Loading...
1991 PlanningCITY OF NEW HOPE 4401XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 2, 1991 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Watschke Absent: Oja Friedrich, Cameron, PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 90-35B (3.1) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW TO MODIFY EXISTING BUILDING, 4300 XYLON AVENUE NO. Chairman Cameron introduced'Planning Case No. 90-35B and noted a request to table the case for one month, as staff will be meeting with K-Mart representatives in mid-January. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 35B for one month. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None Oja Motion carried. PC 90-40 (3.2) REQUEST FOR SITE/ BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY EXIST- ING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT BUILD- ING ADDITION, VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK, VARIANCE TO EX- PAND NON-CONFORM- ING BUILDING, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW LOADING BERTH IN FRONT YARD, 7300 36TH AVENUE NO. Chairman Cameron announced that Planning Case 90-40 has been carried over from last month. He welcomed the petitioner back and asked to have an explanation of the revised plan that has been submitted. Mr. Litterer, Operations Plant Manager for Creamette Company, reviewed the concerns from the last meeting regarding the handicapped parking and the blacktopped area, pointing out the location of the handicapped stalls and stating that the blacktop would be repaired in the Spring. He explained the catch basins, underground drain tile system, storm drain to handle storm water runoff, diking to slow runoff, and general roof drainage to the north and south. He outlined the roof line changes, screening of existing equipment, and location of new air handling units to the furthest west position on the proposed addition, emphasizing that to move them on to the old building roof would require extensive structural steel to support the weight plus exten- sive and costly structural changes. He pointed out the loca- tion of the sound barrier equipment and the proposed fence and elevations. He noted the dock area in front and explained that only trucks less than 50 feet in length will use it. New Hope Planning Commission -1- January 2, 1991 Chairman Cameron questioned the necessity of having the additional front dock. Mr. Litterer explained that smaller trucks tie up the other docks and they can move all trucks in and out faster by having the smaller local delivery trucks loading in that area. He emphasized the closing and elimination of the docks and doors along the entire east side which makes the front dock area very important. Chairman Cameron wondered what additional truck traffic will be encountered on 36th Avenue because of the addition. Eugene Rutherford, in charge of Transportation and Warehousing for Creamettes, responded that with larger trailers to carry products it will not create a substantial increase in truck traffic. He indicated that only 10-20 extra truckloads per week would be entering and exiting the plant. He explained that they are not increasing production but strictly adding warehouse and storage space, the lack of which is a problem. Commissioner Gundershaug raised the issue of the noise concerns expressed at the last meeting and wondered what kind of noise would be created or added by the new rooftop units. Mr. Litterer explained that they are refrigeration compressors and blowers which are surrounded by a sound enclosure ?£om the manufacturer. He showed a sample of metal screen and fiber- glass sound barrier material which will be put around the units in addition to what is used by the manufacturer. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how far above the units the material would be installed, how far along the building it would go. Mr. Litterer emphasized that the idea is to prevent noise from going horizontally, that noise rising up does not create a problem as it dissipates. He pointed out that part of the wall around the old units is pre-stressed concrete screening and the soundproofing panels would surround the new units. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the masonry screening would match the building. He then referred to the dust issue and asked if there is a routine schedule for cleaning the air cleaners. Mr. Litterer replied that they changed all their dust collector bags while they had a 24-hour Christmas shutdown. He explained that they use double-knit pOlyester, self- cleaning bags and they have a routine schedule for cleaning them, although it is not necessarily by time but by usage, i.e. there are pressure indicators that warn when the bags start to plug. He stated that there can be a mechanical failure, but they have someone monitoring them so they are aware of any such failure. New Hope Planning Commission -2- January 2, 1991 Commissioner Gundershaug then referred to the landscaping issue and asked for explanation of the location of 38 new trees. Mr. Litterer pointed out the areas of new trees and explained the aging Russian Olive trees will be removed and replaced with evergreens. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that he had driven through the area recently and noted trailers and trucks parked all over the area. Mr. Litterer explained that the trucks in question contain inventory because at present there is no room in the building. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered if they would have an ongoing problem with inventory stacking up and he asked for assurance that the situation would improve after the addition is built. Mr. Litterer stated that they can only speculate on such a situation coming up, but if it did they would have to go into Phase 2 of the plan, however there is no corporate direction on it at this time. Commissioner Zak asked what the sound barrier screening is made of and if it would be hidden behind the masonry. She wondered if there were better materials such as foam. Mr. Litterer explained that it is basically fiberglass covered with a metal screening designed for absorbing noise but not for insulating or visual sCreening. He pointed out that it has been in use in the area for several years. He showed the areas where it would be used. Commissioner Zak wondered if an MPCA toxology report had been requested. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, responded that the Building Official had contacted them but no report has been received. Chairman Cameron cautioned the petitioner that the City will require platting of the property as a condition of the case being approved by Council. He further questioned the petitioner what precautions will be taken to prevent dust during the construction period. Mr. Litterer emphasized that it is their desire to get most of the dirt moving and excavation done before open-window time in the summer and assured they will try desperately to accomplish that. Chairman Cameron called for comments from the audience. New Hope Planning Commission -3- January 2, 1991 Mr. James Scheller, 3733 Maryland Avenue North, who had tried to speak earlier and was asked to hold his comments until the time that public participation in the case was invited, asked why this meeting was not considering the fence proposal that the residents were informed aboUt in the recent public hearing notice. Chairman Cameron informed him that this part of the meeting was a continuation of last month's meeting in which this case was tabled for one month. Mr. Scheller complained that no mention of the continuation was made in the notice that was received and he felt it was a disservice to the neighbors because they thought it was only the fence proposal that was being considered and had nothing to do with them, otherwise they would have all been in attendance. Chairman Cameron explained that the fence is a brand new case which requires the City by law to inform all property owners within 350' whenever there is a new case, but the basic case was continued from last month. Mr. Scheller stated they did not know when the continuation was to be held and was informed by the Chair that there is only one meeting a month. Mr. Scheller added that the residents were not informed of that either. He then a,ked for clarification as to what zoning criteria is being used for the property in question and was informed by Mr. McDonald that performance standards of industrial zoning are used and the case has also been referred to the City Engineer, Building Official, Fire Chief, Fire Marshall, and Planning Consultant for review. Mr. Schetler continued saying that he has had his home evaluated by a real estate company and learned his assessed evaluation is going down, and he stressed the changes that have come about in the neighborhood during his 20 years there. Chairman Cameron stated that it is understood that there are problemS when residential and industrial neighborhoods are back-to-back, but it seemed the aspects of this new proposal to close the docks on the east side where the houses are and move the activity to the west side would be a relief to the close neighbors. Debra and Mark Harless, 3717 Maryland Avenue, speaking individually, commented on property values going down and living beside a major industrial plant even though they moved there after Creamettes. They expressed concerns regarding the number and height of fences behind the property. Mrs. Harless commented on the possibility of noise going over her house and disturbing the residents across the street. New Hope Planning Commission -4- January 2, 1991 Commissioner Gundershaug asked what the petitioner was proposing on the fences. Mr. Litterer replied that the small original chain link fence is being removed from some properties and replaced by a wood fence. MOTION Motion, by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to approve Planning Case 90-40 subject to: 6. 7. 8. Plan be reviewed by Bassett Creek Watershed Commission. Parking lot be resurfaced according to City standards. Plan be provided for a small detention area for collecting water, as requested by the City Engineer. Loading berth on southeast be limited to use by trucks less than 50 feet in length. Utility easements meet City requirements. EAW be submitted to City. Dust levels be kept to a minimum during construction. Property must be platted to resolve easement and other issues. Final plans to be approved by Building Official. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watshcke None Oja Motion carried. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed his feeling that this plan would offer a resolution to the nuisance of noise and activity that has long been a problem with this piece of industrially- zoned property. PC 91-01 (3.3) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~J~LOW CONVENIENCE FOOD OPERATION, 4219 WINNETKA AV. N. Chairman Cameron introduced the first case for 1991 and noted the request to table until February 2nd. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Cassen, to table Planning Case 91-01 until February 2nd meeting. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None Oja Motion carried. New Hope Planning Commission -5- January 2, 1991 PC 91-02 (3.4) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO 8' FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, 7300 36TH AVENUE N. The Chairman called for Planning Case 91-02 and asked the petitioner to explain the request. Mr. Litterer from Creamette Company replied that they are asking for a variance to the fence height for the benefit of several neighbors who desire a 10-foot high fence to be erected at the rear of their properties. He indicated that they will remove the existing 4-foot chain link fence and replace it with pressure-treated wood vertical board-on-board fencing directly on the property line. He noted that the fence is not shown behind the property belonging to Mr. Scheller because the addition does not extend back to that point and Mr. Scheller has not indicated his desire for a fence there. Mr. Litterer stated Creamettes will attempt to get the fence in place prior to the beginning of major construction. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned how the fence would be maintained if placed directly on the property line. Mr. Litterer responded that they hope to have the cooperation of the neighbors as is the case at present. Commissioner Gundershaug asked when building construction is expected to be begin and if there will be time to install the fence prior to that. Mr. Litterer answered that following the necessary City approvals, their Corporate Board has to approve financing so it would probably be early April, therefore fencing can be in place as soon as it is practical on a weather basis. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second, by Commissioner Sonsin, to approve the variance to the required fence height as submitted in Planning Case 91-02. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Watschke None Oja Friedrich, Cameron, Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards studied the issue of warehouses in the I-1 Zoning District and also the parking deferment issue. He noted the recommendations of the City Planner and the Management Assistant regarding the warehouse issue, and the language adjustment by the City Attorney on the parking deferment. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second, by Commissioner Cassen, to approve the recommendations of the City Planner, the Management Assistant, and the City Attorney regarding the two issues studied and present to Council for approval. New Hope Planning Commission -6- January 2, 1991 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Voting in favor: Voting against: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None Motion carried. Kirk McDonald reported that staff and the City Engineer will be meeting with K-Mart on January 16th and will meet again with Design & Review before the case comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sonsin raised the question of the reader board advertising at McDonalds and the Holiday sign. Kirk McDonald stated that he had talked with the Building Official and City Attorney and reviewed minutes, noting that McDonald's were approved for the McDonald's Sign and a "Drive- thru" sign underneath. They applied for a sign permit to remove the "drive-thru" portion and replace with a reader board, which the Building Official and City Attorney feel carries no restriction on what is on it and it is in compliance. The Holiday station has been sent orders to change the ground sign to conform to what was approved. Commissioner Sonsin asked for an update on the Vinnetka Commons curb cut problem. Mr. McDonald replied that the City has met with the developer and he has been required to extend the bond and complete the work by the first of June. Planning Commission minutes of December 4, 1990, were approved. No comments of other minutes. Meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -7- January 2, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 5, 1991 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL Present: Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Watschke, Cassen Gundershaug PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 90-35B (3.1) 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. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Oja, to table Planning Case 35B. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Watschke None Gundershaug Motion carried. PC 91-01 (3.2) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~?.?,OW CONVENIENCE FOOD E STABL I SHMENT, 4129 WINNETKA AV. The Chairman introduced Planning Case 91-01 and Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, presented the background of the request for a conditional use permit for a Taco Johns eating establishment in the New Hope City Center to be located adjacent to the Subway Shop. He explained it will be counter- type service for eat-in/take-out consumption on and off the premises, with a seating area for 34 customers. He noted that staff recommends approval of the case subject to a signage plan and rear trash enclosure plan being presented to the City. He called attention to front sidewalk trash receptacles and the need for the owner of the Center to develop and present a suitable plan to the City. Tim Johnson introduced himself and stated that he has owned the Subway Shop for the past 2-1/2 years and now wishes to expand into a vacant area next door and open a Taco Johns. Commissioner Sonsin clarified that there are no major issues regarding this case since they were covered in the original shopping center plan. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the City has been dissatisfied with the way the center is striped for parking, lack of handi- capped parking, insufficient handicapped parking signage, New Hope Planning Commission -1- February 5, 1991 etc., and has issued violation orders to the shopping center which subsequently has resulted in the center submitting a revised plan which will be implemented. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 91-01, for a Taco Johns restaurant, subject to= Signage plan be submitted and approved by the City prior to establishment opening. Shopping Center owner work with the petitioner to develop plan for front sidewalk trash receptacles and submit to City for approval prior to opening. Voting in favor= Voting against= Absent= Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Watschke None Gundershaug Motion carried. mc 91-04 (3.3) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT, 9400 36TH AV.N. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-04, and asked Kirk McDonald for background. Mr. McDonald reviewed the request for a variance to expand a non-conforming off-premise ground sign and a variance to exceed the sign area. He explained that three new signs have been installed on the existing Holiday sign, which are Express Teller, Car Wash, Live Bait/Tackle, and the request is for the current signs to stay in place. He called attention to the restrictions of the sign ordinance and noted that the sign exceeds the area requirement. He outlined the history of the shopping center and noted that there was an agreement reached that the station could have an off-premise sign at the inter- section. He then called attention to Planning Case 90-08, approved in April, 1990, for the new station and explained that signage was addressed and it was agreed that the sign ordinance would be complied with. He added that in October, 1990, Mr Rau came in requesting permission to replace the existing identification sign with a Holiday identification and a permit was issued for replacement in the same size, but later three other signs appeared, which is the issue in this case. Chairman Cameron called upon the petitioner for his explanation. Randy Rau, station owner, stated that in October, before they opened the Holiday store, he had discussed with the Building Official what kind of signage he could have on the building, such as price signs, etc., and was told that the off-premise sign with 200 square feet could be utilized. He added that he subsequently submitted a plan for a 10' x 10' Holiday sign and received a permit, and it was his understanding that he still had 100 square feet to utilize so he contacted TCF and Arrow New Hope Planning Commission -2- FebruarF 5, 1991 Sign Co. to install addi{ional signs, noting that he cautioned them to make sure plans were submitted to New Hope for the permits. He went on to explain that the signs were installed and the bills for them paid and business was seemingly in- creasing and suddenly he received a citation regarding the signs, at which time he contacted the Building Official for an explanation and was informed that no permits had been issued for the additional signs, although a charge for a permit was on his bill from Arrow Sign Company. He apologized for assuming that it was all taken care of by both TCF and Arrow Sign, but had he known he would have gone for the variance prior to installation. He added that after he contacted them, the installers contacted the Building Official who concurred they had submitted permit requests, but they were never officially approved. Commissioner Sonsin questioned if staff was aware of the petitioner's conversations with the Building Official and was informed they were not. Commissioner Sonsinquestioned the petitioner if he understood how the 200 square feet allowance is measured. Mr. Rau explained that he did not know if the 12" x 10' open space between the signs is counted as square footage in the total sign area. Commissioner Sonsin asked what the petitioner is planning to do if the variance request is denied. Mr. Rau stated he would appear before the Council first, and if the request is denied there, he will request TCF to remove their sign and possibly face a court action with Arrow Sign because he is sure they will not refund his costs. He added that he would then proceed in the correct manner to get approval. He stated he is not in any way trying to get by with illegal signage, especially in an such a exposed area. Commissioner Zak and Commissioner Sonsin both wondered if the signs in questions could be moved together, eliminating the open area between signs, creating only one variance instead of two. The petitioner confirmed that it might not be a problem, since there is no gap between the first and second signs and the other two gaps could be eliminated by butting the signs together. Commissioner Zak wondered if this is a typical Holiday Station convenience store, with express teller, car wash, and bait shop. Mr. Rau stated he is the only privately-owned Holiday Station in the Minneapolis area and most of the embellishments are his and not the Holiday way, although he has some Holiday guide- lines which he has to follow. New Hope Planning Commission -3- February 5, 1991 Commissioner Oja called attention to the blue and red Holiday sign over the door which lists products and questioned staff if it was allowed, since a previous petitioner had been asked to remove product listing on the building. Mr. Rau stated it was not called to his attention at the time of his earlier request, that the concern was more with the size rather than what was on it. Commissioner Sonsin wondered if the case should be tabled for a month until staff could research it further and clarify the issue. Chairman Cameron cautioned that the City sign ordinance is unique and somewhat restrictive and the Commission is historically firm on the conditions of the sign ordinance and petitioners are reminded of this before they make investments in signage. Chairman Cameron called for comments from anyone interested in the case. Mr. Jerry Showalter, one of the owners of Poste Haste Square where the referenced sign is located, commented that the sign is on his land and the petitioner had not contacted him about the signage and the variance. Mr. Rau explained it was his understanding that the rights to the identification signage were built into an easement clause. Mr. Showalter agreed that was the case in regard to the identification sign, but he would appreciate being consulted when something is being planned for anything sitting on his property. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Oja, to deny Planning Case 91-04, due to the case not qualifying for the conditions required for a variance. Voting in favor: Voting against~ Absent: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedreich, Cameron, Oja, Watschke None Gundershaug Motion carried. PC 91-05 (3.4) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~?~.OW CONVENIENCE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, 3556 WINNETKA AV. The Chairman then called for Planning Case 91-05 and called on Kirk McDonald to review. Mr. McDonald presented the plans and noted that the request was for a convenience food establishment in Winnetka Commons Shopping Center, adjacent to Bruegger's Bagels, and it would be eat-in/take-out and delivery with consumption on and off the premises. He commented that there was considerable discussion at Design & Review regarding deliveries to be made through the rear door. He added that staff's concerns New Hope Planning Commission -4- Februar~ 5, 1991 regarding the trash storage have been addressed and shown on the plan. He stated that other than staff's request that the outdoor eating area related to Bruegger's Bagels be removed from future site plans for the center, staff recommends approval. Mr. Dick Curry, developer of the Center, commented that he has instructed his architect on several occasions to remove the referenced outdoor eating area from the plans and apologized for it continually appearing on the plans. He introduced Mr. Frank Stocco and stated he operates a similar food establish- ment in Maple Grove. Commissioner Oja questioned inside storage of trash, number of employees and where they would park. Mr. Stocco confirmed that they carry trash containers out as soon as they are full, and employees will park in back of the building. He stated they will have 15-20 employees on a busy Friday night, and during the week maybe 8-10. Commissioner Oja questioned Mr. Curry regarding the amount of parking supplied for this many people. Mr. Curry replied that most of the businesses, such as Tires Plus, the barber shop and dry cleaners are not as heavy night users as this type of business, so there will be plenty of spaces, and he noted that most of the employees of Frankies will be delivery drivers so they will not be there constantly. Commissioner Oja than rephrased her question to include only those working in the restaurant itself. Mr. Stocco responded that there would be 8-10 and they usually work in shifts so that after certain hours the number is reduced to 4-5. Commissioner Oja confirmed all deliveries will be made from the rear and signage would conform with the criteria. Commissioner Sonsin Cautioned that conformance with the sign code is a must. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oja, second by Commissioner Watschke, to approve Planning Case 91-05 subject to conditions~ Signage to comply with approve comprehensive sign plan. Outdoor eating area behind Bruegger's Bagels to be removed from site plan. Employee parking and deliveries to be at rear of building. