing St. Theresa Nursing Home, asked whether
the overlay on winnetka as it abuts the nursing home would raise the
street much. Mr. Rosene stated that it would ~aise the street four
inches and that there would have ~o be some blending to the side toward
the nursing home property but it would not be a problem for them.
r. Jerry Anderson, 7911 - 60~ Avenue North, said they had 135 feet on
Winnetka and again inquired as to how this lot would be assessed, Mr.
Rosene replied that, Since this was a corner lot and f the property
had paid for the street to the front, the assessment would then be
based ox I/2 of the 135 feet.
Mrs. Elda Jewett, 58 3 Winnetka Avenue North, sa d the r garage was
built close to Winnetka, in conformance with code at the time of con-
structi°n~ and aske? if they would have to mOve that garage. Mr. Rosene
said he thought their garage was far enough back from the right-of-way
that it would not have ~o be moved and it still could be utilized fully.
Mrs. Jewett then inquired as to what wou d happen TO the trees n front
of their property. Mr. Rosene said he thought all of the trees were
outside of the right-of-way and he would doubt that we would be bother-
ing the trees. He said he would make a point of checking this out.
Mrs. Jewett then noted that Mr. Richard Jewett had presented a letter
asking to be put on record as opposing the project. The Mayor noted
that the letter had been received.
Mr. A. E. Lusian, 5728 Winnetka Avenue North, also presented a written
objection to the proposed improvement of Winnetka Avenue, Project No. 268.
Council Minutes - 8 - May 22, 1972
Mrs. Jan Lepinski inquired as ~o how the sidewalk installation would tie
into the driveways. Mr. Rosene said that modifications would be made fo
fit the driveways~
Mr. Richard Dooley, 5841 Winnetka Avenue North, asked how many lanes of
traffic there would be after the improvement. The Village Engineer said
that it would still be two lanes af traffic and that the widening on each
side will provide the possibility of parking, similar to Boone Avenue.
Mr. Jerry Anderson, 7911 - 60½ Avenue North, suggested that Winnetka,
north of the Bass Lake Road should not be widened this year, but the
Village should wait until the street was completed to the south and
until CounTy Road 18 was opened. He felt at that time the Village would
know more about the traffic patterns.
Councilman Plufka pointed out that waiting a year to make the improve-
ment would add to the cost, noting that costs go up about 10% a year.
Mrs. Etda Jewett, 5813 Winnetka Avenue North, said that she agreed with
Mr. Hubbard as to the speeding on Winnetka and asked if it would be
possible to get some speed limit signs on this section of Winnetka.
She said there were no speed signs in this location.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Johnson, accepting
the written objections from Mr. Richard Jewett and Mr. A. E. Lucian.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried,
No further com~nts were offered.
Motion by Councilman Bosacke~, second by Councilman Hokr, to close the
public hearing on proposed Street Improvement No. 268.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
Councilman Bosacker then introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption: "RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT
NO. 268~'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
seconded by Councilman Hokr and upon vote being taken thereon, the
folowi~g v~teO in favor thereof= Bosacker, EricSson, ~H~.kr, Johnson,
Plufka; and the following voted aga nsf th~ same N~ne; whereupon ~he
resolu+ion was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the
Mayor and attested by the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
(Page Extract Book).
The Mayor declared a five minute recess.
Council Minutes - 9 - May 22, 1972
The meeting was cai led back to order.
The Village an Quebec Avenue
Street S 1972. This project pro-
rides for the =ing on
Quebec Avenu The Engineer
Hth the Village of
is to be con-
structed at 40 concrete curb and gutter, Side-
walks are not this improvement as the street fronts on
industrial property and a need for ~idewalk s not apparent at this
time.
The E~gineer gave the total estimated cost of the project at $122,400.
Of this amount approx mate y $76~000 would be assessed against th~
beneftted prOperties with $46,400 being financed by State Aid funds.
Assessments were estimated at $10,00 per front foot,
The report was acknowledged and placed on file,
The Mayor announced that the pub ic hearing on proposed Street Improve-
ment No. 273 (Quebec Avenue from 42nd Avenue North to 49th Avenue
~orth) was ca ed to order. The Village Manager presented an afft~avit
videncing mailed notice to the owners of the property to be benefitted
by the making of the proposed improvement.
The Mayor stated that he had received a call from Mr. Bob Ware, Ware
Manufacturing (building on Quebec Avenue), urging that the Village go
ahead with the improvement,
Councilman Besacker asked whether we would have room to construct side-
walks at a later date. The Village Engineer said that there was enough
room for sidewalk construction if required.
Mr, Ray Perry nquired as to number of years over which the project
would be assessed. Mr. Rosene replied ~hat such assessments were
usually spread over a ten year period. It is expected that the project
will be put out for bids and will be assessed this fall.
Mr H. P, Miller, 4301 Quebec Avenue North, said there was no question
as to the need for the improvement.
Further comments were offered that the improvement was needed.
~otion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Plufka, to close the
public hearing on proposed Street Improvement No, 273,
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Council Minutes
I0 - May 22, 1972
Councilman Hokr then introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT NO.
273~'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
seconded by Councilman Plufka and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Bosacker~ Er~ckson, Hokr, Johnson,
Plufka~ and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon the
resolution was declarad duly passed and adopted and was signed ~¥ the
Mayor and attested by the Village Cl~rk-Treasur~r.
(Page Extract Book).
Request for change in site plan for Post Haste Shopping Center, nor~h-
east corner of CSAH #18 and 36th Avenue North, was ~onsidered. Mr.
Harry Murphy, Hamco, Inc., presented the request. He said they had
run into a fill problem on ~he site. A tremendous amount of earth had
to be moved and it is now proposed to build a berm along the northerly
edge toward the residential properties instead of the s61id fence
original y approved, The drainage will be as earl er approved. In
addition ~o ~e berming~ a chain Ink fence s proposed.
Mr ~urphy said that the neighbor had asked that, as long as a chain
link fence was to be used, the fence be extended down to the Village
Code which s a f fteen foot setback at that point. Mr. Murphy said
they had surveyed each of ~he neighbors-as to the location of the chain
nk fence, with five people wanting t back 25 feet and four people
wanting it back I0 feet. The plan now prey des that the fence range
from ten to twenty feet back from the residential lines.
Mr. Murphy noted that their landscape architect was present to answer
any questions. Mr. Murphy said he f~lt the berm should be far more at-
tractive to the neighbors than the solid fence. Mr. Murphy noted that
they had agreed to pull out some dead trees and there is an area of
rough growth. If t~e neighbors like it that way, they would like to
leave this rough area. Othe~ise they would lose fifteen small trees.
The landscape architect said that the berm would have no more than a
30% slope a~ the steepest po nt. It could be mowed with a riding mower.
Post Haste will maintain the berm. The fence will be on the Iow side
of the berm.
Hotion by Councilman Plufka, seoond by Councilman Johnson, to approve
this request for change in site plan for P~s~ Haste Shopping Ce~er
on the northeast corner of CSAH ~lB and 36th Avenue North.
Counc Iman 9osacker said that he would ke to be assured that the fence
would be far enough away from the berm so there would be room for a
mower. Hamco, nc. agreed that it would be.
Vote was then taken on the question as follows:
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Ericksen, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
Council Minutes - Il Hay 22, 1972
Planning Case
Co,nc
station site. Th
plan,
The '
said he had
petitioner
feet. Mr.
from Multiple Residential
49th Avenue and CS/~H #18 was
present to discuss the
noted that the
is asking
filling
g in the
this property. He
last fall
~undberg was the
acres and
acre of the
car
of final
the
have at this point.
The Village Manager stated that staff fet that the rezoning to RB and
TR can be accomplished by the submission of these add tlon~l and fine
plans and by publ cat on of the reZoning ordinance. At th s time we
still have 19½ acres of MR proper~y,
planned unit
not
was
Ihe
for
that was
not excited sacrifice
we are willir
noted that going to
approve the zoning for or the retail business with-
out it being a planned unit that the Council can control
exactly what is going t? happen..Hayor Erickson also sa d that when he
does v~te for this particulb~ projec~ one ef his requirements is going
to be that I/2 to 2~3 of townhbus~s De complete before the filling
station can even be started.
Council Minutes 12 - May 22, 1972
Mr. George Lu~eck said that he was i~ concurrence with the Ceuncil and
at ~his time he s asking for an nd cat on from fha Council saying that
pending submission of all the final documents the Council would be agree-
able to the service station.
Mayor Erickson told Mr. Zubeck there are two ways he could handle th s
matter. (I) He could go through the Planning Commission with h s own
planned unit development or (2) or somehow c~nclude the previous
planned unit development submitted and nvolve in that t~e .8 acre for
Councilman Johnson said that he would prefer to see the property rezon-
ed to TR rather than lease it as MR with a planned unit development.
C~uncilman P ufka suggested that this request for rezon ng to C~ be laid
over and in the interim ~r. Zubeck shoul~ comp eta items ~o that the
TR zoning and the RS zoning is e~fective. Th~ request for rezoning could
care to go i~ 'he meri's of the rezoning for the station until the
earlier matters are concluded.
Councilman Bosacker commented that it was always possible to come in end
ask for an amendment to a planned unit dave op~n~. That is what Mr.
Zubeck is doing right now. Councilman Bosacl~r asked if there wasn't
some way that a rezoning could be brought to aconc usion, or w~ether a
developer could always ~evert the zoning simply by failing to file a
paper if it were to his advantage.
Councilman Hokr asked Mr~ Zubeck why he had not come in with a planned
unit development.
Mr. Zubeck said that when he talks to developers for this site, they
want to know what they can rea ly do w th this site. He said he needs
some kind of an indication that if the developer checks with the Village
office, he will know that this s te Can be de~eloped TR, RB and a
service station.
Councilman PI ufka again asked that the previous matters be brought to
a egal conclusion 6afore consideration be given to the current re-
quest.
Mr. Zubeck asked the Vi age Attorney if there was any way to work this
out so that the request for the serv ce station could be considered as
an amendment to th~ former planned unit development.
Mayor Erickson said that he did not think ,he former request was a legal
entity at this point.
The Village Attorney said tha~ he thought the former request still
exists.
Councilman Plufka again spo~e in favor of tabling the matter unti' Mr.
Zubec~ had fulfilled Mr. Lundberg~s commitments.
Council Minutes - 13 - May 22, 1972
Mr. Zubeck said that at the public hearing before the Planning Com-
mission two meetings ago the people present agreeo w th what s pro-
posed here, They Saw these exac~ plans and they would rather have
this than the MR zoning. Me said he thought, at this time, it was a
matter of getting the right wording so this could be tied into the
previous planned Unit development,
Councilmen Bosacker asked for clarification as to present zoning for
the Zubeck property, Discussion held. Counc man Bosacker sa d that
if someone ~ould n~ke the point strong enough that it was economically
unfeasible to develop the property TR and RB he might be sympathet c
to the po nt of agree n9 to .~ of an acre for the service station--if
this would make it feasible.
Mr. Zubeck said that they had thought they could make just the TR and
RB zoning work but they could not. The investors had backed out. The
station is needed to help with the grading cost.
The Village Manager noted that Mr. Lundberg had also requested the GB
zoning last fall and the Council had deried that request.
Councilman Hokr said tl~at he was not sure that he could be sold on the
fact that it would be feasible or reasonable to nave another gas
station there.
Mr. Zubeck said that he ann three other developers haa run scme cost
studies on the site and they have found that the dirt work is too
excessive. Nobody wants to develop the site. He does need an outside
develoPer on this project and that he needs to be able to assure the
developer that if he prepares all the documents and fulfills all the
Village requirements to come in with a p armed un t development that
a service ~tation wilt be permitted, He said he had developers that
had shown an interest n th s, but as t me goes by, they took at other
sites and lose interest here. dr. Zubeck s~ated ~at t~e only other
alternative he has is to let the land go MR.
Councilmen Bosacker said that he was not convinced that there should be
another fil lng station and that perhaps the land should be eft un-
developed - having ecological val~e as a swamp,
Mayor Erickson noted that he was looking at the filling station as the
lesser of two evils - 18 units per acre as opposed to 7 units per acre
and a filling station. Basing his opinion on these facts, he leans
toward the filling station contingent upon our being able to control
the quality of the townhouses and contingent upon finding a legal way
that this can be worked out. The Hayor then asked the Village Attorney
for his comments.
Council Minutes - 14 - May 22, 1972
The Village Attorney said that he though as a practica matter it can
be resolved. He said he thought ~r. Zubeck's p~oblem was needing some-
thing in hand to go around with for sa e. Mr. Corr ck said Mr.
that he does not have to have final
property.
I already
considered
to denied the
~ be the in-
you can come in with a satis-
either time. This
with.
nned
ished
to work
r. Corrick also said that if the Counc w shed, as one of the con-
itions of getting the planned unit development approved, they m ght
equire a public hearing~ and set it up wi~h a no'ice so that everyone
has adequate knowledge of what is happen ng and that the two planning
cases a~e being tied together.
Councilman Plufka said that as soon as al comments were heard he was
prepared to offer a motion to table the matter for a month and in that
~nth see the previous TR and RB zoning effected. He noted that in
reading the Planning Comm ssion notes he found very little in there of
substance directed toward the question at hand, which was the rezoning
from MR to GB for .8 of an acre. He sa d he did not feel that he had
any kind of qualitive analysis of that question from the Planning Com-
mission and that he wou d like to see that port on of it referred back
to the Planning Commission to be reviewed just prior to Counci meet ng
at which it would be considered. He said :l~en the Council cou d dea
with the present request with the knowledge that rezoning to TR and RB
was completed.
~H~e Mayor noted that the audience had not had the opportunity to address
emselves to the matter.
Councilman Bosacker stated that in his experience rezon ng shou d be
considered on its merits rather than on a particu ar development. He
said this had not worked out wel! in the past and often ea~s to
trouble. Councilman Bosacker said that h~ had been operating on the
assumption that the and had been zoned TR and REt, bu~ now he finds,
that ~ecause of a technicality, that is not so. Instead it is still
zoned MR.
Councilman Bosacker said that, based on this, he feels as the Mayor
does, that given the alternative between .8 of an acre for a gas s*a-
tio~ and rest of the land TR and P/3 or all of the land MR, we would
be better off with the gas station.
Council Minutes - 15 - May 22, 1972
Attorney Corrick advised tha~ the current zoning of the Zubeck property
's MR.
Councilman Bosacker said tha~ the RB and TR zoning should be accomplish-
ed before we talk about the gas station.
Councilman Hokr inquired as tc why the TR and ~B zon'ng had not been
completed.
Attorney Corrick sa d that the Vit age had not been furn shed with the
legal d~scriptions and that other matters had not been comPleted.
The Village Manager said that along with the rezoning was the approva
of the planned unit deve opment and we requ red some detai an~cap-
lng pla~s, lighting plans ~nd other kinds of detailed engineering work
which was never completed and submitted by Mr, Lundberg. He noted these
were simply matters that could only be completed by the petitioner and
cannot b~ ~omoleted by the Village to ¢onsumate th~ rezo~ing action.
Mr. Thomas Grimme, 4717 Hillsboro Avenue North, asked whether it is legal
to rezone with contingencies. He a so asked how quickly the land could
be developed because of the fi ling required.
Mr. Zubeck noted they would start building on the perimeter areas where
compaction could be used. He said that the middle part of the swamp
would remain as a agoon and open green area. There will be from 7 to
8 acres which will be left completely open.
Mr. Bob Shreck, 4716 Hi Isboro Avenue North, noted that he had heard
here tonight that Mr. Zubeck still has his MR zoning and that it was his
understanding that MR property is actually worth more than TR property.
He asked whether the land were really bu Idab e as MR. He further noted
that if the land were not buildable for i~R, there would be legal just -
fication for changing the zoning. He then discussed the criteria for
rezoning.
Mayor Erickson said that the zening of the Zubeck property was currently
MR which would take 17 units per acre ane from his observation MR could
be built on almost any soil, MR usua ly was bui t on poor so . He
agreed that MR was h gher cost property than TR. The Mayor sa d there
was one problem that had not be~n ~entioned and that is, MR isn't the
most suitable development along freeways, But this does not mean that
people will not buy it and develop it for MR. Mayor Erickson then dis-
cussed the traffic that would be generated by an MR development.
Mr. Bob Shreck, 4716 Hillsboro Avenue North, said that he would prefer
TR to the MR but he wondered if the property really was buildable for
MR.
Mayor Erickson said that under a planned unit development, no matter
who did the developing, the plan must be followed.
Council Minutes 6 - May 22, 1972
Mr. Zubeck replied that the planned unit development presented by Mr.
Lundberg was now his plan.
Councilman Hokr said that the planned unit development had not been
completed.
Mr. Zubeck said that he thought the planned unit development had been
approved with certain contingencies.
Councilman Plufka inquired as to whether the Council could have the
Zubeck property surveyed, based on the approved rezoning application
so that we would have proper legal description to complete the rezon-
lng to TR and RB, Mr. Plufka said he did not think the planned unit
development and the rezoning was necessarily indivisible. If this
is possible he is prepared to make a motion that we expend the funds to
complete the rezoning because he feels it is an important consideration
in the overall development of the Village.
Councilman Bosacker said that he was mo~e concerned with the status of
the down zoning than with the status of the planned unit development.
Mayor Erickson asked Mr. Zubeck if it would be possible for him to
complete the requirements for a legal planned unit development.
Hr. George Zubeck replied that because of the funds needed he would be
unable to complete the final pans that are reqUired for the planned
unit development. He Said he is planning to market the plan as it now
stands.
Councilman Johnson suggested that Hr, Zubeck, rathe~ than gO to the
planned unit de~e!~P~nt ¢~ceP~; mi§hr gO b~ck and Start all over with
a request to rezone to TR, RB and GB, This wOuld not require addition-
al expense for completion of the planned unit development.
Mr. Bob Shreck~ 4716 Hi!lsboro AvenUe North, sa d that without a
panned un t d~etOP~nt ou woeidn,t have an cOntrOl a d t t t
Y y ~ n ha he
service station and retail business could be built without the town-
houses being built.
Councilman Plufka said that he agreed ~ith Mr. Bob Shreck; as long as
it would be economically feasible for the developer to do so.
Further discussion held as to soil problems on the site. Mr. Zubeck
said that the least site prepara, ion was needed for the townhouse
portion.
Further discussion held as to the service station, TR and RB mix versus
the MR zoning and traffic problems from MR development.
Councilman Plufka noted that if the property were zoned TR, Mr. Zubeck
would still need a planned un t development to obtain 7 units per acre.
Otherwise the density would be one-half of the 7 units.
Council Minutes 17 - May 22, 1972
Motion by Councilman Plufka, that this item be tabled for one month and
tha~ it be referred back to the Planning Commission meeting immediately
preceding that Council meeting one month from now for discussion of the
requested rezoning and in that time Mr. Zubeck can complete the TR and
RB rezoning. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hokr.
Further discussion held with Councilman Bosacker commenting that Mr.
Zubeck will not be presenting the materials for the TR and RB zoning
without the .8 of an acre GB.
Vote was taken on the question:
Voting in favor: Hokr, Plufka.
Voting against: Bosacker, Erickson,
Motion lost.
~ohnson.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker that, since I am told that Mr. Zubeck has
discussed formerly and through proper channels a petition for rezoning
of .8 of an acre parcel zoned, although the "l's~ are not dotted and the
~T's"~ are not crossed, RB and being personally of the opinion that he
will not complete that zoning unless he gets ~he .8 acre GB, on proper
completion of the necessary material and requirements thereof, the .8
of an acre in question be rezoned GB but that proper safeguards be
exercised to see to it that the developable portion zoned TR be
developed at least in reasonable proportion before any construction is
undertaken for either the RB or the GB zoning and most particularly the
Gt3 zoning. The motion was seconded by Mayor Erickson.
Discussion held as to what constituted a reasonable proportion. Council-
man Bosacker said I/3 was reasonable.
Councilman Plufka asked whether it was Mr. Bosacker~s intent that the
planned unit development be comoleted as well as the TR and RB zoning.
Councilman Bosacker said it did include the necessary plans for the
planned unit development.
Attorney Corrick said that a Planned unit development was really the
only basis upon which the Council could control the thrOe usages.
Councilman Johnson noted that the motion was to rezone from RB to GEl
while the request is from MR to GBi
Councilman Bosacker rep!iud that this was due to a technicality and that
the Council had previously agreed to the RB zoning but it had not been
completed. Councilmani!Bosatker also said that he thought it was con-
ceivable that at some future date this site might be brought back for
consideration by some other developer. But at that point the majority
of the property would be zoned TR with some RB and a smaller portion in
G~3. He said he felt there was no way to develop that property without
that mix.
Further discussion held as to the planned unit development concept of
control.
Council Minutes
18 - May 22, 1972
The Vii age Attorney said that, from what he understands, the Council
is concerned that if this parcel is rezoned to GB it wil be sold for
a service station and that the TR property will just sit there. Mr.
Corrick said that under normal past zoning law that would have been
possible. With the planned unit deYelopmen~ concept you can go further
and establish contingencies and restrictions that you could not estab-
lish before. Prior to the planned unit development concept you could
only use the criteria for rezoning - was this a proper use for that
particular piece of property. With a planned unit development you say
this is a planned unit ~evelopmen~ and this is the schedule that you
follow. The Village Attorney said that this was presently an accepted
method of zoning control. He said that he wants to do further research
before the final approval of the planned unit development but that he
could see nothing wrong with the motion that is before the Council for
approval at this time,
Councilman Hokr spoke against the motion because the plans were not
completed and before the Council.
Mr. Zubeck said that the motion would give him a sense of direction,
that the property was costing a lot of money every month and that he
did need to get something going on it.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Plufka, to amend the
motion to change the 30% of 75% of the townhouses before the building
permit is issued on the station.
Mr. Zubeck commented that this would be excessive but 50% might be
workable and accomplish what the Council wants. He said he did not
think a developer could handle the 75%.
Discussion held.
Motion by CoUncilman Hokr, second by Councilmaa Plufka, to change the
amendment to read that75~ of the toWnhouses must be completed before
either the convenience center or the service station is opened. Mr.
Nokr said you can build it if you want to.
Councilman Bosacker said that he was going to oppose the amendment and
if the amend~nt is defeated Offer a secOnd amendment providing for 50%
completion.
