The URL can be used to link to this page

1990 PlanningC/TYOFI~~ 4401XYIC~A~~ Jar~m~y 2, 1990 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Zak, Cassen (7:55 p.m.), Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja Absent: Watshcke Friedrich, Cameron, ~3~./C MEARINGS PC 89-23 (3.1) C~TER PARK IM- P~OV~ql~, 4401 XYI/~ A~ NO. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-23 and noted that the petitioner ba.~ requested the case be tm_bled. F~fcicm by Commissioner Sonsin, secc~ by Commissioner Oja, to ~hle Plannir~ Case 89-23 %a,til Feh~ 6, 1990. voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, C~a None Watschke, Cassen (on emergency call) PC 89-24 (3.2) · 0 ~ D~.~- 7675/7701-09 42ND AV.N. AND PAR~ OF 4/24 ~AV. N. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-24 and requested the petitioner to present his latest plans. Tom Oestreich, representing Autohaus, explained the revisions as requested by the Planning Ccmm,~ssion. He outlined the areas where continuous concrete curb will be installed, and where the 5' Cu,~,,t~ssioner Gundershaug noted that the plan did not show 5' set- backs all the way around, indicating a 3-1/2' setback is shc~n on the east side. Chairman Cameron questioned why the plan did not indicate a 5' setback on the south side and the incorporation of a 30' strip of land. He asked if the fence shown on the plan will remain where it is or if it will be moved south 30'. Mr. Oestreich answered that he did not know why it was not shown on the plan, but it is their intention to leave the fence in place. Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, explained that it was their opinion that the 30' strip of land would be left natural and not be utilized, therefore the fence would not be moved. Cu~=~,~ssioner Zak questioned the 5' setback not being shown on the northern part of the western boundary. Plannir~O ..... ~ion~ -1- Jarmmary2, 1990 Mr. Oestreich explained that because of the pre-existing conditions on the west side they obtained written permission frc~ the owners of the Country Kitchen for a private easement to plant Mr. Brixius summed up the recommended changes requested and noted that most items se~ to be adequately taken care of. He noted that the sales area should be reduced by 1958 sc~,~e feet and developed into green area. He empba-~ized the only area at issue in approving the plan is the body shop and collision repair area which will be bituminous surfaced and have adequate drainage. He called attention to the r~ for improved landscaping to meet the city's requ{~. With the noted changes being made, he recommended the plan be approved. Chairman Cameron questioned the lack of tall scre~ at the west side of the building on the south side and suggested replacing low growing junipers with arborvitae or similar trees that will grow up to provide better screening. C~L,,t,/ssioner Gundershaug confirmed the east side setback w~uld be changed to 5' all the way to the front of the lot. He called attention to the parking stalls on the west that would be difficult to back out of and suggested that they be eliminated. He asked for clarification of the reduced sales area. Mr. Oestreich explained that their servicemen back the cars in to the stalls so that the customer can get in his car and drive Mr. Brixius noted that the reduction of the sales area was required to conform with the size of the building, 1-1/2 times the area of the structure. Jeannine Dunn, Management Assistant, reo~m~nded that the plan be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed C~u,/ssion. M~tic~ by Commissioner Gundershaug, seoc~ by C~u~issioner C~a, to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Planninq Case 89-24 subject to the followir~ co~diti~: e Se ~e ~ ~.~ the east prc~ line of the ~ile sales lot ~ be ~ to five feet. to 40 peroent of the furc~t yard area of 3,800 square feet. ~he om~cructicn plans for the outfloor body shop and collisic~ _r6~?ir ~c3~ area ~ be fcur~l to be aocep~hle by the City B~i]ding Official and Fire Chief. Planning O'-,,,,i-~im M/nutes -2- January 2, 1989 ~ 90--1 (3.3) 9433 ~ e ~l'{m'}~ juni!~',~s ~ r~{~~ with"i-~ller ~ for ~ eJf~fecti~ ~. Plans be reviewed by ~il.&jle Cr~e~_k Watershed c. ..... Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: None Watschke Friedrich, Cameron, Mot/ch by Commissioner Gundershaug, ~ by C~u~issioner Friedrich, to 4e~y a ~r~r~au for a s~ in ~lrki~, as re~w~ted in Pl~ C~se 89-24. voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, None Watschke Friedrich, Cameron, for the frc~t lraxd d~-~play area c~ly, as re~~ in Plannir~ C~se 89-24. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundersha~, Oja ' voting against: None Absent: Watschke Ca/~eron ~ Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-1 and referred to staff for explanation. Jeannine Dunn explained that the petitioner is requesting 9401- comprehensive sign plan approval for a new building. The building is 90% leased and the sizes of signs requested are minimal, therefore staff ~LU.L~ a~ro%ral. ~z~ic~ by C~,u~ssioner Sonsin, ~ by C~muissioner Friedrich, to a~xove the ~ive sign p]m~ for 9401-9433 Scl, hoe omt~r ~rive as requestet in Planning om. 90-1. voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Friedrich, Cameron, Planning (l~ic~ M/nutes -3- Jar~ 2, 1990 PC 90-2 (3.4) CII~5~IVE SIC~ 5002-5008 BC~D A~ NO. Cha~ Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-2 and referred to ~-~ staff for explanation. Ms. Dunn reviewed the staff report and indicated that the plan conforms to the City Code. Fmtion by Cu~L~ssionar Sonsin, seoa~ by C~mdssioner Friedrich, to ~ the ~h~sive sign ~ for 5002-5008 Hillsboro A~ N~rth, as requested in Pi~ Case 90-2. voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, C~a None Watshcke PC 90-3 (3.5) ~IVE $I~ 7101 31ST AVE. NO. Chairman Cameron introdu~ Planning Case 90-3 and referred to staff for explanation. Ms. Dunn stated that the sign plan was in compliance with code with the exception of the ground sign, which exceeded the 40 Charles Youngquist, representing R.L. Johnson Investment Co., stated that one of the tenants relocated frc~n a site in Plymouth and moved a monument sign f;-~; the previous location. He indicated that they were not aware that there was a 40 square foot limitation on size and asked for clarification on the ordinance. Chairman Cameron explained that variances are not normally given on signs, but the case could be t~_bled for the petitioner to · request a variance and appear at the next Planning O~m~dssion Mr. Youngquist requested the Cumi~dssion act on the case and let the tenant pursue the variance if so desired. F~tion by Commissioner Friedrich, seca~ by Commissioner Sonsin, to ~ the ca~zmJ~a~si~ sign plan for 7101 31st ~ Ncxth as requested in Plar~k~r~ Case 90-3, su~ect to t~ grour~ sign beir~ red,ced to 40 sqLk%re feet ar~ a clet'-~'iled dr~eTiZ~ ~ voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Friedrich, Cameron, Design and Review C~.~dttee and Codes and Standards C~m,,~dttee have not met. Plannin~ ~ ..... ~-~ion ~ -4- Ja~y 2, 1990 6.1 6.2 Planning Cu~m~ssionminutes of December 5, 1989, were approved. City Council Work Session minutes of October 2 and 16, and December 18, 1989, and City Council minutes of November 13 and 27, and December 11, 1989 were rev±ewedo 6.3 ~minutes of November27 and Deoember 11, 1989, were reviewed. 6.4 HRAminutes of November27, 1989, were reviewed. Jeannine Dunn announced that this would be her last Planning C~m~Hssion meeting as she was leaving the City to move to Arizona to be married in May. Chairman Cameron and the others expressed their regrets at her leaving and wished her well. The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary Plannir~ O ..... ~-~ic~ ~ -5- Jar~ary 2, 1990 CITY OF NE~ ~)PE 4401 XYiC~ AV~FJE ~ ~ (]0[H~I%r, ~ 55428 PIANNING (]C~Fr.~qI(~ MII~3TFR February 6, 1990 CAT.I. TO CRE~R The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. I~LL CAT.T. Present: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Absent: Gundershaug, Watschke ~:t.J-P,T ,TC ~ PC 89-23 (3.1) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 89-23 and called on Dan R~ FOR ~ Donahue, City Manager, who summarized the project and emphasized UNIT E~%mW nPM~r CC~DITIf~AL USE PE~4rr ~ STAGE ~ FOR~ C~TERPARKIM- Pf~3V]~TS, 4401 ~AV~I~3ENO. that the issue before the Cu~,~ssion is the main parking lot and is the only part to be approved at present. He stated that the total project is dependent upon the decision for the future use of the old fire station, and that has not yet been determined. He added that a concept being discussed features the idea of a plaza in the area between the pool and the old fire station. He stressed that the City would like to present the parking pba~e to the Council on February 12th so that specification and bids could be authorized so work could start in March. Mr. Donahue stated that there are some issues yet to be decided regarding future parking on the north side of the City Hall, which includes using a strip of land now owned by the Cemetery, but that would be presented at a later date. Mr. Bernard Herman, Architect, presented a detailed drawing of the parking lot, drive aisles, stalls, lighting, and landscaping. He gave an explanation of the changes in drainaqe and grading, stressing that there was a r~ to solve a major ~rainage problem existing near the equipment building. He noted that with the new bathhouse located at the south edge of the present parking lot there had to be s~ne changes and expansion of the parking. He outlined the development of a 9 foot wide pedestrian path around the perimeter of the parking lot, with circular brick planters for trees, and also explained the use of boulevard type landscaping. He continued with an explanation of the parking area to be incorporated on the north side of the building for employee use and also noted the expansion of the parking area for the Police Department. He explained that the expansion of the parking area near the old fire station is not a part of the current project. Mr. Herman pointed cut the alternate system of lighting and plantings to .produce an overall illumination of the entire parking area. Chairman Cameron questioned if the future employee lot on the north could be expanded if needed. New Hope Pl~ O~t~iesion -1- February 6, 1990 Cu%,L,~ssioner Friedrich asked for a cc~parison between number of parking spaces being added and the present number, and what was done rega~ parking stall size in order to add more stalls. Mr. Herman confirmed that there would be 137 in the main parking lot and 36 in the north lot for a total of 173 spaces in all. He ir~icated sc~e stalls were narrowed to 8.9 in order to C~,,,,dssiener Friedrich questioned if the lighting was all down- lighting, if the parking lot was to be striped, if the entrance to the employee parking on the north side wculd have signage to indi- cate ~mployees only, if the employees would have access to the building fr~m the north side, and if e~ployees would be parking in the Police D~ area. Mr. Herman noted that they type of lighting fixtures currently being considered is similar to the fixtures used in the 42nd Avenue redevelopment, but that other design options which might better serve the expanded park design area are being explored. Mr. Donahue confirmed that there is an entrance that the employees will use on the north side. Mr. Herman stated that there would be signs indicating employee use only, and the Police Department area would be marked for police vehicles only. O~m~dssioner Friedrich called attention to the trash enclosure on the north side of the building and asked what type of screening is Mr. Herman said the screening material h~ not been decided upon, but it would probably be wood. C~,,L,~ssioner Sonsin questioned the access of trucks to the trash er~losure. Mr. Herman pointed out that there is an adequate provision for tm~ks to back in. C~,,,~ssioner Sonsin stressed the necessity of adequate parking for busy times in the park activities. Mr. Herman noted that there is an overflow parking area in the K- Mart parking lot across the street. He added that there will be opportunity for expanded parking when the decision is made ~ the old fire station area. He listed additional options alc~lg the south side. He stressed that, fzlcm% a safety viewpoint, the concept is to develop a boulevmz~ area with a vehicle cir~_lation drive around the parking area that would separate parked cars and pedestrians from moving vehicles in the lot. New Hope Planning C~,,,~SSion -2- Febz~,ary 6, 1990 C~m~ssioner Ga asked if the traffic would be circulated in a one-way or two-way pattern, if there would be walkway striping frc~ the parking area to the pool, and what type of trees will replace the originally shown hackberry trees. Mr. Herman answered that larger drive aisles are designed for two- way traffic. Mr. Donahue c~tmented that it provided better circulation to use the two-way design. Mr. Herman answered the tree question, stating that Norway Maples · are now shown. He also pointed out there is a safety island. Chairman Cameron questioned the lack of spruce trees that would add some color to the landscaping design during the winter when the Marshall Ash trees would be leafless. Mr. Herman pointed out that there would be clusters of mixed evergreens and other species that would fill in. Commissioner Friedrich asked about plantings in the north lot since it will be across from the apartment buildings. He was assured there will be extensive plantings for screening. C~m~issioner Zak was concerned about emergency vehicles getting in to the theater area and it was pointed out where provision was made for such need. Commissioner Cassen expressed concern about the drive aisles being so close to the park area, and wondered if the hockey rink would'be affected by the changes. Mr. Herman pointed out that the walkway had been increased to a mall-type walk, increased from 5 feet to 9 feet, so pedestrians did not have to be walking close to the curb and drive area. He added that the busy season for the park and pool area is only during a short time in the summer, and that total year-round usage was given priority in the design. He noted that the hockey rink would remain, but the bask~mall area would be moved to the southwest corner of the park, and the users of that area and the tennis courts would probably be parking in the lot west of the present fire station building off Zealand Avenue, alleviating the usage of the central lot. He added that opportunity to increase parking was dependent upon the final decision for the use of the fire station building. Motio~ by Commissioner Friedrich, secured by C~u~,~ssioner Cassen, to apurove PlanninU C~se 89-23 with the drive m~-~le as ;-evised. Voting for: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, C~a voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug, Watschke New Hope Planning Commission -3- February 6, 1990 PC 90-04 (3.2) C~ Cameron introduced Plan~/lg Case 90-04 and asked the R~3~"T ~ CC~DI- petitioner to present his case. TO ~T,]'~ ~ ~ Mr. Jim winkels, a partner in Winnetka Cc~ons T,'~'.~i~ Partner- STC~ IN B-4 Palp, introduced Richard Curry, partner, Blaine Heywood, ZONIN~ D~CT, Architect, and Mike Diamond, representative of Tires Plus. He 3540 ~ AY. reviewed the development of the project, the moving of the church to another site, the elimination of the outlot and the drainage area, the addition of green area, the reduction of the size of the center, and the additional parking that was created. He stated that the final closing on the ownership has taken place, that piling work will begin, the church will be vacating about April 1st, and construction will begin after the church is torn down. He emphasized that leases have been signed for spaces in the center, including Walgreen's Dru~, a hair salon, a cleaners, a couple small retail outlets, and that negotiations are underway for a floral shop, day care center, and medical related facilities. He indicated they had made some changes in location of anchor tenants and sizes of units. Mr. winkels continued with the request for the conditional use permit to allow 'Tires Plus in the shoppir~ center. He stated that it has become a popular type of usage in neighborhood centers. He emphasized that it is a clean use with no outside storage or displays of tires on racks, and does not generate a large amount of traffic. Blaine Heywood pointed out some of the archi~ changes and shifting that they had made in the design of the center, the reconfiguration of the parking, and the modifications in elevations and the canopies. C~m;dssioner Oja asked about hours of operation, where both new and old tires will be stored, number of overhead doors, what screening will be provided for apartments across Winnetka Avenue against noise from operation of the overhead doors and equipment being used inside, and if the doors would remain closed at all times and not be kept open, particularly in the s~m~r. Mike Diamond, Tires Plus, stated all their stores in the Twin cities open between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. and are open until 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, until 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, and are open c~ Sunday afternoons. He stressed that Tires Plus is not a general service store and they do not do tune-ups, oil changes, or repairs. He stated that they sell tires, batteries, and wheel- related items, that they are a clean operation and their sales persons are re~ed to be neatly dressed. Mr. Diamond continued, stating that used tires are an extremely re~3ulated it~ by the State Pollution Control Agency and they have strict regulations to adhere to regarding storage. He pointed out the new tire storage areas inside and a screened area behind the retaining wall for used tires. He emphasized that there should be no noise problem, that people sitting in the waiting New Hope Planning Cuam,~ssion -4- February 6, 1990 rocm would not experience a noticeable difference. He stressed that OSHA noise staDdm~ds are strict and also that newer equip- outdoor' traffic noise will be louder than the noise f~-~L the Mr. Winkels pointed out that the area directly across f;-cm-~ the center houses garages for the apartments and the apartmen~ are located behind the garages and to the south. He confirmed that the overhead doors would be closed except for moving vehicles in and out. He added that the management cc~pany for the center and City zoning officials will police the operation for violations. Commissioner Oja questioned who will be moving the cars in and out of the service area and will there be a backlog of cars parked waiting for service or to be picked up by a ~. Mr. Curry stated that as part of the conditional use permit they were in agrement that employees only would move the cars. Mr. Diamond confirmed that employees will move the cars in and out of the service area and when a car is finished it will be parked in the regular parking lot for the customer to pick up. He added that the Tires Plus concept does not have ~ dropping cars off in the morning and picking th~m up at night, that their average service is based on in and cut service within a short time while the customer waits or shops in the center during their waiting time. He noted that at full capacity they could handle approximately 9 cars in an hour. C~md~sioner C~a expressed concern about congestion that may be caused by cars turning into the shopping center from the service area, and asked for confirmation of location of the retaining wall and mterial to be used for it, what protection it will have, and the total height of the drop. Mr. wink~ls explained their first choice is wood, with concrete the second choice. He pointed out that it would extend f¥~¥~ the corner of the building, 3 feet above grade there, extend up to 7 feet and then gently slope down. He called attention to the protection frc~ the drive aisle by a guard rail, designed accord- ing to Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications,, and a post and chain decorative fence to prohibit children from playing in the area. He noted a 20' retaining wall that would run along the back and the highest drop would be 7 feet. c~,dssioner Oja questioned the landscaping in several ar~a~ around the facility. Mr. Winkels noted that they had provided a perimeter planting of deciduous trees and shrubs along with a backdrop of pine trees which give a screening to the doors along with the fact that the doors are tucked from view frc~ s%h~ur~li~g areas. New Hope Planning C~,,~dssion -5- Febl~y 6, 1990 Commissioner Oja asked how far the canopy w~uld wrap around the side of the building where the doors will be located. Mr. Winkels presented several schemes showing different arrange- ments of the canopy. He stated t_hat the design ~hosen would be according to the decision of the Planning Commission. He explained that they were using a truncated canopy design for this facility that would keep the same profile for the center, but also eliminate col~tu~ that would be subject to being hit by cars. The c~,mdssioners agreed on Scheme B. Motim by CuL~tdssioner Oja, se~x~ by C~t~Ldssioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 90-4 to ~11ow an auto tire store in a B-4 0 .3. 4o ~hat the applicant pursue Scheme B of the ~,~itted elevatic~ opti~. ~hat a de'l--~iled signa~e plan be su~i~ i~w~{~ sizes ar~ materials of ~11 signs to be used c~ the pruperty. 0 ~at no ou~oor stcxage of materials or out~]~or s-]li~ of ~z~t~r~i~e ~s to oocur ~ the subject site. 0 ~mat e~trance ~ exit of the sexvice bay ar~-~ be restricted to ~loyees c~ly. the servia bay docks r~-~in closed ~_r~ hours of o~erati~. · Chairman Cameron asked staff if the conditional permit would expire if the Tires Plus w~nt out of business or if it would Alan Brixius and Dan Donahue confirmed that the area. it would remain with New Hope Planning C~am~,~ssion -6- Feb~s~y 6, 1990 Voting for: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Gundersha~g, Watschke C~D. 90-2 (3.3) Cb~qJ/~ln Cameron presented Ordinance 90-2, an ordinance amending the New Hope Code by es~ahlishing a fee for review of site and building plans and a fee for review of cc~prehensive sign plans. F~ic~ by C~mtdssioner Sonsin, ~ by Cu~iaissioner Zak, to ~ ~i~a.~ 9o-2. as write, n. s.~ject to ~ by ~ city Attorney. Voting for: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja voting against: None Absent: G~lndersha~, Watscl%ke NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Planning C~Lu~,~ssion minutes of January 2, 1990, were approved. 6.2 City Oouncil minutes of Dec~mt~_r 26, 1989, and Jar~,ary 8, 1990, were appr~ed. 6.3 EDA minutes of December 26, 1989, and January 8, 1990, were approved. 6.4 HRA minutes of December 26, 1989, and January 8, 1990, were approved. The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectively submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Cum~ssion -7- Febl~,~ry 6, 1990 4401~A%~]E~ ~/N~,~~ M~uh 6, 1990 ~ne meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Gundershaug, Watschkm Absent: None ~JBLIC HEAPJNSS PC 90-5 (3.1) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-5 and called on Dan R~ ~ ~ Donahue, City Manager, who gave a brief su~ of the project which will bring handicapped housing to New Hope in the form of a 26-unit building to be known as the Rockford. He stated that it is a joint project sponsored by the Westminster Corporation, a non-profit develc~ment arm of the Catholic Archdiocese and the City's HRA, with the City contributing funds for property acquisi- tion and the underground parking facility, although final costs are still being negotiated. He emphasized that because of HUD 202 Project involvement, the amount of mortgage money available to the developers is limited, based on a formula of number of units times amount of rent that can be charged for the units, and it will be dependent upon the City to make up differenoes, which it is esti- mated will be between $500,00 and $600,000. He pointed out that some of the finer details, such as more greenery, etc. that are usually required should be carefully considered since it will be the City's responsibility to pay for them. He added that the funds would be made up of tax increment monies and CDBG funds and o~mu~nity fund raising, not the General Fund or tax monies. He noted that is hoped to raise at least $50,000 through the o~..L,unity, $20,000 of which has already been achieved. He then introduced Muffie Gabler f~-~, Westminster Corporation. Ms. Gabler, Director of Housing Development for Westminster Corporation, recalled that this was the second time she had appeared on behalf of the Rockford, the first being for the 42nd Avenue site which ran into scme site issues. She noted that this is ~'s 17th 202-sporu~or~ project and they are excited and happy to finally see it developed. She listed members of the New Hope Non-Profit Housing Board of Directors, which include Carolyn Olson of Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation, Chuck Tnompson of Northridge Care Center, Jim Kelly of Courage Center, and Julee-~,~vee Peterson, an accessibility specialist. She noted that they are all volunteers on the New Hope Non-Profit Housing Corporation Board which will be owners of the Rockford, but eventually the Board would be made up of a majority of residents living in the building. She described how the HUD 202 program provides direct loans for construction and permanent financing to non-profit housing organizations, but sponsors such as Westminister Corporation are needed to carry out New Hope Planni~ Oa~ion -1- Marc~ 6, 1990 and manage developments, mainly to help with administrative work. Ken Schenck, architect from Pope Associates, showed the site plans, landscaping plans, elevations, building layout, and individual unit floor plans. He noted the rain entrance is on 45th Avenue with a drive going directly into an underground garage, or with a slight left shift to a drive passing in front of the building's main entrance and continuing to a parking lot for 17 vehicles on the south side of the building, two of which will be marked for handicapped. He pointed out a loading zone for vans near the front entrance, an outdoor patio located on the west side which connects with a sidewalk system f;-~, the VOA North Park Plaza to the K-Mart store, an entrance on the north side ~ing to the main sidewalk to Winnetka Shopping Center. He described the landscaping and screening f¥om the shopping center, parking arrangements, size of parking stalls, trash rooms, trash enclosure screen, entryway arrangements, garage exhausting system, elevators and elevator lobbies, lounge and c~m~,unity room, laundry, floor plans for units, and maintenance free exterior and windc~s. He emphasized that the building would sit about 9 feet above the truck entrance to the shopping center, but because of the higher elevation the trucks would not be that visible to even the first floor residents. C~m.~ssioner Sonsin questioned why only a three story building compared to the six story VOA. Mr. Schenck answered that the tightness of the site, plus economics, dictated the decision. C~,,~issioner Gundershaug c~.