Loading...
1992 PlanningCITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 IYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1992 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL Present: Zak, Watschke, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich, Underdahl Absent: Lifson Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant; Steve Sondrall, City Attorney; Alan Brixius, City Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 91-37 (3.1) REQUEST FOR TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, SITE/ BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL, 6144 WEST BROADWAY Chairman Cameron noted a request that Planning Case 91-37 be tabled for one month. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to table Planning Case 91-37 for one month. Voting An favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Zak, Cassen, Sons£n, Cameron, Friedrich, Watschke, Underdahl None Lifson Gundershaug, PC 91-42 (3.2) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 3535 WINNETKA AV N Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-42 and noted that there was a request to table. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 91-42 for one month. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absents Motion carried. Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Friedrich, Watschke, Underdahl None Lifson Gundershaug, PC 92-01 (3.1) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FAST FOOD REST- AIFRANT IN B-4 DISTRICT, 3546 WINNETEAAV N Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 92-01 and Kirk McDonald outlined the request for a conditional use permit to allow a fast- food restaurant in a B-4 District at the Winnetka Commons Shopping Center. He explained that it will be a submarine sandwich shop featuring take-out and eating in with 26 seating places provided, but no delivery with hours of operation 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seven days a week. He emphasized the conditions regarding employee parking in rear, no outdoor dining, signage compliance, and trash enclosure, and noted that Design & Review did not feel it was necessary to meet with the petitioner due to the routine nature of the application and other convenience food establishments had already been approved for this center. New Hope Planning Commission -1- January 7, 1992 Chairman Cameron asked how the employee parking in rear is enforced. Mr. McDonald replied that if parking becomes a problem a survey can be taken to see if they are in compliance. Mr. Michael Michaud, representing Subby's, stated that he and his partner intend to produce high quality sandwiches and soups at a reasonable price for the benefit of consumers. Commissioner Sonsin questioned what signage they intended to use and the size of the overall sign, type of lighting to be used on the sign, trash inside the restaurant. Mr. Michaud explained the sign they intend to use, confirmed that the overall size was in conformance and would be backlit, and that the inside trash would be collected in self-contained receptacles where trays are stacked on top and trash is dumped underneath. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned staff regarding the condition requiring rebuilding of the retaining wall and driveway entrance at the southwest corner. Mr. McDonald replied that staff recommends it be included as part of the approval, but that it is the responsibility of the shopping center partnership, not the petitioner. Commissioner Zak asked for confirmation of the number of front sidewalk receptacles and staff pointed them out. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 92-01, subject to conditions= 1. Final plans clarify inside trash storage. 2. Signage comply with approved comprehensive plan. 3. Employee parking at rear of building and no overnight parking. i. No outdoor dining unless approved under future CUP. 5. Review and approval by City Sanitarian. 6. Annual inspection by City staff. 7. Shopping Center partnership is required to rebuild retaining wall/driveway entrance at southwest corner by June 15, 1992. Voting in favor= Zak, Watschke, Sonsin, Cameron, Cassen, Friedrich, Underdahl Voting against: None. Absent: Lifson. Motion carried. Gundershaug, Chairman Cameron informed the petitioner the Council would hear his case on January 13, 1992, and welcomed the petitioner to New Hope. PC 91-15 (3.4) Chairman Cameron introduced the case and called on Alan Brixius, REQUEST FOR City Planner, to lead the informal discussion. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES Mr. Brixius reviewed the Planner' s memo dated November 27th PERTAINING TO regarding zoning and licensing standards to be applied for such ADULT U S E uses. He noted that adult accessory use and adult principal use ZONING AND would only be allowed in the B-3, B-4, I-1 and I-2 Zoning ADULT USE Districts with a 300' setback requirement from all incompatible LICENSING IN land uses. He added that the incompatible land use list had been NEW HOPE expanded to include specialty schools, training schools, and commercial/recreational facilities. He explained the changes made in the licensing fee section to allow the City to recoup its expenses if an application is denied, and noted that after meeting with the Building Official and Director of Fire & Safety and making an evaluation, an initial fee of $5,000 was decided on to cover administration, policing, and background work that is necessary, New Hope Planning Commission -2- January 7, 1992 and an annual renewal fee of $500. He added that the licensing requirement was exempted from adult accessories. He explained that Codes and Standards discussed the changes further on December 17th and after reviewing limitations of incompatible uses it was decided that training schools as such, which are more occupation-oriented and geared toward adults, did not fit into the category of schools and commercial recreation facilities that were particularly geared to minors and used by minors, therefore the language was modified to include specialty schools and exempt training schools. Mr. Brixius pointed out that with the inclusion of the Munsinger Gymnastics school and the Grand Slam recreation complex there is a reduction of available area to about 3.5% and he does not recommend reducing the setbacks any further. Commissioner Underdahl asked for boundary confirmation at the north area and its distance from the park and Mr. Brixius pointed out that is equivalent to the 300'requirement. Mr. McDonald questioned the possibility of a new specialty school applying to go in near an existing one and wondered if standards remain the same or if the area would decrease. Mr. Brixius confirmed that available area would be reduced if that happened, but the market for the more desirable uses would not be limited or closed because of that possibility. Mr. Brixius pointed out that the 5% rule adopted in Renton, Washington, was a much different case in that it was a growing community and had lots of vacant land available as compared to an community as New Hope that has less vacant land and industrial parks to support the standards set here. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the opposite scenario of a gymnastics school wanting to go in where an adult use is in place. Commissioner Sonsin reflected that it is not likely that a use of a more desirable nature would be attracted to such a site. Discussion followed regarding the application of conditional use in a case where a specialty school might want to locate within the standards set for adult use. City Planner Brixius suggested drafting of language to make it work both ways. City Attorney Sondrall expressed that caution should be used to apply certain restrictions that would force an adult use out to allow a specialty school in because there is no vested right to a zoning classification. He agreed that language could be written to prohibit specialty schools from opening within a certain distance of an adult use. Commissioner Sonsin summed up the issue stating that court decisions have declared that adult use cannot be totally stopped but has to be given an opportunity regardless if it is not advantageous or attractive, and the intent is to afford them a reasonable opportunity, although controlled to eliminate secondary effects. Commissioner Underdahl wondered if the licensing fee covers the extra police protection that will have to be provided for a number of years. Mr. Brixius replied that a survey was conducted among other communities to see what standards are used and the Building Official and Director of Fire & Safety were consulted as to what kinds of hours and personnel might be needed for doing background checks, police checks, site inspections, planning, legal administration, etc. New Hope Planning Commission -3- JanuarF 7, 1992 New Hope Plann£ng Commiss£on A lengthy discussion ensued on the fees as compared to liquor licensing fees and if the annual fee could be changed if it is found that costs exceed the fee. City Attorney Sondrall confirmed that fees can be adjusted if determined necessary and justifiable that there are increased costs to ensure compliance with the code. Commissioner Cassen wondered what happens if an adult use is found in violation of the regulations as compared with liquor violations. Mr. Sondrall explained that there is a body of Minnesota law that has authority to revoke liquor licenses or fine establishments, but there is not a statute that specifically addresses adult entertainment, other than the obscenity statutes, but an injunction can be brought against them in court for violating the ordinance laws. Commissioner Underdahl wondered if hours of operation should be imposed in the ordinance. Mr. Brixius stated that hours of operation are treated like any retail sales operations, but could be included. Mr. Sondrall noted that there will be minor things that will have to be worked out as this goes along and he assured that just because they are not regulated initially does not mean that they cannot be regulated subsequently to adoption of the ordinance, as long as the regulations are reasonable and promote a governmental purpose in order to avoid secondary impact. Mr. Brixius concurred with Mr. Sondrall, stating that the basis of all the studies is to identify and recognize that some of the secondary impact is the criminal element and limiting hours might be reasonable. Mr. Sondrall also pointed out that the 5% availability use in Renton, Washington, provided 520 acres for use, and the opportunity area in New Hope is approximately 109.2 acres. Mr. Brixius stated that there are a number of things to support the opportunity limit base in New Hope in that the community is older and more established with a neighborhood base, and 100 acres is proportionately provided. Mr. Sondrall emphasized that what New Hope is providing is a good faith attempt to assure that this type of activity can be promoted. Commissioner Sonsin wondered what was happening in surrounding communities in regards to action on this issue and if adjacent communities were aware of what is happening in New Hope. Mr. Brixius and Mr. Sondrall both listed a number of communities who have adopted ordinances or are working on ordinances, including Osseo, Ramsey, Rochester, Fairmont, Medicine Lake, Richfield, Golden Valley, Blaine, Redwood Falls, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, Fridley, and others. Chairman Cameron questioned where to proceed and Mr. McDonald replied that the moratorium has been extended to August and if the Commission is agreeable, a public hearing date can be established to continue the process. Chairman Cameron wondered if the questions raised on fees, etc. would be incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Brixius suggested that be adopted as a separate resolution. Consensus was to hold a public hearing on the ordinance at the February 4, 1992, meeting. -4- Januar~ 7, 1992 CO~4ITTEE REPORTS OLD BUS'flOSS Design & Review reported they had met on the tabled cases. Codes & Standards reported they will be bringing the outdoor dining and corner lot fence hearings in March, noting that these issues were set aside until the adult entertainment issue is heard, rather than have 3 public hearings on ordinance changes in one month. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the continued use of the special banner on the Norwest Bank and Mr. McDonald offered to bring it to attention of the Inspections Dept. Commissioner Cassen questioned the status of the Montessori School since there is no activity there, and Mr. McDonald replied that the Development Contract has been drafted and sent to them with a request for a substantial bond amount. NEW BUSINESS No corrections noted for Planning Commission minutes of December 4, 1991. No comment on other minutes. ~T~CTION OF OFFICERS ANNOUNCSI~N~S Chairman Cameron was unanimously elected as Chairman for one more year. Commissioner Gundershaug was unanimously elected as Vice-Chairman to continue for one more year. Commissioner Sonsin was unanimously elected as Third Officer for one more year. New committee assignments were made. Commissioner Watschke's expertise will be added to Design & Review, and Commissioners Lifson and Underdahl, the newest members of the Commission, will serve on Codes & Standards. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -5- Januar~ 7, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1992 C~73. TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CALL Present: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich, Underdahl, Lifson Absent: Watschke Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant; Steve Sondrall, City Attorney; Alan Brixius, City Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 91-37 (3.1) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-37 and called on Kirk REQUEST FOR TWO McDonald, Management Assistant, to review the case. Mr. McDonald CONDITIONAL USE noted that the case had been before the Commission in December and PERMITS, REAR was tabled at that time for review of a number of issues, including YARD SETBACK concerns of the residents in the area. He added that the City has VARIANCE, SITE/ received correspondence and petitions from residents in the Anthony BUILDING PLAN James and Broadway Village Apartments and from Woody's Superette APPROVAL, 6144 objecting to the request, and recommended that all petitions and WEST BROADWAY correspondence be entered into the record. He reviewed the issues discussed with the petitioner at the January 16th Design & Review meeting, such as traffic analysis, increased landscaping on the south and east sides, distance to adjacent structures, height of outdoor sales items, and neighborhood meeting between residents and Super America, and as a result of that meeting Super America has submitted revised plans. As a result of a December 17th meeting with the residents Super America notified staff that they were withdrawing their request for 24-hour operation. He highlighted two points from Super America's traffic data report which noted that convenience stores with gas pumps do not generate significant new traffic volumes on the street system and that approximately 87% of the traffic entering and exiting the convenience store with gas pumps is already on the street passing by the facility. He called attention to the tops map showing the distance between the station and the Anthony James apartments as 222'. He referred to staff's concern regarding'outdoor sales items and added that the petitioner has provided a site plan with locations for these sales items and has agreed to stack them no higher than 4 feet. He noted that the City Manager has a concern about how outside sales will impact the appearance at that corner. Michael O'Donnell, Architect for Super America, spoke about meeting with the neighborhood residents to hear their concerns which resulted in the withdrawal of the request for 24-hour operation and the change in plantings to provide more border screening. He presented a concept sketch and a revised landscaping drawing. He noted that the outdoor displays would probably be limited since it would have to be hauled out in the morning and back in at night under the limited hours of operation. Mr. Bill Bahl, Zoning Supervisor for Super America, introduced himself and noted he would answer questions. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that changes for additional land- scaping as suggested by Design & Review were satisfactorily carried out, but his main concern is the handling of outdoor sales items. Mr. Bahl noted that they keep some items outside because they do not mix well with items inside the store, such as lawn fertilizer in the spring and charcoal in the summer, both being bulky items, and he added that items on sale, such as anti-freeze, oil, wind- shield washer move better if displayed than stored. He indicated that items would be on carts to be moved in and out, with the exception of water softener salt which is too bulky to move but would be covered with a tarp at night. He added that they would discontinue selling water softener if sales did not warrant it. New Hope Planning Commission -1- February 4, 1992 Commissioner Underdahl asked that the crime issue be discussed a little more thoroughly as residents had expressed fears of increased crime since the closure of one store in the area. Mr. Bahl replied that a well-lit facility would tend to drive crime away as there is nothing to attract persons to hang around there, no games, etc., and noted that they monitor their lots, and do not permit loitering. He added that the hub-hub of a gasoline station has a tendency to discourage loitering. Commissioner Cameron asked if there is enough traffic there to justify the investment and if so where does it come from and can the facility survive in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Bahl answered that they would not be building there if there wasn't the potential on the street for business, and cited several neighborhoods throughout the metro area that successfully support this type of operation in a residential area. Chairman Cameron wondered if the facility will be owned and operated by Super America and Mr. Bahl confirmed that they no longer franchise their stores. Commissioner Underdahl expressed concern regarding the increased traffic on 62nd Avenue and the hazards for the children walking from the school and playground. Mr. Bahl commented that they do not anticipate any additional traffic than what is there already. He noted that at some facilities they have put up "no left turn" signs to direct traffic and they would entertain that idea here if they found a problem. He added that their greatest business is in the evening after the schools have closed. Chairman Cameron called for input from the audience regarding the case. Mr. Mark Montgomery, 7307 62nd Avenue North, addressed the Commission and stated that he lives 3 lots down from where the facility is to be built. He expressed his concern for the children that. go to play at the school playground and the park after school hours, his concern that the neighborhood cannot support another gas station or convenience store, and a concern that crime in the area has increased in recent years. He emphatically stated his hope for the City to listen to the neighbors who oppose this facility being built. Karen Walders, representing Lang-Nelson, owners of the apartment building, stated she had addressed the Commission in December and has since met with a group of the residents from Anthony James and Broadway Village and representatives from Super America, but does not feel that their concerns have been alleviated. She commented on the increased traffic, noise level, and bright lights that will effect the apartment residents. She noted the petitions that have been filed against the request and expressed hope the Commission would hear what the signers were saying. Mr. Chuck Brooks, owner of the property where Woody's Superette is located and representing Woody's, reported that he had also spoken to the Commission in December and expressed his concern that Woody's would be put out of business by the addition of Super America in the neighborhood. He noted two other units that had closed as the neighborhood cannot support two of the same types of business. He expressed the opinion that the neighborhood would be left with another eyesore building across the street if Woody's was forced to close. No other comments was forthcoming from the audience. Chairman Cameron then expressed his belief that although no additional traffic might be generated, the neighborhood traffic would be concentrated on that corner. He expressed his opinion that it was too big an operation for the size of the property, since a 50% setback variance is being requested to build there. New Hope Planning Commission -2- Februar~ 4, 1992 Commissioner Underdahl expressed the opinion that the concerns of the neighbors have notbeen truly addressed. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, for approval of Planning Case 91-37, subject to the conditions= 1. ~-nual inspection for CUP as required by staff. 2. Performance Bond be required for site improvements including landscaping, curbing, and retaining wall. 3. No 24-hour operation. Voting in favor= Cassen, Oundershaug, Lifson Voting against= Friedrich, Sonsin, Zak, Underdahl, Cameron Absent= Watschke Motion denied. Chairman Cameron informed the petitioner that although the Commission has not recommended approval, the request will be forwarded to the City Council for a hearing on February 10, 1992. PC 91-42 (3.2) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 3535 WINNETKA AV N Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-42 and noted that there was a request to table. MOTION Motion by Conunissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to table Planning Case 91-42 for one month. Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Oundershaug, Friedrich, Underdahl, Lifson Voting against= None Absent: Watshcke Motion carried. PC 92-02 (3.3) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO 35- FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO ~T~W CONSTRUC- TION OF THREE- SEARSON PORCH 3353 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 92-02 and Kirk McDonald outlined the request for a variance to the 3S-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a 14' x 16' (224 square feet) three-season porch on the southwest side of the existing home in the rear yard at 3433 Gettysburg Avenue North. He noted that there is an existing deck there and the request is to construct a porch on top of the deck which will be located, at the closest point, 22 feet from the rear yard property line. He pointed out that the property is irregular in shape because it is located on a cul-de-sac, but the existing structure does meet all the required setbacks and staff does concur that there is a hardship because the home cannot be expanded elsewhere. He called attention to the topography and screening of the area as shown on the new topography maps which the City has recently secured. Michael Gray, petitioner, was present to answer questions, but the Commission had none. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 92-02 subject to conditions= 1. Revised elevation drawings be submitted to clearly illustrate that design of porch and building materials will be consistent with existing home. 2. Prior to constructin an "as-built" survey be submitted to verify setback and lot to be staked by surveyor at time of building permit application. Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Underdahl, Lifson, Cameron Voting against= None Absent= Watschke Notion carried. Oundershaug, New Hope Planning Commission -3- Februar~ 4, 1992 PC 91-15 (3.4) Chairman Cameron introduced the case and turned the discussion over ORDINANCES to Alan Brixius, City Planner, and Steve Sondrall, City Attorney. PERTAINING TO ADULT U $ E Mr. Sondrall addressed the Commission first. He noted that this ZONING AND was a public hearing to discuss the need for regulation and ADULT USE licensing of sexually-oriented businesses within the City and the LICENSING IN various adult uses that such businesses would be engaged in. He NEW HOPE addressed the question as to why it is even necessary to consider the issue rather than just passing an ordinance completely pro- hibiting sexually-oriented business from operating in the City. He pointed out that these businesses have been afforded constitutional protection and explained the law that involves the regulation of them. He emphasized that the government, whether federal, state, or local, cannot wholly suppress sexually-oriented materials that have some arguably artistic value, and to do so would be a restraint on the freedom of speech and expression that is a protected constitutional right under the firstamendment, a mandate handed down from the Supreme Court in a number of cases. He added that content based regulation of sexually-oriented materials in business that deal with them would be unconstitutional and un- enforceable. He outlined two things that have to be established as a basis for the public hearing, one is content neutral regulation or a time, place, and manner regulation which would support the promotion of a substantial governmental interest. Secondly, it has to be established that the regulation is not unreasonably restrictive and would provide a reasonable alternative means of communication for those who want to partake in such kind of expression or speech and has been entitled to constitutional protection. He paraphrased the definition of content neutral regulation which has come from a number of Supreme Court cases, which is basically a regulation unaffected by either sympathy for or hostility against the point of view being expressed by the communication, a rule whose application is not dependent upon either a favorable or unfavorable appraisal of the issue involved. The effect of a content neutral ordinance regulating sexually-oriented speech or expression is exactly the same every time regardless of predisposition to the speech or expression. It has nothing to do with the content but the manner with which it is being engaged in, so the result is that you cannot challenge the absolute right to such expression but there is ability to limit the where, when, and how of that expression, which defines the answer to time, place, and manner regulation. He proceeded with the question of when sexually-oriented businesses can be limited. He referred to the first of two prongs of the test, the promotion of a substantial governmental interest, which is the protection and preservation of quality of urban life, and has been determined and upheld by the Supreme Court as something that government can promote and enhance, and in doing so can regulate speech and expression if the regulation is content neutral. He noted the kinds of substantial governmental interests being talked about are: 1: Crime prevention; 2: Protection of property values; and 3: Prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases. He referred to the studies from other communities which have established a connection between sexually-oriented businesses and an increase in crime, a diminuition of property values, and the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. He noted that if the conclusion can be reached that New Hope's circumstances are similar to the circumstances studied in other municipalities it would be appropriate to enact these content neutral, time, place, and manner regulations to control or minimize what the Supreme Court calls secondary adverse impacts of these businesses on the quality of life within the City. He explained that in order to ensure that these kinds of regulations are enforceable for the purpose of preserving quality of life, a second prong of the test must be met, and that is that provision must be made for alternative avenues of communication for this kind of activity or a reasonable opportunity for those people who want to avail themselves of this kind of New Hope Planning Commission -4- February 4, 1992 business to do so, even though individual opinions might be favorable or unfavorable~about the businesses in general. He added that the regulation cannot be a pretext for completely suppressing