1989 PlanningCITY OF N~W ~DPE
4401 ~ AV~qUE NOR~
~ OOUNT~, ~ 55428
Jar~aary 3, 1989
PC 88-28 (3.1)
OF ~IVE
SIGN PLAN AT 5100
~ ~ #18
A regular meeting of the Planning C~m~ission of the City of
New Hope, Minnesota was held on T~esday, Janus~y 3, 1989 at
the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North.
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Gundershaug
at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Cassen, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke, Zak
Sonsins arrived at 7:32 p,m.
Cameron
The ~tministrative Assistant stated that Mrs. Zak would only
observe at this meeting and would be sworn in as a Planning
Ccm~ssioner at the Feb,]sty 1989 meeting.
Mr. Jon Miner stated he was fairly new in the area. He had
purchased the S.R. Harris building. He stated that at this
time he must honor existing leases and is using only a
portion of the building. He requested approval of a
c~rehensive sign plan so that the existing tenants could be
identified and so his businesses could be identified and
visible to people trying to locate them. He is proposing the
following signage for the site:
A ground sign; a wall sign for '~4ello Smello"; a wall sign
for Internatural Designs; a wall sign for Munsinger
Gymnastics; a wall sign for CTS Fabric-Tex Connector, Inc.
When leases expire, or tenants move out of the building he
will remove their signs frc~ the building. The new signs are
the "Home of Mello Smello" sign on the wall; the
"Internatural Designs" sign on the ground sign and the
"Internatural Designs" wall sign.
Mr. Miner stated that there was a small building next to the
larger building. He is attempting to make this buildng more
attractive and would like an awning/canopy on the building,
with his name on the awning/canopy.
In response to questions from Commissioner Sonsin, Ms. Dunn
stated that a comprehensive sign plan was required for multi-
occupancy buildings. She indicated that there had also been
changes in the sign plan and code requirements since the
original owner was involved.
-2-
Discussion followed regarding the fact that there were new
signs on the building, but the Planning Co~m-,ission had not
previously seen the signage proposed.
Mr. Miner stated he had discussed the signs with Mr. Sandstad
of city staff and had received sign permits from the city
prior to installing the signs.
Mr. Miner added that he had received permission for the
awning but had not received permission to put the name on the
awning. He would like to have that sign read "Internatural
Designs".
Cu~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin confirmed that the sign materials will be
of a permanent type and would be weather resistant.
Commissioner Watschke confirmed that the awning would not be
back-lighted. There are security type lights on the building
now.
In response to questions regarding placing all signs on the
awning, Mr. Miner stated that he had spent so much money on
the logo, that he really did not want to change now. If he
were to put the logo on the awning, then he would have to
introduce color on to the awning and this would be costly.
The logo sign will be 4' x 5' and of brushed aluminum using
the colors of the logo.
Commissioner Oja confirmed for the record that the '~4ello
Smello" w-all sign on the east elevation would not be
illuminated except by security lights.
In response to questions from Commissioner Oja, Mr. Minor
stated that he would eventually want to be the only occupant
of the building. He would move the tenants out when their
leases expired, or if he could offer them space in another
building he was purchasing in the area. At the present time
his business must use the front loading dock. He would like
to be able to use the rear loading docks.
In response to questions from Commissioner Watschke, Ms. Dunn
stated that with a c~rehensive sign plan, individual signs
could be a maximum of 15% of the square footage of each
tenant's wall surface, not to exceed 100 square feet. The
only difference was that a tenant occupying a corner location
was allowed two signs.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
Plannin~ O',,.,~ ~ic~l M~ January 3, 1989
C~m~Hssioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner w-as
requesting no variances for the comprehensive sign plan.
Ms. Dunn stated that the ground sign was excluded frc~ the
maximum signage allowed each tenant. Ms. Dunn indicated that
she would like staff to have an opportunity to review the
signage for the awning, prior to the City Council meeting.
Co~,,L,~ssioner Sonsin made a motio~ ~ approval of
the ~$a~k~msive sign plan at 5100 (~ l%oad #18, as
requested in Case 88-28, subject to staff verificatic~ of the
fact that the proposed awning sign comply with the
oonditions of the city code. Co~mmissioner Oja second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug,
Oja, Wat.qchke.
None
Cameron
PC 88-29 (3.2) Mrs. Rich stated that she had appeared before the Planning
I~DQUEST F-~H~ VARIANCE Co~=~Hssion a month ago. She had been requested to provide a
]lq REARXARD SETBACK plans indicating the deck location, size, etc. The proposed
AT 9117 34~/4 AVENUE deck will be located along the side of the house, and will
not extend into the Irard beyond the three season porch.
Co~L,~,~ssioner Oja confirmed that the existing deck extended
into the yard 12 feet and that the three season porch will
occupy the same footage, with the exception of a bay window
which extends into the rear yard. The bay window will not
extend to the ground. It was noted that the bay window will
be 24 feet from the rear lot line.
Discussion followed about the dimensions involved and what
the actual variance would be, with the addition of the bay
window.
The Planning Consultant, Alan Brixus, stated that judging by
the survey as provided, the variance would be 11 feet rather
than 10 feet. It w~s his opinion that the actual setback
from the lot line was a little more than previously
indicated.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff had not had an opportunity to
review the plans that Mrs. Rich had brought to the meeting.
Discussion continued regarding the size of the variance.
Planning C~m~-Hssion Minutes January 3, 1989
-4-
needed and the accuracy of the plans as they compared to the
survey.
~nere was no one present in regard to this case.
C~mtissioner Sonsin asked what the concensus of the
Commission was in regard to this variance request?
C~m~Jssioner Friedrich noted that the configuration of the
abutting lots provided -very deep back irards and there w~s a
great deal of space between the proposed addition and the
neighboring dwellings.
Commissioner Sonsi~ asked whether the petitioner had
discussed her plans with the neighbors?
Mrs. Rich stated she had spoken to the neighbors and there
had been no objections to her plans.
Commissioner Sonsin made a motion rec~mm~Jz~ approval of
the 11 foot ~ ~rar~snce at 9117 34th Ave~m~ North, as
request~ in Case 88-29, subject to staff verification of the
plans as ~,~ite~d on 1-3-89, and (x~ir~ on the pro~
d~k berg positioned next to the existing house.
C~t,~ssioner C~a second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug,
Watschke.
Cameron
4.1
There w~s no report f~ the Design and Review Conmtittee.
4.2
There W-dS no report from the Codes and Standards Cu~mt,~ttee.
OLD t~3S/~
CxaL~,,~ssioner Gundershaug stated that C~irman Cameron would
be speaking with the new Commission members during the month,
and that appointments to committees would be ~de at the
Febl~ry 1989 meeting.
Ms. Dunn requested that the Com~dssion consider Ordinance 88-
18, re~arding the development moratorium before discussing
the Vacant Land Study.
Planning Cxa~a~Hssion Minutes January 3, 1989
-5-
5.2
Ms. Dunn stated that on December 12, 1988 the City Council
had adopted Ordinance 88-18, which enacted a 90 day
development moratorium (until 3-13-88).
The reason for the moratorium was to allow the city to
preserve the status quo until the planning process could be
completed. The city is reviewing existing zoning on vacant
land to determine whether or not the zoning is appropriate
for the properties involved. Included in the moratorium are
the following properties:
* The SooLine railroad property, located at 49th/Winnetka
* Minneqasco prope~ located at 3900 Winnetka North
* Dowden property, located at 3920-80 Winnetka
* Dura Process prOperty located at 4000 Winnetka
* Old Dutch Pond property
Law requires that the City Council wait until 2-13-89 to act
on the Vacant Land Study. Staff felt that additional review
was needed on the Minnegasco property and on the Soo Line
property to discuss traffic, drainage and land use
conflicts.
Ms. Dunn requested that the Planning C~m~Hssion schedule a
work session during the month of January to consider these
issues o
Commissioner Sonsin stated that it had appeared from
newspaper accounts that there had been potential development
for some of the sites in question.
Ms. Dunn stated that the city had heard a number of times that
developers were close to signing for various properties.
However, no development plans in formal form had been
submitted to city staff. Ms. Dunn stated that approximately
a year ago there had been a proposal for multi-family housing
on the Minnegasco site.
Co~,~ssioner Sonsin confirmed that the moratorium did not
affect 42nd Avenue development.
It was noted that following review of the Vacant Iand Study,
a decision will be made as to whether or not the Study should
be added to the city's Comprehensive 'Plan.
Following discussion, the P/ar~ C~mmissi~n m~rk session
was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on January 25. 1989. Notices and
a packet will be delivered to the c~,,missioners prior to that
m ti o
Plannin~ C~mm~ission Minutes Jar~azy 3, 1989
6.2
6.3
Motic~ by O~,.,,~-~iomer Friedrich, secor~ by O-,.-~-~ioner to
~mhle d~-~iom of the Vacant Tm~d Study until Ja~y 25,
1989 o
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug,
Ga, Watschke
None
Cameron
~he Planning Commission Minutes were accepted as printed.
The Council Minutes of November 28, and December 12, were
reviewed.
The HRA Minutes of November 28, and December 12, were
reviewed.
The meetin~ was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:/5 p.m.
Boedd~, Secretary
Pi~ O~m~.~sic~ Minutes
Jar~ 3, 1989
CITY OF N~
4401 XYIDN AVENUE
H~qNEPIN ~, MINNESOTA 55428
February 7, 1989
CATL IQ ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
New Hope, Minnesota ~as held on Tuesday, February 7, 1989 at
the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30
p.m.
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
Sonsin
~JBLIC ~
PC 89-1 (3.1) Mr. Jerome Rath stated he was requesting the three foot
R~i~EST FOR VARIANCE frontyard variance to allow him to construct a family room
TO FRONTYARD SETBACK on the main floor of his home. The addition would extend
AT 3464 ENSIGN NOI~/~ three feet into the required front setback on his property,
plus a two
foot overhang. Mr. Rath said he had looked at other areas
for the family room, but this location fulfilled their needs
best. They do not wish to add on to the house and have it
look like it was "added on", or convert the garage to a
family room and build a separate garage. They would also
like to make some changes in the kitchen, and he wants to
build a separate pantry between the garage and the family
room to replace some cupboards that would be lost, with a
closet toward the garage. The proposed room would be 11 feet
by 20 feet.
Mr. Rath stated they do not wish to cover up the patio door
to the three season porch or the windows by extending the
family room into the rearyard. He is not planning to have a
basement underneath the room. Mr. Rath stated he was not
convinced that putting this much money into the house was
wise, but they want the addition to appear as if it had
always been on the house.
Mr. :~3.th repeated that he was asking only a three foot
variance into the front setback, and noted that he did not
think this footage would even be noticeable from the street.
The house to the north of his property has the sideyard
facing his front yard. This house is ten feet closer to
Ensign than Mr. Rath's would be with the addition. In his
opinion this three feet made a large difference in the design
of the addition and without this three feet the addition
would not be a good package in his opinion.
-2-
Mr. Rath com,t~nted that he did not know why homes were not
selling for n~re money in New Hope, unless it was because
they did not have main floor family rooms. He wants to bring
his house up to date. He presently has about the biggest
house in the neighborhood and he felt that with the addition
to his home, everyone else in the neighborhood would gain.
He stated he thought the Commission/City had to look at the
advantages to eve~tone if he received the variance. He did
not see how this variance would hurt anyone.
Claairman Cameron stated that the information that Mr. Rath
had provided with his request, eliminated the need for many
questions about materials, color, etc. He added that the
purpose of the Planning Commission was to consider special
cases and that part of their task was to sit in judgment on
each case and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Chairman Cameron noted that he had. been a member of the
Planning Commission for 17 years, and could remember only two
frontyard variances that had been granted. The
Commission/City takes all setbacks seriously, and they try to
treat everyone the same. He added that there needed to be
son~ type of hardship demonstrated to justify the Planning
Commission granting a variance such as this. He stated that .~-~
Mr. Rath had failed to provide evidence of such a hardship.
He added that the Commission was a lot more lenient in
granting rearyard setback variances.
Referring to other properties he had observed in the city,
Mr. Rath commented on garages/fences that were much closer to
the street because of the sideyard designation of particular
properties.
Chairman Cameron stated he respected Mr. Rath's arguments but
that the Planning Commission could not really consider most
of these arguments. Their job was to advise the city Council
on whether a req~. est conformed to city codes.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug
regarding the accuracy of the survey presented to staff, Ms.
Dunn stated that what the Commissioners were reviewing was a
site plan prepared by the petitioner, not a current survey.
Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether Mr. Rath was sure
that he needed only a three foot variance?
Mr. Rath said he felt it was within six inches of three feet,
ar~ that the garage set farther back on the lot than the
Planning Ct~mission Minutes Febl~,ary 7, 1989
house. He stated his measurements were to the slab, not the
overhang.
Ms. Dunn noted that city code permits a two foot encroachment
of an overhang into the setback. She added that the
petitioner was requesting a three foot variance, plus the two
foot overhang.
Discussion followed between Commissioner Gundershaug and Mr.
Rath about possible options to the construction such as
reducing the size of the rear windows, and removing the
existing patio door at the rear, or reducing the size of the
addition by a few feet.
Mr. Rath indicated he did not wish to change the three season
perch, partly because of the investment he has in the cedar
on the porch.
Chairman Cameron stated that one of the criteria used in
determining a hardship to justify a variance ~as that there
was "no other way" to build an addition. He did not feel Mr.
Rath had denonstrated this. He felt there were several ways
for Mr. Rath to build the addition without requiring any
Mr. Rath said he was trying to find out exactly what his
options were. If he could not have the three foot variance,
they would have to consider other options, including moving
out of New Hope.
Discussion between Commissioner Watschke and Mr. Rath about
options in the proposed kitchen remodeling that might make
better use of space to compensate for any cabinets that might
be lost in remodeing. It was suggested that perhaps the
garage space could be reduced slightly to accomodate the
pantry and closet.
Mr. Rath agreed he could expand this way, but that it was not
an ideal arrangement. He said he had experimented with
different ways to make the changes, but that his was the
solution he had come up with. This was the ideal way in his
opinion.
Chairman Cameron commented that the proposed addition was
just three feet too long. He asked whether Mr. Rath had
contacted his neighbors about his plans?
Mr. Rath said no.
Planningf~m~sionM_inutes February7, 1989
-4-
Chairman Cameron said all neighbors had received notices of
the public hearing, and the city had not received any
negative cu~_nts. He added that the Commission had a couple
of choices regarding this request. It could be tabled, to
allow Mr. Rath time to consider another option, or the
Co~.~,~ssion could vote, and forward their recommendations to
the City Council.
There was no one present in regard to this request.
Mr. Rath said he would like a decision at this meeting.
Co~mlHssioner Gundershaug made a motion rec~u~d~ng denial of
front~ v~r~r~e for 3464 Ensign North, as re~=~t~d in
Case 89-1. Commissioner Oja secor~.
Com,~ssioner Gundershaug stated that he had been on the
Planning Commission a number of years and that the Cu~L,,~,~ssion
had always held to the codes on frontyard variances.
Mr. Rath ~ted that he did not think anyone sat still.
You had to go one way or the other. He sees houses in New
Hope getting older and maybe people moving in from other
areas that will not take care of them as well as previous.~
Voting in favor: Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja
Watschke.
Voting against: Zak, Cassen
Absent: Sonsin
Motion for denial carried.
4.1
There was no report from the Design and Review Committee.
4.2
OlD ~3SINESS
There was no rep?rt from the Codes and Standards Committee.
5.1
Alan Brixius from Northwest Associated Consultants reviewed
the proposed amendments to the 42nd Avenue Improv~t Study
as distributed to the Commissioners.
Mr. Brixius stated that the city's Comprehensive Plan had
recommended that the sites presently occupied by Paro's Pub,
Crown Auto and Cook Automotive be zoned for multiple
residential development.
Planning O~,~sion Minutes FebD,ary 7, 1989
-5-
N~ ~USINESS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
These sites have been determined to be too small for such
development and they are now recommending these sites be
zoned B-3 and co~u~rcial development be allowed. The B-3
zoning would stop at Nevada Avenue. The current uses of the
properties are consistent with this zoning and were
originally proposed to be allowed to remain on the sites.
The original reco~u~ndation for residential had been as a
result of the 42nd Avenue Market Study. Since the
redevelopment of the New Hope Mall, some vitality has
returned and some new businesses have come into the area.
There have further been no significant withdrawals of
businesses from the New Hope Center. From a land use
perspective, they feel the city should try to make this
option consistent with the long term plan for the area.
Discussion followed about the zoning on the vacamt site next
to Ail Star Sports (B-3) and whether the Ail Star Sports site
and this lot should not also remain B-3.
Ms. Dunn requested that the Planning Commission make an
official recommendation to the HRA on this issue.
Conmtissioner Gundershaug made a motion reoc~m~nd~r~3 approval
of the proposed amerm~P_nt to the 42nd Avenue Plan, incl~ng
the Ail Star Sports site ~ the vacant lot at 7305 42nd
Avenue maintain the existing B-3 zoning classification.
Commissioner Friedrich seoond.
Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke.
Voting against: None
Absent: Sonsin
Motion carried.
Planning Commis~i.'on Minutes of January 3, 1989 were approved
as printed.
The City Council minutes of December 27, and December 28,
1988 and January 9, 1989 were reviewed.
The HRA minutes of December 28, 1988 and January 9, 1989 were
reviewed.
C~airman Cameron announced that he had made new committee
assignments. They are:
Plarnning C~mmission Minutes Febln~ry 7, 1989
6m
William Sonsin, Chair of Codes and Standards
Douglas Watschke and Mary Zak members of
Standards Committee.
Sharon Cassen a n~_mber of the Design and Review Committee.
~he meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Boeddekerli Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes Feb~,~ry 7, 1989
CITY OF N~ ~PE
4401 XYIDN AV~rOE ~
~ OC~R~Uf, M~lqNESO~A 55428
March7, 1989
PC 89-3 (3.1)
RmQOESr FOR CONDI-
FOR~
S~ORAGE 2kT 2919
A regular meeting of the Planning Co~,~ssion of the City of New
Hope was held on Tuesday, March 7, 1989 at the New Hope City
Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman
Cameron.
Present: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
Absent: Friedrich, Zak
Chairman Cameron noted that there had been a request from
staff to table this Planning Case for one month.
Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner ~as in the audience and
perhaps was interested in discussing the need and type of
screening and landscaping required by city code.
Mr. Kn~tz stated he would like to do everything possible to
satisfy the city but didn't know what that will take. He
stated he ran a small landscaping business from his hom~. He
parks three trucks and three trailers on three acres of
commercially zoned land.
C~irman Cameron stated it sounded as if Mr. Kmetz had not
spoken to city staff aboutthis problem.
Mr. Kmetz said he had spoken to staff, but w-as not sure about
requirements. That is why he was present. He had talked about
this with staff.
Mr. Kmetz said he had a limestone driveway and parking area.
In his mind, what he had was sufficient.
Ms. Dunn stated that Mr. Kmetz needed to better define the
storage area, that the exterior storage area had to be
screened, and that a Conditional Use Permit required that
exactly what was to be stored in the space was on record.
Nothing else, other than what was included in the Conditional
Use Permit approval would be allowed. The Conditional Use
Permit also requires exact materials for the screening of the
storage area, the type of surface in the area as well as the
exact area to be used for storage.
Chairman Cameron stated there had been some complaints about
-2-
the condition of the property. He added that the petitioner
had to come up with a specific plan for his property, to be
presented to the Planning Conmtission for review. This plan had
to include the specific types of equipment/materials to be
stored, the type of screening or fencing he intended to
provide, and a plan showing the exact location on the site of
the storage area. Without that information the Planning
Cu~t~L,~ssion could not consider his request for a Conditional Use
Permit.
Ms. Dunn stated that the city must know the precise area that
the storage area would be located.
Mr. Kmetz said he had submitted a plan showing the designated
area for storage.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff did not feel the petitioner needed
as large an area as he was proposing, and another issue was
that Mr. Kmetz had not indicated what type of fencing or
screening he proposed to protect the residential areas adjacent
to the property.
Mr. Kmetz said the need for screening was all new to him. He
felt the Commission/city should keep in mind that the neighbor~-'
were 600 feet from the property, and that was only twu
residences. The other buildings are 1000 feet from his site.
Mr. Kmetz said had talked to the Building official and Ms.
Dunn, but every time he talked to someone, what was required
was changed. He wants to do what is required.
Chairman Cameron stated that Mr. Kn~tz would have to come to
the city hall and sit down with Ms. Dunn and the Building
Official to discuss exactly what screening was required, and
that he would have to provide the city/commission with a
specific plan which would include the exact equipn~nt/materials
to be stored, the location of the storage area, and the type of
fencing or screening he intended to install around the storage
area, before the Conditional Use Permit request could be
considered. The city had to be very careful about granting
Conditional Use Permits.
Mr. Kmetz stated the entire property was screened with lilac
bushes. When he purchased the property he had asked whether
he could run a business on his property. At that time he
thought everything was fine. Nothing had been mentioned about
the need for a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that the
property was in a warehouse environment.
Planning O,,,~H~ion Minutes March 7, 1989
PC 89-4 (3.2)
P~tm~T FOR ~n~c-
5000 WINNETKA NOR~4
PC 89-5 (3.3)
R~ FOR AM~qD-
AT.I' F~W' ~INATE
USE AT 7231 42ND.
Cu~m~issioner Sonsin asked staff about the complaints about the
site.
Ms. Dunn stated that there had been complaints in 1980, and
1985.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 89-
3 0~equest for (kx~tic~l Use l%~_rmlt for Outr]~or Storuge),
until the Planning C~,,,.J-~sion mee~_ting of April 4, 1989.
Cu~tu~,~ssioner Oja secor~.
Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin,
Watschke.
Absent: Friedrich, Zak
Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
The petitioner was not in attendance.
F~tion by Commissioner Gundershaug to t~hle Case 89-4 until the
end of the public hearings. Cuw,~,4ssioner Oja second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Cassen, Sonsin,
Watschke
None
Friedrich, Zak
Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Mr. John Cosn~s of KK Design and Mr. Randy Kenny of Total
Petroleum represented the petitioner.
A landscape planwas distributed to the commissioners.
Mr. Cosmos stated that Total Petroleum was in the process of
upgrading their facilities. This site has an existing
Conditional Use Permit. The service bay area is no longer used
in the station andthey wish to convert the space to additional
storage, including a w-elk-in cooler and a freezer unit. They
are planning to redecorate and remodel within the existing
building. This was the reason for the request to amend the
Conditional Use Permit now in effect. They intend to convert
the existing two bathrooms to one handicapped, unisex bathroom.
Planning C~.~sionMinutes
March7, 1989
-4-
The revised site plan basically reorganizes the site. It had
been reco~L,,~nded that one access be closed and they wish to
realign the parkir~ along the south and west sides of the
building. They will retain the green strip on the east and
south. The move_able curbs will be replaced with permanent
curbing. They plan a new landscaped strip along Rockford Road
and Nevada which will have low plantings according to city
requirements. There had been a request from staff for another
tree along 42nd Avenue. The existing pumps and canopy will
basically stay the same.
Com,~Hssioner Sonsin asked whether the exterior dimensions would
remain the same, when the grocery area was increased to 1100
square feet.
It was noted by the petitioner that the original service bays
had not been in use since a previous remodeling when a cooler
and walls bad been installed. The front half of the building
consists of retail sales area now. When the bathrooms are
relocated, there will be space for a walk-in cooler in the
storage space.
The petitioner indicated that there will be no cooking on the
premises. They will handle packaged foods and are currentl-~-'
consulting with staff and the sanitarian as to whether or no~
they will be allowed to install a microwave oven for heating of
prepackaged foods.
Ms. Dunn stated that discussion is continuing regarding
sanitation issues.
Mr. Cosmos noted he felt there was a very fine line in this
issue. Basically customers would be simply re-heating pre-
packaged food.
It was noted t_hat all pert~ble curbs will be replaced by
permanent curbs.
Discussion then centered on the shared driveway between the
station and Grobe's Cafe. Mr. Cosmos stated it was his
understanding that this drive was basically closed. He did not
think there was any problem with the restaurant if this drive
remained closed.