~ented on the landscaping and also brought up the point of ~o sidewalk to the building, forcing visitors to walk on the driveway. He further questioned the convenie/lc~ of getting in and out of stalls 1 and 6 in the underground garage, and also suggested that the exhaust system louvre from the garage be screened with shrubs. Mr. Schenck pointed out that the garage stalls are rented and they are inco~ to the property. Ms. Gabler agreed that they could eliminate these stalls. Chairman Cameron wondered if there would be noise from the exhaust blower. Mr. Sch~ confirmed that the noise would be minimal in that size of bui~dingo Cc~iseioner Gur~ug suggested that the curbing around the loading zone be eliminated for van maneuvering ability, and also questioned the turn around capability for moving vans in the parking area, plus snow storage on the site. New Ho~e Planning CL~issic~ -2- F=qr~h 6, 1990 Mr. Schenck assured that curbing could be eliminated and that the turn around area was adequate, and pointed out possible snow storage area. c~,mdssioner Gundershaug asked for a review of the lighting around the building and the screen/rig for the tr~h enclosure. Mr. Schenck pointed out the light over the patio, over the garage door, under the front canopy and in the parking lot. He explained the tramh receptacle would have a 6' high redwood fence. C~,,~,~ssioner Gundershaug c~mented on current requ/rements for acoa~x~ations for recycling. Ms. Gabler emphamized they are concerned about recycling, so all tenants would be provided with a receptacle in each unit and would work out a plan with the caretaker to get them to the C~u~ssioner Gundershaug expressed a concern about the aesthetic view f;-cm~ 45th Avenue with the garage door so visible. Mr. Schenck pointed out that they had changed some window arrange- ment on that side which did improve the looks slightly, but the site itself unfortunately dictated the garage arrangement. C~ssioner Gundershaug asked_ if there would be signage. Mr. Schenck indicated a project sign located at the driveway entrance and stated it would be well within the ordinance Ccmm~ssioner Gundershaug and (hairman Cameron both brought up the question of additional handicap parking in the outside lot in case tenants did not rent space inside. Mr. Schenck stated that Julee Quarvee-Peterson had done a study on parking usage in other such develo~ which indicated that 50% or less of the parking was used. C~,dssioner Gundershaug suggested that one of the outside handica!o spaces should be closer to the building. Mr. Schenck agreed t_hat t/hey would move the space in question. C~,~ssioner Gundershaug asked for and received confirmation that this would always ;-~-~-ained a handicapped apartment building under the conditional use and ~fore it cannot be changed to a regular apak~ent build/rig. Ms. Gabler spoke about the types of tenants that would be occupying the building. She emphasized that some f~icappad tenants would have caretakers living with them, and other tenants might be a couple with a handicapped child. Ne~ Hope P~ Ck~ssi~ -3- Mar~h 6, 1990 ~aissioner Friedrich asked about the curb cut and it was confirmed that it is 24 feet. Mr. Donahue commented that the project meets all of the conditions of the conditional use permit with the exception of the location being within 400' of a bus line (this is closer to 500') and the provision for a unit for a non-handicapped caretaker, but staff has no real concerns about either. Chairman Cameron asked for confirmation that the rezoning asked for pertained only to the present planning case and did not include the VOA next door. Mr. Donahue suggested the VOA would be considered at some other time rather than in connection with this particular case. Motic~ by Commissioner Gundershaug, sec~ by C~mmissioner Ga, to ~ the ~ as re~~ i~ P~ Case 90-5 fr~n B-4 (C~.~unity Business) to R-5 (Senior Citizen ar~ Physically Voting for: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: None Friedrich, Cameron, }~ by C~m,~ion ~k~e~, ~ by C~,m,{ssioner Ga, to 90-5. Voting for: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: None C~meron ~ requested i~ P~ Case 9-05, s~je~t to the follow/rig e ~hat a sidewalk ~e prov~ ~ 45th Avenue to the entry of the t~,~la~ng. e ~at garage stall #6 be .]{m{{ C,m ~]~ ~ Se New Hope Planning C~m¥,~ssion -4- March 6, 1990 CC~THTrEE REP~ Design & R~vies Codes & ~ NEW ~3SINESS 6.1 6.2 e ~at snow ~ st~-~age area should be shown c~ the final plat. voting for: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke voting against: None Absent: None Friedrich, Cameron, Chairman Cameron compl~ the petitioners on their project and welcomed them to New Hope. Meeting and discussion on Planning Case 90-5. No meeting was held. Planning C~mLd~sion minutes of Febm~a~y 6, 1990, were approved. City Council and Executive Session minutes of Jar~,a~y 22, 1990, and City Council minutes of Feb~y 12, 1990, were reviewed. EDA minutes of Jar~ary 22, 1990, and February 12, 1990, were reviewed. The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Pla~nir~ O .... ~-~ic~ ~rc~ 6, 1990 CITY OF14I~ 4401XYI/~AVI~EJ-ENC~q~{ BIIi4EFBIO/RI'g~ MIl~lESU/~55428 April 3~ 1990 CAT~. TO ~ ~ne meeting was called to order by (~airman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Absent: Cassen, Friedrich ~JP~ .~C HEARINSS ~ 9~ (3.1) AT 8009 4OI~ AVJ~JE N. ~hairman Cameron presented Planning Case 90-5. City Manager Dan ~ized the request for a variance to allow an air conditioner in side yard of his property. He explained that the petitioner had con- tracted for the installation unaware of the ordinance requiring air conditioning~ units be placed in rear yards rather than side yards and was subsequently cited by the City upon inspection of the installation, whid~ necessitates the request before the Commission. Mr. Donahue noted that the neighbor that would be most affected by the installation ba~ written a letter to the City statir~ that he favors the present location of the unit and prefers it remain there. f~airman Cameron questioned the contractor's responsibility for being aware of the ordinances whereverhemakes installations, and noted that the contractor would be liable for expense of relocating the unit if the casewasnotapproved. John Hansen, petitioner, offered an explanation of the circumstances, explaining that the owner of the company wrote the order andthenwas hospitalized for major surgery at the time of the installation and there was a lack of follow-upbyemployees. C~airman Cameron asked the petitioner if the unit is screened frc~ the front view in the present location, and questioned if the other ccmmdssioners had driven by and inspected it. Mr. Hansen replied that it is heavily screened. He emphasized that, because of the unusual arTangement of their houses, the neighbor had C~,m.~esioner Sonein questioned if the screening as shown on the plan was the actual current screening or a plan for future screening, and was assured by the petitioner that it was already in place and grc~ir~. place m~n in place, i.e., if it dies it be replaced, ar~ that the New ~ope PL~-n~v ~ion -1- apri~ 3, M0 voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Watschke Cassen, Friedri~h PC 90-7 (3.2) ~,T~'~ A }K~qE 4400 ~ AY. C~ Cameron presented Planning Case 90-6 and Mr. Donahue gave a a ~m~%ry of the request for a conditional use permit to allow a home occupation and read the requirements from the Code. He stated that a conditional use permit may be granted provided there is no adverse effect of the neighborhood, no exterior changes to t_he property, all internal changes comply with City building, electrical, mechanical and fire codes, and any traffic genera~ by the bus~ is neither a nuisance or a safety hazard. He emphasized that staff finds all conditions are met. Cu, mdssioner Sonsin requested the petitioner explain what her business was and what she would be doing, the number of employees and hours of operation, what parking would be provided for customers, what changes would be mede in the home to accommodate the business and if signs would be used, what licensing is necessary for this type of operation, what growth in the business could be anticipated, and if the neighbors had expressed any concerns or objections. Mrs. Elaine Gorodetsky explained that it was a facial grooming business consisting of skin cleansing, instruction on how to do make-up, and consultation on care of the skin. She confirmed that she is licensed under the state of Minnesota and w~ld be the or,]y employee doing this on a limited basis since she has a full-time job elsewhere. She stated tb~t her custnmers would come by appointment only, probably only two or three a week coming in the morning hours, and would park in the driveway of the home. She explained that she has made the request so that she can accommodate several friends and neighbors who have requested she provide the service. There are no exterior or interior c~es to be made in the home as she will use only a small room in her basement, and no signage will be necessary. Chairman Cameron asked how many cars the driveway could acc~,,~odate and how many cars w~re owned by the family. Mrs. Gorodetsky confirmed that they have two cars which will usually be in the garage, but the driveway could acc~,modate three or four cars. C~at.t~ssioller Gunders~g wondered if anyone could walk up to the house without an appointment and was assured that the service was by appo~ only. He questioned if there would be Saturday appointments and Mrs. Gorodetsky stated_ that she works at her other job on Saturdays so would not take appointments on the weekend. Chairman Camerun stressed the conditional use z~irement for setting hours of opel-ation. Mrs. Gorodetsky agreed that she would establish hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Ne~5~ePlar~CL,~L~sim -2- April 3, 1990 C~t~aissicaler Gurmlershaug directed a question to Mr. Donahue regard~ annual review as a condition of the conditional use permit and received assurance that it could be required. C~t~aissic~er Watschke asked about fire codes pertaining to businesses in the basement of hc~es. Mr. Donahue stated that there are strict electrical, mechanical and building codes that have to be adhered to and the Building Official and Inspections Department will be on top of this issue. Ominm~ Cameron wanted to know if any unusual items of equipment or plumbing installations would be necessary to the petitioner's business, and if there would be any waste products generated because of the Mrs. Gorodetsky replied that she uses a small electrical steamer which can be purchased by any person in the stores, and she uses only masks and ~. She continued with the explanation stating that she would not be requiring delivery of products to her hcane as she would pick up her supplies as needed from a local beauty supply store. Robert Buckingham, 4408 Flag Avenue North, stated that there are a number of children living in the area and his concern is additional traffic using the cul-de-sac and the hours and days that customers w~uld be cc~h~ and going.' Ron Tomczik, 4501 Flag Avenue, expressed his agreement with the other neighbor over the extra traffic and added that there also was a tax consulting service in the neighborhood which generated additional traffic and he was concerned over a precedent being set for businesses RDger Landy, 4417 Flag Avenue, questioned if there would be any kind of chemicals or solutions used which would be washed into the sewer system Motion by C~mdssioner Sonsin, sec~ by Commissioner Gundershaug, to app~ve Planning Case 90-7 with the followir~ ~ ~ vol]~r,~- 1~ limited to 2 to 3 Dig appo~ ¢nly, ar~ all parkir~ in the driv~a¥. 3. qlmat the City wi]] review the ~_~3'3Dvl_ iticx~l, permit ~mmkqlly. q~at the cc~litional use pemmit wi]] expire autc~tically if the petiticm~ sells or laves tim tum. Voting in favor: Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None Cassen, Friedrich New mare P m ing Camission -3- PC 90-8 (3.~-) (~a~ Cameron int~ Pl~ Case 90-8 and Mr. Donahue ~ ~ explained the request being made for the site of a former gas station. ~ CC~DI- He emphasized that the car wash and gas pumps existed previously and TIC~L I~E the only new use being requested is for a convenience store which will ~ ~ occupy approximately 2900 s~e feet. He noted that the petitioner SIT~..f~/~nING has been working with the Building official and the City Planner and PlAN ~ and has done extensive rework/rig of the plans and has met staff's A ~ Jack (Nick, architect, reviewed the plans and a series of ~visions SI~, GAS made in accordance with staff suggestions. He emphasized the desire of I~i~PS, CAR the petitioner to blend in with the character of the neighborhood in- ~ASH AT 9400 cluding both an office building aczues the street and the residential 36~{ AY. N. area. He addressed the site plan showing a 40' x 60' convenience store with a bait shop of 2,616 sc~m~e feet ar~ car w~_.~h of 752 square feet. He noted that the parking requirement~ had been met on the pu~ islands in accordance with the Planner's rec~m~J~lation. He pointed out an aocess easement in back which w~uld hold parking for employees of the He called attention to the modified curb cut approved by the Planner and staff to expedite tanker deliveries of gasoline. ~ne western entry has been modified for better control and the building has been relocated to provide a buffer between residential area to the e_~_.~t ar~ the c~m.~rcial area to the west so that the canopy and lighting will be screened fru~ the residential area. He noted the berm and landscapir~ to the e~-~t which will contain added green space and screening for the residential area tbmre. He pointed out the brick exterior, the roof pattern and the canopy, the flow of cars into and the operation of the car wash, a loading zone for the convenience store, the interior layout of the convenience store which includes an interior trash rock, and the landscape plan in accordance with staff's prop~s. C~,,~ssioner Gundershaug questioned the number of employees that would be on the premises at one time. Randy Rau, petitioner, stated there will be 4 at any given time, and maybe 6 when he ar~or his wife are there. storage area. Mr. Ovick pointed out the snow storage area~ on the plan, but noted that Mr. Rau will probably truck most of it off the site. c~m,dssioner Gundershaug also was concerned about the lighting on the east side of the building toward the residential area. Mr. Ovick pointed out one pole light located above the car wash which is down-lighting controlled to provide security and it cannot be seen frum across the street. N~ ~ PL=~i~ C~-.~ssion 4- Apr~ 3, M0 COmmissi~ Gundershaug brought up the subject of deliveries to the convenience store and hours of trash pickup. Mr. Rau explained most deliveries would be between 8:00 in the morning and 2:00 in the afternoon, mostly frcm a mid-size truck, and trash pickup is usually in the morning. c~m~dssioner Gundershaug asked if the designated loading area would be striped and if the drive aisles would have arrows indicating traffic flow. C~Rssioner Gundershaug pointed out the City's strict sign ordinance and questioned if the petitioner was aware if it. Mr. Rau explained he was aware of the ordinance and is working on a plan to install a 10 square foot sign above the car w~.~h door indicating the car wash entry, which would conform to City code. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if the landscaped areas would be seeded or sodded and the answer was that it would be sod with sc~e rock where it was necessary. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there would be no oil changing in the facility since there will not be a service garage, but he wondered if there were special rules for handling run-off frc~ the car wash or if it ran into the sewer. Mr. Ovick explained that there was a holding tank underneath the car w~.~h, with the water outlet to the sewer set at a higher elevation, and a special float stops the flow of water when a certain level is reached, at which time the tank has to be pumped out by Roto-Rooter or similar o Cc~mRssioner Oja asked for an explanation of parking for the bait shop ~ and how will they be prevented f~-~ parking in the loading zone and running into the store. She also questioned if the spaces ~ adequate according to code for this type of business. Mr. Rau stated there would be no parking signs put up, but experience he knows people will ignore them when they are in a hurry. Mr. Donahue confirmed the spaces were adec~aate by the rules of the code. Ommissioner Oja asked Mr. Rau if the junked cars that were there presently would be cleaned out when he has assk~ed ownership. Ne~ Hope Plannir~ ~~ -5- April 3, 1990 C~Ll,,~ssioner Oja expressed concern over cars driving behind to get to the ~ores in the ~oD~ing center. Mr. Ovick explained that there would be curbing that would discourage this practice. C~m~ssioner Ga wondered about the use of amplified speakers at the pumps permitting cashiers inside to d~rect customers, such as is used at Super America stations, and expressed her desire that it not be used at this facility. Mr. (Nick indicated that they are planning a directional type of interomm to speak to ~ at pure, e, but it will not be an amplified public address s~ and will carry sound only about ten feet away, not through or around the canopy cover. Mr. Rau indicated there will be one on each of four columns and explained that the main use of the intercom will be to instruct ~ c~ the use of the new style pumps because they are not familiar with them. Cu~dssioner Sonsin ~_estioned the use of old tanks and other old equipment, and if soil borings were taken to test for contamination of Mr. Rau empba-~ized that everything will be new, including a completely new building. He stated that the old tanks belonged to Standard Oil, who has taken full responsibility for soil borings and has monitoring w~lls on site to test for contamination in c~,~liance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, however the clean-up system cannot (kamdssi~ Sonsin further questioned the ammmt of traffic volume that is anticipated, how many car washes anticipated per day, if 36th Avenue will be the only access or if the side street going out to Hillsboro will also be used for in and out traffic. Mr. Rau projected about 300 cars per day for gasoline and perhaps 20 car washes per day. Mr. (Nick noted the access will be frc~ 36th Avenue only and pointed out that the side street is an easement and will be used for egress only f~cm-~ the car wash, but it cannot be closed entirely. C~,,~dssioner So, sin wondered if the convenience store will replace the PDQ store or be in direct competition with them. Mr. Ovick explained that the convenience store would be more of a milk, ~-~ varieties of foods. New Hope Plannir~ ~ic~ -6- Apx4_l 3, 1990 Cu~ssioner Zak wondered if the petitioner was familiar with new laws re~ardirg gasoline tanks and asked__ for clarification on monitoring of Mr. Rau explained that they will be installing plumbing for monitoring wells with probes into the soil so they can be monitored. He emphasized monitoring is not required as yet, but it is anticipated that monthly monitoring will be a reality within five years, so they are makirg the installations now and will be prepared for it without having to tear up the concrete for installation in the future. He added that automatic leak detectors, which will shut down tanks when a leak occurs, will be installed in every tank. He continued with the explanation that electrical conduit is also being laid with the new lines from the underground tanks to the pumps so that when monitoring of the lines is required, they are prepared for that too. O~/~[ssioner Zak asked for further clarification on the intercom system, wondering if they would be using any kind of outside broadcasting in connection with the car wash. Mr. Rau explained t_hat there will be different zones and that he can direct a speaker inside the store to advertize specials, but nothing would be broadcast outside other tb~%n the speakers at the pumps. C~,u,dssi~ Zak posed a question on the use and maintenance of the eas~nt behind the store which is in bad repair, as compared to the upgrading of the rest of the area. Mr. Ovick suggested that the easement maintenance should be checked on as to who has responsibility for upgrading it. C~m~.~ssioner Gundershaug wondered if the City has any control over the easement. Mr. Donahue stated that he would have to check into the records. William Hayden, 9155 36th Avenue North, addressed the C~m~dssion regar~ the ~ for a semaphore, rather than the present 4-way stop sign, because of the expected added traffic on 36th and the children that have to cross the street to go to the pre-schools. He also story and bi-level homes behind the area, especially with later closing hour for the station. He expressed an additional concern over the gasoline spillage and ground pollution frc~ the former station. C~airman Cameron assured that they were concerned over the need for traffic control there, but that issue is not within the Planning C~m~ i ssion jurisdiction. Joan Johnson, 3581 Independence Avenue North, spoke to the issue of noise that will be created by the added traffic coming to the area and carrying across 36th Avenue into her residence, the r~ for a semaphore, and the possibility of the development going to 24-hour operation. New Hope Plannin~ _~ ..... i-~ion -7- April 3, 1990 Mr. Rau commented that he had tried an all-night operation at another location for a period of six months ar~ that was enough. He added that, aside from the fact that city ordinance here requires closing at midnight, he also did not believe it would be practical to stay open longer. C~dssioner Gundershaug asked for ocm~,~n-t f;-c~ Mr. Donahue about what · it would take to establish a semaphore at the location in question. Mr. Dcnahue explained that 36th is a State Aid road owned by New Hope and it is rec~Hwed that traffic counts be taken every two years to establish the timing of the ~ for a C~m~ssioner Gundershaug asked about the addition and continuation of the low hedge type of greenery on the island in front of the pumps to add a slight berm and sound area there. C~,~dssioner,Oja directed a question to Mr. Donahue regarding the noise control section of the code and if the proposed intercom would onne under those regulations. Mr. Donahue replied that the regulations of the code were extensive and would have to be studied as to the violation criteria applicable for 1. ~hat the s~ow be r-m~ved from the site. 2. ~hat additic~! lar~ir~ be placed on the isla~ ~ 36th Ave~. ~hat any inte~oc~ system that is placed ~ the pum~s be directiol'~] ar~ faced to the north or m~st (m~ly. ~hat any signs on the px~ c~y with the New ~ sign voting in favor: voting against: Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None Cassen, Friedrich Chairman Cameron welcc~ed the petitioners to New Hope and c~,~limented them On a fine operation. Met in connection with Planning Case 90-8. No meeting was held. New ~ope Pla~ C.~issi~ 4- A~ 3, ~90 N~ ~SINESS 6.1 6.2 Meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary Planning Cc~mlission minutes of March 6, 1990, were approved. City Council mintfces of Febl~ry 26, a~d March 12, 1990, were reviewed. Ne~ Hope Plannir~ C.,,-.,'i_~:jr*~_ -9-- ~ 3, 1990 4401 ~ AVE~3E ~ O0[~l~, ~ 55428 PIANNINS (IP~U~qSI(~ M~FOT~S May 1, 1990 CAT~'. TO ~ 'Ihe meeting w-us called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. ROLL C~T~'. Present: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke ~J~IC ~EARINSS PC 90-9 (3.1) i~JD C~I- REV]3~ AT 5~ A~ N. Chairman Cameron presented Planning Case 90-9 and called on City Manager Dan Donahue to sun~arize the request for a planned unit development conditional use permit and site/building plan review to allow expansion and construction of storage facilities and office space Mr. Donahue explained that the petitioner intends to occupy the office space and does not plan to rent it out. He introduced the petitioner and asked him to proceed with the explanation of the request. Mr. Bob Olson of Olson ~ and owner of Olson Storage, explained that the original site plan was approved in 1981 and the additions they are requesting will include on-site office space for their company which will give tb~m better control and management of the site. He pointed out that the office area would have a masonry exterior with a peaked roof, differing f;-cm~ the other buildings. He indicated the with 8' high redwood slabs and 3 ~ of barbed wire on top. He explained the parking areas for employees and visitors. He emphasized that they have been in the area for more than 20 years and have done a lot of development so the City is familiar with their operation and maintenance and landscaping of their properties. C~,mdssioner Gundershaug asked about outside lighting on the building, hours of operation, parking facilities, and snow storage. Mr. Olson indicated lights mounted on the central building and explained that most of the lighting is directed to the center of the project. He explained that their business hours are 6:30 to 5:00 p.m., 5 days a week, but the mini-storage customers have access to the area with a key for the gate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. He noted that the ~ for the mini-storage areas would not have access to their company storage area. He pointed out that the entrance area was being moved so t_hat it enters directly into the visitor parking area, making it possible to p~-ovide more landscaping and screening of the storage building. He indicated the elimination of some parking spaces and a system of gates that will give them space to push the snow to the Commissioner Gundershaug ask~d_ for confirmation that the building is designed so that if Olson O~pany ever leaves the site it can be converted entirely to mini-warehouse. New I{ope Plannir~ O ..... {-~ic~ -1- May 1, 1990 Mr. Olson explained that is their intention, with the exception of the end bay which is ruughed in for a caretaker apartment/management office. C~ioner Gundershaug called attention to the dumpster located on the back and questioned if it should have a separate fence around it for screening. Mr. Olson stated that he thought because the dumpster was within their fenced-in lrard and tucked in behind a building it was adequately screened. Dan Donahue confirmed the requir~nt is normally for full enclosure on all sides, but since the Building official did not question the fencing it is assumed it is adequate. Mr. Olson pointed out the entire project is cyclone fence with the exception of their storage area which has the redwood added to it. C~m~ssioner Gundershaug questioned the heating in the buildings and asked for confirmation of the landscape plans. Mr. Olson stated that the only building heated is the space they will occupy for the business, but all other buildings have lighting only and there are no outlets or plumbing. He indicated all the landscaping, new and existing, is identified on the plan. chairman Cameron asked what will be stored in the outdoor storage area and if there will be any storage of materials and supplies and chemicals inside the building. He also asked who would be handling their maintenance work on equipment. Mr. Olson explained that as a general contractor they need outside storage for scaffolding, job shacks or office trailers, flat equipment trailers, and small piles of sand and gravel. Inside they warehouse very little, maybe a small amount of reinforcing steel and some odds and ends of materials. Trucks and motorized equipment will be stored in the storage building where they have a maintenance area and confirmed the maintenance work is done by an on-site mechanic. Chairman Cameron questioned storage of gas and oil and the drainage of such into the outlying area. Mr. Olson stated they will have no underground storage and they may look into sc~e new above-ground tanks. He emphasized they do not handle or mix chemicals on-site, that everyt~ is bought in containers which are delivered directly to jobs. C~m¥.~ssioner Watschke indicated that he had driven by the site earlier and noticed a old automobile parked by the back fence and a truck Mr. Olson replied that they have a problem tenant that they may have to' get rid of, and having on-site management will give them better control of these types of problems. New }{c~e Plannir~ ~ic~ -2- May 1, 1990 )~tio~ by CUmmissioner Gundershaug, secor~ by Commissio~ Friedrich, to PLmming ome Plan unit Oonti~_~ml Use Pexmit and Site/~,ilS(r~ Plan l~rie~ to All~ Expansion of Outdoor Storage Facility, Office, and Outside Storage at 9211 52r~ Ave~ae North with the px~vi~i~ that the POD ~&~reement .