sexually-oriented materials within the City. He concluded that the analysis of the law is basically what kind of zoning and licensing regulations will beet assist the City in promoting the quality of life and insuring that if an application for this kind of business is presented, the secondary adverse impact from such a business can be minimized. He explained that this public hearing and those to follow are to establish a record so that if a court in the future needs to review the ordinance it can conclude that the intent behind the ordinance is to control the adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented business, and that the effect of the ordinance does not unreasonably restrict these alternative avenues of communication, showing that the City is trying to establish that it is not doing it as a pretext to completely eliminating these type of businesses from the City, but that we are giving them a reasonable opportunity to conduct busi- ness here. He added that it is not necessary to take action at this meeting but based on this discussion and previously generated information and further discussion by the Codes & Standards Committee regarding possible additional regulations concerning the health concern that has recently been raised, the Commission continue the issue to the March meeting and at that time adopt a resolution in written form establishing findings and codifying recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Brixius addressed the Commission and pointed out that this issue has been studied for a long time and is now nearing completion. He attested to Mr. Sondrall's presentation that under the First Amendment these uses cannot be totally prohibited within a community and outright prohibition would be thrown out in favor of a property owner who wishes to pursue such activity. He emphasized that in the various studies and case laws that have been presented to the Commission for review, a number of findings have held true that there is a detrimental impact, with regard to value and operation, on adjacent properties located within close proxi- mity of both residential and commercial areas. He added that these studies have also found that in areas having adult use entertain- ment facilities, crimes of both sexual and violent nature have increased and sexually-transmitted diseases are now related to these facilities, all of which cause concern regarding the detrimental effect to both image and function of a community, as well as the transmission of disease. He emphasized that these are documented secondary impacts that the Supreme Court has recognized and has allowed municipalities to control and regulate, and is the basis for the ordinance under consideration. He pointed out that in the development of the ordinance they have tried to minimize impact on the community by identifying oppor- tunity areas within the community where these business can locate and as the ordinance is written they are being allowed in the B-3 and B-4, I-2 and I-2 Districts provided they can meet specific performance standards regarding setbacks and location from incompatible land uses. He noted that the setback chosen was 300' from residentially zoned land or residential uses, licensed day care facilities, educational facilities including elementary, junior and senior high schools, specialty and training schools, public libraries, public parks, other adult uses such as on-sale liquor, wine or beer establishments, churches, and commercial recreational facilities, which basically limits the adult use availability to industrial zoned districts, or approximately 3.5% of the community. He went on to say that the ordinance will regulate display of product addressing adult accessory uses where product being sold is minor or incidental to an unrelated business versus a principal use. He noted that additional amendments are under consideration pertaining to the health issues which have recently arisen and New Ho~e Plann£ng Commission -5- Fabruar¥ 4, 1992 these additional performance standards, such as operational hours, restrictions on rear entrances, movie booth construction standards both on occupancy restrictions and booth door visibility, will be ~_~. included under licensing requirements. He pointed out that under the existing draft ordinance sexually-oriented businesses are currently established as a permitted use within the district, regulated by performance standards, the perception being that by establishing it as a permitted use it would not have to go through the required public hearing process in making decisions as to the appropriate location for these facilities, thus it would avoid the Planning Commissin andCity Council having to face an emotional crowd of people in making the determination; however, there is some question regarding if a conditional use permit may be more appropriate in that it would advise neighborhoods that may be affected where these uses might come in, rather than letting them find out after the use is established. He suggested that the Commission make a decision on the handling of such. He affirmed that the purpose of the current hearing is for recognition of the secondary uses and reasons for establishing the code so that staff can be given direction on drafting the findings of fact which will accompany the final draft of the ordinance. Chairman Cameron questioned the reverse effect if a school wanted to come in within the defined setback would there be justification for turning them down. Mr. Brixius confirmed it could be found detrimental to such use and it would be the City's obligation to protect it. Chairman Sonsin noted that by approving such a facility it could effectively make the ordinance unconstitutional by default. Mr. Brixius emphasized that the likelihood of having the ordinance overturned would exist and in that case the adult use would be free to locate where any retail/commercial establishment can locate. Mr. Brixius commented further on the aspects between permitted use and conditional use permit, stating that in the heat of debate with a large neighborhood audience that is totally opposed to the use and the conditinal use permit is denied, if it can be demonstrated that the conditional use meets all conditions and all ordinance requirements are met, it may be grounds for overturning the action or overturning the ordinance. Mr. Sondrall suggested that to protect schools, churches, etc. that may come in after the fact, the zoning code may have to be amended to include a performance standard to indicate that they would not be allowed within a certain setback of an existing adult use. Mr. Sondrall cautioned that the ordinance should be tailored to satisfy some of the concerns and definitions and applications that have come out of the case laws that are known, but every analysis and scrutinization is going to be brand new and one may contradict another. He cited a case dealing with relocation of an adult business in Minneapolis in which the courts noted that a low percentage was invalid, but he noted that, on the other hand, the court may rule such a low percentage valid if ample actual opportunities for relocation of adult businesses were available within that zone; however the court may not decide that question as a matter of law because it finds that under the ordinance such opportunities for relocation are not available. He indicated that may not be a consideration for New Hope since there is not such a condition existing here for relocating such a business. Mr. Brixius agreed with Mr. Sondrall's interpretation. He added that the whole idea of the ordinance is not intended to promote these uses, but rather to limit them in application in New Hope. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered if any property owners in the suggested limited area had responded to the published notice and Mr. McDonald replied that there had been no response, but that individual notices are not required to be mailed, as this was a city-wide amendment to the zoning ordinance. New Hope Planning Commission -6- ,February 4, 1992 COMMITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -7- Commissioner Underdahl questioned if property owners within 350' would have to be notified and Mr. Brixius answered that process would be followed °nly if it ~re applied for under conditional use permit. He stressed that the way the text is drafted it would be a permitted use, therefore no public hearing would be required in consideration of it. He noted the performance standards that are outlined in the ordinance as presented are intended to reduce as much as possible secondary impacts that will be identified in the findings of fact, and review will be more through the licensing. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that the way the ordinance is set up is a protection measure to insulate the Planning Commission and City Council against a very large and vocal public hearing, but there is a possibility that the City's image and appearance may be under scrutiny because it got in without the City allowing the neighborhood to address concerns. He stressed that, if it were to be allowed under conditional use permit, neighborhood opposition standing alone cannot be the basis for denial of a conditional use permit if it is concluded that all standards are met. City staff was recommending that the ordinance be changed so the use would be handled as a CUP and Chairman Cameron and the rest of the Commission confirmed that they agreed with this recommendation and that the public should have an opportunity for input. Mr. Brixius indicated the need for consensus that the ordinance is necessary for the reasons outlined in the Attorney General's report that conditions that exist in other cities could exist if the situation occurred in New Hope and by making this determination it will enable staff to draft the necessary findings in final form. Commissioner Underdahl expressed a concern at the proximity of some homes to the designated allowed areas and the minimum 300' setback. Chairman Cameron pointed out that increasing the setbacks would eliminate the opportunity. Mr. Brixius emphasized that without limits such businesses would be treated as any other retail establishment, and could even go into the shopping centers, and without any option that would be the only option. He noted that by location in industrial areas it is limited to areas that are somewhat isolated since the nature of industrial parks is to provide more isolated areas for industry to exist without interruption. Mr. Sondrall suggested continuing the public hearing until March. Design & Review reported they had met with Super America. Codes & Standards reported they did not meet in January. Several Commissioners questioned the status of Blockbuster Video and Autohaus. Mr. McDonald indicated that staff is waiting to hear from Blockbuster and noted that the Animal Hospital has been demolished, but they have until spring to complete the improvements requested. Montessori School was brought up and Mr. McDonald stated that the development agreement has not been returned, but staff would follow up on it. Commissioner Cassen called attention to the size of the sign at Norwest Bank which blocks the view for traffic wanting to exit on 42nd. No corrections noted for Planning Commission minutes of January 7, 1992. No comment on other minutes. February 4, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON &VENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNE$OT& PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4, 1992 C~T~. TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CALL Present: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Lifson, Watschke Absent: Underdahl, Friedrich Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Alan Hunting, Northwest Consultant Representative PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 91-42 (3.2) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING P~d~l APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 3535 WINNETKA AV N MOTION Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-42 and Kirk McDonald outlined the request by Fina to redevelop the convenience store and gas station. He explained that in September the Commission and City Council had approved a request involving complete renovation of the building interior, installation of new panel brick and aluminum facia on exterior, new pump island, parking lot restriping, and new sidewalk, but now Fina proposes to raze the existing structure and completely redevelop the site with the addition of an attached automatic carwash and pneumatic door coordination so that when a car is being washed/dried, both doors would be closed for noise control and would not open up until the cycle is completed. He added that one existing curb cut on 36th Avenue would be eliminated and additonal landscaping would be added to the site. He noted that the petitioner had met with Design & Review on several occasions and subsequent to those meetings, plans were revised to address Design & Review concerns. He noted also that the plan was submitted to the County and City Engineer and in answer to suggestions made by them, Fina has agreed to provide additional right-of-way on both Winnetka and 36th Avenues and to close one curb cut on 36th Avenue. He stated that Fina has submitted a detailed traffic analysis indicating that the curb cuts on Winnetka Avenue shoud not be removed. He added that the Building Official has recommended minor changes to the lighting plan and Fina has agreed to the suggested changes. He emphasized that staff considers the revised plan a good quality private development of commerical property and the petitioner has been very cooperative in agreeing to suggested changes. Dan Dege, Fina's architect, responded to questions from the Commissioners regarding the pneumatic door controls ability to be overridden, noise from speakers, snow removal, lighting, outdoor storage viewed from street, landscaping and new sod area and sprinkling of same, need for 24-hour operation. He explained the door operation, noted that speakers are required for communication between store personnel and customers at pumps, added that snow will be removed from site, lighting to be as suggested by Building Official, pointed out additional landscaping noting that no sprinkling is planned and the small sod area will eventually be removed. He added that the request for 24-hour operation was to be competitive with the Super America station across the street, which is located in Crystal. Commisisoner Gundershaug questioned the noise from the air vac cannister in the northwest corner and was assured by Mr. Dege it is not noisy and would be screened from the street view and pointed out that an existing phone booth will be reiocated to the same area as the air cannister. Motion by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 91-42 subject to conditions: 1. Annual CUP inspection 2. Devevelopment Bond and Performance Bond be provided to cover public improvements with amounts to he determined By City Engineer. New Hope Planning Commission -1- March 4, 1992 City Attorney Steve Sondrall interjected the motion with the suggestion that a condition be included regarding dedication of street easements and Commissioner Cassen accepted the addition of the condition. 