Vote was then taken on the amendment as follows:
Voting in favor: Hokr, PtUfka, Johnson, Erickson.
Voting against: Bosacker.
Amendment to motion carried.
Vote was then taken on the mo~ion as amended.
Voting in favor: Plufka, Johnson, Erickson, Hokr.
Vo~tng against: Bosacker.
Motion carried.
Council Minutes 19 - May 22, 1972
Further discussion held as to whether the 75% contingency was economical-
ly feasible. No further action taken.
The Mayor stated that because of the late hour those items would be
handled where there were concerned people in the audience.
Mr. Craig Jacks, Greater Matropolitan Federat on, appeared before fha
Council to discuss the NSP rat~ structure. He p~ss~ out additional
information to the Council and said that he WOuld like to come back in
ut|lily rates and NSP
their rates over
decided to
He said that after
that 8~ was not
was a justifial
the City
· ago and decided to increase
ration had
see if the 8~ was justified.
the area of t/2 of that
taken outside
do es-
only limit~he rate
the
or SO.
Discussion held with Councilman Plufka saying that he thought our
Attorney ought to be instructed to look at our ordinances to see what
rate making au?hori~y We might have or where we might need changes.
Mr. Warren Johnson from NSP Then spoke on the matter of rate increases
on behalf of NSP. He Said NSP had requested the rate increase in April,
1971 to be effective with meter readings of June 2, 1971. The Company
thought it was a justifiable ncrease. He said that St. Paul, by ~tr~ue
of a charter granted to it by the State Legislature because It is a first
class city, his ~he authorit~ ~o regulate utilt~ rates. St. Paul
hired an examiner to study and make a recommenda+i0n as to the rate
increase. Mr. Johnson Sa d the examiner's recommendation was based on
St. Paul operations only. One of the th ngs they said was - they con-
tended St. Paul was unt~ue due to popu ation dec~ease and they should
not be burdened wi~h th~ extra costs, This increase was based on actual
1970 costs and projected 1971 costs. The St. Paul study used on y the
1970 aCtual figures and there was no adjustment for the following known
changes at the Time such as (I) Wage increases for 1970 and 1971, (2)
increased pension cost associated with wage increases, (~) increased
depreciation, (4) increasec income taxes, (5) increased postal rates,
(5) addition of NSP environmental department, (7) addition of the
Montecello plant which is a $1~0,000,000 project, and (8) additional
pollution control investments. After extensive hearings in 1971, ?he
examiner appointed by the City Council of St. Paul, found that
increase based on the 1970 costs only would be an adequate increase, or
the minimum necessary for NSP for continuing and adequate service.
II.
Council Minutes - 20 - May 22, 1972
Mr. Johnson said that the Council approved that increase and NSP
accepted on the condition that it could file for future increase if
justified. Mr. Johnson thew read from a statement from the examiner
relative to future increases in the City of St, Paul. Hr. Johnson
said that NSP now has the actual figure for 1971 and a need is shown
for a 4.8% increase on top of the 4.6%, The request for the ad-
ditional increase has been presented to the City of St. Paul, based
on these facts. Mr. Johnson said that St. Paul had rejected the re-
quest for rats increase, not on the basis that it was not jusifiable
but they have an interpretation of their charter which states that they
are allowed only one rate increase per year per utility and this is the
point it stands at right now in St. Paul.
Upon questioning, Mr. Johnson said that to his knowledge the rate in-
crease was in process prior to the wage freeze.
Mr. Johnson stated that we would get a letter to the Village Manager
stating what he had said tonight, He also said that NSP does desire
a state author ty to regulate rates.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Hokr, that the item
be tabled for one month and that the Greater Metropolitan Federation
be notified when it be on our agenda, that the NSP officials be
notified that it will be on. our agenda at the second meeting in June, and
if possible, both of those groups and any other interested citizen
groups, provide us with any information that they can, at least a week
in advance of that night, so that we have the opportunity to look at
it and asking the newspapers to publicize the fact that this is on the
agenda so any other interested groups can come in and state their
views also,
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Consideration was given to a request from Northwestern Bell Telephone
Company to place underground conduit at 49th Avenue North. A repre-
sentative from NorthweStern Bell was present. He said that they wanted
to extend an underground conOuit across County Road 18. The conduit
now terminates 135 feet west of Flag Avenue on 49th Avenue.
The Village Engineer said that he had not seen the Northwestern Bell
plan, that we have a standard location for such utilities and that he
would review the plan.
F~tion by Councilman Hokr, secon~ by Councilman Plufka, to approve the
request from Northwestern Bell Telephone Company to place underground
conduit on 49th Avenue west to County Road 18, subject to the approval
of the Village Engineer.
Council Minutes - 21 May 22, 1972
12.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
The Village Engineer gave a report on the drainage problem at 3835 Oregon
Avenue. Mr. Cook~ Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc ares, Inc., said
that the problem had been reviewed, The problem is caused by some fill
down stream from th s Iocat o% not the fi that was p aced recently
at 3835 Oregon Avenue. Mr. Co~k sa d there were two s~ utions to the
problem. One is to regrade the area to the south all the way down to
the corner of the development, That is the way the water fl~wed
originally through that area. The other solution would be to take the
water out to an existing storm sewer on Oregon Avenue. tt would cost
approximately $2,400 to stub the storm sewe~ out to Oregon Avenue. To
regrade the ditch to the south along the back lot lines and resod the
area would cost approxlmately $2,100.
Mayor Erickson noted that these lots had rather short back yards and
that it might be preferable to bring the water out to Oregon.
Councilman 8osacker asked where the respons bi ties laid for the fact
that the natural drainage had been interfered with. Mr. Cook said it
was the responsibility of al.I the proper~y owners that have filled the
area downstream.
It was noted that some kind of a drainage swale would have to be re-
established and have the people understand that it will have to be left
this way. Bringing the water out to Oregon at this time would just
solve this particular problem.
Mr. and Mrs, Knock agreed that an easement would be given to take the
water out to Oregon. Mrs. Knock said they had much ponding in their
back yard before they filled it in.
Mr. Cook said there were about nine lots that should share in the cost
of the work. Discussion held as to whether there would be any cost
sharing by the Village. Engineer Rosene stated that the Village
usually picked up 30% on a storm sewer project to cover the drainage
from public streets. In this instance streets are not contributing
to the water problem.
The Village Manager noted that there were numerous back yard ~reinage
problems in the Village and the Village mUST watch as to setting a
precedent for Village participation.
Councilman Bosacker spoke against cost sharing for this type work and
thought the only ob igatiO~ for the Village was to assist in finding
a solUtion for such problems. It was agreed there would be no Village
coSt participation.
Counci Minutes - 22 - May 22, 1972
13.
Motion by Mayor Erickson, second by Councilman Hokr, accepting the pre-
liminary report for solving the drainage problem at 3835 Oregon Avenue
with the understanding that the water will be stubbed out to Oregon
Avenue and scheduling a public hearing for June 26, 1972.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
The staff report on the request for 'no parking'~ signs on 49th Avenue,
west of Boone Avenue was given by the Village Manager.
The Village Manager said that citizens had requested that "resident
only" parking be permitted on the south side of 49th Avenue from near
Boone to west of Flag and that adequate off-street parking be provided
to compensate for loss of park ng ~n 49th Avenue pl~s som~ of the
traffic parking on the nearby residential streets going south from 49th
Avenue.
The Village Manager noted that approximately 75 evening events were held
at the 49th Avenue athletic field during a period of a year. Most of
the events occur from late spring through the earlv fall. Eight to ten
of these events would require more than I10 off-street spaces. We
presently have approximately 55 spaces. There is a possibility that,
adjacent to the existing off-streEt parking area which was constructed
by the Village last fall, we could get a lease for land at a nominal
sum To the rear of the industrial building just east of the athletic
field. That would increase our parking capacity from 55 to approximate-
ly I10 parking spaces. Then there would be from eight to Ten events
that would require parking on 49th Avenue and adjacent residential
streets.
The Village Manager noted that while we might provide for I0 off-
street parking spaces there is still the natural inclination for people
to park as close as possible to the field. He said he thought any
restriction of parking on 49th Avenue would cause spill over of parking
on the other residential streets.
The Village Manager said that "resident only" parking was a very hard
thing to control through the police department in that you are doing
a lot of license checking to determine that the cars do belong ,o
residents. Also you have the problem of people visiting and they would
not be residents, as such. He said "no parking" signs would be more
effective from a control standpoint.
The Manager said there would be a problem for the eight to ten events
and that over 200 cars were counted on several occasions. This pri-
marily occurs when we have a combination of Little League football
and soccer.
Council Minutes - 23 - May 22, 1972
The Village Manager said that the improvement of the additiona 55 spaces
would cost the Village $t,800 using Village crews and $3,500 if t were
contracted work. Neither sum has been budgeted for 1972.
Question was raised as to whether the additional parking area could just
be gravel surface, The Village Manager said we would spend more money
just putting stabilizer down several times.
Councilman Hokr asked how many parking spaces wou d be available when the
drainage tiles are place~. The Village Engineer said we wou d have n
the vicinity of 50 ~ddit~onal spaces. The work should be done this
year but that we are still working w th Plymouth. The Village Manager
said he thought these soaces would be quite expensive.
Councilman Hokr said that he had observed that during most of the events
the parking lot is half empty and they are parked all over the neighbor-
hood. He inquired as to whether the police reserve might be used to
help with the perking. The Village Manager stated that they did help
during the soccer games.
Councilman Hokr also suggested that we request the school district to
run some of the people to the soccer games by bus. The Vi lage Manager
stated that the ~se of a shuttle bus had been discussed with Dr. Hood.
They expressed some interest but how do you make people park at Cooper
High School, Councilman Hokr said that if we cou d e iminate park ng
on one side of the street we might help eliminate an accident.
Discussion held as to the possibility of using the north end of 49th
Avenue for parking unti that interchange with CSAH #18 is opened.
This could be used for one year until we have money in the budget to
blacktop.
CoUncilman Plufka Spoke in favor of banning parking on the south side
of 49~h AVenue and said so as no~ to compound the problem we must find
some plaCe t° PU~ ~he ca~s; He Said h6;~as in fav~ o} the adding of
~he 55 spaces even if we are to Wind up With 50 more spaces. He also
said he was in favor of using the north end of 49~h and that he was in
favor Of Spending ~he $1;800 for ~he bla~ktopPing of the I0~.
The Vi ilage Manager sa d tha~ he thoUght the adjacent industrial park-
ing space cou d be leaSed fOr $ ,00 per year and that he thOUght it would
be available for quite some time.
Discussion held as to additional signs indicating off-street parking
area.
Councilman Bosacker said that one side of 49th Avenue should be closed
for parking.
The Village Manager stated that the staff recommended "no parking"
rather than ~'resldent only~ parking.
Council Minutes
- 24 - May 22, 1972
14.
18.
Councilman Hokr spoke against spending the $1,800 at this time and that
the other approaches be explore~.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Plufka, that we in-
struct the police department to put in "no parking" signs on the
southerly side of 49th Avenue fr~m the west edge ~f the single family
residences on Flag to the east curb line of Decatur Avenue.
Further discussion held.
Vote was taken on the question as follows:
Voting tn fa or. Bosacker, Erickson, HoEr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting agai ns~: None.
Motion carried.
Discussion held as to providing additional parking.
The Council expressed interest in moving the barricade on 49th Avenue
further west and then using the north end of 49th for parking on a
temporary basis. This oossibility is to be checked into.
The Village Manager reported that the proposed ordinance establishing
a waiting period for the purchase of hand guns was not ready. The
matter is to be placea on the next agenda.
Mr. Jerry Quinn, mamber of the Environmental Commission, appeared be-
fore the Council to give a report from the Air Quality Task Group on
air quality ordinances. He said the task group had been asked fo
investigate the adequacy of the Village's present ordinance, whether
or not a more comprehensive ordinance was desirable or aecessary, if
such an ordinance was passed what the staffing requirements would be
and whether the state and federal quality control regulations would
be or were being met by the Village at this time.
A copy of the report was presented to the Council. Mr. Quinn said that
what we have now is fine for our present needs and that t is the
recommendation of the Environmental commission that because it appears
that there is going to be some reshuffling of responsibilities in
connection with air quality control, New Hope should wait and see what
happens.
Mo~ion by CounCi!man Plufka, second by coUncilman Bosacker, that the
report and the recOmmendatiOnOfthe Environmental commiSsion be accepted.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Council Hinutes - 25 - May 22, 1972
t9.
21.
The Planning Commission recommendation on revision to the proposed sign
ordinance was considered. Staff report regarding the matter was heard.
The Village Attorney and the staff are in agreement with the concerns
expressed by the Planning Comm ssion on the amended sect OhS of the sign
ordinance r~lating to billboards and recommend amending the ordnance as
suggested by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jim Shaw~ Naegle Sign Company, appeared regard ng the matter. He
noted that billboards had not heretofore been erected on the 24 potentia
sites although the present ordinance does allow this. He said this
should be taken as an ind cat on that they do not want bi boards on a
filling station site. It is not a compatible use, He said he does
disagr~e with a provision that precludes them be ng there, He noted that
the proposed amendment would al~ preclude them fram doing business
where their signs are now located. It would be very time comsuming to
have to apply for variances in all villages. He asked if there couldn't
be another solution. He said he thought a special use permit was a
good way to maintain control,
Mr, ~haw said that outdoor advertising was a legal use of commercial and
'ndustrial property and that it would be difficult to establish a
hardship for a variance. He would prefer control by special use.
The Village Attorney said that standards for granting a special use
would have to be established,
Councilman P ufka said that he was tn favor of accept ng the Panning
Commission recommendation to amend the ordnance bus that f they can
come up with standards for a spec a use permit for billboards they
should not overlook a spec al use as a means of contro , He sa d he
would like to see the Planning Commission work toward a special use
permit. Mr. Shaw indicated that he would be happy to work with the
Planning Commission and the staff to come up wi~h the criteria for a
special use permit.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Counci man Hokr~ to revert to
the original wording of the sign ordinance as regards bi boards, as
recommended by the Planning Co~ission and staff.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Erickson.
The ice arena proposal was considered by the Council. The Mayor stated
that the new tax laws had put a limit on the Village.
He said the Council had tried, through the discussions, mo come up with
something it could move very rapidly on and ye* not have a problem
financially. He said the Council felt that even with a $5,000 deficit
and considering the $13,000, which should be provided yearly for re-
placement of ice making equipment, we would be coming up with a $19,000
Council Minutes
- 26 - May 22, 1972
or $20,000 deficit. The Mayor said we had no legal way of raising this
kind of money. He said he thought he could speak for the Council that
we do not want to drop the ice arena, we want an ice arena. He said
there were two or three avenues open to us yet; (I) the Minnetonka
solution, (2) referenaum in November and (3) where the Council would
come up with a fixed amount that we felt we could lease the facility
for and actually underwrite with the proceeds from the arena.
Mayor Erickson said that the Village could spend an extra $64,000 in
1973 and obviousl~ we could not spend $20,000 of that for an ice arena.
Councilman Plufka suggested that the Village Manager come up with a hard
figure that the Village could afford for leasing the arena. He said
that the Mayor had reflected his sentiments as to the arena proposal.
Mr. Nils Sundquist, 5955 Hillsboro Avenue North, appeared to discuss the
proposal for the ice arena. He said his group would appreciate knowing
how much money is a reasonable amount for debt retirement and that this
is a figure that would also be needed if the Village decides to 90 to a
referendum in November. He said his group needed this figure to work
with. If they knew how much money the Village could afford, they would
have some direction and would know whether they could proceed at all.
Mr. Sundquist noted that there were other options open to them such as
changing the site for the proposed arena. He said they do have a letter
approving the use of the school district land. There are some con-
tingencies in it and the letter will be made availalbe to the Village
Manager. Mr. Sundquist said the land at 49th does have some value
because it could possibly be a savings. Also the projected expenditures
could be reviewed. He said his group would tike an answer this evening,
if possible.
The Mayor said our f gures from the staff and the Counc I's figures
keep c~ming up with, if you consider $13,000 escrow for the ice maker,
$18,000 to $20,000 deficit. The Mayor said that he was convinced that
the facility as proposed would generate $50,000 operating prof t, just
basing it on experience of other arenas, He sa d the question Mr.
Sundquist was a~king is this: Do we feel confident that we could make
a $50,000 payment on the bonds per year out of the proceeds of the ice
arena without having to come up with any shortage from Village funds?
Mr. Sundquist's group wou d thin investigate the possibility of extend-
lng the bond payments over a longer period of time. Benches for the
locker rooms might be changed and so forth.
Mr. Sundquist said this is what they were looking for -- a resolution
saying that the Village could al ocate $50,000 over 25 years for the
bonded debt retirement on the arena, then his group could go to a
company and ask if this could be done. He said he thought this approach
was worth an honest try. At this point they have no direction from the
Council.
Council Minutes - 27 - May 22, 1972
Councilman Hokr said that he felt the only way he would want to proceed
on the arena would be to put it om a referenaum.
Councilman Bosacker said that he was under the impression that the group
wanted to know what the Village could accept as a net operating loss.
Mr. Bosacker said that he wo~ld say $23,000 would be a reasonable cest
for this operation, including the replacement funds for ice maker. He
said he was not qualified to anticipate what the arofits would be.
Councilman Bosacker said that finding the money without referendum is
impossible and, given that set of circumstances and the assumption then
tha~ it can'~ be done for this coming season, he would be interested in
any alternatives that would result in $10,000 a year cest and another
$13,000 to escrow on ~he ice equipment for replacement purposes. This
would have to be accomplished through a referendum because he didn't
think the m~ney would be available otherwise; and, secondly, who is
better as a final authority o~ that kind of question then the people
themselves~
Further discussion held as to projected income or toss from the ice arena.
Councilman Oosacker said he would also be opposed to paying m~re inter~st
than necessary, over a longer period of time than necessary, given other
alternatives. Given a referendum and the cheapes~ interest cost and
having it fully explained to the people that this ~uld cost us $10~000
for debt redemption plus $13,000 escrow for ice maker replacement, would
be justifiable~
Mr. Sundquist said that one argument aga ns~ a referendum would be that
under th~ Othe~ ~pp~ach bids ~id be negotiated~ has ~ome ad-
~antages. C~S~ m°r~ n~st~ He said he W~uld go on
record that ~h~ arena wou d not be bu t i~ N~em~r ~or the $500;000.
The amount th~ b~il W°~ld g~ Up Would ~ve~igh t~at interest cost.
He said if the cost ~f the arena go~ ~oo high, he w~u a not go out and
support it. He said this is ~a+ had ha~d~d tO the BrOOklYn Center
referendum for the ice arena.
The Mayor asked the Village Manager for his comments as the $50,000 bond
payment.
The V!llag~ Mana~r said that th~ $23,0~0 that is mentioned is ba~d on
the premise tha~ n~ s~rvice i~ goii~gi~o b~ provided unless it can be self-
supporting~ If ~e ha~e openi~ka~ing a~ a given ~i!me during the week and~
i~ ii~ not paying i~$ way~ w~ are a~t g~ing to have it~ He said he
wondered if a public facility coul!d be run that way° This is a con-
sideration ~e have. He said he would consider the $23,000 as at a
minimum and as a one year~fi!gure. We don't know what is going to ahppen
in two or five years to the arena, Will we have the same experience as
at the s~immiag p~ol where we have had increasing operating costs and a
very definite leveling off of revenues? He said there are a number of
Council Minutes
- 28 - May 22, 1972
intangibles. The Village Manager said he did not think the concept of
GO bonds ehoUld be discounted. There would be tremendous cost savings
there. Interest difference would be a significant cost - plus a big
portion of reserves that Would be required on a non-profit type of bond
issue would not be required on a GO bond issue.
Councilman Bo~acker said that another advantage posed by GO bonds is
that to have an~ hOPesof sel!ingtbe thing you are going to have to sell
it on the basis of what the actua cost to the peop e s go ng to be.
If they go into it w th an U~de~S~anding that i~ is not t~tally self-
supporting but ¢onstitutesiacon~inu!ing cost and decide that they want
this bad enough on the whoIie to support it, that is fine.
The Mayor noted that if the people voted for the arena we Would then
have a legal way to raise money to mee~ the paymentS. MaYor Erickson
again stated that he ~hO~g6~ $50i00~ ~or aebt ~etirement ~as real i stic.
Further discussion held.
Motion by Mayor Erickson, second by Councilman Hokr, that this matter
be back on the agenda for the meeting of June 12~h for a definite
deCiSion at that ~ime -~ to g° ~ne Way or anOther On an arena or not to
go at all.
Councilman Hokr said that he thoUght the $10~000 was a small figure and
he thought we would be going ~o the voters with a figure of $25,000 per
year investment in the arena.
Councilman Johnson said he would not vote for committing any Village
funds withoat a referendum.
Councilman Plufka sa d that it seems to him that what the Village
could live with~ wi~h about a 95% Chance that it ~ould not cost it a
di~ out of its POcket, wou!d be a statemen~ that we would be willing
to lease from "XyZ, corporation ~n ice arena facility at a net total
cost to the Village, with it reCeiving a I °f the revenues and paying
all of the eXPenSe~i 6et total ¢Os~ o~r and abOVe tfat from ,his gross
revenue, of $~0i000; To be included in ~hat wo~ d have to be implied
a reasonable escrow for repilagemen~ of those par~s of the plant that
might wear out during the~period that the bonding ~ould run. In other
words, if the ice makingP!ant is!go~i~ng to last 20Years, but the
bonding is going to run 25 years; Ob~ious!iy you are going to have a
point Where you have to ~ep!ace some ice making eqoipment. He said
that a $50~000 figure s a ~igure ~hat you c~n I ~e with but he didn't
think you could market the bonds.
Further discussion held as to the $50,000 figure. Councilman Plufka
said that the revenues above expenses for the ice arena would generate
sufficient excess to mak~i~he $50;000 payment, w thout the necessity
to levy add tional taxes for this.
Council Minutes - 29 - May 22, 1972
Councilman Bosacker said if Councilman Plufka were that sure we would
get $50,000, then another $10,000 is a reasonable expenditure.
Councilman Plufka said that, implied in his comment, is that it is not
contingent upon a referendum.