~ll i]~c.l~ a "sunset" pzovisicml that obligates the next owner of the property to voting in favor of: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke voting against: None PC 90-10 (3.2) C~a~ Cameron presented Planning Case 90-10 and Mr. Donahue gave a R~X~ST ~ a s~m~ry of the request for a oonditional use permit and site/building O3~DITIC~AL plan review to allow screened outside storage and construction of a USE ~ AND building addition. He stated that the petitioner is new to the City, SliDING having purchased the building at 3501 Nevada and wishes to expand it. REVfW~ AT Mr. Donahue indicated this was a routine request and there were no 3501 NEVAE~ major issues concerning it, all ordinances are met and staff recu~,q~nds AV~FLIE NC~IH approval. Mr. Bob Olson, owner of the build/rig, explained that the petitioner is purchasing the existing building and would like to add 10,000 schlage feet for warehouse space, and a small office addition on the front of the build/rig, plus a screened outside trash enclosure. He introduced the petitioner. Mr. Mary Schmidtz, Pro Engineering, stated his business is metal stampir~ and that he has been located in Maple Grove for 17 years and b~.~ outgrown the space there with no roc~ to expand. He noted that there are businesses similar to his located in New Hope. He e~ized this building is completely air-conditioned and noise frcm-~ the business will be contained within. He noted that the proposed trash enclosure will be strictly for steel scrap material generated from the business. C~,.(ssioner Gundershaug asked about the parking area on site, if there will be any roof-top equipment on the building, what material will be used for the trash enclosure, and if any signs will be added to the site. Mr. Sdlmidtz stated there are 50 parking spaces show~, and no roof top equipment is planned other than the existing air-conditioners on the old building. He explained they have not decided on the trash enclosure screening, but it would probably be redwood. He noted that there is a wood type sign there at present but he intends to build one that will retch the building. He also pointed out the addition of floodlights on the building for security and downlighting in the (kmm~ssioner Gundershaug questioned hours of operation, number of employees, k/rids of deliveries omning in, size of trucks, if all size trucks can maneuver easily, and if the parking lot will be restriped. New F~De Pl~ C~i~l -3- May 1, 1990 Mr. Schmidtz replied that they operate 10-hour shifts, 4 days a week frc~ 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with 13 full-time employees and 4 part- ~-~ time. He explained they may have 8 trucks some days and only 2 or 3 on others, some 24-foot and up to semis. He conf~ the area is large enough for the trucks and parking will be restriped. C~issioner Gur~_ershaug asked_ if t_hare is curb around the parking lot and if the front parking area would be signed for visitors only. Mr. Schmidtz explained the existing blacktop curb will remain in place but modifications are being made for an island and walkway and concrete curb will be used. He confirmed the visitors only parking. Chairman Cameron questioned if any chemicals are used in the business that would be stored on site or cause leakage or fumes. Mr. Schmidtz replied they use a cutting oil, but nothing highly inflammable. He noted that there is an existing explosive locker in the building which he intends to use to store his material in even though it is not dangerous. C~.~dssioner Zak stated she had visited the site and noted standing water in the northwest corner. Mr. Schmidtz said tb~t he had noted it also and wondered if something were clogging it or if there was some ground settling. C~m,,~ssioner Oja ask~d_ about snow storage and it was indicated there was roc~ at the hack. to ~ Pla~ C~se 90-10 re~mest~ a ~xzlit~l use permit and site/~,~]m~ plan z~ie~ to ~]]~ scr~-~ed outside s~ ar~ ~ structic~ of a ~,'~1~'~:3' ,~"~'~tic~,_ at 3501 Nevada Ave~ North. Voting in favor of: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Watschke None C~/Neron ~ Gundershaug, Oja, Chairman Cameron welcomed the petitioner to New Hope. PC 90-/1 (3.3) S~3CITC~ OF AT 48~ ~ A~~ Chairman Cameron i~trod%~d Planning Case 90-11 and Mr. Donahue explained the request by House of Hope Intheran Church to expand their current building with oonstruction of new classroom areas and steeple. He noted that the steeple height and storm sewer curbing in the north half of the lot and landscaping were some of the issues raised at the Mr. Robert Pray, Chairman of the Church Building C~,,,~ttee, emphasized the driving need for the addition was to build dedicated classroom space rather than their current open classroom style and to use the existing open space for a fellowship hall. He introduce~ the project architect to continue with the plan explanation. -4- May 1, 1990 Mr. Ward Sessing, Sessing, Inc., noted the plans are primarily for classro~ additions but also include an expanded narthex, entry canopy and steeple, and additioDal parking. He stated that the concern of the congregation is that they have no vi~,~l impact with the c~.,,unity, because of the location on a hill and far hack on the property, and people driving by on Boone Avenue are not aware there is a church there. %~ney feel a steeple will make a state~nt that they are in fact a church. Mr. Pray pointed out that they are often mistaken for an office building and it is a big issue with the congreqation to change tbmt image. Mr. Sessing emphasized that they also desired a covered area where folks could be dropped off, inco~rating the drive-under canopy with the steeple tower, and consequently the size of the canopy over the drive-aisles determined the size of the base r~ded, and the tower height was designed to be in scale with that. He noted that the size of the tower has been reduced slightly since meeting with Design and Review. Chairman Cameron questioned if this might be the last addition they will ask for. Mr. Pray replied that they. had tried to cc~e up with a master plan to foresee into the future, but it is hard to determine, although they feel they have a flexible plan at present. C~ssioner Oja asked if the addition will match the existing building and if there will be rooftop equipment on the addition. Mr. Sessing confirmed they were several kinds of brick used in the b~]d~ng but the intent is to match the existing fellowship ball as closely as possible. He emphatically noted that most suppliers will not guarantee an absolute match. He added that there will be two air- CODd{.ti~ units installed on the top of the fellowship hall and C~m~ssioner C~a asked for explanation of the new landscaping, the curb cuts, and type of curbing that will be used. Mr. Sessing explained there will be a buffer on the north side for the parking area, plus small shrubs in the tower canopy island. He pointed out that a number of trees that exist on the property are memorial trees that will be relocated according to the wishes of the donors, but the north side of the parking area will have new trees to replace a currently existing hedge that has become diseased. He noted that the 3 curb cuts are currently existing and concrete curb will be used on the new parking area, but the intent is to leave the existing upper parking area as is until it r~cds resurfacing. o~,mdssioner C~a indicated that she had reservations about having curbing in one are and not the other and wondered if it were possible to put concrete curb in even if the current area was not in need of resurfacingo New Hope Plar~.ir~ ~ic~ -5- May 1, 1990 Commissi~ Zak called attention to the drop in elevation between the trod parking areas and wondered if it could be corrected. She also felt that all the curbing should match. Mr. Sessing stated that resurfacing and curbing will cost an additional $25,00. O~,a,dssic~_r C~a asked if there will be new storm sewer installed on tb~ north side of the parking area, and what lighting will be in the Mr. Sessing indicated a couple of catch basins will be installed to catch the water. He pointed out the lights and confirmed it would all be downlighting. C~,.~.~ssioner C~a asked about provision for snow storage, fire hydrants, handicapped parking, and signage. Mr. Sessing pointed out the areas for snow removal, one existing fire hydrant and two new fire hydrants, and three handicapped parking spaces directly in front which will be restriped. He confirmed that the sign- age will r~m%ain as it exists. cu. mdssioner C~a questioned the area on the back of the lot and what was being added to it. Mr. Pray indicated that it was basically for seasonal storage of items which they do not have room to store in the church. He added that they wanted to add on to it to provide an recreation area for youth activities in the su~er. O~[ssioner C~a called attention to the steeple height and c~nented that she lik~ the canopy addition on the front of the building with the visibility frc~ Boone Avenue, but had a problem with the height of the steeple on top of the hill and wondered if it could be lowered to no more than 30 feet above the roof or 55 feet above the ground. She questioned if the canopy could be smaller and the steeple moved closer Mr. Sessing en~/~asized again the congregation's desire to make a visual stat~nent to the ~ty. He noted that church steeples are exempt f~,-c,, b~ight restrictions, and taller steeples have been approved in the City and w~x~ered about the correlation being drawn here between steeple height and building height. He expressed concern about the church's hardship because of the difficulty in keeping the addition in character with tb~ existing low profile building whic/~ they have always had. He added that tb~ steeple could possibly be lowered if the size of the base were reduced, but it would not accomplish the desire of the people to have an area they can drive in and drop people off in rainy C~,,,dssioner Friedrich, noting that he is u~e of the r~marby residents, ~_estlc~ed what truck traffic might be entering the area, and if the into the storm drains. He offered the suggestion that additional New }k~0e P~ (k~ion -6- May 1, 1990 lan~ plantings be added at the back of the building to break up the expanse of brick. He further sugg~ that more visibility might be accompl~ by moving and turning their sign so it is seen from both north and south on Boone Avenue. Mr. Sessing replied that only trash removal trucks would be entering and the trash enclosure is located on the south side. He confirmed the water runoff to the parking lot and the storm drains. Mr. Pray felt that the extra plantings could be accomplished over a period of time. Chairman Cameron suggested they show the future plantings when they bring the plan to the City (kamcil. c~u,~dssio~er Gundershaug called attention to the revisions suggested by the C~m~ission for curbing and parking and suggested they also be incorporated into the plan when presented to the City Council. C~L,,L~issioner Watschke addressed the steeple issue and wondered if the steeple could be incorporated into the master building rather than as Mr. Sessing explained that the original building is not designed to take the weight of it. Chairman Cameron recalled the issue of the ooncrete curbing in the parking lot and the impact it would have in controlling the amount of water draining off the prope~. He emphasized that it should probably be required with the current project rather than wait until a later time. C~,,~issioner Zak C~:,~ on the steeple issue, suggesting that it be moved closer to the building. Mr. Sessing called attention to the setbacks on the survey presented in the report and e~ized that they are further back than most. Mr. Pray stated that they have tried to address all the issues as they developed the plans and to go back to the congreqation with a series of new ideas and redesigns would be quite stressful to the Building ~ by CU~dssioner Oja, sec~ by C~,~,dssioner Friedrich, to ~ P~ C~se 90-11 ~ ~ to C~ll~liti(::l'~l use ~vm~t and site/~{18{W plan revi~ to all~ c~str~J~m~ of a k~,ril~'tlng ..~lrllticz~ at 480~ ~ / NcxTh, with the additi~ of cc~t/x~o~s ~ cu~b~ around the old and the ne~ p~/n~, ar~ with a fiw~year plan f~r addi~ landscap~ along the east side. New Hope Plannir~ (lmm~ssic~ -7- May 1, 1990 Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Ga, Watschke Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug Chairman Cameron called for the original motion. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Watschke Nc~e Sonsin Fri~drich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, PC 90-/2 (3.4) AND ~ AT 4301 XYIDN AV. N. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 90-12 and asked the City Manager to present the request for a conditional use permit to allow a gov~t build/rig in an R-1 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District and a site/building review to allow construction of a new fire station and emerg~ operations center. Mr. Donahue introduced Mr. Bernard Herman, Architect, and Mr. Doug Smith, Fire Chief. He C~.atnt~-.n~ that this was probably the biggest project in terms of dollars that the City had undertaken. He stated that this will be a brand new facility on the south side of the City pool on the site of the former pool bathhouse which has been taken down. Mr. Donahue emphasized that this case deals only with the building of the fire station and does not address tb~ plan for the entire concept of what will be done with the area to the west side of the new building up to Zealand Avenue. He added that the City Council has not adopted an overall plan for the area and may not make a decision on it for one to two years, so he suggested caution in rec~t,,t~nding any development of roads, parking, etc. that might need to be changed when the overall plan is presented in the future. Mr. Herman reviewed the floor plans of the building and called attention to the revisions suggested by Design and Review, one of which is the cha~ frc~ 80 to 100 foot front setback and 22 foot south side setback. He noted that as a result of the 100 foot front setback dmange, there is a change involving a point in the north side setback frc~ only 10 feet frc~ the swimming pool fence to 20 feet, but he em~/~asized the rest of the setback there is at 30 feet. Mr. Herman also called attention to the elimination of a light pole and an island separating the firefighter parking lot f-~-~, the truck maneuvering area at the rear of the building in order to prevent obstruction of ~erg~ vehicle movement in that area. Mr. Herman noted that the open space between the swimming pool fence area and the existing fire station is now fenced off on the re-vised plan to eliminate pedestrian and bicycle traffic frc~ the parking lot. He added that the du~ location will now be at the south~mmt corner of the existing fire station with a separate drive so there will be no loss of parking spaces. New Hope Planni~ C~ion -8- May 1, 1990 He pointed out the elimination of the retaining wall at the north side which is also a result of the change in front setback, but there is still a retaining wall at the southeast corner of the existing fire station that will have to be addressed. He further pointed out the complication of signage for "firefighters only" and the aocessibility to the NHAA building and noted it is an issue that will have to be resolved in time. Mr. Herman referred to the landscape plan and stated that it basically has not changed. He reaffirmed the matc~ details in the bathhouse and the fire station which will give a unified appearance to the cc~plex. c~t~,dssioner Friedrich asked for confirmation of parking spots on the site, and presented a concern regarding buffering for the adjacent apartment buildings. Mr. Herman explained the exchange of 4 or 5 spaces between the visitor lot and the west parking lot and noted an existing tree buffer in the vicinity. He added that there is an opportunity in the course of the entire project to provide denser landscaping by the relocation of existing trees to buffer the south side. C~t~issioner Friedrich addressed several items including the relocation of the pole light that is being removed with the island, curbing and striping of parking lot, screening and painting of rooftop equipment, Mr. Herman explained several ideas on lighting that will be discussed with the eng~ at their next meeting. He called attention to the flat roof section between the two atriums for the rooftop equipment and stated that will also be addressed by the engineers.. O~tdssioner Friedrich asked for confirmation on the size of the drive aisle and was assured that it is not for public use so the restrictions do not apply. Chairman Cameron ask_~_ for an explanation of the official logo on the glass block and was informed that it is a standard insignia of firefighters. Oummissioner Gundershau~ raised a question about access and parking for the NHAA building and the consensus was that there would be ways to take care of it. to PLmmi om iti permit to a11~ a ~ ~,~ld~r~ in an 1%-1 ~ District ap&] site/~m~lding plan review to a11(~; ~(m_ of a n~ fire static~ ~ emergency voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None -9- May 1, 1990 4.1 Design and Review has been very busy. 4.2 Codes and Standards has not met. 5. OLD ~S//~ESS 6. N~ ~3MINESS 6.1 Chairman Cameron requested Codes and Star~ards meet to discuss a possible ordinance amendment addressing compatibility issues between Industrial and Residential Zoning Districts. 6.2 Planning C~ssion minutes of April 3, 1990, were approved as submitted. 6.3 City Council Work Session minutes of March 19 and April 16, 1990, and ~ Council minutes of March 26 and April 9, 1990, were reviewed. 6.4 7. City EDA minutes of February 26, 1990, were reviewed. Mr. Donahue announced that Kirk McDonald has been hired as the new Management Assistant and will begin his duties with the City on May 21, 1990. 8. ~ The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary 1~ ~ p~ Ck~i~ -10- May 1, 1990 JUl~ 5~ ~ (~%T~. TO ~ ~ meetir~ w-us called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. ROIL c~.T~'. Present: Cassen, Sonsin, Friedric~, Watschke Absent: Zak Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, PU~ZC ~ PC 90'-13 (3.1) 3451 ~ AV~3E N~H Chairman Camerc~ presented Plannir~ Case 90-13 and Kirk McDonald, Ma~ Assistant, summarized the request for a variance to the required 35-foot rear yard setback to allow construction of a porch on an existing elevated deck. A copy of the proposed addition plan was was to enclose a portion of the balcony and therefore was subject to Official has co~firmed that there are adequate footings to support the Ms. Sandra Wieland expla/ned that the old deck whic~ was built in 1966 w~s in ~ of repairs so she had a new larger deck built last year and at that time had the footings put in so she could enclose a porch. She explained that she had not been aware of a setback requirement when she built the deck, but when she found out about it she put a hold on the porch addition until she could apply this year. C~u,dssioner Sonsin questioned what was below the deck area, and what types of materials wuuld be used on the addition. Ms. Wieland stated that the there was a walkout and open yard under- neath that the contractor would try to match the existing shakes as closely as possible. She added that the house ncc~s to re-roofed and she felt this was the time to add a porch so the roofing would retch. Ms. Wieland answered that they were all aware of her plans and had wu~4e~ed why she had not completed it last year. Chairman Came~-c~ w~e____red if it will be a three-season porc{% or w~uld be converted to living space. Ms. Wieland co~firmed it will be a three-seas~ porch. Mot~ by C~,~issio~er Sonsin, sec~ by C~,,dssioner Friedrich, to ~ Pla~%i~ Case 90-13, ~ f~ a Var~ to ~ 35-foo~ l%ear Yazd Setback to Allow 2~ldit{m of a Pcxuh. -1- JU~ 5, 1990 A VARTLANC~ 3421 voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, C~a, Watschke None Zak Friedrich, Cameron, Cha~ Camerc~ presente~_ Planning Case 90-14 and Mr. McDonald rized the request for a variance to allow expansion of a non-conforming building and a variance to the required 50-foot front yard setback. He stated that the petitioner wishes to construct an addition to an exist- ing 1-stall garage which will put the addition 34 feet from the front yard property line. He explained that the present structure is tech- nically non-confo~ because of placement on the lot and does not meet the rear yard setback rec~ement. He noted that staff explored the possibility of locating the "use" elsewhere on the property and felt that the applicant's proposed location had advantages. Mr. Daniel Riser explained that he would like to add another stall to the garage in order to keep a second vehicle off the drive%ray for aesthetics and security. C~m-~ssio~er Sonsin asked for a description of what the petitioner planned to do and if he had a picture or drawing of what it would look like. current and new structure with a doorway cut through for access, but there will be two single garage doors with a supporting area between. He stated that the exterior will match the existing structure as closely as possible. C~w~sioner Sonsin asked if the driveway would be widened to aco~m-~-~date the a~4{tion and if the opening to the second garage would look like the existing o~e, so that it would not have the appearance of Mr. Riser not_~_ that he planned to use the driveway as it exists, but add a flare in front of the addition. He added that he has asked the contractor to make it match the existing unit. C~i~er So,sin expressed concern about the roof line and if it w~uld match the old roof line. Mr. Riser explained that the roof line will be the same in the front, but there is a screen porch attached at the back of the old structure, plus there are some roots frc~ a big tree in the same area, so the building will be only as deep as the old garage requiring a cut-off roof line at that point. C~dssioner So,sin asked the petitioner if he had explored building an entire two-garage with a double door instead of just a one-car add-on. -2- June 5, 1990 Mr. Riser said he given it consideratic~ but had not actually pursued it because he had looked at some similar additions in the neighborhood and thought the single addition would be adequate and the contractors he had ~-~nu~sed it with agreed. C~issioner Gundershaug questioned the size of the new door and if it w~uld present a balanced look. He c~mmanted that he felt there was a ~ for more detail on what the petiticmer was plannir~ and wondered if the petitioner's timetable wuuld allc~ a delay until more concrete details were presented. C~m,d~sic~er Oja wondered if the addition could be downsized to requ~e less of a variance and still satisfy the needs of the petitioner. Chairman Cmmmm su~gests~ that the petitioner review his plan and possibly c~sider building a double-car garage that wuuld he ~ than what he is currently showing, and then cc~e back to the O'-mL,~ssion with a more specific and detailed plan. Chairman Cameron questic~ed staff about why designated on Boc~e Averse since the house faces are oth~_r like variances in that area. th~ front yard is Yukon, and if there Mr. Donahue, City Manager, explained that the side with the shortest width is cc~si~ the front yard and there are a number of hcmas in the City with this problem. F~on by C~L~ssioner Sonsin, sear~ by C~,,,,{ssioner Friedrich, to table Pl~air~ Case 90-14 for a pex-iod of c~e ~. voting in favor: Friedrich, Cameron, (3.3) TICN ~ 3216 ~ AV.N. Chairman Camerc~ ~ himself frc~ the meeting at this point and C~mmissicmer Gundershaug assumed the Chair and called for Planning Case 90-15. Mr. Mc/kx~]d introduced the request for site/build/rig plan review to allow construction of a 64' x 115.33' two-level ~ addition to an existing building located in an I-1 Industrial District. He ex- plained that the proposed addition meets the 20-foot side yard setback because it is located 15.17 feet fz-c~-~ the north side yard property line and if the site/building plan is approved, a variance will be ~ for the expansion of a nora-conforming structure. He added that the petiti~_r is aware of the variance and has already sub-mi~ the neoessazy fees. He noted_ that. Design and Review met with the petitim~r and expressed concerns regarding a number of issues and a mjority of their suggesti~ have been incorporated into the plans. C,..,,,J~i~ ~ ~ if the addition wuuld match the existing building in color and mterial, and if the existing building wuuld be -3- June 5, 1990 Mark Malowski, with Be!a~r, General Contractor, introduced Dou~ Jones, Jc~es Fixture Company, and Fa] Pierce, Architect~. He stat~ that the bul]ding will be concrete block and color will mtc~ the old build/rig, C~,~issic~er C~ssen asked if the new area would have continuous Mr. M~]owski responded that the revised plan will show bituminous curbing. rather t]n.~ bit-u~. O~,i,dssioner Cassen expressed concern about a lack of sidewa]k for employees frc~ the parking area to the bu{]ding. Mr. Pierce stat~__ that the revised plan shows a sidewalk around the driving area so they will not have to walk ~n the driveway. C~mYd~sioner <~_~sen asked about dumpster location and enclosure for it, if there is a snow removal area, and what lighting is planned. Mr. Malowski stated that they ~ working out details of the dumpster enclosure with staff. Mr. Pierce pointed out that the dumpster location was moved out of the parking lot area to a spot beh/nd the retaining wall and w~uld have a 6-foot enclosure. He added that there are two areas for snc~ removal, plantings. He indicated wall lighting over the 'overhead doors, and present lights on the building. C~t~issic~er Cassen questioned if there wuuld be parking lot lighting for employees who leave after dark and what types of lights are used Mr. F~3owski point~ out that there is a street light on winpark Drive and 32n~ which casts lighting over the lot, and they do not run a seoo~d shift so there are never employees there late. He added that they have a wall-pack type lightin~ that is luminous and non- doors, but it does not seem to bother residents, which was a concern of staff. ~ioner C~ssen asked if any signage was planned, and if access for trucks is sufficient. Mr. Malowski ~ that no pylon signage is planned, and explained the movement of trucks in the area. -4- J~ 5, 1990 C~,~issic~er Oja ask~__ if the parking area was striped according to the new code, and if there will be directional signs for employee and visitor parkinq. Mr. Malowski responded affirmatively to the questi~s. Cu~[ssioner Oja questioned the lack of landscapir~ on the south side next to the build/rig and suggested same low shrubs be ~ to break up the long look of the building from the residents' view. Ommaissioner Cassen referred to the green ar~m and wor~_ered what will be seeded and what will be sodded, if it will be sprinkled and maintained, and if any area will be left wild. Hal Pierce pointed out the specific areas for so~q{ng and seeding. Commissioner Gundershauq asked the petitioner to cu~firm that all areas will be mowed and maintained, and also that additional shrubs or trees will be placed along the south side of the building. Assurance was granted that the areas will be sprinkled, mowed, and maintained, and new plantings added. C~m~issic~er Gundersbaug called attenti~ to staff request for a 41" Mr. Pieroe answered that it will be provided. C~ssioner Gundershauq woDdered what color the build/rig will be painted, and also brought up Design and Review C~m~-.~ttee's concern reqax~ the dust collector. Mr. Malowski responded that it will be painted a light beige or off white and will be a uniform color all around. He added that they had x~m~arched the dust collector and found out that it bas a ceramic- necessary to provide more frequent ~/r~anoe. He assured that it is in excellent c?~ti~ and has no rust, it is just a blue color. C~=~issimer Guxlarsbau~ eaggested that because of its visibility they cc~sider painting it as it will add to the upgraded look of the Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that parking is adequate for the number of employees. New Ho~e Plannir~ 0 ..... q-~'~iC~ -5- June 5, 1990 e 5. 