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Zak, Cass.n, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, .ia, Watschke None Gundershaug New Hop Planning Commission -5- Februar~ 5, 1991 COMMITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ELECTION OF OFFICERS (6.1) MOTION MINUTES (6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5) ADJOURNMENT Chairman Sonsin welcomed the petitioner to New Hope. Design & Review Committee met on the cases reviewed. Codes & Standards will meet on February 21, 7:30 a.m., at Perkins in Golden Valley to discuss flood plain ordinance and shopping center parking requirements. None Motion by Commissioner Watschke, second by Commissioners Oja, Sonsin, and Zak, that in recognition of their good leadership and experience the current Chairman and Vice Chairman be re- appointed to their respective seats. Voting in favor= Voting against: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Oja, Watschke None Gundershaug Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Motion carried. Kirk McDonald commented that the Code calls for a Secretary to be appointed that would fill in as Chairman in case both the Chairman and Vice Chairman were absent. Chairman Cameron suggested that in lieu of the title of "Secretary", the appointment be considered a "Third Officer". Motion by Commissioner Watschke, second by Commissioner Zak, that Commissioner Sonsin be appointed as Third Officer. There were no further nominations and the Chairman proclaimed Commissioner Sonsin was elected by acclamation. Planning Commission minutes of January 2, 1991 were approved as printed and all other minutes received no comments. The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respect fully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -6- Februar~ 5, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 C~73. TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL C~T~. Present: Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Cassen, Friedrich PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 90-27 (3.1) REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT, DON HARVEY ADDITION, 3970 QUEBEC AVENUE Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-27 and Kirk McDonald pointed out that the Planning Commission and City Council approved the Preliminary Plat for this case in November with the specific request that the Final Plat be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval of conditions. Mr. McDonald noted that conditions have been met and have been approved by the City Engineer and the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. He pointed out that the Minnegasco easement and Hennepin County's concerns are not applicable to this property and will be addressed when the plat for the westerly portion is submitted. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 90-27 as submitted. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Cassen, Friedrich Motion carried. PC 90-35B(3.1) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY EXIST- ING BUILDING 4300 XYLON AV. MOTION Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 90-35B. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, explained that the petitioner has not responded to the City's parking lot plan, which phases the improve- ments over a three-year period. He noted the alternatives open to K-Mart would be to accept the City's plan and go forward or reject the City's plan and keep their own plan in which case it probably will be rejected. He added that if the case is withdrawn there could be some enforcement regarding the parking conditions of the original planning case allowing K-Mart to build because the parking has been revised without City approval. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to table Planning Case 35B. Voting in favor= Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Voting against= None Absent: Cassen, Friedrich Motion carried. PC 91-07 (3.3) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT, DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION, QUEBEC AN~ WINNETKA AVENUES Planning Case 91-07 was introduced by the Chairman and Kirk McDonald explained that staff is recommending tabling because there are two important issues to be addressed, i.e. a site plan and drainage issues. He noted that the petitioner has agreed to meet and discuss the concerns and is agreeable to tabling the request. The petitioner's representative indicated that there were no plans pending for the property and they were only asking for plat approval. Mr. McDonald responded that this is a unique situation because one of the parcels has development on it. New Hope Planning Commission -1- March 5, 1991 MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 91-07 for one month. Voting in favor= Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Voting against= None Absent= Cassen, Friedrich Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS MOTION Design & Review Committee did not meet. Codes & Standards met and discussed the floodplain ordinance and shopping center parking requirements. Commissioner Sonsin reported that the State of Minnesota and DNR are requiring amendments to floodplain ordinances, but because the issue is extremely complex and there are a number of questions regarding it, the Committee is not comfortable recommending any action until they have had more time to study and therefore they are referring it back to the Planning Consultant. He added that there are two types of ordinances, one similar to the present one in effect with a single floodplain district, and another one with two different types of floodplain districts with some benefits, but which is more cumbersome to work with. He noted that something has to be done by September. Commissioner Sonsin went on to report on their study regarding reduction of the parking standards for larger shopping center developments. He noted that the current New Hope standards for over 50,000 square feet of usable space in a shopping development are considerably over the prevailing standards in many other communities and the Planning Condultant has recommended that New Hope reduce these standards. The purpose would be to reduce the amount of unnecessary asphalt paving in shopping centers and to increase the green area. Chairman Cameron questioned if the standards would allow larger buildings on smaller parcels of property because less parking is required and he also questioned if an easement for future parking could be made a requirement in large industrial developments to prevent huge expanses of unused parking in warehouse areas. Commissioner Sonsin stated that a previous amendment addressed the parking deferred issue, but that this amendment would be applicable specifically to shopping centers. Chairman Cameron agreed there are two separate issues. Kirk McDonald confirmed that the standards would remain the same for centers 30,000 to 50,000 square feet, but would change only for those over 50,000 square foot. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to accept the report of the Codes & Standards Committee for amending the New Hope Shopping Center requirements as presented by the Planning Consultant. Voting in favor= Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke Voting against= None Absent= Cassen Friedrich Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Sonsin advised that Codes & Standards has questioned the time limit for cases held over month to month and what could be done to keep cases from being tabled over and over. New Hope Planning Commission -2- March 5, 1991 MINUTES ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Chairman Cameron statedit w~S'his Understanding that a case may be tabled only twice, or 60 days. He suggested that maybe another type of arrangement should be made for such cases to allow a temporary withdrawal or postponement without requiring new fees. Mr. McDonald reported that the City Council had taken the Planning Commissions concerns into considertion on the adult entertainment issue and had recently passed a moratorium ordinance. Commissioner Sonsin asked for a correction to the February 5, 1991, minutes. He stated that he had abstained from the voting regarding Planning Case 91-04, Holiday Ground Sign, but it was recorded as "in favor of". Correction noted. None. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. by unanimous declaration. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -3- March 5, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1991 The April 2, 1991, Planning Commission meeting was cancelled due to ,the lack of a quorum. The petitioner who was to appear at the meeting was agreeable to waiting until the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 7, 1991. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler Secretary CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NAY 7, 1991 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of District 281 Administrative Offices, 4148 Winnetka Avenue North. ROLL C~I~T.T. Present: Absent: Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Commissioner Zak arrived 7:35. Sonsin PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 91-07 (3.1) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND VARIANCES FOR GREEN AREA AND TWO BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT, DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION, QUE- BEC & WTKA.AV. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-07 and noted a request that the case be tabled. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Watschke, to table Planning Case 91-07 for one month. Voting in favor= Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Sonsin Motion carried. PC 91-08(3,2) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR REVISED PUD SITE PLAN, NEW HOPE M~?~,, 4203-39 WTKA. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-08. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, explained that the petitioner is requesting a site/building plan review approval for a revised PUD site plan. He reviewed the history of the original planning cases in 1985 and 1986 and the PUD agreement which included a site plan labeled Exhibit B. He noted that the current filing is a result of a City order issued to the property owner after unauthorized changes were made to the site in 1988 and 1989. He listed these as changes from the original plan when parking lot was re-striped, handicapped parking stalls undersized and not adequately and correctly signed to conform with State law, driving aisles less than 24 feet wide as required by City Code and not marked with yellow paint, and non-conforming signs. He added that all conditions have now been met under the new plan and staff recommends approval of this plan to replace the 1986 PUD Exhibit B. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about repair of the cracks in the asphalt when it is re-striped and how soon this would be done. Amy Melchoir from Coldwell Banker, representing the petitioner, stated that they will use a special type of black paint with an asphalt binding first and then stripe over that. She added that they hope to start the project as soon as approval is complete. Chairman Cameron questioned the dingy appearance of the blue vinyl canopy and if it will be cleaned. New Hope Planning Commission -1- May 7, 1991 Ms. Melchoir responded that it had been cleaned with a caustic substance which took the finish off. She emphasized that the owners are aware of it and are looking into what can be done to correct it, but are not sure at this point if it will have to be replaced or not. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve the revised PUD site plan as presented in Planning Case 91-08. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against~ None Absent: Sonsin Motion carried. Cameron; Gundershaug, Chairman Cameron informed the petitioner that the Council would hear the case on May 13, 1991, at the temporary Council meeting place at St. Therese Home, 8000 Bass Lake Road. PC 91-09 (3.3) Planning Case 91-09 was introduced by the Chairman and Kirk REQUEST FOR McDonald explained that this is the preliminary plat for Creamette PRELIMINARY Addition which was requested by the City Council as a condition of PLAT APPROVAL, approval of the expansion in order to resolve easement issues. He CREAMETTE ADDI- added that the minimum lot area and width requirements of the TION, 7300 36TH zoning district have been met and the expansion of the building was AVENUE NORTH approved in January. He noted that City Code requires that the final plat be submitted to the Planning Commission unless the requirement is waived by the Commission. He stated that the plat has been reviewed by all necessary parties and most concerns have been addressed in the new plat, with the exception of a request by the City Engineer to show perimeter drainage and utility easements and additional right-of-way dedication on 36th Avenue, and a request by the City Attorney regarding minor corrections on notation of ownership names and title. He noted that staff recommends approval of the plat with the request that it be brought back to the Commission with the corrections as requested by City Attorney and City Engineer. Chairman Cameron noted that there was no one present to speak for the petitioner on the plans and therefore the case was subject to tabling, but he indicated to the audience that was gathered for this case that he would allow them to make comments for the record. Mr. Robert Foster introduced himself as an attorney and stated that he has been retained to represent the neighbors near the Creamette Company and will be reviewing the actions of the Planning Commission and the City Council as to whether there was inappro- priate use of initial power in the preliminary review of the request for expansion, in deciding that there was a basis for hardship for Creamettes. He indicated that they will do a preliminary investigation to try to prove trespass against the neighborhood because of air and noise pollution and decrease in property values and stated that if the current process cannot be postponed they will be looking into obtaining an injunction against the start of construction. He added that they would like to become involved in a discussion with City officials and Creamettes on the issue. Chairman Cameron confirmed that City officials and staff are available for discussions at all hours of every day. He then asked if any of the neighbors cared to make comments. No one else spoke to the issue. New Hope Planning Commission -2- May 7, 1991 MOTION COMMITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINESS MOTION NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS Motion bY Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to table Planning Case 91-09. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Sonsin Motion carried. Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Design & Review Committee did not meet since March, but a meeting is scheduled for May 16, 1991, to discuss new cases pending. Codes & Standards did not meet, but set a tentative meeting date for Wednesday, May 29th, to discuss the Compost Ordinance and the Floodplain Ordinance. The City Council had previously requested that the Planning Commission make recommendations as to whether or not the City should place a limit on the number of convenience food establishments in shopping centers. The issue was referred to the Planning Consultant and City Attorney and they do not feel it would be enforceable and recommend allowing the market to dictate the number of fast food establishments in a shopping center. Motion by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to recommend to the City Council that the City not attempt to limit the n-mher of fast food establishments in shopping centers. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent= Sonsin Motion carried. The Planning Commission minutes for March and April 1991 were approved and all other minutes accepted. A word of appreciation was expressed for Linda Oja's service to the Planning Commission. The next meeting of the Planning Commission on June 4, 1991, will again be held in the District 281 Administrative Offices Board Room. The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -3- May 7, 1991 CITY OF NE~ HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COI~flSSION MINUTES JTJNE 4, 1991 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of District 281 Administrative Offices, 4148 Winnetka Avenue North. RO~.T. Present: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None PUBLIC HEARINOS PC 91-07 (3.1) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND VARIANCES FOR GREEN AREA AND TWO BUILDINOS ON ONE LOT, DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION, QUE- BEC & WTKA.AV. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-07 and noted a request that the case be tabled. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 91-07 for OhS month. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Oundershau9, Watschks Voting against: None Absent: Nons Motion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, PC 91-09 (3.2) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, CREAMETTE ADDI- TION, 7300 36TH AVENUE NORTH Planning Case 91-09 was introduced by the Chairman and Kirk McDonald explained that the same staff report that was presented in May still applies. He noted that at the last meeting an attorney spoke to the Commission on behalf of the neighbors near the Creamette plant and presented his viewpoint, but since that time the City and Creamettes and the attorneys for the neighbors have met. He added that no issues were resolved, but in the opinion of the staff a~d the City Attorney the expansion issue is not related to the plat, therefore the staff recommendation remains unchanged and approval is recommended subject to the conditions outlined in the previous staff report, with the Final Plat to be brought back to the Commission with the six corrections noted. MOTION Mr. Don Litterer, representing Creamettes, acknowledged that the conditions had been met for the preliminary plat. Chairman Cameron asked if there was anyone else interest in speaking to the issus. There was no response. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approvs Planning Case 91-09, subject to ths six conditions listed in the staff report plus the condition that the Final Plat be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Sonsin, Cameron, Oundsrshaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carrisd. New Hope Planning Commission -1- June 4, 1991 PC 91-12 (3.5) VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, 2700 BOONE AVENUE N. MOTION PC 91-13 (3.6) REgUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CUP AND SITE/ BUILDING PLAN Chairman Cameron suggested passing over the two ordinances listed next on the agenda and moving on to Planning Cases 12, 13 and 14. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-12 and Kirk McDonald explained the request to place a 6-foot western red cedar fence on the southern boundary of the property which abuts Medicine Lake Road. He noted that the property is located at the northeast intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Boone Avenue with the front of the home facing Boone Avenue, but the zoning ordinance defines the narrowest street frontage as the "front yard" (which would be Medicine Lake Road) which is why the variance is needed. He called attention to the zoning ordinance clause regarding a "sight triangle" which applies in some fence variances, but noted it is not applicable in this case because the corner is traffic- controlled. He cited the petitioner's concerns regarding privacy, increased traffic on Medicine Lake Road, and safety concerns for children as reasons for granting the variance. Chairman Cameron called on the petitioners for questions and they had none. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commission Zak, to approve Planning Case 91-12. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Ab sent: None Motion carried. Planning Case 91-13 was introduced by the Chairman and explained by Kirk McDonald. He reviewed the request to allow construction of a temporary sales office on the grounds of Gethsemane Cemetery to be used for pre-sales of units in a proposed mausoleum. He noted that the petitioner, Catholic Cemeteries, Archdiocese of St. Paul and REVIEW APPROVAL Minneapolis, will use the temporary facility for a cemetery 4201 WINNETKA manager, a secretary, pre-needs counseling manager, and counselors AVENUE NORTH who will conduct a sales program in homes but use the office as a check-in point. He added that the petitioner feels that the maximum time needed for the pre-construction phase is two years, and will operate the facility between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm on Monday through Friday, 8 am to noon on Saturday, and be closed on Sunday. He cited the criteria for temporary buildings to be considered by the Commission. He explained the issues discussed at the Design & Review meeting and stated that a revised plan has been submitted as a result of that meeting. He noted the landscaping shows a total of 51 trees being planted around the site, the sign setback and size meets code, parking spaces and a possible future entrance have been added to the plan, and the correct building footprint has been included. He called attention to the conditions listed in the staff report for approval and added that a Performance Bond, the amount to be determined by the City Manager/Council, is also required for the temporary structure. Commissioner Gundershaug requested the petitioner give a brief outline of the Master Plan and the development of the western end of the property. Mr. John Cherek introduced himself as representing Catholic Cemeteries and explained the concept plans for development and the need for the temporary office building. He continued with details of the marketing plan of visiting people mainly in their homes, with the counselors using the office only as a check-in point. He indicated that the westernmost development was still undecided but they were open to the possibility of considering alternate uses for the property. Mr. McDonald stated that the EDA has approved a Market Study to be done relevant to the western section of the property for a possible mixed-use housing development. New Hope Planning Commission -2- June 4, 1991 Commissioner Gundershaug wondered about the possibility of the two- year time limit being shortened to a year and a half by the completion of the selling project and was advised the petitioner hoped it would be even sooner than that. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the sewer and water utility hookups, type of construction, material, and color of the temporary structure and how it would be anchored on the site, the future need for a new entrance when the mausoleum is added, number of parking spaces and marked handicapped parking, addition of new signage, landscaping, lighting, and refuse, and requested that all noted items be shown on the plan. Mr. Keith Wehrman spoke to these issues and presented a single blueprint of the bUilding and landscaping plans, outlining the specifics of type of material, color, etc. He further outlined how it would be recessed below ground level, not elevated. Mr. McDonald pointed out the change in the route of the utilities. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered if marketing would be handled by newspaper advertising or signs on site, and what will be done with the area when the building is removed. Mr. Cherek explained there would be no on-site advertising as it will be marketed by special presentations and personal contacts. He added that when the building is removed the site would be returned to sod and landscaping. Commissioner Cameron wondered, how many employees would be in the facility during working hours and what type of sanitary facilities would be available for their use. Mr. Cherek replied there would probably by 4 or 5 at the most at any time, and the plan is for use of an indoor satellite facility. Commissioner Watschke wondered if they had considered leasing off- site space for this project. The answer was that they have leased off-site in another location, but feel they will have more visibility and it is more beneficial to be located on the site. Commissioner Cassen wondered if a walkway will be provided from the parking spaces to the office and it was confirmed there would be. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case 91-13 with the following conditions: Two-year time period maximum. Performance Bond to be submitted, amount to be determined by City Manager/Council. Installation of landscaping prior to occupancy of temporar~ structure. Removal of debris, junk, broken down fence, etc. at south center of site near well house. LPtank enclosure must also be repaired to meet fire code standards and be secure. One-year review, Addition of handicapped parking/s£gnage. Addition of security lighting. Voting in favors Zak, Cass.n, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against~ None Absents None Motion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, New Hope Planning Commission -3- June 4, 1991 PC 91-14 (3.7) Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-14 and Kirk McDonald REQUEST FOR stated that the request is for a variance in fence height similar VARIANCE TO to the other fence case that was considered, but this involves a EXCEED MAXIMUM two-section fence installation. He pointed out that the FENCE HEIGHT intersection is not traffic-controlled so the "sight triangle" does REQUIREMENT apply. He noted that the fence will be situated so that it will 3700 JORDAN not affect that requirement, but one of the conditions of approval AVENUE N should require that the sight triangle be kept clear. He outlined the location of the house and the fence on the property, and the type of material to be used. Chairman Cameron asked the petitioner for comment and he had none. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 91-14 subject to the condition that the "sight triangle" be kept clear of all fencing. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Oundershaug, Watshcke Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, PC 91-1o (~.~) FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE FOR CITY OF NEW HOPE Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-10 regarding the Flood Plain Ordinance. Kirk McDonald outlined the process that began in January when the Department of Natural Resources sent the City a new model flood plain ordinance reflecting changes in federal regulations and requiring every community in the National Flood Insurance Program to amend their flood plain zoning ordinances and submit a copy of a draft ordinance by September 1st. He noted that Codes & Standards held a meeting and reviewed the model ordinance and quickly discovered it was not the ordinance needed for New Hope, since it involved two flood plain districts, and along with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney they felt the City should pursue its regulations via a single General Flood Plain District. They subsequently obtained the "General Flood Plain District" ordinance and the City Attorney drafted the City ordinance with some minor revisions suggested by the Planning Consultant. Codes & Standards met a second time and reviewed the draft ordinance, suggesting that a security be required prior to the issuance of a permit for any structure or land alteration within the flood plain. He recommended that the ordinance be approved. Chairman Cameron questioned why the security was required and the response indicated it was like a performance bond to insure any projects in the flood plain would be carried out correctly. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Watschke, to approve Planning Case 91-10 and forward to the City Council for approval and adoption Ordinance 91-04 creating a new flood plain district for New Hope. Voting in favors Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Watshcke Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Sonsin~ Cameron~ PC 91-11 (3.4) COMPOST ORDI- NANCE FOR CITY OF NEW HOPE Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-11. Kirk McDonald explained that this also was generated by the Council at the request of several residents for an ordinance that would permit and establish procedures for composting yardwaste. He stated that the Council reviewed ordinances from other cities and directed Citizens Advisory Commission and Planning Commission to review the issue, which was then sent to the Planning Consultant who made suggestions regarding size of compost piles, setback requirement, and type of structure and screening. He added that it was then sent to the New Hope Planning Commission -4- June 4, 1991 City Attorney who studied the recommendations of the Planner and made revisions, the~Was/ire¥iewed by Codes & Standards Committee who had several concerns. He listed recommendations suggested by Codes & Standards which include allowing use of fences as part of the screening structure thereby negating the five-foot setback requirement, allowing use of permanent non-degrading wire-type material as opposed to rot-resistant wood, and restricting the contents of compost piles to yard waste only and no food waste materials which they felt might draw rodents. Commissioner Zak emphasized the consensus regarding rodents being drawn to compost piles containing food waste and it was noted that a device to hold these types of waste materials and prevent rodents from getting into them is being marketed by another country. Commissioner Sonsin added that they also recommend the addition of a clause restricting compost to that generated from the site only, thereby allowing properties other than single and multiple family housing to have compost areas. Chairman Cameron wondered if inspections will be made to see if compliance is being followed. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Zak, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to approve Planning Case 91-11 and forward to the City Council for approval and adoption Ordinance 91-11 establishing procedures for composting yard waste. Voting in favors Zak, Cassen, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Committee met and discussed the plans for the cemetery. OLD BUSINESS Codes & Standards discussed the Flood Plain and Compost Ordinances. Chairman Cameron questioned staff about the expansion of the bank at Xylon and 42nd Avenues that was approved but never developed. Commissioner Gundershaugquestioned staff about the bituminous curb being put in at Continental Baking at 5130 Winnetka Avenue and also requested that K-Mart be put back on the agenda and settled. Commissioner Cassen commented on the unsightly conditions outside of Bosa Donuts at Winnetka and Bass Lake Road. Mr. McDonald advised that he would check into all concerns and report on the status of these projects. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission minutes for May were approved. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McDonald reported that a request has been made for a planning case for July and wondered if the Commission would be willing to meet even though a July meeting is not normally scheduled. The majority of the Commissioners indicated they would be available for a meeting. Mr. McDonald reported that the Council Chambers will not be finished until August so a July meeting will be held at the District ~281 Administration Building. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -5- June 4, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 2, 1991 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of District 281 Administrative Offices, 4148 Winnetka Avenue North. ROT,T, C~T.T. Present: Absent: Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich-(arrived later) PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 90-35B (3.1) REQUEST FOR SITE/BLDG.PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY EXISTING BLDG. & PARKING LOT, K-MART STORE, 4300 XYLON AV. MOTION Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-35B and asked Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, to update the Commission on the status of this case. Mr. McDonald explained that the City has finally received a written response from K-Mart Corporation's Regional Office in Illinois advising that the home office has given clearance for them to proceed with plans to update the exterior of the New Hope store and plans will be submitted which will address the City's concerns regarding the site. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commission Watschke to table Planning Case 90-35B for no more than two months to allow K-Mart to present their plans. Voting in ~avor~ Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against~ None Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich Motion carried. PC 91-07 (3.2) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND VARIANCES FOR GREEN AREA AND TWO BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT, DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION, QUE- BEC & WTKA.AV. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-07 and noted a request that the case be tabled. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to table Planning Case 91-07 for one month. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich Commissioner Friedrich arrived at 7:35 p.m. PC 91-09 (3.3) REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, CREAMETTE ADDI- TION, 7300 36TH AVENUE NORTH Planning Case 91-09 was introduced by the Chairman and Mr. McDonald reviewed the approval of the Creamette Preliminary Plat at the June Planning Commission and City Council meetings, subject to the condition that it be brought back with the six changes outlined in the staff report. He stated that the Final Plat was submitted and sent to City Department Heads and utility companies for comment and all concerns cited by the City Attorney and City Engineer have been met and corrections made, and there has been no further contact from the neighbors, therefore staff recommends approval. New Hope Planning Commission -1- July 2, 1991 Chairman Cameron asked if there was anyone present concerning the case and recognized Mr. Don Litterer, representing Creamettes, who acknowledged that he was present to answer questions. Mr. Litterer confirmed that they have heard no further from the residents. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve the Final Plat for Creamette Addition, Planning Case 91-09. Voting in favor= Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent~ Zak, Sonsin Motion carried. PC 91-16 (3.4) Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-16 and Kirk McDonald REQUEST FOR emphasized that air conditioners are not allowed as an encroachment VARIANCE FOR in side yards, and stated that this is an after-the-fact AIR CONDITIONER application because the air conditioner has already been installed. IN SIDE YARD AT He explained that Dependable Air received a permit from the City 2748 ENSIGN AY. for the installation which clearly states that the unit should be placed in the rear yard, but the petitioner was unaware of the requirement for rear yard installation of air conditioners and relied on the contractor's judgement of the placement. Mr. McDonald added that letters have been submitted from the property owner to the west and two property owners across the street indicating that they have no problems with the placement, and he noted that the property to the west has no windows on the side that faces the air conditioner. He stated that staff's only concern is the aesthetics and suggested that approval require landscaping to screen the unit. ~ Mr. Lyle Sandstrom, petitioner, asked for clarification of the screening requirement, stating he did not feel a fence around the unit would be aesthetically pleasing, but he could accommodate the landscaping requirement. Chairman Cameron expressed dismay at the contractor's lack of attention to the requirement as printed on the permit form and asked the petitioner if they have made the contractor aware of the inconvenience he has caused them in having to request a variance from the City. The petitioner confirmed that the contractor had assured him it was appropriately installed, but since the variance issue has come up they have withheld payment until the variance has been approved by the City, and they will request reimbursement for landscaping costs. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve the request for a variance to allow an air conditioner in the side yard at 2748 Ensign Avenue North with the provision that evergreen-type of landscaping be installed to screen the view from the street, and further that if a noise problem from the unit develops it be reconciled between the neighbors and the City. Voting in favor~ Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Sonsin Motion carried. PC 91-17 (3.5) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-17 and called for a REQUEST FOR motion to table. SI~/BnD~. PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL Mr. McDonald noted that the petitionerdid not have adequate plans FOR TEMPORARY to present to the Design & Review Committee, therefore the request OFFICE BLDG., to table the case. AUTOHAUS, 7709 42ND AVENUE N. New Hope Planning Commission -2- July 2, 1991 MOTION OLD BUSINESS DESIGN & REVIEW (4.1) CODES & STAND. (4.2) NEW BUSINESS (6.1, 2, 3) ANNOUNCEMENTS (7) (8) Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 91-17 for one month. Voting in favors Voting against~ Absent= Motion carried. Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke None Zak, Sonsin Design & Review met briefly with Autohaus. Commissioner Gundershaug requested that a check be made of the original approval to find out how many cars were allowed to be parked in front of the building and if they were in compliance with that requirement. Chairman Cameron requested that Codes & Standards review the issue of "front yards" on corner lots. Commissioner Watschke called attention to the erection of a utility building in the yard of a home that was recently granted a variance for a fence on the corner of 37th and Jordan, and wondered if that was within the code. Mr. McDonald indicated he would check into the issues mentioned. Planning Commission minutes were approved as printed and other minutes were reviewed without comment. Mr. McDonald noted that the City is seeking applications for a new Planning Commission member. ~ The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -3- July 2, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1991 CALL TO ORDER ROLL C~,T,?. PUBLIC HEARING.S PC 91-18 (3.1) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO 35' REAR YARD SETBACK RE- QUIREMENT TO ~?~W CONSTRUC- TION OF PORCH 20'FROM PROPER- TY LINE AT 3820 BOONE AY. MOTION Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of District 281 Administrative Offices, 4148 Winnetka Avenue North. Present: Absent: Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Sonsin, Friedrich, Watschke Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-18 and asked Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, to explain the request. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner was requesting a variance to the 35' rear yard setback to allow them to construct a 16' x 18' porch off of the family room on the southeast corner of the house 20' from the rear yard property line at the closest point. He pointed out that City code does not allow enclosed porches attached to dwellings as encroachments in the rear yard, therefore a variance is needed. He added that the existing home meets all the setback requirements, but the petitioner claims a hardship because of the shape and shallowness of the lot and the tapered rear lot line. He further stated that neighboring properties who would be most impacted by the porch have indicated they do not have a problem with the addition. Commissioner Gundershaugquestioned the petitioners on the location of the proposed addition, calling attention to a staff suggestion to locate the porch to the north adjacent to the dining room. Kathleen Anderson pointed out that the dining room is only 8' wide, therefore locating a porch at that point would cause them to lose window space in the kitchen and bathroom, and also that area is where the utilities, sump pump, air conditioner, dryer vent, and outdoor water faucet are all located. Commissioner Gundershaug further questioned if the new construction would match the existing house and roof line and if the addition would be heated. Mrs. Anderson confirmed it would match and noted that it would be an insulated porch, but not heated. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case 91-18, Request for Variance to 35' Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Porch 20' from the Rear Property Line at 3820 Boone Avenue North. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Cameron, G.undershaug Voting against: None Absent: Sonsin, Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. PC 91-19 (:3.2) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM DISTANCE RE- QUIREMENT FOR OFF-STREET PARKING. FROM SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE AT 3948 OREGON AVENUE NORTH Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-19 and Kirk McDonald reviewed the request for a variance from the distance requirement for off-street parking from the side yard property line to allow paving of the driveway up to about 1 foot of the north side yard property line. He pointed out that the zoning code calls for a parking distance of 3 feet from the property line. He reviewed a letter from the petitioner stating that the portion of the driveway closest to the property line was installed in 1978 and they were told by the City at that time that the driveway could be up to the property line, it has been a crushed rock surface since that time, and that 5 years ago a curb cut was placed on the property line when the street was paved. He pointed out that there is no written record as to what they were originally told by the City, but the New Hope Planning Commissipn -1- August 6, 1991 MO~IOM petitioners are now requesting to pave the crushed rock area within one foot of the property line and feel that it would improve the property in the neighborhood and they have submitted a long list of signatures of neighbors who support the granting of the variance, plus an additional letter received by the City in the mail. He distributed pictures the petitioner had submitted showing the current driveway area. He noted that it was a standard size parcel with no unusual shape or topography and granting of the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or diminish property values, but pointed out that the required setback is there for a reason. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned if the drive would be used for parking only, if there were plans to put an addition on to the garage. He also called attention to a drain pipe going across the area, questioning where the water flowed from and if it would flow onto neighboring property. Gary Johnson replied that there were no plans to add on and he pointed out that the original drive was for a single car garage and that the added-on driveway portion was 18" lower than the original and that it would remain that way. He explained that they had a landscape-log retaining wall there before they put in the crushed rock drive. He stated that the drainage pipe terminated at the edge of the driveway and excess pipe would be cut off to match the angle of the asphalt. He added that the pipe is there for roof run-off and that it immediately flows down to the street, not toward the neighbors. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if the asphalt would continue along side the garage. Mr. Johnson confirmed that it would end at the front of the garage and the crushed rock surface along side the garage would remain so he could park a boat on it in the future. He pointed out that if they were required to remain 3 feet from the property line it would leave only 8 feet which would be very minimal for parking. Commissioner Zak expressed her concern over the drainage. Commissioner Cassen added her concern over the elevation between the two areas, suggesting possibly making the whole area level. Chairman Cameron questioned the need for the paved area rather than grass and petitioners confirmed the need for parking with only a single drive and three cars, since parking on the grass is illegal. Mr. Johnson noted that it would be an added expense to raise it to one level and add landscape timbers to cover the drop, and it is not something they really want. He added that they also intend to add a small strip on the south side to line up with the edge of the garage so that when a person steps out of a car, there will be walking space on the asphalt rather than the grass. Mr. Charles Van Tassel, 3956 Oregon, was recognized and stated he lives on the north side of the petitioner and has no problem with the request, and confirmed there never has been a problem with drainage water in 10 years. He called attention to the sand and rock drives that wash into the street when it rains and the cost to the City to have people come out and clean it up. He noted that he often cleans up material that washes in the street from the duplex across the street and, with their permission, puts it back in their drive. He questioned whether or not there was a requirement on the surfacing of driveways. He added that he thought that paving would give a better appearance than what is there currently. Mr. McDonald confirmed that there is an ordinance requiring parking surfaces to be paved, but it may have been adopted after the homes at that location were constructed. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 91-19, Request for Variance from Distance New Hop~ Planning Commission -2- August 6, 1991 COI~IITTEE REPORTS Design & Review (¢.1) Codes & Stand. (4.2) OLD BUSINESS Requirement for Off-street Parking from the Side Yard Property Line at 3948 Oregon Avenue North, with the condition that if a drainage problem arises it be resolved between the neighboring property Voting in favort Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Oundershaug Voting againstt None Absent: Sonsin, Friedrich, Watshcke Motion carried. Design & Review did not meet as there were no cases to discuss. Mr. McDonald stated that the Planner is still studying the "front" yard issue and a meeting may be called soon. Chairman Cameron asked about the status of tabled cases and Mr. McDonald noted that Autohaus has withdrawn their request for a temporary building, K-Mart is working with the Building Official, and Harvey drainage problem is being discussed with Dura Process. Commissioner Gundershaug called attention to a number of dead trees at the Hoyt facility on 50th & Winneteka and Mr. McDonald indicated he would check into it. Chairman Cameron asked if the pole at Winnetka Commons Shopping Center was moved and was informed it was not, but that the City is still holding a performance bond to insure that the work is completed. Mr. McDonald informed the Commission that the air conditioner case from July was tabled by the Council to discuss the location as the petitioner did not appear at the Council meeting. NEW BUSINESS (6.1, 2, 3) ANNOUNCEMENTS (7) ADJOURNMENT (8) Mr. McDonald reviewed several miscellaneous issues including a complaint about the lack of a buffer at the New Hope Bowling Alley which had come up at the Citizen Advisory Commission. He noted that a resident had called and complained that residents had petitioned for some type of green area and buffer zone at the time the bowling alley was built, but research of sketchy minutes from that time revealed very little. He added that he and the Building Official were trying to resolve the matter cooperatively with the owners of the bowling alley, but it may come to an open forum at the Council meeting and could possibly be sent to the Planning Commission. He noted, however, that the City had been in touch with the bowling alley owners and they informed him they were waiting for a bid from a contractor to install fencing and landscaping and the matter may be resolved. He briefed the Commission on future cases which may come before Design & Review and the Commission, including a drive-thru at Norwest Bank, 42nd & Xylon, and a transfer/storage facility for Waste Management. Planning Commission minutes were approved as printed and other minutes were reviewed without comment. Mr. McDonald announced that Planning Commission applicants will be interviewed at the first Council meeting in September. He also announced that the next Planning Commission meeting would probably be held in the new Council Chambers. The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 8:00 p.m. ttfully submitted, let, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -3- August 6, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HEIOIEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 C~LT.T. TO ORDER ROLL PUBLIC m~.ARINGS PC 91-20 (3.1) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE/BLDG PLAN REVIEW TO A?~W EXPANSION OF DRIVE-UP FACIL- ITIES AT 8320 42ND AVENUE N The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Second Vice- Chairman William Sonsin. Present: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Watschke Absent: Cameron, Gundershaug Second Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced Planning Case 91-20. Commissioner Watschke asked to be excused from the first two cases because he works for the architectural firm involved in Planning Case 91-20 and he left the platform. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, explained that the petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit and site/building plan review approval to allow expansion of drive-up facilities at the Norwest Bank Minnesota on 42nd and Xylon Avenues. He noted that Norwest has recently acquired the former First Minnesota office and desires to upgrade the existing autobank services and facilities. He added that a drive-up expansion was approved in 1989 for First Minnesota, although it was never constructed, and Norwest wishes to move ahead with the expansion but with a variation on the plans which includes replacing a single-lane drive-up window with new drive-up service of four lanes, a fifth lane to be dedicated f~r future instant cash machine, a new canopy installed over three lanes and a fourth lane utilized for higher vehicles, remodeling of interior teller lines, a number of on-site improvements dealing with traffic patterns, repair/repaying of sidewalks and driveways, addition of loading zone, landscaping, preservation of existing woods on north property line, trash enclosure, drainage, regulatory and identification signs, and new concrete curbs and gutters. Mr. McDonald stated that a number of issues were discussed with staff and Design & Review and revised plans addressing issues were submitted as a result of the discussions, but petitioner is now proposing additional changes. Mr. Walter Johnson, Project Manager for Norwest, explained that certain changes were necessary because of budget constraints and noted the changes which include using structural steel in place of brick columns on canopy and stucco soffits, which will be painted to match building, and repair of fencing instead of building new. He pointed out the traffic patterns, the angle parking on the west, the landscape plans with addition of spruce, Douglas fir and maples, and landscaping on the drive islands. He discussed hours of operation: Main bank, 9 am-5 pm, Monday-Thursday, 9 am-6 pm on Friday, 9 am-12 noon on Saturdays; drive-up open 7 am-6 pm Monday- Friday, 9 am-noon on Saturday. He explained that they have experienced increased transactions and expect further increases primarily at the drive-up facility. Commissioner Cassenquestioned what directional signs will be used, if curbs and gutters will be continuous concrete, if the 36 angle parking spaces are sufficient for employees and customer overflow. Mr. Johnson pointed out the various signs with arrows directing traffic to parking, autobank, instant cash aisle, and overflow parking, and confirmed concrete curbs and gutters. He referred the employee parking question to Julie Stefano, Bank Manager. Ms. Stefano stated that there are 14 employees in that office, but they work in shifts so that all 14 are not there at the same time, and they do not foresee any sudden changes in staffing. New Hope Planning Commission -1- September 3, 1991 Commissioner Cassen further questioned striping of crosswalk, the trash container enclosure location and fence height, addition of lighting and what type will be used. Mr. Johnson confirmed the crosswalk striping and he also pointed out the trash enclosure and fence location, adding that the original intent was to tear the fence down and move it, but as a cost saving measure the decision was to leave it in the present location, repair the fence and restain it. He noted that the fence was 6 feet in height. He continued with a description of an extensive lighting plan. Commissioner Cassen asked if there was a "no parking" sign in the loading zone and Mr. Johnson confirmed it would be signed, with words and symbols, and also striped. Commissioner Cassen reinforced the color coordination of the soffits and columns to the building so they would blend, and questioned if there would be volume controls on teller microphones so as not to disturb the residents of the apartments to the west. Mr. Johnson pointed out that they also have a concern that noise from the drive-up equipment may disturb main bank customers inside, but he explained that he is not familiar with that technology. Ms. Stefano explained that their equipment is adjustable and the microphones are directed down so, for privacy purposes, only the person in each lane can hear, and it does not carry across the parking lot. . Commissioner Cassen referred to the green area and questioned how much would be sprinkled. Mr. Johnson explained the irrigation system they plan to use and added that one of the cost saving measures was to cut back on the sprinkler system, but assured that Norwest takes care of its properties and investments in landscaping very well. Commissioner Friedrich referred to the snow storage on-site and cautioned that in case of heavy snow, the excess could not be stored on the parking areas. Commissioner Zak confirmed that the traffic egress on to 42nd Avenue would have "right turn only" and "left turn only" signs. Commissioner Sonsin wondered if there are major differences in the current plan from the plan approved in 1989 and Mr. Johnson stated that it was totally different. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the exiting on to 42nd with left turns, particularly on a busy Friday afternoon, and the possibility of cars stacking up in the lot waiting to turn left in peak hours of traffic. He suggested that consideration be given to the possibility of making it right-turn only. Mr. Johnson agreed that the potential exists for some cars to stack up, but the curb cut was wide enough to allow for it, adding that people will eventually realize it is easier to exit right rather than wait to break into traffic on a left turn. He wondered if a barrier to prevent left turns on to 42nd Avenue would help. Commissioner Sonsin stated that it was a County road and not in the jurisdiction of New Hope to make that decision, and in light of the recent u~grading of 42nd it did not seem likely it would be done in the near future. Commissioner Cassen stated that Design & Review has discussed the possibility of someone contacting the County to see if the left turn arrow at Xylon could be set longer. New Hope Planning Commission -2- September 3, 1991 Commissioner Sonsin suggested a stripe be painted in the middle of the exit curb cUtlto~diff~entiate:the~i~eft and right turn aisles. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 91-20 with the following conditions~ 2. 3. Volume-control devices on drive-thru microphones be required. Loading zone be striped and '*no parking" signage be added. Right and left exits on to 42nd Avenue be marked with arrows. If brick is not used on columns and soffits, the steel be painted and color coordinated with rest of building. Contact to be made with County about lengthening left-turn green arrow time at intersection of Xylon and 42nd Avenue. Commissioner Sonsin noted for the record that although Commissioner Friedrich is an employee of Norwest, his position in no way interacts with this project and the City Attorney has attested that Mr. Friedrich's participation does not constitute a conflict of interest. Voting in favors Zak, Cass,n, Sonsin, Friedrich Voting againstz None Not votings Watzchke Absents Cameron, Gundershaug Motion carried. PC 91-21 (3.2) REgUEST FOR VARIANCE TO MAXIMUM SIGN- AGE A?~.OWED TO ALLOWADDI- TZON OF PYLON SIGN AT 8320 42ND AVENUE N Second Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced Planning Case 91-21 and Kirk McDonald reviewed the case, stating that the petitioner desires to install a 75 square foot ground sign at the southeast corner of t~e property. He outlined the City Code requirements for wall signs and ground signs, noting that one ground sign is permitted if the building contains more than one wall sign over 10 square feet. He pointed out that variances were granted to the former owner in 1974 for four (4) 95-square foot walls signs, one on each side of the building, with the specific condition that no ground signs be installed, except for two small traffic control signs. He added that the petitioner has replaced the former signs with their own signs and now wishes to install an added ground sign for increased visibility, thus a variance to the maximum signage allowed is necessary. Mr. McDonald stressed that staff is very supportive of all the improvements that are taking place, but City Code is very specific regarding variance requests that are made exclusively for the purpose of increasing income potential of the business. He noted that the ground sign design meets all requirements and suggested that the petitioner consider removing or reducing some of the non- conforming wall signage, thereby making a variance unnecessary. Mr. Johnson addressed the comments and stated that they had taken another look at the signage issue and now propose for approval staff's suggestion for removal of the south and west wall signs in favor of the installation of the ground sign, as they believe they will be within the size requirements. Staff and Commission discussed the square footage and agreed that the new proposal reduced the non-conformity and two wall signs and one pylon could be approved. Commissioner Zak confirmed the new sign will match the current wall signs in color and design and that the base would be landscaped. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 91-21 with the condition that south and west wall signs are removed to allow addition of the proposed ground sign, and total sign area to remain within the total 275 sq. feet. Commissioner Sonsin again noted for the record Mr. Friedrich's participation in the case. New Hope Planning Commission -3- September 3, 1991 Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Sonsln, Friedrlch Voting against: None Not voting: Watschke Absent= Cameron, Gundershaug Motion carried. Commissioner Watschke rejoined the Commission on the platform. PC 91-22 (3.3) Planning Case 91-22 was introduced by the Second Vice-Chairman, and REQUEST FOR Mr. McDonald described the request for locating a Montessori School CONDITIONAL USE in a vacant office building just south of the newly constructed New PERMIT TO ALLOW Hope Animal Hospital. He stated that the petitioners plan to ESTABLISHMENT enroll approximately 30 students in an age group of 33 months to 6 OF PRE-SCHOOL/ years, 7 am-5 pm Monday-Friday on a year-round basis. He added CHILD CARE that there are a number of conditions that must be met for the CENTER AT 3701 establishment of a day care facility, and also staff has some WINNETKA AV N concerns regarding parking, loading and drop-off area, building code issues, and necessary site improvements such as green area on northeast corner, restriped parking lot, retaining wall in rear, and additional landscaping. He noted that one resident has contacted staff in opposition to the request. In addition, the Planning Consultant and City Attorney feel that there are some problems with the zoning code in that day care facilities are listed as an accessory use of a building used for education or religious purposes, but this use would be a principal use so it has to be determined whether a Montessori School is an educational school or a religious school as defined by the zoningordinance. He concluded that due to the number of issues that have to be resolved on the site plan, and also to allow for both the Planning Consultant and City Attorney to further examine the zoning code to see if an amendment to the zoning ordinance is needed, staff is recommending that the case be tabled for one month so that a new site plan can be resubmitted and discussed with Design & Review. Commissioner Sonsin advised the petitioners that no action can be taken on their case because of the suggestion to table the request, and indicated that it would be premature for them to make a presentation at this time. The petitioners, Rohan DeAlwis and his wife Helen, stated that they consider their day care an educational institution performing a service to parents. Mr. DeAlwis questioned the categories for parking given institutions such as private schools, nursing homes, etc. He noted that they have submitted a revised plan. Commissioner Sonsin advised that staff needs time to study the revised plan and assured that staff and Design & Review would meet and work with them on all the issues. He added that Codes & Standards will have a meeting to address the zoning issue before the next Commission meeting. Mrs. Verna Slavicek, 8009 37th Avenue North, asked to be recognized and stated her opposition to the case, adding that there is another Montessori School nearby as well as a day care facility in the Holy Nativity Church on 39th and Winnetka. She noted that there are several in the neighborhood who are recently retired and they are concerned about this type of facility behind their homes. MOTION Commissioner Sonsin advised that since the case was to be tabled, the parties interested in coming before the Commission should plan to be present at the October meeting. Motion by Commissioner Zak, second by Commission Friedrich, to table Planning Case 91-22 until next month. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against= None Absent: Cameron, Gundershaug Motion carried. New Hope Planning Connisslon -¢- September 3, 1991 PC 91-23 (3.¢) Second Vice,ChairmanSonsin calledfor Planning Case 91-23 and Mr. REQUEST FOR McDonald' s .Present~t~!~! ~-i~iii~i'~ii?.~. ·. ,~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~T~W Mr. McDonald explained that U.S.West New Vector Group, Inc. desires CONSTRUCTION OF to construct a 95-foot antenna tower and equipment building for 95-FOOT ANTENNA cellular telephone communications in New Hope and is proposing to TOWER AND 12' X lease land on the north side of Victory Park for a 20-year period 36' EQUIPMENT for a fee of $9,000 per year with the revenue dedicated to parks. BUILDING AT He added that U.S.West Vector Group have entered into numerous such 5700 INTER- lease agreements which allow them to use city water towers and/or NATIONAL PKWY public property for the purpose of installing, maintaining, and operating antenna facilities. He noted that the City Attorney is in the process of reviewing the lease agreement which is not part of the planning case, and the City Council will act on it as one of the conditions of approval. He further explained that all the criteria for conditional use permit have been met and staff and Director of Parks and Recreation met with the petitioner several times and offered input into the location of the tower to the north end away from areas utilized by park users and closer to a proposed parking lot on the north, whereby U.S.West will provide one of the curb cuts for the parking area. Design & Review met with the applicant and a number of issues regarding tower height, building material, landscaping, sodding around site, curb cut, drive surfacing, parking, fencing, lighting, noise, color of building and pole, and general maintenance were discussed resulting in revised plans being submitted. Mr. McDonald explained that because Citizen Advisory Commission oversees the parks, it was staff's feeling that they should haye input and the staff report was sent to them for comment. They have requested that a full presentation be made to them prior to going to the Council, therefore a Citizen Advisory Commission meeting has been set for September 16th and the Council will consider the case on September 23rd. Mr. McDonald stressed that staff is requesting sodding around the area because this is an undeveloped piece of park property, and further that the proposed 12-foot fence have crushed rock inside the fenced area and no barbed wire at the top o5 the fence due to location in a City park. Mr. McDonald added that the City Engineer has recommended the plan be submitted to the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission for review and approval because of its location adjacent to the wetland. Mr. Tim Malloy, the petitioner's consultant, introduced himself and Bernie Wong who has been working with the City on the lease arrangements and is available to answer questions. Mr. Malloy described how cellular systems operate utilizing a grid of antennas arranged geographically in a pattern of cells, and as the number of customers increases it becomes necessary to increase the capacity of the system by breaking into smaller cells with more cells and more antennas, and thereby they are able to lower the antennas. He noted that this 95-foot antenna is one of the lowest in the system. Mr. Malloy referred to a letter from the FCC included with the staff report which indicated that no complaints of interference with home electronic entertainment equipment have been received in the Twin City area or anywhere within the jurisdiction of the St. Paul Office covering all of Minnesota and North Dakota and portions of South Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan. He emphasized the FCC remarks that cellular is a very low power system that utilizes ultra high frequency (UHF) so there are very few channels in that range to interfere with broadcast programming intended for the general public. He pointed out the compatibility of the tower with surrounding land uses and noted that the one use generally less New Rope Planning ~ommission -5- September 3, 1991 compatible is multi-family use, but the nearest apartment is on the other side of the wetlands 760 feet from the tower. He also called attention to the light standards for the ball fields in Victory Park noting they are approximately the same height as the proposed tower so it will blend in. Mr. Malloy commented on the income revenue from the lease that will be generated for the City to use for park use. Mr. Malloy clarified the staff recommendation calling for 18 trees with trunk diameter of 2-1/2 inches and explained that the plan actually calls for 14 shrubs and 4 evergreen trees 10-12 feet high. Mr. Malloy concluded with an explanation regarding maintenance of the area. He stated that they typically locate in areas where it is fully developed or where a gravel mulch can be used that does not require maintenance because with so many cells it becomes difficult to maintain them, so in some cases they build into the lease agreement monetary compensation for the City to maintain, particularly if it is in a park location. Commissioner Freidrich questioned the possibility of the tower icing up in heavy storms,'the possibility of kids trying to climb the pole, the color of the pole, the height, color, and construction material to be used in the building, if rooftop equipment will be added. Mr. Malloy pointed out that the proposed tower is of a hollow construction with very smooth, multi-faceted sides, and a ba~e diameter of 3 to 4 feet, bolted to a very deep (18 feet) concrete footing. He described the building as a prefabricated structure about 12 feet high, has two doors and no windows, with internal construction of wood and fiberglass coating and exposed aggregate panels attached to the exterior, a brown band around top cornice to painted to match the Snap-On Tools building nearby. He explained that two small standard home air conditioning units, to keep the equipment cool year around and control the atmosphere around very delicate equipment, will be located on the north side of the building but not on the roof. Commissioner Friedrich asked for clarification that no barbed wire would be used at the top of the fence, and was assured there would be none. He asked for description of the built-in security system. Mr. Malloy explained there is a computerized security monitoring system inside connected to a switch located at another point which is monitored 24 hours a day and will be able to alert appropriate persons to check the site. Commissioner Freidrich wondered about lack of security lighting and asked staff if the matter has been reviewed with the Police Department. Mr. Malloy expressed the desire that their buildings keep a low profile so they do not use lighting and Mr. McDonald confirmed that the matter had been discussed with the Police Department. Commissioner Friedrich referred to the landscaping and sodding and the maintenance of such and questioned if there was anything in the lease agreement regarding replacement of shrubs that may die. Mr. Malloy stated that they have no problem with sodding the site as requested by the City as long as they can make arrangements for maintenance of it, and he added that they would be willing to replace anything that dies for reasons outside the control of the ones maintaining. He pointed out that the evergreen trees will be wrapped around the corner and situated so that when the future parking lot is built none of the trees will have be to be moved, New Hope Planning Commission -6- September 3, 1991 and he noted additional landscaping added to the front to screen the building fr0m?I~ter'~a~iona!lParkwa¥.~ Commissioner Friedrich confirmed the drive would be asphalt and also confirmed that there would be no signage. Mr. Malloy pointed out the asphalt will also go under the building. A Mr. Schrader introduced himself as a representative of the owner of the building at 5701 International Parkway and expressed some concerns regarding the tower being a safety and health hazard for area residents, children, and visitors to the building which houses a gymnastics school, the aesthetic impact to the office/showroom, compatibility with the surrounding buildings and area, protection of the wetlands and wildlife, and an unmanned building attracting children. He also wondered why this site was selected when there is another cellular tower in the vicinity. Mr. Malloy assured that the site will be landscaped and maintained, the building will be of high quality construction and would not be too obvious from the street, the tower will blend in with the light standards in the park. He expressed his belief that they are compatible with the industrial use in the area. He emphasized that the grids are different so location of competitors never coincides in terms of technical criteria. MOTION The Second Vice-Chairman called attention to a letter in the staff report that relates to the market impact on neighboring properties and suggested Mr. Schrader can get a copy from staff to review. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 91-23 with the following conditions= 5. 6. 7. I Site Survey be provided prior to tower construction. A soils engineer evaluate foundation area. A development agreement and bond be required for all landscaping. Approval of the lease agreement and terms by the City Council. Citizen Advisory Commission to review the request. 5,000 square feet of sod to be installed around site. Maintenance agreement be agreed upon between U.S.West and City. Shingle Creek Watershed review and approve. No barbed wire be used on the fence· Voting in favors Zak, Cass.n, Sonsin, Friedrich, Watschke Voting againsts None Absents Cameron, Oundershaug Motion carried. Second Vice-Chairman Sonsin advised the petitioner that the Citizen Advisory Commission will meet on September 16th to review this request with them and if they have no major issues and if the Watershed Commission has no further comment, the City Council will hear the case on September 23rd. Mr. Malloy requested that he be sent a copy of the Watershed Commission report if they have any comments. PC 91-24 (3.5) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AT~W A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GASOLINE, AND INTERIOR REMODELING AT 3535 WWKA AV N Planning Case 91.24 was introduced. Mr. McDonald reviewed the request to allow a change in the existing CUP for complete interior renovation, remodeling, and expansion of the retail sales area, with two existing unused service bays being converted to sales floor, stockroom, walk-in cooler, workroom, cashier/office area, and rest rooms. He noted that the original CUP to allow accessory food sales was granted in 1985 and the exterior improvements were dealt with in detail at that time. He pointed out that no exterior sales are permitted, hours are limited by Code to 6 am-12 midnight, no outside storage is allowed, screened trash area to be repaired New Hope Planning Commission -7- September 3, 1991 NOTION and repainted, exterior landscaping, curbing and lights are all to remain, signage to remain but existing wall signs relocated, existing canopies to remain, new loading zone to be striped, parking stalls to be restriped, existing curb cuts to remain, two new pump islands to be installed, new exterior panel brick will be installed on all elevations with new aluminum store front facia and reworked glazing installed, new concrete walk around building, and any new rooftop equipment to be screened from view and meet Code requirement. Staff feels it will be a big improvement to the site. Commissioner Watschke asked for a description of the new interior and how it will be different, the type of brick to be used, the location of Fina Mart signs, and if outdoor sales are intended. Dan Dagge, local architectural representative for Fina Serve in Minnesota, described the purchase and conversion in 1984/85 of a number of old gas stations and because of budget constrictions did only minimal rehab work on them· He stated that with the growth and popularity of convenience stores now they are basically gutting and upgrading the interiors and updating the exteriors· He noted that the extensive landscaping is in good shape, but the trash area will be repaired and the parking area striped and a loading area added. He pointed out that the panel brick is a veneer type brick and that the signs on the north and east will be lifted up to the bottom of the mansard so that they can have more glass and light. He indicated that there is an ice machine outside the building currently and they would like to retain it there. He assured there would be no outdoor pop or tire sales. Commissioner Watschke confirmed that there will be no new site lighting or outside building lighting other than existing, no advertising on the building, that loading zone meets Code requirement, and that no equipment with noise factor is planned. Commissioner Cassen questioned the landscape areas and the petitioner described what exists· Commissioner Zak wondered if installation of new pumps indicated groundwater pollution and was assured there is no such problem but they feel it will be advantageous to update to new multiple product dispensers and it will allow them to install localized strobe protection under the pump areas. Commissioner Zak confirmed types of food products to be dispensed and the petitioner indicated that there will be hot dogs on a grill which is being addressed with the Health Department. Commissioner Cassen wondered if rooftop air conditioning would be added and petitioner stated there would be a new unit mounted inside the building. Commissioner Watschke cautioned that petitioner be aware of Code regarding window signs. Motion by Commissioner Watschke, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 91-24 with the following conditions~ 1. NO exterior sales he allowed, except the ice machine if staff research indicates allowance. 2. Hours of operation conform with City ordinance. 3. Any window signs comply with ordinance requirements with limitation of 20%. 4. No existing or new rooftop equipment that would generate noise or require screening. 5. Landscaping that was approved in 1985 be reassessed and replaced as necessar~ to meet the requirements at that time. 6. Any food preparation be reviewed with Health Department and staff for approval. New Hope Planning Commission -8- September 3, 1991 Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Sonsin~ Friedrich, Watschke Voting against~ N°nb~, Absent= Cameron, Gundershaug Motion carried. PC 91-25 (3.6) Second Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced Planning Case 91-25 and Kirk REQUEST FOR McDonald explained the request for an amendment to the sign plan SIGN PLAN and a setback variance because Midland Center wants to install a AMENDMENT AND second pylon on Medicine Lake Road to face east west. He noted VARIANCE TO that approval was received for a pylon for Cinema 'n' Drafthouse SIGN SETBACK last year, but two ground signs, one per street front, are allowed REQUIREMENT AT for shopping centers containing more than 4 separate occupancies. MIDLAND CENTER, He outlined the variance request to locate the sign 15 feet from WINNETKA AV. & the property line because of safety and aesthetic reasons since MEDICINE LK.RD. locating it at 20 feet would put it in the middle of a drive aisle. He added that the proposed sign is compatible with the existing one. Sandra Camery, Property Manager and Area Management Director for Kraus-Anderson, explained that they felt it will be a plus for the Center and its tenants to have the second sign. Commissioner Zak confirmed the sodding would remain around the bottom of the sign and some landscaping will be added. She also confirmed the new sign will match the existing one and the petitioner noted it will be a little more modest, but the two will tie together. Commissioner Zak addressed staff about how many times a compreheo- Hive sign plan could be changed and was informed there was no limit. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Zak, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case 91-25 due to the unique circumstances created by the widening of Medicine Lake Road. Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against= None Absent= Cameron, Gundershaug Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review No report other than what was covered in the current cases. (4.1) Codes & Stand. (4.2) OLD BUSINESS Codes & Standards did not meet but will be scheduling a meeting during the month of September with several issues to discuss. Commissioner Sonsin expressed a formal complaint regarding a G & K Towel Services truck that parks in front of the U.S. Swim & Fitness entrance in the fire lane next to the sign that indicates "no parking in fire lane", on Monday and Thursday mornings from 6-7 am with the truck idling, polluting the area and causing a traffic hazard. He noted that U.S.Swim & Fitness revised parking lot design did not include a provision for a loading zone, but this is a violation of the code and he would like to see some enforcement take place. Mr. McDonald stated that he had previously made the appropriate Department Heads aware of the complaint, and would follow up again on the matter. Commissioner Watschke registered a complaint regarding the "barn" structure that has been partially built at 3700 Jordan where a fence variance was granted recently, but no fence has been built. Commissioner Cassen complained about the area of dead trees and bushes around Bosa Donuts. New Hope Planning Commission -9- September 3, 1991 NEW BUSINESS (6.1, 2, 3) (7) JU)JO~ (8) Mr. McDonald agreed to follow up on all complaints. Planning Commission minutes were approved as printed and there was no comment on other minutes. The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9.50 pm. Respectfully submitted, ~.ucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -10- September 3, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON &VENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, NINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 1991 CALL TO ORDER ROLL Cl1LT.T. PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 91-17 (3.1) REQUEST FOR siTH/aux~ REVIEW FOR TEMPORARY OFFICE BLD~ AT ??09 42ND AVENUE NORTH The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present= Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Absent: Friedrich Chairman Cameron introduced the first case and called for a motion to acknowledge the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Planning Case 91-17. MOTION PC 91-31 (3.2) REQUEST FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO R-O ZONING DISTRICT MOTION PC 91-22 (3.3) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISHMENT OF PRE-SCHOOL/ CHILD CARE CENTER AT 3701 WZNNETKAAV N Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to acknowledge the withdrawal request of Planning Case 91-17. Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent= Friedrich - Motion carried. The Chairman introduced Planning Case 91-31 and Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, requested Alan Brixius, the City's Planning Consultant to explain the request. Mr. Brixius noted that some confusion has arisen in regards to the R-O District in that there are no permitted uses specifically identified as there are in each of the other zoning districts, although there are permitted accessory uses. He reiterated the roll-back process concerning permitted and conditional uses in hi~her zoned districts to include uses allowed in lower zoned districts. He explained that the amendment would clean up existing non-conformities and would have a minimal impact on existing uses. The amendment will add some clarity to the R-O District and provide easier interpretation of future uses. Commissioner Sonsin reported that the Codes & Standards Committee met in September and reviewed the amendment and recommend the change be approved. Notion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve the change in the text amendment to the New Hope Zoning Code to expand permitted conditional uses in the R-O Residential- Office Zoning District as defined in Planning Case 91-31. Voting in favors Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against= None Absent= Friedrich Motion carried. Planning Case 91-22 was introduced by Chairman Cameron, but the petitioner was not present so the Chairman called for a table. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 91-22 until the end of the meeting. New Hope Planning Commission -1- October 8, 1991 PC 91-26 (3.4) RE~tUEST FOR VARIANCE TO MAXIMUM WA?.?. S IGNAGE ALLOWED AT 4300 XYLON AVENUE NORTH Voting in favors Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting againsts None Absents Friedrich Notion carried. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-26 and invited the petitioner to come forward. Mr. McDonald reviewed the request for an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan and variance to wall signage requirement. He explained that the comprehensive sign plan and signage variances were originally approved in 1972, but the new request decreases the overall sign area even though the number of signs being requested now exceeds what is allowed by code. He outlined the code requirements and what was approved in 1972, and he added that staff has a concern regarding the imbalance of the overall signs on the building with the new plan. Rick Jansen, Manager of the New Hope K-Mart store, addressed the issue and explained that K-Mart is upgrading their image in their stores throughout the country and replacing the large K-Mart identification sign with a smaller one of a different color and adding the signs for pharmacy, garden store, and auto service is part of that plan. He stated that the smaller signs are used to indicate the services offered to the community by their stores and by placing them at the end where the specific function is located, it will give customers a better idea of the location within the store. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the need for more signs than the sign ordinance allows. He stressed that the sign code is specifi- cally restrictive in allowing identification of the business only and not for advertising or listing specific services or functions. Chairman Cameron confirmed that these are part of a standard for K- Mart signs and they would be lighted. Mr. Jansen explained that they have about six different sign package types, but placement is the big difference, and he further added that the signs and lights are hooked into a computer system that shuts them off at a designated time after store closing to allow employees to get safely to their cars. Commissioner Zak asked if the services advertised by the signs are typical of all K-Marts or unique to this particular one, and how long these services have been provided at this store. Mr. Jansen replied that about 1/3 of the stores do not have pharmacies, 50% do not have auto service centers. He confirmed that the auto service and garden shop were implemented from the opening in 1972, but the pharmacy was added about 8 or 9 years ago. Commissioner Zak expressed her feeling that most people in the area are aware of K-Mart's services and extra signs are unnecessary. Commissioner Sonsin stressed the philosophy of the sign ordinance as being strictly for business identification and not advertising and he feels no hardship exists to allow the variance to exceed the number of signs code permits. Mr. Jansen expressed the feeling that they have noticed many new people coming in to the store in recent months, and with newcomers being unfamiliar with what K-Mart offers, they feel it necessary to make their services more visible to consumers. Commissioner Gundershaug commented on the duplication of the name K-Mart with each service when there is the large identification sign on the front of the store. He then stressed the fact that there is a planning case request and plan by K-Mart for overall upgrading of the outdoor area which has been tabled for over a year and he questioned K-Mart's sincerity in dealing with the City on settling the tabled case. He expressed the feeling that the former case should be settled before approval of the current case. Chairman Cameron agreed and suggested tabling the sign plan for one month so petitioner can reply to this and develop a new sign plan. New Hope Planning Commission -2- October 8, 1991 MOTION PC 91-27 (3.5) REQUEST ~R VARI~CE ~ REAR YARD SETBACK AT 7621 48~ CIRCLE NOR~ MOTION PC 91-28 (3.6) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL AT 5420/5430 IHTERNATIONAL PARKWAY Motion by~CommissiO'~rs~£fi?~>seCon~by~Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 91-26 for one month. Voting in favors Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Gnndershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absents Friedrich Motion carried. Planning Case 91-27 was introduced by the Chairman and Kirk McDonald outlined the request for a variance to the rear yard setback to allow expansion of the existing garage. He explained that because of the irregular shape of the lot plus encroachments and easements on the property there is no other way to add additional space anywhere else, creating a hardship. He added that staff questioned the necessity of an overhead door at the rear of the addition. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the petitioner on what type of roofing and siding materials would be used. Robert Natzel, petitioner, replied that everything would match and added that he planned to remove the siding and replace it so that there would not be a splice line showing on that side and he indicated that he would repaint the side in the spring. He further stated that he had reconsidered the overhead door and decided he would lose wall space by installing it so he was abandoning the idea. Commissioner Gundershaug asked for confirmation of the reason for the 20' x 20' addition and wondered if the space were being considered for a home occupation. Mr. Natzel explained that is was necessary in order to store his extra vehicles and toys and had no intentions for a home occupation. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 91-27 as submitted. Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Oundershaug, Watschke Vo{ing against= None Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. Chairman Cameron called for the next case, at which point Commissioner Watschke asked to be excused from Planning Cases 91-28 and 91-30 due to a conflict of interest. Mr. McDonald explained the request for site and building plan review to allow Custom Mold to add a 12,000 square foot addition to expand their existing office and manufacturing facility, adding that in order to accomplish this addition they are acquiring vacant property to the north which will be platted and that platting is being considered under Planning Case 91-30. He continued by noting that the petitioner has worked very closely with staff and with Design & Review and revised plans have been submitted, but there are two minor concerns: one relating to driveway entrance signage establishing one-way entry flow, and the other to the installation of curbing on the north side of the property. Duane Trieber, owner and operator of Custom Mold & Design, introduced himself. Commissioner Gundershaug complimented the petitioner on his layout and cooperation and stated his concerns were mainly those of staff regarding the curbing on the north side and the driveway entrance signs and he suggested the petitioner check with staff to confirm the signage requested. Mr. Trieber confirmed that it was their intention to have curbing all around and was not aware that it was not shown on the plans. New Hope Planning Commission -3- October 8, 1991 MOTION PC 91-30 (3.7) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AT 5420/5430 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY Commissioner Gundershaug questioned if lighting would be down- lighting and Mr. Trieber confirmed it would be and added that the parking has been moved against the building so there will be adequate lighting for parking. Mr. Trieber presented some drawings to show what the building will look like when the addition is completed. Commissioner Gundershaug asked for confirmation of hours of operation and was informed they operate from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., no extra shifts, and only a couple persons that may come in and check on things at night. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if new signs were planned and the response indicated there were none planned, but they were aware of the sign ordinance and if the need arose they would file the proper request. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned if the landscaping would be sprinkled, if rooftop equipment is planned, and where trash storage would be located. The petitioner pointed out their sprinkling plan and the basic rooftop air conditioner painted to match the building, and he indicated that trash storage and other storage of pallets and crates would be in the back of the inside loading dock. Commissioner Cassen called attention to the reduction in parking spaces and the two foot extension to the roof. Mr. Trieber pointed out they had removed 4 parking spaces and expect that will be adequate even when the addition is completed. He explained the roof extension is necessary because of the nature of the tooling process. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve the Site/Building Plan Review to Allow Expansion of Existing Office and Manufacturing Facility with the conditions that signage establishing one-way truck flow be installed at driveway entrances and curbing be installed on the north side. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Oundershaug Vo~ing against: None Not voting: Watschke Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. The Chairman called on Mr. McDonald to introduce the preliminary plat request in Planning Case 91-30 which is for the property relating to Planning Case 91-28. Mr. McDonald reviewed the need for the acquisition of the property and outlined the plan for the addition of 3 acres to the north of Custom Mold, with 2 acres added to the existing site to accommodate the building addition, additional parking, and green space requirements, and the remaining .88 acre platted as an outlot, basically because it is excess property. He noted that the City has entered into discussions with Custom Mold about the possible future acquisition of the outlot to be added to the Public Works site. He called attention to a request by the petitioner that the Planning Commission waive review of the final 'plat so that construction can start this Fall. He added that comments from parties that reviewed the preliminary plat were minor in nature; the City Attorney requests the legal description be revised to include dedication of streets, to include dedication clause for utilities and easements, and evidence of title of ownership of land needs to be provided; the City Engineer requests that a 10' utility easement be added dividing Block 1 and the outlot. He noted that the City Engineer has approved sheet drainage onto International Parkway. The remaining concern is where the excess fill will go, but that will be resolved if the City proceeds with the acquisition of the outlot as they have a place where fill can be used. New Hope Planning Commission -4- October 8, 1991 Chairman Cameron qu~ned!~e' ' reas'~n fOr the waiver of the final plat and the creation of .88 acre outlet. Mr. Trieber explained that their plan is to get the trees removed and grading started before it freezes giving them a better chance for starting construction early in the Spring, but it mainly hinges on what the City will do about the outlet and at this point that is uncertain. He added that if the City does not act on the purchase of the outlet, he will incorporate it into the existing property. Alan Brixius suggested the preliminary plat be approved subject to the City Council approval of the purchase of the outlet and if they choose not to proceed on it, an amendment to the final plat can consolidate the outlet into the existing lot thus avoiding further delay in approval of the final plat. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve the prellminary plat and waive final plat review by the PlanningCommission subject to the conditions that the concerns of the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Building Official are corrected on final plat~ and City make determination as to purchase of Outlet A prior to final plat approval, and in the event the City does not purchase the subject Outlet the plat be amended to include Outlet A as part of Lot 1, Block i on the final plat. Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Gundershaug Voting against= None Not voting: Watschke Absent= Friedrich Motion carried. Commissioner Watschke rejoined the Commission at this time. PC 91-29 (3.8) Chairman Cameron introduced the next planning case. Mr. McDonald REQUEST FOR outlined the request for a conditional use permit to allow a CONDITIONAL USE commercial recreational use in the currently vacant Chicago Cutlery PERMIT TO ~?~OW building. He explained that the planned use will be geared to the A COMMERCIAL youth of the community with indoor batting cages, miniature golf RECREATIONAL course, video arcade, weight room, basketball court, children's USE AT 5420 safari and adventureland, pro shop, concessions, non-alcoholic HWY 169 NORTH sports lounge, and a party room. He noted that the petitioner is planning to occupy 42%, or 27,000 square feet in the center of the 65,276 square foot building, with a 27,000 square foot bakery warehouse in the east end and a 10,000 square foot warehouse in the west portion (facing Highway 169). He added that the proposed use meets all the I-1 requirements, revised plans were submitted sub~ sequent to meeting with Design & Review, and the Planner has also submitted a report, but staff has a number of concerns even though they are recommending approval. He listed the concerns and made recommendations for correction as follows: 1. Compatibility: location of a recreational facility between two industrial sites making it necessary for its patrons to cross industrial traffic is a concern, therefore staff is recommending petitioner shift west to the front of the building thereby keeping the recreational use in front and the industrial use in the back of the building. 2. Parking lot improvements: needs resurfacing, stalls for handicapped parking, and curbing needs to be discussed. 3. Parking requirements: Planner has determined that 33 spaces are needed for the two warehouse uses, but there is not a category that addresses sports and entertainment uses, therefore an other uses category is used to make a determination on an individual basis. The Planner has researched American Planning Association Standards and recommends one space per 200 square feet of floor area for the sports and recreation complex, therefore Grand Slam would need to provide 135 spaces, so combined with the 33 industrial a total of 168 spaces are needed on the site. 4. Curb cuts: a minor shift in the northerly access will accommodate the revised parking lot configuration. New Hope Planning Commission -5- October 8, 1991 5. Landscaping: plan meets requirements, but staff suggests the addition of landscaping within curb islands in parking lot. 6. Lighting: is adequate but should be adjusted downward, light standards should be repainted to clean up the site. 7. Signage= staff would like comprehensive sign plan submitted. 8. Refuse: trash area should be moved to more remote area. Bob Rabe, representing Grand Slam, stated that he had not seen the report detailing staff concerns, but he indicated that he did not think there would be a problem to accommodate the recommendations. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern regarding the trash area location and closure of several overhead doors. Mr. Rabe explained that the only trash generated by the operation would be a small amount from the concession stand which will have sandwiches and hot dogs and soft drinks and they propose a screened trash area in a loading ramp area away from the main entrance. He indicated that if the operation is moved to the front there would be only two overhead doors to be closed up. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the removal of asphalt from southeast property line and restoration of 20 foot green area with no CUP approved for shared off-site parking and who had the responsibility for such. Mr. Brixius replied that in a multi-tenant building the owner has responsibility to establish allocation. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with the petitioner that drainage and continuous curbing will be determined by the City Engineer, snow storage will be on the north side, hours of operation will be 10=00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. even on weekends, expected opening will be around January 1st if approval is given shortly, number of employees will be initially 3 full-time and maybe one or two part-time if business warrants, parking turnover will be every one or two hours with typically more than one or two persons per vehicle coming for birthday parties or batting practice etc., food service will be basic items such as hot dogs, pretzels, popcorn, soft-serve ice cream, pop, etc. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern that the petitioner has not been able to discuss the relocation to the front and other issues with the building owner to get approval before the request is approved by the Commission. Chairman Cameron suggested that, although it is not normal procedure to do so, rather than delay the process by tabling the request, the Commission could approve it on the basis of the petitioner's promises to incorporate and clarify all the recommendations into their plan before presenting it to the City Council on the 14th, and leave it up to the City Council to make the final approval. Mr. Rabe expressed certainty that the majority of concerns could be resolved in time for Council. Commissioner Cassen confirmed that the entry would be moved to the front canopy if they relocate into the front part of the building and noted that it should be indicated on the plans when presented to Council. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case 91-29, request for a conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational use in I-1 Zoning District subject to revised plans being completed and submitted for the City Council meeting on October 14th, with the stipulation that the facility is shifted to west end of building; parking lot is reconfigured to provide off-street parking; parking lot dimensions are in accordance with city standards; appropriate handicapped stalls are provided; parking lot is repaired and resurfaced; landscaping is provided within the parking lot curb islands as submitted in Exhibit H; all concrete fragments currently piled on site are removed; all lighting conforms to zoning New Hope Planning Comission -6- October 8, 1991 AMEND MOTION MOTION PC 91-22 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ESTABLISHMENT OF PRE-SCHOOL/ CHILD CARE CENTER AT 3701 WINNETKA AV N New Hope Planning Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent~ Motion carried. ordinance and elll£ghting ,standards ara repaired and repainted; comprehensive sigh'plan i~itted noting exact location, size, and type of all signs on site, with additional directional signs both upright and pavement placed at site's two access points to identify entry and exit; Grand Slam trash facillty is relocated to the westerly end of their portion of the building and is adequately screened; asphalt is removed from the southeast property line and 20-foot green area is restored as no CUP has been approved for shared off-site parking; City Engineer review drainage and grading to determine if continuous curbing is needed along perimeter of off-street parking areas; main entrance he moved to the west end of the building. Commissioner Zak called attention to a 10' wide trail located at the east end of the building connecting the property in question to the south property, which has not been addressed in the evening's discussions. Mr. Brixius explained that the trail leads into a parking lot to the south but the purpose or function could not be identified and the feeling is that if it is no longer needed it should be terminated and closed off. He recommended that the motion include that condition. Amendment by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to add the condition that the owner explain the purpose of the 10' wide trail on the east and if it is no longer necessar~ it be terminated. Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Watschke None Friedrich Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to lift Planning Case 91-22 from the table. Unanimous vote recorded. Chairman Cameron called on Mr. Brixius to present the case. Mr. Brixius explained the request and how it related to the text amendment requirement for a conditional use permit for day care in the R-0 District. He reiterated the conditions that meet the zoning requirements, such as lot size, required setbacks, trash enclosure, and operational hours. He noted that the plan must show 14 parking stalls and only 10 are shown, so 4 additional stalls have to be provided in front drive-up lane by October, 1992. He also noted the loading area is shown as only 9' wide and this must be expanded to 18' to allow for escape lane for parking stalls in front of building. He explained that additional egress is proposed off the drive-thru lane onto Winnetka Avenue and the curb cut permits from Hennepin County should be received within 60 days of approval. He recommended that the petitioner explain the rotation of the play program through the play area, even though the area provides sufficient area for the number of children proposed. He noted that the site will be improved by the planned upgrade. Rohan and Helen DeAlwis, Bassett Creek Montessori School, appeared before the Commission to answer questions. Commissioner Cassen expressed concern over the safety of the children andquestioned the petitioner regarding the drop-off width and if there would be sufficient parking prior to the October 1992 date for adding more spaces. Mr. DeAlwis confirmed the drop-off would be widened and more spaces would be provided when required. He explained that they have not run into any traffic problems at their other school. Commissioner Cassen asked if the petitioner understood the requirement for a curb cut permit from Hennepin County within 60 days of approval, the shifting of the south driveway away from the property line, and the restriping of the parking lot in white. Commission -7- October 8, 1991 Mr. DeAlwis confirmed his knowledge of the requirements. Commissioner Cassen further questioned the petitioner regarding the handicapped parking to be provided, the installation of new sod on the north side and landscaping prior to May 1, 1992, if the sodded areas are to be sprinkled, if the playground area will be sodded, if a trash enclosure would be provided. Mr. DeAlwis indicated they had no plans for sprinkling, because it is a very small area, but Would consider it if necessary. He noted that the playground area will not be resodded. He confirmed the trash area would be screened with cedar fence. Commissioner Cassen noted that no detailed landscape schedule was provided. Mr. DeAlwis responded that he did not understand that it was to be provided before this meeting and offered a verbal description of the plantings. Chairman Cameron reminded him that it is difficult for the Commission to make a decision on generalities and that is why a specific landscape schedule and plan is very important. Commissioner Cassen continued with a reminder that a development agreement concerning site improvements will have to be executed with the City and a suitable bond will have to be provided to insure the completion of the improvements by 1992. Mr. DeAlwis indicated he understood this. Commissioner Cassen confirmed the material to be used in the steps and the retaining wall will be concrete, and the railing will be iron, and questioned if the curbing will be continuous concrete. Mr. DeAlwis indicated the concrete curbing on the north side. Commissioner Cassen confirmed with staff that continuous concrete is required for the driveway also. Commissioner Gundershaug recalled that Design & Review recommended that the driveway be put in right away, rather than a year from now. Mr~ DeAlwis replied that they were using the Montessori standard for parking and initially they would not have full enrollment. Commissioner Gundershaug replied that safety at the drop-off area was a factor no matter how many children are enrolled. Mr. DeAlwis stressed that there will not be any drop-offs, as parents are required to park their cars and walk the children into the school and sign in. Commissioner Gundershaug voiced his concern that parents will probably park at the door and run in if the parking spaces are full, thereby blocking the drive. He noted that since Hennepin County has given approval to a second curb cut, it should not be a problem to complete the drive sooner. Commissioner Zak questioned the lighting and the petitioner indicated that he understood it could be added following approval. Chairman Cameron stressed that all plans are due before the Commission hearing and Mr. McDonald emphasized that the petitioner was instructed at Design & Review to have detailed plans on landscaping and lighting. Commissioner Zak added that details regarding the steps and retaining walls should be shown also, rather than just the indication they are cement since there are different kinds of cement and cement designs. Mr. Brixius pointed out that the City Engineer will need to review the drainage. Commissioner Zak questioned what surface would be used on the playground and where fencing would be placed and the height. New Hope Planning Commission -8- October 8, 1991 NOTION COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review (4.1) Codes & Stand. (4.2) OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS (6.1, 2, 3) ANNouNCEMENTS (7) ADJOURNMENT (8) Mr. DeAlwis stated pea.gravel would be used under the playground equipment and fenC~hg ~iil be arOUnd ~he playground and on the retaining wall on the south side of the building, with the south side fence to be 8 feet in height. Commissioner Cassen questioned the lighting in back and on the front of the building and petitioner answered there is lighting in all areas. Commissioner Zak asked if the south drive exit on to Winnetka would allow right and left turns and both Mr. McDonald and Mr. Brixius affirmed that it would and that the County is very supportive of the curb cut. Mr. DeAlwis asked if he could submit new plans prior to the Council meeting for their review in order to move the case along. Commissioner Watschke emphasized that the Council looks to the Planning Commission for recommendations if the Commission cannot review the plans first they cannot make the recommendation for approval. Commissioner Gundershaug stressed his feelings that the driveway should be put in immediately, not within a year. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to table Planning Case 91-22 for one month so that petitioner can address driveway, landscape schedule, stairway, lighting, material of stairway and railing, and driveway landscape. Voting in favor~ Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against~ None Absent= Friedrich Motion carried. Commissioner Gundershaug further suggested that the petitioner meet with Design & Review another time and also consult directly with staff to get a clearer understanding of what is being required. Met with petitioners on several of the current cases. Codes & Standards met on September 19th and discussed the R-O zoning text change, day care parking, outdoor dining, and the fence ordinance as it relates to front yards. Will meet again in October. Planning Commission minutes were approved as printed and there was no comment on other minutes. Mr. McDonald announced that two new members, Vi Underdahl and Todd Lifson, will be given the oath of office at the November meeting. Chairman Cameron adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Resp/cectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -9- October 8, 1991 CITY OF NE~ HOPE 4401 XF~,ON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1991 C~,T.T. TO ORDER ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Zak, Underdahl, Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Sonsin, Lifson, Watschke Absent: None Valerie Leone, City Clerk, administered'the Oath of Office to the two new Planning Commission members, Vi Underdahl and Todd Lifson. Vi Underdahl asked to be excused from the meeting as she had come from a sick bed to take the oath of office rather than postpone it. She was excused. PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 91-22 (4.1) Chairman Cameron called for the first case and Kirk McDonald, REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE Management Assistant, reviewed the request for a conditional permit for a pre-school and child care center which was tabled twice PERMIT TO AT3.0W ESTABLISHMEN~ previously for lack of detailed information on the site plan. He OF PRE-SCHOOL/ noted that subsequent to the last meeting a letter was sent to the CHILD CARE petitioner and a meeting was held with him to outline and explain CENTER AT 3701 specific changes that the staff and commission wanted to see on revised plans and new plans were submitted with all recommendations WINNETKA AV N incorporated into the plans, with the exception of the business identification sign size and setback not being shown and it should be a condition of approval to show it on the plans. He called attention to the drive-thru and explained that the Planning Consultant recommends it be included for safety reasons by eliminating the need to cross traffic to enter the school, and it separates the enter and exit drives. Me added that Hennepin County also recommends the curb cut be installed for the drive-thru. Commissioner Cassen reviewed with the petitioner all the concerns that had been raised regarding landscaping, trash enclosure, lighting on all sides, restriping, concrete curbing and sidewalk, retaining wall with railings, cyclone fencing on north and west sides, cedar fence along south side of playground area, height of fence in accordance with state regulations for child care centers. She confirmed that opening date will be January or February and that parking will be adequate until the new drive can be built in the spring. She wondered if the children will be able to be outside in the winter if the play area and fencing cannot be installed now because of the early snow and what state requirements are for outside playtime for children in day care centers. Commissioner Gundershaug and Chairman Cameron cautioned the petitioner to be aware of the code requirements for the business identification signs and to consult city staff before a sign in erected. Commissioner Watschke confirmed that traffic flow currently is two way and also noted that the dimension showing the distance of the south driveway from the property line is not shown on the plan and it should be included before the request goes to the Council. Mrs. Verna Slavicek, 8009 37th Avenue North, expressed concern over possible noise from the playground and wondered if some kind of a buffer could be provided to minimize it. She noted that most of the houses along 37th Avenue had the animal hospital behind them but at their end there was nothing to screen the noise out. Chairman Cameron suggested that if the playground noise becomes a problem, the City could require some kind of buffer and berm with 6-8 foot cedar or solid evergreens be installed. He emphasized something that would remain green year around would probably be preferred, particularly if the playground were ever extended into the northwest corner. New Hope Planning Commission -1- November 5, 1991 MOTION PC 91-26 (4.2) REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AND VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM WALL $'r GNAGE ALLO~IgD, 4300 XYLON AV. N. Commissioner Sonsin asked for confirmation that the zoning text change to accommodate this school has been passed by the City Council and Mr. McDonald acknowedged that it had been approved. Motion by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to approve Planning Case 91-22 with the following conditions~ 1. Hennepin County Curb Cut Permit be obtained within 60 days of Council approval. 2. New sod, landscaping, and drop-off lane be installed prior to June 1, 1992, or as soon as possible as weather permits. 3. Development Agreement concerning site improvements be executed with the City and suitable bond provided. 4. Business ground sign to meet City Code requirements regarding size and setback. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Sonsin, Lifson, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Underdahl Motion carried. Planning Case 91-26 was called for by the Chairman and Kirk McDonald explained that the case was tabled from the October meeting to allow the petitioner to develop a new sign plan and also to allow K-Mart to respond to the unsettled planning case that has been tabled for almost a year. He noted that detailed letters had been sent to both K-Mart headquarters and to the local management addressing the sign request and the pending case on the site plan. He added that staff met with the local manager and revised sign plans were submitted showing the elimination of the advertising of auto service, deletion of the K-Mart name preceding the pharmacy and garden shop designations, alignment of services signs into one column for better balance, reduction of number of signs from 4 to 3, and total sign area reduced from 419 to 312 square feet. He noted that no official correspondence has been received regarding the pending site plan case. Rick Jansen, local manager of K-Mart, explained that it is his understanding that a modification on the site plan is under discussion at other levels in the corporation, but he has no firm answer as to what that plan is. Commissioner Sonsin questioned if the striping to the side of the large "K" are included as part of the sign dimension, and if signs designating services would be in the same red as the large "K". Mr. Jansen answered that the "K" is 92 square feet and the striping is not included in that figure as it is not a part of the lighted sign and he confirmed the sign color would all be the same. Mr. McDonald confirmed that the stripes are not considered part of the sign unless they are illuminated. Commissioner Sonsin expressed his feelings that the changes and removal of the store name from the service signs were an improvement, but noted a concern that more signs advertising other services may be requested in the future. He also expressed concern regarding the unsettled planning case and stated that he would like more firm answers on it. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he has been surveying other K-Mart stores and finds that none of them have the added signs advertising the department services and wondered why the New Hope K-Mart is different. Mr. Jansen stated that some stores throughout the country have lighted signs all across the front of the store and they work with each municipality on the issue. Commissioner Cassen commented that there are 2 garden shop signs on the south side and another on the front and thinks it is redundant. Mr. Jansen explained that the diagram does not show the sign on the south side of building, and he has no official answer regarding it. New Hope Planning Commission -2- November 5, 1991 Chairman Cameron suggeS~e~ that the case be tabled for one more month to get some firm answers on the actual number of signs that are planned for on the south side of the building and the need for them. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commission Zak, to table Planning Case 91-26 for one month. Voting in favors Zak, Casssn, Cameron, Friedrich, Sonsin, Watschke, Lifson Voting againsts Gundershaug Absents Underdahl Motion carried. PC 91-35 (4.3) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-35 and Mr. McDonald REQUEST FOR reviewed the request for a variance to the rear yard setback to VARIANCE TO allow construction of a 16' x 16' three-season porch. He noted REA~ YARD SET- that an elevated deck 16' x 11' will also be constructed on the BACK TO ~?~.OW south side of the porch and the construction will be located 31' CONSTRUCTION from the rear yard property line. He added that the house has a OF PORCH AT 50' setback off Boone Avenue. 4741 BOONE AV Mr. Robert Lindell, petitioner, stated that he has contacted his neighbors and none voiced objection to the addition. Commissioner Sonsin asked if building materials will match existing structure and petitioner confirmed they will. Commissioner Sonsin questioned if the petitioner had given any consideration to the Building Official's suggestion that by reducing the size of the addition the size of the variance can also be reduced. Mr. Lindell stated that he would not consider anything smaller than the size he had applied for. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 91-35. Voting in favors Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Sonsin, Lifson, Watschke Voting againsts None Absents Underdahl Motion carried. PC 91-36 (4.4) Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-36 and invited the REQUEST FOR petitioner to come forward. Mr. McDonald explained the request for VARIANCE TO a variance that will allow an existing storage building that was ACCESSORY constructed over a drainage easement to remain in place. He noted BUILDING SET- that the code states that buildings shall be 5 feet or more from BACK REQUIRE- all lot lines and shall not be located within a drainage or utility MENT TO ALLOW easement and this shed is located 3 feet from the rear yard UTILITY SHED property line and 2.4 feet from side yard property line with the TO BE LOCATED yard having a 5-foot drainage easement on the side yard and a 10- WITHIN A foot drainage easement on the rear yard. He added that the filing DRAINAGE AND is a result of an order from the Building Official to move the shed UTILITY EASE- to meet setback requirements due to a complaint. He explained that MENT AT 4764 the petitioner claims he was given inaccurate information from the ERICKSON DRIVE Inspections Department regarding the location of the shed. Mr. LuVerne Kramer, petitioner, stated that he had visited City Hall to see the Building Official and he was out, but he was advised that he did not need a permit for a shed if it was within a certain size, and then he asked about easements and was told that as long as maintenance can be done around it without going on someone else's property, that was all that was required. He continued by saying that after the shed was built he found out there are requirements regarding the location and was then told it has to be 5 feet off each lot line. He continued saying that he finally called and set up an appointment with the Building Official who told him it had to be 10 feet off the rear lot line and made the suggestion he apply for a variance. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what the shed was built on and was told it was a one-foot concrete slab. New Hope Planning Commission -3- November 5, 1991 MOTION Commissioner Watschke asked if he realized he was building on a utility easement and the petitioner answered that he had no idea. Several people indicated that they would like to address the Commission regarding this case and Chairman Cameron invited them to come forward. Linda Bilkey, 4772 Erickson Drive, stated that they were the first homeowners on that street and when they signed their papers for their home they were requested to sign a plat survey that they understood the setbacks, where the easements were, etc. and she wondered if the City still did that and if not, when and why was it stopped. Chairman Cameron replied that the explanation is not within the knowledge of those present. Commissioner Cassen, who is a real estate-agent, explained that usually homeowners will not get a survey at closing unless it is provided by the builder and although the title company and the lender require a plat map, it cannot be used as a survey and it is not required by the City. Chairman Cameron suggested it may have been unique to her closing, but it is not currently required. Howard Bilkey, 4772 Erickson Drive, called attention to wording on the warranty deed and the property plat that it is a recorded easement. He also expressed concern that a fire in a shed that close to the property line would burn his fence. Nancy Sanderson-4732 Erickson Drive, Barbara Rodrigue-4724 Erickson Drive, and Cheryl Scribner-4788 Erickson Drive, each in turn stated that they had never had to sign anything when they moved in the area and spoke in support of Mr. Kramer. Teresa Grimme, 4717 Hillsboro Avenue, directly behind Mr. Kramer, stated that she would not welcome anyone digging through her property because the shed in question is in the way if it becomes necessary for someone to get to the easement. She added that she has visited City Hall for information about ordinances, codes, etc. and has always been directed to persons with the proper answers and she questions the fact that the petitioner says he was given the wrong information. She questioned if a permit was issued, and if there is a height requirement and was told a permit was not needed and the height is within code. She concluded with the statement that she does not like the shed that close to her property line. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned staff if NSP has a problem and need to get into the easement, could they make the petitioner move the shed and the answer was in the affirmative. Commissioner Cassen asked staff if there were written handouts the City can give out so there is no misunderstanding on questions regarding the codes. Mr. Kramer stated that he had asked that question and was informed that there was nothing on building utilitysheds. He added that he also subsequently questioned the Building Official and was informed there are written handouts. Mr. McDonald confirmed that a handout on utility sheds has been developed, but did not know if it was available prior to this case. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Friedrich, ~or denial of the variance requested in Planning Case 91-36. Voting in ~avor= Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Sonsin, Lifson, Watschke Voting against= None Absents Underdahl Motion carried. Chairman Cameron advised the petitioner that his case will be heard by the City Council on November 12th. New Hope Planning Commission -4- November 5, 1991 Pc 91-37 (4.5) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARI- ANCR, SITE/ BUILDING PLAN REV! EW/APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SERVICE STATION AT 6144 WEST BROADWAY MOTION PC 91-38 (4,6) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE/ BUILDING PLAN Chairman Cameron introduce~F!anning Case 91-37 and announced that there is a request by the petitioner to table the case. Motion by Commissioner Watschke, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to table Planning Case 91-37. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Sonsin, Lifson, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Underdahl Motion carried. Planning Case 91-38 was introduced by the Chairman and Kirk McDonald outlined the request to construct a 15' x 21' (315 square foot) dining room addition on the north side of Taco Bell to create additional seating capacity of 28 seats and added that the project involves relocation and reconstruction of trash enclosure, fencing, sidewalk, installation of new loading zone, and some new landscap- ing. He confirmed that roof, walls, and windows of the addition REVIEW APPROVAL will match the existing structure. TO AT~.OWADDZ- TION AT 7100 BASS LAKE ROAD New Hope Planning Commission He stated that the original conditional use permit was approved in 1972 and variances for lot size and setbacks were granted then, and this addition meets all setback requirements although at first staff felt a parking variance might be needed and legally advertised as such, but subsequently a Shared Parking/Access Agreement dated November 2, 1972, was found and reviewed by the City Attorney and is currently in effect. He noted that Design & Review has discussed all the issues with the petitioner. He pointed out that there have been some violations of the sign ordinance in the past with use of banners, pennants, etc. He added that the City Attorney requests two conditions be added for approval: that petitioner provide a filed copy of the Agreement with the City so it can be recorded on the titles of the property, and that an annual review of the parking be required. Mark Helseth, architect representing Taco Bell, questioned condi- tions 2 and 3 on the report regarding parking lot restriping to City standards and a green strip 20 feet in width to be added in front of the building, stating they had not been discussed earlier and he did not understand the requirements. Commissioner Gundershaugquestioned the number of parking spaces to be eliminated from the site because of the addition, how much over- flow would need to use the other parking lot during peak hours, and what type of notification is provided to indicate to people they can use overflow parking area. He emphasized that such a sign should be added. He also asked when the lot had been restriped and the dimensions used. Mr. Helseth indicated the loss of only one parking space and explained that the lot had just been restriped over the existing lines in May, which is over the current standard. Chairman Cameron suggested that since it was recently done, it will be overlooked, but cautioned that next time it restriped the current standards be used. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with the petitioner's representative and the current manager of the operation that new -materials will match, no rooftop equipment being added, trash enclosure meets requirements, relocation of a light to the trash enclosure area for employee safety and illumination of the back area, number of employees and where they are required to park. -5- November 5, 1991 Commissioner Gundershaug asked the petitioner to address the issue of the sign violations mentioned in the report. Mr. Richard Hay, Market Manager for Taco Bell, introduced himself and Paul O'Brian, manager of the New Hope restaurant, stating that they were both new to this area, and indicating that they had some integrity issues with a previous manager which may explain the sign problems. He explained they did not currently have a copy of the New Hope Sign Code, but would address the issues when they have reviewed the ordinance. Chairman Cameron noted his appreciation of the petitioner's problem and indicated his acceptance of their attitude and willingness to cooperate with the City. Commissioner Gundershaug noted approval of the addition of greenery on the west side and suggested additional 10' green space in the front along with sprinklers to maintain. Chairman Cameron concurred with Mr. Gundershaug's suggestion and explained the City's viewpoint for additional green space in front. Mr. Helseth indicated there are currently plantings at the small boulevard between the property line and the street. Mr. O'Brian explained they had recently put in flowering shrubs, which are now covered with snow and not visible, and they intend to upgrade the curb appeal and make it attractive and green and will have a lawn service maintain green area in back and shrubbery up front and also hand water the new plants. He assured that they will meet the recommendations. Mr. O'Brian further explained that the addition of a 10-foot green strip would cause them to lose 10 seating spaces in the patio area and suggested that a currently graveled area to the right could be converted to greenery plus some greens, such as spirea with a little more height could be planted in with the new flowering shrubs. Commissioner Gundershaug and Chairman Cameron agreed that would be an improvement and informed the petitioner to make sure it was noted on the plans when they are presented to the Council. Mr. Jack Durant, 5649 Maryland Avenue North, and Mr. Len Wyttenback, 5657 Maryland Avenue North, came to the podium to address the Commission. Mr. Durant spoke first and stated he is a resident of Crystal and questioned who gets the public hearing notice regarding the case because he got one and several other neighbors did not. He also called attention to the statement on the notice that it was published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post and expressed his opinion that Golden Valley is considerably remote from this request, and questioned why it was not also published in the Crystal paper. Mr. McDonald explained that all residents within 350' of the property in New Hope get notices, and if another municipality borders the request, a copy of the notice is sent to that city hall for them to notify their residents, and New Hope does the same when a neighboring request affects the residents. Mr. Durant reported that he has called the police on a number of occasions regarding noise, speakers in the back and loud trucks vibrating things in the house, plus motorcycles tearing up the parking lot and trash scattered all over. He registered a complaint about a chain link fence that is laying down on the ground, the late hours, and the congregating of kids in both Taco Bell and Ponderosa parking lots, He acknowledged that Taco Bell was there when he moved in and he accepts that, but he does not think enough is being done to control the kids that move and roam around there, drinking and making noise. Mr. Wyttenback registered a complaint about motorcycles parking in the handicapped spots, fights in the back parking lot, trash, and the bright entry lights that shine in his living room windows. New Hope Planning Commission -6- November 5, 1991 MOTION PC 91-39 (4.7) RE~tr~ST TO CONSIDER Mr. Durant wondered if barriers could be erected to keep persons from moving between thetw0 restaurant areas, plus shorter hours so they would not be lingering late at night and early morning, something to keep control so the police don't have to be called so often. Chairman Cameron acknowledged his understanding of problems that exist between commercial and residential neighborhoods and stated that he felt that things can be resolved if parties try to talk together and define the problem and work on solutions, consulting with City staff if necessary. Mr. O'Brian assured that he intends to be a good neighbor to the area and will look at ways of controlling all conditions mentioned in the complaints. He stated they do have an off-duty New Hope police officer on the premises on Friday and Saturday nights to help keep control. He assured he would be willing to meet with the neighbors and address individual concerns. He added that they are very security conscious and plan on upgrading all the lighting, and will consider other ideas to improve the situation. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested staff contact Ponderosa and get them involved in solving these problems since they are sharing the parking lot. Commissioner Lifsonquestioned how long the parking agreement will remain in effect. Mr. McDonald explained it was good for 22 years, and if Ponderosa was still in business at that time there was an automatic 10-year extension, so that makes it good until the year 2002. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Watschke, to approve Planning Case 91-38 subject to the following conditions= 1. Shared Parking/Access Easement be continued, petitioner to provide filed copy of agreement with City to insure it is recorded on property titles, and parking to be reviewed annually. 2. Green strip 5 feet in width to be added in front of building and to be sprinkled. 3. Violations of sign and ordinance (banners, pennants, window signs, sidewalk portables, etc.) to be discontinued. 4. Petitioner to install overflow parking sign that instructs customers about the availability of parking on the Ponderosa site. Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Sonsin, Lifson, Watschke Voting against~ None Absent: Underdahl Motion carried. Chairman Cameron called for the Planning Case 91-39 and Mr. McDonald explained that through an earlier oversight property that the City purchased in 1984, now known as Plufka Addition, Lots 1 through 21, was platted for single family homes and is shown on NEW HOPE ZONING zoning maps dating back to 1984 as R-1 Single Family Residential, CODE BY ItS- but was never officially processed as such. He added that prior to ZONING CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FROM R-2 SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENTIALAT 4724-4884 ERICKSON DRIV~ MOTION that time it was zoned as multiple family residential in the 1970's and in 1981 it was rezoned to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential and the City's intent was to rezone it to R-1 Single Family Residential. He stated that all that is required now is for a text change in the code to match the zoning map. Chairman Cameron confirmed with staff that all residents have been informed. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Watschke, to approve the text cOde change requested in Planning Case 91-39. New Hope Planning Commission -7- November 5, 1991 COMMITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINEBS NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Vot£ng £n favor: Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Oundershaug, Fr£edrich, Sonsin, Lifson, Watschke Voting against: None Absents Underdahl Motion carried. Design & Review reported they had met at a regular meeting and then a special meeting with Super America which resulted £n the case be£ng tabled so a new plan could be presented. Codes & Standards reported they have met twice in recent weeks on issues concern£ng day care parking, outdoor din£ng, and adult enterta£nment. The CommAttee requested an Anfo~mal meetAng of the full PlannAng CommAssAon, CAty Attorney, and CAty Planner be scheduled for a dAscussion on the lengthy and comp1Acated adult entertaAnment issue, eAther followAng a regular CommAssAon meetAng or An a separate meetAng. The consensus was for a separate meetAng wh£ch was set for Thursday, November 21, 1991. Hr. NcDonald Anformed the CommAssAon that Grand Slam has changed theAr plans for goAng Ants the ChAcagoCutlery BuAldAng and wall be back before the CommAssAon at a later date w£th a new locat£on. PlannAng CommAssAon m£nutes of October 8, 1991, were approved. The suggest£on was made that the PlannAng ConunAssAon meetAng t~me be shafted to 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and all members concurred. Hr. NcDonald AndAcated that a meetAng t~me change request wall be submitted to the CouncA1 for approval, as the Counc£1 author£zes the date and time for comm£ssAon meetings. Hr. HcDonald announced that the December meetAng wall have to be changed because there £s a specAal State electAon beAng held on Tuesday, December 3, 1991, for the vacancy created by the res£gnatAon of LAnda ScheAd. The CommAssion agreed to conduct the the meeting on Wednesday, December 4, 1991. The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -8- November 5, 1991 CTTY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH llENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COJO(ISSION WOR~ SESSION NOTES NOVEMBER 21, 1991 CAT~. TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Sonsin, Underdahl, Friedrich, Lifson, Watschke Management Assistant McDonald City Attorney Sondrall Planning Consultant Brixius DISCUSSION ON ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE The Planning Consultant, Alan Brixius, explained that the purpose of the discussion is to make sure the objectives of the City regarding the issue will be achieved. He explained the purpose of the ordinance and emphasized that adoption of the ordinance is in no way intended to facilitate or promote the uses within the City of New Hope, but is intended to regulate and limit their locations and protect other land uses that may be impacted by their existence. He noted that the whole issue was stimulated in the summer of 1990 with the adult use that surfaced in the community of Ramsey, which did not have any type of adult use regulation and it had to be treated as any other retail use under their zoning ordinance. He pointed out that as a result of that instance, many other communities are now participating in establishing an adult use arrangement, including Ramsey which is now in the process of a lawsuit to relocate the use within the community. He stated that the motivation for this type of use is the need to establish a regulation which dictates the use and separation from other uses which may be inappropriately impacted. He outlined the parameters of regulation referred to in the August 19th report that have been established through regulations, court cases, and state, regional, and national studies: 1. Activities defined as adult use are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc. 2. A Renton County Washington Supreme Court case determined that a community does have to give the use some opportunity for the establishment of the use and cannot be discriminated against nor outright prohibited. 3. Several studies, including one by the Attorney General of Minnesota, have determined that adult uses generate secondary impacts that negatively impact surrounding properties with regard to health, safety, and welfare, in that crime rate and prostitution is increased and property values are depreciated. 4. Due to the secondary impact, communities can undertake regulations to insure or mitigate the negative impact where there would be an assembly of minors. 5. Regulations can be established to provide separation of like uses to prevent an accumulation of these uses in one area as it has been proven that the secondary impact is increased due to the added activity. 6. A community has the right to police these activities. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, explained that the current moratorium on adult uses and "sexually-oriented" businesses in the City is not a moratorium on adult entertainment because all the book and video stores do have their adult entertainment sections, so the ban on adult use is not complete. He noted that the attention is basically being drawn to sexually-oriented businesses, the dirty book stores, rap-parlors, so-called health clubs, and New Hope Planning Commission Work Session -1- November 21, 1991 strip joints, etc. and the moratorium is a temporary ordinance completely prohibiting those uses in the City and that moratorium runs until February 25, 1992. He cautioned that there is a consensus among a number of city attorneys and government attorneys that even a temporary ban is unconstitutional, so it is urgent that an attempt be made to get basic regulation in place in the event that such circumstances as in Ramsey would happen here. He noted that the moratorium could possibly be challenged, but in light of the short term of the moratorium and the progress toward a permanent ordinance it is not likely. He suggested that the current moratorium could be extended to August 1992, giving the Planning Com~ission time to make a recommendation to the City Council and the Council will have had time to review it and set up two public hearings to consider the necessity and need to put a permanent ordinance in place to regulate these kinds of uses in the City. Mr. Brixius explained there are two ordinances being suggested to address the issue: an amendment to the zoning ordinance and a licensing requirement similar to business licensing. He gave a brief overview of the districts that would accommodate adult entertainment uses including B-4, B-3, I-l, and I-2. He noted that the commercial districts are being included because of the retail nature of the establishments and keeping them separated might be considered discriminatory. He added that the general regulations contain physical criteria, such as setbacks, etc. which can offer protection. The definitions of adult uses also defines what would be an accessory adult use. Accommodating such uses as magazine sales, video rentals within a small portion of a larger business is necessary because there is a fine line between service areas, such as in drug stores, and some adult accessory uses are common and do exist currently. "Adult use principal" is the general use the City is attempting to regulate and limit within the community and it is defined as anything that cannot be classified as adult accessory. He referred to the General Provisions, noting that this portion of the ordinance will include a purpose which basically identifies that the City recognizes that there are adverse secondary impacts that are damaging to the community, particularly when they are accessible to minors or located next to residential properties and residentially related uses such as schools, day care centers, libraries, parks and other such activities. Four general categories are included: Activities judged as obscene by MN Statute are strictly prohibited. Adult uses, either principal or accessory, within residential buildings or buildings used for residential purposes are strictly prohibited. Adult uses in an area or buildings or sites where there is dispensing or consumption of alcoholic beverages is strictly prohibited. Adult uses does not qualify the accessories considered principal. Mr. Brixius pointed out that using the 500' and 300' setback requirements results in areas that are available being located strictly in industrial zones. Chairman Cameron questioned if restrictions to industrial areas would leave the ordinance open to challenge even though it meets the 5% criteria, etc., and if the ordinance would provide for a retail outlet in any of those areas. Mr. Brixius referred to the case of Ferris Alexander's challenge to the City of Minneapolis's adult use ordinance with the claim that available sites were primarily in a warehouse or manufacturing district, but the findings indicated that the city did not have to guarantee a marketable location, but only provide an opportunity for the community. He added that if the ordinance is adopted it will provide opportunity for retail, as some retail uses are allowed in I-1 districts. New Hope Planning Commission Work Session -2- November 21, 1991 Mr. Sondrall added th~'!'~!i~t~?i~iS~.n°t necessary to make these kinds of uses a good deal economically for the owners and operators, but just provide an opportunity. Mr. Brixius noted that the 300' setback in New Hope amounts to approximately 4.6% of total land area, and with 500' it is slightly below 3.6%. He explained that concern in developing the ordinance was to try to make it free from immediate challenge by having a standard that was upheld in another case, and the Renton case was used as a benchmark with 5% for adult uses. Chairman Cameron asked if they had investigated a variety of greater and lesser setbacks and Mr. Brixius answered that they had even looked at 1000' which left 2% of total area and they felt they were leaving themselves open to challenge, but with 300' being a full block, that was a logical measure to remain with. Mr. McDonald mentioned that in comparing the size of New Hope with Renton the Codes & Standards Committee felt that maybe 3% was reasonable. Mr. Brixius stated that it is felt the 4.6% and 3.6% standards are reasonable as far as opportunity. He noted that with the 300' setback, the commercial areas are not physically open. He also pointed out that industrial area tend to be isolated away from residential area and provides separation, and commercial uses locating in an industrial area do not receive a lot of business so it is not a marketing factor. Chairman Cameron questioned what protects Winnetka Center and Midland Center. Mr. Brixius explained that with Midland there is an R-1 district, and R-4 district, so any residentially zoned property would prohibit this tYl~e of use going in, and the setbacks go from property line to property line, not structure to structure, thereby protecting the far end of shopping centers. Mr. Brixius also pointed out that New Hope's sign ordinance also is restrictive as far as content and size. The question of arcades and video machines was discussed and Mr. Brixius suggested that commercial recreation uses might be added to the list for restrictions. He suggested further that consideration should be given to prohibition of two adult uses within the same principal building and also prohibition of adult use activities within a public show, movies, theatrical performances, etc. where minors are allowed. It would not prohibit an X-rated film from being shown if access to minors is prohibited. He pointed out that the distinction between adult principal uses and adult accessory uses is defined under Section 4, uses that do not represent more than 5% or 10% of the floor area of the establishment and not more than 20% of gross receipts and do not involve any activity except sale or rental of merchandise. He added that this was taken from a St. Paul ordinance and has proven to be effective in action areas, and further noted that there is some provision requiring physical separation of items from the general public access, particularly minors. In case of movie rentals, it prohibits direct access or visibility to minors by some type of physical separation; magazines are to be covered with a wrapper to prohibit view of material except the publication title. Adult accessory uses are prohibited from both internal and external advertising. There is recognition that those uses exist, but it provides some limits on their ability to expand. He referred to the next section on non-conforming adult principal use accessories and suggested part of it could be modified to eliminate the need for addressing existing legal non-conforming uses and could be tailored down to just accessory uses. He noted that in review of Sections 3, 4, and 5, he discovered that it does not include the commercial zoning districts where they would allow accessory uses to roll over from B-1 to B-4. New Hope Planning Commission Work Session -3- November 21, 1991 Commissioner Underdahl questioned the closeness of one area to Hosterman Junior High and the accessibility from 49th and also from Bass Lake Road. Mr. Brixius replied that they are aware of it, but they have to recognize that a small area must be provided, so they try to put them in areas that are not marketable for retail location. Conunissioner Cassen called attention to a gymnastics academy located in one area and wondered if they could go in next door. Mr. Brixius explained that the wording could be expanded to include any type of private school. Chairman Cameron offered the possibility that the academy could decide to move to another location within the proximity of this use. Mr. Brixius acknowledged that if this use could be outright prohibited, it would be done and probably be well received, but the reality is that it cannot be done, but putting limits on them can be achieved. Commissioner Lifson asked what is the lowest percent restriction that has been passed or approved. Mr. Brixius replied that the only percent right now came out of the Renton, Washington court case at 5% and that has been used for the model of flexibility. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that the Renton case provided for 520 acres of opportunity area and asked Mr. Brixius to indicate how that would compare to New Hope. Mr. Brixius stated that in New Hope it would be 112 acres. Mr. Sondrall stressed that it was only one guideline in one case and while it is persuasive it doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to be applied across the board. He added that the key purpose of this work session is for the Planning Commission to understand why it is doing what it is doing. He emphasized that they should be cautious not to come across as legislating an ordinance that can be characterized by a lawyer representing a dirty book store owner as a simple pretext to completely prohibit this kind of activity from the City, because as much as it disliked the Supreme Court of both the United States and Minnesota has concluded that this kind of activity does have some redeeming social value, though it is hard to define what it is, therefore a first amendment constitutional protection for it has been provided. He stressed that it does not mean that all forms of adult enter- tainment will be allowed, but obscenity is difficult to define and interpret, and it is necessary that the City make sure that, even though this type of entertainment is personally distasteful, it recognizes that it cannot be prohibited or regulated based on content. He added that even though people have a right to use these forms of expression, regulations can be made based on time, place and manner showing that there is a governmental interest in protecting the quality of urban life and eliminating the detrimental effects that these businesses bring into areas. He cautioned that it is necessary to avoid the pretext of prohibiting these things and it is the Planning Commission's and City Council's responsibility to make an appropriate public record and hold public hearings to educate the public and receive public input so an intelligent decision on how to regulate these activities can be made, not based on content, but on a time, place, and manner formula. Mr. Brixius stated that one of the reasons for the work session is to discuss how the ordinance should be structured before formal presentation. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that one of the things to find is how to make the determination, and to do that a comparison has to be made with situations pointed out in other reports and findings of other communities who have initiated planning studies and concluded that New Hope Planning Commission Work Session -4- November 21, 1991 the secondary impact can. affect theCommunity. He added that the Planning Commission has to make a conclusion based on their analysis of the problem, recognizing that even though these businesses have a right, the City also has a right to control by time, place, and manner. He cited the example of place, stating the concept is to locate them in a place in the City that gives them their opportunity but minimizes the negative secondary impacts on the conanunity. He pointed out that locating them in commercial areas could cause the centers to go out of business, and in residential areas people would not buy houses near them, but by regulating their location they can be tolerated even though they are not liked by the majority of the community. Chairman Cameron commented that the concept looks reasonable and would be a defense if anyone ever attacked the ordinance. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered if consideration was given to the residential areas of neighboring communities that border New Hope industrial areas and was informed that it was. Commissioner Cassen pointed out the schools in the south part of the City and the intended location of the Grand Slam sports entertainment complex in one of the warehouses in that area. Chairman Cameron emphasized that almost anywhere in New Hope there could be found a church, school, park, etc., within 2 blocks. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that in the Renton case it could be said that they provided 5% of their city or 520 acres, but in New Hope 5% is 112 acres, so the comparison is questionable. Mr. Brixius pointed out the difference in physical characteristics of a developing city like Renton with lots of open land and an established city like New Hope, stating it is a matter of considering the protection for what might come in the future as opposed to protecting what is in place. He commented that using setbacks of less than 300' would decrease the advantages desired, but keeping them at 300' would reduce the opportunity while giving the City a leverage they could stand by. Commissioner Sonsin stated he preferred the 500' limit, but is unsure if it would hold up in case of a court challenge. He emphasized that a guarantee of a market isn't required, only an opportunity to put an establishment in place. The Commissioner agreed they would like to see it all in one little tiny section, but admitted it would be too limiting. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the City is small enough to justify the 500'. Mr. Sondrall responded that he could not predict what would hold up in case of challenge, but a reasonable approach would be easier to defend. He commented that he could see a defense created around the fact that New Hope is geographically a very small community and it could be a question of how many of those establishments are needed to provide the opportunity. He added that some courts might think the amount of space available is important and other courts don't and it is hard to judge because it is a new and developing situation. Commissioner Watschke suggested that by documenting the fact that both setbacks have been examined and the Commission developed a consensus on something reasonable, it might be more positive. Chairman Cameron took a poll of the Commission and it was agreed that a 300' setback would be the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Sondrall addressed the concern that if New Hope is forced to accommodate these businesses that they not be located in too close a proximity to each other, creating a sort of shopping mall for adult uses. Mr. Brixius listed some of the locations of these uses in other local communities and noted that in contacting the cities regarding this matter he asked if they had received any interest in them and New Hope Planning Commission Work Session -5- November 21, 1991 they replied they had, which prompted them to immediately consider ordinances or moratoriums. He pointed out that there has been some challenge to the restriction to solely industrial districts as being discriminating, but if a record is established as to reasonable setbacks it may offer some protection. Mr. Brixius went on to the licensing section of the ordinance, referring to the definition of adult principal and adult accessory use. He recommended licensing of accessory uses not be required as it could create an administrative enforcement nightmare, but focus should be solely on principal uses. Chairman Cameron requested an explanation of the distinction being made and questioned if it helped in controlling adult book store establishments to have inspections done by the City. Mr. Brixius replied that by identifying accessory uses it is being recognized that there are uses within the community that could be classified as adult uses if the distinction is not made, and limits can be put on their use without licensing. Mr. Sondrall explained that the attempt is being made to focus in on the sexually oriented business versus adult entertainment, such as sale. of magazines, etc. Mr. McDonald questioned the possibility of an x-rated video sales business increasing from 10% to 40%. Mr. Brixius stated that at that point it could be considered a principal adult use and would have to meet zoning requirements and licensing requirements. Mr. Sondrall added that it might become necessary to bring an injunction against them for continuing to use their property in that manner in violation of their code. Mr. Brixius noted that the zoning code allows for inspection of the premises and a fact-finding arrangement would be involved. Commissioner Watschke questioned if it was 10% of the floor area and/or 20% of gross receipts and how do you prove gross receipts. Mr. Brixius replied that if there was a complaint it would become a matter of fact-finding and Mr. Sondrall added that records could be subpoenaed if a lawsuit were initiated. Commissioner Cassen asked if there are regulations regarding x- rated movies being in limited areas or placed throughout the store and Mr. Brixius replied that the ordinance reads that they are required to be separated or visually obscured from minors. Mr. Brixius went on to explain some of the requirements of licensing would be knowledge of o~fl~ership of stock in that ty~e of operation up to 5%, birth date to prove adult status, violations of law on record, provisions to prevent access to minors, building plan details, etc. Mr. Sondrall indicated it would be comparable to investigation for liquor licensing. Mr. Brixius stated that his staff has been calling other communities regarding licensing fees and the standard seems to be $400 plus investigative fees. One community has a $10,000 fee. Mr. Sondrall interjected a comment that a fee for license or permit cannot be established if it is a revenue generator, only costs can be rein~ursed. He referred to pawn shops that require a policing operation that take police time and stated that pawn shops are required to pay a fee that is used to pay the costs of the police surveillance. He surmised that the community charging the $10,000 fee concluded that they were going to have to dedicate a number of manhours for policing or inspecting to insure compliance with the ordinance. He added that as long as there is a good faith effort in the establishment of the fee, it could be done. Mr. Brixius outlined the criteria for evaluation whether a license is appropriate, such as complete exposure in the application, are eligibility requirements met, site and location of facility, New Hope Planning Commission Work Session -6- November 21, 1991 stating that such criteria are not as critical in approval of an application as in finding for?denial. He referred to applicant's eligibility for licensing~ 21 years of age, no felony conviction or violation of state or local law related to sex offenses or adult uses, license holder to own the building or be responsible for the lease or have some financial interest. Mr. McDonald brought up the question of where this would fit in the zoning code. Mr. Brixius noted that the general provisions will fit into the general provisions of the zoning ordinance, but each affected zoning district will be modified to incorporate this as a permitted use. Mr. Brixius concluded his remarks stating that they have attempted to look at almost every possible venue that could be pursued by someone wanting to get around the ordinance and have tried to show that based on secondary impact on the con~nunity, the City has a right to control these uses. He noted that the moratorium is nearing its conclusion and if more time is needed, the option is available for further review and extension of the moratorium. Mr. Sondrall confirmed that the moratorium can be extended and additional 18 months and suggested that regardless of how fast action is taken there is no harm in extending it for 6 months through August, but upon the adoption of the ordinance sooner than that the moratorium would be repealed. The Commission discussed when the public hearing could be held and it was decided that the revised ordinance be reviewed by Codes & Standards and the public hearing set for February 4th, thereby making it necessary to extend the moratorium. Mr. Sondrall assured that, unless someone challenged the moratorium and wanted to get it settled, he does not see any problem with taking more time. Mr. Sondrall noted that the purpose of the documents that were put together for the Commission was to create a public record to establish that the information was available and he suggested that the Commission become thoroughly familiar with its content in case of legal action. New Hope PXanning Commission Work Session -7- Nov~ 21, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 1991 C~?~. TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL ~?,?. Present: Absent: Zak, Underdahl, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Sonsin, Lifson, Cassen, Watschke PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 91-26 (4.2) REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AND VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXX- M~M W~?.?. SIGN- AGE ~?.?~)WED, 4300 XYLON AV. MOTION Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-26 and noted that this is the third time this case has come before the Commission. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, explained that the case was tabled at the October meeting to allow the petitioner to revise plans to delete the K-Mart name preceding the service designations, reduce the number of service signs, and to align the signs into one column for balance. The petitioner presented revised plans at the November meeting and it was again tabled because the petitioner could not confirm if there would be one or two signs on the south side of the building. He stated that the petitioner subsequently notified staff that the garden shop sign would be removed from the south side and only auto service sign would remain. Commissioner Sonsin asked the petitioner to confirm that both garden shop signs on the south side, the free standing one as well as the one on the building, will be removed. Rick Jansen, local manager of K-Mart, stated that the signs in question are being removed and only the proposed garden shop sign on the front of the building will be used. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the need for the service identification signs in New Hope, when other K-Mart stores in the area carry only the K-Mart designation. Commissioner Sonsin requested an update on the 1990 planning case for modification of the K-Mart site. Mr. Jansen explained that he has made phone calls at the local level requesting information be faxed to the City and he has not heard further regarding it. Mr. McDonald confirmed that the City has not been contacted in that regard. Commissioner Sonsin expressed concern regarding the lack of response on the part of corporate K-Mart to settle the pending planning case, even though the sign plan submitted is an improvement. He stated his feeling that the redevelopment of the outside should have priority over the sign issue and for that reason he is not inclined to support the request. Mr. Jansen replied that he has no explanation for the lack of answers, and was surprised that there had been no communication from the corporate level as local management had requested. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to deny Planning Case 91-26. Voting in favors Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Lifson, Underdahl Voting against: None Absent: Cassen, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron explained to the petitioner that even though the Commission has voted denial, the City Council will hear the case on December 9th. New Hope Planning Commission -1- December 4, 1991 PC 91-32 (3.2) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-32 and Mr. McDonald REQUEST FOR gave a brief overview of the request by the City to amend the off- ~--~ CONSIDERATION street parking requirements for day care centers which arose as a OF ORDINANCE result of a recent planning case request for a free-standing day AMENDING ZONING care center. He explained that the current ordinance lumps CODE sanitariums, convalescent homes, rest homes, nursing homes, and day BY REVISING nurseries into one group basing parking spaces on the number of OFF-STREET beds provided and there has been confusion as to how this is PARKING RE- applied to contemporary day care centers, which may not provide QUIREMENTS beds for the number of students enrolled. The Planning Consultant FOR DAY CARE has surveyed other communities day care parking regulations and CENTERS recommends that the City establish a parking standard based on a combination of number of employees and enrollment capacity for day care centers, pre-schools, and nursery schools which is separate from convalescent and rest homes. Commissioner Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards studied and support the ordinance revision as it will modernize the code to apply to contemporary day care centers. He explained it is a stringent requirement but it takes into consideration the future development of free-standing day care centers. Commissioner Friedrich expressed agreement with the decision for more stringent standard because the day care business is developing so rapidly. Chairman Cameron questioned staff as to the number of free-standing commercial day care centers in the City that the standards would apply to. Mr. McDonald replied that most current day care centers are being operated as an accessory use in churches or schools and the Montessori School which prompted this request is the only free- standing commercial day care center at present. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 91-32, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope ZoningCode by Revising the Off-Street Parking Requirements for Day Care Centers. Voting in favor~ Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Oundershaug, Friedrich, Lifson, Underdahl Voting against~ None Absents Cassen, Watschke Motion carried. PC 91-37 (3.3) Planning Case 91-37_ was called for by Chairman Cameron and Mr. REQUEST FOR McDonald reviewed the request for two conditional use permits, rear TWO CONDITIONAL yard setback variance, and site/building plan review approval to USE PERMITS construct a new Super America service station. He added Super TO ~?.?~W A America is also requesting an extension of hours to 24-hour a day CONVENIENCE operation. He explained that Super America is proposing to STORE WITH demolish the existing station on the site and build a new 2,200 GASOLINE AND square foot station and convenience store. The building will OUTDOOR SALES, include new masonry, awnings and canopy, identification signs, REAR YARD SET- trash enclosure, pump islands, landscaping, curb cuts, loading RACK VARIANCE, zone, and lighting, but there are a number of issues involved in SITE/BUILDING the request. The surrounding land use is high-density residential PLAN REVIEW TO to the east, senior citizen and physically handicapped residential CONSTRUCT NEW to the south, auto-oriented convenience store to the west, and S E R V I C E Brooklyn Park Elementary School to the north. Design & Review met STATION, 614& with the petitioner several times and the petitioner requested WEST BROADWAY tabling for 9.ne month to submit revised plans. Mr. McDonald affirmed that the setback requirement for the canopy, the minimum street frontage requirement, and the parking requirement for the site have been met, but the minimum lot area requirement is not met. He noted that there is a clause in the Code that says the City Council may exempt previously platted property from the requirement if the site is adequately and safely handling all New Hope Planning Commission -2- December A, 1991 activities and required facilities. He called attention to the hours of operation clause in the code which excludes the hours from midnight to 6=00 a.m. unless extended by the City Council. The existing building is non-conforming and the proposed building does not meet the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement so an 18' (50%) setback variance is being requested. Mr. McDonald noted a grossly non-conforming curb cut on the side which is proposed to be corrected with the redevelopment of the site. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage and proposed signage is in compliance with the code. Michael O'Donnell, architect for Super America, introduced himself and stated that they have spent a great deal of time on the type of development for this site and are proposing a smaller store unlike stores they have built previously. He passed a concept drawing of what the station will look like and a sample of the brick for outside. Commissioner Gundershaug queried the petitioner on where the outside sales area will be located, how many items will be displayed at any one time of the day, how will they be handled if they are not allowed to remain open 24 hours a day, what the trash enclosure will be built of, if rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building, if downlighting is proposed, if speakers will be directional and volume-controlled. Mr. O'D0nnell pointed out 3 areas planned for outdoor sales, adding that a maximum of three items will be displayed at any one time, and they will be moved inside if necessary. He confirmed the trash enclosure will be of brick to match the building, rooftop unit will be painted to match the building and also have a parapet built around it so it will not be visible from the street, lighting will all be downlighting, and speakers will be directional volume- controlled. Commissioner Gundershaug further questioned time of gas deliveries and snow storage. Mr. O'Donnell replied they schedule them during off-peak hours at noon or late at night. He added that it is against the law for the tankers to be running while they are unloading the gas. He answered that snow will be hauled away. Commissioner Gundershaug cautioned the petitioner to be aware of the City's sign code requirements. He asked for explanation of the added landscaping, grade separation so that car lights will not shine into the area to the south, and traffic flow in and out of the site. Mr. O'Donnell described the plantings of ash trees with lilacs between, crab trees with junipers between, and pine trees in the corner, adding that they will be sprinkled. He pointed out the entrance and exit areas for customers and also for the tankers. Commissioner Gundershaug remarked that everything that was asked for by Design & Review has been completed and revised. Chairman Cameron questioned staff if there had been complaints on another recently approved station with speakers and Mr. McDonald replied the only complaints there are in regard to noise generated due to open doors on the car wash. Commissioner Sonsin indicated he does not have a problem with the site plan, but expressed concern regarding the extended hours of operation being a disturbance to the residents, especially during the summer. Mr. O'Donnell explained that they plan to make the store entrance on the corner rather than in the center of the front so as to direct activity to an angle away from the front. New Hope Planning Commission -3- December 4, 1991 Chairman Cameron wondered if there was enough demand for a volume station in that area and if it will be a viably economic business. Mr. O'Donnell replied that they have never built a station that they had to close, although they bought some 7-11 stores which they had to close. He added that they are putting in only two island with 4 pumps so this will be smaller than their regular stations. Commissioner Sons£n pointed out there is another station and convenience store across the street in direct competition. Chairman Cameron asked what they would do if the City says they cannot have a 24-hour operation. Mr. O'Donnell replied that will have to be answered by management as he is only the architect. Commissioner Zak questioned the possibility of increased crime because of the all-night hours, and wondered how high the outdoor sales merchandise will be stacked and if the stacks will block the windows and if they cause unsightliness. Mr. O'Donnell answered that they find there is less crime in a 24- hour operation. He emphasized that the cashiers have to have visibility to the islands, so stacking would be about 3 feet high. A Super America station operator from a nearby station, who did not identify himself, spoke to the outdoor sales question. He stated he has a limited hours operation and the merchandise is put in carts and moved in and out. Commissioner Zak pointed to the berm on the south side and the closeness to the apartments and suggested some kind of fencing as she felt the berm was not adequate as a sight and noise buffer. She also wondered how the cashiers are alerted to customers at the islands other than visually. Mr. O'Donnell explained that there is a light and buzzer inside that is activated when the pump handle is lifted, but it is only noticeable at the cashier area. Commissioner Sonsin discussed the hours of operation at other stations in the area and concluded that most do not stay open past 11~00 pm or midnight. He stated that he does not support the extended hours, but does support the rest of the plan. Chairman Cameron called for input from the audience regarding the case. Karen Walders, representing the management company for Anthony James and Broadway Village Apartments which border the site, called attention to the petition she sent to the City in opposition to the plan. She spoke on behalf of the 450 to 500 senior residents from the two complexes addressing their concerns regarding the noise, lighting, traffic, crime, parking, possible unsightliness of outdoor sales area as viewed from apartments every day of the year, and requested the Commission vote for denial. Chairman Cameron requested the petition be accepted and included as part of the record. Mr. Charles Brooks, owner of Woody's located across the street, addressed the Commission and questioned the economical need for another convenience store and station. He stated that he has written to the presidents of Super America and Ashland Oil. He emphasized that if Super America moves in, his store will not survive. He noted that 5 or 6 years ago he requested extended hours and outdoor sales and was turned down, and if Super America is granted 24-hour operation and outdoor, he will have to ask for the same in order to remain competitive. He called attention to two superettes that had recently closed in the area. Patricia Senger, resident of BroadWay Village, addressed the traffic on Broadway and the bright lights. New Hope Planning Commission -4- December 4, 1991 MOTION Chairman Cameron expressed adesire to table the case and requested that someone from Super AmeriCa come and address the Commission to answer the questions raised by both the Commission and the neighbors. He suggested that someone from Super America personally meet with the neighbors and hear their concerns. Mr. O'Donnell replied that he will follow through on the suggestion to meet with the neighbors. Commissioner Gundershaug stressed his opposition to longer hours, noting that the ordinance limiting hours of operation has held up well in New Hope. Mr. O'Donnell commented that on his way to the meeting he had stopped at a station on 42nd who told them they are open 24 hours. The Commission referred the matter to staff to check if there is a violation of the code at that site. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 91-37 for one month. Voting in favor= Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Lifson, Underdahl Voting against= None Absent: Cassen, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron advised those present in the audience that the case would be heard again on January 7th. The Commission directed staff to research the 5 or 6 year old case for Woody's to determine why they were denied their request. PC 91-40 (3.4) Chairman Cameron called for Planing Case 91-40. Mr. McDonald to REQUEST FOR explained that Grand Slam had requested and received approval in CONDITIONAL USE October to put their operation into the Chicago Cutlery Building, P E R M I T , but the lease arrangement fell through, so they searched for and SITE/BUILDING found another location in New Hope and are returning with a request PLAN REVIEW TO for a conditional use permit and site/building plan review ~T~OW CO~ER- approval. He outlined the request to remodel 29,100 square feet of CIAL SPORTS a warehouse, occupying 16% if the existing 176,507 square foot ENTERTAINMENT building, with exactly the same uses as proposed at the former site COMPLEX IN AN with hours of operation to be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday I-1 LIMITED through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday. I N D U S T R I A L He noted the surrounding land uses which include Crystal industrial DISTRICT, and residential to west, Crystal residential to east, warehouses 7109 31ST AV.N. north and south, and a single-family non-conforming home on west side of Louisiana in New Hope. He called attention to the fact that the code requires that a commercial recreational site be located on an arterial street and Louisiana is only a collector street, which could require a traffic engineer's analysis prior to development or a bond to assure payment for such if it was determined it was needed later. He explained that Design & Review discussed building code issues, parking, sign, landscaping, etc. and revised plans were submitted with all concerns corrected and code requirements for sign and parking are met. Commissioner Friedrich addressed the question of youths loitering in the parking lot and what measures would be used to control and what security there would be, and he asked for explanation of the added landscaping, the walkway accessing the parking lot at the back, and the overhead door that currently exists. Bob Rabe, Grand Slam USA representative, replied that they have not had a problem but their customers are typically a little older, but if there was any problem they would take necessary measures to correct it. He outlined the addition of 4 blue spruce at the new entry way, the asphalt walkway around the building, and explained that the plan for the overhead door is to mask it over and paint it to match the building so it is less obtrusive. Chairman Cameron wondered if there will be anything inside that will be attractive to kids to cause them to loiter there. New Hope Planning Commission -5- December 4, 1991 MO~ION PC 91-41 (3.5) REQUEST TO RE- ZONE PROPERTY FROM B-2 TO B-3, CONDITION- AL USE PERMIT FOR B-3 DIST., SITE/BUll,DING REVIEW TO AT.T~W MOTOR VEHICLE SALES, 8001 BASS LAKE ROAD PC 91-4:2 (3.6) REQUEST FOR SITE/HUTLDTMG PI~N REVIEW, CUP PERMIT, VARIANCE TO A?.T~W RE- DEVELOPMENT OF CONV. STORE AND GAS STA. 3535 ~qA. AV. N. New Hope Planning Commission Mr. Rabe indicated that they have a concession stand, video games, arcade, etc. but they do not permit smoking, drinking, and the main use of the facility is for training purposes. ~-~ Commissioner Friedrich called attention to the fact that no trash enclosure is shown on the plan. Mr. Rabe replied that he was not aware that it was not shown, but they are aware that one has to be provided and confirmed that it will be according to code. Commissioner Gundershaug asked for an opening date and was informed they hoped to open between February 1st and 15th. He also questioned who would be maintaining the walkway in case of snow. Mr. Rabe answered that the people who do the snow removal currently have agreed to maintain it. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with the petitioner the location of the parking lot lights. Commissioner Zak questioned the possibility of noise and traffic leaving at the later hour on weekend nights. Mr. Rabe answered that they do not have a large influx all at one time nor do they all leave at one time such as in theater or bar situations, and they usually slow down as the night goes on. Louise Kranz, 3043 Louisiana Avenue, asked to address the Commission and stated that because she lives so close she is concerned if they sell liquor, if there would be kids running across her property, if crime would increase because of the added activity, and added traffic running the stop sign. Mr. Rabe again confirmed that they are a training facility more or less and no smoking and no liquor are allowed and because of their location most traffic will be in cars, not kids on bikes. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 91-40 subject to conditions= 1. A Development Contract and Bond for 2-year period to cover sidewalk, landscaping, and possible traffic analysis. 2. Annual CUP inspection by staff. 3. Compliance with State Building Code and Disability Rules. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Lifson, Underdahl Voting against: .None Absent: Cassen, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron announced that there was a request to withdraw this case and the Commission unanimously voted to accept the official withdrawal notice. Chairman Cameron announced that there was a request to table Planning Case 91-42 for one month and the Commission unanimously voted to table. -6- December 4, 1991 COMMITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Design & Review reported they had met on the current cases. Codes & Standards reported they will be meeting on several issues including the adult entertainment ordinance. Commissioner Sonsin expressed appreciation to staff for the memo regarding miscellaneous issues. Kirk McDonald reported that the Council had approved the time change for the Commission meetings and that beginning on January 7th they will start at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission minutes of November 5, 1991, were approved. Chairman Cameron accepted responsibility for the new seating arrangements in place noting that it was his feeling that having the Codes & Standards Committee together on one side and Design & Review on the other was a more balanced arrangement. He added that in January the new members would be assigned to the respective committees. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Respgct fully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -7- December 4, 1991 ,~ON OY ~ " ' FUL CITy 9 ........ 11. 28 ........ ~z.. ' 16. ....... ~ ..... ~~ ..... 22 OF NEW HOPE. AND D~'$ERYE; A NZC ...... ...... - TRAFfic,. LZ~T R.-~ ~_~0 SPEND uuR F N WILL R~SULT WIlL CAUSg US ~ H UNDO S~SS AND HIND ~ ~AY TOTAL&y . . ~ ............~ ER OUR D~S~RV~D TO .$~ 7 $130,02g.00 a/YE~ ......... -.. .... , 8~,23 FO~ ~AC R~SZD~N _~. OF OUR. A~AR~ T~S, WHIC~ AMOU TS PAY TH~S .y ~M~S ..... O NTS .... OF A ~OOD S ~ TH~ CITY OF · '_.COURS. WE A~ PLBASB, ~. ~0~ ~AT ~0.~T .... , ~ HOPE IS A BENEFACTO~ ~am WITH THE CX y 0 ........ INTRUSION ZN O%'R CO~z~~ · N~ ~p~ TO STOP THIS PROPOSED W~,THE R~SID~NTS OF THE ~TH~Ny .J~g~ AF~Z~ OUR SiGNATUReS THiS 4~.~ DAY O~ D[C~MSRR, l'ggl. "-' ..... ........ .......... ........ ............ ~'~~~ ...... -; . ~:._ -J~'~' 3~-,~ ...... E~--.~~~~~. .......... : ........ ~,,.~~<~ .... ~ .......... ~ .... ~ ....... ~--.~- .... .................. ~:.._~~ ~ 6. - 'J' ' ................... ~__~_.~~ DECEMBER 4, 199~ - ATTENTIONs PLANN~ COMM~SION-KIRK MCDONA~ A PETITION '~ MGMT. ASST. BE IT KNOWN TH~ WE, THE RESIDENTS O~~'-~n~ ANTHONY JAMES APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 5100 WEST BROADWAY, DO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE INTRUSION IN OUR LIVES WHICH WZLL BE CAUSED BY THE PROPOSA~ OF SUPER-AMERICA TO BUILD A GAS STATION/STORE '" ON OUR CORNER. WE VEHEMENTLY'OBJECT"~ T~EIR BEING OUR NEIGHBOR. WHEN WE RENTED AT THE ANTHONY JAHES W~ ~BE VERY HAPPY ABOUT THE"LI~ESTYLEIN A QUIET NEIG~BORHOO~'ITI~'BEAUTIPUL CITY OF NEW HOPE. WE FEEL THAT AS SENIORS WE HA¥B'"PAI~"-DUE$~"'SO TO AND DESERV~ A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD IN ~}~ TO SPEND OUR FINAL YEARS. -- THE NOISE', ADDED TRAFFIC~.~ITT~.AND~.'"PROBABLY-CRIM~-THAT WILL RESULT WIlL CAULS US ~CH ~DO S~SS AND HINDER OUR D~SERVED WE PAY TOTALLY $130,029.00 A YE~ IN ~PERTY TAXES, ~ICH AMOUNTS .... TO $1,78.1.23 FOR EACH OF OUR.~P~~S .... O~ COURSE WE AS RESIDENTS PAY THIS TAX. THE CITY OF ~ HOPE IS A BENEFACTOR ...... OF A. GOOD S~E. OF....T~T.~O~T ........................................ PU$AS~, WE PLEAD WITH THE CITY OF NEW HOPE TO STOP THIS ~POsED WE,THE K~SIDENTS OF THE..ANTHONY..JA~ES~R~ENTS..~ HEREBY .... AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES THIS 4~ DAY OF ~EMBER, 1991. 7. 25, .................. g. 2~ .................. ~0. ~ ...... ~~4~' ' ............ ~. . ................... .................. ...... .............. ................ ; ...... ~ .......... . .... ... ~ DECEMBER 4, ~991 - ATTENTION~ PLAN COMI~I$ION-KIRK MCDONALD A PETITIO~ ... ~. MGMT. ASST. BE IT KNOWN THA-T WE, THE RESIDENTS 0F ~[~ ANTHONY JAMES APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 6100 WEST BROAI~T, DO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE ~NTRUSION IN OUR LIVES WHICH WILL B~. CAUSED BY THE PROPOSAL OF SUPER-AMERICA TO BUILD A GAS STATION/STORE ON OU~ CORNER. WE VEHEMENTLY OBJ~CT"~. THEIR BEIN~ OUR'NEIGHBOR. WHEN W~ RENTED AT THE ANTHONY JAMES W~' WERE VERY HAPPY ABOUT THE UIFESTYLE IN A (~UIET NEIONBORHOOD-~"TNE' BEA~JTIFUL CITY OF NEW HOPE. WE FEEL THAT AS SENIORS WE' HI%¥'E-4'PAID~'-DUE~~'''SO -TO SPEAK AND DESERVE A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHI:CH TO SPI~ND OUK FINAL YEARS. THB NOISE, ADDED TRAFFIC, LIT~PIR-.ANI)-i~-'PROBABLY CRIME' THAT WILL RESULT WI~LL CAUSE US MUCH UNDO STRESS AND HINDER OUR DESERVED WE PAY TOTALLY $130,0 IN P~PERTY TAXES, WI~ICH AMOUNTS TO $1,781.23 FOR EACH OF OUR..APARTM~ES. OF COURSE WE AS RESIDENTS PAY THIS TAX. THI~ CITY OF N~W HOPB IS A BENEFACTOR oP A ~ooD SHARE 0~ .THA~ mlotmT. ..... · .......... PLEASE, WE PLEAD WITH-THE CITY OF NEW ROPE '%6"'ST-6'p THIS PROPOSED INTRUSION IN OUR COI~I.TY. .......... : .................. .W~,THE RESIDENTS OF THE ANTHONY JAHE~ARTHENTS. DO HEREBY AFF!_~R SI(INATURES THI~ 'th D~Y OF ~D~CEMBEK, 1991. -'.. - _ ,~.. . ......................... -~ - ........ ....................... ,,,_ ...... ' 1.4_. ........................... 16. 17. '26. ~ 27 :",~ 29. ~''! 30. 31, 32. 33. 34,