3. Three street easements be dedicated on the plan. Voting in favors Lifson, Zak, Cassen, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting againsts None. Absents Underdahl, Friedrich Motion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, PC 92-0A (3.3) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-04. Mr. McDonald REQUEST FOR reviewed the request to allow expansion of a garden novelty store VARIANCE TO and expansion of of a non-conforming building, plus a variance from A?3~W EXPANSION the accessory building design criteria to allow construction of an OF B-2 GARDEN accessory garden novelty store, and site/building plan review/ NOVELTY STORE approval. He explained that Frank's Nursery would like to IN EXCESS OF construct a "poly" greenhouse to protect plant deliveries from 3,500 SQ FT frost, rain, wind, and excessive heat/cold damage to replace a OF FLOOR AREA, prveiously constructed poly house that was destroyed by a November VARIANCE FROM storm. He added that the structure that was blown down had not ACCESSORY BLD~ received approval and the petitioner was advised to follow the DESIGN CRITERIA approval procedure to replace it. He reported that the petitioner VARIANCE TO met with Design & Review and discussed issues concerning lack of EXPAND NON-CON- building detail, architectural appearance of the building, FORMING BLD~, setbacks, lack of front and rear landscaping on site, screening VARIANCE FROM from residences to east, lighting, trash enclosure, semi F~ONT YARD SET- deliveries, drainage, and parking, and as a result of that meeting. BACK TO ALLOW revised plans were submitted that addressed some, but not all of CONSTRUCTION OF the issues raised. He noted that the accessory design building ACCESS. GARDEN criteria requires that same quality building materials as in the NOVELTY STORE, principal building be used in accessory buildings and exterior AND SITE/BLDG appearance and architectural design be similar to principal PLAN REVIEW/ building and would not require screening. He emphasized staff's APPROVAL AT opinion that screening of landscaping and fencing be installed on 5620 WTKA AV N the east if the "poly" building is to be built, or a more quality- type building must be constructed. He stated that the recommend- ation is for screening on east to include 8' high fence and various trees of "boulevard caliper" and shrubs on the public bouelevard. He emphasized Design & Review's concern over lack of significant plantings on the property of a landscaping business. Mr. John Winston, attorney for Frank's, addressed the Commission and introduced a number of representatives for Franks's that were in attendance with him. He stated that they have read the case report and Frank's stands ready to do each and every recommendation made therein and provide details. Mr. Walter Gregory, Merila and Associates, architects, advised that they will plant trees, widen driveways, add downlighting, and prepare new plan incorporating added improvements. He stressed the need to get the structure up because the spring planting season is so close and assured all conditions will be met. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed his opposition to the plastic type of building since the code requires accessory buildings match existing structure and questioned what would keep the proposed structure from collapsing also. He requested more details on the proposed building. Mr. Glen Pulkavek, Pulk Marketing Company representative, inter- jected to say that he had called the Building Official to see what is required and had not received an answer, but their engineering specifications provide building stress information. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the strength of 6-mil poly and asked for description of base of the building and was informed the footings will be poured concrete with ground stakes set inside. New Hope Planning Commission -2- March 4, 1992 MOTION PC 92-05 (3.3) REQUEST FOR CUP TO ~T.T.OW TEMPORARY USE/ OUTDOOR AUTO SHOW AT 5520 NORTH HWY 169 Mr. Winston commented'~Y~e this same construction in other locations, and it provides better protection of plant materials without heating and cooling concerns. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired if they had sighted the area from across the residential street and Winnetka Avenue to see if the top of the building will be visible from those points. Mr. Winston answered that all recommendations with regard to fencing and trees for screening will be followed. Mr. Gregory presented to the Commission a revised site plan with latest revisions, and noted the changed direction of the building and the 11'4" height above ground surface, adding that two feet will be added to the fence which will screen the existing lath house roof. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that Design & Review had asked for pictures, particularly from the northeast corner looking at the top of the poly house. He repeated his concern that a snowstorm could topple the building again. Mr. Gregory replied that it is engineered to withstand snowstorms. Mr. Winston again reiterated that they would address all concerns that staff and Commission have, adding that Frank's is also concerned about stability of the building and wants to improve the site. Commissioner Watschkequestioned that 6-mil poly could withstand a 2-3 foot snowstorm. Commissoner Gundershaug commented on the trash in the middle of the parking lot and questioned if there will be protective curbing around the landscaping. Mr. Gregory replied that the existing 10' x 10' trash structure will be enlarged to 20' x 20' with a 6-foot high cedar fence around it. He called attention to the revised plan for removing and replacing damaged trees and shrubs, adding trees in the boulevard, and moving fence in 5' from property line, adding that the curbing has not been addressed, but there are curb bumpers which should be replaced and they will work out details. Mr. Winston again stated they are willing to address all concerns and additional conditions. Chairman Cameron expressed his disdain at the concept of a permanent temporary plastic bubble in the middle of a residential area, particularly since this property sits lower than the neighboring areas. He suggested an alternative that the petitioner come in every year for a temporary greenhouse that could be used for 2 or 3 months and removed so that residents would not have to look at it all year. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to table Planning Case 92-04 for one month so that petitioner can prepare a revised site plan addressing all issues. Voting in favor: Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Underdahl, Friedrich Motion carried. The next case was introduced by the Chairman who noted the request was for a once-per-summer conditional use permit. Mr. McDonald indicated that because it is more unusual than'most conditional permit requests the petitioner was asked to appear before Design & Review for their input. He explained that Champion Auto Stores is requesting a conditional use permit to allow them to host, this summer and annually thereafter, the "Land-O-Lakes Muscle Car Classic RVI", a one-day outdoor auto show in an I-1 Limited Industrial District. He noted that it would be held on Sunday, August 2nd from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which includes setting up New Hope Planning Commission -3- March 4, 1992 MOTION PC 91-15 (3.4) OI~DINANCES PERTAINING TO ADULT USE ZONING AND ADULT USE LICENSING IN NEW HOPE New Hope Planning Co~ission and tearing down, and would include 225 cars on display and is expected to draw about 3,000 spectators. He explained this is a "judged" show, initiated in 1987, for quality muscle cars, which are American cars between the years of 1961 and 1974, and is run by an organized committee with 13 subcommittees to deal with all ~'~ segments of putting it on. He further explained that Liberty Diversified Industries and the leasing agent for Chicago Cutlery have sent letters indicating their willingness to allow use of their parking lots, and the show is covered by a liability policy indemnifying all property owners involved with the site. He noted that the former sites where the event was held are no longer avail- able and the GTe Association would like to establish a long-term relationship for use of the Champion Auto site. Mr. McDonald stated that the request was referred to the City Planner to determine how to handle and process a temporary event of this magnitude and the Planner recommended that, by the carnival/ festival nature of this ty~e of auto show, it be processed under conditional permit review. He noted the concerns discussed by Design & Review including the use of Police Reserves to assist their traffic committee, plus issues regarding a temporary security fence on the site because of a drainage ditch separating Champion Auto and Chicago Cutlery sites, first aid tents being identified on the plans, trash barrels, directional signs for traffic flow, noise from music, entrance signs, and use of no-parking signs and traffic cones, portable latrines, registration tent, handicapped parking, and picnic area. In conclusion he stated that the petitioners are well organized and the majority of conditions are met and it is felt that since this is a one-day Sunday event it should not adversely impact the surrounding areas. Chuck McKaige, representative of Champion Auto, answered questions from the Commission. commissioner Gundershaug asked how many spectators they expected and who will be cleaning up the area afterward. Mr. McKaige replied that the weather would be a controlling factor, but if it is a nice day there will be 3,000 to 3,500 people there, but will not all come at once and most usually leave after two hours. He noted that the GTe Club has their own committee responsible for cleaning up the entire grounds. Commissioner Watschke questioned policing of the property and was assured they have good control over that and the area will be cleaned by 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Gundershaug and Commissioner Cassen both inquired of staff regarding how long this type of conditional permit will be good for and the answer was that application for this type of conditional use has to be renewed every year. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case 92-05 subject to the nine conditions listed in the staff report. Voting in favor= Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Ca~eron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against= None Absent= Underdahl, Friedrich Motion carried. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-15 requesting consideration of ordinances pertaining to Adult Use Zoning and Adult Use Licensing in New Hope and called on Mr. McDonald to review. Mr. McDonald reported that Codes a Standards had held another meeting on this matter and suggested a change to the previous draft ordinance, mainly that any applications for this use would be subject to conditional use approval with a public hearing required. He noted that they also discussed expanding the public notification area from the 350' to 500' and the increased costs -4- March 4, 1992 associated with send,hgt,'additional public hearing notices to property owners within that range. He reported that he had researched the matter and found that in this instance, with the restriction to industrial areas where the lots are large, there will not be a significant cost increase, however, it was the consensus that if they changed the notification range it would have to apply to all conditional use permit applications and not this one alone, therefore the costs could increase significantly in the denser residential areas. The Commission unanimously agreed that the notification range should remain at 350' with all conditional permit applications treated alike. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, was asked to address the Commission and audience with his comments on this ordinance. He explained that a mandate has been issued by the U.S. Supreme Court to protect freedom of expression and government, whether federal, state, or local, cannot wholly suppress this form of expression, but, even though it cannot be prohibited, it can be regulated. He stated that this ordinance is meant to regulate, but not prohibit, sexually-oriented businesses, and to insure that in the event they locate here the impact, through increased crime and decreased property values, will be kept to a minimum. He explained that it is necessary to establish a content-neutral regulation, or a time, place, and manner regulation, with an official record of this issue being properly studied and considered to show that circumstances in New Hope are similar to the circumstances studied in other munici- palities, thus making it appropriate to enact content-neutral regulations to minimize what the Supreme Court calls secondary adverse impact on the quality of life within the City. Chairman Cameron asked for input from the audience. Ms. Mary Kennedy stated she is employed at St. Joseph's and expressed her feelings that these type of businesses are degrading to women and responsible for the rise in violence toward women. She questioned if the Attorney General's Guidelines had been considered by the Commission and was assured by the Chairman that they had been included in the information the Commission gathered and thoroughly studied by the Commission. Chairman Cameron emphasized that without this ordinance and its restrictions, the standards would be left wide open to all possibilities. Nancy Sten, from Domestice Abuse Intervention Project, commented on the number of women who are being badly hurt and abused and the effect of domestic violence on families. She stressed the negative and counterproductive impact of sexually-oriented business on the intervention project. Cathy Buchholz, North Ridge Care Center, stated her concerns regarding the possibility of the location of one of these businesses in the industrial area near North Ridge and the impact on their employees who come and go on the night shifts, putting them in a vulnerable time area for crime. Terry Frame, also from North Ridge, inquired if the licensing fee could be set high enough to deter this type of business. She questioned if there are sign restrictions for advertising them. Rev. Gardner, pastor of the New Hope Mennonite Brethren Church, addressed the Commission and stated he speaks for a number of churches in the area which are all against the idea of allowing pornography in the City. Mr. Sondrall replied with a gtatement regarding pornography and obscenity, stating that the proposed ordinance is not going to give any broad license to this activity as there are state statutes and criminal penalties that apply and he cited a recent case that was upheld by the courts. Mr. Sondrall again reiterated that the Planning Commission and City Council have established concern about the impact of these New Hope Planning Commission -5- March 4, 1992 MOTION PC 91-33 (3.5) PROPOSED ORD. AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTAB- LISHINGREGU- LATIONS FOR OUTDOOR DINING FACILITIES AT RESTAURANTS AND FAST FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS MOTION New Hope Planning Commission businesses and the ordinances have been prepared to meet our obligation to refrain from completely prohibiting this activity and that the regulations are content-neutral dealing with secondary adverse impact and the licensing provisions will be supportable. ~-~ Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 91-15, Resolution/Draft Ordinance Pertaining to Adult Use Zoning and Adult Use Licensing, and forward to the City Council for public hearings and adoption. Voting in favor~ Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke, Voting againstl None Absents Underdahl, Friedrich Motion carried. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-33 relating to the establishment of an ordinance regulating outdoor dining at restaurants and fast food establishments. Kirk McDonald explained that the request originated because several convenience food establishments had placed tables outside their facilities so customers would have the option of dining outdoors, although the practice has not been allowed in City Code, and staff requested the Planning Consultant to research the issue and prepare a report on whether this practice should be regulated by the City, and what type of regulations would be appropriate. He stated that Codes & Standards discussed the Planner's report on several occasions and recommended outdoor dining be provided for and regulated by the Code, and a draft ordinance has been prepared for recommendation to the Council. He pointed out that the ordinance is drafted so that the shopping center owner would have to make application for a conditional use amendment to their PUD to allow outdoor dining, and individual restaurants within the center would not need to apply on their own, and free-standing establishments that do not have previously approved conditional use permits will need to make application for such. He noted that the shopping /-~ center owner will be required to designate the location and amount of outdoor dining allowed. Commissioner Sonsin stated that the consensus of Codes & Standards is that outdoor dining as a business activity for a restaurant does make sense and will be a pleasant addition to the community, however, an ordinance is necessary to regulate matters of parking, aesthetics, safety and sanitation. He recommended the Council take action on the ordinance as drafted. Several food establishment operators asked to address the Commission regarding the ordinance. Dan Beekman, Bruegger's Bagel Bakery in Winnetka Commons, asked for clarification on the requirement that the shopping center owner make the application andquestioned if individual owners would also have to apply. Commissioner Sonsin explained that all current restaurants in a PUD would be included, but if a new restaurant opens after the appli- cation for conditional use for outside dining, it would have to apply individually. Kate, from New Hope Applebee's, stated that many Applebee's restaurants are built with patios or decks on them and they are wondering what they have to do to get permission for a deck on the New Hope Applebee's and if have to go through the mall owner to make application. Steve Sondrall, Attorney, advised that they would have to request an amendment to the PUD through the mall owner. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 91-33, Draft Ordinance Amending New Hope ~-~. Zoning Code to Establish Conditional Use Procedure Allowing Outdoor Dining Facilities and forward to the City Council for adoption. -6- March 4, 1992 COMMITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Voting in fevor~ Lifson,~:Zak'~ $onsin, Cameron, Oundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against~ None Absent~ Underdahl, Friedrich Motion carried. Design & Review repot.ted they had met with Fine, Frank's, and Champion. Codes & Standards reported they met on the ordinances discussed and will soon be presenting an ordinance regarding fences. The Commission agreed to change the April 7th scheduled meeting to April 14th to accommodate the absence of the Management Assistant to attend a National Development Council Conference during the first week in April. Mr. McDonald pointed out that a concern has come before the City regarding apartment conversions and there may be a request for Codes & Standards to study this subject. A correction in identification was noted in the Planning Commission minutes of February 4, 1992. No comment on other minutes. None. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -7- March 4, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CAT,T. TO ORDER ROLL CAT,T. APRIL 14, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7=00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present= Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Friedrich, Watschke Absent= Cassen, Gundershaug Also present= Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Alan Srixius, Northwest Consultant Representative PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 92-04(3,1) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF GARDEN NOVELTY STORE, VARIANCE FROM ACCESSORY BLDG DESIGN CRITERIA, SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW AT 5620 WINNETKA Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-04 which was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting and petitioner was directed to meet with Design & Review with a more detailed plan. Mr. McDonald stated that following several meetings with staff and Design a Review the petitioner submitted new revised plans showing site upgrades and incorporating changes and recommendations that were made, including new curbing in front and on north side on Winnetka Avenue side of building, new concrete driveway aprons and widening of entrances on Winnetka Avenue, new downlighting throughout the site, replacement of existing fence on Sumter Avenue with 8-foot highcedar and brick column fence, new boulevard trees on Sumter Avenue in front of fence, new shrubs and trees added to the site, reduction of size and rotation of the building to a north-south direction, repair of retaining wall, installation of "No Trucks" signs at south entrance, repair and painting of planters and southeast fence, and other minor changes. He pointed out a staff recommendation for addition of a steel "cart corral" on the center front of the lot which is not included on the plan. Mr. John Winston, attorney for Frank's, addressed the Commission and introduced representatives from Frank's, namely Roger Litke, District Manager for Frank's, Frank Skelton, Manager, and Dan Bernstein, Assistant Manager, of the New Hope store, Walter Gregory, architect, and Glen Pulkrabek, builder. He stated that they felt the meeting with Design & Review was very productive and helped them they .have a clearer and better understanding of what the Planning Commission's concerns were, and Frank's has given authority to proceed with all recommendations. Commissioner Watschke asked for clarification of what will be done to address drainage on the northwest corner, the "No trucks" signs at the south entrance and the truck delivery lane. Mr. Winston pointed out that they propose to remove the existing timber retaining wall and raise the existing storm sewer manhole casting to grade and replace with solid manhole cover and put an apron end wall out of the east side to take the water. He showed a drawing of several types of "No trucks" signs they are consider- ing, and pointed out the turning radius for the trucks. He added that there is a 4' high concrete wall which encroaches on the turning lane and they intend to cut the wall back about 10 feet to improve the turning radius. Commissioner Watschke questioned the fence along the south line with the funeral home. Mr. Gregory explained that the fence is on Frank's property and the base of the retaining wall, in most cases, is right on the property line although it looks like it was originally built on the funeral home property according to some additional survey work he had done to verify the fact. Commissioner Watschke asked if there were'pictures showing the type of inflatable building to be erected and if there were other installations like it somewhere in the area. New Hope Planning Commission -1- April 14, 1992 Mr. Winston presented a photograph representing the poly house and Mr. Pulkrabek confirmed that Frank's has these houses at all their stores in the Twin Cities, with the exception of the Burnsville store. Commissioner Watschke complimented' the petitioner on the good job they had done to address the issues and concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if all of the old fencing will be removed. Mr. Gregory replied that the entire fence across the rear of the property along Sumter Avenue will be replaced and fences along south and north side will remain as is at the present time. Mr. Skelton interjected that the fence on the south side will be repaired and all of the cyclone fencing material on the fence on that side will be replaced, and Mr. Gregory added that even though it is not shown on the plans, Frank's would eventually like to replace it. Chairman Cameron complimented the petitioner on the upgrade they are making and he questioned how the new sod Will be taken care of. Mr. Skelton replied that a lawn service will take care of it and he pointed out that he was not there in past years, but it will be his responsibility to correct the past neglect and see that it is taken care of now. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Watschke, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve Planning Case 92-04, subject to the following conditions= 1. Greenhouse to be inflated and oriented as shown on the plans with total size not to exceed 3,528 square feet. 2. Installation of new cedar/masonry screening fence along east property line, per plan. 3. Eliminate two parking stalls as shown on staff "Exhibit A" and build steel "cart corrals" in center of front lot. Balance of space to be pedestrian walkway and total parking stalls will number 127. 4. Development Contract and Performance Bond to be provided for improvements on public property (amount to be determined by City Engineer). 5. ~--ual review by staff. Voting in favor= Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against= None Absent= Cassen, Gundershaug Motion carried. Chairman Cameron informed the petitioner that the' Council will review the case on April 27th. PC 92-06(3.2) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-06 and asked Mr. REQUEST FOR McDonald to explain the need for the variance or change in the VARIANCE OR TEXT AMEND- MENT TO SECTION 3.464 OF NEe/HOPE CODE TO ~?~W A PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION SIGN 10 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE AT 8015 36TH AVENUE N New Hope Planning Commission ordinance. Mr. McDonald presented the request and explained that the Commission will have to decide if they wish to handle it as a variance or a text amendment. He stated that the petitioner claims a hardship resulting from a visibility problem with the Fina Station located on the corner in front of the complex and would like to erect a 25 square foot property identification sign set back 10 feet from the property line. He noted that the Planning Commission can grant the request as a variance to the existing ordinance and then pursue a text amendment to the ordinance in the future, if they so desire. Ms. Jill Gilbertson addressed the Commission on behalf of the Royal Oaks Apartments and the Sage Company and stated that as Property -2- April 14, 1992 Supervisor part of her job is to improve and upgrade the property appearance and since the current signage is small and difficult to see due to the station on the corner they are requesting a setback equal to commercial property setback. She presented photographs showing the current signage. Chairman Cameron asked Ms. Gilbertson to speak to the hardship involved since they do have exposure on two main streets. Ms. Gilbertson pointed out that the Fina Mart on the corner limits their exposure because they are behind it and the Fina signage and bright colors draw attention there rather than to their signs. She added that their office faces 36th Avenue and the signage is not easy to see. Chairman Cameron addressed staff regarding any reports or complaints against the complex. Mr. McDonald reported that both the Building Official and Housing Inspector had nothing negative to say about it. Commissioner Zak confirmed with the petitioner that the old signs will be removed. Alan Brixius, City Planner questioned the setback of the current signs, the amount of frontage along 36th, and where the new sign is to be located. Ms. Gilbertson indicated she did not have the information and pointed out the sign location. Commissioner Underdahl asked the petitioner to point out the driveway location. Commissioner Sonsin called the petitioner's attention to a temporary banner hanging from one of the garages that shows on one of the pictures and questioned how long it had been there, and advised the petitioner to consult staff about the use of temporary banners. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 92-06 as submitted for a variance, but not for a code text change, with the condition that the temporary sign is removed. PC 92-07(3.3) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO EXPAND NON- CONFORMING BUILDING AND VARIANCE TO REAR YARD- SET BACK TO ALLOW EXPAN- SION AT 3910 BOONE AY N Voting in favor= Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against= None Absent= Cassen, Gundershaug Motion carried. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 92-07 and noted that staff recommends the case be tabled in order for the petitioner to present a survey to confirm lot lines. Mr. McDonald reported that revised plans have been submitted since the report was written, but the plans could be more detailed. Chairman Cameron concluded that the Commission would hear the case, but without a survey it would still have to be tabled. Mr. McDonald outlined the request for an addition to the existing attached garage which requires a variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement and a variance to expand a non-conforming structure. He explained that by code definition the front of the house should be to the north with a rear yard (south) setback requirement of 35 feet, but instead it was built facing west and the new addition would be 7 feet from the south lot line requiring a 28-foot variance, however, the way the house is situated the addition would be in the side yard where the setback would be 5' with a garage. Craig Hall, petitioner, explained his need for this addition since he has several vehicles, including motorcycle and snowmobile, and currently rents storage space in a pole barn and since he has lived New Hope Planning Commission -3- April 14, 1992 MOTION in New Hope for 25 years and plans to stay, he would like the addition to keep his possessions on his own property. Chairman Cameron questioned if the addition had been discussed with the neighbor on the south and what the distance was between the two houses. The petitioner indicated he had talked with them and they had no problem with it, adding that the houses are each equally spaced from the property line. Chairman Cameron confirmed with staff that the neighbor's house also fronts to the west rather than to the south~ Commissioner Sonsin asked the petitioner to describe the materials to be used on the addition, and if they would match the existing. Mr. Hall confirmed they will match and pointed out that the roof lines on the front of the addition will match the existing roof line, but the rear pitch will be changed because of the length of the building. Commissioner Watschke suggested the petitioner talk with the Building Inspector regarding the minimum pitch of the roof for use of asphalt shingles. Commissioner Sonsin discussed drainage flow with the petitioner because of the slope of the land between the houses, but the petitioner stated he does not anticipate a problem since it has a natural flow to Boone Avenue. Commissioner Zak questioned if the current driveway and apron will be sufficient or if there will be changes made to it, and if the addition will cause the removal of a tree. The petitioner stated he plans to use the existing driveway since the existing apron tapers enough to meet the planned addition, and the tree in question is a cottonwood that is overgrown. In response to some good-natured prodding, he promised he would plant another tree nearby. Commissioner Zak asked if outside storage and a shed at the back would be eliminated with the new garage addition. Mr. Hall answered_that the reason for requesting the extra depth in the addition is to keep his equipment there and the shed will be removed since it will block the rear service door when the addition is built on. Commissioner Sonsin referred to a complaint received about "hobby car" storage and firewood piles. Mr. Hall indicated he has an interest in cars and has had an old truck sitting out for awhile, but with the addition it will be moved inside. Chairman Cameron questioned if the petitioner had a home occupation repairing cars and noted that with the size of the planned building there is need for concern regarding that possibility. Mr. Hall assured that he does not do any repair work other than his own and this is strictly for personal use. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed the understanding that due to lack of a survey and insufficient time for staff to review new detailed plans, the case will be tabled for one month. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to table Planning Case 92-07 for one month. Voting in favor~ Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against~ None Absent= Cassen, Gundershaug Motion carried. New Hope Planning Commission -4- April 14, 1992 Chairman Cameron informed the petitioner that it will not be necessary for him to appear again until the Council hears the case in May, but the petitioner indicated he intended to be present at the next Commission meeting. PC 92-08(3.4) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-08 and Mr. McDonald REQUEST FOR presented the background of the variance request, stating that it VARIANCE FROM was in response to an order from the Housing Inspector during a PARKING DIS- TANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE REQUIREMENT TO AT.T4)W EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT TO REMAIN IN PLACE AT 6109 GETTYSBURG N point-of-sale inspection. He explained that the property meets all setback requirements with the exception of the driveway and curb cut which are located only I foot from the property line, but the homeowner states that the condition existed when he purchased the house 15 years previously and he just learned it was in violation of the code when he put the house up for sale. Mr. McDonald noted that the plat shows that the only drainage and utility easement is located along the rear lot line so the driveway is not encroaching on an easement and there is about an 8' buffer between the petitioner's driveway and the neighbors. Chairman Cameron confirmed with the petitioner that he did not create the condition. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Underdahl, to approve the variances as requested in Planning Case 92-08. Voting in favors Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against~ None Absents Cassen, Friedrich Motion carried. PC 91-34(3.5) PROPOSED ORDI- NANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY AMEND- ING SECTION 4.033(3) REGU- LATING FENCING AND SCREENING New Hope Planning Commission Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-34 and called on Alan Brixius, City Planner, to explain the proposed draft ordinance to amend the sign code regulating fencing and screening. Mr. Brixius stated the definition of lot front as the narrowest length abutting a street, the rationale being to maximize the buildable area of the lot. He explained that under the current ordinance there is confusion that results because of the definition of front line of a principal building with fences that face one way and butt up against front yards on interior lots, and in comparing it to other ordinances where setbacks and yard requirements are identified, such as for air conditioners, the current language of the fence ordinance is inconsistent with action in other areas and creates confusion and potential problems in allowing extension of tall fences with relationship to balance of the block and interior lots. He noted that the draft ordinance has been prepared and studied with the assistance of staff and Codes & Standards and has been broken down into sections covering general provisions which still accommodate the required visibility triangle on all intersecting streets, that is, a 20' setback where nothing can be constructed; screening requirements which will supersede the fence ordinance so that where screening is required by the City, the actual requirements will take precedent; and design performance standards which have been added with regard to exterior posts being on the interior of fence, fences not obstructing natural drainage, fence height determined by the average grade of the lot and, a new provision for corner lots with building fronting the side yard abutting a street, where an 8' fence will be required to be put on the rear lot line, side lot line and not extend beyond the required setbacks in these areas. He pointed out on a color-coded chart where the 8' high fences may be located in relation to lot situations and he called attention to a provision which was recently added by staff requiring fences over 42" in height to be located at least 15' off the property line on "thru" lots. He added that the ordinance includes a breakdown between residential fences and commercials fences on provisions and setbacks, allowing for the pursuit of a conditional use permit for taller fences in commercial areas. Also there is a provision regarding security fences with barbed wire on top. -5- April 14, 1992 MOTION COMMITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Chairman Cameron wondered if the ordinance could be presented to residents in an understandable fashion and the Commission agreed unanimously that a copy of the color-coded diagram which Mr. Brixius demonstrated would be an excellent handout to give to applicants for fence permits. Chairman Cameron thanked Mr. Brixius for his thorough presentation. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to forward the ordinance to the Council with Planning Commission approval with the recommendation for Council consideration and approval. Voting in favors Underdahl, Lifson, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against~ None Absents Cassen, Gundershaug Motion carried. Zak; Sonsin, Cameron, Design & Review met on Frank's Nursery. Codes & Standards has not met recently, but has been requested to study the sign ordinance in regard to multiple-dwelling signs, plus a new issue on the conversion, renovation, and remodeling of apartment complexes. Chairman Cameron questioned staff about the reason for apartment conversion study and Mr. McDonald replied that there have been several applications made for conversion to accommodate 3-bedroom units, but the City has a concern as to the impact they will have on green space, parking, playgrounds, and city facilities. Commissioner Sonsin cautioned that as the need has changed since some of the complexes were built, it also may be changing again in the future and that possibility should also be given consideration and study. Commissioner Sonsin complimented staff on the Miscellaneous Issues report in the packet which summarizes past and current issues that have been acted upon or studied and he emphasized how helpful this is to him. Planning Commission minutes of March 4th met with approval. No comments on other minutes. None. Meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8s05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -6- April 14, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPS 4401XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 5, 1992 C~?~. TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Cameron, ROLL C~T.T. PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 92-07(3.1) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO EXPAND NON- CONFORMING BUILDING AND VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SET- BACK TO ~?.?~W EXPANSION, 3901 BOONE N after waiting until there was a quorum present. Present: Lifson, Underdahl, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-07, calling for a motion to table the case for one month, per staff recommendation. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Underdahl, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 92-07 for one month. Voting in favor: Lifson, Underdahl, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich Motion carried. PC 92-09(3.2) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-09 and Kirk McDonald, REQUEST FOR Management Assistant, noted that it is the first request for CONDITIONAL USE outdoor dining under the new Outdoor Dining Ordinance. He PERMIT FOR OUT- explained that the petitioner is requesting a conditional use DOOR DINING IN permit to allow up to 6 tenants to have seating on the sidewalk WTKA COMMONS adjacent to the four (4) existing and two (2) proposed eateries, SHOPPING CENTER with a maximum of 18 tables, 2 seats per table, or 36 seats on the 3520 WINNETKA N property in 6 different clusters. Me added that the petitioner met with Design & Review and revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting showing proposed seating areas spaced further apart to allow for easier clearance, rope and bollard barriers added to segregate from pedestrian traffic, specific dining area square footages provided for comparison to requirements, trash containers added, circular planter area in front of Bruegger's to be filled with concrete, new landscaping, which will replace existing landscaping being removed, will be installed at northeast corner of the site near the holding pond. He noted that the City Sanitarian has reviewed the plan and has no problem with it. He mentioned that no parking increases are proposed since excess parking was required on the initial plan when the center was constructed. He called attention to the ordinance requirement for removal of furniture after seasonal use, and indicated that style and match of furniture to be used and who provides it, tenant or owner, should be discussed with the petitioner. Mr. Gary Jackson, part owner, and also representative of Jackson- Scott Associates, management company for the center, introduced himself and Mr. Kauffman, another part owner. He stated that he was not aware until the previous day that there were conditions attached to the staff recommendations, namely that type of outdoor furniture type be specified. He noted that the furniture will be purchased by individual tenants not the owners of the center, and the type of materials, availability, and cost would be a factor in New Hope Planning Commission -1- May 5, 1992 what each tenant could afford. He confirmed the tables would not be larger than 30" in diameter. Commissioner Cassen expressed concern regarding the furniture, noting that because of the closeness of tenants consistency of same style and type of furniture between all tenants would be more appealing than to have several different styles. She also suggested that the use of some kind of permanent planters with greenery or flowers around the outdoor dining facilities would enhance the attractiveness of the center. Mr. Jackson responded that if planters are required they would prefer to use movable planters, but experience has been that they are a real catch-all area for debris and papers and end up being more of an eyesore than an aesthetic improvement, and for that reason they plan to place plantings only in the northeast corner. Commissioner Cassen noted that Design & Review had asked for six new trash containers and the plans do not clearly indicate that, but Mr. Jackson confirmed there will be one for each cluster of tables as recommended, in addition to the four original ones at the four current eateries, with new ones added if new eateries locate there. Commissioner Cassen questioned staff if the original approval for the center required permanent trash containers of concrete or stone. Mr. McDonald agreed to research the issue and follow up on it. Commissioner Cassen asked the petitioner if there were plans to add more landscaping or limit it to the ponding area, and she emphasized a concern to see some type of greenery or little pines around the dining areas as a permanent addition. Mr. Jackson replied they have not committed to any more until they see what congestion there is around the outdoor dining area in the summer, but in the winter when the tables are gone they would like to have something there and that is why they considered the movable planters. Commissioner Cassen questioned who was responsible for cleanup of the debris, tenant or owner, and how extensive the cleanup witl be. Mr. Jackson answered that the tenants who are sharing the outdoor eating areas will use their own personnel and be responsible for daily cleaning and are to provide a plan and schedule for maintaining their areas. He added that they. have their own crew that cleans the overall area and sweep the lots and clean the ponding area three times a week, but the tenants are to take care of their own daily cleaning. Commissioner Cassen confirmed with the petitioner that the bollards will be removable and the holes capped during the winter months. Commissioner Cassen once again expressed the desire that all the outdoor furniture be consistent and petitioner acknowledged it probably would not be a problem. Chairman Cameron confirmed with staff that the request is specifically for 6 outdoor dining areas and that the intent of the ordinance is that, in the possibility that one eatery goes out of business, the outdoor dining remains with specific tenant space and cannot be moved to another area in the center. Mr. McDonald stated that another restaurant could utilize the same space if one moved out, and he added that the center was encouraged to show two proposed sites in addition to the four existing so that they would not have to amend the plan in the future. Commissioner Gundershaug requested the petitioner to address the recommendations in the staff report regarding correction of several maintenance/construction problems and questioned staff as to whether or not there was a time limit for these issues to be resolved. New Hope Planning Commission -2- May 5, 1992 Mr. Jackson stated that prior to the previous day he was unaware that the conditions eXiSted and he emphasized that they are not related to the outdoor seating issue. He added that they object to conditions 4 and 5 as requirements for approval because they are working towards resolution of the issues, have kept City staff aware of the current situation, and would like to address them separately. He affirmed that the City has a $25,000 letter of credit from the ownership for these issues so these conditions should not be attached to the request under consideration. Mr. McDonald interjected that it is not the staff's intent to hold up the outdoor dining for the noted conditions, but they would like some schedule developed so that' the outstanding issues can be resolved. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this has been consistent procedure on other pieces of property in the City so that the City can be satisfied that issues are being addressed. Mr. Jackson explained that some of the issues are ongoing routine maintenance issues in the process of being resolved, the moving of the power pole has been completed, and the curb cut will be done in connection with the retaining wall. He added that they have obtained an outside engineering firm to provide a recommendation for resolution of the retaining wall problem. Mr. McDonald acknowledged that they are aware of the what is happening on the power pole, driveway, and retaining wall and understands that it will taken care of this spring, but the fee issues continue to need discussion. MOTION Chairman Cameron called on Mr. Kauffman to addressed the Commission on the issues. Mr. Kauffman stated that Mr. Jackson has been working with the Building Official on non-conforming signs and they are being replaced. He referred to parking in loading-fires lanes, damaged handicapped parking signs, debris in rear of property, stating that they have sent notices and informed tenants about regulations, but they cannot control these types of violations on a daily basis unless they have someone on the site during operating hours. He added that he was unaware that these items would become an issue in this request. He. confirmed the moving of the power pole and noted they are currently involved in plans for retaining wall, driveway and curb cut. He noted that they have been working with staff on the fee issue, but a complication in understanding of what information was needed has held up completion. Commissioner Watschke made a reference, though unrelated to the discussion, to some poor sidewalk areas in the center and wondered if they are going to be replaced during the current concrete work. Mr. Kauffman replied that they are aware of the problem and are negotiating with the installers for remedial action. Chairman Cameron expressed the opinion that the case should move on to the Council with the conditions of approval set forth to keep the matter consistent with past procedures and if the petitioner can provide a guarantee to take care of the outstanding issues before the Council meeting and can come to agreement with the City on the payment of outstanding legal expenses. Motion, by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 92-09 subject to the following conditions: 1. Outdoor dining furniture to be same size and style. 2. Outdoor dining cleaning/maintenance agreement/schedule to be approve by City Sanitarian. 3. Outdoor dining area in rear of Bruegger's Bagels to be deleted from site plan. 4. Landscaping from circular planter be moved to planters around outdoor dining areas and excess to be planted around pond. New Hope Planning Commission -3- May 5, 1992 PC 92-10(3.3) REQUEST FOR CONDZTZONAL USE PER~IT, VARI- ANCE, SITE/ BUI~ING P~ ~VIEW/~PROV~ 5. A schedule be developed to satisfactorily resolve the following issues between petitioner and City: A. B. Non-conforming signage Reconstruction of southeast Winnetka Avenue curb cut and removal of power pole to allow safe truck entry driveway for acCess from Winnetka Avenue, per original approved plans. C. Resolution of retaining wall issue (petitioner to provide evidence of intentions to correct problems B & C by May 11, 1992 Council meeting). 6. Payment of outstanding invoices for planning/legal/engineering expenses associated with Winnetka Commons planning cases, per City Manager. 7. Annual review. Voting in favor: Lifson, Underdahl, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich Motion carried. The Chairman called for Planning Case 92-10 and Mr. McDonald explained the proposal for construction of a 72' x 115' building addition at the southeast interior of the existing building, calling attention to previous expansions that have been approved for this site and noted that this would be the maximum building that can be permitted for the site. He added that the petitioner is considering the purchase of additional property to the north, FOR EXPANSION but it has not been finalized. He called attention to the main AT 3216 WTKA AV issue of either a green area or parking variance and explained that the petitioner can provide the required number of parking stalls but will be short on green space by 1.7%, and if they meet the green area requirements they will be short on parking. He noted that revised plans were submitted as a result of the Design & Review meeting and that a complaint has been received regarding ~-~ sawdust on the ground. Mr. Mark Murlowski, from Belair Construction, introduced himself and Mr. Bob Jones, one of the owners of Jones Fixtures, and· Hal Pierce, architect. He explained that they are currently in a testing phase of the project, taking soil borings of the proposed area to make sure there is adequate soils for the expansion, but they do not anticipate a problem. He confirmed that the building addition woUld match existing with concrete block and steel bar joist construction, roof and sidewall elevations will match existing, and the site improvements involve removing bituminous paving to make room for the construction. He stated that no green areas will be eliminated and explained the angling of the dock area. He added that the dust collector problem was a technical problem and has been corrected. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the petitioner regarding the land being considered for purchase and how the land will be used when the purchase is completed. Mr. Murlowski reported that they are in the process of having soil tests made on the land and, depending on the results of the tests, they plan on the purchase of the property to be developed for parking area and possible expansion. He explained they are considering utilizing some of the area for parking and some for future building expansion to the east, possibly office addition. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the number of current employees, how many shifts they have, and if more would be added when the addition is made. Mr. Jones answered the question, stating that there are about 50 employees in the plant and 5 in the office and they had no immediate plans for additional employees, and currently run only one shift a day. New Hope Planning Commission -4- May 5, 1992 Commissioner Gundershaug questioned ~what the future potential of the building might be if the building were no longer used by Jones Fixture. Mr. Murlowski stated that the way the facility is set up there would probably be no other use than manufacturing and store warehousing, so he does not see an increase in parking require- ments. He added that the office facilities are very small in ratio to the square footage of the building, as is typical of most manufacturing facilities. Commissioner Gundershaug called attention to the landscaping requirements, drainage, rooftop equipment, outside refuse, lighting, signage, semi-maneuvering, and was assured by the petitioner that compliance with all is not a problem. He went on to say that he has a problem with the variances for green areas and parking, but would prefer to approve a variance for parking in this case, particularly since the purchase of the additional land will help take care of parking compliance. Chairman Cameron confirmed with staff that the present parking lot at this site is under-utilized. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered how soon a future addition would be planned, but a firm commitment from the petitioner was not forthcoming, although it was indicated that at the time of their last request two years previous they did not expect to be back this soon with a need for expansion. MOTION Motion, by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, for approval of Planning Case 92-10, allowing a 33 stall variance to the parking requirement, subject to the following conditions: 1. Immediately repair/redesign plans for sawdust collection system including hauling. Said plans to be on paper and approved by Building Official 14 days prior to a building permit application for the addition. 2. Additional landscape improvements recommended for the building front yard including 2-1/2" maple tree (3) and 20+ shrubs (as per Commission). Submit revised plan prior to Council review. 3. City Engineer to review site drainage changes and forward to Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, if necessary. 