Councilman Plufka said that to go to $55,000 he would have to share
Councilman Johnson's concern - to look at a $5,000 deficit in this
time and place is not realistic.
It was felt that the Council would like to have more information on the
Minnetonka approach before committing themselves.
Mr. Sundquist asked whether the Council would consider going under the
non-profit turn key concept. The concensus was that they would if it
were self-supporting. Mr. Sundquist then asked if, at the next Council
meeting, the Council would come up with that "self-supporting" number.
The Council agreed that they would.
Vote was then taken on the motion as follows:
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson,
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
Plufka.
The Village Hanager presented the bids for bus transportation for the
swimming pool. He recommended that the bid be awarded to Spring Lake
Bus Company, Inc.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, that the bid
for bus transportation for the swimming pool be awarded to Spring Lake
Bus Company, Inc., as recommended by the staff.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
None.
Councilman Plufka left the meeting.
PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
A request was received for a reduction in bonding for Hillsborough Manor.
The Vi lage Engineer recommended against any reduction at this time.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, secona by Mayor Erickson, denying request
for reduction in bonding for Hillsborough Manor.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None,
Plufka.
Council Minutes - 30 - May 22, 1972
The Village Manager advised that Mrs, David Schlosser, 3341 Ensign
Avenue North, had requested the placement of "Resident Only" parking
signs in the immediate vicinity of Ensign and 34th Avenues to prevent
parking of persons attending baseball games at the adjacent elementary
school. He said the staff suggests that such a request may involve a
somewhat far-reaching policy decision as similar requests may be made
for other residential areas adjacent to Village parks. There is a
number of advantages in living near a Village park and that possible
parking of vehicles should be accepted by such residents.
Councilman Bosacker asked in what way this particular problem was any
different than the problem on 49th Avenue by the ball park and Zealand
Avenue by the Civic Center Park.
The parking ban on Zealand Avenue was because the fire department was
having problems getting through with emergency vehicles. The problem
on 49th Avenue is the parking on both sides of the street, the through
traffic and number of cars on 49th Avenue. There are greater number of
events at the 49th Avenue bal park. The park is lighted and there are
games after dark.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Mayor Erickson, to deny the re-
quest for "resident only" parking in the vicinity of Ensign and 34th
Avenues.
Voting in Favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion ost.
Johnson, Erickson.
Bosacker, Hokr.
Plufka.
Further discussion held.
The motion to deny was again offered by Councilman Johnson and second
by Mayor Erickson.
Vote was taken as follows:
Voting in favor: Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
Voting against: Bosacker.
Absent: Plufka.
Motion to deny carrieo.
Councilman Hokr no~ed that he had changed his vote and that he intends
to investigate the problem himself.
Item 9 was handled earlier in the meeting.
A request was received for renewal of a special use permit for a beauty
shop at 6064 Quebec Avenue North. A report from the Building and Zoning
Director noted that there were a few items at the shop that needed cor-
rection. All but one are minor things. The one would require a period
of time and a several hundred dollar expenditure to correct. The Village
Manager suggested that the applicant have until July I, 1972 to correct
the problems.
Council Minutes - 31 May 22, 1972
II, t2.
13, 14.
F.
15.
16.
17.
18, 19.
20.
Motion by Councilman HOkr, secondiby Councilman Johnson, approving the
annual renewal of Pemi~ for the beauty shop at 6064
QuebeC AVenue NOrth; SubJe~ to ~e~iOnS being made by July I, 1972.
Voting ~n favQ · Besacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
Voting against: None.
AbSent: Plufka.
Motion carried.
Items I!, 12, 13 and 14 had been handled earlier
in the meeting.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
The Village Manager advised that staff had prepared an amendment to the
bicycle ordinance. It is proposed that the li~ense fee and that the
b cycle license become a permanent license. This is to enoourage full
reg stration of bicvcles. The license is a means of identifying lost
and stolen bicycles.
Councilman Hokr introduced Ordinance No. 72-10 entitled "AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTION 11.33 OF THE VILLAGE CODE RELATING TO LICENSING OF
BICYCLES" and moved its adoption. The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilman Johnson and upon vote
being take~ thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ~losacker,
Erickson, Hokr, Johnson; and the following voted against the same:
one, Absent. Plufka, whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed
and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the Village
Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book).
The Village Manager reported that the proposed resolution providing
for denial of Planning case No. 72-19 was not ready for consideration.
Councilman Bosacker introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION SUPPORTING METROPOLITAN SEWER BENEFIT POLICY
AS RECOiV~IENDED BY ADVISORY BOARD FOR SEWER SERVICE AREA NO. I". The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilman Hokr and upon vote being taken thereon, the fo ow ng voted
in favor thereof: Bo~acker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson; and the following
voted against the same: None; Absent: Plufka; whereupon the resolut on
was declared duly passed and ~dopted and was signed by the Mayor and at-
tested by the Village Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book).
OFFICERS, COIv~ISSIONS AND COM~IITTEES
Items 18 and 19 had been handled earlier in the meeting.
The Village Manager advised that Mr. Gene Johnson was resigning from
the Industrial CommissiOn. It was noted that Mr. Johnson was one of
the members of the original Commission.
Council Minutes
- 32 - May 22, 1972
22.
23.
24.
Motion by Counci!man Hekr, sec0nd by Councilman Johnson, accepting with
reluctance Mr, Gene JOhnSon,s resignation from the IndUstiral Commission
and directing the Vitlage Manager fo send a certificate of appreciation
to him.
Vo~ing in favor:
Vo~ilng against:
AbSent:
Motion carried.
I~saCker, E~ickson, Hokr, Johnson.
PI Ufka.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Item 21, discussion of ice arena proposal, had been handled earlier in
the meeting.
The staff report on the request to vacate the walkway at NorthwoodCPark
was reviewed. The Village Manager said the walkway is not needed now
or in the near future. When it is constructed, steps will be needed to
the park.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Mayor Erickson, retaining the ease-
ment for the walkway and instructing the developer to sod the walkway.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
Bosacker.
Plufka.
Consideration was given to the request to place the Hennepin County mobil
field office trailers for the Winnetka Avenue improvement on the YMCA
property east of Hilltop Cabinet.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, approving said
request subject to Hennepin County repairing any damage that is done to
the road and obtaining approval from Sheridan Sheet Metal.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plufka.
The Village Engineer presented a revised preliminary report for pro-
posed Street Improvement No. 260 (56th Avenue, west of Wisconsin
Avenue). He stated the project was feasible and gave the total estimated
cost at $10,900 for Plan A, $7,780 for Plan B and $10,680 for Plan C.
He said this was a $1,000 increase over the previous estimate which
was made some time ago.
The Village Engineer also recommended that this street project be in-
cluded with Winnetka Avenue Improvement No. 268 if it is decided to
proceed.
Council Minutes - 33 - May 22, 1972
25.
26.
27.
28.
Motion by CounCilman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, accepting the
revised preliminary report for proposed Street Improvement No. 260 and
authorizing public hearing for June 12, 1972.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
BOsacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plafka.
Discussion he!d regarding feasibility of proceeding with the 62nd Avenue
sidewalk improvement.
Motion by Councilman JOhnSon, second by Councilman Bosacker, that the
project be tabled indefinitely.
Voting in favor:
VO~ing against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Johnson.
Hokr,
Plufka.
Motion by Councilman BosackeF, second by Councilman Hokr, accepting
ConVeyanCe and EXt ingu Of ACcess from sumter Avenue
from ~he Green G ian~ compa~ and aufhor iZing the Clerk to Sign acceptance
of same.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
AbSent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plufka.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion by Counc! Iman Bosacker~ second by Counci Iman Hokr, accepting
deed from investors syndicate co~p., and the D. H. ore,myer
Co., !nc. to the vi!!age0f NeW HoPe p~Viding for correction !n legal
description fO~ ~he s~Orm sewer easemen~ and authorizing the MaYOr and
Manager to eXecUte the claim db~d ruhning to investors SyndiCate
~Ve!Opment C0rP6~a~i0n theDi H; overmye~ Company, Inc. +o COmplete
exchange of easements. {Parcels 6A~688;50 & 689).
Vo~ing in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plufka.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Mayor Erickson, ratifying the
election of officers of ~he New Nope Fire Department as follows:
Assistant Fire Chief
Day Captain
Night Captain
Day Lieutenant
Nigh~ Lieutenant
Cordell A. Bennett
Donald A. Prall
Harris N. Smith
Jon S. Reedy
Douglas C, Smith
29.
30.
32.
33.
Counci I Minutes
- 34 - May 22, 1972
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plufka.
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Councilman Hokr, approving the
performance and payment bond as submitted by Bury-Carlson, Inc. for
Public Improvement No. 274 (Gettysburg Circle).
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Ptufka.
Motion by Counc Iman Johnson, second by Councilman Bosacker, approving
issuance of licenses as show~ on attached list subject to apprOVal of
the appropriate staff members.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plufka.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, to approve
payment of following relief orders:
#1709 Food Stamp Office $36.00
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plufka.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Mayor Erickson, approving payment
of Village bills in the amount of $905,320.79 through check number
19925 and dated through May 22, 1972, as shown on records on file in
the office of the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
Voting in favor: Bosacker,
Voting against: None.
Absent: Plufka.
Motion carried.
Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
All comments had been heard earlier in the meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS
Councilman Hokr said that he had a press release dated May 22, 1972
that he wished to read.
Counci I Minutes
- 35 - May 22, 1972
"Over the past two years the New Hope Council has spent numerous hours
searching for a location that woLId be suitable for the youth center.
Until recent months the only location we could find was the lower level
of the 42nd Avenue liquor store and bar that had facilities necessary
for a youth center. Being located under the liquor store and bar was
not desirable and discussion centered around fencing behind the liquor
store because that is the lower level entrance, thereby prohibiting any
bar traffic from the rear of the building, After much discussion the
Council decided that for a permanent youth center this was not a good
location and would use this facilil~/ only as a last resort.
Recentl¢ the Council and Youth Commission had been investigating the
possibility of moving St. Jacob's Hall to a location near the concession
stand of the pool. It has been offered to the Vii age by the owner
providing it was moved from its present location. At first we thought
it would be a reasonably small investment and we would like to preserve
the hall as it is reported to be the oldest building in the Village.
We have had the building checked to determine if it could be moved
successfully. There is some doubt that it could be moved.
I was very much in favor of St. Jacob's Hall as a youth center as it
would give us a reading just how desirable a youth center will be and
how many young peopl~ would use the facilities at this reasonable
investment. After a complete analysis it appears as though minimum cost
to meve and rework the building is approximately $10,000. I am not
willing to commit the Village to spe~ that much money for this
facility.
I am going to make a proposal to the Council tonight and urge them to
support a referendum to the people on the November 7th ballot to build
a reasonably priced youth center. My suggestion is a two story building
of about 20 X 40 with the lower level hig~ enough to allow windows -
somewhat on the split level design. This type of building could be con-
structed and equipped for a very reasonable price and we would have a
permanent build nc. If at some future date, we find it is no longer
used or needed as a youth center, the building could serve many other
village needs. My suggested location would be just west of the swimming
pool parking lot to utilize the present parking lot, thereby conserving
costs.
The first rough estimat~ I have received is $45,000 to $50,000 to build
and furnish a buildin~ of this type, We, of course, need an architect
to design it so that we would have an accurate estimate of cost en-
abling us to bring it to the voters as a referendum on November 7th.
I think we need a moderately priced youth center and feel the citizens
of New Hope would approve a simply designed Iow cost building for this
purpose."
Councilman Hokr then moved that we instruct the Village staff to go
ahead with this proposal. The motion was seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Council Minutes
- 36 - May 22, 1972
Discussion held.
Councilman Bosacker said that he thought the alternative of the use
of the lower level of the liquor store remains open. Another alternative
that remains open is a facility that would not have a single use such as
this sounas like it might be. He said if we were to consider seriously
going to a bond issue by referendum at this time, that it would be wel
to at east consider alternatively the potential posed by a bond issue
on a civic center as original y envisioned when the hall was built.
This would be a multi-use facility and recognize the need for facilities
shared by those in the community that aren't necessarily the type to
drop into a youth center. Councilman Bosacker said he would be most
reluctant to see the Council take any action on this tonight because he
feels it is something that should be discussed at some length and this
is the first he had heard abeut it.
Councilman Hokr said we have been investigating this and we are no
further than we were three years ago. Councilman Hokr said he did not
feel he was prepared to go to the voters and tell them we needed a
civic center at this particular time but he is prepared to go to the
voters and tell them we do indeed need a youth center -- a reasonab y
priced youth center. When you are talking civic center, you are talking
a great deal of money.
The ~ayor inquired as to what the first step would be if we wanted ~o
build the suggested facility -- instruct staff to engage architect
to come up with some ideas and then put it out for bids to get concrete
bids and then put it on the referendum?
The Village Engineer advised that you normal ¥ would select a~ architect
to give you preliminary sketches and cost estimates and then go to the
referendum. Normally you would not authorize completed plans and take
bids until after the referendum.
Mayor Erickson said he could support this just to get the information.
Maybe it could be done for less money. At least it is a start. Vtore
important than anything else is that the kids do want a center. It is
a step in the right direction, although it is months away.
Maybe we could consider letting them use the basement of the liquor
store this summer so they could have a alace this summer on a trial
basis. If it doesn't work we can close it up but at least give them
a place to start.
Councilman Hokr said the only way he would go along with that is if we
fenced it off so there was no chance of accidents over there.
Councilman Johnson said before this matter goes to the architect he
would tike to see the Council sit down with the Manager and talk about
the building so he could give directions to the architect.
Council Minutes
- 37 - May 22, 1972
Councilman Hokr said he was agreeable to this.
The Village Manager asked the Village Engineer if he had any estimate
as to the cost for a oreliminary design from an architect.
He said he did not know what the cost might be but he thought the
Village would get as economical a price from Mr. Jim Horne as from any-
one and that Mr. Home had done a good job on the Village Hall for the
money spent. It was suggested that it would be from $500 to $1,000.
Counci man Bosacker again commented that this was the first he had
heard of this matter, He said, having failed to ever take a vote on
the possibility posed by the liquor store, we have not exhausted that
possibility and that he wanted to be convinced in his own mind that
there is not some way to achieve the type of dr¢o-in center that the
youths want, to achieve it safely, with adequate separation. We were
considering just a few days ago, a reasonable expenditure for moving
St. Jacob's hall. i.m most reluctant to engage ~n architect for even
preliminary studies even assuming that it runs only $500 to $600 -
without a further meeting. Councilman Bosacker noted that he was the
one who made the motion for the youth center and that he has been de-
voted to the idea of their eventually coming up with some contribution
to an ultimate drop-in center. He said it seems that what they are
interested in having immediately could verv possibly be provided at
reasonable cost under the liquor store. Facilities beyond what they
are most immediately interested in which is just the drop-in center to
the exclusion of lust about everything else, can very possibly be
achieved in cooperation with other communities, with District 281, with
the YMCA and a number of other oossibilities that pose some avenue of
approach here.
Councilman Bosacker s~id that he was opposed to spending monies for
architect fees without investigating all alternatives.
Mayor Erickson said that we could certainly sit down with Mr. Jim
Horne~ architect, and he could give us a better figure as to cost, but
that we need to get together first to determine what we want in such a
facility. He sa d he can support this as a way of getting started --
sitting down as a Council an~ sitting down wi~h Mr. Horne and find out
what it is going to cost us.
Further discussion held.
Councilman Bosacker said ne was not opposed TO the concept Put he was
opposed if the motion intends new to spend $500 or $600 on preliminary
architectural studies without the pre-meeting. He s not in favor of
the architectural step unti after that meeting.
The Mayor commented that the Council wanted to si? down with Mr. Horne
prior to engaging him, to give him some idea of what we would want and
to have him give es some idea of what the cost would be.
Council Minutes
- 38 - May 22, 1972
34.
35.
36.
37.
Vote was then taken on the question.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Erickson~ Hokr, Johnson.
Bosacker.
mlufka.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, to approve the
plans and specifications for the Chenev Storm and Sanitary Sewer Project
No. 275 and authorizing taking of bids for June 2, 1972.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson.
None.
Plufka.
Councilman Johnson introduced the following reso ution and m~ved its
adopt on: "RESOLUT ON DES GNATING METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AS GRANTEE FOR
METROPOLITAN COMMUNICATIVE UPGRADING PROGRAM . The motion for the
adoption of the foregiing resolution was seconded by Mayor Erickson
and upon vote being taken ~hereon~ the following vo~ed in favor there-
of: ~Osacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson; and the following voted against
the same: None; Absent: PlJfka; whereupon the m~tion was declared duly
passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the
Village Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book).
Councilman Hokr discussed the blacktop problem on 33rd Circle. He said
he thought the Village had an obligation to do something about the problem.
Engineer Rosene said this is the first he had heard about it and he
would I o ok at the street with the Public Works Director to see what
can De done about it.
Motion by Mayor Erickson, second by Councilman Bosacker, accepting
pledged collateral from the Guaranty State Bank of Robbinsdale in the
amount of $375,000 and authorizing the Village Treasurer to sign
acceptance of same.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson~
None.
Plufka.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Counci Iman Johnson, second by Counci Iman Hokr, and carried,
to adjourn the ~eeting at 1:30 a.m. until June 12, 1972 at 7:00 p.m.
or until the call of the chair.
Respectfully submitted,
......
CI erk-T~easurer
Planning Commission
MI nutes
June 6, 1972
A
June
The meetlng was called to order by Chairman Ostlund.
2. Roll call was taken as follows:
was held on Tuesday,
Avenue North.
Present: Barnlskis, Cameron, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund, Sueker, Oster,
Oswald.
Absent: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
was
~n K. Emerson, 4900 Wisconsin
Iow for the construc-
rear lot line,
the home on the lot.
Mr. A
P
to discuss the matter. He
~teiger, 8160 - 4gth Avenue
ad no objections to the
fr~
roof overhang on the porch,
a 21 inch
to match the house.
No one appeared to discuss the request for variance.
in
staff.
of variance
sub-
certified to the Counc, I by ~he Village
staff report
fence.
the
i sald
prefer not to have
Voice vote was then taken on the question. The motion was carried.
trucks at the
heard. Mr. Pelshaw was
· to discuss the proposal.
for a special
store
North was
The petitioner i:
eight rental
parking of these units
to three rental trucks and
It was noted that
not been satisfactory to the Village.
Planning Commission - 2 -
Minutes
June 6, 1972
Mr. Petshaw said Texaco would be blacktopping the area around the
station and that there would only be about three feet of green area
remaining. Discussion held as to handling snow removal. Mr. Pelshaw
stated that snow would be hauled away if necessary.. Upo~ further
disc~ssion, Mr. Pelshaw said that the parking plan as ~resented was
not ~n accordance with his intent for parking of the vehicles.
Commissioner Oster stated that he would prefer to deal with the
requests separately, first with the request for rental units and then
the storage of vehicles.
Commissioner Barniskis said he did not see the necessity for a three
foot green strip on this particular site and suggested that Mr. Pelshaw
contact Texaco and ask them to blacktop to the edge of the property.
traffic control.
No one appeared to object to the issuance of the special use 0ermtts for
the Texaco Station.
Commissioner Sueker noted that the Commission did not have the final
plan which Mr. Pelshaw intends to use and action should be held pending
presentation of correct plans.
Motion by Sueker, second by Cameron, to table Planning Case No. 72-23,
portion relating to soecial use permit for rental trailers and trucks,
until the meeting of June 20, 1972. Motion carried by voice vote.
Discussion held as to the request for a special use permit to store three
trucks on the site.
Commissioner Oster said that this type of request had not been allowed
before and that additional justification would be needed. Mr. Pelshaw
replied that this was needed for economic reasons and that he also
services the company that stores the trucks.
Commissioner Sueker said that the reason this type of request has been
turned down before is because of nuisance factors when located adjacent
to residential properties. He noted that this was not the case with the
Texaco location. If there is room on the site and he can have access
across his own property, he could see no reason to deny the request
after a proper plan is submitted.
Planning Commission - 3 -
MinUtes
June 6, 1972
Mr. Pelshaw was asked to submit two plans for consideration at the next
meeting, one on the rental vehicles only and one including the storage
trucks.
Motion by Oster, second by Cameron, that the request for special use
permit for storage of trucks submitted under Planning Case No. 72-23 be
tabled until the meting of June 20, 1972. Motion carried by voice vote.
5. P anninq Case No. 72-24, request from William Johnson for a special use
permit to a ow truce and t~ailer rental at the Texaco Station, 9456
~ediclne Lake Road, was the next item on the agenda The petitioner
did not appear.
Motion by Oster, second by Meyer, to table Planning Case No. 72-24 until
the meeting of June 20, 1972. Motion carried on voice vote.
6. P arming Case No. 72-25, request from Baker, Inc. for approval of
pFeliminary plat of the single residential Zoned proper~ on the east
~ide of Gettysburg at 40½ Avenue N~rth, was heard. Mr. Don Baker, 4541
Maryland Avenue North, petitioner, appeared to discuss the preliminary
plat. The 9500 square foot requirement is met on all lots with the
exception of Lot I. Lot I cannot meet this requirement because of the
way Gettysburg Avenue curves and nothing can be done to change the depth
of the lot.
Commissioner Barniskis noted that the developer was working with
minimum size lots. He said this would force two-story homes with tuck-
under garages, He expressed concern with futura variance requests on
the p~posed lots and said it would be difficult to provide different
types of houses lall houses might look alike).
Mr. Don Baker said they would definitely be using tuck-under garages
but that all the houses would not look alike. He stated that Lots I
and 2 could be built with attached garages.
Discussion held as to the feasibility of going to six lots instead of
seven. Mr. Baker said that economically this would not be feasible,
based on the asking price of the property. The homes to be built on
these lots are to be in the $36,000 range.
Commissioner Cameron inquired into the possibility of incorporating the
tr angular piece of property lying to the north of Lot I into the plat.
It was noted that the triangular piece of property is part of a larger
tract which currently has a zoning appeal pending~ and it ls doubtful
that the owner would divide the tract until the matter was settled.
Planning Commissio~ - 4 - June 6, 1972
Minutes
Mr. Lyle Dyck, 4141 Flag Avenue North, said that his tot backed up to
Lot I of the proposed plat. He was concerned with the depth of the tot
and the distance the home would be from the back lot line. He also
stated that he did not want the house lined up directly with his home.
