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,