Planning (k,,..~ ~ion Minutes March 7, 1989
In response to questions from Commissioner Sonsin, Mr. Cosmos
stated that the proposed parking spaces conformed to city
standards. The reason for changing to one unisex bathroom
instead of two is because a handicapped facility requires more
space. The proposed unisex bathroom meets both State and local
The petitioner will look at the signage situation on the site.
They are aware that there is a strict city code regulating
signs. They intend to comply with the city code.
Ms. Dunn stated that the lettering on the present canopy at
this time exceeds the allowed signage for the site.
In response to questions from Commissioner Oja, it was noted
t_hat all curbs will be permanent, separating the green area
from the driving aisles. The existing bituminous surface is in
good condition and does not require replacing at this time.
Commissioner Oja asked why the parking was proposed for the
rear of the building instead of on the sides?
The petitioner stated that this was the only way to include the
required number of spaces on the site. For security reasons,
it is not feasible to have a back door on the building for
customer use. There is usually only one attendant on duty at a
time in the retail area. It is felt that 90% of the retail
customers will also be gasoline custonmrs and that the extra
stalls will very seldom be used. There will be three parking
stalls and one handicapped parking stall near the front
entrance.
Commissioner Oja asked how the green areas will be maintained.
The petitioner said that the grass will be sprinkled only with
hoses. Usually the station managers maintain the landscaping.
Co~,~ssioner Oja said in her opinion the landscaping was
im~dequate. She felt there should be more plantings, especially
near the building with more shrubs and perhaps different
varieties.
The petitioner noted that delivery trucks will have to park in
the rear. However, there will not be any trucks of the over-
the-road size, basically the milk truck size. If the pumps
were full of cars, the delivery truck would have to wait or
come back.
Com~ssioner Gundershaug stated he felt the petitioners had
Planning O~,.,,~ ~sion Minutes March 7, 1989
neglected the landscaping in their plans. He felt there should
be double the amount proposed. He did not feel additional
plants would cost that much to provide a first class job on
CoimL,~ssioner Gundershaug verified that the wooden fencing would
remain.
Chairman Cameron said he agreed with Co~mL,~ssioner Gundershaug
and would also lik~ to have the landscaping increased. That
would help the sight lines for the neighbors from the south.
He then asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of
the landscaping.
The petitioner stated that depended upon how busy the facility
was. Sometimes outside help is hired. It depended on the
individual station manager. He felt there would be no question
about the landscaping being taken care of.
Chairman Cameron said he would also like to see at least 1/2
dozen more trees, perhaps Lindens.
In response to question regarding snow, the petitioner felt
there would be adequate space for snow storage with the extl~
parking spaces. Snow would not be piled against the building.
If it proved necessary the snow would be hauled away.
Commissioner Cassen inquired what the city requirements were as
far as number of fire escapes for a facility?
Ms. Dunn stated that the Building Official and Fire Marshal had
reviewed the proposal and had not identified a deficiency in
fire egress. She indicated that they would confirm that the
building complied with Fire Codes prior to the City Council
review.
Commissioner Watschke verified that there should not be a
drainage problem on the site when the permanent curbs are
installed.
The petitioner stated that Total Petroleum was committed to
upgrading and remodeling their sites. The station should look
like a new unit when finished.
In response to questions from Commissioner Sonsin regarding a
micro-wave oven on site, it w~s noted that dialogue was
continuing between city staff, the sanitarian and the
petitioner.
Planning(kam~issionM~ March7, 1989
-7-
PC 89-4 (3.2)
Co~.~ssioner Sonsin made a motion reo~,~_nd~ approval of the
am~nt to the Conditional Use Permit at 7231 42nd Avenue
(as request?d in Case 89-5) subject to the follc~
cor~litions:
1. Permanent curb will replaoe the existing moveable curbs.
2. The driveway on the east side is closed.
3. Parking lot is striped to meet city codes.
4. All signage will conform to city code.
5. T mnd.~aping is increased to double the original proposal.
6. Petitic~er gives serious consideration to removing snow
Commissioner Gundershaug secor~.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
None
Friedrich, Zak
Commissioner Gundershaug mdeamotion removi~ C~se 89-4 from
the table. Co~L~ssioner~a second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
None
Friedrich, Zak
Mr. Bradley Hoyt, President of Hoyt Development, stated that
they were proposing to build a warehouse/industrial facility on
a 16 acre site. In the future they intend to re-plat 3.2
acres. The building will have access from Winnetka. They are
attempting to resolve a problem with the exit on the adjacent
property to the north. He wishes to work with that property
owner but has been unable to meet with him. Their proposal
exceeds the green area required by code. All ponding and
possible snow storage problems have been taken care of.
The building will have a 24 foot clear height facade, with 28
feet to the roof. It will be built of pre-cast, tip up,
panels. The windows will be dark anondized aluminium with
termal pane glass. There will be a contrasting color band
around the building approximately seven feet in height. The
truck docks are to the south, facing the existing railroad
Planning(~ionMinutes Marcel7, 1989
-8-
spur. The office space will be to the north, toward the
residential property. This also keeps the truck docks out of
the north wind. The building could be served by rail.
Referring to discussions at the Design and Review Committee
meeting, Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they had done
anything about aligning 50th Avenue and the driveway.
Mr. Shopek stated they had looked at this but had chosen the
option to share the driveway with the property to the north.
They felt there were problems with the grade and attempting a
turn the grade would be too steep and too fast for trucks to
stop if necessary.
Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the drive around the
back side of the building would be designated "one way" for
trucks?
Ms. Dunn stated that the option of a shared driveway would
require a Conditional Use Permit from the city. If the
petitioner can work out an arrangement with the neighbor to the
north, there would have to be a public hearing.
Commissioner Gundershaug verified that the the drive aisl~'~'''
would be adequate for a 55 foot semi trailer truck and tha~u
there would be adequate room for trucks to back up.
He then asked about the suggested sidewalk to the building as
discussed at Design and Review.
Mr. Hoyt said this would be no problem. There will be security
lighting at the rear, with 250w lights. They will shine
downward. All building lighting will also be down directed.
All rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building and
there will be inside trash storage.
Commissioner Gundershaug reminded the petitioner that the city
had a strict sign ordinance. He noted that the building
proposed is 800 feet in length. He questioned whether they had
considered any treatment to break up this long expanse. He
recommended that before the petitioner appeared before the City
Council he have some treatment of this long expanse laid out.
He also felt there should be some additional treatment to the
side of the building toward Winnetka. He hoped they would be
somewhat imaginative on that side also.
Noting that Design and Review had recommended the petitioner
double the amount of landscaping, Commissioner Gundershaug
asked whether they had done so? ~
Planning~i~sionM~ March7, 1989
The petitioner said they had come pretty close, they were
possibly within ten trees of doubling the landscaping. They
had also attempted to enhance the entryway areas. They also
plan to put trees along Winnetka and some trees along the
loading area. They have increased the landscaping on the
island and also in the back of the site.
Cu~issioner Gundershaug noted that he really wanted some heavy
landscaping along Winnetka Avenue.
Mr. Hoyt stated it appeared that there was already a heavy
concentration there. There will be evergreens in the corners
and additional coniferous and deciduous trees as well. Mr.
Hoyt said that all the green areas will be sprinklered.
In response to questions, Mr. Hoyt said that the two anchor
tenants will be on the corners of the building. The middle
section has not as yet been leased. Tenants will have ten year
leases. Mr. Hoyt intends to retain ownership of the building.
The building has been designed to have flexibility to allow for
adding to, or not using the dock area.
Chairman Cameron complimmnted the petitioner on the proposed
landscaping.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
Co~mmissioner Gundershaug made a motion reouum~ approval of
the warehouse proposed for 5000 Winnetka, as requested in Case
89-4, subject to:
1. ~he addition of a sidewalk fzum the east parking lot to the
2. A sign to be locat~d_ on the m~st driveway ir~icati~3 "all
3. ~hat the recc~m~ations of the city Engineer be met.
4. ~hat a cr~prehensive sign plan be submitted to the city for
5. ~hat the plans be forwarded to Shingle Creek Watershed
C~z~.~sion and that }~epin County revi~ driveway
entrances on winnetka Avenue.
Ms. Dunn stated that the city was concerned about the proposed
joint driveway, and the fact that Northland did not seem to be
very positive about the suggestion.
Mr. Hoyt said the Northland driveway is presently in bad
condition. He would endeavor to reach an accommodation with
Planning~sionM~ March 7, 1989
O~EE REPORPS
4.1
4.2
OlD t~JS//~ESS
5.1
the Northland within the next week.
Chairman Can~ron asked whether Mr. Hoyt thought he would have
something worked out, prior to the City Council meeting on the
13th? If this could be worked out, he did not see a problem
with forwarding the case to the City Council. He noted that
the petitioner was now aware of the Planning Commission's
feelings.
Co~uL~issioner C~a s~cor~,
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
None
Friedrich, Zak
Ms. Dunn stated that the resolution recommending the change in
certain zoning classifications (as attached) and amending the
Zoning Ordinance, was the result of the Vacant land Study
findings. State law requires that a public hearing be held by
the City Council.
Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by C~um~ssioner Oja to
accept Resolution89-1andthat a publichearingbescheduled.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
None
Friedrich, Zak
Ms. Dunn stated that members of the City Council had requested
that staff look at the type of variances granted by the city
and the frequency of variances granted, to determine whether
city code as it relates to variances should be amended.
Council was particularly concerned about frontyard variances.
Planning~~ion~ March7, 1989
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
In regard to landscape requirements in the city, Ms. Dunn
stated that the present code lists a number of acceptable trees
that are not working out in New Hope. The City Forester is
recon~t~-lding that the list of approved trees be amended. There
w-us also a question as to whether the planting guidelines were
adequate.
Staff also wanats to work with the Codes and Standards
Committee regarding construction approval requests, and whether
they should be subject to a public hearing.
C~i~m~n c~m~_~ referred ~ /ssue to Codes and Star~ards
C~,,.ittee for review ar~ re~J,.,~ndation.
~ Plannir~ (km~i~sion Mir~ of Feb~ry 7, 1989 were
accepted as printed.
~he City Council Minutes of Jannmry 23, and February 13, were
reviewed.
~he HRA Minutes of January 23, and Febr~ary 13, were reviewed.
8.0
]]~e meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary
Planning O"m~i.~sion Minut~ Mard~ 7, 1989
CITY OFN~WI{OPE
4401XYIE~A~~
Hf~NGG[~T~, MINNESGI~
April 4, 1989
PUBLIC HEAPJA~
PC 89-2 (3.1)
RE~ FOR PRE-
VARIANCE AT 9213-
9215 41st AVENUE
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
New Hope was held on Tuesday, April 4, 1989 at the New Hope
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order by Cb~iIman Cameron at 7:30
p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Oja, Watschke
Gundershaug
Mr. Steven Kaitz stated that he had recently acquired the
property and was requesting permission to create one lot
in place of the two zero lot line lots now in existence. His
reasons for this request were that it would save him $500-
$600 in taxes each year. He intended to live in one unit.
He would then have the tax savings to use toward improving
the property.
Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioner anticipated
coming back to theCommission ina few years to request a re-
platting to two lots?
Mr. Kaitz said hedid not plan on this happening. He thought
he would live there perhaps 8-10 years and if he sold the
property it would probably to someone else who chose to live
in oneunitandrentthe other.
There was no one present ~n regard to this case.
Motion by Commissioner Oja recu~_r~ing app~uval of the
preliminary plat at 9213-15 41stAver~eNorth, as requested
in Case 89-2, approval of the variance in lot size as
r~_est__~d_, a~ the waiving of Plann/ng C~dssion review of
the final plat. Commissioner Sonsin seoond.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin,
C~a, Watschke .
None
Gundershaug
Friedrich, Cameron,
-2-
CASE 89-3 (3.2)
PJDQUEST FOR O3P
IN I-lZONEAT
2919 NEVAEI~ NOR//4
Chairman Cameron stated that staff had requested that this
planning case be t_~bled until the meeting of May 2, 1989.
Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner
Friedrich tablir~ Planning C~se 89-3 until the meeting of May
2, 1989.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin,
C~a, Watschke
None
Gundershaug
Friedrich, Can~ron,
CASE 89-6 (3.3)
AT,~W SIGNAGE AT
4203 BOONE NOI~I~
Fred Peterson represented Family/Home Services. He stated
they were requesting the amendment to allow them to install
a sign to identify their facility. There have been problems
particularly for people arriving from 42nd Avenue North, as
they often drive past the site, and then have to turn around
in driveways and come back.
In response 'to questions from Conm~ssioner Sonsin, Mr.
Peterson said that the sign would be 2 1/2 feet by 8 feet in
size and made of redwood. It will be a raised sign and will
be on redwood posts. The message will be painted. The sign
has been designed by a commercial company, and the paint will
be designed for exterior use and will be supplied by the
company.
The sign will be deadbolted into the landscaping and will be
placed at the distance from the street as required by city
code. Mr. Peterson did not know the exact distance from the
lot line to where the sign will be installed.
Ms. Dunn stated that sta{f had measured the distance and the
post placement as planned is within city setback
requirements.
Commissioner Oja asked how the sign would be lit?
Mr. Peterson said that there will be no lighting, either
internal or external. The greatest need for the sign is
during the daytime. He added that the sign is under a street
light and this will help illuminate it. Most of the clients
that come to the center in the evening come together in a van
and are familiar with the location.
There was no one present in regard to this request.
Planning Colm~,~ssion Minutes April 4, 1989
-3-
Commissioner Sonsin made a motion recc~m~ approval of
the ~,~r]~ to t~ Cor~litior~l Use Permit at 4203 Boone
North, as re~d__ in c~.~e 89-3, subject to the sign being
placed within city re~,~red setbacks. Conmtissioner Friedrich
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Oja, Watschke
None
Gundershaug
4.1
There was no report from the Design and Review Committee.
4.2
Codes and Standards Committee had met. Issues reviewed by
them included: review of the number of variance requests
received by the city; formalizing the review process for
construction approvals; and revision of the city ' s
landscaping requirements. The Forester is reviewing the
types of trees acceptable by the city, and whether or not
they would be successful in this area, and formalizing the
revised proposal.
Ms. Dunn stated that the City Council had requested a review
of the numbers and types of variances issued by the city.
This history was distributed to the conmtissioners in their
packet. It was noted that quite a few of the variances are
for expansions of non conforming uses. This is in part
because the definitions had been changed in the city cede,
making the front designation the shortest side of the
property. This issue will be reviewed by the City Attorney
and the Planner.
Another area of concern is frontyard setback requirements.
Staff discourages variances in the frontyard setback when
inquiries are made. Staff will discuss with the city
Attorney and Planner the implications of changing the setback
requirements at this point.
Chairman Cameron stated that in his opinion the city is in an
almost fully developed state. He felt that a large number of
the variance requests involved people who wished to remain in
the city, but wanted to improve their property to adapt to
changing lifestyles. He personally wns not concerned about
the number of variances since he felt the commission required
good ratioD~le before granting them.
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1989
-4-
Chairman Sonsin asked whether there was any consistent record
on the types of variances that were approved or disapproved?
Chairman Cameron requested that the Planner investigate
setback requirements in surrounding communities. Chairman
Cameron added that he would also like staff comments on
NEW ~US~ESS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.0
8.0
This item was discussed in 4.2.
~ Planning O~mm~ ~sion Minutss of March 7, 1989 were
approved as printed.
Ms. Dunn reviewed the Council Minutes of January 12, 22,
Febl~ry 27, and March 13, and 15, 1989.
Ms. Dunn reviewed the HRA Minutes of February 27, March 13,
and 15, 1989.
Ms. Dunn noted that the H.R.A. would now be the E.D.A. The
Board will have the san~ members.
The meeting was adjourned by unaD~m~us consent at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning CommissionMinutes April 4, 1989
CITY OFNEWHOPE
4401XYLON AVENUE NOR~H
HENNEPINOOUNTY, MINNESOTA55428
May 2, 1989
~JBI~C HEARINGS
PC 89-3 (3.2)
R~ZmST ~ O~DI-
FO]{
~T~ I~ iB~T I-1
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
New Hope was held on Tuesday, May 2, 1989 at the City Hall,
4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30
p.m.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke
Friedrich
Mr. Byron Zotaley represented the petitioner. He stated Mr.
Emetz was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow him
to have outside storage on his property.
Mr. Zotaley stated that he had reviewed the ordinances of the
the city and talked to Mr. Sandstad and the City Attorney
and was not convinced that it was necessary for Mr. Emetz to
go forward with his CUP request. His reasons were that Mr.
Kmetz purchased the property in 1978 and it has been his
primary residence since that time. When he had purchased the
property he had been under the assumption that it was
permissible to run his landscaping business out of his hc~e.
It was more than a year later that the city passed the
ordinance. He felt it was a legal issue as to whether Mr.
Emetz business had been grandfathered in, since he has
historically been doing the same thing for 11 years. It ha~
only recently become an issue.
Mr. Zotaley added that, under duress and in an attempt to
cc~promise, Mr. Kmetz had filed for the Conditional Use
Permit and is prepared to construct a fence. They would
like this issue resolved and passed forward to the City
Council, with no other conditions attached. If there were
additioD~l conditions attached, they would have to oppose
them, and if the matter is pushed too far, they may have to
seek remedies elsewhere.
Mr. Zotaley stated that there are warehouses on three sides
of Mr. Kmetz's property and he is all but landlocked as he
must drive across what looks like a private driveway to enter
his property.
-2-
Chairman Cameron noted that he was not. sure Mr. Zotaley
should continue his presentation. He stated that the
Planning Cua~ission was not in a position to determine a
legal issue. The issue is whether or not the petitioner is
going to go forward with the request for a Conditional Use
Permit, or whether the Commission should table consideration
of this case. Mr. Kmetz has requested a Conditional Use
Permit under the existing ordinance.
Mr. Zotaley showed pictures taken of Mr. Kmetz's site to the
commissien~ which illustrated the view of the surrounding
properties from the ~metz site. He noted that Mr. Kmetz's
lawn is level with the roof of the warehouse next door. Mr.
Zotaley stated that their position is that Mr. ~metz has
always kept his property in a neat and orderly manner and has
improved the landscaping. He then co~m-~_nted on the view of
the neighbor's yards where there also was exterior storage
but that he has never complained about the neighbors'
property.
Mr. ~metz plans to build a fence which screen the equipment
f-r~om the view of the single family neighbors. Mr. Kotaley
stated he had reviewed city files on 4-28-89 and as of that
date there had been no objections to the plan, following the
mailing of the public hearing notices by the city. He
repeated that Mr. Kmetz felt he kept a~. orderly property and
that all of the travel areas have hard rock, so there is not
a dust problem. Mr. Kotaley stated he felt that Mr. Kmetz
complied with the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit.
Cum=~cLssioner Sonsin stated that he was not sure that wb~t Mr.
adjoining neighbors were doing should be an issue in this
discussion. If there was an additional problem on these
properties, city staff would follow up on them. Co~-m-~Hssioner
Sonsin said that when he had first visited the Kmetz
property, he had observed quite a few pieces of equipment at
various points all around the property. He added that when a
Conditional Use Permit is granted, it is granted to the
property owner. If the owner moves off the property the
Conditional Use Permit does not necessarily transfer with the
title. The standards must continue to be met.
Mr. Kotaley noted that they understood that the ConditioDml
Use Permit was only for Mr. Kmetz' use. He added that Mr.
~metz really did not wish to move but felt he had been
prodded in that direction by city staff and it has become
uncomfortable for him.
Co~%=L,~ssioner Sonsin confirmed with Mr. Kotaley that the
Planning C~z~mien Minutes
May 2, 1989
89-4
at 5000 W//qNETKA
-3-
proposed fence would be eight feet in height and of red
cedar, positioned ten feet f-~-oi~-~ the property line and be 30'
x 100'. Inside the fence would be parked three trucks,
three trailers, and three tractors on a red limestone
surface.
Co;'t..~,~ssioner Sonsin inquired about Mr. Kmetz business, and
whether it was stable, or would be apt to increase in size?
Mr. Kotaley stated that the business bad remained stable for
a number of years.
CoiLm,'issioner Zak asked about the height of the curb at the
north edge of the property, near the 15 foot dropoff?.
It was noted that it was a six inch curb but that it was
positioned quite a distance from the edge of the property.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Oja,
rec~m~r~ng approval of Planning Case 89-3, 1~~ for
Oonditic~al Use Permit for Outside Storage in an I-1 Zone, at
2919 Nevada Aver~ North.
Commissioner Sonsin stated this rec~L~_ndation for approval
was subject to the recommendations of staff regarding this
Conditional Use Permit. These conditions are: ~
1. That the screening fence proposed in the site plan be
installed within 30 days of approval.
2. That other materials and equipment stored outside and
not included in the site plan be rea~ved.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Moti~ carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Oja, Watschke
None
Friedrich
Mr. Brad Hoyt stated that the plan being presented had
been changed since their previous appearance before the
commission. The changes are in the size of the building
being proposed. The building will be enlarged by 6000 square
feet. The site includes four parcels or lots. The proposed
building is to be on parcel one. The building meets all city
codes and including 29% building coverage, 36.75 green space,
and 34% paved area.
Pi~ Crm~.~-~ic~ Minutes
May 2, 1989
-4-
The anchor tenant will have 160,000 square feet on the
Winnetka side of the building which leaves 64,000 square feet
for speculative tenants. The anchor tenant is Universal
International which is presently located in Bloomington,
Minnesota. They are a wholesale liquidator,, but do not deal
with the general public. Mr. Hoyt stated that at the present
time he was not sure whether or not they needed an
environmental impact study since the regulations are being
changed. If such a study is required, they would reduce the
size of the building by 12,000 square feet.
In response to questions, Ms. Dunn said that the State
Regulatory Agency had proposed some amendments to the current
standards. She was not sure if those standards had been
adopted.
Mr. Hoyt stated he thought they would be able to confirm what
the regulations were prior to the City Council meting.
Mr. Hoyt noted that staff had also recommended the
elimination of the parking stalls on the east side of the
building. It was his belief that the parking stalls on the
side of the building were not in violation of code. This was
where the company offices were located and where executives
would park. There are ten office employees. There will be a
showroom of approximately 10,000 sc~sre feet and wholesale
buyers will come to this showroom. In his opinion, the
parking stalls did not intrude on the building front. These
stalls would be marked for "visitor parking only" and
employees would park on the warehouse side of the building.
There is a susbstantial amount of green area and in their
opinion the plantings along Winnetka and the design allows
for an offset driveway into the truck area. The driveway
will align with 50th Avenue North. The original building was
a pure rectangle, but they are now including a couple of jogs
and the Winnetka side will have glass windows and a glass
entrance. The driveway to the east has been widened to 26
feet and the front radius changed to acco~mL~date turning.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff had ~ed that the front
· parking bay of 24 stalls be eliminated. The revised plan
reduces the number of stalls to 25, which is acceptsble.
Cu~..~,~ssioner Gundershaug pointed out that the city required a
comprehensive sign plan for the entire building, tenants
could not just install their own signage, it had to be
coordinated. He then confirmed with Mr. Hoyt that all truck
traffic would be directed to the South and that there would
be signage to that effect. Tr~_~h will be stored inside.
Planning O ..... {~ic~ Minutes
May 2, 1989
-5'
PC 89-7 (3.3)
OF P~"~.~ PI_AT
AT 6001
Chairman Cameron asked whether this plan had been reviewed by
Hennepin County and the Shingle Creek Water Commission?
Ms. Dunn stated that Shingle Creek would not review plans
until they had been approved by the City Council.
Mr. Hoyt stated he had been working with the city engineer
and had been told that the Shingle Creek Commission was
much more relaxed in requirements than the City of New Hope.
He did not anticipate a problem in this area.
There was no one present in regard to this request.
Motic~ by Ccmmlissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner
C~a to approve the revised construction plans for a
at 5000 Winnetka Averse, as requested in Case 89-4, subject
to the rec~,.,~tione of the City Engineer for water, public
Ckaafuy DE~ of Tr~tic~ for inc3ress atx~ ec3ress;
and review by the Shingle Creek Water Co~sion.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Oja, Watschke
None
Friedrich
Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Mr. Priebe stated he was proposing a replatting because he
would like to purcba~e a piece of property from 5946 Inde-
pendence to create a larger backyard. The neighbor at 6007
Hillsboro had indicated to him that he would also like to
also obtain some additional land. There is a jog in the
proposed plat line to accommodate some existing evergreen
trees that the owner w-anted maintained. The city had
indicated to him that they would need easements from this
plat. He basically wishes to use the extra land for a
playyard for his four sons.