Mr. Dyck was advised that the setback requirement from the rear lot line
is 35 feet and that the developer would be responsible for the placement
of the house on the lot in accordance with code requirements.
No one else appeared regarding the proposed plat.
Chairman Ostlund suggested that approval of the proposed plat be subject
to Planning Commission reviewal of the house plans On each lot.
Commissioner Sueker said that.the builder could not be required to come
to the Planning Commission with the plans if they meet code.
Commissioner Oster asked that note be taken that the lots are minimal and
we would hope the developer would come in with houses that do meet the
setback requirements. Mr. Don Baker replied that it is his intent to
build houses that do meet the setback requirements,
Motion by Oster, second by Barniskis, that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Don Baker, Planning Case
No. 72 25,7- including the 9000 square foot lot. Motion carried on voice
vote.
Planninq Case No. 72-26, request from Char es S. 0 var for Waiver of
Platting Ordinance to allow dividing tract of land nto two parcels by
metes and bounds description, was heard. The property is at 3555 Flag
Avenue North. The existing tract is 182 feet wide by 232 feet deep.
It is proposed to divide so as to create a I00 foot lot and an 82 foot
lot, both being 232 feet in depth. The existing house will be on the
I00 foot lot with no variances required. Mr. Oliver was in attendance.
He advised the Commission that he had sold the house on the one lot.
No one appeared to object to the waiver of platting requirements.
Motion by Barniskis, second by Oswald, to recommend to the Council that
the waiver of platting as requested under Planning Case No. 72-26 be
approved. Motion carried on voice vote.
Planning Case No. 72-2?, request from Dr. Jerald Sprau to rezone the
property at 8119 Bass Lake Road from SR to LB to allow for a veterinary
clinic, was heard. Dr. Jerald Sprau, 5675 White Bear Avenue, was
present to discuss the proposa . Under Planning Case No. 72-28, Dr.
Spreu is also requesting a special use permit for said veterinary clinic.
A statement from the two close~ neighbors, Gordo~ C. $oderstrom, 5630
Wisconsin Avenue North, and C. M. Schmitz, 8115 Bass Lake Road, was
Planning Commiss'on 5 June 6, 1972
Minutes
presented. The statement indicated approval of the rezoning and the re-
quested special use permit. Dr. Sprau stated that this use would be accep-
tab e for this particular area and cited the apartments in the vicinity and
the business uses.
Mr. Harold Birkland, Architect, Buffalo, Minnesota, presented a rendering of
the proposed structure and site, The building is a masonry type and of
residential character so as to fit into the neighborhood. He Said the
property is trapezoidal in nature and there is a restriction for a large
setback from the Bass Lake Road. He said they would like to move the
building slightly to the east which would require a variance in setback
from the Bass Lake Road, Twenty-five to twenty-eight animals will be the
maximum capacity and there is no opening on the kennel area. The maintenance
garage area wi be enclosed with !ocKable gates. It is proposed to use a
p anting type screening for the neighbors rather than a fence. Main
~rance to the building will be toward the Bass Lake Road with the access
from Wisconsin Avenue.
Discussion held as to the parking layout and whether expansion of the
building at a future date was contemplated. The code requires six parking
spaces.
Dr. Sprau said that initially there would be two full time employees and that
he would hope to expand but he had no definite plans.
Further discussion held as to whether the building should be rotated or moved
to the east. Dr. Sprau asked that the pans be approved as presented and
that if they decided to relocate the bu Iding to the east they would be back
for approval or variances if needed. If was noted that the b~ilding as now
proposed is in conformance with code reauirements. The only sign proposed
is on the front of the building.
Mr. Arthur Grapentin, 5619 Wisconsin Avenue North, asked 'why business
should locate in this area. He has lived there for 24 years and has been
'~wrapped-up~ with apartments and now this business is p~oposed, He also
objected to access being from Wisconsin Avenue. Mr. Grapentin also expressed
concern that if the veterinary clinic was permitted, the lot on the southwest
corner of Wiscons n and Bass Lake Road wou d also be developed as a business.
It was noted that the lot Mr. Grapentin was referring to is presently zoned
MR. Mr, Grapentin noted that it was still undeveloped.
Mr, Grapentin questioned whether all th~ vacant land at the corner was being
used for the veterinary clinic. Dr. Sprau advised that he had bought all
the property that is oppn on the corner.
Mr. Grapentin said he would object to any noise from the dogs. It was noted
that there were sound control provisions.
Motion by Cameron, second by Ohman, to recommend to the Council that the
rezoning of the property at the southeast corner of Wisconsin Avenue North
and the Bass Lake Road from SR to LB, as requested under Planning Case No.
72-27, be approved. Motion carried by voice vote.
Planning Colml ss Ion
N ! nutes
-6-
June 6~ 1972
ell
savera
Sa, I Iterman hid
Planning Comlssion - 7 -
Minutes
June 6, 1972
Mr. Barniskls reviewed the history of the upgrading of the intersection
at County Road #18 and 36th Avenue. He said that the property at the
corner had been zoned LB and that LB use is a use amenable to single
family use and that RB use is a higher use. The zoning in the area was
reviewed for the people present, ncluding the property to the north of
36th Avenue.
The permitted uses in LB were reviewed for the benefit of the people
present as follows: agricultural, churches, medical, offices, public
utilities, other residences which would include multi01e dwellings.
Commissioner Cameron asked what Kraus-Anderson had done to predict the
traffic on ~6th Avenue and Hillsboro Avenue. He asked what the traffic
pattern would be if you don't have an entrance way off of 36th.
Mr, Engelsma said that the ~rchitect that did the layout went to a
planner and the planner estimated that there would be approximately 2,000
vehicles per day used wtthi~ the shopping Center. Mr. Engelsma said
they have contacted the Sun Ray DX people and asked for an easement for
access to 36th Avenue, They do not have an answer back yet.
Mr. Cameron said he thought the residents were concerned with the traffic
both on 36th and Hillsboro. Mr. Ca.meron then asked what the elevation
of the shopping center would be noting that the land was higher where
the building was proposed by 15 or 20 feet.
Mr. Engel~ms said that they would probably change the elevation so that
the building would be abou~ 4 to 6 feet a~ove 36th Avenue. He said
the architectural firm would design and fit the shopping center nto
the property and that landscaping wou d be done to ~e back of the
prop~rf~ toward where the +ownhouses are presently located. The earth
would be moved into the middle of the site where it is lower.
Chairman Ostlund asked.that the petitioners address themselves to the
criteria for re~oning there wa~ an error in the original zoning or
that a substantial change had taken place.
Mr. Engelsma said they were addressing themselves to the fact that the
area had substantial!9 changed with the redesign several times over of
the County Road #18 intersection. Hr. Engelsma said they also go back
to the original proposal of the city, that this area was at one time
zoned for ~etail business: We feel +hat the retail zoning was correct
and that they are addressing themselves to both criteria.
Commissioner Barniskis asked whether <raus-Anderso~ had obtained any
feedback from Dletropolitan Planning. Hr. Engelsma said that someone
from their firm had contacted Hetropolitan Planning end they state~
that it was not of a metropelitan concept as far as total size and they
would not voice their opinion one way or the other.
Planning Commission - 8 - June 6. 1972
Mlnu,es
Commissioner 8arniskis said ,ha, a, ,he ,ime ,he land was zoned RB beck
use
Them was a
eno,her a, 42nd
He ~
for ,he RB.
,ha, a
,oday wi,h ,he
was undeveloped; i,
RB
He said
filled up.
RBand ,hen
people of ,he plan
I~houghon the original
,he in,eh, of an RB in
*er. The fac,,he
i,
ere ,here. an
,he size of ,his proposal.
Mr. £ngelsma said ,ha, mos, of
is unbuildable end ,he
can?er.
kes i, seem even more
from "day one"
A, 42nd and
probably double
~ foo~ shopping
Mr. Engel
on
~he
we are asking
center. The *e
1½ ,o 2 mi les.
mos, of ,he people
As ,i~e goes
in and build
distance away and
basically rely on a tedious of
II be coming in from Plymou,h but
also
redundancy.
one of ,he concerns. This
Tom
He said ,his is
S,ore a compe, ifor.
*he
no, a
riel,her is a Tom Thumb
Fur,her discussion held as ,o overlap wi,h o,her shopping areas.
Discussion held as ,o the residen,ial Io,s included in ,he planned
unlf developmen,. -eslden,ial Io,s were pre-
on l, (office buildings or apar,men,s).
Planning C~nmission - 9 - June 6, 972
Minutes
l~e property would stand approximately 166,000 square feet of office
building and would take something in excess of two hundred apartment
units, Mr. Engelsma stated that if they were proposing that type of
permitted use in that area, you still would not have access off 36th
Avenue and the traffic count would be substantially higher.
Con~nissioner Oster commented that we have the criteria that must be
answered before we take another step. We have to prove that the area's
changed such that the z~ing s wrong. Talking about change, things
chan~. The population.increases, streets get bu It, houses go up.
Of c~urse things change; they are always changing. This kind of change
is not enough. What you have to do is say that +he area has changed
such that you need the retail there. I am wondering about a couple of
things, Do you have a feasibility study that will demOnstrate that
there is potential here. Being on the Commission, I have seen a lot
of Fetail things come at us lately. You say the Post Haste is not com-
petitive, am not so sure. am in the retail business myself.
K-Mart, that is going to be qu tea facility. D~n at 4gth and County
Road ~t8, there is a proposal for rata I there. So I am wondering, do
you have a feasibility study that will demOnstrate that the area ls changing
such that retail is needed at this location. Or secondly, can you
answer me, who is going to get here. I am wondering about the grocery
you are expecting to get in here. Are you ready with leases that in-
dicate that once you have approval you could go i m~dlately? Do you have
this thing tenanted already?
~r. Engelsma said that when we first found out about this location it
as through other retail business that approached us and asked that
we develop this area for them. Last year we did have, and still have
in our files, letters ?om three major supermarkets and two major drug
chains that do want this location. We have not proceeded because
the postponement that we have run into. We haven't proceeded and we
will not proceed with those leases until such time as we receive Planning
Commission approval. But we do have people that are wiltiag, and we
do have letters in our file from people who are willing to sign leases;
these are major chain operations - local to the Twin Cities.
Commissioner Oster continued - you do have the tenants, so to speak,
waiting in the wings ready to go on the site. Do you have a study that
would relate itself te the retail character of this site?
Mr. Engolsma said his firm had not run a feasibility study. However,
the supermarket chains do run feasibility studies and the one particular
chain that brought our attention to this location did run a study and
they felt in their opinion with the results of their study t~at it was
an excellent area for retail business.
Commissioner Cameron asked about the other five or six small shops.
What are you going to do to guarantee a certain amOunt of quality and
consistency in the smaller shops?
Planning Commission 0 - June 6, 1972
Minutes
Mr. Engelsma said that on that basis he would have to ask that the Com-
mission rely on Kraus-Anderson s integrity in developing shopping centers.
Ne sa d they have approx merely fifteen shopping centers that they present-
y own and ~perate ~rying in size from 6,0~ square foot conventen~:~
centers to in excess of 600,000 square foot regiona shopping centers.
Chairman Ostlund asked if everyone present agreed that it was feasible
to enter into a d scussion of Pezoning because a substantial change or
a mistake in the zoning has taken place. He Said he hadn't heard any
argument other than CommiSsioner Barniskis' comments to that aoint.
Commissioner Barniskis said he would like to point out to the petitioners
that there '
other side of #18
the
children
schools have
access that i
accessibility is immedi
going to be in and out
has gone on record, i
schools on the
senior high school with 2,800
unior high
d that
the schools
and this is a
corner.
hese
with easy
s are concerned, if
a location. The
by it every day. They are
school district
asked them
not to drop the have the same situation here
because of proximity. You have to bus them to Midland, but here they
walk in.
Chairman Ostlund asked whether we had received any comment on this from
the school district. The Village Manager advised that he had not re-
ceived any comments from the school district.
Chairman Ostlund stated that he thought we would have to agree that
there has been a substantial change in that area and that it is possible
that the origina zoning was a m stake. We established a comprehensive
plan in 1960. That has been ~hat way for twelve years regardless of
what the owner of the property has done or what p~ice tag he has put
on it. The proponents would say we had commercial, then we went to
limited business and now we are asking to go back to commercial. The Sun
Ray DX case which we have lost in court also adds a change to the area.
Commissioner Barniskis noted the possibility of appealing the Sun
Ray case and he would move to table right now. He said Kraus-Anderson
was here because of the DX case.
Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any mare comments indicating that
the rezoning should not take place.
Planning Cor~nissien
Minutes
- II - June 6, 1972
Commissioner Oswald said he had no objection to the discussion taking
place. He said he concurs that there has been change, He said he also
concurs with Commissioner Barniskis that the DX case could be appealed
which would make any action at this time out of line. I would concur
that there is a change that makes it viable to discuss.
Chairman Ostlund again asked if anvone felt the criteria was not met
and this cannot take ptace~
Commissioner Barniekis stated that the traffic counts on 36th Avenue
were from 4,200 to 4,800 cars and Kraus~Anderson is talking about 2,000
more cars or a fifty percent increase due to the shopping center.
Chairman Ostlund said that this did not mean 2,000 additional cars but
would be drawing from the 4,000 cars now going by the site.
Traffic counts for 1971 were presented by Mr. Engelsma and were re-
viewed by the Planning Commission, It was noted that County Road #18
was not opened when this count was taken and that traffic on 36th had
increased since #18 was open.
Mr. Engelsma commented that you would not have substantially different
traffic with any other different type of development if the land were
developed to its maximum which you would have to do because of land
cost. He said Kraus-Anderson were developers of multiples and office
buildings but this type development would be totallv unfeasible for
the site.
Commissioner Barniskis said 36th and #18 was an attractive corner for
commercial use because of access and location. He said New Hope does
not have an office building of any consequence and he thought the
corner could be used for other than retail business.
Further discussion held as to the best use of the land, Mr. Engelsma
noted that presently there is a fairly high vacancy level in office
buildings and landlords are not coming out on these projects at this
t me, Fcr this particular piece of property to be used for an office
building you are talk ng about a substantial length of time into the
future. Vacancy factor in the surrounding area has to be reduced
substantially or the property would never be developed. Industrial
tenants are looking for $1.00 to $1,75 per square foot land for office
warehouse combination. This property has land cost alone in excess of
that amount making that industrial use out of the question.
Commissioner Barniskis said he did not fee effort had been put forth
to sell the property for the uses for which it is zoned.
Chairman Ostlund suggested that the talk now be directed toward a shop-
ping center. He said there would be a serious problem with the children
based on experience of other merchants.
Planning Commission 12 - June 6, 1972
Mi ~utes
Mr. Engelsma said they did not feel this way. They presently have a
shopping center located in Bloomington, approximately 200~000 square
feet in size, in the middle of one senior high, two junior highs and
one elementary school. He said they have sufficient control and none
of the tenants is dissatisified wi;th the number of children that do
come in there. He said they have people on the premises all day long
and all evening long and hire guards service if necessary to patrol
during the evening hours.
Mr. Engelsma was asked if Kraus-Anderson maintains ownership of these
centers. Mr. Engelsma said that they maintain ownership and management
of all of their centers.
Upon questioning, Mr. Engelsma said they will have a maintenance man
on the premises depending on the condition of the center and if it so
warrants, they will have one full time. He said the center would be
maintained properly. For the record Mr. Engelsma said it would be
their intent to have a full tim~ maintenance man.
Discussion held as to whether the 62,000 square foot building was all
that would be going on the site. Mr. Engelsma said that the 62,000
square foot building was the maximum and nothing else would be going
on the property. This is the total development.
Commissioner Oster asked whether any significant public area would be
included in the center. Mr. Engelsma said there was not to be any
public area. This concept of a shopping center is called an enclosed
walkway. It has a space of approximately 14 to 18 feet in front of
the business establishments where people can walk within the building
and it is heated and air conditioned.
Commissioner Oster inquired as to whether one of the stores would be
a restaurant. Mr. Engelsma said this was not their present intent.
They were not that far with the leasing.
Further discussion held as to what tenants would be in the center.
It was noted that this center would be approximately the s ze of the
New Hope Shopping center and one'half th~ size of the K-Mart store.
Discussion held as to overlap with the New Hope Shopping Center,
Mr. Engelsma again stated that it was their intention to build and re-
fain ownership on a permanent basis. They had built approximately
fifteen shopping centers and have retained ownership on all of them.
He asked that the Village rely on their credibility for leasing the
stores. Tenant turn-over is minimal. He noted they had other
developments in New Hope. He named the following centers as Kraus-
Anderson developments~ Village North in Brooklyn Park, Valley West
and Southtown in Bloomington, Country Village in Minnetonka. He said
all of these centers have substantial tenant mix and have had a very
high degree of success.
Planning Commission - 13 - June 6, 1972
Minutes
Commissioner Oswald stated that Kraus-Anderson has developed and main-
tained their shopping centers.
Discussion was then opened to the floor.
Mr, Tom ~alstead, 3217 Hillsboro Avenue North, said he had been appointed
as spokesman for the group. He sa d when he f rst moved into the
Village three years ago h~ signed a petition oppos ng rezon ng for a 23,000
squar~ foot sh~pping ~enter. At tha~ time 220 ~esidents signed that
petition opposin~ that rezoning. He also read a copy of th~ reso utlon
~hich the ~uncil adopted at that time denying the ~zoning. He said
the points made in that resolution are still valid~--~'Resolution on
Rezoning Request of C. T. Holberg and Others -- Case No. 69-44 Making
Findings of Fact and Denying the Request". (See attached).
Mr. Tom Walstead presented a petition opDos ng the rezonlng now being
requested. He said the petition bears 894 signatures. On the east
side of Htllsboro there ~re 803 persons opposed. The petitions were
then presented. He noted that further signatures woul~ be presented.
Motion by Meyer, second by Barniskis, accepting the petitions presented
by Mr. Walstead (Planning Cases 72-2~ and ~2 30). M~tlon carried.
The petitions are to be forwarded to the Council.
A written statement was presented to the Planning Commission giving
reasons for opposition to the rezonings and recommendations thereon,
The s~atement is entitled "Concerned Citizens for New Hope". (See
attached). Mr. Watstead then spoke on the points of opposition ;s
outlined in the statement.
He supplemented point 2 with a statement from Mr. Dale Sauer from Draper
and K~mer, managers of New Hope Shopping Center. The statement from
Mr. Sauer said he was concerne~ abou~ additional competition in the
area. He d~s not believe there is in New Hope substantial economic
base to support an additiona major shopping center.
Mr. Walstead the~ reviewed the recommendations from his group as set
forth in their statement.
Commissioner Ohman spoke on po nt of the recommendations noting that
the Sun Ray court ca~e would not be a precedent for future cases because
there had been so many cases that had gone the same way - in favor of
the rezoning.
Mr. Walstead stated that they believe there are points in the court
order that are erroneous and referenced p~int 28 saying "there are
no single family homes near or adjacent to the subject property",
There is a house kitty-corner from the Sun Ray site.
Planning Commission 4 - June 6, 1972
Hinutes
Hr, Walstead said they did attend the school board meet ng and one of
the members of the concerned citizens group spoke, The Distrtc~ 28
SChool Board went on record as being c~nce~ne~ about the proposed
shopping center and the problems that it would create for the schools.
Commissioner Meyer asked what the comparison would be between this
shopping center and the schools versus Cooper High School and the New
Hope shOpping Centex and K-Hart store. Mr, Walstead said they did not
Io~k at ~he ~per New Hope Shopping center area. Commissioner
Sueker said thi~ would not be a di~ec+ comparison because the students
will be walking directly by the proposed center.
Mr, Thud
aske(
lng
vent
was here this
that Hr. Grunsted
this after-
lng this evening. He
traffic and safe-
center would
The solution is to pre-
not only be for
proposed shopping
Arndt, the Assistant Principal
elaborate on some of these polnts.
Mr. Arndt, Assistant Principal from Plymouth Junior High School then
spoke. HE said he was not ~epresent n~ D strict No, 281 or any other
g~oup here. He said it was b~ought to his attention that a shopping
wcenter was proposed for 56th and County Road #18; it was asked if this
ould cause a problem for the school.
He said Hr,
problems, The first prob
especially to school from
would naturally be in
found out from the other
numerous
He said it was Hr,
Grunsted, the Prirc pal, thought there would be two major
factor, Students walking
~ exist~
or Plymouth Junior
reference to the shopping center.
area that we have had
students.
the
if
b #281
is the biggest concern in
Hr. Engelsma said that with the regard to the traffic problem, the same
problem would exist if 166,000 square feet of office building were
built there. At an office building you have heavy traffic starting a~
8:00 o'clock in the morning, There would also be a traffic ~roblem
with apartment buildings as there would with a shopping center.
Hr. Engelsma said that in regards to the hot lunch program he would go
on record saying that they will not rent to a restaurant within the
shopping center so as not fo affect the school hot lunch program.
Planning Commission 5 - June 6, 1972
Mi n utes
Discussion held as to mod-scheduling with Mr. Arndt stating that
students at Ptvmouth Junior High School are not free to come and go as
they wish.
Mr. Harvey Kellor, 9149 - 35th Avenue North, said he had the closest
private residence to the proposed center, He was concerned with the
trafftc on 35th, Nillsbor~ a~d Flag Avenues. He questioned whether
the shoppin? center could be kept clean and objected to light from the
center at nlgh~ delivery trucks throughout th~ day with these trucks
needing to use 35th and Hillsboro, debris collecting, noise pollution,
dirt pollution and sign pollution. He noted there were no sidewalks in
the area and who would pay for these.
The Village Manager pointed out that the developers on both s des of
36th and on Hillsbor~ would be placing sidewalk~ at their costs. He
stated that the developer would pay for all the cost of the walks
abutting their property and that sidewalks are not placed in the Village
other than on major streets.
Mr. Ke lot thought more sidewalks would be needed on residential streets
in the area because of shopping center traffic. He quest oned whether
the sewer system could han~ ed the shopping center. The Manager said
the Village Engineer would be checking this out and that he would not
expect a problem with the sewer system.
Mr. Kellor then spoke on residential values saying that he had spoken
with am appraiser who had advised him his values would go down as a
result of ~he proximity to the shopping center. He then pleaded per-
sonal injury if the center goes in.