6. 7. Se All block ~ be cleaned ami ~{n~ in a bamz~ious way. Al/ street fl~fuage be sodded within 25 feet of ~ ar~ ~{ntained. Parkir~ layout be r~rised to show 8'9" x 19" sta]/s, %~lite O~ir~ be ins~lled in a]l areas e~st of ~11~r~. ~ldit~c~al sh~-ub~ ~ sauth sidle of ~11ai~. Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Watschke None Zak, Cameron Mr. Donahue addressed the issue of a variance, stating that the new building additi~ was confoz~, but the old building was non- conforming. He noted that at the time the case was suhnitted, the ~ for a variance was not known since there was no survey provided to there were no varianoes given when the original building was con- structed. He explained that the petitioner has submitted the necessary fees for a variance, but official notice has not been published at this time. He suggested that the variance be dealt with at a future meeting and after discussio~ with the Planner on the situation. PC 90-16 (3.4) (km~dssioner Gundershaug called for Planning Case 90-16. Mr. FrDonald sumsrized th. r~ for a co~4~tional use permit to allow Sunday mornin~ worship servio~s in an R-1 Single Family Residen- tial Zon/ng District. He explained that Holy Nativity Lutheran Church has been in New Hope for 25 years, but their church was demolished to allow co~structic~ of a shopping center and they had currently secured new facility is ready in ~, 1990. He added that the church w-us not aware that a conditi~ use permit was needed to use the school, but they ~ been cooperative with staff upon learning of this. He Pastor Gerald Wahl addressed the C~m~issic~ and apologized for not being aware that a conditional permit was neoessary. He noted that are in effect. He assured that the 113 spaces in the parking area was adequate and that the school provided a custodian to open and close the Hope P~ O ..... {-~ic~ -6- June 5, 1990 C~m~issioner Sonsin want_~d_ to know if there is a traffic conflict on Sunday mornings with the neighborin~ St. Joe's Church. He-also asked if the off-street parking req~ will present a problem. Pastor Wahl o~m~nted he was not aware of a traffic problem between the two church schedules and reiterated that they have adequate parking space on site. Plannir~ (2~se 90-16, Bequest for a (km~i)l Use Permit to Allc~ ;~1 l(~. voting in favor: Casse~, So,sin, Watsdmke None 4.1 4.2 Design and Review met to discuss J.R. Jones Fixture Codes and ~~ds met to discuss needs for additions to code regarding undesirable conditions existing between Industrial and Residential Districts. They will continue discussion at another meeting after Oouncil has deliberated on the issues. 6.1 Planning C~mLHssion Minutes of May 1, 1990, were r~vims~d. Correction noted on Page 2, 2nd pa~, should read $25,000. 6.3 City Council m/nutes of April 23, 1990, and May 14, 1990, were reviewed. 6.4 E[1% Minutes of April 23, 1990, and May 14, 1990, w~re reviewed. Previously announced cancellation of July Planning C~L~ission was rescinded. There will be a ~eeting on July 10, 1990, to hear tb~ t_~bled Planning Case 90-14 and the variance ~ccled for Planning Case 90-15, plus other requests. The meeting was unanimously adjourr~d at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully su~~, Lucille Butler, Secr~ Ne~ F~ Plar~ir~ _~ ..... ~-~ic~ -7- June 5, 1990 4401 ~ AVI~OE ~ July 10, 1990 ~e meetin~ was called to order by ~ (l~i~m~n Gurder~hau~ at 7:30 PC 90-14 (3.2) AT 342]. YI]~N with more specific plans and a reducti~ in the setback request. He noted that all new elevat/~ dkawin~ have been su~/tt~, which sho~ a more uniform-looking structurer and the width of the addition has been tw~en the t~o docks but learned that he wuuld have to c0~pletely build a ~ole ne~ 9arage at a 9rearer expense. c~--dssi~ Sc~sin c~f~ that the two 9ara~ doors w~uld be the ~ size and the ruof lin~ ~tld be uniform. He cc~pl~ the petitioner c~ the ~ to mak~ the aclditi~ look ~s ~ax~h a part of the c~ ~ as lmmas~le. ©--.-..i-~ic{~r Zak questi~ if the driveway wc~ttd be widened at ~ future time creat/r~ the neo~sity for a wider curb cut. _n',,,a!-~,icmer Gtm~x~aug cxxrf~ that the sidinq ~uld matc~ the house as alcmel¥ as tx~sible and be painted the same color. Nott~ by Cc~tssicr~r Sc~in, sec~d by O"-...4~icmer Oja, to ~ ~,*il~4tqtj* ~ VaA-lanom to ~ 50-:Brx:lt "PZx:alt" Yat~l Set- PC 90-15 (3.3) ~ ~ (~ur~ersb. aug called for Planning Case 90-15. mo m a ald =as was frc June ~ EXPg~- at which t/me the C~m~L~sic~ a~proved a request for Site/_~l~]d/ng Plan SIC~ OF ~ Review, but raised a ~c~ regazdin~ t~e need for a variance because ~ AT that staff had amsulted with the City Attorney and the manning 3216 ~ sultan~ a~d it was ~ that a variance was r~ce~sary ar~ the Site/Building Plan Review at their June meet/rig and determ/~ed that a gradir~ permit could be issued, but no formal cc~-tructic~ could begin. He ~ized that the new building would no~ violate the setback re- C~~-~ ~ at PC ($.4) ~cing (~%a/rman ~ called for Planning Case 90-17. allc~ outdoo~ sta~dc~ ~n an I-1 ~ Di~cri~c ar~ a Variance f~ incl~ cc~s~ruc~c~ of a fence around a 260'x 52' area c~ the we~c ~ of ~ _~]d4~, ~lus ~c~l in parkil~ s~3oe~ frc~ 303 to 200 ~ ~ house Storage and Handling of Bu/k Goods" to "Other Uses" sectic~ of ~ AT ad~L~l~strative offices fraa the ~ld~ng and oo~se~ue~cly left fewer AV~E ~ prev'.~us variar~ ~hich lmve been granted for ~ site, an~ c~.r.e~ noted that the Building Official ~as met w~n the applicant c~ ~he site ~ ~ & re,tilt, the ~ ~ was ~us~~4 frc~ 193 s~aoe~ to of the current unique use of the b~la~. In cc~clusic~ he stat~ tha~ the Plann/r~ Cc~sultan~ ~ that the park/r~ variance, if g~ant_~, should be made subject to ~ co,Ii, ices, namely if p~obl-- occur with c~-~creet or off-site ~ the City oould notify ~ic~er G~de~auq ~ _c~ staff ~ what control the~_~ City wc~tld ~ if the parking variance is grant_~4 now ar~ in five year~ the ~41a~ is sold to a lar~er t-fpe opera~_~c~l. himself ar~ ocmm~d that ~ k~l~ldir~ was de~i~gled as a distribution -2- July 10, 1990 center and if ~ left, it could be a dJs~xi~u~ center for s~one else. He explained their intentic~ to create a fenced storage area on the w~st side of the kuilding, mainly for PVC pipe and potting soils, ~ not ser~itive to w~ather and of low value not sensitive to pilfezagm. He added the build/rig has lighting at present and they do not see a ~ for additional lighting for the fenced area. C~m~ssio~r Cassen asked for. explanatic~ of employee spread over the three shifts and the hours of the shifts. Mr. Lindeman explained that around 90 employees work during the day shifts whic~ run ~ 5:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., about 10 w~rk ~ 3:30 p.m. to m/c~light a~d t. he re~aizlder frc~ 10:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. fencing on the wast side ar~ stated his objection to plastic on the sides because of the pcesibility of ~mar and tear and urged wood slats west side wuuld be ~ b~ fork lifts working in the area late at away within tmo or three days. He c~nf~ that receiving is handled o~ly during the day fr~m 7;00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. ar~ order filling is do~e during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift. O,.~,,~-~i~l~_r G~ers~aug questi~ the control of truck traffic at the gates within the ~. area betwmen their operation and Ben Franklin in fnzYc of the kmildirg along the boulevazd, p~ibly adding 20 or 30 explained that tw~ years ago they had replaced a lot of had suffered frc~ winter kill, ~ut assured they were _a......iui~er Gun~arshaug ccnf~ that there is only ~rm sign and no proposals for ~tti~ral signs. He fur~har q~=~ad the maximum usage of the parking spaces at [zresent, what will be done with the area tZuck traffic. Mr. ~ statedthe very~ is 100, andthe areatothe south of the fencing has 32 additicrkal parkinq si:maces in order to get. the 200 a,a=e marnflq ,:mmotssb:n -:3- ,:ru.ty ].o, C~m~L~sic~er Sc~in requested oxtf~tio~ c~ the locatic~ of the resident/al, park ar~ industrial areas. ~e questi~ staff on the zc~ and ex~ a oa~ezn re~ the policies c~ developin~ the are~. Mr. McD~mald expla/ne~ that the areas are zoned I-1 but have been developed as I-2, and cc~f~ that it is also a cc~cern of staff. Ccmnissior~r Zak ex~---~=sed ccr~ezn over the type of fencing on the w~st width of the drive aisls, the ac~ of the lightir~ for security, and if cars wnl mumt at Mr. T,'h,Y'~=m~n expla/ned they have provided for a 24-foot driveway which all~s ro~m for passin~ cars. He o~firmed that there is lighting all probably never utilizing the extra 32 s~aces. ©-~.~,,i~i~er Wats~9~ qu~---~cicr~d if the ~ area can be locat~ to Mr. ?.{~n ex, la/ned the level of the ground was a factor in the placement of the storage area, plus the ~ end of the par~ w~uld C~.~[ssi~ner C~ssen questicre~ if there ~s sufficient turnir~ r~n for be more clearly m~ c~ the plans. C~issic~er Oja ask~ if there will be any truck traffic going past the south e~ of the fenoe and was info.ed there will not. She then directed a questic~ to staff about the poesibility of increasing green noted 32~ of parkir~ area whic~ really will not ~e used. O~issi~ Cmssen called attentic~ to the locatic~ of a fire h~t in the area, ar~ el~m~natic~ of the drive aisle mi~fc make access to hydxant difficult. Ne~ Ho~e P~ ~ -4- July 10, 1990 area b~ to be in that partioalar locati~-within view of the rmsidential area and ho~ high the piles of pipe wuuld be Stack~{. They ~ cum~~ about the idling of trucks and running of fork lifts into the late night hours and the pilin~ of pallets in the yard for mo~b%s. Mr. Idrdemm assured them that there will be no pipe racks and the piles of pipe wuuld be les~ than 8 feet high. He also assurmd then that there will be no fork lifts runnir~ at night, only during daylight but there are over-the-road ~ that arrive at night and wait until for ~in~, plus they bare install~ a tr~h om~ ~r~ide the ezmissi=er Oja ~-~k_~ if the _sro _ra~ area cc~d be moved to the east side. Mr. Lindeman replied that it wuuld require a major rencwatic~' inside prc~mane tank c~ that side, they wuuld have limited space. CUm~zsiczer Oja ~ up the tnuk itling problem and wondered if the City allowed trucks idlin~ at night. She ~~ staff discuss the situati~ with the Sundeens. She further suggest~ that if the conditic~al use is approved, it shculd be subjec~ to amain1 review to make sure the stox-age area stays within its limits' of t/me fence height. ~ stated their tzucJ~ are Dulled indoors and shut off, but are ~ that wait for business hours, and he conf~ that O ..... t--i~n~r Oja questiczmd the limits ~ truck traffic allowed in the N~ ~ Pi~wdn~ ~ ~- ~i¥ 10, L~O ~0-~s (3.4) 3224 R~-~I Ja~S Buck~cein, 3224 Ensign Court, expl~i--~ the situation that is creating the need to move his wife's mother in with them. F~ stated re-shin~led on the old portion to stab the ne~. CU~issi=mr S~flsin confizmed the addition would not look like an add- on and ~mld not be visible ~-~u the street. O~,.~.~t~ei~er ~u~ confinne~ that it ~ould have a full basement entirely ~el~ the surface. ~ 90-].9 (3.5) 4825 Pla~u-~ CRse 90-19 w~s called for by the ~ Mr. MclXrald ~ the req, ~,,~,t for an ~itic~ of a 12' x 12' ~ ~ ~ axE] an adjaoerfc 10' X 12' deck on the ~ side. He ex- plained the housm is a mm-o~xformln~ structuzm because of the way it sits on the lot with the ftxxfc on the lcmjm~c width, winters City code C~arles Kyll~mfl, 4825 Aquila Aveflue North, stated it will be a simple a~dition k~ilt on pili~, will mt~h t~e existi~ strucU=m, will m~ H~e PL~ni~ ~ + Ju~¥ lo, ~ 9o-20 (3.6) ~TZ~ ~ Acting (1~muissicller Gur~ershaug ~ Planning Case 90-20. Mr. McD~r~ld gave a su~mry of the case zmquest~g tmo varianoas fr~a the Ne~ }kSm sign ordinanoa, c~a for three pylc~v~c~ent signs at the for the Wir~=tka Ommm:r~ Shopping Center, and c~e for tenant identifi- cation. ~e expl~ that c~e sign w~uld be placed ell 36th Avenue and corner of the pr~oez%7 for sho~3ing center ident/ficatic~, and c~e to located ~ 36th axld WirF~tka with a changeable ~ _=~e~ board and name i~tificatic~ f~r five center tenants. He stated that it is a co~cern of staff that the wall signs might not cc~ly with the cx~linance, particularly in re~ to Tires Plus because their typical sign has three or four signs within i~. ~e ~mbasized that the plans c~ the wall si~r~ %~xe received c~ly that af~__~rnoc~ a~ the Buildi~ Official because of s~e tenhnicaliti~s ~ what c~/~ ~ sign. He su~ that the two s~ecifi¢ warianoe requests coul~ be oo~sidered with an ~ that any ~ will not co~i~ a formal ap~ of the c~ive sign plan because of the feelin~ that another variance will be nc-_=~ed for Tires Plus, or the case could be e~Mled for cxx~ideratio~ of three war~ at a~ ti~e after staff Jim Winkels, o~e of the partners in the pr~ect, ~ that Tires Plus main~ that their sign, which incl~ 4 other signs, is a the opini~ that is it four separate signs rather than o~e sign ar~ ne~Us ~ varian~ a~l~. He ~plal,.,~ that they intanU to su~ait an applicat/m for a variance for the Tires Plus sign at the end of the wreak. Bm stated that the sqJaz~ footac3m cc~plies with the oxdinance, k~c the questic~ is whether their logo cc~pli~ with New Mr. Wink~]- c~ his presentatic~ with an explanati~ of their request fo~ three se~arat~ pyl~ signs. Bm em~hasize~ that Walgreens rmcluires that they be ~icated c~e ~ole sign, so petitioner is r~esti~g an extra pylc~ sign for oe~t__~r_ identificatio~ and another for a ~ board and tenant li~_~ng. ~e asked if a combination of the latter t~o into c~e sign ~:uld be permissible. The O ..... i-~_~ic~rs uz~3ed that the petitioner work with staff and el/minate o~e of the pylons. Ne,, m:pe mamti,=3 ~ -7- JU~¥ to, t99o 4.2 COd~s and ~ d_id not m~t. QueStioned status of study c~ code additions ~ cc~dit/c~ betm~ Ir~ustrial a~d Residential Districts. Mr. McDonald w~uld be ex, la/ned in f~ City Council mirafces. 6.1 Planninq O .... ,~.~io~ ~ of June 5, 1990, ~ere reviews3 ar~ a$~zoved. 6.3 City Om3ncil m{,~tes of May 29, 1990, an~ Jc~e 11, 1990, wezm revieamd. 6.4 E~A Mirafces of May 29, 1990 m~re revi~. The~~asadj~byunanimcusccr~entat 8:55 p.m. Ne~ ~pe ~ O~makm -S- aul¥ lO, 440~XYf. CIqAVI~A~~ I~~N~~ ~.~428 ~1~-~7, 1990 CAT~'. ~ C~F~R (2D.a~ Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Absent: Oj a, Friedrich HEARINGS ~o~5 (3.z) APPROVAL, 8151 45~ AY. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-05. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, outlined the I~quest for Fir~l Plat Approval for Winnetka West, the 26-unit handicapped housing project to be built at 8151 45th Avenue North. He explained that the Preliminary Plat, Site & Building Plan were approved on March 6, 1990, subject to eight condi- tions to be incorporated into the final plans. He added that the City b~ assumed the responsibility for the preparation of the final plat because the Economic Development Authority will be named as the owner of the property. He further stated that HUD has approved all the funding for the project and the closing on the property will occur at the end of August, with construction to start in mid-Se~. He noted that the Building official reo~,m~_nds a minor change in the legal description on the plat and also there are two changes needed on the building plans; one that the truck loading/turn-around area change is not sufficient, and the other that the suggested front entry canopy lighting is not illustrated on the plan. He stated that Westminster ~orporation has been notified and they are agree~_ble to make the changes, therefore staff reo~tm~ approval of the plat subject to the corrections noted. <~a~ Cameron o~Lmented that this case has been thoroughly examined by the C~ssion and asked for o~,,tents frc{n the C~m~issioners. C~mu~ssioner Gundersha~ confirmed that all items previously listed, with the exception of the two mentioned, are taken care of. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None ~a, Friedrich New HopePlannin~~i(ml -1- August 7, 1990 (3.2) D~~ ~ 8201 ~ AV. Planning Case 90-17 was introduced by Chairman Cameron and he called on Kirk McDonald for introductory c~t~nts. Mr. McDor~ld explained that staff has met with the petitioner since the the July meeting to address the issues and subsequently the petitioner requested the opportunity to speak to the C~t,~ssion before submitting a revised plan. Mr. Gary T.~ndeman, United Hardware, expressed his disagreement with the previous discussion of the Commission at the July meeting. He narrated a history of the building site, noting that in 1960 approval was given for a 415,000 square foot building on the site and United Hardware ac- quired the site after that, constructing a 300,00 s~,a~e foot building in 1967 and a 76,000 schlage foot addition in 1976. He further stated that the original approved site plan was never in conformity with a 35% open space requ/re~nt and the site has always been non-conforming with the current zoning, which ban put them at a disadvantage for development proposals. He expressed his views on the request for additional fencing, parking, and landscape plans and stated that the company staff did not wish to expend additional dollars until there is an optimistic outlook for the project. He stated they would develop a parking plan, draw up a landscape plan, etc. if there was hope for approval. He noted that relocating the storage area to the east would present some limitations on the outside of the building and crea~e some handicaps reqarding equipment and routing inside the building, and added that they have studied the plan in-house and see no practical solution to changing it. He indicated that they have no problem with the request for wood fencing inserts and also that they have tried to find a solution to the trucks idling during non-delivery hours. He stressed the fact t_hat restrictions and fines against offenders might against them, but they would try to use their security guards and night supervisor to ask the trucks to move off the property. He explained that they are a tenant in the facility and the landlord does not see the benefit for purchasir~ additional space to the west to allow more green area, therefore he cannot provide any c~,~,{tment to that issue. He referred to the access to the hydrants to the west and the removal of parking spaces to create green space, and stated reluctance to tearing up asphalt that was put in to cc~ly with past requir~uents for variance request for parking. He c~,.te~ted that they have taken steps to mow and maintain the present green space. He addressed a complaint f~, one of the neighbors ~ the fence and assured nothing would be stacked_ above the height of the fence. He admitted that there are nuisances caused by the business at times but he felt their oontribut- tion to the City far outweighs the problems caused for city. He concluded that the original request did not include rezoning, but under current situation of non-conformity it may be the course of action to take. C~mL~ssioner Sonsin expressed the concern of the C~L,,L,{ssion regarding the way the property is zoned as I-1 T.~mJ.t~ Industrial and the extreme non-conformity which currently exists and the issue of how far the City wants to let the non-conformities go since it applies to many similarly zoned properties in the City. New Ho~e Plannir~ ~ic~ -2- August 7, 1990 Chairman Cameron stated t_hat the objective of the Planning CcaL~L,{ssion is to look out for the best long-term interests of the City, to control over-use of industrial areas, and to make businesses conform to ordinances to protect the quality of residential neighborhoods. He added that the Cuaa~,{ssion's responsibility is to look at specifics, try .to address petitioners' needs and work with them, and make rec~a,endations to the Council, but it is the Council's job to make the decisions frc{n the C~L,,~,~ssions reoc~m,~-ndations. He remarked that he noted evidence of willingness on the part of the petitioner to work with the City and the neighbors to accommodate their own needs plus the concerns of the neighbors. He explained that the C~mmission nccds more specific plans and c<ammitments reqarding the landscape plan, fencing plan, and other conditions before they can vote on a conditional use permit. C~t=dssioner Sonsin expressed concern over the lack of more intense landscaping, that is bulk and height, to screen and buffer the properties to the north. <~airmanCameronsuggestedtheuseof year-around types of evergreens. Mr. ~ay Surdeen, 5417 Xylon Avenue, introduced himself and noted that he lived 4 lots north of the building. He voiced his objection to the storage of materials outside and tb~ future possibility of those materials being stacked above the fence height. Mrs. Sundeen c~m, ented on another industrial site in the vicinity that illustrates a well-cared for area. Mr. Lind~m~n expressed the desire that the area should be rezoned so that the non-conformity is no longer an issue. Chairman Cameron replied that any other kind of zoning would bring some other kin ds of restrictions, and suggestedthat ifthepetitioner wished to pursue that alternative he should file a new application with the City staff. F~Yci~n by C~m,{ssioner Gundershaug, second by C~,,u,~ior~ Sonsin, to Planning Case 90-17. Voting in favor: voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None Oja, Friedrich Chairman Cameron introdu~ Planning Case 90-21 and Kirk McDonald gave a sunm~ of the request for a 4-foot variance to the required 35-foot rear yard setback to allow an addition to an existing h~ne. He ex- plained that there is a existing detached garage located 5 feet fr~n the side property line and 31 feet from the rear property line and the petitioner wishes to tear it down and construct a major addition to the home which will include an attached garage at the same location on the property. He confirmed that the new addition will he well-matched to the existing hcane and staff has no problem with the request. Hope P43unJr~ (3~i~{~ -3- Aug~ 7, 1990 PC90-22 (3.4) ~) ~T.TC~i~T A TI(~ AT 8617 28~ AV. N. Mr. john Degnan, petitioner introducs~ himself and stated he would answer any questions the C~,~,Hssion might have rega~ his project. to an Ex~ ~,~]d/r~ at 5206 Quebec Av~me North. voting in favor: voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None Oja, Friedrich Chairman Cameron complimented the petitioner on his project. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 90-22. Kirk McDonald reviewed the background of the request, stating that the petitioner conducts a ~hotography business from his home and has a sign on the street which was discovered by staff who subsequently sent a notice that he needed to obtain a conditional use permit to operate this type of business out of his hc~e. Mr. McDonald noted that this is a conditior~lly permitted use because the business could have an impact on the traffic patterns of the neighborhood and sales on the premises could be involved. He explained that the petitioner does wedding photography and family groups, with an office on the main floor and a work roc~ in the basement of his hc~e, and has an average of about 4 customers per month; there is a 24" x 20" sign installed above the mailbox on the street, with customer parking in the driveway. He called attention to the main concern of the case which is c~wpliance with the sign ordinance. Paul Husby, petitioner, introduced himself and explained the photo- graphy business is strictly a hobby for him as he drives a semi in the local area for a living. He stated that he formerly worked with a photography studio, but decided to go into the business as a hobby from his hc~e, doing w~ng and groups of 3 or more on location away from the home, and occasionally small groups or individuals in his home. He noted that his hc~e is not set up to do large groups, and he prefers to photograph them in their own settings. He emphasized that he enjoys his photography as a h__~nbby__ and is classified as a professional photograFb~_r in the State of Minnesota. C~m~dssioner Sonsin questioned the future possibility of the business growing and expanding to a full-time business or increase in customer load at the home, and if there are any employees connected with the Mr. }~,.~hy stated he prefers to keep the number of customers to a maximum of 20 per year so that he can pur~ue his own spare time activities in the s~m, er. He confirmed that he b~ no employees and no future plans to employ any. He questioned if the sign could be on a pole above the mailbox. Ne~ m~e PL~r~ O.....~ssion ~- Au~u~ 7, ~90 1:B0-23 (3.5) B--3 Z~ ~4 Z~ U/~ AT 7180 42~qU AV. ~hairman Cameron asked if there was any developing or prooess~ being do~e at the h~ and if any chemicals were used and stored there or delivered to the h~e. Mr. }~hy explained his processing was done elsewhere and he only did occasioDa3 black and white developing for his own use. F~c~ by C~uL~ssioner Sonsin, ~ by C~m~ssioner Zak, to approve Plann~ Case 90-22, ~ f~r C~tic~] Use Pexmit to All~ a ~ Occupation, i.e. pho~,' At 8617 28t~ Avenue North, with the fo/l~ co~iti~: ~hat any a~ ail signage c~%fcxm to the City sign ·hat the City cor~k~=t an anr~mal revi~ of the C~tic~l Use Pezmit. e Voting in favor of: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Oja, Friedrich Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-23 and Mr. McDonald re- viewed the request to rezone the Paro's site fi-om B-3 Auto-Oriented Zoning District to B-4 C~m~mity Business Zoning District to allow an Army-Navy Clothing store to operate there. He explained that the owner of the building has a tenant who wishes to relocate very soon fr~m a nearby area. Mr. McDonald went on to report that staff and the City Manager and City Planner held a recent meeting to discuss the rezoning of the entire area along that section of 42nd Avenue f-~u B-3 to B-4 and it is expected that a plan will he presented at the September C~ssion meeting. He noted that the nature of that area has changed with the redevelopment of the 42nd Avenue oorridor and that the staff is reoeiving numerous calls regarding retail type uses on other B-3 properties. He stated that staff is in accord with the Paro's site rezoning and feels that much of the property along 42nd up to Louisiana is ready for rezoning to B-4, allowing B-3 as a conditional use under the plan to be presented. Chairman Cameron expressed severe reservations about rezoning one specific piece of property if there is soon to be a total plan ready for presentation and suggested that the total plan be looked over before going ahead with rezoning a single parcel, therefore, he is not in support of the request. C~.