In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Priebe
stated that Mrs. Zaun wished to retain the evergreen trees,
and this was the reason for the jog.
Chairman Cameron inquired about the easements and whether the
petitioner had talked to the electric company?
Mr. Priebe stated there was already a power pole and that
they would probably leave the pole where it was, and grant
Pi~ C~.,,J-~ic~ Minutes May 2, 1989
Ms. Dunn said she had talked to NSP and that an easement is
require to serve the property at 5946 Independence Avenue.
Commissioner Sonsin asked about the D~dreasons lot which is
legally non conforming.
It was noted that if they could acquire some additional
property, they would then have a legal 35 foot rear setback.
Tim Burns, 6013 Hillsboro, noted that staff had said he had a
legal non conforming lot. He wondered whether if this plat
was approved, he would then be able to obtain a variance on
ms property?
Chairman Cameron indicated that this plat would have no
effect on whether or not he could obtain a variance at some
future time, it did not affect his property.
Ms. Dunn stated that Mr. Burns property was a legal non
conforming property. Mr. Priebe's actions do not affect the
non conformity of Mr. Burns lot.
Hazel- Zaun, 5946 Independence North, stated another reason
for the jog is that the Priebe's have a play area, and this
would give them a little more space for the play area.
Commissioner C~a asked what the distance was from Mrs. Zaun's
house to the new lot line.
MS. Dunn stated it was approximately 96 feet and that the
side was approximately 45 feet from the lot line. This
platting does not make Mrs. Zaun's property non conforming.
Motic~ by Commissioner Gundershaug, rec~,.,~ng appzu~al of
the preliminary plat at 6001 Hillsboro North, as requested in
Case 89-4, subject to easements beirg granted as recc~mm~ded
by staff. Second by C~.~dssioner Sonsin.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin,
Oja, Watschke
None
Cameron, Gundershaug,
PC 89-8 (3.4)
APPROVAL AT4600
Mr. Tom Rutledge, of Rutledge Construction represented the
petitioner. He was accompanied by Mr. Robinson and the
for the project.
Mr. Rutledge stated they were requesting plat approval to
combine the two existing lots. They were also requesting
Plann/ng O ..... {-~ion Minutes
May 2, 1989
approval for an office/warehouse addition of 28,000 sc~]~re
feet to be located south of the existing building. The
proposed building meets all city codes and the exterior will
match the existing building as far as materials, color, and
style.
In response to questions from C~u~,~ssioner C~a, it was noted
that the new building will be of concrete block, with a
serated or split face appearance. Rooftop equipment will be
either screened or painted to match the building, there will
be continuous curbing in the tk3rking areas, except for the
area where they plan to direct drainage. It was noted that
the proposed drainage plan has been reviewed by the City
Ms. Dunn concurred with this statement, adding that the City
Engineer had indicated that the site cannot accommodate a lot
of retention and that in the future there will probably be
Co~,~ssioner Oja asked whether the new curbing will all be
concrete?
It was noted that the the curbing next to Adv~n~ Packaging
will be blacktop. This is because blacktop is already in
that area and it is easier to install blacktop curbing in
such an area. Snow will be stored on the north and south
sides of the building. There will be no curbing in this
In response to further questions from Commissioner Oja, Mr.
Rutledge indicated that Blue Spruce trees will be planted,
30' on center on the west property line. The existing tree
line along Quebec Avenue is planted 30' on center.
Commissioner Oja asked about the two curb cuts on the south
side, and whether one could be eliminated?
Mr. Robinson said one opening is for visitors,, and the other
is for employees and trucks. In his opinion one driveway
would create conflicts.
Cuim~,~ssioner C~a asked if one driveway could not be moved
further south?
Mr. Robinson said that the only way would be to put a road in
the back.
It was noted that it was a staff recommendation that there be
Plannir~ O',,,-,,{-~-~i<~ MJ~ May'2, 1989
-8-
only one curb cut at the east side of the property. This
would make a total of two curb cuts. In response to
questions, Ms. Dunn stated that the I-2 zone did not require
screening for the dock area.
~ne petitioner stated that if a curb cut were eliminated, it
would also eliminate some of the green area.
Commissioner Gundershaug expressed the opinion that it would
basically be a tradeoff, the loss of green would be made up
by eliminating the driveway.
Discussion followed regarding possible traffic problems if
one driveway were elimiDmted and whether some of the
Coi-miHssioner Oja said she did not think the property looked
as nice as it could and that eliminating one curb cut would
help the situation and possibly eliminate the need for losing
any trees.
Mr. Robinson said he really wanted to separate the visitor
entrance from the employes/truck entrance.
C~,,~,~ssioner Zak inquired as to the number of visitors per
day, and how many employees there were in the office?
Mr. Robinson said there were a total of 48 employees on two
shifts, with nine office employees.
Commissioner Gundershaug stated his biggest problem with the
proposal was with the number of curb cuts. He felt one of
the curb cuts should be removed.
Mr. Robinson asked whether three curb cuts were more than
allowed by ordinance, noting that there were many other areas
that had more curb cuts than this section of Quebec Avenue.
Ms. Dunn said that the ordinance did not specify but that
city policy was to encourage public safety by reducing the
number of curb cuts in a given area. The staff'
reco~m¥~dation is for two curb cuts, not three. Staff did
not feel three curb cuts were necessary.
Mr. Robinson stated that at this time they were exploring
options, and were not completely sure about going ahead with
their plans if they cannot have the three curb cuts. He
repeated that there are a number of businesses along Quebec
Plann/ng (kmmdssic~ ~
May 2, 1989
with three or four curb cuts. He felt they were not
requesting anything more than existing usage in the city.
His point was that as long as they were not running afoul of
the ordinances, they did not think their proposal was
unreasonable. He felt the burden of proving the three curb
cuts were unreasonable w-as on the city.
Chairman Cameron
co~,~ ssion/city was
cu~=~ission ' s role.
stated that was exactly what the
doing at this meeting, that is the
In response to further questions from Commissioner Oja, it
was stated that there will be lighting in the rear dock
are toward the west and south. It will be down lighting. It
was added that 95% of the truck traffic will be on the south,
with only one operation on the north. This operation would
require panel truck deliveries at the door on the Northwest
corner. Most of the truck traffic will be panel trucks, raw
materials, etc. will be delivered at the south.
As to the number of vehicles a day, Mr. Robinson said it was
greatly variable. Some days there would be none, and others
there could be as many as 15. There would be no traffic on
weekends, deliveries were during business hours only.
As to the number of visitors per day, Mr. Robinson indicated
that was also variable, from up to twelve a day, but usually
no more than two or three at once.
Responding to Mr. Robinson, Commissioner Oja stated that two
or three visitors per day, three office visitors, and perhaps
two UPS trucks per day, did not seem to her to be a lot of
traffic, that would need so many curb cuts.
Chairman Cameron stated there were three options open to the
co~t,~ssion. They could pass the request, deny the request or
table for 1-3 months to allow the petitioners to come up with
a revised plan.
Mr. Robinson said they would like the request to continue
along the process.
Sue Ellis, 4525 Oregon North, asked what the company
manufactured, and whether or not they would contribute to the
existing odor problems in the area.
Mr. Robinson said they manufactured molded rubber products
and did not foresee any problem with odors in the future. He
Planning Cc, saissi~ Minutes
May 2, 1989
pc 89-9 (3.7)
A~ 3101
did not feel it would be any more or any less smelly than it
is now.
C~L~dssioner C~a ~ a motic~ ~~ng approval of the
cc~-tl~W~ion plans for 4600 Quebec ~ approval of the
preliminary plat as present~_, subject to the reconfiguration
of the curb cuts to two cuts instead of three, ar~ that any
rooftop equi?~nt w~] ] be either screened or color matched to
the ~]d~g. Cc~missioner Gundershaug second.
voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
F~ci~ carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron,
C~a, Watschke
none
Mr. Bruce Paddock stated he was requesting approval for the
construction at 3101 Louisiana Avenue North. The addition
will consist of 1,540 square feet of office and 2,675 square
feet of warehouse. There are no variances or conditional use
The building exterior will match the existing building as to
color, mate~rials and texture.
Commissioner Cassen asked about the number of parking spaces
provided? The answer was 55, which is well within code.
Discussion held about the turning r~dius and whether
eliminating two parking spaces would make it easier and
safer.
Snow will be piled at the west and north sides of the lot,
and there is only one existing curb cut. They do not plan
any additional curb cuts.
C~,L,~ssioner Cassen asked about exterior lighting?
Ms. Dunn stated that the Police Chief had reviewed the plans
and felt the lighting as proposed was sufficient. There
will be one light on the warehouse side, down directed.
Mr. Paddock stated he could easily add a lighting wall pack
to the wall exterior. There will be continuous curbing
around all parking areas, the trash area is screened, but a
gate is not requ4red in this zone and there will be no
additional signage on the site.
Planning ~i~ Mi~ztes
]~ay 2, 1989
ORD~ 89-8
(3.6)
In regard to landscaping, they plan to add eight Bar Harbor
Junipers on the north side, and hope to relocate the five
evergreens and five shrubs.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
Chairman Cameron
manufactured?
asked what
Paddock Laboratories
Mr. Paddock replied pharmaceuticals and drugs of this type.
M~on by CoiLmHssioner Cassen recx~e~ng approval of
proposed cc~stx~ction at 3101 I~m]{ ~iana A~ North.
Commissioner Oja second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Oja, Watschke
None
The public hearing on proposed Ordinance 89-8 AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING %HE NEW HOPE CODE S4.033 (4) BY MODIFYING
lANDSCAPING RE~ FOR SEMI-PUBLIC AND INCOME PRODUCING
PRO~ was opened by Chairman Cameron.
There was no one present to speak to this proposed ordinance.
Ms. Dunn stated this ordiD~nce combines the existing
ordinance and existing policy into one document and
eliminates some types of trees and shrubs that do not grow
well in the city. It also adds sc~e new species to the list
of accepts_hie plantings.
Concensus of the co~m~Hssion was that further discussion was
unnecessary.
Motion by CozmYHssioner Sonsin, ~ by O,,,,,i~sioner Oja to
reo.,.,~nd~ng adoption of Or~{nance 89-8.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
F~_ion carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
C~a, Watschke
None
Planning (~J,.,,~ion Minutes May 2, 1989
(3.7)
The public hearing on Ordinance 89-9 was opened by the
Cha~. This ordinance AMENDS THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY
ESTABLISHING A FORMAL SITE AND ~JILDING PLAN REVIEW
P~0CE~3RE e
Ms. Dunn noted that there had been an established city policy
but it has never been included in the city code.
There was no one present in regard to this ordinance.
4.1
4.2
N~ ~SINESS
6.1
6.2
6.3
Motic~ by Commissioner Sonsin, second by ~ic~er
Watschke, re(~'~...~nd~ng ~_ ~k~ptic~ of Ord~ 89-9.
voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
C~a, Watschke
None
Planning Ox...,{.~sion M~ of AprLl 4, 1989 were
~he City Ckamcil Minutes of Jar~kqzy, 4, March 27, and April
10, 1989 were ~,~viewed.
~e FJ~A M~ of Marc~ 27, ~ April 10, 1989 were
reviewed.
~lemeetingwasad~ournedbyunanimousconse_ntat 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Plannin~ O,.,,i-~sic~ Minutes My 2, 1989
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NO~
HENNEPIN OOUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
May 23, 1989
~JSLIC HEARINGS
PC 89-10 (3.1)
APPRDVAL, REZ~-
A special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New
Hope was held on Tuesday, May 23, 1989 at the New Hope City Hall,
4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Robert
Cameron.
Present: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin,
Gundershaug, Oj a
Absent: Watschke
Friedrich, Cameron,
Jeannine Dunn stated tb~t the church w-us requesting approval for a
preliminary plat, a rezoning from I-1 to R-O, a conditional Use
Permit, and Construction Approval to allow them to construct a new
facility at 3900 Winnetka Avenue North.
Ms. Dunn noted that there were two issues relevant to the planning
case; one was the proposed extension of Quebec Avenue to a location
south of 40th Avenue, and the other was the proposed alignment of
Quebec Avenue with 40th at Winnetka.
She added t_hat the city had presented a plan for the extension of
Quebec Avenue to Hennepin County for review. The church proposal
requests a curb cut 230 feet south of 40th Avenue. Hennepin County
will review the options and present information back to staff.
Staff will then present the issue and the reco~m~_r~ations from
Hennepin County to the City Council.
Chairman Cameron noted that the Planning Commission had previously
voted for the proposed alignment of Quebec Avenue and 40th, when the
Quebec extension is finalized. The proposal before the Commission
at this meeting proposed an offset intersection.
Ms. Dunn further stated that Tax Increment Financing is proposed as
part of the redevelopment at 36th/Winnetka. A public hearing has
been scheduled on this Tax Increment Financing for June 26, 1989 for
this project.
Chairman Cameron confirmed for the record that the Planning
Cu~.L,~ssion did not act on requests for Tax Increment Financing.
Dean Broden, Chairman of the Holy Nativity Building Committee
requested that Rick Emelor of Vanman Construction address the
Co~m~H ssion.
-2-
He stated that they were reqeusting approval of the rezoning and
plans for the church as designed. The site plan illustrates a
16,000 square foot sanct~a~y and church building. This is proposed
to be built on the Minnegasco site at 3900 Winnetka Avenue North.
It is their hope that as many of the large trees as possible will be
Mr. Keelor noted that the church wished to preserve the trees and
also be visible from Winnetka Avenue. Parking has developed on the
east to serve as a buffer to potential Eastern development. The
plan includes entrance to the church site from the North and parking
for 123 cars. The main entrance to the church will be from the
east. They plan to develop a patio incorporating the mature trees,
and perhaps have a grassy knoll area for outside activities.
In regard to landscaping, Mr. Keelor stated they plan to save as
many trees along Winnetka, with low plantings next to the church
building. The area to the south will be developed with pine trees,
and on the East they propose a screen including plantings and
fencing.
In response to questions from the Chairman, it was noted that they
plan to remove the two Willow Trees, but hope all the Oak Trees will
be able to remain in place. There is also a grassy slope toward
Winnetka which they wish to save.
The proposed building will be a New England type salt box building
and will include a sanctuary, a fellowship hall, educational rooms
and space for day care facilities.
An illustration of the floor plan was provided for the
Cc~missioners. The worship area will be in the center of the
structure, with the fellowship hall at one end, and offices and
classrooms in the other wing.
chairman Cameron stated that because this was a complex request, he
felt the issue of the rezoning and proper land use should be
considered first. He added that the Planning Co,~,,~,~ssion had to
consider long term consequences of any development and how it would
affect the city. The City Code specifies that rezoning can be
approved for only two reasons; because there was a mistake in the
original zoning, or because a significant change had occurred in the
area to warrant a change. He requested that the petitioners speak
to this issue.
Ms. Dunn indicated that the City Planner Alan Brixius would speak to
the Co~=~isson about the land use issue and rezoning.
Planning On~-~qic~ M/nutes May 23, 1989
Mr. Brixius reviewed recent history of the site, and the
reco;mL~ndations of the city's Comprehensive Plan and T~nd Use
Study. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan had indicated that an
/ndustrial use was preferable for this site. The church's proposed
use was not identified. The sD_dy rec~uL~nded that access through
the area be provided by extending Quebec Avenue. He noted that this
proposal was similar to the request of the Church of the Open Door
to operate from another industrial area in the city. This request
had not been approved. One concern to be considered was the
possible impact on a church development from abutting industrial
development.
Mr. Brixius said it would have to be a policy decision made by the
Planning Commission and the Council as to whether the church
development would take a~ay the integrity of the industrial park.
The characteristics remain the same, but frcm that standpoint the
proposal may not meet the "rule of thumb" test. Since the site does
have residential uses abutting, some consideration could be given to
the church development.
Chairman Cameron questioned whether approval of this project could
open up the city to additional requests for spot rezoning?
Mr. Brixius stated he felt that this site did provide a unique
opportunity. There are a number of industrial sites in the city
with similar characteristics but each site would have to be
considered for development on its own merits.
Chairman Cameron asked whether in Mr. Brixius' opinion, this
rezoning request would give another petitioner grounds for
developing the remaining land in the area with residential?
Mr. Brixius said he felt it would strengthen such a case, down the
line. The city would have to consider whether the church and its
related activities were consistent with other proposed activities in
the area.
Chairman Cameron stated that the Planning C~mu~ssion had come down
quite strongly against rezoning this site for residential uses.
Co~Lu~issioner Gundershaug asked about the zoning of the rear portion
of the parcel and what the most extreme development possibility was
for that portion? The property is currently zoned I-1.
Consideration would have to be taken of the fact that manufacturing,
and small assembly operations were allowed in the I-1 zone. The
major differences between development in the I-1 and I-2 zones, are
the standards that wduld be placed
Planning (lz~ission Minutes May 23, 1989
-4-
on development by the city in regard to intensity of development.
It was noted that the church should also be aware of the possible
types of development that could abut their property.
Mr. Bob Brose read a letter and presented a flyer to the Commission
expressing support of the church being built at 3900 Winnetka Avenue
North (attached to minutes). He also presented the Commisson with
petitions in favor of this development.
Mrs. Edna Hanson also spoke in favor of the proposed development at
3900 Winnetka Avenue and presented petitions in favor of the
development. She stated they were much more in favor of the church
than industrial development for the site.
Motion by Coimmissioner Sonsin, seco~ by Commissioner Gundershaug
acce~ the petitic~s as requested.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Oja
None
Watschke
Cu~t,,L,~ssioner Sonsin requested clarification of the size of the
entire site, and the size of the portion that the church waf~
proposing to build on.
Mr. Broden stated that Mr. Curry was buying the entire property and
selling the church the front parcel.
Richard Curry confirmed that he was purchasing the entire parcel and
that the two planning cases -- 89-10 and 89-11 -- were tied
together. All American Storage would buy the property from the
church at 36th/Winnetka, then buy the entire 11 acres from
Minnegasco, and the church would purchase the froqn parcel of four
acres from them. All American Storage would then develop the
remaining I-1 property. At the present time he anticipated five
individual ~trial buildings on the site. The developer (All
American Storage) would come in for replatting of those lots at a
future time.
Cu~t,,~,~ssioner Zak asked about the size of the church congregation,
the number/type of mid-week services and activities, the day care
operation and how many children were involved and where the day care
was located in the church building?
Mr. Broden stated that the church had been located in New Hope for
almost 30 years. At the present time there are 750 confirmed
members, 240 families. Inter ms of activities, the
Planning O-,.,~-~ion Minutes May 23, 1989
busiest day is Sunday morning. There are two to three people on
site during the week involved in administrative activities, and the
day care, which is associated with the YMCA has a maximum of 29
children enrolled.
Mike Taets stated that they do not anticipate the enrollment of the
day care at the new site to change. This is operated on a year to
year contract with the Y. At the present location, the day care is
also located next to an industrial area. The facility would be
located in the education wing of the building. The children would
probably play outside on the north side of the building. He could
not respond as to whether the State would require the play area to
be fenced. State regulations prohibit more than 29 children in the
day care operation. He added that down the road, the possibility of
a pre school operation at the church had been discussed. There are
currently three staff people.
In response to further questions from Commssioner Zak, it was no~ed
that there were activities all week. There are two confirmation
classes on Wednesday evening. However he did not anticipate that
during the week the parking lot would ever be more than 25% full.
Coimmissioner Sonsin asked about the growth trend of the church.
Mr. Broden stated that at the present time it was stable.
were not anticipating a significant growth and that most
congregation resided in New Hope or adjacent areas.
They
of the
Pastor Jerry Wahl noted that every congregation hopes for growth.
The proposed sanctuary will hold 300 people. Currently they average
200 people on a Sunday, with 75 children in the Sunday School. The
primary service area of the church is 42 Avenue to Medicine lake
Road, and Winnetka to County Road #169. He felt that 80% of the
member came from this area.
Commissioner Sonsin asked whether if the congregation were to grow
significantly, there would be room for expansion on the new site?
Pastor Wall said that it was felt that this site would serve the
congregation for many years. The church would have a long way to go
before expansion would be necessary.
The architect stated that the size of the site and the parking
constraints would make it tough for the site to service
400-500 people. If such a need arose, the church would have to
schedule multiple services, or consider another location.
Pi~ O ..... ~-~ic~ Minutes May 23, 1989
Mr. Broden stated that the congregation was once much larger -- 1500
congregants versus 750 today. The church had been able to service
that size in their present location. The proposed facility is 50%
larger than what they have now and a large growth is not
anticipated.
Pastor Wahl stated that Holy Nativity Church .was part of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and that the larger body
also had controls over church expansion.
Commissioner Sonsin asked about the status of the Quebec Avenue
extension?
Ms. Dunn noted that city staff is waiting for coi~=~nts from Hennepin
County and should hear from them in about ten days. They will
indicate whether or not an offset intersection was acceptable. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation will determine whether or not
the city will be able to use State Aid funds for the proposed
street. Staff is concerned as to whether an offset intersection
would prohibit city f¥om using these funds.
Motion by Coii~tHssioner Gundershaug re~ .... ~r~{~ approval of the
rezoning ~ I-1 to R-O, as request~ in C~se 89-10. Second
Cum,~,~ ssioner Sonsin.
Ms. Dunn stated that the staff recommendation is to not take action
on any part of the request in Case 89-10 until the city is notified
about the road from Hennepin County. Staff recommendation was to
tshle this planning case until the meeting of June 6, 1989.
Chairman Cameron stated he felt it would be helpful to informally
poll the Commission regarding the rezoning. He added that
personally he did not see this as a major violation of the zoning
ordinance in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. He felt
conditions had changed in the area.
Commissioner Friedrich agreed with the Chairman.
C~=L,~ssioner Cassen agreed, stating she felt it was a good
transitional use.
O~Lu~,~ssioner Zak w~s also in agreement.
There were no objections from other commissioners in regard to the
rezoning as proposed.
Plannin~ O-,.. |-~sion Minutes May 23, 1989
-7-
The next area considered was the request for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a church in an R-O zone. The proposed land use is a
definite consideration.
Chairman Cameron stated that crucial to the development is the
extension of Quebec Avenue, the area needs the double access.
Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt there was a definite need
for the city to be able to control traffic at that intersection, no
matter what day of the week it was. In his opinion the city could
not put another curb cut on Winnetka. He w-as concerned about the
ti~ t~_ble on the roadway.
Ms. Dunn stated that the City Engineer had prepared three schedules
for the extension of Quebec Avenue. In all three, substantial
completion would be in the spring of 1990. A feasibility report is
scheduled to be ready for the June 26, City Council meeting.
..C~airman Cameron noted that the realigning of the roadway did have
an impact on the site.
Mr. Curry stated that they really didn't care whether the road ends
in a cul-du-sac or if Quebec w-us extended and did not care if the
road joins with 40th Avenue. They have some time constraints, and
the church has said they have no interest in the additional
property. If it were req~ired that this property be absorbed, the
church will go away. In talking with the landowner to the north,
(Mr. Bob Dcwden) he is extremely angry. They were cordial, but he
does not wish to sell his property.
Mr. Curry added that as developers they had to look at realism
versus idealism. He does support the direct East/West ali~t amd
would like to see this approved as proposed, based on the estension
of Quebec at the East/West property line.
The concensus of the Cu~m~Hssion was still approval of the proposed
alig¥,-,¥~_nt of Quebec with 40th Avenue.
Mr. Broden noted that the city plans call for Quebec Avenue to
swing to the north and then back west. The plans as submitted
by the church call for a straight extension of Quebec Avenue. He
referred to Mr. Curry's statement that the church would not proceed
with this development, if the road had to be aligned with 40th. He
added that there had been some discussion about the church adding
the diamond shaped lot to their property. This would cut the
frontage almost in half and destroy the church plans as proposed.
Planning Cc~.~sion ~ May 23, 1989
-8-
He felt another building at that location would destroy the church's
look and make the property unsuit~_ble for the church.
Richard Kaufman asked Ms. Dunn and the C~m~,~ssion if approval were
approved for the use of State Aid Funds for the east/west extension
with the offset intersection, if the city would then approve the
offset intersection?