Mr. Douglas C~ne, 3523 Independence Avenue North, manager of the town-
houses adjoining the shopping center site, inquired as to the number
of feet between his property and the shop~ ng center. The center s
fifty feet from the lin~ and the townhou~S have a setback of 20 feet.
It was pointed out to Hr. Cone that this was a planned unit development
~nd landscaping would have to be provided as proposed. He expressed
oncern with trash accumulation a~d loading d~ck~ adjoining t~e town-
house property. He no~ed that townhouses ~ere a family type dwe ling
and that ~he shopping center would affect the rental of t~ units.
He also pointed out that grocery operations are now going to 24 hours.
He also ~hought that it m ght c~use a problem with vandalism. He said
trash would ~e blowing int~ the townho~se area.
Mr. Jack Clark, 3657 Hi Ilsboro Avenue North, mentioned the number of
children in the area and said he would not want the traffic from the
center.
Planning Commission 16 -
Minutes
June 6, 1972
Mr. James Johnston, 3617 Gettysburg Avenue North, said he also had a
letter from Mr. Paul C. Anderson, 3608 Jordan Avenue North, which he
wanted in the record, inasmuch as he was unable to attend: Mr.
Anderson said he had checked zoning before he purchased his home, that
his valuation had just been increased by $4,000. He asked if his values
would be decreased f the center is allOWed. He said 36th Avenue can-
not now handle the traffic. It is now almost impossible to make a left
hand turn onto 36th Avenue from one of the intersecting streets. Mr.
Anderson.said we do not need any more shopping facilities~ gas stations
or drive ins in this area~ especially with Post Haste going in and asked
that the rezoning be denied.
Mr~ James Johnston then spoke for himself. He spoke against a com-
mercial encroachment into the neighborhood. He said he had checked
zoning before he bought his home. He was concerned with traffic
congestion, cost of added police protect on, incidence of crime and
accidents in tho~e intersect OhS, costs of future signa ization and
possibility of needing to widen 36th Avenue. He also objected to the
glaring lights~ dirt and noise.
Mrs. Jan Keller, 3617 Flag Avenue North, expressed concern with safety
of the 5,000 children attending schools near 36th and County Road #18.
She said all of the schools had warned about the dangers to children
walking to school. $~e said the added traffic on.36th and other
residential streets -' from the shopping center - will make crossing
the streets suicidal. She asked that the rezoning be rejected perma-
nently.
Mr. Jerry Fruin, 3433 Hillsboro Avenue North, said he had a list of
question~ he_w. ould like answered. (Questions of the Concerned Citizens
of New Hope see attached). The questions were then read with
discussion being held.
Mr. Engelsma said, in connection with question 8, that they would not
be opposed to agree in the planned un~ development that no food
operations would be permitted in the shopping c~nter area. It was
noted that the Village Aftorney would re~iew th,s if it would be
possible.
IN reply to question I0, the Village Manager said that it is not con-
templated that any add!tional police officer vehicles would have to
be added because ~f this development.
tn reply to question II, the Village Manager said it has not been a
practice to notify the school district on such developments.
Discussion held as to at wha~ point the Metro Council becomes concerned
with a shopping center development.
Planning Commission - I? - June 6, 1972
Minutes
n reply to question 20, the Village Manager stated that the fiscal
disparities 5ill provides that 40% of a I commercial and industrial
deve opment after 1971 will be included in a *~Metre-type pot" and will
be redistributed to the communities on basis of a number of factors.
Seemingly New Hope would be eligible to receive some of the distributed
funds also. The effect of fiscal disparities is not fully known.
Mr. Fruin then urged that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
the rezoning.
Father Blaine Barr, pastor of St. Joseph Parish~ said he would like to
address himself to t~e concern that we should have for people. First
of all, the safety of Secondly, the need for a medical
center in th'
time there is a dangerous
day cars come to a s
put larger sigm
a little, but still
a week cars
nature of
sign there.
be aw~
an ethical question. At the p~sent
ction at 36th and Boone. Almost every
to
~elped
t. Several times
the residential
a
I center would not
36th and Boone and would further
increase the danger of that intersection. He said electrical
semaphores would eventually be required because children from Sonnesyn
School are in great danger, He s~id he is also concerned for the
safety of high school children.
Father Barr continued that as far as a medical center is concerned we
have a number of shopping centers, but we have no medical center within any
near proximity to th~ people of our area. This would be an ideal
ocation for a medica center where we could have four or five doctors
housed to meet the real needs of people in our community.
Thirdly, there is an ethical question, He said we ought to have an
adequate study done as to the adverse effects o4 another shopping
cen~er relative to the existing businesses in the area. If thes~
shopping centers are as attractive as they are~roPosed to be then they
are going to draw away from the other cen+ers . New Hope center.
He said ~is concern was for people for the three points he made,
Mr. Hubert Humphrey, III, 8116 - 40th Avenue North, said he would like
to express his concern about what he believes to be a potential metro-
po tan issue. He sa d the proposed development does have metropolitan
consequences, He noted that Ne~ Hope did h~ve a comprehensive plan and
said he would like the Council and the Planning Commission to adhere to it.
He said he had relied on that comprehensive as the plan that will exist
n New Hope, He said there is a ~etropotitan effect with regards to
this rezo~tng, It does affect two co'unities, New Hope and Plymouth.
It affects a major freeway, Highway #18, which is used for regional
traffic and will be used even ~ore in the future when it is eventually
completed. There are metropolitan effects on the students throughout
District #281.
Planning Commission - 18 - June 6, 972
~li nutes
Mr. Humphrey said there are aJso 'regional effects as regard to business
in Plymouth and New Hope and also the fact that there will be regional
traffic through this area using #18 to go north and south from the new
Ridgedale, which is the major diversified center located at #12 and
494. He said the rezoning here would constitute a substantial change
in the Vi I lage comprehensive plan and one which is contrary To the
policies of the Metropolitan Council development guide. He said the
shopping center is a major center as defined within the guide. He
development of centers~ irrespective of size in or in close proximity
to the quadrants of interchanges. He also asked that a look be taken
at the ~aragraphs regarding traffic congestion around centers which is
a so part of the development guide. The net effect of allowing the
rezoning petition is, in a sense, to void our really ~,New Hopes" in this
community to make sure that it is a well developed, well balanced
village. Also, we are part of the metrepolita~ area and this would
have a metropolitan effect.
Hr. Peter Simon, 9124 - 34½ Avenue North, asked what relationship there
is between the DX situation and the feasibility or desirability of
the Kraus plan.
Commissioner Barniskis said that the court has ruled in favor of Sun
Ray and this has then changed the surrounding use, unless the case is
appealed and changed. Fur+her d scussion held as to whether the DX case
should be appealed.
Mr. Humphrey said that he thought it was within the purview of the
Planning Commission to take a tllorough review of the court decision
and make certain that all of th~ statements of fact are correct. He
said there was a mention of sch ~OIs in the decision. This was left
out. If you do not attempt to laintain your balance of direction here
you wilt ~hen have the courtsI recting ~ou as to how this whole area
is going to be developed. He : lid ~he Planning Commission should
support New Hope in its efforts to decide what we ought to do in re-
lation to the metropolitan community.
It was noted that the deadline for appealing the Sun Ray case was ninety
days after April 21, 1972.
Mr. Tom Walstead requested that the Planning Commission, since it had
a concensus of opinion, go on record officially as being in favor of
appealing the Sun Ray court case.
Further discussion held as to 9ossibilit¥ of encouraging other develop-
merit for the site in question. The responsibilities of the Planning
Commission were reviewed.
Planning ~ommission
Minutes
- 19 - June 6, 1972
Mr. Leo Keefer, 3617 Flag Avenue North, inquired as to the value of the
property. He inquired as to whether the Village could buy the property
for park.
Mr. Humphrey aga n spoke on the metropolitan effect of rezoning and
major change in the ~omPrehensive pla~
Ur. Vernon Halvorsen, 3615 Jordan Avenue North, said that he dtd not
hink that the criteria for rezoning have been met and the things that
have changed make t mOre critical to maintain the present zoning.
He did not feel there was basis for rezoning.
No further comments were heard from the floor.
Comm ssioner Cameron noted that a vacant and inventory was in progress
and that a planner was tO be consulted regarding the v~cant land. tt is
thought tha~ the inventory would be done by the middle of July and that
the Planner would be hire~ in August or September. This wou d put this
off a year.
Commissioner Oster sa d he did not fee that the Metropolitan Council
would deal with this center and he did n~t feel it would be a help to
us. The Metro Council concerns itse f with centers of 500,000 square
feet.
Chairman Ostlund suggested that the matter be referred back to committee.
Commissioner Barniskis spoke against tabling. He said he preferred to
act on the request. He.~aid that he was in favor of getting a pro-
fessional pla~ner to up date the comprehensive plan wh ch was adopted
in Ig66.
Commissioner Sueker noted that the concensus of the people i~ the im-
mediate neighborhood is against the rezoning w th th~ major concern
being traffic. Me noted that the Sun Ray matter was not fin shed and
that if he had to vote at this point he Would be against the requested
rezoning.
Commissioner Oswald said he had listened to the statements tonight and
some of them are very val d. He felt that at this time he could not
vote for this plan b~cause of the traff c, the lighting problems in the
evening, safety of schoo children and sidewalk in that area, and the
possibt ty of a 24 hour operation. He further stated that if the Sun
Ray DX court order becomes final without further appeal, the pattern
ha~ been that the courts are generally oeen to the developers' point of
view, if he has "one leg to stand on". We could find ourselves losing a
court case to a much lesser proposal . . He said he thought this
should be tabled pending out~om~ Of the Sun Rav case.
Commission~r~ Oster and Meyer sta~ed that th~/ thought it best to wait to
see if tho Sun Ray case would be appeale~ and what happens o~ that
property.
Planning Commission - 20 - June 6, 1972
Minutes
II.
Further discussion held~
Motion by Cameron, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Counci denial
of rezoning requested under Planning Case No. 72-29 with the dea being
that we are undertaking a comprehensive review of all vacant land in the
V lage to update, rezone and reorganize and ay that time this piece of
land can be ~eevaluated for what p~rposes it might serve.
Chairman Ostlund disagreed with using the study as a reason for denial.
Motion by Oswald~ second by Barniskia, to amend the motion to include
reasons for denial the matters of safety, particular y of school
children, of traffic over five or s x r~i~ntial streets which would
become reasonable major arterial streets, evening hours lighting com-
mercial asPeCt effec+ on the immediate residential homes would have
an extremely detrimenta effect.
Amendmenff d scussed. Commissioner Oster spoke to alternatives to the
present presentation and the effect the Su~ Ray case might have on the
eventual development of the property,
Vote was then taken on the amendment. Amendment carried with Oster and
Meyer voting against.
Vote was then taken on the motion as amended. Motion carried with
Oster and Meyer voting against.
Motion by Oswald, second by Oster, that we go on record as recommending
to the Village Council that the Sun Ray case be appealed to the Supreme
Court. Motion Carried unanimously.
At 12:45 am.,, the Chairman declared a five minute recess.
Meeting called back to order.
Planning Case No. 72-30, request from Dr. Saliterman to rezone the
southeast corner of 36th and Hillsboro Avenues North from SR to LB,
was heard.
Dr. Saliterman appeared and said he was asking for rezoning for the
use of the corner for a medical-dental center housing approximately I0
doctors. Ne said he was asking rezoning on the basis of the change
that has taken place in that area and t~at was discussed under th~
previous case.
Commissioner Ostlund asked if there was anyone present objecting to
the presentation of the rezoning on the basis that the criteria had
not been met. No one objected.
Planning Commission - 21
Minutes
June 6, 1972
Dr, Saliterman said he had heard the comment that another filling
station would be developed on his land. He said he wanted to go on
record that he wants to develop a medical center there. He said he has
been working on this project for 2½ years. A group of doctors had
decided on this site because people would have access via County Road
~18, He said at first he had an option on a small piece of land and
the Planning Commission had at that time told him the medical center
s te must extend to Hillsboro and definitely not in the middle of the
lot. This meant that the medtca center would have to be a little
larger because additional land would have to.be purchased, Me said
the last time he was in the Planning Comm sslon had asked that he show
how the rest of the block was ~loing to be utilized as single family.
He said this now showed on the Kraus-Anderson proposal. He said he
now owns the whole front piece.
Commissioner Barniskis said this case was much the same as the Kraus-
Anderson situation. He commented that what Dr. Saliterman was showing
here was a justification for keeping the Kraus-Andereon site LB because
there obvious y was an interest ~or LB uses in the vicinity, The fact
that this piece of property is less expansive is the situation you come
up to,
Comm ssioner Barniskis says the plan shows total development from corner
to corner which precludes the possibility of another service station at
the corner.
Dr. Saliterman said 42 parking spaces were proposed, plus underground
parking of 12 for the staff. Further discussion held as to the proposed
site plan. It was noted that the case before the Commission was for
rezoning.
Dr. Saliterman stated that some trees by the existing site would be
left. The barn would be removed right away, Presently it is proposed
that the farm house will be taken w~en the~e was a nee~ for more space
for parking. He said the house would be down within a year from when con-
struction is finished.
It was noted tha~ the plan showed that the traffic would be brought
in off of Hillsboro. Dr. Sallterman said he was told by the Planning
Commission to bring the traffic in from Hillsboro.
Commissioner Cameron stated that in our Village Code a medical center
is considered amenable to a single residence area.
Discussion held as to whether this plan was being presented as a planned
unit development so that there would be assurance that the property
would be developed as proposed.
Dr, Saliterman then stated that this is being presented as a planned unit
development for the southeast corner of 36th and Hillsboro Avenues,
Planning Commission - 22 -
Mi nutes
June 6, 1972
Chairman Ostlund ruled that this presentation of the planned unit develop-
merit could be accepted since we now have a public hearing.
Chairman Ostlund asked that the record show that a petition with 802
signatures objecting to the rezonin§ had been presented.
Commissioner Barn iskis commented that this property and the property west
of Hillsboro were not independent entities, but that the properties
were dependent on each other and both depend on the DX sl~e'~ ultimate
use. Ne asked if this were approved how can we justify not approving
Kraus-Anderson.
Dr. Saliterman asked whether the Planning Commission felt this was not
a proper use for this land if the DX case were reversed.
Commissioner Barntskis said this Dian for a medical center would work
quite well in other areas of the Village and that he thogght it would
work just as well on the site proposed as across Hillsboro. He said
he di~ not think this LB use, ~nd LB by definition is not imcompatible
with SR, would be an intrusion by glare, by safety or by noise. None
of the arguements that were made against Kraus-Anderson have any credence
when you ~alk about this type of f~¢il ty and the resultant use factors.
You will generate traffic, but the movement is not going to be there.
The hours are such that at 5~00 or 6:00 o'clock it will be closed. It
will not be open on Sunday, It is not a 24 hour operation. There will
not be stg~ing like a shopping center. There would not be semi-trucks
coming in and out. Al the things that are bad about a shopping center
cannot be applied to medical center use. It is an LB use and is com-
patib e to SR, He then commented that there was LB across the street.
and what justification was there for rezoning this property.
Chairman Ostlund questioned whether this was good residential property,
fronting on 36th Avenue and across from the Shell Station.
Further discussion as to zoning in the vicinity. It was noted that the
court did not differentiate between commercial and LB.
Chairman Ostlund thought this was a valid use of 36th frontage and with
the land market it would be difficult to put homes on it.
Commissioner Oster commented that an upgrading of this parcel would
be an upgrading of use to a more intensive use and would be the second
upgrading we have seen and he thought this would add to the likelihood
that we would get an upgrading on the Kraus-Anderson site.
Chairman Ostlund stated that the domino effect did not apply because the
record shows that single family homes and LB are compatible. There s
nothing that says single family is compatible to RB. Chairman Ostlund
said he thought the medical clinic was the highest and best use of the
property,
Planning Commission - 23 -
Minutes
June 6, 1972
Discussion was then opened to the floor.
Mr. Jerry Fruin, 3433 Hillsbore Avenue North, said that a petition with
over 800 signatures ha~ previously been submitted and been received
by the Planning Commissi~n. This petition opposes the rezoning under
consideration. He said a little over I0 months ago that the present
zoning was correct, He read from the Council resolution denying the
previous rezoning on the property. He said land west of Hillsboro was
zoned for a medical center and asked why the center couldn't go there.
Dr. Saliterman said it was not economically feasible to develop a
medical center west of Hillsbore Avenue.
Mr. Fruin said the recommendations presented tn connection with the Kraus-
Anderson case also Hppl¥ to this case.
The Chairman asked that the record show that the r~commendations were
also presented in connection with Planniag Case 72 30.
Hr. Harvey Kellor, 9t49 - 35th Avenue North, said assuming that the DX
case is appealed and DX loses, should the Planning Commission recommend
approval ~f Dr. Saliterman's petition. He said this would allow
Kreus Anderson or some other developer or land owner t°come back and
request the west side of Hillsbore ~o go from LB to
Chairmen Ostlund said he did not agree because RB is not compatible to
SR. We would still have SR behind the medical center.
Mr. Kellor asked whether there were any plans for a pharmacy. Dr.
Sallterman said not at this time, It was noted that a drug store would
tak? rezoning. He.then noted that we would have the domino effect
aga n. He then objected to ngress and egress on Hillsbore,
Mr. To~
rea
He said the document never referred to any
or residential.
, said he would like to
Jrt Order concern-
] land
commercial area to be devoted
purchased with
~aning of "commercial".
zoning other than commercial
He said he felt that this would present legal problems such as the
Shell Station and Post Haste, He commented that we all wanted a
medical center in New Hope and that we have plenty of land available
zoned properly. He said the zoning should be held as is.
PI annl ng Commission
M inutes
- 24 - June 6, 1972
Mr. Hubert
going to allow
zone~then bring
ed what the use
going to
because
term or
to
spoke on the New
as to whether you are
and on the east of Hillsboro to be re-
because you have establish-
is a matter of-are we
of this land as it is
rezoning
s a very fine medical
to the short
going to stick to your
professional analyzed
the plan and allow this
Chairman Ostlund said that the strongest reason he had for vot ng den a
the last time Dr, Saliterman was her~ was the Sun Ray DX pending court
decision. He said the opinion now says the and is su ted for commercial.
InterPreting commercial is from LB to GB and LB is a bonafide neighbor
to SR, It is compatible.
Mr. Humphrey said we h~ve the medical center, the resident a develop-
merit proposed by Kraus Andersen and on the other side the, retail center
and it i~ all o~e situation. We a t are very much aware what is going
to happen if the DX stands, we know that is an incident of change.
,This is a further confirmation on the part of a municipal commission
TO the Council and to the court that you in effect confirm that this
is not a residential area, that it Is for commercial purposes. He
asked that the court decision be read very carefully.
Chairman Ostlund pointed out that the court order also mentioned the
Shell Station and Poste Haste and the fin shing of County Road #18, Mr.
Ostlund again said that he thought the mad cai center us~ was compati-
ble to the single family residences.
Mr. Humphrey said that you can't on the one hand deny the rezoning
saying that you are supporting the appea on the DX and on the other
hand say that on the other si~e of t~e street let's change the zoning.
The present zoning in the area was discussed -- LB. RB, C~ and SR.
a development plan exists.
. There is land available.
so he y property.
and the
that owns the
to have to reduce the price
Planning ~mmission - 25 - June 6, 1972
Minutes
~hairman Ostlund said that if the request was for RB he would vote fo
any it because it would not be c~atible to SR and it would add
credence to what you are saying -- and what the court is saying. He
pointed out that Dr. Satiterman was asking for LB which is compatible.
He did not feet this could be misconstrued as a drastic change -- to RB
or
is
is other than he
of proper,y on .one
plan.
Cha
smal
Indication that the developer
tillsboro. There has
it split apart into
knows whet will
· What could you do with property
years.
a great numb4
Dr. Saliterman said one fact
to present a situation where
ion could "stick to its guns"
in the next ten
and
to be
~le are just trying
that we are talkln~g about Is
He doubted
site even without the
from the
anything than a
ruling on Sun Ray site.
Further discussion by Planning Commission as to proper zoning.
Commissioner Barniskis spoke against the rezoning.
Motion by Meyer, second by Ohman~ to recommend to the Council approval
of the rezoning from SR to LB as requested under Planning Case No.
72-30.
PI ann tpg MI Ssion
Htnufes
- 26 - June 6, 1972
deve I opment.
not
on
the
tied together. He
of this par~ricular
for SR
stop
does
against'
cases
that
that will
cour~ case. He
lly
Vote was the~
Motion
Planning Commission June 6, 1972
Minutes
12.
13.
14.
Planning Case No. 72~3t, request from LeRoy Signs, Inc. for variances to
allow additional wall sign ~n the east side of the K-Mart building, was
heard.
Mr, Tom Duffy represented LeRoy Signs, Inc. The sign is proposed to
provide iden+ificafion for the building from Winnetka Avenue. The pro-
posed sign is 7 feet 6 inches by 43 feet II inches and contains 356.5
square feet.
The east side of the building is the rear wall and the Village Sign
Ordinance allows a nine square foot sign.
Mr. Tom Duffy said it was his understanding that the Planning Commission
had suggested that K-Mart have a sign on the rear wall.
Further Discussion hald.
Motion by Oster, second by Cameron, that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the v~r~ances ;'or rear wall sign at the K-Mart store
as requested under Planning Case No, 72-31. Motion carried by voice vote.
(Commissioner Oswal~ left the meeting temporarily and was not present for
the voting.)
The public he, ring on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code relating
to pet shops in stall business districts was held. The Village Manager
reviewed the prc~osed ordinance change,
Mrs. Gloria Gaage~ the per£on interested in opening a pet shop in the
Post ~aste center a~ 36th and County Road 18, was present. She said the
proposed ordinance w~s satisfactory as to the number of animals permitted.
No one eppeareu to $?eak a;ains~- the amendment.
Motion by Meyer, second by Suc!<er, to recommend to the Council that the
amendment to Soc'~ion 4.92, Subdivision (43) to a~low pet shops in retail
business zoainS cicssificaTIons be adopted. Motion u~anlmeusl¥ carried by
voice vote.
