Loading...
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