Chairman Cameron said "no". The Planning Commission must look out
for the entire area. They could not control the intersection with
the offset curb cut.
Ms. Dunn stated that city staff was obligated to have all plans
reviewed by Hennepin County if they involved a county roadway.
The proposed construction w~s then reviewed by the Commission.
Co~m~,~ssioner Gundershaug asked about drop off areas in the front of
the church, both for parishioners and day care children.
The architect stated they would want to look at this. They have not
had an opportunity to review since with the alignment of the street,
they may have to do some adjustments any way. They want some
decision on the south access.
Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the garage location.
The architect stated they would like to have relocated, but have not
addressed this.
Mr. Broden stated that the original plans called for an
enclosed/screened area. It was subsequently moved to align with the
garage, this was an option that could be considered along with the
alig¥,~-~-~nt of the street.
In response to questions, it ~as noted that the plans as submitted
had been reviewed by the City Engineer.
There will be continuous concrete curb, there will not be a
loud bell or electronic claxon, and the petitioners confirmed that
they were aware of the city's strict sign ordinance. All signs will
conform to that ordinance. They are currently proposing two signs,
one at each entrance. There is a possibility of an additional sign
giving the name of the church only.
All lighting is proposed to be down directed both in the parking
area and around the church. There will be pole lights in the
parking lot and a spot light at the front of the church and on the
Planning O~,..{-~sion Minutes May 23, 1989
steeple. ~nere will be no rooftop equipment with the exception of
ventilators.
Materials proposed for the building are lap siding of cedar or
redwood, with some masonry. Snow could be piled in the ponding
area, and excess would be trucked off the site.
In regard to landscaping, they will save as many of the mature
trees as possible, there will be iow plantings around the building
and patio. There will be sod around the building, and the
entrances, as a border and at the east side of the property, the
remaining area would be seeded. They have considered an underground
sprinkling system, but no decision has been made as it is cost
prohibitive.
Coim~issioner Oja expressed concern about the driveway to the south?
It was noted that this would be eliminated with traffic going out
to 42nd Avenue.
The petitioner proposes to move the garage from the site originally
proposed, and the exterior treatment will match the church building.
The trash area will also be moved to the garage area. Coim-~Hssioner
Oja noted that it would be desirable for plantings to be planned for
Discussion then followed regarding the parking as proposed, the
drop area, and the potential for 29 cars having to park when
dropping off or picking up children at the day care. Concern was
expressed as to whether parking was adequate and whether it should
be redesigned in this area.
The architect indicated that if the street were approved, the
parking would have to be reviewed.
Commissioner Oja encouraged the petitioners to increase the
landscaping on the west side of the building, and provide some
variety in the plantings along the building.
The architect stated that they will consult a landscape architect
prior to submission of final plans.
(~airman Cameron stated that the Planning Commission would have to
see plans that indicated exactly what was planned and where
locations were before they could approve anything.
Commisisoner Oja stated she didn't believe the city would approve
plans unless sthey were final plans for all aspects of the proposal.
This would include the types of plantings and location.
Planning (k~nmission Minutes May 23, 1989
Mr. Broden stated the church would be willing to respond to the
requests of the Co~.~,~ssion. He added it would be helpful to have
some input of what the Commission/City wished to see on the site.
Co~ut,~ssioner Oja stated she would lik~ to see some variety in type
and size of plantings. She noted there was no landscaping proposed
for the rear of the building near the daycare area. She asked if
the city had requirements regarding the fencing of daycare play
Ms. Dunn stated that the State was in charge of licensing and
inspection of day care facilities and would check the regulations
relevant to fencing.
Pastor Wahl stated that the daycare operation was on an annual
agreement with the YMCA. At this time, they do not have a
cu~t,,~,~tment that the YMCA would move the day care to the new church.
If they did move with them, they would have to meet codes, to
maintain their certification.
Commenting tb~t it appeared that this proposal was going to be
t~bled, stated he would revise everything as presented so that at
the next meeting they could receive a definitive answer on the road.
He did not believe the County could deny them access to the lot, and
he did not wish it to end up with a fight with the abutting owner.
Bob Allen, 8309 39th Avenue, asked why there couldn't be another
exit from the parking lot -- he felt this was something the
Co~mission should consider.
Co~,,~,~ssioner Oja said this had been discussed at the Design and
Review meeting and it bad been felt that because of the hill on
Winnetka, there would not be a good place for a curb cut. They
want all traffic to be directed toward 40th.
Mr. Broden cc~nented that he felt that driving north on Winnetka
from 36th, if you stopped your car at the southernmost entrance to
the cemetary, you could still see.
Chairman Cameron stated that all of the Co~,,~,~ssion members resided
in New Hope and were very familiar with Winnetka Avenue.
Brent Nelson, real estate agent for the church, then addressed the
Co,~,~ssion. He conm~nted on the time and energy that had gone into
this proposal. The church wishes to build on this site, the
neighborhood is in favor of the building, the church does not want
the small property, but don't care whether the road goes throughbut
they do want to know that what they wish to build is appropriate.
Planning Ox,~,{.~io~ MJl3utes May 23, 1989
The church had brought to the C~t,,~,~ssion a plan and access has to be
provided. If the city wants to have that intersection joined with
40th, it is the city that should figure out a solution to the
problem. He requested a motion for approval so that the church and
developer can get on with the job. The city and the State can then
address the intersection problem. All the church wants is to build
a church and be able to get out on to Winnetka Avenue.
Chairman Cameron c~tut~nted that it is not the fault of either the
City or the Planning Co;~,~ssion that the petitioners are in a hurry.
The Planning C~u~,~ssion cannot approve a set of plans that are not
c~t~lete. He asked whether the architect and the church now have
enough direction as to what the final set of plans should include?
These' requ~ts include elimination of the south driveway, a
drainage plan~ clarification of the landscaping as proposed
including size and variety, new location of the garage and trash
area, and location of lighting proposed.
M~tion by Cu~,,~,4ssioner Sonsin, secor~ Co~u~issioner C~a to table
consideration of Planning Case 89-10 until the Planning
~ of June 6, 1989.
voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gundershaug, C~a
None
Watschke
~C 89-11 (3.2)
3540 WINNETKA
Richard Curry stated he was accompanied by Richard Kauffumn
Jim Winkels, and Jerry Jackson, who are all equity partners
in this proposal, and Mr. Vogel, the architect.
The petitioners were proposing to build an "L" shaped shopping
center of 46,000 scot,re feet at 3540 Winnetka North. There
will be anchor tenants on beth ends of the center, one tenant
using 11,000 square feet of space, and the other 8,000 square feet
of space. They are seeking ~ approval, and the proposal includes
both parcels.
The facility will have a covered walkway, and have three access
points on 36th Avenue and two access points on Winnetka Avenue.
They are proposing parking for 228 cars, although code calls for
248, based on 90% of the gross area. They had factored using 80% of
gross area. They thought they can find space for the additional
cars. Service vehicles will have their own access points as they
prefer to not mix service vehicles with the other cars. The rear of
the site has a 15 foot strip for a loading zone, and there will be
24 foot drives plus parking on the south side. The proposed grading
and drainage has been reviewed with the City Engineer.
Planning(k~ic~Minutes May 23, 1989
The shopping center will have a neutral color schem~ ~ q~m~F with
dark red banding effects. There will be glass ~ f~ the
covered walkway. The architect presented a rel~~ ~ the
proposed center for review.
They have increased the landscaping proposal since ~ ~ and
Review Meeting and will provide a screen/wall combi~ ~ ~ood
fencing and plantings on the east side.
Mr. Curry stated that one of the mjor tenants ~a~/ ~~ ,an
additional opening on to Winnetka, presently thereto? fs~ cmm~ one
access point where cars could go both right and left.
Chairman Cameron asked whether Hennepin County ha~. at~ the
access points on to Winnetka?
Mr. Curry said it had been dLiscussed but there has ~ ~ f~n~l
approval.
In response to questions from Commissioner Oja, ~,
that the City of New Hope would review the access ,~i~ ~m
Avenue since 36th Avenue is not a County roadway. ~%~ r~vE~v
also consider c~.~nts from the City of Crystal.
They propose to have two pylon signs for the center.,
not been designed as yet, but will be in accordance
the city's sign ordinance. The tenants will be allo~d~
own colors in their areas, multi-colored signs that
as to the area allowed for each tenant's signag~
building facia.
Jim Winkel of Marcor stated they saw this
opportunity. It is integral with the project pro~mm~
The feel there should be no reason that the city
could not sit down and work things out. He felt it
of the area. They will create a a presence on the
would like to move ahead as there are some
constraints. They need a decision and are williI~_~
staff.
Chairman Cameron asked what tenants or services ~Ri~v~ ~ ~e
bringing to New Hope that is needed, or not already ~~_
Mr. Winkel said he felt it would be inappropria~
potential tenants for the center at this time.
Chairman Cameron asked what type of market st~d~
conducted, and what data had they used to determine ~ ~ ~rk
on that corner?
Mr. winkel stated there were a lot of people in the area, there is
high density, and a lot of traffic in the area. There was a
questions as to whether the city was being adequately served by the
present uses in the area.
Referring to the city's past need to "help" existing centers to
survive, Chairman Cameron questioned whether there was a need for
more shopping centers, or whether another center would simply mess
up three shopping centers?
Mr. Wink~l said there had been very favorable statistics as to the
proposed use of the property and that the use would be compatible
with the area. The center would never be built if they could not
lease it.
Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there were any plans for the
outlot?
It was noted there were no definite plans, but there had been an
inquiry from a bank.
Commissioner Gundershaug referred to the earlier statements in Case
89-10 that .9 acre w~s too small for profitable
development.
Mr. Winkel's response was that this property was a commercial piece
of property.
Discussion then held regarding the northwest driveway and and how
traffic would be controlled to prohibit left hand turns?
Ms. Dunn stated that the Crystal Engineer had recommended combining
the two curb cuts and having only one curb cut. Staff was also
recommending that the petitioner have a traffic impact analysis
prepared.
In response to questions from Cc~missioner Gundershaug it was
stated that there had been no traffic studies conducted as yet.
This will be addressed prior to the meeting on June 6.
Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioners would
provide final plans prior to the meeting on the 6th June.
Ms. Dunn noted tb~t the request before the Commission at this time
was for concept approval only. Final plans will be provided by the
petitioners.
In response to questions fr~ Commissioner Gundershaug it was noted
Planni~ Oommissic~ M~ May 23, 1989
-14-
that screen~ is required only if there are residential properties
adjacent to the site. There will be a need for 21' more parking
spaces as the city requires parking to be provided based on 90% of
the gross building size. Iandscaping will be added along the east
side of the site and on the islands.
Alan Brixius confirmed that the city ordinance is structured to
provide for parking spaces based on 90% of building size.
Rooftop equipment will be screened or painted to match the center.
The entire front of the roof will be screened with the canopy as
proposed. Any other rooftop equipment would be painted and should
not be visible from the street. Lighting will all be down-lighted.
Commissioner Gundershaug reminded the petitioners that New Hope has
a very strict sign ordinance and that all signs must be approved by
the city, and that a shopping center would be required to file a
comprehensive sign plan.
There will be a 24 foot drive around the building, and though there
are no backup loading docks, it w~s the petitioner's
opinion that this type of project does not general have large truck
deliveries. The delivery area access will be indicated as for
"service vehicles only". .~
In answer to questions reqard~ drainage from the Chairman, Ms.
Dunn stated that it was the Crystal Engineer's recommendation that
the on-site holding capacity be increased to .87 foot per acre.
This area would be located on the outlot, and water would be
directed into Crystal.
Discussion followed between Co~,,LHssioner Ga and the petitioners
regalx~ landscaping and the planters proposed for the site.
~tion was to increase the size of the planters and to
increase the number and variety of plantings. It was felt this
would also aid pedestrian safety.
The outlot would be used for snow storage, but in the event of big
snowfalls, snow would be hauled off the site. Concern was
expressed that the snow storage not ta~ any parking spaces.
Cha~ Cameron inquired as to whether the petitioners were
proposing a reasonable amount of green space for the site?
Mr. Brixius stated that 13% green area as proposed was very minimal
and w-as not typical for other New Hope shopping centers. He noted
that the two lots were to be treated as one t~3D.
May 23, 1989
C~dssioner Zak asked how many tenants were anticipated for the
shopping center?
There could be 22 tenants if they all took only 20 foot bays,
however, it was anticipated that some tenants would take more than
one bay, which would reduce the number to 16-20.
Ms. Dunn stated f_hat staff would ask the City Engineer to make a
rec~,,~_ndation reqarding sidewalks. It was noted that Hennepin
County would be asked for traffic information. They are concerned
only with County roadways.
It was noted for the record tb~t review of the concept stage plans
did not guarantee approval of final plans.
The architect asked why approval could not be given now?
Ms. Dunn answered that the petitioners had only requested concept
approval for their plans. Plans had not been presented to staff for
review in time for more formal review.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
Co~m~Hssioner Gundershaug made a motion ~~r~3 appl-oval of the
concept plans as presented in Case 89-11, for a shopping center at
3540 Winnetka Avenue North, subject to the followir~:
1. P£ovision of a traffic analysis to detm_rm~ne the adequacy of the
plans ar~ their impa~t c~ th~ ~blic s~z~t.
2. ~at the plans are revised to provide 21 additic~ml park~
3. ~hat the lam~-~apir~ plan be increased to sufficiently screen
the develo~ f~um the resident/al develo~ to the west.
4. ~hat the o~-site drainage por~ be increased per the
reo~m~r~ations of the City Engineer.
5. ~at the develo~nent stage plans include a c~ive sign
plan.
6. ~hat the west driv~ay c~ 36th Avenue be modified to restrict
Omm~-issioner Friedrich second.
PI~ (1~ .~ion ~ May 23, 1989
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Gundershaug,
None
Watschke, Sonsin
~he meet/rig was adjourned by unam~us consent at 10:00 p.m.
Boeddeker,~ Secretary
Plannin~ On~m~.~ic~ Minutes May 23, 1989
CITY OFNEWHOPE
4401XYLON AVENUE NOR~H
HENNEPINCOUNTY, MINNESOTA55428
Jt~le 6, 1989
PUBLIC
~ 89-10 (3.2)
REZONING, OJP, OC~-
3~0WINNATKA~
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
New Hope was held on Tuesday, June 6, 1989 at the City Hall,
4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope,Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman
Cameron.
Present:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke
Friedrich
Dean Broden, Chairman of the Holy Nativity Building Commit-
tee, represented the petitioner. He was accompanied by the
Rick Keelor, architect for the project.
Chairman Cameron requested that the changes made since the
meeting on May 23, be reviewed for the Commissioners and the
Mr. Broden stated that the garage location had been changed
to an area adjacent to the Quebec Avenue extension, there
will be landscaping provided around this structure, and the
type and size of the plantings proposed for the building
perimeter had been revised. They had also created a drop off
area at the front of the building and near the proposed day
care area.
Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the roadway would now
be entirely on the church property?
The petitioner noted that the roadway would be 50% on the
church property and 50% on the adjoining property.
Ms. Dunn stated that the City Council would be reviewing the
placement of the road right-of-way June 12th.
The petitioner indicated that according to the revised
plans, the drop off area will be painted yellow, but there
will be no parking in that area. The preliminary plat had
been adjusted to reflect the additional 35 feet.
Commissioner Gundershaug, referring to the revised
landscaping plans, asked where the 10 trees had been
eliminated?
-2-
Mr. Keelor stated that along the property line the trees
would be planted 35 feet on center, and interspersed with
shrubs. The maple trees along the east side had been
Ms. Dunn noted that the petitioner had decreased the number
of trees proposed by ten, but had increased the number of
shrubs by twenty. Staff finds this acceptable.
There were no details about the play yard, or proposed
fencing, but the plans indicate the location for a potential
play area.
Chairman Cameron indicated that the fence was not to be
approved at the present meeting, but the plans should
indicate "future" play area prior to the Council Meeting.
Mr. Keelor stated that at this time there were no definite
plans to have a day care center on the site.
Chairman Cameron stated that since the key issue in this
development was the street, this should be reviewed next. He
noted that he had spent quite a bit of time reviewing the
area and felt that this decision was crucial. At this time
his personal feeling w-as that to extend Quebec in a straight
line was a more feasible and logical solution to provide use
of the vacant land. The city needs to provide safe streets,
and he felt this would make both parcels more useful.
Commissioner Gundershaug said he would like to see the street
re-aligned with 40th Avenue, but a straight extension would
be more practical. However he would not approve the
proposed curb cut on the south end of the property
C~a~ Cameron confirmed with staff that both of the
properties would have to be served by the Quebec Avenue
extension.
Ms. Dunn stated that Hennepin County had said that they
wanted all traffic routed to Quebec Avenue.
In response to questions from the Chairman, MS. Dunn noted
that on June 12, the City Council would review all of the
alternatives for the proposed extension of Quebec. Safety,
feasibility, cost effectiveness and use of State Aid funds
considered in their decision.
Chairman Cameron confirmed with staff that a decision on the
Planning O,m~-~i~l ~ J~le 6, 1989
-3-
proposed extension of Quebec Avenue would be made
independently from consideration of the requests in planning
cases 89-10 and 89-11.
Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern that the Council
might decide not to extend Quebec to Winnetka.
Ms. Dunn noted that the project had not been approved or at
this time. The city was interested in receiving MSA funds,
and without them the roadway may not be feasible. The
roadway could be completed in the spring of 1990. In
response to questions, she stated that the city would not be
responsible for the construction of a temporary roadway.
Discussion followed about the Commissioners' reactions to
Chairman Cameron ' s statement about the Quebec Avenue
extension being offset. Concensus seemed to be that the
alig]m~nt of the extension with 40th Avenue %gas preferable,
it might be practical to have an offset intersection.
Ms. Dunn noted that the Fire
requested an additional private
the northeast corner of the site.
and Safety Department had
water hydrant be placed at
Moticml by Commissioner Gundershaug, reommme~it~g approval of
the rezoning fzum I-1 to R-O, the O~zlitional Use Permit to
allow a church in an R-O zone, ~ cur~cruction approval, as
requested in PC 89-10, subject to the following cor~tions:
~hat the prel~m~r~try ~ final plats are approved and
include adequate street and utility right-of-way and
2. ~hat the site plan be corrected to show the appropriate
setback d{mnsion from Winnetka Avenue.
3. T~at a private water hydrant be placed on the northeast
Commissioner Oja secor~.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
F~t_ion carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
C~a, Watschke
None
Platina/rig Commission Minutes June 6, 1989
-4-
Mr. Richard Curry represented the petitioner. He was accom-
panied by Blaine Haywood, architect for the project. The
changes made in the proposal since the May 23, Planning
C~m~Hssion meeting were reviewed.
Mr. Haywood stated they had increased parking on the wes
side and the south side of th~ main main building. They are now
providing 233 spaces. Code requires 248 spaces. They
indicated a suggested development of the outlot which
included a building and a parking lot which would provide
parking for about 17 cars. This would provide the total site
(both lots) with a surplus of one parking space. A sign
plan ba~ been developed including signage for each tenant
above the canopy. They would be restricted to 80% of the
front width and letter size would be restricted to a maximum
of 16". In their opinion the only way to add the 15 parking
spaces would be to decrease the green area to 5.5%.
Chairman Cameron indicated that ~as neither option was
accept_able. Referring to the option as presented to use the
outlot to relieve parking space pressure, Chairman Cameron
asked how the Commission could approve using the outlot,
without a development plan for the outlot?
Ms. Dunn agreed that staff at this time did not know what was
planned for the outlot. It could be done under a FJD but at
the present t/me staff was not coqmfortable with that plan and
w~s not willing to reco~mnend approval until they knew what
was being proposed for the outlot.
David Licht, Planning Consultant, stated that the city would
be merely putting off a problem until the future. In the
future the city would most likely be faced with a request for
a variance.
Ms. Dunn noted that the petitioner could develop two
buildings on the combined site, but they would still have to
meet the code parking requirements.
Mr. Winkels disagreed with the statement that this would
avoid the problem. In his opinion it could be dealt with at
the time of the PUD which could have restrictions as to the
number of square feet in the development and the number of
Mr. Licht stated that by using the outlot they would be
creating a legal parcel and could end up with two different
owners. The city would still run into problems if there
were a lack of parking spaces.
Pla~L~g O~m,{-~ic~ M~ J~ 6, ]_989
Mr. Winkels disagreed. In his opinion, it would be a
record_~ble document and they do not want to under utilize
the site. He added that there was a tremendous economic
burden involved in this proposed development. It is
important to the petitioners that what they do is successful.
Chairman Cameron suggested that perhaps their proposed
development was inappropriate for the site -- the city's
ordinances might dictate that it was.
Mr. Winkler repeated that he did not think approval with
conditions w~s an uncommon practice. There were conditions
attached to PUD's all the time.
Chairman Ca~_ron asked why they didn't just develop the
outlot at this time?
The answer w-us that they did not as yet know what would go in
there. Development of the outlot involves a whole marketing
effort.
Discussion followed about the outlot, and whether or not the
green area would remain, if additional parking was located on
the cutlot.
Chairman Cameron referred to the proposed delivery area and
the fact that the apartments faced this area. He felt that
more trees were need in that area, of the "over story"
variety. The architect indicated he did not have a problem
with that request.
Chairman Cameron then stated that the lack of a traffic
aD~lysis was a large issue and felt that this should be
provided to the city prior to any action on these requests.
Mr. Winkler stated they had hired a reputable firm to work
over the Memorial Day weekend. An abbreviated report had
been given to the city. The preliminary report had indicated
that the consultant did not think the proposed development
there would be an impact on the city streets.
Additional information has now been requested by the city.
The petitioners were not opposed to securing this additional
information but are concerned that the project is not
unnecessarily held up over this issue. There is a
preliminary report saying there is no problem and they would
provide the data to back this up. They were requesting that
Planning C~-,.,,{-~sien Minutes June 6, 1989
the C~tm,~ssion make a reco~m~J~ation subject to the receipt
of the traffic report between this meeting and the Council
meeting on the 12th.
Ms. Dunn stated that in the opinion of the City Engineer
that the submitted traffic report was not adequate. Staff
reco~m¥~ndation was to t~__ble this case until the additional
information had been received.
The petitioner stated that the whole point was that they did
not want whole project to get off track. They have hired a
noted traffic engineer who says there is no problem.
Chairman Cameron noted that staff felt it was an inadequate
report.
Response was that over the phone it was adequate.
Chairman Cameron stated that he personally was bothered by
the proposal to tear up the grass on the west side and put in
parking spaces. There is not enough green space being
provided.
Co~-m¥,~ssioner C~a stated that in her opinion any site had to
support the parking required by code. This project is short
parking spaces and there had to be so, me changes to provide
the necessary spaces, either by including the outlot or by
obtaining a variance. This project needs to provide parking
as required by code.
C~u~cissioner Gundershaug said he would echo that statement--
every site had to stand on its own. The city did not know
what would be going on the outlot, and he felt strongly that
the petitioners were implying that all of a sudden it was the
city's fault that the project was slowing down. It was the
petitioner's who did not have "their ducks in order". The
city staff and commission still need to see a traffic report.
Chairman Cameron stated that he felt the project had to be
tied up, with the parking problems solved.
Con,missioner Watschke expressed his concerns about the
parking as proposed on the Winnetka side of the site.
Mr. Licht noted t/hat the ordinance as it exists today says
that this type of development has to have this many spaces--
there is a danger of perpetuating the problem. It is
important to put the property in the proper context regarding
green space. Regarding the tl-affic study, he did not think
Planning OJ,.,,{.~ic~ Mixafces June 6, 1989
PC 89-/2 (3.3)
~QUESr FOR AMm~
AND ~Lr~n~ PLAN
l~%rfEW AT 7117 BASS
it was adequate. The study provided did not address the
impact on the street. He was concerned for the city, since
the city had just experienced a large and expensive problem
with the remodeling of 42nd Avenue to correct an existing
traffic problem.
Confirming that a PUD did not require a specific green space
percentage, Chairman Cameron he stated his opinion tb~t when
proposed green space dropped below 15%, you might as well
forget about green space. He felt that 9% green w-as very
inadequate.
Coim,~ssioner Sonsin stated he would feel more comfortable
ahead with this case if all of the questions and concerns of
the city and co, remission had been answered. He felt the
co~-~lete traffic study should be reviewed, and that green
Co~issioner Cassen agreed that more information was needed.