~Planninq-.C~e N~, .---72-32' requgst from Mr. Kenneth Benson for approva of
site plan fcr an ~dus'~r~a bu ding at 4550 Quebec Avenue North, was
heard. Mr. ~enson ~as pr'escnt to review the plans with the Commission.
Mr. Benson told ti~e Commission that he had a request for additional space
in the proposed bu!lding end asl<ed for permission to increase the size of
the building by 7500 square feet. Mr. Benson said that said addition
would not violate parking or setback requirements.
Twenty parking spaces are needed to meet code requirements based on the
original presentation of the building, Forty spaces are provided.
Planning Commission June 6, 1972
Minutes
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
21
Discussion held as to location of loading berth.
recessed into the building.
The loading berth is
Discussion he d as to sidewa k requ rements. It was noted that sidewalk
has not been requ red for the industrial buildings on Quebec Avenue and
that a street improvement by the Village is now pending. The improvement
will not provide sidewalq as it is thought that it is not necessary at
this time.
Motion by Oswald, second by Ohman, to recommend approval of site plan for
the industrial building at 4550 Quebec Avenue North, subject to presenta-
tion of final plans wi~h staff approval (Planning Case No. 72-32). Upon
voice vote, th~ motion was declared carried.
NEW BUSINESS
The Codes and Standards Comm tree reported that it had met with the
Environmental Commission and that another meeting was schedu ed for
Thursday, June 8, 1972 at 7:30 p.m, at the Village Hall.
Commissioner Cameron, Land Use Committee, reported that the land
inventory should be ready by the middle ~f J~ty and a planner would then
be retained.
The Council minutes of the meeting of May 22, 1972 were reviewed by the
Village Manager.
Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, that the minutes of the Planning
Commission.meeting of May 16, 1972 be approved as presented. Motion
carried on voice vote.
All comments from citizens had been handled earlier in the meeting.
There were no announcements.
Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman and carried, to adjourn the meeting at
2:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
// ,/?
Betty P u,t' et,
Recording Secretary
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 5, 1972
I . Call to Order - 7:30 P.M.
2. Ro fiCa I I
PUBL I C HEAR I NGS
3. Planning Case No. 72-47 (Request for Special Use Permit to
Allow for Constru.ction of Theater and Wai ver of PI atti ng
Ordinance) 45th Avenue, East of Xylon Avenue North, Zodiac
Cinema Group, Inc., Petitioner.
4. Planning Case No. 72-51 (Request for Waiver of Platting
Ordinance, Variances in Lot Size and Building Size and
Site Plan Approval). 7108 Bass lake Road, Markland Develop-
ment, I nc., Pet i ti one r .
5. Planning Case No. 72-52 (Request for Variances in Lot Size,
Building Size, Front Setback, and Site Plan Approval)
7100 Bass Lake Road, Zapata Foods; Petitioner.
6. .Planning Case No. 72-53 (Request for Waiver of Platting
Ordinance to Divide Two Lots into Three Sui Idable Sites
and Site Plan Approval) 4730 Quebec Avenue North, Benson-
Orth Associates, Inc., Petitioner.
7. Planning Case No. 72-54 (Request for Change in'Site Plan to
Include Additonal Driveway) 3414 Indepen~ence Avenue North,
Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church, Petitioner.
8. Planning Case No. 72-55 (Request for Variances to Parking
Requirements and Parking Location, and Site Plan Approval)
2738 Winnetka Avenue North (Lots I I and 12 Lamphere's Terra
Linda>, Frank ,Salma, Petitioner.
9. Publ ic Hearing on Amendment to Zoning Code ReJating to
Townhouse Regulations.
10. Pub I i cHeari ng on Amendment o.t Zoni ng Code Re tat i ng to
Car \~ashes.
I I . Planning Case No. 72-38 (Request for Sign Variance)
5600 Winnetka Avenue North, Shell Oi I Company, Petitioner.
NEW BUSINESS
12. Consideration of Approval of Sign Plan for Boy Blue Dairy
Treat (Post Haste Square).
13. Report of Codes and Standards Committee
14. Report of Land Use Commi ttee
15. Review of Counci I Minutes of August 14 and August 28, 1972
fv4e~t i ngs
- 2 -
16 . Approval of Planning Commission ~~inutes of August I, 1972
f\1eet i ng
I 7 . Additional Co~rnents/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners
f 8. Announcements
19. Adjournment
DATE: Septembe r 5, 1972
CASE: 72-47
PETITIONER: Zodiac Cinema Group, Inc.
REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE AND
SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THEATER
LOCAT ION: 45th Avenue, East of Xylon Avenue North
ST AFF F I NDI NGS AND cOrvt~ENTS:
Waiver of Plattinq
This RB zoned property is located immediately to the east of the
Royal Car Wash on 45th Avenue and the rear of this proposed lot would
be the K-Mart property to the south. The site is les5 than the three
acres required by ordinance as there is approximately 52,000 square
feet. This theater is an excellent use for this propetty. The site
is large enough to accomodate the proposed useD Most RB zoned parcels
contain less than three acres. This waiver of platting should be
approved and if this division is al lowed the action of creating this
undersized parcel wi II be approving a variance to minimum lot size
for RB zoned property.
Special Use Permit
Section 4.44 Sub. Section (3) requires that commercial recreation
uses are permitted by special use permit. This provides for Counci I
consideration that the commercial recreation provided is to serve the
residents of this community. This theater wi II not have a stage and
wi I I provide screen entertainment only. The theater wi II be divided
so that two films can be shown at the same time.
Three hundred and eighteen seats wi I I be provided. One parking
space is required for each 3 seats. This would require 106 parking
spaces and that number is provided. No screening is required.
Bui Iding setbacks meet code requirements. Two curb cuts are
proposed onto 45th Avenue and with the parking capacity of this site
both would be required. There is also the need for a drive up to
drop off chi Idren and this requires two driveways.
The criteria for granting special use permits in business districts
<Sec. 4.43(2)) provides that the fol lowing be found:
( A) The proposed use wi I I not cause traffic hazard or
congestion.
(8) Adjacent residentially - zoned land wi It not be ad-
versely affected because of traffic generation,
noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics.
(C) Existing businesses nearby wi II not be adversely
affected because of curtai Iment of customer trade
brought about by intrusion of nonshopping traffic
or general unsightl iness.
Since this use campi ies to these findings, there should be a
recommendation for approval of this special use permit.
Final plans wi II requ ire approva I of the Vi II age Engi neer, Fi re
Chief and Sui Iding Department before a bui Iding permit could be issued.
DATE: Septembe r 5 ~ 1972
CASE: 72-51
PET I T lONER: Markland Development, Inco
REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING, VARIANCE IN LOT SIZE,
VARIANCE IN BUILDING SIZE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL
LOCATION: 7108 8ass Lake Road
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
Waiver of Plattinq
The petitioners are requesting a waiver of the platting ordinance
because this parcel of property is larger than necessary for their
Ponderosa Steak House restaurant. Since site plan approval is being
requested for both parcels "Ail and USfI, and each site plan meets
Vi I I age requirements, this waiver of platting should be approved. To
require the additional amount of green area that is contained in
parce I fiSH for th i s steak house \'iOU I d not appear reasonab Ie.
Variance to Lot Size
. Vi I lage ordinances obviously limits retai I business sites to a
minimum of 3 acres to prevent a scattering of small shops and stores
throughout the community and promote shopping center type developments.
This particular parcel is bounded on three sides by the City of
Crystal and in total is less than 2 acres before this proposed division.
There are a series of small parcels of land surrounding this site.
This seems to fit into the overall development scheme of the area and
since there is ample land to support the proposed restaurant this
variance should be approvedo
Variance to Required Floor Area
The requirement of 20,000 square feet of floor area in the Vi Ilage
ordinances is obviously intended to provide the Counci I an opportunity
to approve specific land uses. However, many bui Idings, and specifically
restaurants with less than the required footage have been approved in
the past. The re are many sma II parcels of property zoned RB which
could not possibly support this required size of bui tding. When under-
sized parceJs of RB property are zoned or platted the size of the
property dictates the size of the bui Iding for the specific use of
the land.
The size of this bui Iding seems ample for its intended use and
this variance should be approved. There are 5,402 square feet in the
proposed structure.
Site Plan Approval
The existing house and garage are to be removed. It is the intent
of the petitioner to retain as much of the natural tree and shrub
growth as possible.
A planting layout is also provided. AI I setbacks meet Vi IIage
code requ i rements .
The petitioner has permission from Hennepin County for a curb cut
onto Bass Lake Road. Vi Ilage ordinances requi re one parking space for
each three seats. This restaurant wi II have 244 seats and requires
parking for 82 cars and 88 parking spaces are provided. Sh rubs or a
5 foot high fence wi I I provide the necessary screening of this parking.
Vi I lage ordinance 4.12 (2) provides that no structure higher than
3 feet above curb level shal I be located within 20 feet of the right-of-
way on corner lots. Because of this safety regulation the 2 parking
spaces on the corner should be el iminated. There is sti I I ample
parking and lov/ shrubs or a planter as additional green area would be
attractive.
The public walk along Maryland Avenue is an ordinance requirement
and is shown on the proposed site plan.
Fi na t plans will require approval of the Vi I lage Engineer, Fire
Department and Sui Iding Department.
This site plan conforms to Vi 1 lage ordinances and should be
app roved.
DATE: September 5, 1972
CASE: 72-52
PETITIONER: Zapata Foods
REQUEST: VARIANCES IN LOT SIZE, BUilDING SIZE, FRONT
SETBACKS AND SITE PLN~ APPROVAL
LOCATION: 7100 Bass Lake Road
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
Variance in Lot Size
If the waiver of platting for Planning Case No. 72-51 is approved,
then the recommendation for this variance has to be one of approval,
and if not approved this planning case is automatically denied.
Variance in Required Floor Area
The size of this site dictates that a variance is required. If
Planning Commission members agree that this bui Iding is adequate to
serve as a restaurant then this variance should be approved. The
experience of the petitioner in bui Iding and working with this
identical bui Jding plan is evidence that the bui Iding is of sufficient
size and this variance should be approved. The bui Iding size is 1,764
square feet.
Variance to Front Setback Requirement
This RB use located on a major thoroughfare requires a 50 foot
setback. Apparently the City of Crystal does not have this requirement
and the Crystal State Bank has a setback of only 32.9 feet. The
petitioner is requesting a front setback of 42 feet. Markland Develop-
ment, Inc. is aware of this proposed setback and does not have any
objection. Because the Bass Lake Road wi I I probably not be widened at
any time in the future (the public walk is already on private pr9perty),
the Crystal State Bank has a lesser setback and the proposed setback
is not opposed by the owners of the proposed steak house this front
setback variance of 8 feet should be approved. Other setbacks meet
code requirements.
Site Plan Approval
This proposed restaurant is properly located on RB zoned property.
You wi II note that as per the wishes of Markland Development, all
existing trees and plantings are to remain whereever possible.
In keeping with the theme of this restaurant outdoor tables are
proposed. The same sidewalk cafe idea exists at the Arthur Treacherts
Fish and Chips restaurant also located on Bass lake Road to the east
in Crystal.
There is seating capacity for 66 people inside this restaurant
and 32 outside. At a ratio of I parking space for each 3 seats, 33
parking spaces are required and 43 spaces are provided. This parking
is not adjacent to a residential district and therefore does not re-
quire any screening. Where opposite parking is proposed the parking
area is only 61 feet wide. Ideally where such a parking layout
occurs the lot would be 65 feet wide. This al lows 20 feet for each
car and 25 feet maneuvering area. Since the petitioners are con-
cerned about maintaining the existing trees and plantings, it is
recommended that this parking area width be increased to only 63 feet.
The petitioner has received permission from Hennepin County for
a curb cut onto Bass Lake Road.
Since this site plan conforms to Vi I lage ordinances it should
receive a recommendation for approval with the front setback variance.
PLAN CA6E 7Z -53
E-X 1-1181 T " ~ ,. ~
I
I
L ~. LIN&. OF \\lYe. -F t..!4L OF ...,JGI, II' .14:. 8
I . _ _ -/- "f.11. R.S'., :
I . /
. 14'7,U7 tHt.F$ . /
.. ~.UI ~...
I-
Z
W. L..II".F .., r.. oP Ii. J'A. of' I ,
~.,~ 01'~" l= i.'l
. (
all .:t
J- +'c;!
III
vi :/
If
I- N.
. '<4~O /
/A ail
/.
/
/D' /
/.' ~
/ p....J I
( J
I~ f
.
I ~ ~T,(J/f7 $ca. FT. I
B '.ff~ AC....
f ---
v I
- I
t
DATE: September 5, 1972
CASE: 72-53
PETITIONER: Benson-Orth Associates, Inc.
REQUEST: WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE TO DIVIDE
TWO LOTS INTO THREE BUILDABLE SITES
AND SITE PLM~ APPROVAL
LOCAT I ON : 4730 Quebec Avenue North
STAFF FINDINGS AND CO~MENTS;
Waiver of Plattin~
Because of the bend of and location of Quebec Avenue at the above
location a sliver of isolated land remains behind Lot I, Block 3 in
Perry's Sprucewood Terrace Addition (See attached drawing).
This land is zoned General I ndustri a I . It is the intent of the
petitioner to incorporate this part of Perryis Sprucewood Terrace
with the property immediately to the north and create three bui Idable
parcels.
AI i three proposed lots would exceed the minimum size require-
ment of one acre. This waiver of platting should be approved subject
to the petitioner legally adding the newly acquired land to the ap-
propriate parcel.
Site Plan Approval
This industrial bui Iding is proposed on General Industrial zoned
p rope rty . The front setback is 50 feet as required by ordinance and
al I other setbacks are proper. There is one consideration that is
unusual in that the triangle shape of the lot provides no rear lot
line or rear setback. One side of the lot is rai troad right-of-way
and the other side is adjacent to the side yard area of an undeveloped
site.
The floor area of this bui fding is 23,485 square feet. This
would require 30 parking spaces and 35 spaces are provided. The re
are two loading docks, one on each side of the bui Iding.
There has never been a sidewalk instal led on this industrial
street even though one is required by ordinance. Pe rhaps the reason
for this is the fact that the street improvements are not in and
therefore, a grade of the right-of-way area has not been established.
Quebec Avenue from 42nd to 49th is being improved this year.
There are tVJO driveways with one on each side of the bui Iding.
With the exception of an odd shaped lot created by the angle of
Quebec Avenue that has no rear lot I ine, this is the usual General
Industrial development proposed in this area by this petitioner. A
recommendation for approval of this site plan should be made to the
Vi) I a ge Co u n c i I .
DATE: September 5, 1972
CASE: 72-54
PETITIONER: Beautiful Savior Luthern Church
LOCA T I ON : 3414 Independence Avenue North
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN SITE PLAN
TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY
5T AFF FIND I NGS AND COMfv1ENTS:
The petitioner received Counci I approval for a revised site plan
on ~1ay I I, I 970 . This work has not been accompl ished because the
County has not made payment for the property acquired for County
Highway #18. At the present time, they wi I I start to accomplish
the grading, moving the swing set and some of the blacktop work.
In that the petitioner contends it cannot afford to blacktop
the driveway south to 33rd Avenue at this time, it requests another
driveway onto 34th Avenue.
There are no ordinances covering this driveway location request.
There seems to be no problem with vehicles entering the parking lot,
but when church activities are over, congestion occur~ with the one
driveway exit.
Since no more traffic wit I be generated by this additional
driveway and the adjacent residents wi I I be bothered for a shorter
period of time with traffic leaving the church, this change in site
plan should be approved.
DATE: September 5, 1972
CASE: 72-55
PETITIONER: Frank Balma
REQUEST: VARIANCE TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS,
VARIANCE TO PARKING LOCATION AND
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
LOCATION: 2738 Winnetka Avenue North -
Lots I I and 12, Lamphere's Terra Linda
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
General
This office bui Iding is proposed on Limited Business zoned
p rope rty . The lot area exceeds the Vi I lage minimum of 15,000 square
feet and contains 24,490 square feet. The minimum floor area is only
1,000 square feet and this building has 14,648 square feet of floor
area when combining the two floors.
There was a site plan approved by the Vi Ilage Councj I for a
three story bui Iding on November 23, 1970. This approval allowed a
variance to the parking ratio of one parking space for each 450 square
feet of floor area and a variance to allow parking within 3 feet of
Winnetka Avenue and Terra Linda Drive. Also included in this approval
was a 5 foot high wall of brick or I ike material along the east
property' ine to within 15 feet of the property line on Terra Linda
Ori ve at wh i ch po i nt it wou I d be reduced from 2 I /2 to 3 feet high
and continue to Terra Linda Drive, west to Winnetka and south along
\'/i nnetka to the south p rope rty 'i ne . There was to be a 25 foot
drainage easement along the east property line.
It was the petitioners intent to proceed with construction of
this 2 story bui Iding using the site plan that had been approved.
An error in the zoning map has been found which changes the required
side yard setback to 25 feet because the property to the south is not
zoned Retail Business but is residential.
Variance to Parkinq Requirements
Vii lage ordinances require one parking space for each 400 square
feet of floor area. This 14,648 square foot floor area requires 37
parking spaces and 32 parking spaces are proposed. Unl ike a single
use one floor bui Iding where neart.y all office space is used, this
two story bui Iding has approximately 3,500 square feet that is not
usable office space.
Because there is a large portion of this building that is not
usable office space and there are only 5 fewer spaces than required
this variance request should be approved.
Variance to Parkinq Location
The petitioner states that the cost of preparing this site for
this bui Iding dictates the amount of rentable office space required
to make this project feasible. Parking within 20 feet of any right-
of-way is not permitted in LB districts. The petitioner is requesting
a variance to al low parking up to 3 feet of these right-af-ways.
This site is located in an area which is generally retai J business
and whi Ie the proposed use is not retai I business it does fit into the
needs of this area. With the same screening and watls that were re-
quired at the November 23, 1970 Counci I approval this bui Iding could
be an excellent addition to this business district. With these require-
ments this variance to parking location should be approved.
Site Plan Approval
AI I bui Iding setbacks conform to Vi I lage ordinances. There are
three driveways al I of which have the required 75 feet from the center
to an extension of the intersecting curb line. There appears to be an
adequate number of plantings that are properly located.
The Planning Commission should consider that this is one of the
two uses that are af towed on LB zoned property and additional apart-
ments are not needed. The soil condition is very poor and requires
very costly preparation, as is shown in soi I engineer's reports.
There is attached a report from the Vi Ilage Engineer and copies of
previous Planning Commission and Counci I actions.
This site plan should be approved with input as the Planning
Commission deems proper. Since this basic plan had a previous public
hearing it is suggested that the variances and requirements made at
that time be included in any motion to recommend approval. This
should help shorten the meeting ~ime spent on this case.
Jf~
_. -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.22
SUBD. (1) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
(TOWN HOUSE REGULATIONS)
The Council of the Vill~ge of New Hope, Minnesota, ordains:
. , ,
.S'e'c'ti'.on' 'I. . S'e'ction 4 ..2.2 .S'ub.d.' '(I) is amended to read as follows:
.. , ,
t14.22 Subd. (1) Lo't 'Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard and
othe'r Requ'ir'enientsfor TR Dis tr,icts. .
(A) No residential, structure shall. exceed 35
,fee't ,in he~gth.
(B) The', following minimum requi reme.nts shall be
observed: '
. .
1. Lo't 'area .per dwel'li~g uni t - 4,500 square
feet, min'imum;
2. Lot width. .. 20 fee't
3. Lo't .depth - 125 feet
~ .
4., Each 'I be:droom uni t' - 720 square, feet of
floor .area when one s t"O,ry, and 1, 1,00, square
feet' whe.n two 5 t'orie's ;
"
5. Each '2 be:droom uni t- 1100 ,square fee't of
floor 'area whether. one st.ory or two, storie's;
. ,
6. Each addi tional bedroom' - 100 ,square feet
of floor are"a;
, 7., G'arage' requirements shall ,be the same as
for" an MR district;
8. Upon approval by the Village Manager Qf
covenants, and agreements betw.een' property
owners as to. c'ommon 'areas, building permi ts
may be issued, even though 'each housing unit
does not front on a public street. The Village'
Manager and staff shall use' reasonable access
and" guarantee of maintenance as criteria in
approving access of each housing unit. Appeal
from th~ determination of the Village Manager
shall be made in wri ting wi thin 21' days 'after
wri tt,en noti-ce fr'om the Manager' to th:e applicant.
The same procedure and cri te.ria sh.all apply to '\
availabili ty. of maintenance .of sewer water,
storm sewer and utiliti~s;
,.
9. All. TR construction for which a permit is ap-
plied for after th~ date of this .ordinance shal~
be provided with .unde:rground e.lectrical power;
, .
10. All TR developments pres.ently constructed,
b.ut for whichTR class.ification .is requested
subseq'uent ,to the effective date of this
ordinance .sh-a11 be provided with underground
electrical power within 5 ye~rs of th~ dite,
.of this 'ordinance. . .
. .S'e.c.t'i.on 2. E-ffe'ct'ive. Da'te.. - ,Thi.s .ordinance sh.all .be effecti.ve
aft'e,r 1 ts pass~ge ana puol~ca t~on.
Dated the' day 0 f ' . . . J 1972.
p-
, . . , , ~ ~ I . ~ .. 4 . .. + .,. oil . . ~ .. to .. .
Mayor
Attes.t':'. . . . t .. . ~ ~ ... ~ . . . 10 . ~ . ~ . t .
Cl'erk- 'l'reasurer
,
(Published in the Ne~ Hope-Plymouth Post th~ . . , . and' ~ . . ~ days
of. .! . . . . . , . .. .,.., , 19 7 2 ".)
,
- ...2....
Jf-z,p
AN ORDINANCE .AMENDING SECTION 4.22
SUBD. (l) OF THE VILLAGE CODE
(TOWN HOUSE REGULATIONS)
The Council of the Vill~ge of New Hope, Minnesota, ordains:
" .
'S'e'c"ti',on" '1. . S'e'cti-on 4 .,2'2 'S'ub.d.' .(1) is amended to read as follows;
, , , ,
"4.22 Subd. (1.) Lo.t 'Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard and
othe.r Requi r'enients 'for TR Dis tricts . "
(A) No residential, structure shall' exceed 35
,fee'tin he~gth.
(B) The" following minimum requirements shall be
observed: .