~,,u,i~ior~_r Watschke agreed with the statement by the Chairman. Ne~ F~ Planni~ C~ic~ -5- August 7, 1990 C~tm, qssioner Sonsin sugge~ that after the redevelopment of 42nd Avenue to make it a high quality thoroughfare for the City, and given the fact that it has not been a practice to do spot rezoning, plus the possibility of an imminent conprehensive plan to be presented, the plan of action should be to look at the whole plan rather than move forward on the request. He expressed his opposition to the request and felt it was not urgent to act on a spot rezoning before considering a cc~p~ive plan. Mr. McDonald confirmed that there would be an extensive report by the Planner at the next meeting. F~n by C~mtdssioner Son, in, second by Commissioner Watschke, to · ~hle the voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None Oja, Friedrich Mr. David Lasky, owner of the Paro property, requested a ~ to speak and asked that the C~L/~ssion reconsider their decision to postpone the case. He narrated a history of the site and explained how he had tried to market it but had little success until now and at this time he has a tenant ~ in it who has a time frame that needs to be met. He stated that they had already begun some inside remodel- ing and displayed drawings of what is planned currently and also ideas of future development and expansion on the site, i.e. a retail develop- ment. He explained that he interpreted the zoning that this business would be a permitted use. The proposed tenant, G.I.Joe Surplus, explained that his current lease runs out at the end of October. <1~airman Cameron expla~ that the C,_,~,,~ission %u~de~t~ the petitioner's dilemm-e. He emphasized the difficulties in dealing with rezoning issues and stressed that both the C~ission and Council take rezoning very seriously, and it is too important an issue to rush into a spot rezoning even though the petitioner has a time limit. He added that the rezoning ordinance is the most fundamental ordinance the City has to control development and it is rm~ch too important to allow a quick major rezoning of a piece of property without a thorough study by the City Planner and an over-all plan. He dismissed the petitioner and suggested they follow through with the City staff. No meetings were held for Design and Review nor Codes and Stap~a~ds. OLD B~SINESS Chairman Cameron questioned the development of the parking lot being built next to Applebee's, and by what process the City had approved it. He stressed the lack of shrubbery and trees. New Ho~e Planning O~i~n -6- August 7, 1990 Ccm~,dssioner Gundershaug raised a question regar~ the outcome on the green space issue at the Self-Storage Center on 36th Avenue. Kirk McDonald agreed to follow up on both questions and prepare a report for the September meeting. Planning C~t=~ssion Minutes of July 10, 1990, were approved. Council Minutes or June 25, 1990, were reviewed. EDA Minutss of June 25, 1990, were ~viewed. The meetingwasunanimously adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Ccmmtission -7- August 7, 1990 4401XKI~I~A~N~t{ H~a~/NOCI]ITY, MI]~I~gUIl%55428 Se~?mh~r 4, 1990 CAT~'. 'ID ~ Actirlg Cha~ Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Zak, Friedrich, gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Absent: Cameron, Cassen, Sonsin ~.TC HEAR~E~ PC90-17 Acting C~airman Gundershaug noted a request that Planning Case 90-17 I~FC~{ be tableduntilOctober2ndmeeting. ~3P&VARIANCE 820154~]{AV.N. Motic~ by C~m,dssioner Friedrich, secx~d by C~,,,dssioner Oja, to table Plann~ Case 90-17 un,-ii October 2, 1990. Votir~ in favor: Absent: pc9o-2o (3..,) Planning Case 90-20 was introduc~ by Acting C~lairman Gur~ug, and Kirk McDoDald, Manage~erd: Assistant, reviewed the background of the request stating that this case was origiDa3 ly considered at an earlier Planning Commission meeting and tabled at that time. He explained that the petitioner has now submitted a revised plan showing a reduction to two actual pylons, one of which would be located on Winnetka Avenue showing shopp~ center identification, a reader board and identifica- JJJe~i'J~'~G~TTCE{ tion for 5 tenants in the shopping center. The second sign would be C~{ P~LCE{ SIG~S located on 36th Avenue and would contain a Walgreen~ identification 3520-3564 sign and a reader board. He noted that the third sign shown on the WIbHqET~A AV.N. original plan at the intersection of 36th and Winnetka has been eliminated. He explained the three specific variances being requested, one on Sign #1 for tenant identification for 5 tenants as code does not allow individh~a3 businesses within the center advertised on ground signs, one for Sign #2 for Walgreens identification, and one for Sign #2 because the r~ader board is separated f-,-cm~ the main sign and is interpreted by staff to be 2 pylons even though it is located on the same post. He emphasized that the pylons meet setback requ{rements, height requ{rements and size area requirements. Mr. M~Donald called on the City's Planning Consultant. Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, cited that there are differences of interpretation. ~ called attention to the basis for New Hope Plannir~ Ck~ion -1- Se~ 4, 1990 allowing tenant identification at tb~ Center located at 42nd and Winnetka because of the extreme setback of the center off the street causing difficulty to locate tenants from the street which was considered a hardship for the tenants. He noted it may have est~_blished a precedent only if the same conditions can be met at other sites. He raised the issue on Walgreens identification sign because it is solely for one tenant and is in close proximity to their building where they will also have access to two wall signs on the building which will be easily seen frc~ both streets. He cited concern over r~ for other tenant identification because of the close proximity to the intersection and the high visibility that the center offers in total for wall signs. }{~ emphasized that if a hardship is present it should be identified in the granting of the variance. Jim Winkels spoke as petitioner and expressed their view that the signs are very important for the signing of the Center since marketing relies on retailers and tenants ability to identify themselves and be seen. He emphasized that the signs will be attractive, well-designed and coordinated with the building in colors and materials C~,m,~ssioner Watschke-expressed his concern reg~ t/he separate pylon to identify a specific tenant rather than the center and noted that because of the location and exposure of the center on the corner, a wall sign would be adequate to identify a major tenant. He viewed it as giving more attention to the name of a tenant rather than the center and wondered what the driving motive for it was. Mr. winkels ~ that the driving motive was that people do not identify strip centers by name and rely solely on knowing what tenants and businesses are located at a specific location. C~L~dssioner Watschke questioned if there was a signed lease with Walgreens and if the lease required a special pylon sign. Mr. Winkmls responded that Walgreens has a universal lease that states that they have a separate sign and center identification cannot be on the same sign. He emphasized that they had made it~ known early on that Walgreens would be a major tenant and that they required their own separate sign. C~,u~issioner Watschke wondered if over a period of time people driving by would come to know Walgreens was there without the use of a pylon. Mr. winkels brought up the criteria of setback from the intersection and also the lack of visibility to the center driving west on 36th due to a railroad overpass located east of the center. Ccmu~issioner Watschke noted that most people who travel on 36th Avenue would probably be going ~t as w~ll as west at some point in their travel every day. N~ m~e Plan~rg C~dssi~ -~_- ~ 4, ~90 Mr. Winkels responded that Walgreens would identification on the Winnetka Avenue sign. not have any tenant Cu~,.~ssioner Gundershaug asked how it was determined who gets the space for identification on the other sign and if there will be others added. Mr. Winkels answered it would probably be the first five tenants to sign leases and move into the center, sort of an incentive to spur tenants. He assured that there would be only five tenant identifica- tions. C~Lmd~sioner Gundershaug m~k~ if there will be reader boards at both sigr~ and who will control those. Mr. Winkels responded that the oenter ~ma~nagement will control the one on Winnetka Avenue, probably using a rotation basis, and Walgreens will have sole use of the other. C~ioner Zak wondered if there are plans to show setback dimensions and location of the signs and the setback for Walgreens. Jim Winkels pointed out that both signs are set back at the 20' requ~ and Walgreens setback on 36th is 60' to 65' f-[-cm~ property line with 12' additional curbline, and approximately 400' f-[-~-~ Winnetka and 36tho C~aL{L'~s~icG~er ~tschke ~ked if the pylon signs will be illuminated. Mr. Winkels replied that they are internally illuminated, and noted that the wall signs will also be internally illuminated. Y~tim by Commissi~ Watschke, ~ by Commi~i~ Friedrich, to deny request f~r vaz4an~~ to a11c~ 3 ~flc~/~ signs for tanant identification, with the e~ that a pyl~ sign be alloh~d for center ide~-~icat~c~ an~ 5 m~ tenants prcwided they meet the sign (3.2) B-3 TO B-4, AT 7180 42ND AV~E ~ Acting Chairman Gundersb~ug introduced Planning Case 90-23 and Kirk Mc/3or~]d explained that since the t_~bling of this case at the August meeting the petitioner bad appealed to staff to consider his request as an appropriate use in a B-3 district, but staff did not agree with the reasoning he presented and so informed him by letter. Mr. McDonald then stated that the Planning Consultant was prepared to present a report o~ the 42nd corridor rezoning issue and asked if the C~m~.~ssion would like to continue with Planning Case 90-23 or table it until after the Planner's presentation. New F~ Planni~ CLm~i~ -3- ~ 4, 1990 F~tic~, by Commissioner Friedrich, seo~d by C~,,~issioner Oja, to ~ahle Planni~ ~ 90-23 u~ lax in th~ merit. Voti~infav~r: Absent: PC90-24 (3.3) S'I'(~T PER 3520-3564 Planning Case 90-24-was called for by the Acting Chairman. Kirk McDonald explained that this was the second part of the variances requested for the Winnetka O~uL~ns Center, noting that this case was asking to allow anchor tenants more than one wall sign per street frontage and to exceed square footage/area requirement. He stated that there are six different variances, the first 4 for Tires Plus who have requested a sign on the north side of the building consisting of the company name sign and 4 brand names connected together below for total of 2 signs, and a sign on the west side with company, name and 4 brand names separated which staff and planner consider to be 5 individual signs. H~ added that the third part of the request was to exceed the 100 square foot maximum area requirement on the w~st elevation and the planner would address that issue later, and a fourth variance was required because code does not allow advertising of individual product lines. He continued to address the two variances needed for the west elevation at Walgreens, o~e of which staff defines as three wall signs stating company name, food mart, and pharmacy, and also one on Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, addressed the C~Lu,.~ssion reqarding this request. He. noted that conditions for variances are very structured within the sign ordinance and a hardship has to be demonstrated. He c~,m~nted first on Tires Plus stating that the variances can be interpreted in three fashions, number, size, and type of sign. He noted that on the type of sign an issue could be raised as to whether or not it is a form of identification or a basic logo, but the size and number required do r~ variances. He s~ressed that the ordinance defines sign area as a geometric figure which ~ all signs. He added that these code applications are used throughout the City and it is not felt that a hardship unique to the site exists which warrants variation frc~ the ~equirements. He continued with c~.,,ent on the Walgreens sign noting that the north sign is acceptable but there is a question of size and number on the west elevation being in excess of what is allowed. He explained that individual tenant signs are limited to one per fascia fro~tin~ a street. He concluded by stating that without justification through ba~-~hip approval cannot be rec~miended and suggested modifications be made to comply with size Mr. Winkels reiterated that they were asking for corporate identifica- tion for Walgreens and Tires Plus which are universal standard logos. He stressed that the names of the tire brands on the Tires Plus sign ~_~ were part of their corporate logo used in all their stores, but they did inform him that they will c~ly with the 100 square foot require- ment as long as tb~y can keep their standard corporate sign. Planning O'-.-..~-~im 4- ~ 4, Logo Mr. Winkels introduced Mr. Dick Hadler who represents Walgreens and ask~ him to address the C~mdssion. Mr. Hadler, Senior Real Estate Manager for Walgree~, explained that their request is a standard Walgreen sign package defining the product further that this store has a general merchandi~ section which is uniform for all Walgreens and a ~%rmacy which is the heart of their business, but also a food mart which is unoamm~n to most of their stores so it needs-p~ic~ to the public. He stressed that it is a condition of their lease that they be permitted a pylo~ with a reader type of sign yields 10% greater sales for stores that have them than for stores that do not. ~ noted they would consider it a hardship not to be able to prce~ce the specific product mix of t_his store, that is pb~%rmacy with food mart, since it is different. Commissioner Watschke called attention to the excess area on the west elevation sign if the three separate signs were enclosed in a rectangle as one sign and suggested cc~bining them into a rectangle which meets the 100 sc~,~e foot require~J~. Mr. Hadler responded that most n~nicipalities prefer the more tasteful, even though more expensive, ir~ividual letters as opposed to box signs, but he would refer it to the project architect. Mr. Winkels expressed the feeling that the signs meet the criteria and the intent of the ordinar~e and cited the fact that changes do cc~e about which create a r. ucd for variances or an ordinance change. C~mt,~ssioner Watsdmke asked for clarification of what variances are really being requested, three signs or one sign. Mr. Brixius suggested a comprise to look at the request as three sign variances and try to maintain the 100 foot frontage requirement. He stressed that sign area is the key and eventually scm~one else may come along and claim a hardship in that they cannot prese~t~ their message unless they have more signs and more area. Mr. Winkels responded that Tires Plus has stated they will accommodate Mr. Hadler stated that Walgreens is using the smallest sign they can use relative to the size and design of the build/rig, and he did not think to be effective they could go to smaller signs but would have to eliminate one sign instead. C~m~issioner Gundershaug expressed the opinion that with the pylon on the street, he had difficulty with the need for the three signs on the Mr. Hadler stated again he would defer the decision to the project architects. N~ m~e Pla..ir~ c~,...ission -5- ~ 4, ~90 C~m~ssioner Gundershaug referred back to Tires Plus and was assured that they would be willing to reduce the size, but wish to keep their corporate logo with 4 brand names. He also questioned tb~ future use of brand names in the logo if one of the tire cc~panies went out of Mr. Winkels asked for clarification if a cc~ name was cc~bined with a special logo usir~, for instance the cometary initials, would it be considered two signs. Mr. Winkels then co~oed~d that Tires Plus was asking for 2 signs, a cc~ name sign and a log~. C~amissioner Oja expressed the opinion t_hat a logo does not usually advertise m~rchar~, but is a symbol or special design of a cc~pany name, not a long rectangle, and she finds it difficult to interpret theirs as a logo ~. Mr. Winkels agreed that Tires Plus has an unugml logo, but it is their unique standard for them. F£~ion by C~,mdssioner Watschke, ~ by C~uk.~ssioner Gunder~.ug, to a~ the Tires Plus request f~r varianoe f~r m than ~ ~ sign hein~ a tenant ~icsti~ ar~ the other a lo~o, As 1~ ~han 100 ~-~ square feet; app~ the request for varia~ few m than ~r~ ~11 sign ~n w~st elevatim, ~hich e~oca%m~s fiv~ signs, Pro~idsd the total are~ As less than 100 square feet; ap~ the request f~r varianoe for use of advexe~ir~ as a lcz3o cm~ ~cfch nox~h and ~ for three signs on the m~st elevation provided that the~ do r~fc total m~re than 100 square feet. Kirk McDonald request~ clarification to staff of what was being approved on the Tires Plus wes~ elevation, two signs~ with the brand names connected together, or five signs separated. C~m,~ssioner Watschke confirmed it was for two signs with brand names Votinq~favcn~: Absent: ~dm f~ led. Mr. Brixius cautioned the Cxa,md~sion that they should identify their reasons for voting against the motion. C~m, ciesioner Zak stated she cannot accept the w~ll signs as logo. New Hope Plannir~ C~ission -6- September 4, 1990 Cu~lLdssioner Friedrich expressed the opinion that the whole project was a myriad of signs. C~dssioner Gundershaug c~ented that he feels the signs are advertising as opposed to logo, and also there are too many signs, particularly since other tenants are allowed only one sign, so the request is stra~_hir~ the sign oniinance. C~Li,dssioner Oja feels brand rk~mes are advertising. PC 90-25 (3.4) Acting Chairman Gundershaug called for the next case. (I~DITIf~AL Kirk McDonald outlined the proposal for a daycare facility at Holy L~E ~ TO Nativity Lutheran Church, 3900 Winnetka Avenue North, explaining that AT~'~ !~1%.Y~ the ch~ works in conjunction with Northwest YMCA, providing F~rg~.TI~, 3900 the space for a daycare program which is coordinated by the Y. He ~ AV.N. stated that the program is licensed for 29 children and the new church building b~ a 1400 square foot ~/lti-~ roc~ with adjaoent kitchen and bathrooms which will be used for daycare~- He added that a play area is proposed to he built on the north side of the build/rig. He confirmed that th~ majority of conditions for a conditional use permit, such as front yard setback reql~, off-street parking, separate entrance, a main thoro~are so traffic is not impacted, are met and are in compliance with code. He noted the hours of operation are to be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., no signage is proposed, and the facility is licensed by the State. He called attention to the only concern being the designation of the playground area in a low 'spot possibly impeding the drainage. Pastor Gerald Wahl from the church introduced Becky Nord who is in dmrge of the daycare program and volunteered to answer questions frcm the C~ssioner Zak questioned the entranoe and sidewalk areas, parking for staff, lighting for times when it is dark at 6:00 p.m. and people are picking up their ~hildren, kitchen and lunchroom facilities, cooking on premises, playground fencing and landscapin~and screening. Pastor Wahl explained that the entrance farthest to the north has as 20' sidewalk going right to the parking lot so parents can drop ~hildren off, and there are numerous spots along the north wall for staff parking. He pointed out a post light where the sidewalk and parking lot meet and an entrance light on the doorway. Becky Nord confirmed that the children bring their own lunches, but a small kitchen is used for preparing snacks. Pastor Wahl stated that the fencing is governed by State r~uirem~nts for daycare facilities, probably chain link type, but the church would like to put in a little nicer fencing to match their beautiful new building. He explained that there are big pine trees that provide screening on the northwest corner and two elms on the west. New ~ Pi~ (1-.-..i~sion -7- S~~-- 4, 1990 C~m, Hssioner Gundershaug requested that the fencing plans be firm when presented to the Council. Commissioner Zak wondered why there was a separation of the playground area away frc~ the building. Pastor Wahl answered that the initial design provided a rectangle area directly out frum tb~ ~]~]d~ng, but after consideration it was moved out to protect the redwood siding frcm children throw~ rocks, balls, mud, etc. C~Lm.~ssioner Zak brought up the staff conoern regarding the drainage area near the playground. Pastor Wahl confirmed that they had discussed this with their architect and Mark Hanson, City Engineer, and a tile system on-sit~ catch basin will be installed by the church just south of the multi-purpose roc~ which will run around and tie into the city system. C~mu~ssioner Zak asked if any signage was planned and the response was no. Motion by Commissi~ Zak, sec~ by C~,~Ldssioner Friedrich, to approve the c~liti~l use ~m_~mit to qm/ate a daycare facility at 3900 wir~4~ka Average, as ~ i~ P~ C~se 90-25, su~ect to the foll~ co~iti~: 1. Oc~StX~u~uion det--~il~ f~r fe~cir~ be su~i~ to staff. 2. adeq~te dra.ina~3e be ~.,~u~,ide~ fox- pla~ area. votir~ in favur: votir~ a~nst: Absent: PC90-26 (3.5) AIZ/~ A ~ STC~E ~NAB-4 DIS~RIC~, 3558 ~ AV.N. b~ting C~a~ Gundershaug introduced Planning Case 90-26 requesting a a conditional use permit to allow a oonvenience food store in a B-4 zonin~ district. Kirk ~d outlined the request of Bruegger's Bagel Bakery for a 2700 ..~:::lu~ foot store located at the inside corner of winnetka Ccmlnons Shopping Center, which will sell bagels over the counter in disposable containers to be consumed either on or off the premises. The plans show two seating areas with a total of 55 seats. He explained that restaurants are allowed as a permitted use in B-4 districts, but because of the definition of oonvenience food, staff felt that a conditional use permit is required for this case. ~ noted that most of the conditions required for conditional use permit were met when the shopping center was approved and no drive-in facilities are proposed, but staff had concerns regarding the trash receptacles/outdoor trash storage and parking in the rear of the building. He requested that if case is approved the petitioner be required to submit details of the trash enclosure to staff. New Hope Plannir~ ~ic~ -8- Se~_~r 4, 1990 types of food facilities are Curt Schreck, operating partner for Bruegger's Bagel Bakery in the Twin Cities, offered to answer questions ~ the operation of this facility. Ckamt,~ssioner Zak asked abo~t the entl-yway, seating arems, trash receptacles inside and outside the store, custnmer and employee entrances, employee parking, lighting, and signage. Mr. Schreck pointed out that there is a small entrance area in the front, two separate seating areas, and three trash receptacles placed inside. He explained that the outside trash receptacles are part of the comp~ive plan of the center. He added that the kitchen area is a tentative plan for a small outdoor seating area for 12 to 16 people at the rear. He confirmed that employees only will be using the rear parking area and the lighting and signage will conform to the revilements of the center and city code. C~mt.~ssioner Gundershaug questioned plan for outdoor storage of trash, requesting that specific details be prepared for presentation to the Council. C~t,,dssioner Oja wanted to know if the disposable containers were going to be recyclable. Mr. Schreck answered that they have switched some of their containers to the recyclable type and they are actively replacing any that do not meet standards. Mr. Schreck explained that if it is developed, the screened area would be enclosed and screened and only accessible f-~-~-~ th~ inside. It is understood that the current request does not include 'outdoor seating and if they want to include outdoor seating at a later date they will return for Planning C~mtdssion approval. C~t,,td~si~ C~a questioned staff if the repeated fresh bagels nota- ions at the bottc~ of the window would be classified as signage. Alan Brixius replied that it could be, but these types of window signage and neon signage are addressed in ordinances as being acceptable provided they do not occupy a certain percentage of the window area. Motic~ by Commissioner Zak, second by C~,m,d~ssioner Oja, to ~ Plannir~ (~ase 90-26, Bequest for (k~dit~c~al Use P~x~it to ~11o~ a following o~diti~: New ~ Plannir~ C~issic~ -9- Se~ 4, 1990 2. Parkir~ in rear of buildir~ for ~loyees c~ly. 3. Wir~k~ signs m~t ~ regu/re~. Vc~r~infavor: Absent: Acting ~hairman Gundershaug w~lcomed the petitioner to New Hope. PC90-27 AL~cing Chairman Gundershaug noted that this case will be presented in October. F&~ion by O~,,,,dssioner Friedrich, ~ by C~,l,~ssioner Oja, to e~hle Planning C~se 90-27 until Octnber. votir~ in favor: Absent: PC90-28 (3.6) A~ting Chairman Gundersha~ noted that the petitioner has R~EST FCR t~ case be tabled until October. 5330 WI~A.AV. N. Motion by O.,.i,~i(m~er Frie~rich, second by Commissioner Oja, to table Planning C~se 90-28 un~-J] October. voting in favor: A~se~t: ~'S 42ND AV~FOE Acting Cb~man Gundershaug called for the report from Northwest Associated Consultants on the 42nd Avenue P~zoning. Alan Brixius outlined the oonditions that created the ~ for a study of rezoning for 42nd Avenue and pointed out the general area that is being considered for rezoning. He noted that it was brought to light at the time of the 42nd Avenue study and redevelopment but was set aside until the right-of-way acquisitions were c~lete. He explained the City's criteria for d~ rezoning and noted tb~t the redevelopment along the 42nd corridor has changed the character of the area which meets the first criteria for rezoning consideration. He reviewed proposals which had been considered for the area in the past and the existing conditions at present, notir~ the variety of zoning nc~ present. He stated the conditions now favor the creation of a B-4 New Hope Pla~r~ O-'.~..{-~ion -10- Se~t_~m~ 4, 1990 zoning district consistent with the City Center allowing greater variety for c~m~rcial uses to facilitate redevelopment and encourage applicable districts could be rolled over into other types of districts. He stated that tb~ 42nd Avenue plan could be amended to allow for flexibility and should be amended for consistency. He continued with'his presentation with suggestions for numerous changes and corrections, creation of buffers, and exceptions to the char~es, that would be comsistent with the over-all plan and establish a desirable c~m~ercial area. He concluded that the 42nd Avenue objectives outline the changing character which the City desires for offers the greatest flexibility in achieving the objectives outlined in the origima] redevelc~ plan and the image desired. Acting Chairman Gundershaug wondered if existing business could expand and become non-conforming, or if there was a possibility of anyone being put cut of bus~, if the B-4 zoning is appz-oved. Mr. Brixius assured that design criteria, guidelines, and rules between B-3 and B-4, such as lot area, setbacks, lot width, are identical in both districts, and performance standards for conditional use permits are also the same for both. ~ting Cha~ Gur~ug que~tio~ what effect the change would have on the Autohaus case and if the opportunities for expansion would increase the econc~ic value for owners in the area. Mr. Brixius responded that conditional uses allowed in B-3 are also allowed in B-4 by conditional use permit provided they meet all the rules and regulations. Acting Chairman Gurzlershaug ~m~dered what the time frame is for the Kirk McDonald replied that staff could be directed to call a public hearing for the October meeting and notify the property owners, then following Council approval and publication of the ordinance it will be final, possibly as early as November 1st. Alan Brixius advised that the public hearing notices and letters of notification should include a copy of a report outlining that the rules have not dmanged but stressing the new flexibility available. c~m,dssioner Oja worzlered if the business owners would accept the change. Acting Chairman Gurzlershaug wondered what advantage the rezoning would be to the City. Mr. Brixius assured that there will be retail opportunities that are not available under the current zoning and there will be a larger New }]ope Planning O ..... {-~ic~ -11- S~ 4, 1990 market and a variety of businesses and services attracting more ~ whic~ will help to expand the .tax base in a tax increment area without city investment, increasing tax increment revenues available for other redevelopment projects. He added that any privats investment in upgrading businesses in the area is a benefit to the City Kirk McDonald noted that one of the things that initiated the rezoning issue is the number of inquiries that are being received for retail type uses in the area, causing staff to wonder if they want to retain the B-3 strip in its current zoning which prohibits most retail Acting Chainmm~ Gundersha~ expressed agreement with the rezoning process to make the 42nd corridor uniform, as long as no business will he driven out, and suggested the O~ission proceed with a public hearing on the issue in October. ~e C~dssion was in consensus. F~i~ by C~u~,~ssioner' Oja, seo0~d by O~u~,~ssioner Friedrich, to ~ Plannir~ C~se 90-23 fr~m the e~hle. Voti~f~: Abeent: PC90-23(3.2) Acting (~airman Gundershaug requested the petitioner to address the ~ ~O C~-~H ssion. B-3 TO B-4, Mr. D~vid Lasky, owner of the property, reviewed the history of the 7180 42ND AY. property and his request as presented at the August meeting and expressed his under~tandir~ of the B-3 zoning district as a broad and open zoning. He stated that he had found a prospective tenant and assumed it was a permitted use, but staff suggested that a rezoning be requested. He su~g~ that the long range plan for the area seems to indicate that it will be rezoned B-4, but he needs action immediately. He urged a firm decision on approval or denial of his request so it could move along. O~m~dssioner Watschke o~,~ented that although all t_he c~ are good ideas and no one seems to be opposed to them, it is a matter of procedure and it is pre~ on the part of the C~,,~ission to do a spot rezoning before the concept for the whole corridor b~s gone through a public hearing since there is no guarantee that it will pass. He suggested the petitioner could decide if he would like the case tabled further or sent on to Council with whatever the Commission's decision is. Mr. Lasky responded that he does not see any problem with the C~mt,~ssion making a ~,~t,~tment to rezone the parcel in question, because in his view it se~s very likely that the total rezoning will subsequently be approved, and even if it is not, the proposed use will be in keeping with the rest of the street. New ~ Plannir~ Cu~/ssi~ -12- September 4, ~990 Acting (~airman Gundershaug countered that there is no way that the Cc~mission would ever approve a spot rezoning. He added that he ba-~ no problem with the concept and if the total rezoning process is passed, there will be no r~ for the petitioner's request. Mr. T~mlQ~ stated they are working aga/nst a deadline for the prospective tenant as he b~ a November 1st move date, but if he was not able to secure that particular tenant he would find another. He regardless and has difficulty in ~ the resistance to spot rezoning. He noted that in his experience dealing with Councils and gov~t agencies, decisions like this can drag on for longer than 30, 60, and even 90 or 120 days and he would like to avoid that. He requested that the Om~dssion deny the request rather than table it again. Acting Chairman Gundershaug expressed the opinion that the Cu~m~,~ssion should not he directed by the prospective tenant's move date, and the is~_e covers a broader range than just the petitioner.'s prope~. Commissioner Watschke confirmed that if the case is denied by the Planning C~ut,~ssion, the petitioner can take his case to the Council and ~ek rezoning through them. Moti~ by Commissioner Watschke, sec~r~ by C~t~dssioner Friedrich, to r~-x.,..