Chairman Cameron requested that the commissioners table this
case. He added that he was further requesting that the
co~,L~ssion meet in special session on June 20, 1989 to
further review Case 89-11. If all w~s in order at that time,
the petitioners could appear before Council on June 26, 1989.
Motio~ by Co~m¥,~ssioner Sonsin, second by Co;~,~ssioner Oja to
to table Planning Case 89-11 until the special meeting of
June 20, 1989.
voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motic~ carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Ca~_ron, Gundershaug,
C~a, Watschke
None
Mr. John Kosmas of KK Design represented the petitioner.
He said they were seeking permission to remodel the existing
building interior. There is sufficient green space on the
site and there is an existing Conditional Use Permit. They
are requesting an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit to
convert to a station with accessory uses. Two of the bays
are currently being used for storage. They will be converted
to walk-in coolers. There is a small alcove in the southeast
corner which will be enclosed and a new bathroom provided
which will be constructed to accoitm-~date the handicapped. The
building will basically stay the same size as they are
increasing only by 64 square feet. They plan to alter the
Plannir~ (l,,.,,{.~si~ Minutes June 6, 1989
-8-
parking spots to develop spaces on the east and south sides
of the site. This would encroach on some of the green space
but there is sufficient green on site to accu~m~-odate this.
They have developed a planting schedule which will include
crab trees, ground plantings, and deciduous and evergreen
trees. They plan to eliminate the blacktop on the north side
of the sign. There will be an ornamental tree next to the
Burger King site, and the timbers at the rear will be removed
and the area sodded and new curbing will be installed. There
will be a new trash enclosure on the south side, that will be
fenced and have a gate. They plan no changes in curb cuts.
The canopy will stay as it is with some modifications on the
front of the building.
There will be a 10 foot x 30 foot loading zone and the
delivery zone will be marked and identified.
Commissioner Gundershaug requested that the landscaping
proposed for removal on the boulevard, be relocated on the
west side, rather than eliminated. He confirmed that the
signage on the canopy would be removed.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff had not as yet received the
elevations and they would like to be sure that everything
would be compatible.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, ~ ~ to
the ~n~m~nt to the Oonditio~l Use P-~m~t and site and
~)(ld~ng plans at 7117 Bass Iake Road, as requested in Case
89-/2, subject to:
Identification of a ten foot wide by thirty foot ~
leadir~ zone to the nofahwest of the bu~ld~ng as sh~n in
Exhibit B of the Planner's Report.
e
l~la~nt of the land~ area bet~se~ cuxb cuts and
3. ~,hm{~ion of de~a~led elevations describing
mter~al~ to be used.
4. ~hat '~xoduct" signage placed on the awning be
5. ~hat interior upgrades ~ subject to review by the
C~ty Sanitarian.
Plann/ng C~m.-ission Minutes June 6, 1989
C~zm~ssioner C~a second.
PC 89-13 (3.4)
IN SETBACK AT 9317
PC 89-14 (3.5)
AT 7901 6U/~{ AV~lqUE
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin,
C~a, Watschke
None
Cameron,
Mr. Swedberg stated he was requesting a variance in sideyard
setback to allow him to place a air conditioning unit next
to his home. The unit would be next to a walk-in closet. He
said his next door neighbor had indicated the side location
was her choice also. There is a garage next to the lot line
on the neighbor's property. He felt it would be more of a
noise hazard if it were positioned further back since that
would place the unit next to the patio.
In response to questions from Commissioner Sonsin, Mr.
Swedberg said he did not want it in the backyard because then
it would be right under the master bedroom windows. It made
more sense to him to put it on the side, since the sideyard
was unuseable. He would plant bushes around the unit to
screen it from view from the street.
Co~m~issioner Sonsin noted tb~t the co~m,~ssion would request
that the unit be screened by bushes high enough to hide it
from view, on all sides.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
F~c~ by Cum,~,~ssion Sonsin ~~3 approval of the
sideyard ~ varianoe at 9317 Northwood Park~ray, as
reque~ in Case 89-13, subject to the ~ cor~itioning unit
being screened on all three sides with plantings.
Cu~m~,~ssioner Watschke second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Oja, Watschke
None
Mrs. Lee stated she was requesting the variance to allow
the construction of a 14 foot x 14 foot screened porch across
the back of her house. This required a five foot setback
variance and a variance to allow expansion of a non
conforming home.
Planning Coim~,~ssion Minutes June 6, 1989
-10-
Ms. Dunn noted that there was already an encroachment into
the sideyard setback. The proposed addition would not go any
closer to Winnetka Avenue. The variance would be 5.5 feet
and be directly behind the house.
Ct~,,~dssioner Sonsin asked about the roof line and how it
would fit in with the existing house.
The builder stated that it would be a shed roof coming off
the existing roof and the materials would retch the roof.
Mrs. Lee stated that no neighbors had objected to the plans
to her but they had received the letters from the city.
Cc~,,~,~ssioner Cassen confirmed for the record that the roof
would be a shed roof, at an angle. It will be insulated with
three inches of insulation.
The builder stated it was a pre-fab roof, was painted white
for reflection, but that the facia would be brown to match
the brown trim on the house. The metal has a pebble grain
finish. The house is stucco. He confirmed that the existing
roof is brown and the house is tan.
Discussion between Co~m-6ssioner Cassen and the builder about
the roof materials, including the color of the porch roof
(white) and the need for consistency between the porch and
house.
The builder stated that every pre-fab roof is this same type,
and he felt it would blend in with the rest of the roof. All
pre-fab porches co, ne like this. He noted that they are built
all over, even in New Hope.
Commissioner Sonsin stated he was looking for architectural
consistency, and this proposal did not provide that. He did
not think the roof blended in with the existing house and
roof.
In response to questions from C~airrm~n Cameron, Mrs. Lee
stated that the white color of the porch roof did not bother
her.
Co~Hssioner Sonsin stated that the ccmmtission/city looked
for consistency in remodeling or additions, and he did not
see it in this project. The wish is for an addition to look
like part of the house.
Planning Cnmm~.~ion Minutes
Jt~e 6, 1989
The builder stated that the roof only came in one color. It
could be painted brown to match the existing roof but that
would destroy its reflective finish.
Cha~ Cameron co~m~nnted that the Commission does not
usually see porches for review, unless they need a variance.
Co,~,,~,~ssioner Watschke stated his concerns about the metal
siding of the porch being attached to a stucco house, and how
this would appear.
The builder said it was a stucco finish aluminum siding.
C~,~ssioner Watschke confirmed, with Mrs. Lee, that she had
seen an example of what was being proposed as the exterior of
her addition.
Co~m~,~ssioner Zak asked whether the colors on the porch will
match the house?
The answer was no, the porch will be brown and the house is a
light tan with brown trim.
In response to questions from Commssioner Cassen, Ms. Dunn
stated that the Building official had reviewed these plans
from a zoning standpoint but not from a construction
perspective.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
The co~m-Jssioners expressed concern about the look of the
porch and house, and the fact that they would not blend with
each other but t_hat the porch would look "added on". Concern
was also expressed about possible resale value.
It was noted by Co~issioner Gundershaug that it was the
petitioner who had to be satisfied with the proposed
addition.
C~m¥,~ssioner Sonsin made a motion ~ app-~-v-al of
the ~rar~ in re~rdrd setback at 7901 60th Average North,
as re~_ed_ in Case 89-14. Con~,issioner Gundershaug second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, ~n, ~ershaug,
Oja, Watschke
None
Friedrich
Planning Co~a~,~ssion Minutes June 6, 1989
12-
PC 89-15 (3.6)
APPROVAL F(~ A O3P
7100-7180 42ND NO.
Jeff Sweet, represented the petitioners. He was accompanied
the architect, David Runyan.
Mr. Sweet indicated that the site proposed for construction
is in the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Area. The city had
solicited proposals for the development of this area. The
project proposed is an auto service mall. Basically this is
a shopping center which includes automotive services and
related retail stores. This concept started about ten years
ago. The businesses are concentrated in a single building
and treated as a shopping mall. However, instead of there
being five business fronts, there will be one building with a
controlled shopping environment.
There are five similar malls in the Twin Cities area. All of
them have the same type of architecture. They are trying to
achieve a high end strip shopping mall appearance. The site
is currently zoned for coim¥~rcial use and h~s access from a
major roadway. It is the petitioner's opinion that the
proposed development is a use that will compliment rather
than compete with the 42nd/Winnetka commercial development.
A marketing study had indicated
this type of area in New Hope.
businesses in an area of 13,500
pumper providing gas.
that there was a need for
There will be five separate
square feet, with a super
Mr. Runyan stated they were requesting concept approval at
the present time but had already met with the Design and
Review Committee where they had received some suggestions and
coim¥~nts. The Crown Auto site will remain as is, but is part
of the PUD proposal. The plans have been developed on the
premise of the vacation of the old Nevada Avenue right-of-
way. This vacation is to be considered by the City Council
on June 26, 1989.
The proposed retail area is 2000 square feet, but of that
only 54% will actually be used for retail sales. The
remaining footage will be used for storage and stock areas.
In their opinion 75% of the people will make their purcbm~es
from the convenience store while at the qas pumps.
There will be six spaces at the pumps and they have provided
11 parking spaces on the front. They are providing ten feet
between the super pumper and the property to the north. This
ten feet is the same as is provided on neighboring
properties.
Pl~ O'.',.,,{-~qion Minutes June 6, 1989
They are recu~LuL~ that the back wall be of a block type
material that is finished and there will be plantings at the
rear of the project with evergreen or spruce trees. The four
foot wall will be planted with ivy or other low shrubs. It
is their feeling that by using these devices, they can
achieve a very effective visual buffer for the adjacent
property.
Co~m~issioner 0ja about the curb cut in the super pumper area.
It was noted that the curb cut on the east had been moved
five feet to the north, but is still short of city standards.
In response to questions about pump area being included in
the parking quota, Mr. Licht stated this was not to be
considered in the calculations for parking stalls. He added
that he had not seen any studies that would justify parking
at an island -- that space is not recognized as parking
It w-us noted that staff recommendation was for 18 parking
spaces and the petitioner w~s proposing 11.
commissioner C~a asked how the petitioner intended to
increase the parking on the site?
Mr. Runyan responded that there was no way to increase the
parking, there was no room. The required setbacks, driving
aisles, and island leave no additional space for parking.
C~m,~ssioner Gundershaug commented that the building as
proposed was too big for the site.
Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioners had ever built
a pumper of this size before?
Mr. Sweet resonded they had. They had employed a gas station
designer who felt this site w~s adequate for what they
propose.
Chairman Cameron asked whether this designer had known that
the city would require 18 parking spaces?
Mr. Sweet responded that if there were a restriction on the
square footage of the floor area, and using only the floor
area in their calculations, they would require only 12-13
parking spaces. From that perspective, the parking proposed
was very close to code.
P~ O~,.,,~-~ic~ Mirg/tes J~ne 6, 1989
-14-
Commissioner Oj a asked whether they had considered
eliminating the car wash from the site, to gain more space?
%he answer was no, the car %rash was considered a very
integral part of the development. From a financial
feasibility st~int, this is what makes the development
"go".
Mr. Licht noted that if the concept of the PUD was accepted,
then the north property line could be considered as a side
yard. That was a factor that needed to be considered.
In answer to questions from the Chairman, it was noted that
there would be stacking space for five cars at the gas pumps.
They added that their studies show that 2/3 of the customers
would also go either to the retail outlet or to the carwash
following gas purchase.
The petitioner stated that gasoline and retail store
deliveries would be made at the front of the site but
coordinated with hours of operation. These hours are
proposed to be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Co~m~,~ssioner C~a expressed concern about room for truck
turning and maneuvering. It %fas noted t_hat trucks could make
a turn and exit following deliveries.
Mr. Sweet stated they had used a template provided by the gas
companies and this indicated there was adequate maneuvering
room on the site.
Questions were raised about the obtaining of cross easements
from Crown Auto and the fact that the Crown Auto site could
use some additional landscaping.
Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there w~s a
restriction on the percentage of space allowed for retail
sales in the super pumper facility?
Ms. Dunn stated that this w-as still a concept stage review.
She indicated that she would consult with the City Attorney
and Planner to determine if this type of restriction was
acceptable and enforcea_ble under a PUD agreement.
Mr. Licht stated that the more restrictions that are built in
to a development such as this, the more problems you could
have in enforcement at a future time.
Plann/r~ C~m~/ssic~ Minutes June 6, ~989
The petitioner stated that soil borings had been made, and
there is no contamination on the site. The tanks on the old
gas station site were removed ten years ago.
A reco~,,L~dation was made that trucks not be permitted to
park in front of the trash area. The petitioners re-stated
that there is sufficient turning room in the loading area for
a truck to make a sweep and turn to exit.
Discussion w~s then held about the encroachment into the
easement on the west side. It was noted that 98% of the
building was within the' setback re~ts.
Commissioner C~a asked how staff felt about this?
Mr. Licht stated there had to be a reason justifying this
encroachment. One reason could be the desire for alig]m-~nt
of the street. As long as it does not pose a safety hazard
it could be approved.
During a discussion about the need for landscaping along
louisiaDa and 42nd Avenue,. Ms. Dunn stated that the corner of
LouisiaD~ and 42nd W-dS a regulated sight triangle and that
all tall plantings would have to be renDved. There will be
small plantings by the auto mall and conifers along the back.
The grade separation and dense conifer plantings will help
screen the site from the apartments.
In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, the
petitioner noted that the shared drive~ay will be half on
the automall property and half on the Crown Auto property.
Mr. Sweet stated that at this time nothing had been worked
out with Crown Auto but that discussions had been held.
There was no one present in regard to this request.
f~airman Cameron stated he felt there should be restrictions
on the percentage of retail space in the super pumper area
and that areas that would need enforcement by the city should
be added as conditions of the t~JD.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff would like more details on the
illumination as proposed for the canopy. This detail needs
to be provided when the development stage of the I~D is
presented to the colL,~,~ssion.
Planning C~m~ion ~ June 6, 1989
C~9~rEE REPORTS
4.1
4.2
NEW ~3SINESS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
F~ic~ by Cu~,~ssioner Oja ~~r~3 approval of the
co~ for the 1W3D for an auto ma]] at 7100 ar~ 7180 42r~
Avem~- N~rth, as re~~ in Case 89-15. subject to:
An attempt made by the petitic~_r to solve the problem
of too few parkir~ spaces, prior to m,hm~_~sion of the
develolaaent stage for review.
2. ~hat det-.~'iled (:lml~ of ~11 exterior tr~-~h enclosures
are ~(tted. ,
e
provided for the Crc~ ~Afco site.
4. ~hat ~:,l--~iled infomtion ~e p~vid~ rs~rdir~ prolzs~d
ill~i~ati(~l of the canopy.
5. ~]~at a ~ive sign plan be present~_ for ~-eview.
6. ~hat cross easements be pz-ovided ar~ conf~ between
auto m l 1 ~ CiOWll Auto.
Cu~,~ssioner Gundershaug second.
Voting in favor:
Voting in favor:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin,
Oja, Watschke
None
Cameron, Gundershaug,
O.,.,H-~sio~er Sonsin noted that there was a spelling error in
the May 2, 1989 Planning O,,.,,(~sion Minutes.
~%e m~utes w~re then accepted as printed.
~ Oouncil Minutes of April 24, ar~ May 8, %~_re ieview~d.
~ ~ Minutes of March 27, were reviewed.
~he HRA Minutes of April 24, were reviewed.
Planning C~m~.~sic~l ~ June 6, 1989
-17-
A special meeting of the Planning O ..... ~-~sion ~rus scheduled
for Tuesday, June 20, 1989.
~e meet/rig was adjourned by unaD~mnus consent at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~yce Boeddeker, Secretary
~. Plannin~ C~m~-~ic~ Minutes June 6, 1989
CITY OFNEWHOPE
4401XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPINCOUNTY, MINNESOTA55428
PIANNING GC~TU~ION MINUTES
June 20, 1989
PU~./C ~EARING
PC 89-11 (3.1)
A special meeting of the Planning Cu~m~ssion of the City of New
Hope washeld on Tuesday, June 20, 1989 att he New Hope City Hall,
4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cha~ Robert
Cameron.
Present: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Oja, Watschke
Absent: Friedrich, Gundershaug
Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-11 and asked the
petitioner to make his presentation.
Mr. Gary Vogel, architect for the project stated that there were
basically 4 issues where changes were required. He first
addressed the 8 foot dedication of land on the north side of the
site for the expansion of 36th Avenue He explained they had moved
the property line south 8 feet and figured the loss of that land
in their calculations, although the land is actually still there
until the widening of 36th Avenue. He then referred to the
parking issue as related to the square footage and explained that
the size of the building had been changed from 46,000 sc~,a~e feet
to just under 43,000 square feet. This requires 232 parking
spaces and they have acco~m~dated 233 parking spaces. He stated
this does not include parking on the outlot.
Mr. Vogel continued to the third item, stating that originally
with the larger site there was an 11-1/2 percent green area. Now
with the easements required for 36th Avenue, the project has a 13
Mr. Vogel referred next to the landscaping issue and called
attention to the east property line next to the apartment
buildings of New Hope Terrace Apartments where they have added a
significant amount of trees and shrubs with a staggered fence
structure and some lower plantings. He stated that he believes
that it creates the buffer between the shopping center and the
residential area to the east.
Mr. Vogel went on to the final item, referring to a traffic
analysis they had submitted showing that there was negligible, if
any, impact on the 36th and Winnetka Avenues arteries. He stated
there is a change in the easterly exit/egress connection on to
36th Avenue by widening it to provide three lanes with a separate
right turn lane on to 36th, a left turn lane, and an incoming lane
that would help any backup traffic on the site.
-2-
He concluded that they had not changed the building facade as it
is their feeling it is acceptable as originally presented.
Jim Winkels, Marcor Properties, introduced himself and stated that
he felt they had worked with three top groups and leaders in the
fields of design, traffic, and marketing, on the project. He
referred to the staff report and expressed concern on several
items. He stated he felt the outlot could be managed, that the
traffic study clearly shows that they would not experience
internal problems and that there would not be any adverse effect
on 36th Avenue. He added that at this point they don't have plans
for the outlot.
Mr. Winkels then referred to the ponding. He indicated that they
were willing and able to provide the .87 acre feet for ponding,
but did not feel they should be restricted to certain areas.
He questioned the need for a sidewalk on Winnetka, but felt they
could do it. He indicated that the catch basins could be
provided on the 36th Avenue driveways if there %fas an engineering
reason for it. He expressed the desire for their civil engineers
to work with the City's civil engineers to design the drainage
plan. He pointed out they would prefer some flexibility. He
concluded that they have tried to do everything they could to make
the project acceptable.
Chairman Cameron called on staff to present a traffic engineer's
report. Management Assistant Jeannine Dunn introduced Gary
Rylander, Traffic Engineer from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and
Associates to summarize the results of the study.
Mr. Rylander stated that he does not have any significant problems
with the report and feels that it is reasonably accurate. He
commented that the basic points as shown, such as internal site
circulation, driveways, and location of driveways, are adequate.
He stated that conditions had been examined at the weekday
afternoon peak hour at the signalized intersection of 36th and
Winnetka. Based on the developer's report, the number of trips
that would be added to the street system do not, in any
significant manner, degrade the level of service at the
intersection. He explained that it is currently operating at
Level C which is very good. Added trips generated by the site do
not change that level and it does not appear that the development
as proposed would have any effect on that.
Mr. Rylander continued with the coit~nt that everything in the
analysis was done with respect to the year of opening, but there
should be some projection for 5 to 10 years ahead. He called
attention to the situation at the main driveway, the easterly
exit, with two exiting lanes on to 36th Avenue. He stated that
the number of trips exiting the site and attempting to turn left
to go west on 36th Avenue in the year of opening appears to be at
capacity. Compared to other land uses of this type, this could be
a problem. He added that the level of service is basically E/F,
-3-
which means very long traffic delays on the rate at which people
can leave the stop sign to turn left. He indicated that the level
of service in a situation like this is dependent on gaps in
traffic on 36th Avenue. As traffic increases, the level of gaps
would decrease. It appears that at this point about 80 left turns
out of the site could be accommodated at the peak afternoon hours.
He added that would be true reqardless of what development goes on
the site and it should be considered 'what it would be like in
time, especially on days or afternoons when it is very busy. He
c~L,,L~nted that most people would seek an alternate route rather
than wait in line indefinitely to get out of the site. Logically,
they would go out to Winnetka to go north and west, but he concurs
that it cannot handle an indefinite amount either. He projected
that as time goes on people might use the right turn to go e~st
and proceed to Nevada or Louisiana. He concluded that they saw no
degradation of the level of service on the street or the
intersection at 36th and Winnetka, but the left turn out of the
site, no matter what is built on the site, has a limiting
capacity.
Chairman Cameron questioned if the level of service w~s correlated
safety as people try to find the gaps in traffic in order to exit.
Mr. Rylander responded that the level of service criteria is a
natioo~l standard and signalized intersections are based on
delays. There is a chance some people will tak~ advantage of
smaller gaps than they ought to and under those conditions
accidents are possible in busy times.
Chairman Cameron asked what assumptions were made about the impact
of the development of the outlot.
Mr. Rylander answered that the outlot was analyzed at the same
trip generation rate as the rest of the center site. He added
that other typical uses of outlots such as this include a fast
food restaurant or a bank drive-in and this was considered in the
report. The conclusion is that it would add about 100 to 120
more trips to and from the site. Since it is now in the range of
capacity at the left turn lane the additional traffic would have
to be diverted to another route.
Chairman Cameron concluded that if it is at capacity at opening
then any development on the outlot would put it over capacity.
Mr. Rylander cited the three land uses generating the most number
of trips would be a drive-in bank, a fast food restaurant with a
drive-up window, and a convenience market. He emphasized that the
study refers to a weekday afternoon peak hour and other periods of
time may be less critical as to delay and safety.
Chairman Cameron co~m~nted on the shortness of space to exit from
the site on the west driveway to Winnetka Avenue, crossing two
lanes of traffic to get to left turn lane to go west.
-4-
Mr. Rylander agreed on this point and added that at some future
time the northbound median may have to be lengthened, but at
present it is not under consideration.
Co~Lm,~ssioner Watschke questioned the impact of traffic going east
waiting to turn left into Super America and traffic slowing down
and waiting to turn right into the center, and asked if there was
an accident report history of the area.
Mr. Rylander responded that if 36th Avenue is rebuilt and widened,
an easterly median would be built. The developers have taken that
into account by putting in a triangular island so people will be
accustomed to going right in and right out, but until then it
will be a problem.
Cc~missioner Watshke wanted to know how far east and west on 36th
Avenue the traffic levels were considered as he was concerned
about the safety of children from a nearby school area to the
west. He also cu~,,,~nted about the problem of the sun in the late
winter afternoons for traffic moving westerly on 36th Avenue.
Mr. Rylander stated that they were basically interested in the
site driveways and the adjacent intersection and no analysis was
done further to east/west or north/south.
Commissioner C~a .questioned how far the widening of 36th Avenue
would go.
Mr. Rylander suggested that possibly the city could consider a
spot improvement so that the commercial driveways and intersection
at this immediate point could function well until the widening is
done in the future.
Cu~a~,~ssioner Ga questioned how much increase in traffic would be
generated.
Mr. Rylander answered it may be about 100 in the p.m. peak hours,
but about half of the trips would be pass-by trips.
C~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin asked if other potential changes in the area
had been factored in the study. He noted a sign tb~t has been up
north of Super American advertising shopping center space.
Mr. Rylander stated that this development had not been addressed
in this study. ,
C~m¥,~ssioner Watschke commented that it looked like the parking
w-as forced on to the site to meet the requirement.
Commissioner Zak asked if the new parking spots are 'located in ~--~
hack.
Mr. Winkels noted that they took out some store bays, reducing the
size of the building by 3,000 square feet and added parking
spaces, but the back area would be employee parking.
-5-
C~.Ldssioner Zak questioned staff about the amount of space in the
back for loading and unloading.
Ms. Dunn explained that the travel aisle is adequate, but when
parking stalls are placed perpendicular to a building at the
entrance point, it creates a traffic conflict. Staff is not
supportive of the three stalls located at the entrance point of
the center.