. .
1. Lo-t 'area per dwel'ling uni t - 4,500 square
feet, min'imum; ,
2 . Lot width ~ 20 fe~t
3. Lo't ,depth - 125 feet
. ,
4., Each 'I be.'droom uni t' - 720 square. feet of
floor area when one s t"o.ry, and 1, 1,00. square
feet when two stories;
.,
5 . Each '2 bedroom unit - 1100 square feet of
floor area whether' one st'ory or two storie's;
6. Each addi tional bedroom' - 100 .square feet
of floor are'a;
, 7." G'arage' requirements sh'all .be the same as
for. an MR district;
8. Upon approval by the Village Manager of
covenan ts, and agreements betw.een' property
owners as to. c-ommon 'areas ,. building permi ts
may be issued, even though .each housing unit
does not front on a public street. The Village
Manager and staff shall use reasonable access
and" guarantee of maintenance as criteria in
approving access of each housi~g unit. Appeal
from the determination of the Village Manager
shall be made in writing within 21'days after
wri tt,en noti,ce fr'om the Manager' to th,e applican~.
The same procedure and cri te.ria shoall apply to:
availabili ty, of maintenance of sewer water,
storm sewer and utiliti~s;
, ,
9. All TR construction for which a permit is ap-
plied for after th~ date of this 'ordinance shal~
be provided with unde:rgroWld e.lectrical power;
, ,
10. All TR developments pres'ently constructed,
but for whichTR class"ification "is requested
subseq'uent,to the effect,i ve da te of this
ordinance 'sh.all be provided with underground
electr.ical power wi.thin 5 yea"rs of the 'date,
,of this "ordinance. . ,
. "Sect'i'on 2. 'E"ffe'ct'i ve'Da'te,. . ,Thi's 'ordinance sh.all .be effective
aft"e.r Ii ts pass~:ge ana publ1.cat1on.
Dated the' day of ' . , . l J , 1972.
. ~ . 01- " , ~ ~ . + ~ . . .. .. ... t .. ... .. to I tt .-
Mayor
Attes"t.:" ' . . . . ~ ... . . ~ . . ... . . . .
,Cl'e rk - Treasurer
,
(Published in the New Hope-Plymouth Post the' . , and' ~ . . ~ days
") 1
of' '1 . , , . . , , ., ,.... , 1972..
,
. ....z...
DATE: September 5, 1972
CASE: 72-38
PETITIONER: She II Oi' Company
REQUEST: SIGN VARIANCE
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
Mr. Stan Johnson of the Shel I Oi I Company wrote a letter on
August 18, 1972~ and asked this ~equest be withdrawn. This request
relates to the She( I Station at 5600 Winnetka Avenue North.
Counc i I Minutes - 1 - August 28, 1972
A. Pursuant to due cal I and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council
of the Vii lage of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the Vii lage Hal I,
4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said Vi I lage, on Monday, August 28, 1972, at
7:00 p.m.
AI I persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
s. Roll call was taken as follows:
:
Present: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka..
Absent: None.
C. Motion by Counci Iman Hokr, second by Councilman Johnson, to approve the
minutes of the Council meeting of August 14, 1972, subject to the fol lowing
correct ions:
Page 3, Item 2, third paragraph, fifth I ine, should read:
"Eight feet from Lot 2, Block 3, and add it to
Lot I, Bloc k 3, Hu b ba rd s . If
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: Noneo
Motion carried.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
I . The Mayor announced that the rules of procedure would be dispensed with and
an open forum would be held.
No one appeared for the open forum.
The Mayor suggested that any of the Councilmen having miscellaneous items to
discuss might do so at this time.
Discussion held relative to the IOi charge for check cashing at the liquor
store.
Motion by Counci Iman Johnson, that the IO~ check cashing charge now in effect
at the I iquor store be abandoned. Motion fost for lack of second.
The Vi I 1age Manager noted that this was primarily an administrative matter
and wi f I be discussed with the Liquor Store Manager.
Further discussion held..
The f\1ayor asked the V i II age fv1anager to check into the matter and to report
back to the Council on same.
The Mayor cal led the meeting back to order.
Council Minutes - 2 - August 28, 1972
E. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
3. Consideration was given to the request from Mr. Frank Balma for an exca-
vating permit for property located on the southeast corner of Winnetka
Avenue and Terra Linda Drive. Mr. Salma stated that he is scheduled for
a pub'ic hearing before the Planning Commission on September 5 regarding
a revised site plan and parking variances for an office building on the
site. He said a setback problem had necessitated new plans for building
on the site and the soil is not the best soil.
He said that the revision in plans had been dictated more by the soil con-
dition than the setback problems. The new buildin~ as propose~ wil I meet
the setback requirements and they would I ike to have a couple weeks head
start on the excavating. The building that was previously approved was
20,000 square feet and the new proposed bui Iding is 15,000 square feet.
Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Hokr, authorizing issuance
of an excavating permit for Mr. Frank Balma for Lots I I and 12, Block I,
Lamphere's Terra Linda Addition, subject to approval of the Vii rage Engineer.
Discussion held relative to the drainage problem in the ares. Mr. Balrna
was asked to take this into consideration under his new plan.
Vote was then taken on the question.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, HOkr, Johnson, Pfufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
4. Discussion held relative to requested reduction in bonding for Peterson's
Hazel Hi I Is Addition. By letter of August 28, 1972, the Vi IJage Engineer
recommended that the existing bond be retained without reduction.
Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Councilman Bosacker, to deny request
for reduction in bonding on Peterson's Hazel Hil Is Addition.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, HOkr, Johnson, PJufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
5. A request for reduction in bonding for Presidential Estates Apartments was
considered. The Vii lage Manager suggested that since this is a large pro-
ject the matter be held over to permit more extensive review.
Motion by Councilman Plutka, second by Councilman Johnson, to table the re-
quest for reduction in bonding requirements for Presidential Estates Apart-
ments until the meeting of September I I, 1972.
Cou nc!' ~,1 i nutes - 3 - August 28, 1972
Vot i ng i n favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
6. The request from the Creamette Company for an excavating permit for the
property at 7200 - 36th Avenue North was considered by the Council. Mr.
John Sui I ivan of Rauenhorst Corporation appeared before the Council re-
garding this matter.
Engineer Rosene asked whether the site plan for the Creamette building
provides for the additional 30 feet needed for 38th Avenue. Mr. Sui I iVan
repl ied that the site plan does provide for the widening of 38th Avenue.
Counc i I man Bosacker sa i d that he wou I d like to rev i ew the grad i ng p I an for
the site. Discussion held regarding sloping and possible run-off of soil
into the storm sewer.
Mr. Sui I Ivan said that the slope back of the building would be 2 to I and
would be seeded.
Engineer Rosene said that mowing would be a problem on such a slope.
Mr. Sui I ivan said this was a point of economics and that they do not have
room for excess material on the site.
Engineer Rosene said that 3 to I is the maximum slope used on highway plans
and that state highways are now requiring a 4 to I slope. You can't mow
with a power mower when the slope fs steeper than 3 to I.
Councilman Johnson expressed concern that such a steep slope would cause
washing of materials into the storm sewer.
Upon further questioning, Mr. Sui 1 ivan said that the ground on the easterly
I ine from the truck dock northerly wit I be a 5 or 6 to I slope and it wit I
be seeded.
Counci Iman Bosacker said that he did not bel ieve that a 2 to I slope could
be stabil ized with seeding and there would be washing to the catch basin.
Engineer Rosene said that a 5 to I slope with mulching could be stabil ized
by seeding without much of a problem.
Counc i I ma n PI uf ka suggested that sodd i ng the water-way to the catch bas i n
would help keep soil out of the storm sewer. Engineer Rosene agreed that
the water-way should be sodded to help minimize erosion.
Cou nc i I lv1 i nutes - 4 - August 28, 1972
~btion by Counci Iman Bosacker, second by Councilman Plufka, to authorize
issuance of an excavating permit to the Creamette Company contingent upon
giving of the 30 foot right of way for 38th Avenue, that there be a seed-
ing and mulching of the east and north slopes from the truck dock northerly
and that the drainage swate at the base of the hi 1 I be sodded and subject
to the final approval of the Vii lage Engineer.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carriedo
2a. Counci Iman Johnson introduced the fol lowing resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION OF JULY 24, 1972 PROVIDING FOR
SALE OF $950,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS BY ELIMINATING STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT
NO. 271 FROM SAID ISSUE, AND AMENDING THE ESTIMATED COST OF STREET IMPROVE-
MENT NO. 265." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resoJution
was seconded by Councilman Bosacker and upon vote being taken thereon, the
fol lowing voted in favor thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufkaj
and the fol lowing voted against the same: None; whereupon the resolution
was dec.1 ared du I y passed and adopted and \vas signed by the Mayor and attested
by the Vii lage Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book).
2b. The Vii lage Manager furnished affidavits of publ ication of the Notice of
Sale of $950,000 Improvement Bonds of 1972, in the Commercial West and the
New Hope-Plymouth Post. Said affidavits were approved and ordered filed
in the office of the Vi I lage Clerk.
The Manager then stated that four sealed bids had been received at 2:00 p.m.,
in accordance with previous authorization and were tabulated as attached.
Following consideration of said bids, Counci Iman Bosacker introduced the
fol lowing resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AWARDIKJG SALE OF
$950,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1972." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was duty seconded by Councilman Johnson, and on rol I cal I
there were 5 AYES and 0 NAYS, as fol lows:
AYE: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr~ Johnson, Plufka.
NAY: None.
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. (Page
Extract Book).
Counci Iman Plufka then introduced the fol lowing resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ESTABLISHING THE FORM AND DETAILS OF
$950,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1972, AND APPROPRIATING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND
LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Bosacker, and on rol I cat I,
there were 5 AYES and 0 NAYS, as fol lows:
Council Minutes - 5 - August 28, 1972
AYE: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
NAY: None.
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <Page
Extract Book).
F. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
7. Counci Iman Hokr introduced Ordinance No. 72-22 entitled "AN ORDINANCE FUR-
THER AMENDING SECTION 10.10 OF THE VILLAGE CODE RELATING TO BEER LICENSES"
and moved its adoption. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing or-
dinance was seconded by Councilman Bosacker and upon vote being taken thereon,
the fol lowing voted in favor thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson,
Plufka; and the fol lowing voted against the same: None, whereupon the
ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor
and attested by the Vii lage Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book).
8. The resolution combining Street Improvement No. 260 with Street Improvement
No. 2~8 was held over for consideration at the next meeting.
G. OFFICERS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
There was no business to handle in connection with this item.
H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. The staff report on survey of possible NHAA storage faci lities was presented
by the Vii lage Manager. The Vii 'age Manager recommended that the NHAA be
allowed to use the I iquor store basement (except the small enclosed room
used for storage of election material) at the time that the present teen center
program is completed and their present stor~ge faci lity is no longer avai table.
The Vii lage Manager further suggested that a lease could be drawn to for-
mal ize the use of this storage area.
Mr. Bert Ansel of the NHAA appeared before the Council to-discuss the matter.
He said the NHAA wants to put up shelves to store the equipment.
Motion by Counci Iman Hokr, second by Councilman Pfufka, to approve use of
the I iquor store basement as storage facit ity for the New Hope Athletic
Association as recommended by the Vii lage Manager.
Motion by Counci Iman Plufka, second by Councilman Bosacker, to amend the
motion so as to refer the matter to the staff for preparation of a lease.
Vote on the amendment was as fol lows:
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None
Amendment carried.
:
Council Minutes - 6 - August 28, 1972
Vote was then taken on the motion as amended.
Voting in favor: 8osacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting aoainst: None.
Motion carried.
10. The Village Engineer presented a prel iminary report on proposed Street
Improvement No. 216, Louisiana Avenue from Lombardy Lane to 62nd Avenue
North. He stated the project was feasible and in conformance with the
overal I planning for street construction. He recommended that this pro-
ject be combined with other Village street projects to be constructed in
1973.
The total estimated cost of the improvement was given at $22,800. The
Vii Jage Engineer stated that it was anticipated that this cost would be
spl it 50-50 with Crystal resulting in a total cost to New Hope of $44,400.
The assessment was estimated at $16.50 per front foot.
Discussion was held as to the need for the street work.
The Vi I lage Manager stated that the City of Crystal was not anxious to
have the street improved but did want to know for budget purposes.
Motion by Counci Iman Plufka, second by Councilman Hokr, to refer the matter
to the Village Manager and the Vii lage Engineer to further discuss with
the City of Crystal.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
I I . A prel iminary report on the proposed Kuch-Perry Park Project No. 264, dated
August 23, 1974 was presented by the Vii lage Engineer. The project provides
for the acquisition of park land west of Quebec between 45th Avenue North
and 48th Avenue North. The property to be acquired would be Lots 15 and
16, Block 2, Perry's Sprucewood Terrace, and Lots 1 I and 12, Block 2, Winnetka
Hil Is 2nd Addition. The Vii lage Manager stated that the project was feasible
and is in accordance with the overal I park program for the Vii lage of New Hope.
The cost estimate is as shown in the preliminary report. It was noted that a
federal grant in the amount of $90,747.75 is being obtained and that a 25%
State Natural Resources grant is also available for this project. Additional
appraisals must be obtained before final submittal to the Federal Government.
The estimated cost to be assessed against the benefiting owners or to be
assumed by the Vii lage is $57,240.85.
Assessments were estimated as fal lows:
Counci I Mi nutes - 7 - August 28, 1972
ASSESSMENTS: There are 149.6 net assessable acres within the boundaries
described as the Neighborhood Park area. It is assumed that the park
acquisition costs wi I I be distributed equally to at I properties within
the Neighborhood Park area regardless of zoning resulting in a cost per
acre of $383.00.
Using the above criteria two alternates for assessment are presented below:
Plan A provides a 50-50 split with the Vi 11age assuming one half the cost.
Plan B provides a 1/3 ~ 2/3 split with the Vi IJage assuming 1/3 of the
project cost.
Land Owne r Cost
Vi II aos Cost Cost/Acre Cost/IO~OOO SQ. Ft. Lot
Plan A $28,620.00 $192.00 $44.00
Plan B 19,080.00 256.00 59.00
The costs for development of the park are not included herein as the
Village of New Hope has included $40,500 in the proposed park bond
re fa ren dum fo r deve I opmen t of the Kuch -Pe rry Pa rk ·
Motion by Councilman Bosacker, second by Counci lman Plufka, accepting the
preliminary report and ordering publ ic hearing be advertised for September
25, 1972.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voti ng agai nst: None.
Moti on ca rri ed.
I . NEW BUSINESS
12. Motion by Councilman Hokr, second by Counci Iman Johnson, to table the
appointment of a New Hope representative to the Human Services Counci I
until the next meeting.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
rv1otion carried.
13. Discussion held regarding need for improvement of 38th Avenue from Oregon
to Maryland Avenues. The Vi Ilage Manager suggested that a prel iminary
report be ordered at this time with scheduling of the public hearing to
be in the spring of 1973.
Motion by Counci Iman Hokr, second by Counci Iman Plufka, ordering prepara-
tion of a preliminary report covering the improvement of 38th Avenue
from Oregon Avenue to Maryland Avenue.
Vati ng in favor: Bosackerl Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
fvhtion carried.
Counci f Mi nutes - 8 - August 28, 1972
14. Motion by Counci Iman Bosacker, second by Counci lman Hokr, approving
issuance of business licenses as shown on attached I ist subject to the
approval of the appropriate staff members.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Ptufka.
Voting against: None.
Mati on carri ed.
~iscussion held relative to the signs at the Metro Station. The VilJage
Manager advised that the owner of the Metro 500 station had been in con-
tact with the Vi Ilage and is aware of the sign ordinance requirements.
J 5. Motion by Counci Iman Hokr, second by Counci Iman Bosacker, to approve
payment of the following relief orders:
1# I 757 Re d Ow I $19.34
#.1760 Red Q'll I 15.34
#1735 Thrift Way Market 6.76
#1741 Crema Y s Canoco 5.00
#1745 Country Club Market 13.25
# I 750 Crema's Conoco 2.50
# 1755 Country Club Market 8. 14
# I 762 Country Club Market 30 . 9 3
#1763 Red Ow t 15.34
111765 Country Club Market 4.21
#1766 NSP 17.39
#1767 Red Owl 19.34
#1768 Red Owl 15.34
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
16. Motion by Counci Iman Hokr, second by Counci Iman Ptufka, approving Vi Ilage
bi lis in the amount of $93,017.46 through check number 20799 and dated
through August 28, 1972, as shown on records on fi Ie in the office of
the Vi II age Clerk-Treasurer.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
I 7 . The Village r~1anager presented the bid tabulation for the Street Improve-
ment No. 260 and 268 (Winnetka Avenue and 56th Avenue). The V i I I age
Engineer advised that there was a mistake on the extension of the
McCrossan bid and that the bid was in the amount of $220,538.55. He then
recommended that the bid be awarded to C. S. McCrossan as the lowest
responsible bidder.
Counci I Mi nutes - 9 - August 28, 1972
Counci Iman Bosacker introduced the fol lowing resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET IMPROVE~1ENTS NOS.
260 AND 268. ii The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was seconded by Counci Iman Hokr and upon vote being taken thereon, the
fol lowing voted in favor thereof: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson,
Plufkaj and the fol lowing voted against the same: None; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the
Mayor and attested by the Vi I lage Clerk-Treasurer. <Page
Extract Book).
J . COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Mrs. Virginia Erhard, primary candidate for Counci Iman, inquired as to
names of the people that were being considered for appointment to the
Human Services Counci I.
K. MISCELLANEOUS
Discussion held as to status of Winnetka Avenue Improvement No. 265.
Discussion held relative to using curbing on Street Improvement No. 268$
Winnetka Avenue from Bass Lake Road to 62nd, that would be readily
usable by handicapped persons and bicycl ists.
The Vi Ilage Engineer stated that he would look into the matter.
L. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Counci I man Bosacker, second by Counci Iman Hokr, and carried,
to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. unti' September II, I 9 72 at 7: 00
p.m. or unti I the cal I of the chair.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Pou I i ot
Vi Ilags Clerk-Treasurer
-..
Planning Commission August l~ 1972
l-linutes -1-
10 A regular meeting of the lret'l Hope Planning Commission 1'ras held on Tuesday?
August 17 1972, at 7:30 porno at the Village Hall? 4401 Xylon Avenue North e
20 The meeting ,-ras called to order by Chairman Ostl1Ll1do
.30 Roll Call '-Ias taken as follo,\-lS:
Present: Barnislds i Cameron~ Garin? Herman, Ohman~ Ostlund, Os't'Tald
and Sue!<:er 0
Absent: I-leyer 9 Oster
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Planning Case Noo 72-43 (Request for variance in Front Yard Setback and Site
Plan Approval) 7400 - 42nd Avenue North? Jerry Harrington? Petitionero
Jerry Harrington stated that he intended to tear dOl'In the existing pink building
and garage on this site and replace them 1'Iith a nel'l t,.ro story office building
uhich would contain nine officeso T11e exte1'"~ior of the ne1"! building lIouId have
featherstone on the lO\"ler portion "lith a shal<:e shingle mansard roof covering
the ~~cond flooro The existing building next to the railroad tracl(s \'lould have
featherstone on the East sideo The front of this building is n01'1 brick 7 and he
has not yet decided if he lIQuId cover t11is briclc lIit11 featherstone 0 The net"1
building 1.]ould lool{ similar to the building across the street except that it
tlould have a flat roof and featherstone on the South and East sideso
I>1ro Harrington further stated that t11e problem is the 50 foot setbacl{ requirement
on 42nd Avenue and the existing l)uilding is onl~y- 27 feet backo He is proposing D.
65 foot deep parlcing lot for 13 caI~S behind tIle net-] building and to do this he is
requesting a variance allo't"ling a. 25 foot setbaclco He also has 3 parldng stalls
on the 1rest side of the proposed buildingo
Commissioner Barnislcis aslced lThat he lIas going to do to the drivel"ray going into
the apartments'i lIill t11ere be an access to this ne't-J building from this drive"layo
I.Ira Harrington stated that there is c.t". green area aloncs tllis drivel-lay "lhich '"jould
not be part of this ne'(-r office building site? and t11e 110use on the East side of
the apartment driveway Nill also be removed to become green area going into the
apartment complexo This is part of the plan for the apartment complex 0
Commissioner Barniskis asked if t11el"e lIQuId be a fence on t11e baclc of the propertyo
I~Iro Harrington revie't"Ied the p".coposed fencil1g on tl1e North? East and bet't-Jeen the
tl-l0 buildings on tl1e Southo TIle fence on tl1e lfest side of the property existso
Commissioner Barnislcis said his only comment 1'las that this plan is a great im-
provement for t11e areao Corrmissioner Ohman aslced l-111at the setbaclc l"las for the
railroad overpasso I.Iro Harrin[;ton said that there lIas a sidelTal1<: along 42nd in
front of ::the overpass and there 1'rus a vertical member and t11en there i1as a sloped
abutment to the base of tIle bridge 0
Con-missioner Suelcer asked if he lIas treati...l1g this as tt-JQ pieces of property p as the
parldng for the ne't-I office building lIas contained on that siteo 1.Ir 0 Harrington
said they 't-lould be one in the same 0 " .'