~ld denial of Pla~ain~ C~se 90-23 ~ ~ f~a B-3 to B-4 at 7180 42n~ Ave~e N~rth. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed his' feeling that he does not believe in spot rezoning and will vote to deny the request. C~m~ssioner Watschke agreed. Votir~ in favor: voting a~,st: Absent: 4.1 Design and Review Commi~ met but since that meeting t_he petitioner requested case to be t_~bled until October meeting. Planner's Report on rezoning covered previously. 6.1 Planning CUmissionMinutes of August7, 1990, were approved. New~c~ePlannir~fk~issi~ -13- Se~4, 1990 6.2 City Council Minutes and City Council Executive Sessic~ Minutes of July 23, 1990, City Council Work Session Minutes_ of August 6, 1990, and City Council Minutes of August 13, 1990, were reviewed. None The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Lucille Butler, Secretary -14- CITY OF NE~ HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MII/NESOT& PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES' October 2, 1990 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Zak, Watschke PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 90-17 (3.1) REQUEST FOR CUP TO ~T~.OW OUTDOOR STORAGE IN I-1 DISTRICT & VARIANCE FROM NO. OF PARKING SPACES 8201 45TH AV. N. The Chairman noted a request from the petitioner that Planning Case 90-17 be withdrawn from consideration. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to close the public hearing and accept the withdrawal of Planning Case 90-17. Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Watschke Friedrich, Cameron, Motion passed. PC 90-27 (3.2) REQUEST FOR PLATTING AND SUBDIVISION 3920/3940/3960/ 3980 wim~TXa ay. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-27 and asked Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, to review the case. Mr. McDonald explained the request for subdivision and preliminary plat approval for Don Harvey Addition located on the Quebec Avenue extension which is currently under construction. He noted the proposal is to subdivide an ll- acre parcel located in an I-1 district into 5 lots, two of which have identical warehouses located in the on them. He stated that all the minimum area and width requirements for the lots are met, but in response to the submittal of the preliminary plat to departments and agencies involved, there have been a number of comments expressed. One of the staff concerns deals with Lots 2 and 3 on Block 1, where the current buildings are located, because the I-1 35% green area requirement is not met. He added that Minnegasco responded with a concern about an easement, Hennepin County responded regarding additional right-of-way and access on New Hope Planning Commission -1- October 2, 1990 Winnetka Avenue, and the City Engineer had a number of · comments. He concluded that it was the consensus of staff that the request be tabled and the petitioner meet with staff to address all the concerns. Chairman Cameron requested the petitioner to speak to the issues brought up by staff. Bob Johnson, representative for the Don Harvey Addition, introduced himself and Don Harvey. He commented that he thought everything was in conformance as far as the plat is concerned and has not received any comments since the plan was submitted. He expressed the feeling that tabling the case would be a hardship on the petitioner, therefore they would like the preliminary plat approved and will address the concerns when the final plat is submitted. Chairman Cameron pointed out that since the petitioner is not aware of the issues that have been brought forth, it would take a great deal of time to address them all in this meeting and he suggested the petitioner make arrangements to meet with staff and look at all the concerns expressed by the City, County, and others. He suggested the case be tabled for one month. Mr. Johnson expressed dismay that they were not contacted by staff and made aware of the current issues prior to this meeting since they had met with Design & Review for the Site/Building Plan Review and had conformed with their suggestions. Mr. McDonald explained that when a plat is received it is sent out to all the City departments, all the utility companies, and Hennepin County, but their responses do not always reach the staff until the last minute. He stated that if there are only one or two concerns regarding a preliminary plat it can be approved with the understanding that the changes can be incorporated into the final plat, but staff feels there are too many issues in this particular plat to handle in that manner. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 90-27 for one month. Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Watschke Friedrich, Cameron, Motion passed. PC 90-28 (3.3) REQUEST FOR Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-28 and called on Kirk McDonald to review the request from Continental Baking New Hope Planning Commission -2- Ocober 2, 1990 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND RETAIL SALES AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW AT 5130 WINNETKA AV. Company for amendment to conditional use permit to expand retail sales and site/building plan review. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner wishes to remodel a portion of their existing building and construct a 900 square foot addition to expand their retail sales operation and has met with Design & Review and staff and discussed a number of concerns. He noted that the petitioner has now submitted a second revision from the original plan which incorporates many of the ideas discussed in the meetings. He suggested that if the request is approved, it should be with the conditions that all exterior storage be removed and green space maintained and no further expansion of retail sales allowed. Mr. John Howard, representing the petitioner, pointed out the concerns regarding expansion of green space, traffic flow, curb cuts, continuous curbing, exterior storage, trash enclosure area, snow storage, exterior lighting on building, which they had discussed with Design & Review and pointed out how they had incorporated the suggested changes into their plans. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the addition will match the existing building in materials, color, and structure, and suggested if roof-top equipment is added in the future, it also be painted to match or screened. He compli- mented the petitioner on a good job of incorporating all suggestions of Design & Review into the plan. He wondered if there would be directional signs indicating "for trucks only". Mr. Howard pointed out that the trucks only lane is a drive- through well. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered if the hours of operation will remain the same. He asked for clarification of the construction and screening of the trash enclosure, noting that it is not shown on the plan and recommending it be included before the plan goes to the City Council. Mr. Howard confirmed there will be no change in operating times and explained the trash enclosure will be of wood. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned if there will be additional signage put on the building, if the sod in front of the building will be sprinkled, if the trucks and vehicles now presently parked in the area will be removed. Mr. Howard indicated there may be a change in signage, but they will conform to code if there is. He stated they have not considered sprinklers at this time and confirmed no vehicles will be permanently stored on the site. New Hope Planning Commission -3- October 2, 1990 Commissioner Gundershaug recommended they consider a sprinkling system to preserve their investment in landscaping and trees. Mr. Howard requested that they be allowed to make an alteration and add 6 parking spaces for customers on the south side across from the main entry. Commissioner Oja suggested the walk area to the parking be striped to indicate a walkway and all the plantings remain the same. Chairman Cameron congratulated the petitioner on a first-class job in complying with the City's expectations for upgrading the looks of their industrial areas. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Oja, to approve Planning Case 90-28, with the following conditions: All exterior storage be eliminated. All green area be properly maintained. No further expansion of retail sales on this site be permitted to exceed the 10%. That six (6) additional parking spaces be provided on the south side of the south entry, not to be in front of the building. Annual review by staff. Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Watschke Friedrich, Cameron, Motion passed. PC 90-29 (3.4) REQUEST FOR CUP TO ALLOW SHARED PARKING/LOADING FACILITIES AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW OFFICE/WARE- HOUSE, 3970 QUEBEC AVENUE N. MOTION Chairman Cameron noted that Planning Case 90-29 is part of the platting request submitted in Planning Case 90-28 which was tabled, therefore he called for a motion to table this case also. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Oja, to table Planning Case 90-29. Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Watschke Friedrich, Cameron, Motion passed. New Hope Planning Commission -4- October 2, 1990 PC 90-30 (3.5) REQUEST TO CONSIDER ORDI- NANCE AMENDING NEW HOP ZONING CODE TO REZONE THE MAJORITY OF B-3 AUTO-ORIENTED ZONING DISTRICT PROPERTIES ON 42ND AVENUE BE- TWEEN LOUISIANA AND WINNETKA AVENUES Chairman Cameron referred to Planning Case 90-30 which is a request by the City of New Hope to consider an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code to rezone the majority of B- 3 auto-oriented zoning district properties on 42nd Avenue between Louisiana and Winnetka Avenues. He called on the City Planner to make the presentation. Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, outlined and pointed out the area of the study and the various uses of property included. He stated that usually a request for rezoning is investigated either because the character of the area has changed or there was an error in original zoning. He stressed that the character of 42nd Avenue has changed from an auto-oriented type zoning district to a commercial/retail type zoning district and has prompted this request in keeping with the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study and redevelopment. He stated that the 42nd Avenue corridor, in conjunction with the City Center on Winnetka Avenue and 42nd, will become a unified commercial core of the community and rezoning is intended to promote redevelopment of obsolete, dysfunctional, and sub- standard sites. He noted that the City has invested in a number of projects to improve 42nd Avenue to create a positive image. He stressed that the rezoning would bring several non- conforming properties into conformance with the Code, and will also allow conditional uses in the B-3 zoning district to exist as permitted or conditional uses in the B-4 zoning district. Properties currently non-conforming in the B-3 district would also be non-conforming under B-4. He expressed the view that the B-4 rezoning would fulfill the intent of the 42nd Avenue Plan by allowing existing uses to continue to operate, allowing greater redevelopment potential from a private aspect, and creating a uniform zoning district along the corridor. He called attention to 2 exceptions to the B-4 zoning at this time, an area between Quebec and the railroad tracks which contains industrial uses, and an area north of Cook Auto zoned R-O and contains a dental supply clinic in a single-family house. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the size requirement, green area requirement, and lot coverage of the B-4 district. Mr. Brixius explained the B-4 does not have a standard lot size and there are no specific lot coverage or green area requirements, but when abutting any kind of commercial or residential area full screening is required and all parking has to be screened from public right-of-way and residential areas. He noted the only district with a specific green space requirement is I-1. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if this rezoning would diminish or increase any requirements that were placed on the Autohaus operation. New Hope Planning Commission -5- October 2, 1990 Mr. Brixius explained that conditional use permits for B-4 holds all B-3 uses to the same requirements, it is just a roll-over. Commissioner Sonsin questioned if the combination of the Autohaus property with the animal hospital property would be affected by this rezoning. Mr. Brixius explained that a separate proposal would have to be submitted. Mr. Brixius concluded that the ultimate result of the rezoning is that it will take away the current situation of 5 zoning districts and establish one. chairman Cameron questioned the division of the school district property into two zoning districts. Mr. Brixius explained that the southern half of that property is zoned industrial because it houses the bus garages which is an industrial use, and in B-4 it would become a non-conforming use. Mr. McDonald confirmed that the two parcels are under two different PID numbers and not treated as one. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if any of the property owners had responded to the public hearing notice. Mr. McDonald noted that Mr. Lasky, owner of Paro's Pub, had written a letter of support, and the owner of the car wash had called and discussed the report and has no problem with the request. Mr. Brixius stressed that the issue had been looked at from a land use perspective and they did not do an individual site inspection of each site, so if there are non-conforming setbacks or structural violations theyare not included in the report, but will continue to be non-conforming. A property owner in the area indicated she was in attendance as she was concerned as to what was happening. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 90-30, Request to Consider Ordinance Amending New Rope Zoning Code, as submitted. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja None Cassen, Watschke Friedrich, Cameron, Motion passed. New Hope Planning Commission -6- October 2, 1990 Mr. Brixius suggested that there be an amendment to the 42nd Avenue Plan to allow for either a high density residential or commercial area development on the City-owned site east of the railroad tracks. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review met and discussed two cases. Codes & Standards has not met. OLD BUSINESS The Commission questioned the status of the Winnetka Commons sign cases. Mr. McDonald confirmed they were presented to the Council and tabled twice, but they subsequently returned a third time with an acceptable revised plan which the Council approved on a 3-2 vote. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Cameron wondered if it was time to consider changing the sign ordinance in the light of approval of recent requests and he directed Codes and Standards to study the issue. Chairman Cameron also wondered if other cities had a code requirement for sprinkling landscaping and if the City should set a trend by making it a requirement. He directed the City Planner to study this. Mr. McDonald indicated that he believed the City Council would be sending an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance to the Commission for review in the future. Commissioner Sonsin stated that it may be appropriate for Codes and Standards to meet and discuss both the sign and sediment control ordinances. Mr. McDonald also advised the Commission that a proposal for a theater/restaurant complex may be forthcoming. Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, were approved. City Council Minutes and City Council Executive Session Minutes of August 27, and September 10, 1990, and City Council Work Session Minutes of September 17, 1990 were reviewed. EDA Minutes of August 27, 1990 were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next meeting of the Commission will be held on Wednesday, November 7, 1990, because Tuesday is Election Day. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -7- October 2, 1990 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 1990 C~u?.?. TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROIL Present: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None Friedrich, Cameron, PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 90-27 (3.2) REQUEST FOR PLATTING AND SUBDIVISION 3979 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-27 and asked Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, to review the case. Mr. McDonald noted the preliminary plat for the Don Harvey Addition was tabled at the October meeting because of a number of concerns regarding the westerly portion of the property, but since then the petitioner has had several meetings with staff and has submitted a revised plan which requests preliminary platting for the portion east of Quebec Avenue only, with the westerly portion to be platted at a later date. He stated staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat based on recommendations listed in the staff report. Chairman Cameron questioned if the petitioner has any problems with the recommendations that have been made. Bob Johnson, representing Don Harvey, replied they feel they can conform to the requirements without any problem, with one exception regarding the request to obtain approval from the railroad for any encroachment on their property. He stated their feeling is that their grading plan would not cause any encroachment. Kirk McDonald explained that it was a recommendation from the City Engineer because he felt that in order to accomplish their grading plan they might have to encroach on the railroad property. Mr. Johnson noted their slope would be 3 to 1 and they do not feel they would encroach on the property. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to approve subdivision and preliminary plat as requested in Planning Case 90-27 with the recommendation that the final plat be submitted to the Planning Commission for review with the following changes: All easements to be dedicated as requested by the City, including utility and drainage easement on side and rear lot lines and over existing water main and storm sewer. New Hope Planning Commission -1- November 7, 1990 3. ¢. 5. Plat to £ncorporate to the center l£ne of guebec Avenue. Plat to include Minnegasco easement, Plat to incorporate concerns of Hennepin County. Approval from Shingle Creek Watershed and DNR for discharge of storm water. Approval from Soo Line Railroad for any grading that encroaches on their property, Voting in favor~ Voting against= Absent= Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. PC 90-29 (3.2) REQUEST FOR CUP TO ~?~,OW SHARED PARKING/LOADING FACILITIES AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW OFFICE/WARE- HOUSE, 3970 QUEBEC AVENUE N. Chairman Cameron noted that Planning Case 90-29 is connected with the platting request submitted in the previous case. Kirk McDonald outlined the new plan for site/building plan review for a new 30,000 square foot office/warehouse building, noting that a request for a conditional use permit for shared parking/loading facilities has been withdrawn. He stated that code requirements have been met in a revised plan submitted by the petitioner which staff approves, with the exception of several items regarding certification by an architect and compliance with City Engineer's and Planning Consultant's recommendations. Commissioner Ojaquestioned the petitioner regarding materials to be used on the outside of the building, roof-top equipment, west sidewalk to parking, signage on building or on site, parking and flow of traffic in and out of site, continuous curbing, lights on building, and trash disposal. Mr. Johnson presented an artist's conception of the building and explained that it would be basically decorative concrete block, some bands of plain block, painted in varying earth tones, and the roof-top equipment would be painted to match the building. He indicated that signage as defined on plan is strictly traffic signage directing customer parking flow to the north and truck entrance from the north with exit to the south. He noted the curbing would be bituminous and the building lights would be wallpacks. He pointed out there will be two outside trash enclosures constructred of cedar. Commissioner Oja commented on the landscape plan and complimented the petitioner on the much improved revised landscape plan. She asked the petitioner to address the parking for the tenant in the middle unit, and also snow storage. Mr. Johnson stated no tenant is currently occupying the unit and indicated there is snow storage provided. New Hope Planning Commission -2- November 7, 1990 Commissioner Gundershaug called attention to the screening along the railroad on the east side to protect the Crystal residents there, and suggested the petitioner have a revised plan showing it for presentation to the Council. Mr. Johnson explained there would be no problem with adding arborvitae and meeting the requirement with a revised plan. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed the landscaping would be sprinkled. Commissioner Friedrich asked about interior trash storage. Mr. Johnson indicated that leases will require tenants to use outside trash storage, but some tenants may not bring their trash to the outside storage every day. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oja, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve the site/building plan review for new office/warehouse requested in Planning Case 90-29 subject to: 2. 3. 4. Certification of the plans by an architect. Compliance with City Engineer's recommendations. Compliance with Planning Consultant's recommendations. Inclusion of additional landscaping on east side of building. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. PC 90-31 (3.3) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIONAGE REQUIRE- MENT AND SITE/ BUILDING PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A MOVIE THEATER/ RESTAURANT, IN MIDLAND SHOPPING CENTER Planning Case 90-31 was introduced and Kirk McDonald'outlined the plans for a new movie theater/restaurant in the Midland Shopping Center in the former Super Valu location. He explained there would be two movie theaters with a total of 400 seats where patrons could eat dinner as they view movies, and a proposed arcade at the front of the complex which would not be open to the general public. He called attention to the request for sign variance since petitioner is proposing to replace the existing ground sign at the center with a new ground sign containing both the center identification and tenant identification for Cinema 'n' Drafthouse. He further noted that because a lower ratio of parking spaces was required for a grocery store than for a movie theater/ restaurant, a variance or conditional permit is being requested on the parking requirement. He stated that the petitioner had met with Design and Review and discussed major concerns and as a result a revised plan was submitted and included in the staff report. He called attention to the changes regarding signage on the north and south entrances, New Hope Planning Commission -3- November 7, 1990 and rear of the center for employee parking and service trucks, plus additional stalls added at the rear of the center. He addressed the concern regarding access to the arcade and noted that it has been changed so that it can be entered only after going through the ticket booth. He added that the parking was submitted to the Planner and his recom- mendation is that the parking reduction request be handled as a conditional use permit rather than a variance as City code allows for joint use parking by conditional use, and since the peak hours of theater operation will be daily at 7:00 p.m. and 9=00 p.m., a time when adjacent tenants are closed or at a low end, the added parking need can be accommodated. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this case had been discussed by Design and Review. Mark Pope, from Kraus-Anderson, introduced himself and stated he was prepared to answer questions. Commissioner Gundershaug asked for a confirmation of the peak hours for the theater, the parking and striping according to new dimensions, signage at rear of building for employees, number of employees, provision for trash storage for the restaurant, and addition of any lighting. Mr. Pope pointed out that there are 422 parking spaces on site, and without a theater 433 would be required. He indicated the signage for employees only would be added on the site plan. Tim Enge, representative of Great Plains Partnership, an area hospitality consulting firm responsible for Cinema-Drafthouse in the Twin Cities, explained they would operate 18 shows a week; two daily seven days a week, a children's Saturday matinee, plus an extra show at 5:00 p.m. on weekends depending on demand. He added that there would be total employment of 36 to 40 persons, but maximum number at any given time would be 15. Mr. Pope called attention to the existing trash storage behind the center which is fairly old. Several commissioners suggested that the enclosure be updated and possibly moved closer to their kitchen area. Mr. Pope indicated there was no new lighting planned. Commissioner Gundershaug asked the petitioner to confirm their sign plans. Mr. Pope explained the replacement of the existing mall sign with a new pylon sign indicating the presence of a movie theater in the mall, showing the current two movie titles and ratings. He indicated Cinema-Drafthouse would like to have added lines to show movie times and coming attractions. New Hope Planning Commission -4- November 7, 1990 Commissioner Gundershaug emphasized that Design and Review had recommended name and rating only to show on the sign and no reader board to be allowed. Mr. Enge interjected that they are willing to eliminate the times and other advertising, but they felt the rating notation was very important to a family-oriented movie theater. Commissioner Oja called attention to the notation "Great Movies, Spirits, and Food" as being further advertising and suggested it be eliminated. She expressed the opinion that with two screens the two movie names and ratings should be allowed, but coming attractions and Saturday matinee notations should be eliminated. Chairman Cameron questioned structural changes needed and confirmed the building would be basically as it stands. Commissioner Sonsin wondered if they were located in other cities. Mr. Enge stated that they have other facilities throughout the U.S., some still under construction, but this will be the first in the Twin Cities and they hope to eventually operate 3 or 4 in this area. Commissioner Sonsinquestioned the supervision of children in the arcade if they are not interested in the movie and what type of movies would be shown. Mr. Enge stated that it is an actively systemized and managed facility, with floor walkers to see that children do not cause disturbance, and the arcade is integrated into the theater so that the public is not permitted to enter. He explained that the movies shown will be sub-run movies that are available 6 to 8 weeks after their initial first-run distribution nationally, which allows them to charge $2.00 for admittance, and all movies are required by the franchise, the landlord, and local ordinances to be PG and G movies. Chairman Cameron asked for verification from Kraus-Anderson as landlord regarding their policy. Mr. Pope confirmed Kraus-Anderson's lease policy does not allow any X-rated movies to be shown at any of their properties. Mr. Enge also confirmed that any attempt to show any such a movie would be an immediate violation and default under the franchise agreement, which they would verify if necessary, and they would be required to cease to operate. Chairman Cameron expressed relief that the owner of the building has some control over what is shown. New Hope Planning Commission -5- November 8, 1990 Commissioner Sonsin further questioned how it would be enforced. Sandy Camry, Property Manager for Kraus-Anderson, addressed the question, stating that their lease language regarding both theater and video store, is very explicit as to what is acceptable, and it would be an immediate default enforceable in court, and possibly result in eviction, if operator did not comply with a cease and desist order. She stated that it has not become an issue and their tenants have not violated their leases along those lines. Commissioner Sonsin wondered what was happening with the abandoned Burger King Restaurant in the Midland Center, and if it could be turned into parking. Ms. Camry stated it is not their property, although they have looked into the possibility of purchasing it if they had a compatible use for it, but to date they have none. Commissioner Gundershaug called attention to the staff request that before any variance is granted for tenant identification ground sign, the City would like Kraus-Anderson to indicate in writing their intentions for additional changes for shopping center signage, that is, if another major tenant moves in to the center will he want the same consideration for a sign. Ms. Camry and Mr. Pope conveyed agreement to have Kraus- Anderson respond by letter. Commissioner Zak referred to the height and size of the sign and Mr. McDonald confirmed it was 144 square feet. She asked for confirmation that the bar area and no arcade would not be open to non-patrons. Mr. Enge stated the bar area is only a waitress stand. Commissioner Zak asked if it was envisioned to grant alternative leases, such as gift centers, receptions areas, etc., and would the parking situation allow it. Mr. Enge responded that those options are market driven and research indicates there is a potential market there, but special programs and packages they would like to encourage is with Senior Citizens and Child Care Centers and they would probably be handled by buses. Commissioner Sonsin called attention to a notation on the interior site plan regarding retail provision for future and cautioned that no retail enterprise is under consideration at present other than the Cinema-Drafthouse movie, food service and arcade, and confirmed with petitioner that permits for such future retail would require return at another date to apply for such permits, etc. New Hope Planning Commission -6- November 7, 1990 Mr. Don Lyngen, 2840 Winnetka Avenue North, questioned the petitioner if there would be liquor served, and also commented on the added traffic that would be flowing past his driveway. Mr. Enge explained that they are restricted to use of beer and wine only in their establishments, with sale of alcohol being heavily regulated and only a small part of their program, accounting for only 10-12% of sales, and the majority of sales derived from admission and food. Ms. Camry addressed the traffic question, comparing it to the amount that former grocery store generated, and stated it would initially be a great deal less. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve the variance to sign and parking requirements, and site/building plan review, requested in Planning Case 90-29, subject to the following conditions: 20 Building owner to submit a letter of intent to City on long range sign plan addressing future development and signage. Identification limited to Cinema 'n' Drafthouse only. Changeable letter panel to display title and ratings only for current two movies within 144' square feet as proposed, and not to be used as reader board. Conditional use for parking. Eliminate line of advertising ("Oreat Movies, Spirits, & Food") shown on plan. Construction of new trash enclosure closer to the south door in compliance with City code. Voting in favor: Voting against= Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. Chairman Cameron welcomed the petitioner to New Hope. PC-32 (3.4,) REQUEST TO CONS I D E R RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 42ND AVENUE IMPROVE- MENT STUDY IN- VOLVING PROPER- TIES FROM MPLS. NORTHFIELD & LOUISIANA AV. N. Chairman Cameron introduced the next case and Kirk McDonald called attention to the Planner's Report which outlines the parts of the 42nd Avenue Study to be amended, and states that 42nd Avenue will be the community commercial focal point and the highlighted areas are designated for either high density residential or commercial development. He added that the amendment necessitates a Minor Comprehensive Plan amendment which has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their review. Chairman Cameron questioned if there has been any comment or question from property owners or anyone else. New Hope Planning Commission -7- November 7, 1990 Mr. McDonald replied that Hennepin County and Metropolitan Council had called and they were very supportive, no questions from property owners. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commission Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 90-32, Request to Consider Resolution Amending the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study, and the Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. pC 90-33 (3.5) REQUEST TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE 90-7 RELATING TO SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 90-33 to consider Ordinance 90-7 and Kirk McDonald reviewed the request from the Watershed District that requires all the cities in Hennepin County to adopt a erosion and sediment control ordinance and develop a local plan. He noted that it was presented to the City Council originally and they in turn referred it back to the Planning Commission for study. He noted Codes and Standards had studied it with the City Engineer and their only question was regarding "assignment" of permit. He explained that it means that in the event that a sediment or erosion permit for development was issued to a developer and the land was sold or changed hands during the process of development, the original permittee has to notify the City of the new ownership so there is never loss of control by the City. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Watschke, to approve Planning Case 90-33 (Ordinance 90-7) adding Section 4.039B to the New Hope Zoning Code relating to Erosion and Sediment Control Rules and Regulations, under full recommendation of the Codes and Standards Committee. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. PC 90-34 (3.6) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~?3.OW ORIENTAL TAKE-OUT FOOD ESTABLISH- MENT AT 3542 WINNETKA AV. N. Planning Case 90-34 was introduced by the Chairman and Kirk McDonald presented the request for a conditional use permit to allow a 1,200 square foot take-out/delivery food establish- ment in Winnetka Commons Shopping Center, oriental food to be sold at the counter in disposable containers for consumption off the premises, no customer seating-only waiting area for pick-up orders. He called attention to staff concerns regarding interior trash storage and general lack of trash New Hope PlanningCommission -8- November 7, 1990 containers for the center on the front sidewalks, their proposed sign does not meet the comprehensive sign plan, clarification of employee parking only in rear, and service entrance. Stewart Erickson, Mackinaw Corporation, addressed the sign concern stating that the drawing submitted was copied from their Eden Prairie store, but they do plan to conform to the previously approved New Hope sign plan. Commissioner Sonsinquestioned the number of drivers that will be employed, if they have had any problems with them at their other location, provisions for trash storage, and types of containers that will be used to serve food, and hours of operation. Mr. Erickson replied that there will be approximately 4 or 5 employees at any given time in the store, maybe two handling deliveries while others do cooking, cleaning, and counter sales. He indicated they would have a number of trash containers in various places in the store, but their food is sold in waxed cardboard buckets rather than wrappers or styrofoam. Their hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. 7 days a week. Chairman Cameron wondered if drivers drive their own cars and what requirements they have for drivers as far as insurance and driving records, if they are given any special training, and if they advertise guaranteed delivery within a specified time as pizza deliverers do. Mr. Erickson stated the divers do drive their own cars, but they have a formula for checking insurance and driving records prior to their hiring and they keep files on them, they have to have their own insurance and company carries insurance on them as well. He assured they have not had problems with accidents or speeding tickets. Commissioner Gundershaugquestioned where the drivers would be parking their cars and asked for assurance that cars would be parked behind the building and not in front. He also wondered what percentage of their business would be delivery and what the maximum number of drivers might be if they got real busy. Mr. Erickson replied they do not want their drivers dashing through the store, so they will be required to park behind. He stated they expect about 25% to 30% delivery at this location, with I to 2 miles delivery range. Mr. Curry assured that the lack of front sidewalk trash containers was purely an oversight, but they will be provided throughout the center. New Hope Planning Commission -9- November 7, 1990 Commissioner Sonsin called attention to the issue of the driveways. Mr. Curry explained that there is no utility easement in the southernmost driveway along Winnetka, only a County Highway right-of-way, and there are massive amounts of utilities, concrete-encased power lines, gas lines, water lines, sewer lines, and one of the largest TV cable installations located there and the pole cannot be moved because there is no room to resink the pole, so in constructing the driveway approach the curb was looped around the pole. He stated the only alternative was to make it a one-way driveway. Kirk McDonald suggested that the developer meet with him and the Building Official to discuss the issue. Commissioner Sonsin suggested that the recommendations for approval include annual review and automatic expiration of the conditional use permit if Gung Ho ceases operations. Commissioner Oja asked for confirmation that the parking at the rear of the building would be along the southerly edge and not in the loading zone. She further cautioned that the signage indicated for the window be in compliance with the code. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve a conditional use permit for a take- out/delivery food establishment at 35&2 Winnetka Avenue North, as requested in Planning Case 90-34, subject to the following conditions: That inside trash storage be clarified, and details for outside trash storage and plan for front sidewalk trash receptacles be submitted. That revised tenant sign plan meet conditions of center comprehensive plan. That parking in rear of building comply with "employees only" requirement. That southwest service entry be rebuilt to comply with approved plans or developer submit "as built" plan and meet with staff to resolve this issue. Annual review by City staff. Conditional use permit will expire automatically if Gung Ho ceases operations. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. Chairman Cameron welcomed the petitioner to New Hope. New Hope Planning Commission -10- November 7, 1990 ~C 90-35 (3.7) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW TO MODIFY EXISTING BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~T~OW CONVENIENCE FOOD IN B-4 ZONING DISTRICT, 4300 XYLON AV. N. Planning Case 90-35 was introduced by the Chairman. Kirk McDonald reviewed the request for site/building plan review approval to modify the existing building, which was built in 1971, and a conditional use permit to allow convenience food in a B-4 Zoning District. He stated the petitioner wishes to remove the glass in the front of the building and infill with concrete block to match the existing, remove the food bar at the back and build a new eatery in the front portion of the store. He added that this is part of a nationwide K-Mart refurbishing program and pointed out proposed additional landscaping and new planting aisles in the parking lot to enhance the store's image. Chairman Cameron questioned why the landscaping plan did not go before the Design and Review Committee, since it involved extensive exterior changes and suggested the case be tabled and sent back to Design and Review. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what amount of glass would be removed, if new exterior would match the old, if any new signage was planned on the building, if the entire parking lot perimeter will be concrete curb. Tim Reiner, Weis Builders, Inc., answered that the entire store-front glass would be removed, except for the entry doors, and the new blocks will match as close as possible since the old blocks have weathered some. He stated the only concrete curbs he was aware of will be around the planting islands. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned staff regarding City Engineer's review of the plan regarding drainage. Mr. McDonald replied that the City Engineer has not reviewed the plan. MOTION Motion by Commission Friedrich, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to table Planning Case 90-35 for one month and refer to Design and Review Committee. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. PC 90-36 (3.8) REQUEST TO REZON'B FROM B-3 (&U~O- ORIENTED) TO B-2 (RETAIL BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT, CONDITIONAL USE Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-36 and Kirk McDonald presented the request. He explained the plan is to demolish the existing Burger King Restaurant and construct a new bank which involves reconstruction of the entire site with a new building, new landscaping, curb cuts and parking lot. He noted that they originally presented a request for a temporary facility, but the request has been withdrawn. Mr. New Hope Planning Commission -11- November 7, 1990 PERMITS FOR & SIX DRIVE-IN LANES, VARIANCE FOR LOADING AREA AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN 7001-7009 ~3tSS ~ ROAD McDonald stated that the rezoning request is being made because the current zoning is B-3 (auto-oriented) and banks are not a permitted use, and there are other B-2 districts currently existing on Bass Lake Road. He added that the bank is requesting a reduction in the loading berth because they have only small amounts of deliveries. He called attention to items discussed by Design and Review, some of which have been incorporated into a new plan but some have not, i.e. excess parking on the south side, larger buffer area, and relocation of loading dock. He confirmed that the curb cut plans and traffic information has been reviewed by Hennepin County, City Engineer, and Planner and all agree on the plans, but staff feels discussion on relocation of the loading dock is necessary. Chairman Cameron addressed the rezoning issue and asked for a justification of the request. Mr. McDonald outlined the various zonings on the properties in the area and stated staff has reviewed it with the Planner and it is felt that the nature of the area has changed from auto- oriented to a retail type district and a bank would be compatible in the zoning change. MOTION Chairman Cameron called for a motion on the rezoning separate from the balance of the request. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve the rezoning of 7001-09 Bass Lake Road due to the fact that the nature of the area has changed from strictly an auto-oriented district to a retail type business district. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. Chairman Cameron called on the petitioner's representative to proceed with his explanation of the balance of the request. Tim Grover, architect, reviewed the location of the drive-in lanes and the access area, the curb cuts agreed to by New Hope and Hennepin County, and the parking. He pointed out the peak time needs of the bank as concerns the parking allowed, stating they would need at least 50 stalls to maintain good service to customers. He explained that since they are a detached facility, supplies are received from the parent bank by van or armored car before or after banking hours, therefore they do not see a need for a large loading zone and it would be best for them to have it located at the south entry to the bank if they have to provide one. He reviewed the building New Hope Planning Commission -12- November 7, 1990 plans and materials and colors of the outside construction, which will be brown to rough colored brick with Kasota stone band top and middle and a copper colored metal cap and roof. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern over the parking and green area. He questioned the percentage of drive-in customers compared with those who utilize lobby services. He questioned if it was planned to be a full-service bank and the number of people who would be on the premises at any given time. Mr. Grover replied that there will be between 19 and 20 full- time employees covering an overlap of shifts. He added that it is necessary for customers to do business inside the bank besides the drive-up business. He noted that they had done extensive marketing surveys and found that bank customers are concerned mainly over ingress and egress and parking space. Commissioner Gundershaug referred to the south property line fence and screening planned, the enlargement of the east property line area, and the sprinkling of landscape. Mr. Grover explained the fence that is currently there will be removed and a new fence constructed the length of the property and 3 feet from the property line, plus landscaping added in front of it. He added that the area on the east side had been enlarged to 8 feet and confirmed that sprinklers are in the plan. Commissioner Gundershaug asked for confirmation on continuous concrete curb around the site and also what type of deliveries the loading dock would be used for and when it would be used. Mr. Grover confirmed the concrete curb, but stated'they did not feel the need for the loading dock because their deliveries consist of basically papers and forms and are made before banking hours, or armored cars delivering money. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the number of drive-in lanes they expect to open and was informed that 4 would be opened right away and 2 added later. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about snow removal and was advised it would be hauled away. Commissioner Gundershaug then inquired about signage and outdoor refuse storage, and where the refuse truck will load from. Mr. Grover answered that they are aware of the sign ordinance and signs will comply. He stated that they will have all refuse stored inside and it will be loaded at the loading area. New Hope Planning Commission -13- November 7, 1990 Commissioner Watshcke asked about number of cars that could be stacked in the lanes. Mr. Grover stated that about 25 to 35 could be handled at peak times and if it became a problem they would open the 5th and 6th lanes. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be no lighting on the building and no roof-top equipment, and the light standards shown on the plan would be downlighting. Commissioner Sonsin asked for verification on material to be used in the copper dome and what is to be done with a large tree at the southwest corner of the lot. Mr. Grover stated that the dome will be copper-colored galvanized metal and the tree is not attractive enough to be saved so will removed. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Watschke, to approve conditional use permit for a bank and six drive-up lanes, variance to reduce the size of the loading berth to be located at east side of bank, and site/building plan review requested in Planning Case 90-36, subject to the following conditions: Signage plans be submitted in conformance with Section 3.40 of the City Code. Building plans be reviewed by the City Building Official. Grading,drainage, and utility plans be reviewed by the City Engineer. Voting in favor: Abstaining: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Friedrich None None Motion passed. PC 90-37 (3.9) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SPECIALTY SCHOOL IN I-1 (LIMITED INDUST- RIAL DISTRICT) , 5701 INTER- NATIONAL PARKWAY Planning Case 90-37 was called for by the Chairman and presented by Kirk McDonald. Mr. McDonald noted that this case was discussed at Design and Review and a revised plan has been submitted which addressed a number of the concerns, with the exception to the drop-off area, and he noted that staff has submitted a recommendation for an enlarged drive-aisle, a larger no parking zone, and directional arrows painted on the asphalt. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about addition of landscaping on the south side and cleanup of current landscaping, new signs, hours of operation, scheduling of meets, number of spectators and parking availability. New Hope Planning Commission -14- November 7, 1990 A1 Netten, Griffin Real Estate, stated that no new landscaping is planned but existing would be cleaned up, sign would be in accordance with City regulations, hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. with majority of students after 4:30 p.m., meets held on Saturday afternoons and all day Sundays with only 2 or 3 scheduled a year, parking is adequate. Commissioner Zakquestioned the metal stairway and also use of the alternate entrance on the east side of the building. Mr. Netten described the stairway as a corrugated metal. He explained that the east entrance is open for parents who wish to park and stay. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Friedrich, to approve conditional use permit to allow operation of a specialty school (gymnastics) in an I-1 Zoning District, requested in Planning Case 90-37, subject to the following conditions~ "Drop-off" area be revised to coincide with staff recommendations show in Exhibit A. All special events to be conducted on weekends. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None None Motion passed. PC 90-38 (3.10) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VArIANCE TO INST.?.?. A SATELLITE DISH TO EXCEED ROOF HEIGHT REQUIRE- MENT, 3566 WINNETKA AV. N. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-38. Kirk McDonald explained that Walgreens wishes to install a satellite dish which is necessary to their pharmacy and many aspects of their store operation. He referred to the code requirements for this type of equipment and indicated there was a difference of opinion between petitioner and staff as to what constitutes roof height, but consultation with Planner and City Attorney confirmed that the parapet was part of the wall and cannot be considered as part of the roof. He added that the consultant and staff agree that placement on the roof is merited since there is not room behind the store because of the asphalt and parking and fencing needed to protect an attractive nuisance on the ground, plus there are other businesses in the City with this type of equipment on the roof. He called attention to the conditions of approval. Mr. Richard Hadler, Senior Real Estate Manager for Walgreens, addressed the Commission and stated that this type of rapid communication equipment is a lifeline to Walgreens information transfer of prescriptions throughout the United States, but they are expanding to include all payroll, inventory, and other data being moved by satellite and therefore it is mandatory to their business. New Hope Planning Commission -15- November 7, 1990 Chairman Cameron asked for confirmation on the height of the satellite dish. Mr. Hadler explained that it was 8 feet high and would extend 3 feet about the top of the 5 foot parapet, but it would probably only be visible from distance away. Commissioner Sonsin asked if the parapet encompasses the building and was informed it was on the west and north sides and about 50 feet on the east side. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if could be painted to match the building. Mr. Hadler said they would comply if it did not present any technical drawback. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve the conditional use permit to install a satellite dish to exceed roof height requirement, requested in Planning Case 90-39, subject to the following conditions: 3. ¢. 5. The dish shall be of a neutral color that matches the existing building. Proper screening shall be provided. A building permit shall be required. Conformance with National Electrical Code. Compliance with sign ordinance for any lettering or scenes contained on the disc. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Oja None Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review met and discussed four cases. Codes & Standards met and discussed Ordinance 90-7 regarding Erosion and Sediment Control. A meeting has been scheduled for November 19th (changed from November 14th) to discuss sign ordinance and parking in residential and industrial areas. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission minutes of October 2, 1990 were approved. City Council minutes and HRA minutes of September 24, and October 8, 1990, and Work Session minutes of October 1, 1990, were reviewed. New Hope Planning Commission -16- Novewmber 7, 1990 1991 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule was handed out. Chairman Cameron questioned the construction of the new ball field on International Parkway and why it was not presented to the Planning Commission. The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -17- November 7, 1990 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 4, 1990 CAr,r, TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CAT.T. Present: Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Cassen (arrived 7:40) Friedrich PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 90-35A (3.1) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO A?3.OW CONVENIENCE FOOD IN A B-4 ZONING DISTRICT, 4300 XYLON AVENUE NO. Chairman Cameron introduced the first planning case, No. 90- 35A. Alan Brixius, City Planner, substituting in Kirk McDonald's absence, reviewed the presentation of the request at the November meeting, noting that it was tabled and subsequently directed to Design and Review to study. He explained that staff feels it is necessary to divide the original request into two separate requests to be handled individually. He noted that the Part A deals with a conditional use permit for the relocation of the interior dining area from the back of the building to the front and reduced in size and this phase will not impact or affect the exterior appearance of the building or the traffic generation and parking, therefore staff recommends approval of the request for the conditional use permit separate from the parking lot which will be handled as Part B. He stated they have met with K-Mart and they are receptive to undertaking a study of the parking lot by the City Engineer and following up on his comments. This study is expected to be concluded by the end of December so staff is requesting the parking lot phase be tabled. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 35A for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Convenience Food in a B-4 Zoning District. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None Cassen, Friedrich Motion carried. PC 90-35B (3.2) REQUEST FOR SITE/ BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY EXIST- ING BUILDING, 4300 XYLON AV.N. Chairman Cameron called for a motion to table the Part B request of Planning Case 90-35. New Hope Planning Commission -1- December 4, 1990 MOTION Chairman Cameron called for a motion to table the Part B request of Planning Case 90-35. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Oja, to table Planning Case 35B for one month. Voting in favors Voting against~ Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Oundershaug, Watschke None Cassen, Friedrich Oja, Motion carried. PC 90-39 (3.3) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TEMPORARY OFFICE/ BUSINESS HOME OCCUPATION IN RESIDENTIAL ZONINO DISTRICT, 6000 SUMTER AV.N. The Chairman called on Alan Brixius to introduce Planning Case 90-39. Mr. Brixius explained that there is a contractor operating out of his home a 6000 Sumter Avenue North and following a number of complaints received by staff from neighbors the petitioner was informed he would have to apply for a conditional use permit to continue. He stated that the application requests the location of a temporary office in his home and allowance for temporary parking for 4 employees until he can relocate to an industrial site in the summer of 1991. He outlined the criteria for home business and noted the complaints received were justified since there is an adverse impact on the neighborhood with equipment storage, traffic and parking creating a nuisance, therefore staff recommends denial of the request. Chairman Cameron called on the petitioner to come before the Commission and explain his request. Allan Foster stated that the building permit application was not made specifically for building an office in the house but to finish off the existing basement to make a four-bedroom home. He added that at the present time, with the economy down, they only have 1 part-time employee, and he further stated that the storage on the site was not related to the construction business, but was materials that had been removed from the house waiting for someone to haul away. Chairman Cameron questioned what trucks and equipment he owned and if it was stored on the site Mr. Foster explained that he had two pickup trucks and two cars, and in 1989 he had a snow-plowing truck there which he learned could not be parked there so it has been removed. Commissioner Sonsin asked for clarification on the number of employees currently employed on the site, what kind of hours they worked, where the records and paperwork for the bus~ness were handled, and if the slowdown in economy might keep the petitioner from moving his business at a later time. New Hope Planning Commission -2- December 4, 1990 Mr. Foster answered that the one outside employee works about 20 hours a week, parking in the driveway, except for occasional times where he drives directly to a job site. He added that his business is conducted from the dining room of his house, but he is still hopeful of moving the business out of the home in the summer of 1991. He explained that he has met with the Building Official and was informed he basically needed to rectify the traffic and parking problem. Commissioner Sonsin called attention to the complaints about a number of cars being parked on the street all day. Chairman Cameron questioned the petitioner on the length of time he has lived in the home and how long he has been conducting his business from there. Mr. Foster replied that he has lived in New Hope for 7 years and has been in the business for 5 years. Chairman Cameron wondered why the complaints had become so numerous within the past year when he has been in business that long. Mr. Foster offered the explanation that employees started coming to the home and riding together rather than driving directly to the job site. He noted that he was aware of a problem for school buses when cars were parked on Sumter Avenue so they changed to parking on 60th Avenue North. Chairman Cameron asked how the petitioner's business would be affected if the City denied his application. Mr. Foster answered that he was not sure what the impact would be, but it probably would cause a total shutdown. Chairman Cameron suggested that the City probably would not want to cause this to happen, but since exterior signs of business are not appropriate and business taxes are not being paid, any outward indication of business being conducted in a private residence is under control by the City. He called attention to possible future growth in the business which would create further problems and he emphasized that employees working out of a home is not a permitted use in New Hope. Commissioner Gundershaugquestioned if employees could park at the site where equipment is stored rather than at the home and he added that with the assurance that it will be done he has no problem with the office itself as long as there are no deliveries required to the home. Commissioner Oja wondered if any of the employees who are coming to the home remain there or if they all leave. New Hope Planning Commission -3- December 4, 1990 Mr. Foster confirmed that his wife is the only one working in the home office. Chairman Cameron asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Roger Lonsky stated he lives across the street and his concern is with the parking problem that is created on the corner, especially with children in the vicinity and when the snow falls. Chairman Cameron wondered if the Commission granted a permit for a one-year time limit, would the petitioner give assurance that, other than the petitioner's own vehicles or an employee stopping to pick up a paycheck, etc., no cars or trucks would be parked there for any length of time and no equipment stored there and no outside signage used and would the petitioner continue to pursue his plans to move the office to another location within that time limit. Mr. Foster agreed to the conditions set forth. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 90-39, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Temporary Office in a Residential Zoning District subject to the following conditions: 4e No outside storage on the premises of business equipment and materials. No vehicles parked on the premises other than vehicles owned by the business owner or vehicles suitable to the neighborhood. No employees coming to the home for any time duration and parking vehicles on or near the property at any time. Conditional Use Permit to expire in 12 months and subject to review of complaints by staff. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None Friedrich Motion passed. PC 90-40 (3.4) ~U~QUEST FOR SITE/ BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY EXIST- ING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT BUILD- ADDITION, VARI- ANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK, VARI- Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-40, a request from the Creamette Company, and called on the representative for Creamette. Don Litterer, Operations Plant Manager, addressed the Commission. He explained that they have revised the plans following a meeting with the Design & Review Committee and meetings with the neighborhood. He illustrated the revisions with overhead transparencies, pointing out added trees of 4' to 6' in height, drainage, catch basins, and underground drain New Hope Planning Commission -4- December 4, 1990 ANCE TO EXPAND NON-CONFORMING BUILDING, AND CONDXTIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~?~.OW LOADING BERTH IN FRONT YARD, 7300 36TH AVENUE NO. tile to handle run-off of water. He continued his presenta- tion pointing out additional new vertical board-on-board fencing to be installed, but the height of such fence is still in question because neighbors are requesting a 10-foot fence while the City Code regulations call for 8-foot fencing, therefore requiring a variance, and also the cost factor of a 10-foot fence is involved. Mr. Litterer went on to discuss the noise screening aspect and indicated that the east wall could be raised to provide a noise barrier or, as the neighbors suggest, the equipment could be moved to top of the existing wall within the building which will be further in and provide an effective noise barrier without the foreboding 40' wall. He stated that two air handling units will be needed for building ventilation and they will be moved as close to the westerly wall as feasible. He added that they propose to use a new technology by putting additional surrounding secondary noise-insulating packing around the units. Mr. Litterer called attention to a change in the new dock area which provides a supporting wall matching the side of the building. He continued by pointing out the existing and new plant groupings, and the planned removal of deteriorating and aging Russian Olive trees. He also pointed out the addition of a new fire hydrant and new fire lanes mandated by the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshall. Commissioner Gundershaug asked for confirmation of what will actually be done on the east wall line and if it will match existing. He also requested confirmation of the screening/ painting of the roof-top equipment, replacement of the Russian Olive trees and where new trees would be located. He expressed concern on the fencing and asked for clarification on the location and if it will match the existing. Mr. Litterer confirmed the wall would match the existing concrete wall, the roof-top equipment would be painted and screened, the location and replacement of trees, and he pointed out that the grade rises drastically going north but due to excavation at some time the elevation of some residences remains quite low and the neighbors who set low have requested no fence. He indicated the new fence will match existing, and reiterated that the height is in question. Chairman Cameron asked for input from the audience on the fence. Mr. Jim Scheller, 3733 Maryland, presented a petition signed by neighbors who object to any kind of expansion by the plant and indicated that the inference that the neighbors were in agreement to the fence is an erroneous assumption and they are not collaborating in the program. New Hope Planning Commission -5- December 4, 1990 Mr. Litterer responded that some neighbors are requesting a screening fence along the east property line and they were proposing to build a fence the neighbors would like. Chairman Cameron cautioned that it had to be within the City ordinance. Commissioner Gundershaug referred to the new loading berth and truck maneuverability. Mr. Litterer pointed out that all the shipping docks on the east side are gone and the area will become a sodded green area. He indicated that shipping and receiving will be on the west side and the new loading berth would be for a different size trailer, while the main road trailers will use another area. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if there is going to be a change in hours of operation and if truck traffic would be limited to certain hours for pickup and delivery. Mr. Litterer answered that they will still operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He stated that they have limited the pickup and delivery hours, but occasionally there will be a truck wandering around the area and they have eliminated some carriers because they fail to cooperate. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned lighting on the addition and curbing around the area. Mr. Litterer pointed out there will be complete perimeter downlighting of the type that exists now and on the front there will be downlights under the canopy and additional floodlighting along the top part of the building. He noted that when lights burn out they get calls from neighbors to replace the burned-out lights because the lighting provides some security for their yards. He indicated that the area, including the fire lane, will have blacktop curbing. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how long the semi-trailers set in the area, noting that he drove through earlier in the day and saw a trailer sitting on the grass and some in the back that look like they had been there for some time. Mr. Litterer responded that some may sit overnight but they usually move out as soon as they are loaded or unloaded. He pointed out that the trailers in back are currently being used as "temporary portable outside warehousing". Commissioner Gundershaug wondered about a trash compactor and screening. Mr. Litterer stated they use a roll on-roll off compactor and staff indicated that screening was not a criteria since they do not have a dumpster type of trash disposal. New Hope Planning Commission -6- December 4, 1990 Commissioner Gundershaug asked if exits on the east side of the building comply with fire and safety codes and if they propose any new signage. Mr. Litterer confirmed the exits on the east side are in compliance and stated no new signage is planned. Commissioner Gundershaugquestioned if the recommendations of the Fire Department had been met. Mr. Litterer responded that they have met with the Fire Marshall and sprinkler representatives and they are studying some additional equipment which has been recommended. He pointed out that the system is completely hydraulically operated, indicating the sprinkling provisions in each area of the new and old building. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if the 60-yard setback problem on the southwest corner of the building had been resolved. Mr. Litterer stated that part of the area contained a 30-foot utility easement. Mr. Brixius, Northwest Consultants, addressed the issue, stating that he discussed it with the City Attorney and that it was his opinion that if there was no development potential for that easement area, the City has control of the easement. Commissioner Gundershaug requested that handicapped parking be designated on the plans. Chairman Cameron asked if there are plans for further expansion. Mr. Litterer explained that this was Phase 1 of a potential 3- phase expansion. He indicated where the next two phases would be built, with Phase 3 requiring the acquisition of the Rainbow property on the west, which is available at the present time but is currently prohibitive because of price. He stated that they are studying several different innovative plans for Phase 2, but he cannot predict when it would be built. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed the current green space at 43%. Commissioner Oja questioned the dispatcher location, where the truck traffic flows and what increase in truck traffic is expected with the new addition. Mr. Litterer explained that truck traffic flow is maintained by walkie-talkie communication and he added that the increase in truck traffic is not predictable. New Hope Planning Commission -7- December 4, 1990 Commissioner Oja questioned parking of trucks on east side and was informed the east side area is now grass, building, fence and trees. Commissioner Zak asked about the use and storage of pallets. Mr. Litterer explained that industry is switching to a new form of cardboard slip-sheets rather than pallets because the pallets are expensive. Chairman Cameron called for statements from the audience. Mr. Scheller asked if the Commission had discussed the plans with the petitioner prior to tonight's meeting and was informed that Design & Review Committee met with them as part of the official process. He also questioned if any of the Commissioners had recently visited the site and he wanted to know if there is a transcript available from the last time a variance was granted for this site. He called attention to stipulations granted the last time, claiming the petitioner has not abided by them. He offered a video tape that he had taken to point out the lack of cooperation in carrying out the requirements for the variances. He stressed a conflict with the green space, offering to hire an architect at his own cost to review the plans and demonstrate the lack of green space and excess lot coverage. He stated he had called the MPCA to look at the situation regarding odors and was informed the company has insufficient permits. He voiced concerns over the noise and also trucks stopping traffic on 36th, plus the deterioration of the road from the trucks. He requested a postponement of the case for more study. A female resident who did not give her name and address voiced her complaint that she cannot open her windows now in the summer because of the noise from the air conditioners, stating they soundproofing was promised and it was never done, and now they plan to add more equipment and amplify the problem. Alan Shogren, 3740 Maryland Avenue, complained about the trucks on the east side of the building holding up traffic on the street both morning and night when he goes to and from work. He added a complaint about a real fine white dust that is so prevalent that they cannot open house windows because it sifts in and it also covers cars parked in the yards. He emphasized his opposition to the granting of any more variances. Bob Berge, 3756 Maryland, expressed concern over the property depreciation and he suggested a halt to any further variances. Mr. Scheller directed a question to Mr. Litterer regarding the purpose of a form of toxin in the grain cars and was told it is phostoxin used by the grain mills to control insects and contaminants coming in from the fields and to sterilize the grain or flour. New Hope Planning Commission -8- December 4, 1990 Mr. Scheller called attention to excessive spillage on the tracks, less than 50 feet from a residence, and noted it is visible on the video tape. He stated he had called MPCA who said they have witnessed it and would do a toxicology report on it. He added that even if it is not injurious it is food that attracts rodents and crows. Mr. Litterer replied that phostoxin is a gas which dissipates rapidly and the spillage on the tracks is probably due to a defective railcar. Debra Harless, 3717 Maryland, requested more information and more time to gather information on traffic studies, property values, impact on area, etc. Chairman Cameron commented that when he read this plan he felt this plan was finally one that would appease the neighborhood. Mr. $cheller reiterated that they want the case delayed. There was a discussion at this point between Mr. Litterer and a resident about the east side and south side doors and the truck traffic that is generated onto and blocking 36th Avenue. Vanessa Jackson, 3741 Maryland, wondered if the drainage would overload the residential sewer system and was advised by the Chairman that the City Engineer would be aware and take care of that kind of problem. Mark Harless, 3717 Maryland, expressed concern that a higher wall would block out the evening sunlight in the summer. A discussion on the wall continued between residents and Mr. Litterer. Chairman Cameron stressed that the Commission will insist on the plans showing complete information before approving the request. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern over the noise and dust problems and if there are dust collectors. Mr. Litterer stated that they have tried to address the noise problem by maintaining the equipment and the raising of the wall 6' to 10'above the air handling units. He acknowledged that they have dust collectors which are checked all the time and if there is a tear in a dust collector bag, they shut down and replace the bag. He added that sometimes there will be a leaky railcar causing dust and they try to clean it up when they know about it, but they do not have as much control over that. Chairman Cameron expressed concerns over the dust and noise. New Hope Planning Commission -9- December 4, 1990 Mr. Litter explained that new state-of-the-art technology in the production of pasta eliminates roof exhaust blowers and all the exhaust is contained within the plant and all that goes through the roof is exhaust of the steam. He added that replacement of old equipment will eventually remove any inherent noise producing equipment and all that will be on top of the building is equipment to handle air in the building. Commissioner Gundershaug asked for a planned starting time if they get approval. Mr. Litterer answered that it depends on what happens at this meeting and if it is passed on to Council for their next meeting, and also depends on the costs that will be added when the entire proposal is approved. Chairman Cameron asked what will happen if the proposal is not approved. Mr. Litterer replied that he did not know, that it will be up to Bordens, the parent company, to decide. Commissioner Watschke wondered about putting the two new units behind the wall. Mr. Litterer stated that anything is possible, but if it requires additional structural changes it would be a matter of whether it is practical from a cost standpoint. Commissioner Watschke asked for confirmation on the size of the trees to be added and suggested larger trees. Mr. Litterer stated that also involves a cost factor, as what is proposed is probably about $40,000 to $60,000 already. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he thought this plan would finally resolve most of the issues with Creamettes and be a good thing for the residents, although he would like to see the noise and dust issues cleared up and he suggested taking another 30 days to study the plan. Mr. Litterer stated that neighbors who have shown favor with the new plan are not present. Chairman Cameron stated his opinion that he is in favor of tabling the request for one month and requested that the petitioner plan to come back with specific information on the air-handling units, the cost of moving them inside the wall and an agreement on the fence. He requested City staff to report on the number of complaints received in the last 4 or 5 years since the last variance was granted. Commissioner Zak questioned if noise levels have been measured and Chairman Cameron answered that a check of the records will indicate if EPA has been in contact with the City. New Hope Planning Commission -10- December 4, 1990 Mr. Litterer affirmed they have had contact with EPA. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Oja, to table Planning Case 90-40 until January, 1991. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None Friedrich Motion carried. Chairman Cameron accepted the video tape from Mr. Scheller and turned it over to staff to hold for review by members of the Commission and City staff at their convenience. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review met and discussed K-Mart and Creamettes, and K-Mart will be back before the Commission in January. Codes & Standards has met several times and discussed changes to'zoning which are covered in the packet mailing. The issue of variances granted for tenant identification on shopping center signs has caused a need for changes and these changes are covered in the ordinance amending the New Hope Sign Code. Commissioner Sonsin recommended the ordinance be sent to the City Council for approval. The City Planner stated that the City Attorney has approved it as drafted. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to recommend the City Council approve the Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Relating to Tenant Directory on Ground Signs Identifying Shopping Centers. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke None Friedrich Motion carried. Commissioner Sonsin introduced the next item studied by Codes & Standards relating to a request from City Council to study parking requirements in residential neighborhoods specifically prohibiting commercial vehicles from being stored in residential neighborhoods. The Committee and staff recommend the off-street parking requirements remain as is and should not be amended. Commissioner Sonsin presented a third item discussed by Codes & Standards relating to parking requirements for industrial properties where such properties and businesses have a reduced need for parking because of automation and fewer employees using the parking. The City Planner asked that this issue be tabled for one month to allow the City Attorney to study. New Hope Planning Commission -11- December 4, 1990 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Sonsin stated they will next study the number of warehouses allowed in the City. He reported that a question of policy regulating and licensing adult book stores in the City has come up and Chairman Cameron responded that direction on the subject should come from the City Council. None Several concerns were raised regarding the reader board added to the McDonald's sign, the pile of snow in the center of Winnetka Shopping Center, and the advertising of products on the front of the Holiday Station on 36th. Staff was requested to investigate past minutes to confirm that conditions given are being followed. Commissioner Cassen expressed a desire to have the Code Compliance studied to require the compliance be enforced prior to the signing of the purchase agreement. Chairman Cameron directed the matter to City staff to study. Planning Commission minutes of November 7, 1990 were approved as printed and all other minutes received no comments. Commissioner Sonsin moved to adjourn the meeting, followed by an unanimous consensus. Meeting was adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -12- December 4, 1990