C~m~,~ssioner Zak wondered if it was typical for employees to go in
the back.
Mr. Winkels replied that e~ployee parking is usually supplied in
back in order to reserve the front areas for customers.
C~u~Hssioner Sonsin brought up the question of limited time
parking for certain tenants.
Mr. Wink~_ls stated they would not like to get into limited
Chairman Cameron asked if there were any parking spaces located in
the outlot and w-as advised there were none.
Cu~m~issioner Watschke asked about the number of handicapped
The Chairman asked staff to c~m~-~nt on staff's suggestion for
specific footage for ponding in the outlot.
Ms. Dunn explained this the ponding requirements had not been
changed from the initial plan. The City Engineer barn indicated
that the design of the pond as proposed is not adequate and
suggests a 45' area be dedicated for ponding purposes.
Mr. Winkels expressed his feelings that there are a number of
alternatives and would like to have their engineer meet with the
City Engineer to discuss them.
C~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin expressed his concern about the green space.
Mr. Winkels stated t~mt with the amount set aside for ponding it
would put them over 15 percent and in his own opinion it is
consistent with other retail developments he has noted in his
travels around the city.
C~a~ Cameron asked about the width of the green area in the
upper center and was informed it was 14-1/2 feet to the property
line.
Mr. winkels explained they took off 8 feet to the north which is
to be dedicated to the road improvement to 36th Avenue.
Ms. Dunn noted that the plan needs to be reviewed by the Bassett
Creek Watershed Co~u~ssion after the City Council approval.
-6-
Motion by Cc~ssioner C~a, second Commissioner Sonsin to approve
Planning Case 89-11, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval,
Rezoning, Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit
Development Stage Approval subject to:
1. That the plat be revised to show one parcel,
e
That a 45 foot drainage and utility easement be dedicated
along the outlot portion of Winnetka and 36th Avenues as
-decried by the city Engineer in Attachment D,
e
That the ponding area be developed per the c~t,,t~nts of the
city Engineer,
4. Tb~t catch basins be provided on the 36th Avenue driveways,
Se
That a 5 foot wide sidewalk be
Winnetka Avenues and located 1
line,
cor~tructed along 36th and
foot fr~m the right-of-way
6. That there be a review by the Bassett Creek Watershed
O~t~ission.
C~u~,~ssioner Zak asked how much of the green space would be taken
away when the sidewalk is put in on 36th Avenue.
Mr. Winkels explained it would be 5 feet wide and 1 foot from the
right-of-way line and would take away 6 feet out of the 8.
Chairman Cameron s~ up his views of the development and stated
that he feels it is too large a development for the property.
With the traffic flow and c~m¥~rce that would be generated in that
area, without the outlot, it seems at its maximum right at the
Coim¥,~ssioner Ga cc~ented that she had a problem with what might
go in the outlot and she also felt the site was overdeveloped.
Commissioner Sonsin shared the concerns about overdevelopment, but
his main concern was the lack of green space.
There was no one else present concerning the case.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion denied.
Cassen, Sonsin
Cameron, C~a, Watschke, Zak
Friedrich, Gundershaug
Motion by C~m~issionerOja, second Commissioner Watschke, to deny.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Cameron, Oja, Watschke, Zak
None
Sonsin, Cassen
NE~ ~SINESS
REV/]5~ OF
PRRn/MINAR~ RE-
EEVELO~ PIAN
P~R ~n~ELOPM~
PROJECt 89-1 AND
TAX ~ FI-
NANCING ~ FOR
PRfL1]DCT 89-1
(3540 W-//qNETKA
AVENUE NC~H-~DLY
REVI~J~ OF
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REE~mIDPM~
1~ 89-1 AND
TAX ~ FI-
NANCIN~ ~ ~
TAX~
PRfkTECT 89-2 (3900
WINNETKA AVenUE
-7-
Chairman Cameron introduced the first item, Review of Preliminary
Redevelopment Project 89-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing Project 89-1 (3540 Winnetka Avenue North-
Holy Nativity Lutheran Church).
Ms. Dunn explained that the changes to the tax increment financing
require that the planning agency of cities review all tax incre-
ment plans in reqard to consistency with land use and c~liance
with comprehensive plans and zoning classifications of property.
She stated that the City Council will hold a public hearing on
June 26, 1989, to consider the Tax Increment Plan 89-1 for the
3540 Winnetka Avenue North proposed redevelopment which was heard
earlier, and Tax Increment Plan 89-2 for 3900 Winnetka Avenue.
She emphasized that they were two separate tax increment financing
districts and one group of funds would not be used to subsidize or
assist the other development.
Discussion centered on how tax increment funds will be used at
beth projects and what the City's financial obligation would be if
the project defaulted.
Chairman Cameron conf~ that the Co~-m~-dssion's role %fas to
review land issues only.
Motion by Co~m~issioner C~a, second Co~m~issioner Sonsin, to approve
the revision of the City's preliminary Redevelopment Plan for
Project 89-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 89-1 and find it
compatible with land use regulations.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion denied.
None
Cameron, Oja, Watschek, Zak, Cassen, Sonsin
Freidrich, Gundershaug
Chairman Cameron introduced the next item, Review of Prelimi~z~y
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project 89-2 and Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Project 89-2 (3900
Winnetka Avenue North-Minnegasco Property, excluding the area
proposed for development by Holy Nativity Church which encompasses
approximately the westerly 4.0 acres)
Ms. Dunn explained that the review of this plan was difficult be-
cause no specific development has been proposed. However, the
developers hate indicated that the land use would be industrial.
This is consistent with the zoning classification of the property.
Motion by Co~m~issioner Sonsin, second by ConmHssioner Oja, to
approve Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
89-2 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Project
89-2.
-8-
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Ga, Watschke, Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron
None
None.
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:50 p.m.
Lucille Butler
a~ng S~~
CITY OF ~ ]~)PE
4401 Xkq/~ AV]~]UE 19[H~{
~ CO[H~'TY, ~ 55428
July 5, 1989
A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning C~m~ssion was
held on Wednesday, July 5, 1989 at the New Hope City Hall,
4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota.
~he meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman
Cameron.
Present: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja
Absent: Sonsin, Watschke
PJ~XC~
89- (3.1)
~ AT 7100-7180
42 AV~E ~ -
David Runyan and Jeff Sweet represented the petitioner.
Mr. Runyan, Architect for the project, stated at the last
appearance before the Cum, t,~ssion some problems had been ex-
pressed with the proposal. They had attempted to answer
those concerns in this presentation.
They have now submitted detailed drawings of all exterior
trash enclosures.
A comprehensive sign plan for the project has been submitted.
Mr. Runyan stated that because they had, in error, considered
42nd Avenue North to be a major arterial, rather than a minor
arterial, they had originally proposed a sign that was three
feet too high. They have now reduced the size of the sign to
conform to city code.
Another concern expressed by the Commission had been the
proposal for tenant names on the pylon sign. These names have
been eliminated frc~ the final plan.
In response to staff requests the loading dock has been moved
back. In doing so five parking spaces had been lost, but it
was his belief that the code required number of spaces was
still being provided.
The plantings originally shown for the Louisiana side have
been moved and the pylon sign will be respositioned within
the legal setbacks.
They are providing for eleven parking spaces and will provide
heavier conifer plantings along 42nd Avenue.
-2-
· he wall at the rear will be brick to match the other sides
of the building.
~here will be four light poles, with shoebox fixtures
providing down directed lighting. There will also be lights
under the canopy.
Mr. Runyan stated that he felt they would be able to
acc~ma~odate the city requirement for only 12 inch high
lettering on the canopy.
C~m~,~ssioner Gundershaug asked how many parking spaces were
required by code for the super pumper site?
Mr. Brixius stated that the original review of the plans had
assumed that all 2100 square feet would be retail space. This
w~uld have required 18 parking spaces. It was his
understar~ing that the sales area had been reduced, and half
of the space would be for storage. This would reduce the
nLunber of re~ired spaces to eleven. This did not include
the six spaces by the pumper.
C~m~,~ssioner Gundershaug expressed concerns about the widths
of the driveways, and the driveways that were proposed to be
shared with Crown Auto.
Mr. Sweet stated that the petitioners had held discussions
with Crown Auto, but that no agreements had as yet been
reached on cross easements. He added that they would not
request final approval for the project, until this issue had
been resolved.
Ms. Dunn noted that the petitioner was requesting that this
case be laid over by the City Council until the easement
issue had been resolved.
In response to questions frc~ C~mmissioner Friedrich, Mr.
Sweet stated that snow would be stored in the
corner. Excess snow would be trucked off the site. In
response to further questions, he indicated that all
landscaping would be sprinkled.
There was no one present in reqard to this case.
Discussion held about landscaping at Crown Auto. Ms. Dunn
stated that R-own Auto was aware of the proposal for
development around their site, and that R-own Auto had
approached her about landscaping on the site.
Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989
-3-
Commissio~ Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval
of P~D, (~JP ~ Buildir~ p]a~, at 7100-80 42n~ Ave~a]e North,
~hat the Auto ~]] site ~e replatted if the city vacates the
Nevada Aver~%e right-of-way.
~hat the ~lic~t entar into a 4~lm ~ with
the city for the m3D.
~hat th~_re be no tenant ma-~ c~ the grou~ sign.
~at the height of the car~ letters be reduced to 12
inches.
Commissio~ Friedrich, second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Moti~
Zak, Cassen, Friedrich,
Gundershaug, Oja
None
Sonsin, Watschke
Cameron~
It was noted that the petitioner had requested that this case
not proceed to City Council on the 24th of July, but be
considered at a later time.
PC 89-16 (3.2)
FAfr~.~ AT 8320
42ND AV~rGE NC~g~H
Mr. Bruce Bernard represented the petitioner. He stated they
wished to construct a remote drive-up facility which would
would allow them to convert to four service lanes. This will
improve traffic flow on the site and allow them to better
service their ~.
In response to questions from Cu~.~,~ssioner Oja Mr. BetDz~d
said the hours of operation would be:
MondaY-Thursday 8: 30 - 4: 00 Lobby
Friday 8:30 - 6:00 Lobby
Saturday 9: 00 -12: O0 Lobby
8:00 - 6:00 Drive,Up
8:00 - 6:00 DriveUp
9:00 -12:00 Drive Up
~he exterior materials will match the existing building as
far as texture andcolor. ~-rewill be no rooftop equipment.
Planning C~=~ission Minutes July 5, 1989
-4-
The air conditioning unit would be on the ground, and
screened.
The parking/drive aisles will be blacktopped, with the
exception of the area under the canopy which will be
concrete. There will be continuous concrete curbing on the
site. The existing drive-through area will be abandoned, and
the surface replaced with sod. They will retain the
entryway. The number of parking spaces proposed b~ been
In response to questions frc~ O~,,,dssioner Oja, it was noted
that three of the lanes will be covered with the canopy.
This will leave one lane accessible by larger vehicles. It
was noted that the site has 45% green area.
A sign plan had been submitted.
the plan are as follows:
The signs as indicated on
Sign A - will be used to control and direct traffic to the
drive-up facility and to indicate whether it is open or
closed.
Signs B and C - will be used to control and direct traffic on
Signs B and C are the same sign with two different faces. It
will be adjacent to the building.
Signs D and E - will be used to direct traffic in_the parking
lot.
Signs D and E are also one sign, with two different faces.
Cxam~issioner C~a cc~nen~ on the staff request for "entrance
only" to be on the sign.
Discussion followed about the square footage, and whether or
not there was room for these additional words and whether it
would be read-hie.
There will be room for four cars to stack in each lane. This
is in addition to the space at the service area.
In response to questions about the Planner's reo~m~tion
to relocate the driveway, Mr. Brixius stated that it was felt
t_hat it was preferable to have the driveway centered closer
to the north property line of the property. This would
involve a nine foot move to the north and would allow a
Planning Cc~ission Minutes July 5, 1989
-5-
straight exit to Xylon Avenue. He also noted t/hat his
relocation would provide more stacking for cars attempting to
turn left to the site f-~-c~% Xylon Avenue.
Discussion followed about the staff recommer~i~g for the
inclusion of three additional spruce trees, and where they
would best be located. John Ubam the Iandscape Architect for
the petitioner expressed concern about the size of mature
spruce trees, and the fact that the area would be too
crowded. He noted that the petitioners are already
increasing the plantings to screen the apartments from
headlights and parking. ~he fenoe has been extended. They
plan to add some spruce, some crab apple trees and some maple
trees, and there will be plantings next to the building. It
was noted that there w~s no room on the west side of the
fence for plantings, since the driveway came right up to the
proper~ line.
Ms. Dunn said that staff had felt there was a need for
additional screening. Staff was also looking for some
additional plantings along the fenced area.
Mr. Uban noted that the petitioner is already providing
double the landscaping re~red by city code.
Commissioner Cassen expressed concern about the exit/entrance
to 42nd Avenue f-~-~, the site. She noted that she had
observed people attempt~ to make a lefthand turn from that
exit which created a traffic problem.
The petitioner stated that the driveway was used at this time
for both entrance and exit and they do not plan to make any
changes in the driveway at this time. If a problem were to
be created, it would be reviewed again.
The width of the driveway is 22 feet.
Discussion among the C~,,tdssioners about the dangers of a
left turn from that driveway. The petitioner, however, did
not feel it would be a problem once the new four lanes are in
place.
In response to a question fwom Co~mmissioner Gundershaug, it
was noted that there is approximately 90 feet of fence.
Since the apartment driveway comes right up to the property
line, it would be impossible to landscape the apartment side
of the fence.
~lannin~ Commission Minutes
J~ly 5, 1989
-6-
(I~SE 89-17 (3.3)
4471 ~ NO.
It was noted that the three spruce trees requested by staff,
should be positioned near the south end of the fence.
Discussion followed between the Commissioners and the
landscape architect regarding putting potentially large trees
in that location. The architect noted that arbivitae could
be planted in that location, and they were a type of spruce
that grew to only a height of 12 feet.
(]~airman Cameron ccmm~nted that he felt that 90 feet of fence
was a lot, and landscaping would help.
C~m~issioner Gundershaug confirmed with the architect that
the petitioners were agreeable to moving the driveway.
There was no one present in regard to this request.
C~J,,J,~ssioner C~a made a motic~ ~ .... ~ng approval of the
Cu~i~] Use Pemmit to peunit a r~m~ve drive-up facility
for t]~e bank at 8320 42r~ Avexa~ Ncx~h, as requeste~ in Case
89-16, subject to the followir~:
~ the ~ord{~ c~ Sign A meet staff recu~m,endatic~s and say
"enter onlI~'.
~hat ail c~-site light~ be d~m
voting in favor:
voting against:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, CamerOn,
Gundershaug, Oja
None
Sonsin, Watschke
Chairman Cameron stated that it had been requested that
tb~ case be tabled for one month.
Motic~ by Commissioner Gundershaug, secor~ Dy O~mm~.~ic~er
Oja to t~ble Case 89-17 until the meet~ of August 1, 1989.
Plannin~ CL~/ssion M/nutes
July 5, 1989
-7-
4.1
4.2
N~ ~SINESS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron,
None
Sonsin, Watschke
Design and Review Commi~ had held one meeting.
~nere was no report fl-cra% Codes and Standards Committee.
Planni~ CLm~i~ Minutes of May 23, Jtu~e 6, ~ June
1989 m~_re aooepted as printed.
~ne City Council Minutes were reviewed.
The HRA Minutes were reviewed.
The HDA Minuates were reviewed.
In a discussion regarding the code requirements for driveway
width, Ms. Dunn noted that the code had been amended to
require a 28 foot width, but that a driveway could be 30 feet
in width without a variance.
~e meetin~ was adjourned by unaD~n~us co~sent at 8:27 p.m.
Planning Ccmmission~tes
July 5, 1989
CITY OF NE~T
4401 ~ AV~gJE N0~IH
I~/N ~, MINNESU/~
~ 1, 1989
I~3HLIC I-m:ARINSS
1:~ 89-17 (4.1)
AT3'fTi~T ~ ,~T~:~
AT 4471 ~ N.
PC 89-18 (4.2.)
AND ~/~nING PIAN
O~mSE - 8130 BASS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman ~eron at 7:30
p.m.
Jeannine Dunn admini~ the Oath of Office to new Planning
Commissioner Michael O'Donnel.
Present:-
Absent:
O'Donnel, Cassen, Friedrich,
Oja, Watschke
Sonsin, Zak
CameronI
Chairman Cameron stated that staff had requested that this
planning case be tabled until the September Planning C~L,,~,~s-
sion meeting.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff w~s requesting the additional time
for the Sanitarian to research State sanitation requirements
reqarding on-going outdoor food service.
Motic~ by Commissio~ Gundershaug, secor~ by Commissioner
C~a to ~hle P]a~ir~ Case 89-17 until the ~ of
September 5, 1989.
Voting in favor: O'Donnel, Cassen, Friedrich,
Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke.
Voting against: None
Motion carried.
Cameront
Dick Desplinter, Manager of the Golf Course, introduced the
architect of the project, Mr. Ed Vogt.
Mr. Vogt stated that wb~t was being proposed was a concrete
block building, approximately 32' x 70' in size which would
be used for the storage of various types of equipment used at
at the golf course. The building will eliminate all exterior
storage on the site, and also eliminate the need for the two
existing storage sheds.
The maintenance building is Phase I of a proposed remodeling
and expansion of the golf course facilities. Improvements to
the club house will be in a future pba~.e.
There will be a new service drive leading to the maintenance
building and sewer and water service will be installed.
Mr. Vogt noted that the Design and Review C~m,~ttee had
-2-
expressed concerns about screening of the service road and
the security light at the south side of the building.
Mr. Vogt stated that originally they had felt it would be
more cost effective to simply connect to the existing
sprinkling s~ at the golf course. This plan has now been
dropped. New water service ill now be installed to the
maintenance building and for the future club house e~pansion.
The service drive will be widened to 15 feet which will allow
provide for this maneuvering room for trucks. They will be
replaced with cedar trees in another location on site.
~nere will be security lights on each side of the building.
The building will use decorative block with a scored typed
face which will make it more attractive in appearance for the
neighboring apartment residents. The building has been re-
positioned five feet farther f-~-cm~ the west property line of
St. Therese. This increases the setback to 15 feet. There
is an existing cyclone fence around the golf course property.
During w-urm weather this fence is screened with vines.
Evergreens will be added along the fence to provide some
screening during winter months also. These trees will be
five feet in height when planted but will grow to a good~<
sized tree at maturity.
C~L,,L,~ssioner Gundershaug confirmed with Mr. Vogt that the
existing sheds on the golf course property will be removed
when the new building is completed.
In response to questions fz-~¥: C~L,,~,~ssioner Gundershaug
regarding water service, Mr. Dick Desplinter. Golf Course
Superintendent, stated that water will be routed from across
Bass Lake Road. The extension is part of a larger city
package, and will be completed as soon as possible after the
bidding process is complete.
In response to further questions, Mr. Desplinter stated that
there are perhaps six or seven truck deliveries a season.
This includes fertilizer, supplies for ground maintenance,
and gasoline. There is an existing gas pump on site.
In answer to a 'question frcm~ Chairman Cameron, Mr. Desplinter
stated there was one underground gas tank on the property.
He noted that there will be a State requirement in the future
that a sensor system be installed to detect leaks in a tank.
C~m~,~ssioner Oja inquired about use of the maintenance
building for repair of vehicles. She was also concerned
Plann/ng C~m,,~ssion Minutes August 1, 1989
-3-
about storage of chemicals on site.
Mr. Desplinter stated that the only repairs to be made in the
building would involve the lawn cutting equipment.
Mr. Vogt stated there will be t~o separate storage areas for
hazardous materials. One will be for paints, and one for
fertilizers and chemicals. ~ne areas will be separated by
concrete walls, and the floors will be sloped to the
exterior.
In response to questions from (hairman Cameron, Ms. Dunn
stated that both city staff monitored chemical storage.
Commissio~ Ga asked about curbing along the driveway.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff was not r~::::x~xtntnendir~:3' ~ir~3* for
this service drive.
Mr. Vogt responded to questions frcm Cu~nt,4ssioner Cassen
about the roof, stating that the roof will not be pitched,
but will be almost flat. It will be surfaced with a single
ply membrane similar to a pitch and gravel roof and will be
sloped gently.
In answer to questions about when a sewer line would be
extended, Mr. Desplinter stated they were presently working
on finding the "dollars" to complete the system. At this
time, they can hook up to the existing sewer system.
C~mt~issioner Watschke asked whether the building would be
heated?
Mr. Vogt stated that there will be two unit sized heaters and
the small rooms by vent-type heaters. ~nere will be no
rooftop heating equipment. There is u~,~lly not much
activity in the maintenance area from mid December to mid
March.
F~c~ by Commissioner Gundershaug re~,,.,~nd{ng a~ of
the site and ~{lding plans for the m~ntena~ ~ld~ng at
the New ~ Golf Course, 8/30 Bass T~ke ~oad, as requested
in C~e 89-18, subject to: deleti~ of the ~ seoxrity
light for the south wall ar~ provisions for a six ~ water
service to the pro~ by ~ of 1990. Cc~missioner C~a
secor~.
Planning Cc~ssion MinUtes August 1, 1989
-4-
5.1
5.2
NE~ m~SINESS
7.1
7.2
7.3
voting in favor:
voting against:
Absent:
O'Donel, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
None
C~t=~dssioner Watschke noted that on page three of the July 5,
1989 Planning Minutes there was an errot in the voting
~ne minutes were accepted as corrected.
~he Council Minutes of June 26, 1989 were reviewed.
~e ~ Minutes of June 26, 1989 were reviewed.
~hemeetin~w~sa~cur~byunam{m~as~at 8:03 p.m.
Planning Om~mdssionMinutes ~ August 1, 1989
CITY OF
4401 XYION AVE~IIE
~ (]~3NTY, MI~R~SOEA 55428
~5, 1989
~3BLIC HEARINGS
~C 89-17 (3,1)
AT 4471 ~ N.
~C 89-19 (3.2)
FRf~4 R-O TO B-1
AND (/IP TO OPERATE
A CC~V~n~ FOOD
7500 BASS LAKE RD.
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Gundersb~ug at
7:30 p.m.
Present: O'Donnell, Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke
Absent: Cameron, Cassen
Vice Chairman Gundershaug introduced Planning Case 89-17 and
stated that the petitioner has requested the case be ~abled for
one month.
Motion by Co~mmissioner Sonsin, secom~ by Commissioner Friedrich,
to ~hle Planning Case89-17untilthemee~ofOctobe_r3, 1989.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
0 ' Donnell, Zak, Sonsin,
Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
None
Cameron, Cassen
Friedrich,
Vice-ChairmanGundershaug introduced PlanningCase 89-19 and noted
that no one was present from Pizza Hut. He called for a motion to
t~blethecaseuntil later in the meeting.
F~f~ion by Co~u~,~ssioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich,
to ~mhle Planning Case 89-19 until later in the meeting.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke,
O' Donnell, Zak
None
Cameron, Cassen
Co~mdssioner Cassen arrived at 7:35 p.m.
I~C 89-20 (3.3)
5000 WINNA'I~A AV.
-2-
The Vice-Chairman introduced Planning Case 89-20 and asked for the
petitioner's presentation. Jeff Shopek, Merila and Associates,
representing Hoyt Development, explained that their request was
for the relocation of the parking lot shown on the south side of
on the original site plan to the east side of the buildinq. This
will allow for future development when Quebec Avenue is e~tended.
Cu~,~ssioner Gundershaug confirmed that the relocated parking lot
would be added to the outlot area.
Mr. Shopek stated that the new parking lot would have 80 stalls as
cc~pared to 73 in the origiDal plan.
Cu~ssioner Watschke pointed out that staff was recommending
elimination of an 18-stall bay and addition of green space on the
west side of the line.
Mr. Shopek commented that the thought was that the small amount of
grading and paving required with it was worth it for the 18 extra
stalls, since Hoyt Development owned all the property which slopes
into the next phase.
Jeannine Dunn, Management Assistant, commented that staff felt it
was a good policy to have the earthwork done on one parcel since
future subdivision and subsequent sale of the adjacent property
could happen.