Planning Commission - 2 coo August 1, 1972
l"linutes
Sueker asked '{-1hy there 1-IaS no parlcing ShOlffi North of the l'Jest building? I-IT 0
Harrington said that 't-rhile there lIere no parlcing stalls sho"t"m they could use the
space for parkingo Suel{er t11en aslced i-rhy I.Ira Harrington t'ranted this building so
far fort-lard, as he could get close to the S8Jlle amount of parl<ing if the parl{ing
't-las changed to face East and 1Test? and he ~"lould li1te to see the nell building set
back another 5 or 10 feeto I.Iro Harrington said that from the rear of the building
to the rear lot line is just 65 feet which allo~s a 25 foot maneuvering area between
ro't'IS of parkingo T11e building next to the traclcs has t1-ro overhead doors t and he in-
tends to store his contractor equiJ.:ment "t-rithin this building so he t'lould like to
leave t110se areas arot.md this building openo He stated that there t-rere ti-YO dr"ivet-rays
planned for exit and entrance to this property.,
Commissioner Herman stated that t11ere is no buffering from '.the bUildinB to the
parking 0 There are three spaces along side of tIle building 1111ere a person could
get into and out of a car on one side only. He said that there is bniy a 12 foot
driVing isle? and t11at 1-lith a cur parlcecl at the turn it i-lould be Vet.'ydifficult to
ne16otiateo He i:Ionders if t11e parlcing could not be moved over and stiir ailol-r ~ple
space for traffic coming auto LIro Harrington stated that i"lhen the blacktop drives
are actually built the driving lllij,es ,"rould be i'ride enough? and proper radius lIQuId
be made to use the eY~stinG cUl"'b cuts 0
Commissio11er Crnneronaskecl if Lot 16 is a part of this pro~osalo I,Ire Harrington
replied that he 1"Jas developi.Ylg all of Lot 17 and tIle 1Iest half of Lot 16 as sho't"m
on t11e site pIano
Commissioner Suel{er suggested tllat tl1e pnrlcing stalls be turned to face East and
lrest and vehicles be parl<:ed nose to nose be11ind the buildingo. There "Iould be ample
parking cmd t11e building could 1)e moved baclc 10 feet 0 lJr 0 Harrington replied that
coming from the 1Jest one lIQuId not see t11e setbaclc of this buildingo Commissioner
Sueker stated that he felt the net-r building should not step fori'lard of the existing
building 9 but should be set baclc some 7 as traffic along 42nd Avenue travels both -
East and lIest 0 I-J'r 0 Harrington said that he 1'lould prefer the traffic from the East
see the ne'-J building and bloclc out the older buildingo
I-iro Cameron asked 1-That l{ind of office tena.l1ts 1"lould be occupying the buildingo I-:Ir 0
Harrington stated that he didn it Imo"J but expected they 1:1ould be real estate 7 manu-
facturer's representatives and the lilc80 IJr 0 Cameron stated that this l-rould generate
some traffic and parl{ing 7 t11at ,'rith nine offices there ,.rould be nine secretaries and
others \"lould need to parl:o I.Iro Harrington replied that across the street he has
seven offices and that parlcing is not a problemo He ,.rould be providing an office
girl at a central st-litchboard for these officeso He llill l1ave masonry contractors ~
excavators and one man operationso Bost of tlhom are not at the office most of the
timeo Commissioner Cameron stated that l1e 11ad visualized offices like H &; R Block
Company and a heav: y parlcing problem and traffic on and off 42nd Avenue 0 Hro
Harrington said that he l1ears tIle same thing each time he builds a buildingo There
l;Tas the same concern uhen he proposed Oregon Estateso People occupying these small
offices are not the type of operation that have regular hours and lloulg be used fro!
early to late hours? and l"rould not create a traffic problemo
Commissioner Barniskis stated that regardless of the parlcing arrrangements being
discussed there lIQuId still be more par-Icing than required by village ordinance, and
that the question of setbaclc variance should be decidedo His O\"ln opinion "las that
in this location the proposed setbaclc is not bloclcing anyone t s vielI and he is not
opposed to this proposalo
Planning Commission August 1, 1972
Minutes - 3 - Commissioner Sueker stated that "a "50 foot setback has been establishedo There
is an existing building vdth a 27 foot setback and this request is to build in
front of that 0 He feels that in the spirit of trying to maintain a good setback
the new building should have a setback of from 3 to 5 feet back of the existing
building. He does not feel this lolould cause a hardshipo
Chairman Ostlund stated that as long as there is room he feels that there should
be a minimum varianceo Mro Harrington stated that as an alternate the building
could be moved to the baclc of the lot and put all the parking in front 0
The Building and Zoning Director pointed out that there is a fence along the rear
of the property. This is a chain link fence and this parking requires a screening,.
vlould Mr. Harrington consider placing slats in that fence to provide the necessary
screeno ~.1!'e Harrington replied that he \ivouldo The director pointed out that
those people entering on the East side 't"lould be required to make a square corner
around a car parked at the rear of the East side of the building and would have
a problemo Since the North side of the lot is not all striped in parking and
could be i and the parking exceeds requirements, could not this stall be eliminated
and the parking immediately behind the building. rearranged.
Commissioner Oswald asked hOii snO'Vl vlould be removed ~iith parking right up to the
-fence 0 Mr. Harrington replied that he had the necessary equipment to do this,
and he could haul it avlay 0 Chairman Ostlund asked if there 'Vlas anyone in the
audience relative to this caseo No one replied.
Mro Harrington asked if it "t~as necessary to maintain 25 feet maneuvering area be-
tween parking laneso Commissioner Sueker replied that with right angle parking
there is normally 60 feet from one lane to another which allows a 20 foot
maneuvering area. If.fI'. Harrington stated that he has 65 feet, and he vlould like
to make this 60 feet 7 and move the building back this five feet 0
COITunissioner Herman stated that the only comment he ~vould care to make here is
that there are several alternative schemes that have been suggestedo The under--
lying fact is that the one proposed does not seem to be an acceptable one, and on
the part of everyone sitting at the table there is some alternative to what they
are looking at as being desirableo So, 'tiithout designing the layout for the peti-
tioner he wondered if it wouldn't be more proper to have a revised plan submitted
to this commission with respect to the comments made by the Cornmissionerso It
should be up to the petitioner to make the design proposal based on the comments
he has heard here tonighto Commissioner Ohman said that he just didn't feel this
was that big a thing. Chairman Ostlund agreed ~dth Commissioner Ohmano Ohman
stated that adequate parking vIas provided, and this is a relatively small parcel
of property tiith a minor parking problemo He \-lould like to see the building
moved just behind the existing buildingo
Chairman Ostlund stated that 42nd A-venue had already been vlidened and this just
wasn't that big a thing, to have to ask the petitioner to go back and re-design
this site plan. He vlould like to get the petitioner r s idea of which way he would
prefer the Planning Commission to consider this setback variance.
Commissioner Sueker stated that the proponent has al~~Tays been a gentleman vlho has
'tvorked along vlith the Village in every 1Jlay possible l"lith the things he has been
building, and has been very cooperativeo He -v1ould like to vlork this out by moving
the building back so it is just behind the other buildingo
Planning dommission - 4- August 1, 1972
~1inutes
Commissioner Ohman moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
site plan but '-lith a setback variance of 20 feet rather than 25 feet i thus moving
the nevl building back 5 feet more than ShO\~ln on the site plan? eliminating the
parking stall on the Northeast corner of the building 0 Second by OS~1aldo
Commissioner Barniskis asked if the parking requirement of 10 stalls was for
both buildings 0 The Building and Zoning Director stated that the existing build-
ing is to be used to store I4ro Harrington's Ovln equipment and has no offices. ~1ro
Harrington '"lill office in the net-I buildingo
Vote on the motion was unanimouso
20 Planning Case Noo 72-44 (l'Jaiver of Platting to Divide Lot 27 Block 3~ Hubbard
Addition and Add 8 Feet to Lot 17 Block 37 hubbard Addition) 8001 - 61st Aveo Noo
Mahlon 00 Zismer, Petitioner 0
~~o Mahlon Zismer addressed the Planning Commissiono r4r 0 Zismer stated that he
needs additional space to enter his garageso There are arches in front of his
garages 9 and he has to back up to maneuver and line up to drive ino He has pur-
chased the lot next to his? and 't-lould like to add 8 feet to his lot to correct his
driveway problemo His home is on Lot 1 and he has purchased Lot 2? both in the
Hubbard Additiono
Commissioner Barniskis asked ~~o Zismer that in view of the large homes in the
area, 't'Jhat kind of home 1"Iould be built on this remaining lot? f-ir 0 Zismer said
that they plan to build probably a three bedroom ell shaped home ,"rith a three car
garage a
f-rro Zismer stated that he \"Jould move his driVe\'\lay over .3 feet and leave a 5 foot
strip of grass on which he could pile snowo
Chairman Ostlund asked if anyone had any further comment on this caseo No one
replied 0
Commissioner Cameron moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 72-44 provided
that the 8 feet is legally made a part of Lot I? Block 3, Hubbard Additiono
Motion passedo
Chairman Ostlund had to leave the meeting for emergency reasons, and turned over
the meeting to Vice Chairman Suekero
30 Planning Case Noo 72-45 (Request for Variance to Erect Oversized Garage)
6124 Gettysburg Avenue North, James Nesburg? Petitioner:
~~o James Nesberg appeared before the Planning Commissione Ylro Nesberg stated
that the garage he is proposing has 780 square feet, and Village Ordinances allovl
only 700 square feeto \'Jith this size garage he '"lould still be 40 feet from his
neighbor's lineo
VJro Cameron asked 11hat I~o Nesberg "las going to do '"lith this big garageo 1I1!' 0
Nesberg said that his home t"ras a split foyer and has no storage area as there is
no basement areao He vIill use part of garage for storageo
Commissioner Barniskis asked if he would have more garage doorso, V~o Nesberg
Planning Commission - 5 - August lp 1972
r~tinutes
said he would have two single doors rather than one large dooro The first .door
starting Seven feet from the North sideo
Vice Chairman Sueker asked if there was anyone ._rin the audience in reference to
this case. Commissioner Garin stated that he did talk to the neighbors and that
they had no objection to this large garageo
Commissioner Cameron moved approval of Planning Case Noo 72-45, Seconded by
Commissioner Barniskiso ~iotion carriedo
40 Planning Case Noo 72-46 (Request for Variance to Front Yard Setback)
SS09 - 4~Avehue North~ Steven 00 Sorbeli Petitionero
Hr. steven Sorbel appeared before the Planning Commisiono l"1ro Sorbel presented
a petition and map ShO\iing the location of those signing the petition in relation
to his home 0 These petitioners are joining i~1ro Sorbel in requesting this peti-
tion. f.:lro Sorbel is requesting permission to build this roof to provide a rain
shed over his front v7a]k to his dri Vet-lay 0
Commissioner Barniskis asked if I~1ro Sorbel '-las going to change the pitch of his
front side'\1alk so it 1tlOuld run 't-rater a1ilay from his home as no,;-] it collects l'later
against the foundationo ~1r 0 Sorbel said that he thought the roof t'lould take care
of thiso
Vice Chairman Sueker said that there \-jas a drainage problem? and that ~later 1-lould
still run in there? and this roof would not stop this \*later from collecting at
the house if there is a slope t01tlard the houseo
Vice Chairman Sueker asked if there was anyone in the audience concerned about
this caseo
Motion by Commissioner Barniskis approving Planning Case Noo 72-46? Variance to
front yard setback of approximately 7 feeto Second by Commissioner Ohmano
14otion passedo
50 Planning Case Noo 72-47 (Request for lJaiver of Platting Ordinance and Special
Use Permit to Have Theater), Zodiac Cinema Group, Inco7 Petitionero
.,.j~-
The Building and Zoning Director reported that the ovmers of Zodiac Cinema Group
had called and asked that this case be continued as they had additional informa-
tion to present 1-lhich vIas not available at this timeo
Commissioner Ost-laId moved that this case be continued 1.U1til August 15, the next
Planning Commission meetingo Second by Commissioner Ohmano ~1otion passedo
60 Planning Case Noo 72-48 (Request for l"Iaiver of Platting) 8803 and 8805 - 32nd
Place North? r~1ro Tom Stark and Ivlro Lloyd Rask, Petitionerso
Mr. Tom St~k and 1IJ!'~ Lloyd Rask appeared before the Planning Commission. I.j'r &
Rask said that .at the setback line of these homes there '-1as no change in the
sideyard setbacko The contractor \-lho built the house on Lot 14 did it a little
peculiarlyo This change ,-rill malce Lot 14 a little more livableo As it is nOl-]
if someone "lere to build a fence all along this property line, the fence '-lould
be in front of the living room "lindo1-] on Lot 140
Planning Commission - 6 - August 1 i 1972
I.1inutes
Commissioner Barniskis asked if there was an existing fence to the rear of
these t'"10 houseso r.'1ro Rask stated that there is a fence \"lhich is placed on the
nel.rly surveyed lot lineo Vice Chairman Sueker asked if they intended to
legally attach the nei-rly acquired land to their property ~ and both parties
replied that they vlouldo
Commissioner Cameron asked if the two gentlemen present were t~Q Stark and ~~o
Rask and did they presently occupy these t~~10 houseso They replied that they
't1ere 0 Corrrnissioner Barniskis asked how they intended to change this line. I.Jr 0
Stark said that there \"lould be a tradeoff of 8 feet at the very front and rear
of the properties to improve the angle of the lot lineo
Vice Chairman Sueker inquired if there \-TaS anyone in the audience concerning
this case. I'Jo one replied 0
Commissioner Cameron moved to approve Planning Case Noo 72-48i providing each
party legally joined the ne\-rly acquired land to their existing lotso Second by
Commissioner Garino l.iotion passedo
So Planning Case NOa 72-49 (Request for Site Plan Approval) sto Therese Nursing
Home~ Petitioner~
r.ir~ Jerry ICranz of I(ranz Construction and a member of the Board at Sto Therese
Nursing Homep addressed the PlmLning Commissiono I,flro !{ranz stated that they \"lere
seel<:ing site plan approval? and that basically the only change in the site plan
\-Jas the additional parking on the ~East or 1'1innetka side of the building. They
will be building a third floor to this nursing homee This floor was not built
as planned with the original construction because of a lack of fundse
Commissioner Barniskis asked hOll many beds \'1ould be added '"lith this nell construc-
tiono .l:Jro ICranz replied that plans Shot'T a possible 100 beds? but that there
t"rould probably be actually less than thato Included on this floor is an audi-
torium and a dining roorno
Commissioner Cameron asked if it lIas only the parking and site plan that the
Planning Commission was to considero The Building and Zoning Director stated
that the construction plans l-lill be reviet"led by the Building Department to in-
sure compliance ,-lith the State Building Code? also that these plans have had
many 7 many hours of reviet'] by state agencies such as the State Fire r.iarshall,
State Board of Health? etc 0 The only consideration to be given by the Planning
Commission is the c11ange in site plan and parking requirements 0
l'Jro Kranz stated that the added parking and drivellays are the only site changeso
This t.lil1 be a great improvement as "lith the present drive~1aY1 trucl( drivers have
to bacl{ in the llhole length of the drivet-rayo
Vice Chairman Sueker noted that Village Ordinances require 117 parl(ing spaces
and that the site plan shalled 119 spaces are providedo
Vice Chairman Sueker asked if there l1as anyone in the audience or Commission
t-lho had any additional comments on this site plan approvalo No one repliedo
Commissioner Garin moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 72-490 Second
by Commissioner Oswaldo l~iotion t~las approvedo
Planning Commission - 7 - August Ii 1972
Iilinutes
90 Planning Case NOG 72-50 (Request for Site Plan ltpproval)
7200 36th Avenue North 7 Creamette Company? Petitionero
I.Jr. John Sullivan of the Rauenhorst Construction Company appeared before the
Planning Commission to represent the Creamette Company 0 He presented a site
plan? and a landscape plan for the Planning Commission to considero Referring
to tIle site plan he noted t11e location of the building as being at"lay from 36th
Avenue 7 and a good distance from tIle single family dt-Jel1ings to the East <> They
are providing 136 parking spaces as required by ordinance for employeeso He
stated that they are proposing considerB.ble landscaping as sho,"m on the land-
scape pIano There is a considerable difference in the elevation at the center
of the property and botll 36th and 3$th Avenues. It is very 11igh in. the centero
They are providing earth berms ,.]here they 1-lill be beneficial to screeningc The
londing docks and truck maneuvering area t"rill be screened luth this berm 't:lhere
elevation permits? and "lith trees and shrubs generallyo
The elevation of the floor of the building is 910 and generally 36th l1venue
has an elevation of 8900 Conunissioner Barnisl<:is asked about the height of the
building 0 I.Iro Sullivan said it t-las about 30 feet except for' the silo D.rea~
which is 34 to 35 feeto This silo is a flour storage area located in the North-
west corner of the buildingo
Commissioner Herman asked a.bout the land use irrmediately to the East of this
propertyo Vice Chairman Sueker replied that these were single family homeso
Vice Chairman Sueker asked he,", many nnticipated employees there t"lould be per
shift. At this point the Building and Zoning Director introduced I.1ro John
Lindstroth, First Vice President of the Creamette Company 0 I.Jr 0 Lindstroth
ans\";ered that there lIQuId probably be 40 employees to start '"Tithe I.ir 0 Sueker
stated that even ,"]hen changing of s11ifts i they '-1Quld only need SO spaceso r<fr 0
Lindstroth "t"rent on to say that they have tl10 plants in i.jinneapolis nOl"lo Their
long range planning is to consolidate everything under one roof 0 As soon as
this facility becomes operative they ,"]ould close dot"m their main plant 0 1 lit hin
tt'JO to three years time they ~'lill incorpOl"ate their Fourth Street Plant into
this planto
Commissioner Barniskis asked if there Nas an East elevation of the buildingo
r~1ro Sullivan replied that there lIas not but that it has the same material
as the South elevation and there are 8 loading dockso The loading dock area
't~]ill be depressed about 8 to 10 feet 0 The adjacent residents could not see
these loading dockso Bar11isl<:is asked about exterior lighting and I.Iro Sullivan
said there l70uld be security lighting around the entire perimeter of the build-
ing plus parl{ing lot lightingo Commissioner Barniskis asked 11hat material the
exterior l"lalls lIQuId be made of 0 I.fro Sullivan stated that they l"Tould be pre-
cast concrete '"Iall panels 0 These ,.rill have cast vertical stripes and grooves,
and be paintedo l-lro Sullivan stated that signs and numbers sho"t'In on the ele-
vation are for plan identification and are not proposede Signs l"Iill be a part
of the building contract ~ and tIle responsibility of the Creamette Companyo
Commissioner Cameron aslced if tIle neighbors \"Iere irt..formed of this evening v s
hearing 0 The Building and Zoning Director said thut they were not because
there is no requ.est for variance? \'laiver7 and all ordinance requirements are
met 0 There is no possible action the Planning Commission can tw{e other than
approving or disapproving this site plan. There are no fees collected for
advertising or notifying neighbors of a site plan approvalo A site plan
approval does not require a public hearingc
Planning Commission - ..8- August 1, 1972
l.tinutes
Vice Chairman Suelcer asked I.lrs G lIelch 1:Tho ,vas in the audience if she had
contacted any of the neighborso She replied that she had noto I-Iro Lindstroth
asked if anyone here had any reason to believe that the Creamette Company
would be a nuisance or not uanted in this areao !-Jro Cameron stated that he
just thought it might come as a terrific shock to learn from a newspaper that
a huge factory will be going in thereo The Building and Zoning Director
stated that t"Then surveyors started t"rorlcing in the area he received a number of
calls from neighborso He stated that this is Limited Industrial Zoned Propertyo
This is that type of use ~ Dnd regardless of t"lhether the neighbors \-lanted it or
not he didn't 1010\;] t-rhat recommendation the Planning Commission could mal<:e other
than approval or disapproval of this site plane
Commissioner Herman as!<:ed if "Ie had any requirements for sCl~eening of roof
top units 0 The Building and Zoning Director said that there are no screening
requirements in the State Building Codeo 1-11'0 Sullivan said that there t'Iould
be exhaust ventilators. on the roof and em air conditioning unit on the lO'-ler
roof of the employee sectiono Also the roof '-lould be about 20 feet above the
ground level of the adjacent homeso
The Building and Zoning Director pointed out that the petitioner is willing
to give uhatever length easement is necessary for right of way for 38th Streeto
He also stated that he didn it see the screening along 38th Street that is
required by codeo I.Iro Sullivan stated that if necessary he '"lould provide this
screen? but that this area 1-rill not be developed at this time and it is very
higho He stated they '-lould cut this area bacl{ enough and provide a berm and
planting if requiredc; but that at present the hill itself provides a screeno
Cormnissioner Barnisl{is asl~ed 't"rhat value tIle side't"lallc along 38th street t"lould
have? and he realizes it is a code requiremento The Building and Zoning
Director replied that he had never l-]orlced '-lith anyone more cooperative than
r~ir. Lindstroth and lIro Sullivan? and since this is a code requirement they
readily agreed to put this side'-lallc ino
Vice Chairman Sueker asked where the 15 foot utility easement was locatedo
The Building Director said that this vias considered by our Village Engineero
The spur track crosses this se~-ler easement and other than crossing~ is built
off the easemento
Commissioner Barnisl<:is asl(ed ho,'r many people lIQuId be employedo I.ir e Lindstroth
said he guessed about 40 at tIle start and eventually 115 or 120 employeeso
Commissioner Cameron asked hOlI maJ.1Y trucks ~~Jould be estimated goiJ."1g in and
out each day 9 '"lould it be 10 or 12 ~ 40 or 500 I-Jro Lindstroth said that \-lith
all their facilities here and continued grolJtl1 he l"lould guess from IS to 25
trucks a day 0
Commissioner Ohman moved to reconnnend approval of this site plan as proposed?
but t'lai ving the side1:~laJlc requirement 2 and screening along 38th Avenue at this
t irne 0 lTith easement as necessary to the Village for right of tolay on 3Bth
Avenue 0 Second by Commissioner Garino I.lotion passedo
Planning Commission - 1] - August 1 ~ 1972
I.1inutes
REPORT OF CODES l\1lD ST Ai'IDARDS COl.JI~iITTEB
None
REPORT OF LAND USE COI.il~lITTEE
None
10. The Building and Zoning Director reviewed the Council ~linutes of
July 247 1972 and anst~lered questions of Commission members 0
11. Approval of Planning Commission minutes of July 1$ ~ 19720 i-lotion to approve
by Commissioner Oswald and second by Co~missioner Barniskiso I.lotion passedo
ADDITIO~jAL CO~lI.1ENTS/REQUESTS FROI.I CITIZENS, COI~II.IISSIONERS AND STAFF
None
MlNOUNCEI.1ENTS
None
12. There being no further business 7 CommissionerOsl1ald moved for adjournmento
Second by Commissioner Cameronc I.lotion passedo ~IDeting adjourned at 10:20 porno
Respectfully submitted,
'~/"'~ ,?;;' /~----
.I./~ /.'-?
{,~ ~ /./ r,v:l..~"..~<::.-..-,
/, .' .-" \.' ,,""'-. {.," - ,... ',' , -'
Recording Secretary