Mr. Shopek stated that he thought Hoyt Development may eliminate
the stalls or adjust the property line to include the sloped
In response to a question from Commissioner Watschke, Ms. Dunn
stated this overlaying on the outlot has been reviewed by the City
Attorney and he is s~pportive of the outlot concept.
Cu~L~ssioner Watschke questioned the access of the outlot from
49th Avenue and the barricading of Quebec Avenue, and also asked
if there was any problem regarding the easements being requested.
Mr. Shopek pointed out the barricades would be set up to keep
people from using the access is extended. He added that they had
no problem with the easements being requested by the City.
Commissioner O'Donnell wondered if there would be any encroachment
on wetlands and also how the steep slope would be protected.
Mr. Shopek explained there were no wetlands involved and the slope
~as not as steep as it looked and would be easily maintained with
Co;~issioner C~a commented on the green space and stated she would
like to see the extra parking spaces eliminated in favor of more
green space. Vice-Chairman Gundershaug agreed that green area
was preferred.
-3-
C~,t,~ssioner Watschke asked if the work would propose any changes
to the landscape plan.
Mr. Shopek replied that the number of plantings will stay the same
and will just be transferred to the new area. He stated that he
did not think there would be a problem with elin~ation of the
parking spaces in favor of the green area.
Col~m,~ssioner Zak questioned what plantings and buffers were
planned originally for the new area of parking and wondered if
those plantings would be moved elsewhere; she also questioned
what buffers would be used in the south area where the original
Mr. Shopek indicated the original plantings would be shifted to
buffer the new parking lot from the south when future Quebec
extension w~s added, but nothing was planned for the vacated area
at present. He added that they have a revised landscape plan to
submit to staff for their approval.
Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, noted that where an industrial
area abuts another industrial area the need for buffering or
screening is not as critical.
Motion by Commissioner Watschke, second by Commissioner Friedrich,
to approve the request for preliminary plat approval and an
amendment to site/building plan at 5000 Winnetka Avenue, as
proposed in Planning Case 89-20, subject to the following
conditions:
e
e
~hat the eastern-most stall bay of parking is eliminat~ on
the relocated lot so that all gradir~ work is accommodated_ on
Imtl.
~hat a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement is placed
alor~ the northeast corner of lot 1 to its ~-~t prop~
line.
~at a 20-foot drainage ar~] utility eas~m~c is ~_icated on
the north line of the outlot.
~at 7 feet of half right of way is dedicated along that
portion of the outlot abuttin~ 49th Avenue.
~hat a drainage ar~ utility ~.~=m~nt is dedicated along the
end section of the storm s~r.
~hat the drive~ay ~ to the fubare Quebec Avenue f~um
~at the plat indicate that the ra~]road right of way is the
~oo T.im ~l~d.
~t the I~c~U~ ~ul~t a ~ev~ed la~c~pe plan to ~f
receive a financial guarantee for public storm sewer
-4-
O,*,.,,{-~ic~ers Watscb]~e and Friedric~ agreed
request a part of the moti~l.
to make the staff
Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja,
O'Donnell, Zak, Cassen, Sonsin
Voting against: None
Absent: Cameron
Design and Review Co~m~dttee has not met.
Watschke,
4.2
NM~ ~3SINESS
6.1
6.2
6.3
MOTION
Codes and Standards has not met. Meeting date set for September.
27th.
Planning Coi~u~,~ssion Minutes of August 1, 1989, were approved.
Council Minutes and Special Council Minutes of July 20, July 24,
July 31, August 8, August 14, and August 21, were reviewed.
HRA Minutes of June 12, 1989, were reviewed.
Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner for Planning Case 89-19 would
be present by 8:00 p.m. Vice-Chairman Gundershaug recessed the
meeting at 7:45 p.m. to allow the petitioner time to arrive.
Motion by Coim~,~ssioner Sonsin, seco~ by Commissioner Oja to
reconvene the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
C~a, Watschke, O'Donnell,
Friedrich, Gundershaug,
None
Cameron
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin,
Motion by Co~u~,~ssioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich,
to consider Planning Case 89-19.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Oja, Watschke, O'Donnell, Zak,
Friedrich, Gundershaug
None
Cameron
Cassen, Sonsin,
PC 89--19 (3.2)
FIRC~ R-O TO B-1
7500 BASS I3kKE RD.
The Vice-Cha~ introduced Planning Case 89-19 and asked for the
petitioner's presentation.
Allan Broholm, Senior Real Estate Representative from Pizza Hut of
Hut of America, stated he wished to convert the ex~.'sting closed
Taco Bell Restaurant, 7500 Bass Iake Road, to a delivery/carry-out
Pizza Hut facility. It will be company-owned and there will be no
provisions for on-site consumption of food, seating, or liquor
licenses. The facility will be open from 11:00 a.m. to midnight
Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. on Friday and
Saturday.
Mr. Broholm continued by saying that there are about 20 such units
open in the Twin Cities at present. They do not have a ~ar~nteed
delivery time. The average age of delivery drivers is 26 years
old and they go through a comprehensive training p~. 90% of
sales are delivered, 10% are carry-out. Mr. Broholm explained
that there would be minor exterior remodeling, and landscaping
would be kept in place and upgraded and spruced up. They would
like to change the signage and put in a larger window in front and
a new front door.
Commissioner Sonsin questioned the pick-up aspect of the business
and wondered if people ccmling in and leaving would cause a problem
with traffic and parking building up.
Mr. Broholm stated there will not be a drive-up window; people
call in their orders for delivery or come in to pick them up.
Walk-in customers will have about a 12-14 minute wait, but
typically people do not wish to wait. This will not be a place
where young people will be congre~[ating and waiting. There will
be only two employees on duty, one to cook and answer phone and
one to deliver. This facility will have 22 parking spots, larger
than most of their facilities, and traffic generation would be, at
a peak time, about 20 movements in an hour with probably only 4 or
5 cars in the lot at any given time. Their peak hour is generally
about 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Sonsin noted the staff request that the 40-foot curb
cut on Bass Lake Road be reduced to 26 feet and asked if that
would be a problem. He also noted the City's requirement that no
phone ~ be displayed on signs.
Mr. Broholm noted t_hat the curb cut will not cause a problem only
if there were one vehicle entering and one exiting at the same
time, it might force one to make a shallower turn. He emphasized
that they are very dependent on the telephone as 90% of their
sales are telephone orders and some of their estm~blishments have
phone numbers displayed in neon tubes in the window. He noted
that this was the first time the phone number issue had cc~e up.
Ms. Dunn clarified that signage is restricted to business
identification, and can include business name or logo only.
-6-
Vice-Chairman Gundershaug recommended they check with City staff
to confirm the ordinance regarding this.
Commissio~ Sonsin called attention to the sign height and
lettering size.
Mr. Broholm indicated they would comply with sign requirements.
Co~L,~,~ssioner Sonsin questioned the landscaping and screening that
is intended for the site and noted the requirements tb~t
residential areas be buffered and screened from business.
Mr. Broholm indicated they were not aware that a landscape plan
was required.
Following discussion reg~ the landscaping, the retaining
wall, fencing, ~ enclosure, sidewalks, doors, and suggestions
for treatment of the site, Mr. Broholm indicated they would be
happy towork with staff to attain what is required.
Vice-Chairman Gundershaug questioned if the parking spaces in
front could be eliminated and green area be put in.
Mr. Broholm stated they could comply and eliminate the noted
spaces.
Commissioner C~a asked about delivery trucks, their size, where
they enter, andwhere they turn around.
Mr. Broholm emphasized there ~as no room for a semi, but the
people delivering materials to make the pizza would have to use
smaller trucks. He noted that garbage trucks may have to back in.
Mr. Brixius confirmed that a garbage truck could adequately make
the turn around.
Vice-Chairman Gundershaug invited persons in the audience to come
forward with their comments.
Tim Metzger, 5616 Pennsylvania Avenue, Crystal, stated his concern
was if the rezoning would give them the right to expand and if
they might put an access in from Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Metzger
also was concerned that semi-trucks might pull on to Pennsylvania
Avenue if they could see they had a problem getting in to the site
off Bass Lake Road.
Vice-Chairman Gundershaug confirmed there could be no curb cut
added on to Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dunn added that if there was any expansion planned in the
future it would require another notice and public hearing for an
amendment to the conditional use permit. She stated the proposed
B-1 zoning classification does not allow a drive-up window.
-7-
Victor Fish, 5608 Pennsylvania Avenue, Crystal, asked what
provisions would be made to make sure customers would park in the
parking lot and discourage them from parking around the corner on
his street and walking up to the site since, traffic is so heavy
on Bass Lake Road. He also expressed concern about the colors to
be used, the possibility of empty food boxes being' thrown away at
random and littering the area, and deliveries being made late at
night.
Mr. Broholm assured that the landscaping would encourage people
to use the sidewalk. He confirmed that no color change to the
building was planned and added that black and red colors would be
used in signs which would be lower and smaller than the present
ones. He emphasized that their product is usually in large boxes
and most customers take it directly to their cars to take it
home. He stated that if litter became a problem, they would
police the area and keep it cleaned up. He also emphasized that
deliveries of products used in their business would only be made
during daytime hours and then probably only 3 times a week.
Jo Ridl, owner of the apartment building next door, expressed her
concern over the vacant lot and if it might be developed further
for parking.
Mr. Broholm confirmed it would remain as is and would be
maintained.
Mr. Fish questioned the zoning. Mr. Brixius read the types of
uses allowed om a B-1 zoning classification per the City code.
Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, secor~ by Gale Friedrich, to
approve the request f~r rezc~dr~ f~. R-O to B-l, and a
ca~iitio~a] use permit to allow a convenienoe food take-
out/delivery es~hl~~, as proposed in Planning Case 89-19,
subject to the follc~ng comditic~s:
~he curb cut on Bass Take l%oad is reduced to t-w~-six (26)
feet.
~at the pylon signa~e is l~mlted to a height of tw~ (20)
feet.
~uat lettering size of "Pizza Hut Carry-Out" phrase on the
south side of the awning is reduced to a maximum height of 12
immbes.
~hat all lmhone numbers are ~e~oved from signage on the site.
~hat landscapin~ is imp~uved on the north and east sides in
order to enhance a buffer ~ the cr~m~rc~an and
residential uses, subject to approval by sf~ff.
~l~at the f~ on the w~st side of the property and the
~at trash enclosure is repaired and doomed acceptable by the
B,~]d~ng Inspector.
-8-
e
10.
ALl b~lding plans am~ mterials are subject to review by the
City staff.
~hat the hours of operation are l~m~ted to:
Sunday through ~m~-sday - 11:00 a.m. to /2:00 a.m.
Friday arx] Saturday - 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
~at three tk3rking s~11.~ on the front of the ]~,11ding are
r~oved and replaced by appropriate green objects.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Oja, Watschke, O'Donnell,
Friedrich, Gundershaug
None
Cameron
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin,
Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commission Watschke, to
adjcurn themeeting. The meetingwas adjournedbyunanimous consent at
9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucille Butler
Secretary
CITY OF N~ ~DPE
4401 ~ AV~FJE NO,IH
~ (I~Uf, M]I~SOZA 55428
October 3, 1989
~he meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m.
Present: O'Donnell, Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
Absent: None
l~n~ .~C ~mm~INGS
PC 89-17 (3.1)
4471 WINNETKA NO.
Jeannine Dunn, Management Assistant,
bas withdrawn the case.
stated that the petitioner
PC 89-21 (3.2)
5/21-47-75 WINNETKA
AV~0E ~
Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-21 and asked for
the petitioner's presentation.
Rick Knoll, representing Harry S. Johnson Company who is
doing the platting of the property, stated that they were asking
for preliminary plat approval of the combining of 7 tracts of land
into two lots. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there was no
development C~tamitltlent.
Ms. Dunn stated that the
petitioner to build a "link"
most western buildings.
preliminary plat would allow the
for transportation between the two
Bruce Kaufman, 5017 Wisconsin Avenue, questioned why it was
necessary to change the legal description.
Mr. Knoll explained that the City required the land be platted in
order for them to make this link between the buildings.
Ms. Dunn explained that the rationale for the City's requirement
is that it would be considered a permanent structure which would
straddle two property lines, which is not permitted by city Code.
Chairman Gundershaug asked what use is being made of the property
at present and if there would be any parking or code requirement
problems associated with the combining of the two lots into one.
Ms. Dunn explained that one of the tenants is a printing company
with which there is some purported problems with odors. The City
is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control A~ency on the
issue. Honeywell is in the most eastern structure and Ms. Dunn
said that she was not familiar with who the other two tenants
were. She confirmed that all lots meet the City Code.
Planning Commission
-1- October3, t989
CC~UUfEE REPO~S
4.1
4.2
4.2B l~fIC~
Planning CoIL~L~ssion
Motio~ by C~m~dssioner Gundershaug, second by Coimp]ssioner ~-~
Friedrich, to approve the request for preliminary plat approval as
proposed i~ P~ Case 89--21, subjeu-~ to ~ following
over the po~ng area located in the northeast corner of
IDt2, Block 1.
A 10 foot drainage and ut~]{ty ~-~=m~nt ~s dedicated
along the lot 1~ sepaz-a~ Imts 1 and 2.
A 20 foot wide drainage ~ utility ~-~t is
e
~at the d~nsiom~ ~e ~evised to show accurate
measures ar~ that _+ signs ~e r~wed.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
O'Donnell, Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich,
Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
None
None
Design and Review C.,..~L"ui'tt~ ~ not met.
Codes and Standards met and reviewed the proposed ordinance
~t regarding the definition of an "outlot" and the
proposed ordinance amendment regar~ minor subdivisions.
M~tic~ by C~p,p~ssioner Sonsin, ~ by C~uq,~ssioner Watschke, to
voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
O'Donnell, Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Frieclrich,
Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke.
None.
None o
~t_io~ by C~pq,~ssioner Sonsin, seoc~ by C~L~t~issioner Watschke,
in the ordinanoe ~m~r~m~nt regardin~ m~or sulxlivisions.
voting in favor:
ag n :
Absent:
O'Donnell, Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich,
Cameron, Gundershaug, C0a, Watshcke.
None o
None o
. m2-
October3, 1989
(6.1)
Ms. Dunn informed the CozL,,L,~ssion that the previous discussed
ordinance changes would be presented to the City Council on
October 23, 1989.
Chairman Cameron introduced the presentation regarding proposed
proposed fire facility.
Doug Smith, Director of Fire and Safety, introduced himself and
Greg Stanger, Firefighter, and stated that they were present to
give the Commission some background information on the proposed
fire facility.
Mr. Smith reviewed the process that led up to a resolution passed
by the City Council in 1987 to form a Strategic Planning Committee
to study the existing facility. The cohmdttee looked at the
needs of the fire service and identified that one of the needs was
a new fire facility. They submitted a report to the Council, and
looked into ways of funding the project. On November 7th voters
will be asked to approve a $1.8 million dollar bond issue to help
finance the proposed facility.
Mr. Stanger listed the drawbacks of the present facility such as
poor lighting, poor heating, no air conditioning, overcrowded
conditions, sub-standard training facilities, and inadequate
storage area. They have kept up wi th training and new
technologies in fire fighting, but the building is not up to those
standards. The firefighters feel that with the new facility they
will have up-to-date standards that will handle any advanced
equipment and technology for the next 20 years, plus the office
space and storage area needed. Mr. Stanger stressed the point
that the decision was made to keep the station in the area of the
present location because it is centrally located to serve all
residents in a minimum response time. It also provides emergency
vehicle access on to a light c~u~rcial street and a controlled
intersection rather than on to a residential street as is the case
now.
Mr. Smith outlined an extensive publicity program to inform the
citizens, city employees, and the firefighters themselves. Flyers
will be handed out, an article will be in the City Report, six
public meetings will be held, including meetings at North Ridge
and St. Therese for seniors. A model will be on display at the
Fire Station Open House on October 11. A phone survey of
residents has already been conducted which has indicated positive
Mr. Smith stated that North Memorial is interested in housing a
life support vehicle in the new station.
Commissioner Gundershaug asked what was going to happen to the
old station.
Plannir~ Com,,~i~ion
-3-
October3, 1989
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Mr. Smith replied that no firm plans have been made yet, but the
fire service would no longer be occupying the space, with the
exception of the siren tower, unless it was remounted on a pole.
Chairman Cameron thanked Mr. Smith and Mr. Stanger for their
report.
Planning Co~u~,~ssion minutes of September 5,
1989, were approved.
Council Minutes of August 28 and September 11 were reviewed.
EDA minutes of July 24 and September 11 were reviewed.
HRA minutes of August 14 were reviewed.
Chairman Cameron noted that the meeting for November would be held
on Wednesday, November 8, instead of Tuesday, because of the
referendum on the fire facility.
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucille Butler, Secretary
4401 ~ AV~3E
~ fidgeTY, ~ 55428
~ 8, 1989
~ne meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
Absent: Friedrich, Zak
PC 89-22 (3.1)
USES IN AN R-5
ZC~ING D~CT
USE PE~(IT F~
SAME AT 543O BOC~E
AVENUE N~
Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 88-22 and invited the
the petitioner to present his request.
Mr. Charles Thompson, North Ridge Care Center, explained that they
would like to open a full-service branch of the Marquette New Hope
Bank in North Ridge Care Center strictly for the convenience of
their residents and personnel. F~ emphasized that it is not in-
tended to be for general public use and would have no outside
signage to indicate the presence of a banking facility. He stated
they bad received approval fL-~¥~ the Banking Commission. He added
that they were also requesting conditional use permits for a
pharmacy and two beauty shops which have been in the building for
several years.
Mr. Thompson indicated some concern with the 2,000 square foot
gross floor area limit of the ordinance, wondering if that total
applied to their whole complex or to the individual buildings in
their complex.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, explained that
the intent of the ordinance was to apply on a per building basis,
but to limit the size of each cu~rcial entity to 500 square
feet.
C~,,,Hssioner Sonsin questioned the possibility of the 5 types of
business listed in the ordinance all being used in one facility
and would therefore be over the 2000 squ~re foot restriction.
Mr. Brixius explained that some businesses may use less square
footage than others, such as the bank only using 195 s~mre feet,
therefore adjustments could acccm,~date the 2000 square foot
limit.
Commissioner Gundershaug questioned if parking would be affected
and if window signs indicating a bank facility would face outside.
C~airman Cameron questioned the area of responsibility when there
is more than one business contained in a facility.
-1-
Mr. Brixius explained that the conditional use permit applies~-~
specifically to the property and the owner would be hel~'
responsible for any violations.
~tic~ by Cu~,,tdssioner Sonsin, secc~ by Co~t~missioner Oja, to
approve the Planner's E~it B versic~ of the text a~ndment
~ uses within an ~-5 (Senior Citizen ~i__r!ential) Zoning
District (allows no signage).
voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
_c~__~sen, Sonsin,
Watschke
Gundershaug
Zak
Friedrich, Cameron, Oja,
C~t.~dssioner Sonsin asked for clarification on the request for a
conditional use permit for the existing beauty shops and pharmacy.
He questioned what types of uses the new banking facility would
offer, and also what physical changes may have to be made to the
Ms. Jeannine Dunn, Management Assistant, explained that they exist
as a legal non-conforming use and that the action before the
Commission would approve those businesses as a conditional use
under the R-5 classification. ~--~
Mr. Thu~son explained that it would be a full-service bank,
exclusive of loans, and would have only 1 or 2 employees, and
occasionally a trust officer when r~ed. He emphasized they
would have their own safe and a security system plus fire alarm
and their own phone system, all c~mplying with banking
regulations. He explained they might have to put a window and a
door on the interior wall in the unit where the bank is to be
Commissioner Gundershaug indicated that a sign currently exists
for the pharmacy and asked if it was considered exterior signage.
Ms. Dunn replied that window signage is considered exterior
signage and would not be allowed.
F~c~ by C~.~,~ssioner Sonsin, ~ by Cu~.~,~ssioner Oja, to
appzu~e P~ Case 89-22, cMti~] use permit to allow a
bank, ~ shop ~ pharma~ at North 1~_~ Care C~mYcer, 5430
Boc~e Ave~e North, with the c~tion that any external signage
Voting for: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Oja, Watschke
voting against: Gundershaug
Absent: Friedrich, Zak
-2-
PC 89-23 (3.2) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-23 and requested the
R~X~ST FOR PIANNED petitioner to make a presentation.
Mr. Daniel Donahue, City Manager, stated this was a planning case
involving city center park area. He outlined the basics of the
concept plan to relocate the bathhouse to the north side of the
the pool to make room for the construction of the fire facility in
the old bathhouse area. He cited the urgency to move operations
forward so that the construction of the new bathhouse can begin
SITE~DING PIAN right away in order to be ready for opening on June 1, 1990, and
APPRDVAL FOR BA~- allow construction of the fire station to move ahead in the spring
~C~SE FA~.~TY AT of 1990.
4401 XYIf~ AY. N.
He emphasized that the City is aware that it will take some time
to fully develop a concept plan for the city center park area and
the issues involved in that development, such as parking,
relocation of the tennis courts, and compatibility of inter-
related uses of the park area. He stated they were recommending
tabling of the concept of the park improvements, but were asking
for finalization on the relocation and construction of the
Mr. Bernard Herman, Architect, presented the plans for the bath-
house and explained the decision for a design that would look like
a single building, but would actually be 3 separate buildings to
house the pool and an equipment building for pool related
equipment, d%lorinator, etc., and a concession stand. He added
that the design also upgrades the facility to meet the handicap
code, corrects other functional problems of an old, outdated
building, and corrects the drainage problems of the parking lot.
Mr. Herman stated the primary concern was a contain roof system for
the complex of pool buildings and a design to integrate this
complex with the design of the fire station. He outlined the
design features that break up the long wall look, which was a
concern of the Design and Review Co~m-~,~ttee. The features include
the use of a wide recessed entrance, the installation of four 2-
foot square windows, a triangular landscape area in front of the
wall, plus other landscape features. He also indicated that a
stripe in the brick would match that proposed for the fire
facility. He stressed that the wall was actually a base to the
building and was important to the structure. He pointed out the
intent to make it a maintenance-free building with metal roof and
fascias, aluminum windows and doors and framing, aluminum
ventilating louvres directly above the brick wall, translucent
glass above the louvers. He explained the planting area and the
intention to add 3 evergreen trees in the boulevard area and some
cluster planting at the northeast corner of the building and other
screening. He concluded that they would be adding an addendum
describing the additional plant material to be included in the
project bid.
C~,~ssioner Gundershaug addressed the issue of the severe
elevation currently existing and the filling in of the city hall
-3-
Mr. Herman confirmed that the south end of the parking lot and the~_~.
regradir~ and the parking problem will be dealt with as a separat¢~
city project.
C~t,,~ssioner Oja questioned the flat-top roof areas and the water
run-off problem and Cu~m~ssioner Watschke questioned the water
run-off areas.
Mr. Herman confirmed there would be water running off the flat
areas, but he did not think it would be a problem since this type
of building is a wet building to be~in with and even the cleaning
process of the building is with high-pressure hoses.
C~,,L,~ssioner Cassen asked about the colors of the metal being
used and why metal was being used in the ventilating louvers
rather than glass to produce more light.
Mr. Herman explained that the colors were not finalized as yet
since they would be the same as the fire station and still being
reviewed. He pointed out that the louvers would be open when the
building is being used and the area above the louvers is tempered
translucent glass, plus there are skylights above each of the
locker rooms and the central cashier areal providing plenty of
light.
Roger Olson, 8501 44th Avenue North, was recognized and he stated
he lived directly west of the hockey rink. He questioned the~-~
structural life span of the pool.
Shari French, Park and Recreation Director, responded that during
the past four years the City has had the pool looked at by the
City Engineer and a consultant fr~m a major pool company,
Recreonics. Both sources report that the pool is in very good
condition, but neither could easily estimate the life of such a
facility. Most such facilities last 25 to 40 years. This one has
already lasted 25 years with what seems to be many years left.
Cc~missio~ Gundershaug questioned where the funds would be
coming from for the bathhouse.
City Manager Donahue responded that the funds would cc~e from
interest earnings on excess revenues from an existing tax
increment district which will run until 1996 and will be in excess
of $1 million dollars. The City Council bas amended the district
to include City Center Park improvements using the interest
F~Yci~ by O~mL,~ssioner Gundershaug, second by C~mHssioner Cassen,
to ~hle Planned Unit Devel ~c~=nt C~xliti~l Use Permit Concept
Plar~i~ C~se 89-23 until the meetir~ of Deo=mher 5, 1989.
-4-
PC 89-24 (3.3)
~]~]]::lvl]~ ~ AT~'~T
AB-3 ZC~TING DIST-
FRC~ R-O AND I-2
R~ PARKIN~
SETBACK ~ 7675/
7701~ 4~ AV.N.
~ P~ OF 4~4
~AV. N.
voting for: Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
Voting against: Cameron
Absent: Zak, Friedrich
Moticml by C~,,,L,4ssioner Gundershaug, secor[~ by C~mp~ssioner Oja, to
approve Site~,~]8~r~ plan for the Bathhouse Facility request_~ in
Voting for: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Voting against: none
Absent: Zak, Friedrich
C~a, Watschke
Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-24, and called Mr.
Tom Boettcher f;-~-~ Autohaus to explain his request.
Mr. Boettcher stated they plan to purchase the animal hospital
next door to their business and expand their facility for storage,
display, and retail sales of automobiles.
Chairman Cameron emphasized that there were four issues to the
case, several of which were exclusive concerns for the Planning
Coamd~sion/Planner. He explained that those concerns had been
studied by Codes and Standards ~L.L,~tt~ for some time and their
reccxmner~_m_tions and options should be considered before the
Autohaus case is discussed.
Mr. Brixius addressed the question of the impact of a full-scale
atrtcmobile dealership inthe cul~m~unity, traffic volume, space
needs, outdoor storage, and site location limitations. He stated
they had reviewed both the /ndustrial districts and the B-3
commercial auto-oriented districts. He explained that the intent
of the B-3 district is to provide services in retail establish-
ments that are oriented to the automobile, but it does not permit
outdoor sales. He further stated that the I-2 zoning has some
c~atibility problems with the amount of customer traffic and the
type of use t_hat would occur in mixing of ~ial/industrial
uses which h~ proven to be undesirable. He explained that a
number of sites capable of meeting performance standards set forth
in the proposed amendment had been inventoried. Ten industrial
sites and 3 ~ial sites exist.
Mr. Brixius continued with an explanation of the character of
42nd Avenue as the main commercial corridor/hub of the community.
He listed the existing businesses and uses in the area and pointed
out that, if the amendment is approved, they are all permitted
uses in a B-3 district, with the exception of two office
buil~. Staff consensus w-ds that they could compatibly exist
in a ~Lm~ial zoning district.
-5-
Mr. Brixius ~ performance standards of the Autohaus type.~.~.
of business, stating that it was the intention to have a full-:
service type of arrangement to assure investment. He stressed
certain requirements, such as location adjacent to an arterial
street in order to handle traffic that is anticipated with auto
sales, compatibility of architechtural appearance, front-yard
display in sale of automobiles, screening of body shop, prohibi-
tion of outdoor repair, properly engineered drainage area to
handle fluids from leaking automobiles, surfacing and striping of
parking stalls, curbing, etc. He addressed the site standards
re~ lot size, width, lighting, signage to prevent a
carnival atmosphere, and permi~ sales area. He pointed out
that all standards apply as city-wide provisions. He called
attention to the provision for front-yard display of automobiles,
stating it was an unresolved issue, therefore two separate
ordinances have been prepared for further discussion.
Chairman Cameron called upon the Codes and Standards Committee to
present their discussions.
Commissioner Sonsin emphasized that their major concern was
whether to allow any outdoor sales of automobiles, leasing,
display in the front-yard setback and the Codes and Standards
Committee was not unanimously accepts_hie to that plan,
particularly in looking to the future possibility of not always
having high-qn,ality and late-model types of automobiles handled at
the designated sites, and opening the door for less desirable~
types of operation.
Co~mHssioner Gundershaug stated that Design and Review Committee
had been requested to look at this also and he has bad second
thoughts on the issue after studying the numbers and kinds of cars
that now sit in front of other businesses on 42nd Avenue. He
suggested a limit to number of cars that would be allowed and
elimination of any type of display that would cause distraction
for passing motorists.
Mr. Brixius listed the possible sites available in the City that
might eventually be used for this type of operation.
Mr. Boettcher presented his c~m~nts on aspects of his business
in compar~n with other types of businesses in the community and
defended the n~ for the display of automobiles. He called
attention to the original setback allowed for the building and the
property recently taken for the street widening. He cited his
record of business in the community and stated his intention to
enhance and upgrade the building.
F~fcion by O~,Ldssioner Sonsin, secor~ by C~m~,issioner Gundershaug,
t~ approve the draft ordinance ~m~ng the New Hope Zoning Code
~ for sales, service, leasir~/ren~al, ar~ re~(r as a
CC~d(tio~kll USe in B-3 (Auto-Ori~ Business) Zc~r~ Districts,/_~
as stated in Exhibit C, Option #1, (allowing no automobile displa5
in the required front yard).
-6-
Ms. Dunn requested clarification as to whether or not the motion
allowed outdoor display in areas other than front yard.
Mr. Brixius explained the differences in the two ordinances being
presented and cka~-~_nted on the alternatives.
Commissio~ Gundershaug requested a clarification on requirement
for front yard landscaping in Exhibit C. Option #1.
Mr. Brixius confirmed that it was a totally landscaped front yard.
C~m,~ssioner Gundershaug expressed his opposition to the total
Chairman Cameron c~a~.~_nted on the motion and the controls that
would discourage any automobile operations in the City. He
indicated that the proposed ordinance gave the City reasonable
control.
C~a~.~issioner Sonsin stated his preference for a more restrictive
ordinance on the basis of necessity of future controls.
voting in favor: Sonsin
Voting against: Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Ga, Watschke
Absent: Zak, Friedrich
Motic~ by C~m,dssioner Sons/n, secor~ by Commissioner Gundershaug,
to app~uve the draft ordinance ~~3 the New Hope Zc~ng Code
to p~c,~ide for ~cor vehicle sales, ser~oe, leasir~ren-tal, and
repair as a c~x~i~l use i~ B-3 (/%/iko-Ori~ B~siness)
~ Districts, as stated in Exhibit D, Optic~ #3 (allows some
automobile display in the required front yard - Provision
1(4) (i)).
Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke
Voting against: None
Absent: Zak, Friedrich
Chairman Cameron questioned the petitioner about tabling the
balance of his case until the Council b~ reviewed the ordinance
amendment.
Mr. Boettcher indicated he did not want to t~_ble the case.
Ms. Dunn explained that the preliminary plat was not complete when
submitted. She recu~.L..ended that the plat be tabled.
-7-
F~fcio~ by Cu.~issioner Gundershaug, secomd by Commission Sonsin,.~
to ~mhle the prel~minazy plat until the meeting of ~ 5,~
1989 o
voting for: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
Voting against: None
Absent: Zak, Friedrich
Ms. Dunn confirmed that the C~ission could discuss and make a
recommendation on the rezoning of land to the City Council.
Mr. Brixius addressed the rezoning issue and stated that past
discussions indicated that a B-3 zoning was more desirable for the
42nd Avenue area than the existing industrial classification.
Chairman Cameron listed the conditions for rezoning and stated
that staff has indicated that conditions have changed so as to
allow rezoning on the property in question.
F~ic~ by Commissioner Gundershaug, second, by Commissioner Sonsin
to ~rec3~,,~nd the rezonir~ f~ R-O [Resin-Office) and I-2
(General Zr~x~l) to B-3 (~~_~_ ~usin~) Zoning
District, as re~t~ in Planning Case 89-24.
voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja;
Watschke
voting against: None
Absent: Zak, Friedrich
Chairman Cameron continued the case and asked for the variance
requests and conditional use permit to be tm_bled, since Design and
Review has not had an opportunity to consider the variances, and
until the petitioner has presented firm site plans, landscape
plans, sign plans, etc.
F~fcio~ by Conmtissioner Gundershaug, secor~ by Commissioner Oja to
~mhle the rec~ for ~ to th~ rec~]ired O~l?dnor storage
setback ar~ re~,ired tkmrking setback, ~ the conditional use
pezmit to allow outdoor sales, urfcil De--bet 5, 1989.
Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Ga,
Watschke
Voting against: None
Absent: Zak, Friedrich
-8-
6.1
6.3
6.4
6.5
AB~OURNMENT
Ms. Dunn informed the C~m~ssion that they would be receiving
replacement pages of the City Code for insertion in code books.
She also announced the resignation of Commissioner O'Donnell
since he has relocated in Burnsville because of his job.
Planning Ommmission minutes of October 3, 1989, were approved.
Council Work Session Minutes of September 18, 1989, and Council
M~ of Se~ 25 and October 9, 1989, were reviewed.
~ ~%inutes of ~ 11, 1989, were reviewed.
HRA minu~es of September 25, 1989, were reviewed.
~ne meeting was adjourned by uD~nimous consent at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucille Butler, Secretary
-9-
C~TY OF ~ ~QPE
4401 ~ AVB~W3E N0~{
~ OQ[~TY, ~ 55428
__Deo,:,mh~r 5, 1989
The meeting sfas called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7: 30 p.m.
Present: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Friedrich, Zak
Absent: None
Watschke,
l:13RT ,TC }{EARINGS
~C 89-23 (3.1)
UNIT ~ DPMB~T
CENTER PARK IM-
~OV~TS, 4401
XYIDN AVB~3E NO.
Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-23 and noted that the
petitioner ban requested the case be ~_bled.
Motic~ by C~Lat~isioner Sonsin, seocr~ by O~at,~ssioner Friedrich, to
~'ahle Plannir~ ~-~ 89-23 until January 2, ]_989.
voting in favor:
voting against:
Absent:
Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich,
Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
None
None
Cameront
PC 89-24 (3.2)
~ "~ AT.Tr~/
A B-3 ZON/lqG DIST-
~ R-0 AND I-2
P. Hi~/RED PARKU~
SET CK AT 7675/
7701-09 42ND AV.N.
AND PAI~ OF 4/24
NO.
Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-24 and called for
a discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the City Council
rec~L,,~endation to take another look at the restrictions that were
put in the ordinance or outdoor display. He called upon C~m~,~s-
sioner Sonsin to review the background of the Codes and Standards
decision.
C~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin stated that all the considerations given to
the ordinance recognized that it covered several other properties
and locations as well as the petitioner's property, and also any
current and future businesses at all locations. He emphasized
that the Cu~u~,~ssion believed that 42nd Avenue is an auto-oriented
the City Council adopt an ordinance which would allow outdoor dis-
play of automobiles that would not exceed 20% of the required
front yard with a 20-foot setback. He reviewed the Planner's
drawings of the various options given in the Planning Case Report.
¢zam%issioner Oja stated she is cc~forta_ble with the original
rec~m~m_ndation for 20%.
Chairman C~meron aske~__ what the setbacks are on neighboring
properties.
Jeannine Dunn, Management Assistant, explained that there were
several properties on the south side of 42nd Avenue with 50'
building setbacks and green areas in front, with the exception of
the Animal Hospital which had a non-conformir~ setback before the
Planning Cu~...L~qion ~ -1- _~_~.~ 5, 1989
42nd Avenue Project. She stated that the north side of 42nd
Avenue has parking lots in front of most businesses with parking
lot setbacks of 5 feet frc~ the property line. ~ne new property
line is one foot behind the sidewalk.
C~m~dssioner Gundershaug asked for clarification on the original
setback. He added that he would not have a problem with the 10'
setback and 30% display area in front yard.
C~m~,~ssioner Zak stated that she also would have no problem with
the 30% coverage and the 10' setback allowing more display to
avoid it looking overcrowded as long as there was adequate land-
scaping included.
C~m~dssioner Watschke c~m,ented that he was cc~fortble with the
30% display area in front, which would allow a more eye-catching
display rather than an overcrowded one.
Chairman Cameron asked how the City enforces the number of cars
allowed in the ordinance.
Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, replied the City
would have an approved site plan and inspect to ensure c~liance.
Commissioner Friedrich asked if there would be inside display and
added t/hat he would have no problem with the 30%, but would
prefer a 15' setback.
Chairman Cameron c~m~nted that he felt the 30% display area with
the 10' setback is reasonable, since the north side of the street
has parking closer to the street.
Mr. Brixius indicated that the proposed ordinance called for 15
foot parking area setbacks and asked if the Commission wanted to
revise its rec~m~x~ation.
C~,,,,dssioner Gundershaug suggested the 5' rear and side yard
setbacks for parking be maintained as a matter of consistency.
C~=,dssioner Watschke questioned if the setback applied to the
property in question or all other parcels in the City and if the
zoning on adjacent properties would affect the setback allowance.
C~m~sioner Sonsin ~ that the setbacks should be
consistent and further stated that he would prefer the 20% setback
at the present time, but would be open to ~ change in the future.
to ~ tl~ ~,a~,..=,3,ed ~ of the ]3-3 C~zliticr, a]. Use
~t f~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ f~ a 1~
f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 3~ ~ ~ ~ f=~
~lay~ ~f~ s~~ ~ ~~ ~ f~~.
Pla~ing Ckamaissic~ MiFLFce~ -2- DeOE~be~ 5, 1989
voting in favor:
voting against:
Absent:
Cassen, Friedrich,
Watschke, Zak
Sonsin, C~a
None
C~airman Cameron then called for consideration of the preliminary
plat and asked if it was permissible to plat property that is not
yet owned by the petitioner.
Ms. Dunn replied that it can be approved contingent upon the
transfer of the property being shown on the fir~] plat.
C~m,~ssioner Gundershaug ask~ for confirmation on the location of
the school district property and the animal hospital property that
Autohaus is trying to accurate.
Tom Oestreich, representing Autohaus, stated that the animal
hospital .site acquisition ha~ been finalized, but they were still
negotiating with the school district to obtain the property they
wished to accurate, and the plat is based on their ownership of the
total properties.
C~airman Cameron asked if the Planner b~ any problems
concerning approval of the preliminazy plat.
Mr. Brixius rec~L~ approval of the plat be contingent upon
items addressed in a letter from the City Engineer.
C~L,,~,~ssioner Gundershaug questioned if it would beccm~ one parcel
or three separate ones.
Ms. Dunn replied that it would bec~me one parcel and would not be
allowed as three separate ones. She indicated that a 30' strip of
property currently owned by the school ~crict would remain after
the platting. She suggested that this property be incorporated
into the plat.
Mr. Oestreich .explained that they had some difficulty firming who
owned the 30' strip, and since the preliminary plat was done they
did learn it was owned by the school district and it is their
intention to try and ac~,~e it.
Cu~,,,~sioner Gundershaug questioned if the 30' area could be
d e q d.
Mr. Oestreich stat~ that he did not think it could be developed.
Chairman Cameron questioned if the ~sett Creek Watershed
C~ssion w~uld have to be involved in the platting since there
Planning (lJ,-,dssion ~
-3-
Dso~i~er 5, 1989
Ms. Dunn replied that it was not a re~ to have the project.~-~
reviewed by the Bassett Creek Watershed Ccmm/ssion because of the
size of the project. However, the City Engineer reviewed this
case with the standards of the watershed in m/nd, and the sensi-
tivity of the proximity of a ponding area to the collision center.
The City Engineer has rec~i,~nded that the petitioner take sc~e
actions, such as installantion of curbing, etc, to protect the
quality of t_he water.
No~,~_r 27. 1989,
Ar~erlik ar~ A~nciaf~, and ~ized as follc~s:
Installation of concrete rather than bituminous curb.
Provision of a 20' drainage and utility easement along
east property line prcf%ibiting overland drainage to Old
Preparation of a grading plan for Yeview by the City
Engineer prior to the approval of the final plat.
Revision of the plans to show that the Body Shop and
Collision Center Rapair Storage be surfaced with
bituminous, ~cludtng ore. fete curb.
voting in favor:
vcting ag~fi~t:
Absent:
Friedrich, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke, Zak, Casse~
None
None
Chairman Cameron introduced the discussion of the plan as reviewed
by the Design and Review Committee.
Mr. Oestreich stated that they had addressed the concerns of the
Design and Review in reference to the snow storage in back, detail
lighting, handicapped parking, landscaping, number of trees, type
of trees, sprinkler system, curbing around the display area in
front, and transport unloading area. He c~m,~nted that they did
not know at present how much they will use for showroom and the
entrance to it.
Chairman Cameron questioned the turn around area for the
Commissioner Gundershaug addressed the curbing in front to p~-otect
tb~ landscaping, and the property line setbacks in the side yard
fbsairman Cameron confirmed that the setbacks w~/ld be 5' around
the property, ex~ on the w~st side where the parking lot for
__~n~.~h.~ 5, 1989
C~,,,dssioner Gundersbaug continued his discussion reqarding
continuous concrete curbing around the property, and the problem
of snow storage encroa~ on parking in back.
C~L,,~-~ssioner Gundershaug en%d~asized that the entire lot had to be
hard-surfaced and if not practical at first it would be required
after a year or so when the land has settled.
Mr. Oestreich addressed the problem of seeping tutorials frc~
collision cars and mentioned suggestions for handling this
seepage, such as rock fill and sealer that would trap the leakage
and not allow it to run into the ground, but would collect it to
C~,~ssioner Gundershaug brought up the striping of the lot with
the exception of the front display area, and c~ment~d_ that there
Mr. Oestreich pointed out the concrete wall around the tr~mh
container and asked for guidance on the type of gate rec~,i~ed.
C~L,,Ld~sioner Gundershaug raised the issue of the proposed land-
scaping along the Cour~ Kitchen property and who would maintain
it.
Mr. Oestrich replied he had nothing in writing on that at present.
c~a~dssioner Gundershaug asked for further description of the
landscaping on the north and east side.
Mr. Oestreich indicated there would be 150 andora junipers along
the front and east side.
Chairmn Cameron indicated he preferred sc~e a~tional tall tree-
type plantings, such as Austrian pines, along the east side and
along the Country Kitchen side, and more plantings overall on the
lot, and maybe sc~e arbor vitae in front of the work station and
inside the fence.
C~u~,~ssioner Oja c~,,~tsd that the landscaping was extremely
m/nimal and she would like to see landscaping done along the
build/rig in front. She concurred with the idea of tall trees on
the side.
Commissio~ Watschke asked for confirmation of the landscape
Ordinanoe and if tb~ had been discussed with the petitioner.
Ms. Dunn stated the petitoner had received the City's ordinance on
landscaping. She indicated that the obdinance stresses land-
scaping around the perimeter of the building and as screening for
adjacent properties.
Plannir~ ~ic~ ~ -5- ~ 5, 1989
C~.~dssioner questioned the lighting for the display area in front~--~
and wor~ered if it would be downlighting.
Mr. Oestreich confirmed that the lighting be similar to existing
lighting along the street and would be of a white sodium vapor
q~a~tz lighting, not high intensity that would reflect off the
cars like a spotlight or floodlight.
Chairman Cameron questioned the lighting on the building.
Mr. Oestreich explaLned they were changing lighting in the back of
t_he building, but the others would remain the same.
Commissioner Gundershaug asked for confirmation on the parking
lost by the setbacks.
Mr. Brixius stated that 56 spaces are requ/red and the petitioner
is providing 93.
C~m~[ssioner Watschk~ asked about the drive aisles and parking
stalls.
Mr. Brixius c~mtented that the drive aisles could not be less than
24 ' wide.
Chairman Cameron called attention to the retaining wall shown on
the City Engineer's report because of the difference in the height~
of the existing property to the south that belongs to the school
district.
Commissioner Gundershaug reminded the petitioner that the City has
a sign ordinance and the new sign in front should comply with that
ordinance.
Mr. Oestreich asked if the 3' setback presently paved to the fence
is to be dug up.
Chairman Cameron confirmed this would be requirewd if there were
no variances approved.
}~.i~ ~ C~t,,t~ior~r ~e~%~, ~ ~y C~,ut,~ior~ ~r~in,
to table Planni~ ~ase 89-24 f~r came m~th f~r petit~ to meet
V.o~ing in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
None
None
Oja, Watschke, Zak,
PC 89-25 (3.3)
C~C~m~ron introduc~ Planning ~ 89-25 and asked the
petitioner toccme forward.
Plan~ ~ion ~~ -6- Ds:s~oer 5, 1989
PE~{IT TO DEVELOP Mr. Bill Munsinger gave a history of his school over the past 13
A GY~9~grIC SO~OL years in the New Hope area, stating this was his 4th move in that
AT 5004-06 H~7.T.~- time and he now was a in a building that meets his requ~-~nts.
BORO AV~3E ~ He understood that it was necessary to obtain a new Conditional
Use Permit for his new location.
He added that he had been in contact with staff and felt most
been worked out. He felt he has more than adequate parking and
stated that he does not encourage parents to remain in the
building while classes are in session so there is no overlap of
cars parking for long periods. He further stated that he holds
classes on Saturdays when there is no one else using the building.
Ccm~tssioner Sonsin asked what their normal hours of operation
were, what the student capacity was, and if they sponsored any
type of exhibition events that would re~]~e parking.
Mr. Munsinger replied that he operated from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. week days and on Saturdays, sometimes starting a class as
early as 9:30 a.m. for youngsters. ~hey have an 8 to 1 ratio of
staff to students who are there after school, anywhere f~. 5:30
p.m. to 7:30 p.m. ~e largest class is on Saturday mornings with
24 students and 3 ~ctors. ~ere are minly staff persons
cars on the site. He added that they occasionally have a small
cc~petition, but that is u~a]ly held on a Sunday and there is no
other traffic using the building. When they host major
competition they rent a larger facility off premises, such as one
of the schools, because they are not set up under the Gymnastics
Federation guidelines to host competitions.
C~ssioner Sonsin asked for a count of parking spaces and
requested a staff report on the code cc~pli~ of the building.
Mr. Munsinger stated there is 2 handicapped in front, and a total
of 37 parkir~ stalls on the site.
Ms. Dunn explained that staff had a couple of items of cor~r~,
the handicapped parking stalls, the tra~h container, parking lot
striping, and the location of the parking not in relationship to
the entrance. Staff would rec~,i~e an annual review.
Chairman Cameron asked where the students are dropped off and
picked up.
Mr. Munsinger answered that the middle doors are glass and in a
well-lit area so students are usually dropped off right in front
and walk straight to the doors. Most students are not old enough
to drive themselves. If parents wanted ~to, they could park in
hack and walk through the build/ng, but they do not rec~,,~r~ it.
C~,m~ssioner Gundershaug questioned if there was adequate lighting
at the back entrance, if there were signs identifying both fr~fc
Plannir~ C~ ..... i-~ic~ M//axtes -7- ~ 5, 1989
sign code ordinance. He inquired who the other tenants in the~-~
building were, and if there had ever been any parking cc~plaints
against the school in their previous locations.
Voting in favor:
Absent:
Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke,
Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron
None
None
PC 89-26 (3.4)
R~EST ~
STGN PIAN
APPRDVAL,
5000 ~
AV~FOE NOR~{
(~airman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-26 and noted that the
petitioner w-as not present.
Ms. Dunn reviewed the case, and stated that the one issue had been
resolved when staff w-as notified that the tenant revised two
separate signs on the building into one to meet the ordinance.
Discussion was held on the r~ for the C~m~ission to handle
routine cases such as this.
The Cb~J/m~n indicated that perhaps staff should present these
cases to the C~,~d~sion and not rec~re the petitioner to be
present on c~r~hensive sign plans.
Motion by C~a~issioner Sonsin, se~x~ by C~m~ssioner Friedrich,
to a~xc~e Plann~ C~se 89-26.
Voting in favor:
voting
Absent:
Oja, Watschke, Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich,
Cameron, Gundershaug
None
None
4.1 Design and Review C~,~ttee held meeting on Autohaus.
4.2 Cedes and Stanfl~ds did not meet.
6.1 Planning C~m~ission minutes of November 8, were appk~ved.
6.3 city Council Minutes of October 23, 1989, Special Meeting of November 6,
1989, and Work Session of November 20, 1989, were ~viewed. ~
Planning ~ion Minu~ -8- ~ 5, ]_989
6.4 FDA minutes of October 23,
6.5 HRA minutes of Oct---~ger 9,
AE~OJ~T~T
and November 13, 1989, were reviewed.
1989, were reviewed.
The meetingwas adjcxlrnedby~ consent at 9:15 p.m.
Lucille Butler, Secretary
Planning(l~/ssic~Mita~ -9- Deoember5, 1989