4. Owner to agree to Development Contract and bond for all parking lot- work and grading/landscaping (amount to be determined by City Engineer). Voting in favor: Lifson, Underdahl, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich Motion carried. PC 92-12(3.4) Chairman Cameron called for the next case. REQUEST FOR Mr. McDonald introduced Shari French, Director of Parks & Recrea- CONDITIONAL USE tion, who is supervising the project for the City, and Mark Hanson PERMITS, AND , SITE/BUILDING City Engineer who is representing Bonestroo & Associates as the PLAN REVIEW/ architect of the project. He outlined the proposal for a new 1-1/2 APPROVAL TO story front addition on the south side, a second story addition above the existing police garages on the north side, and a small ALLOW FRONT entry/vestibule addition next to the Police Department He AND READ BUILD- · ING ADDITIONS explained that the front addition is being constructed so that an elevator can be incorporated into the front entry in compliance AT CITY HALL with the 1991 American Disabilities Act He pointed out the AND DEFERMENT ' OF REQUIRED relocation of the automatic doors to grade level, the new metal PARKING AT 4401 blue roof that will tie the entire city complex together, the XYLON AV N matching of materials to present structure and replacement of address lettering on the building with lighter more readable letters and numerals, the removal of the existing ramp because it is not in compliance with new regulations, the extension of a watermain into the building, a new storm sewer on the west, new landscaping benches and concrete for the entry area, new entrance New Hope Planning Commission -5- May 5, 1992 lighting, color-clad rooftop equipment, new cedar fence trash and recycling enclosure in back, and the rear addition where offices, storage, and conference room area would be built, explaining that when the garages were constructed in 1973 they were specifically designed to accommodate an upper level expansion. He also pointed out that the police firing range was moved to the new fire station and the old firing range in the garage area will be decontaminated from lead, renovated, and will be used for extra police vehicle spaces and recreation storage and he indicated the area north of the police garages as the deferred parking area. Mr. McDonald further stated that the preliminary plan for the addition was originally developedln 1991 with a plan for a revised ramp, but was later revised to include the elevator to address the ADA concerns, and he added that the Citizen Advisory Commission held a public information meeting on the additions last October. He emphasized that the City Council has authorized the project to proceed up to the bidding process with it being bid in phases, including alternate plans such as fountains, etc. on the front, and representatives have met with Design & Review resulting in submittal of revised plans, and the Planning Consultant and City Forester have also reviewed the plans and made suggestions regard- ing types of flowers and plantings shown. He also indicated there will be some other internal changes, besides the elevator, for full accessibility (bathrooms). He noted that signage is shown on the plan, but the Planner's report indicated a problem with it so it is being deleted from the plan and a new proposal will be presented at another time. Commissioner Watschke questioned the result of the decision on the fountains and was informed they are being bid as an alternate. He also asked for an explanation of the lighting, the extension of the watermain, rooftop mechanical equipment, and trash enclosure, and Mark Hanson and Shari French indicated what was being provided. He additionally questioned the enclosure around the air handling equipment and the shed on the west side-and was informed the fence would cover everything. He expressed concern over a transformer that is sitting in front of a wall vent and below window and indicated that NSP may have some regulations on distance from wall openings and windows and suggested it be looked into in case it presents a hazard. Commissioner Watschke further questioned Mr. McDonald regarding the cleanup of the firing range and if it was a hazardous waste type of disposal and was informed that a bid has been presented for cleanup and it will be taken care of this spring with everything being completely washed down and scrubbed and retested for compliance with regulations. Commissioner asked for an explanation on the plantings and Shari French explained that the Forester has recommended replacement of azaleas with rhododendrons because of the shading and sunlight. Chairman Cameron asked for a cost estimate and questioned where the project monies will be coming from and how they will be allocated. Mr. McDonald answered that the estimated project cost is about $700,000, with money for the front addition coming from Community Development Block Grant Funds which are federal funds the City receives annually for specific ongoing programs such as Minneapolis Day Care Association, a housing and rehabilitation program for low and moderate income people, a 5-city senior transportation project, scattered site housing improvements or handicapped accessibility, etc. He noted that these programs will continue to be funded. Mr. McDonald went on to explain that there is money set aside at the present time to cover the contaminated soils cleanup on 42nd Avenue, but it is expected that the Petro Fund will pay for 90% of that cleanup process so only 10% of the available money will be needed and the rest can be reprogrammed for other uses. He further explained that the rear addition will be financed with existing bond monies and will not be levied to the taxpayers. New Hope Planning Commission -6- May 5, 1992 MOTION COMMITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMEN~ Commissioner Gundershaug requested a recap on the phases of the development and Mr. McDonald explained the front entry is being bid out as Phase I and the ~hell of the second story addition as Phase II, which is all that will be completed this year; then next year the interior walls, sprinklers, and reorganization of space will be Phase-III. Chairman Cameron expressed a concern over the police lobby and was assured it would be taken under advisement. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the sculpture in the center of the sidewalk entry area is going to be moved to another area away from the current location. Motion by Commissioner Watschke, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approval Planning Case 92-12 subject to the following conditions: 1. Under a deferred parking arrangement, 14 additional off-street parking stalls are constructed if the need arises. 2. Substitute rhododendron for azaleas along north retaining wall, per Planning Consultant/City Forester recommendation. 3. Proposed signage to be tabled, pending staff research, and brought back at a later date for consideration. 4. Trash enclosure to be constructed of materials compatible with principal structure. 5. Watermain brought to building to accommodate automatic fire sprinkler installation with 2nd story office addition. 6. Replace existing equipment enclosure on west side of building with new cedar fence to match trash/recycling enclosure and extend to enclose generator shed. 7. Complete lead cleanup of former firing range prior to police garage renovation. Voting in favor: Lifson, Underdahl, Cameron, Oundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Sonsin, Friedrich Motion carried. Design & Review met on the current cases. Codes & Standards has not met recently, but will do so shortly. K-Mart site revisions and Norwest exit sign were discussed, with a follow up to be pursued by Mr. McDonald. Commissioner Cassen questioned an item from the Council Agenda regarding Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program. Mr. McDonald explained the City had made application through the 5-City Housing Group for housing rehab funds to rehab designated areas and New Hope was awarded funds for one neighborhood and letters will be sent out to residents in the neighborhood to see if there are volunteers who are interested in participating in the program. Commissioner Underdahl wondered if the City has investigated the HOME and HOPE Programs and Mr. McDonald explained they were handled by Hennepin County and he has received requests for proposals and the 5-City Housing Group is working on it. Commissioner Cassen called attention to several places in the city that she would like to have investigated and Mr. McDonald agreed to notify the Housing Inspector to check them out. Planning Commission minutes approved as published. Nothing further on other minutes. None. Meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Res~ctfully submitted, LuCille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -7- May 5, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH KENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 2, 1992 C~?~. TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CALL Present: Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Absent= Lifson, Friedrich Also present= Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 92-07 (3 . 1) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO EXPAND NON- CONFORMING BUILDING AND VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SET- BACK TO AT.T4)W EXPANSION, 3901 BOONE N Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-07, calling for a motion to table the case for one month,, per staff recommendation. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Cassen, to table Pl&nning Case 92-07..for one month. Voting in f&vorl Underdahl, Zak, Cassen, Watschke Voting against~ None Absent~ Lifson, Friedrich Motion carried. Sonsi~, Cs3iero~, Gundershaug, PC 92-13(3.2) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-13 and Kirk McDonald, REQUEST FOR Management Assistant, presented the request for an 18,700 square SITE/BUILDING foot warehouse addition to the northwest corner of the West Pac PLAN REVIEW TO Company which will bring the size of the building to 73,500 square ~T~W WARE- feet, noting that it is a request for site/building plan review HOUSE ADDITION only with all setback requirements met so no variances or condi- AT 9000 SCIENCE tional use permits are requested. He pointed out that special CENTER DRIVE requirements for I-1 Zoning Districts, such as lot area, lot coverage, green area, and parking, are also met, and he called attention to the height of the addition being. 15 feet taller than the existing building in order to provide interior high storage racks. He added that the only non-conforming detail on the property is the lack of curbing by the railroad tracks, but the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage and does not feel there are any erosion problems so no changes on that condition are needed. Design & Review met with the petitioner and revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting with all issues discussed and conditions requested included on the new plan. Mr. Jerry Finch, Vice President of Operations at West Pac, introduced himself and asked for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if additional employees would be added, how many, and if parking will be adequate for them. Mr. Finch stated they may add about 10 employees and confirmed parking would not be a problem. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with the petitioner that no new signs will be added, additional landscaping to be added in the front, and screening of trash compactor with an 8' treated wood fence. He added that issues from Design & Review are corrected/ included and petitioner has presented a very clean, efficient plan. Commissioner Sonsin also commended the petitioner for an excellent plan. New Hope Planning Commission -1- June 2, 1992 MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case No. 92-13. Voting in favorl Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against= None Absent= Lifson, Friedrich Motion carried. Chairman Cameron added that the petitioner had dgne a nice job. PC 92-14 (3.3) REQ~FEST FOR VARIANCE TO A?.?4)W AIR CONDITIONER IN SIDE YARD AT 8401 HOPE- WOOD LANE Planning Case No. 92-14 was introduced by the Chairman and Mr. McDonald explained that it was an after-the-fact application since the air conditioner was installed earlier in the spring in the east side yard of the residence. He noted that the permit was applied for on April 20th and that it clearly states on the application that all air conditioning condensers must be placed in the rear yard. The contractor called for routine inspection on May 5th and the Building Official discovered the problem and informed the petitioner it had to be moved or a variance applied for. Mr. McDonald noted that the petitioner stated that the new unit is a replacement unit and he was unaware of the ordinance prohibiting air conditioners in the side yard and basically left the instal- lation up to the contractor. He pointed out that the air con- ditioner is located within an existing 5' privacy fence on the east side of the home that extends from the midpoint of the house into the rear yard and around the patio, and the west side of the neighboring structure is a~garage, with the nearest window of that residence approximately 50 feet away. The home-owner there, who would be affected by the variance, has no objection to the current placement of the unit and submitted a written statement to that effect. Mr. John Leigh, the petitioner, addressed the Commission and called attention to the fact that if the unit were moved to the rear it would be located on the patio area and would conflict with their use of the patio for outdoor entertaining. He pointed out that the contractor applied for the permit by mail, made the installation on April 21st, and received the permit by return mail on April 23rd. He added that they had received 3 different bids for the job and none of them were aware of the requirement for rear yard instal- lation. He read :a quote from the contractor stating that over a year ago they had sent a letter out to each municipality where they do business requesting copies of ordinances pertaining to air conditioner condenser locations, but had never received a reply from New Hope. Mr Leigh added that the contractor also claims he had a permit for another location in New Hope and the notation was not on the permit. Chairman Cameron questioned staff if that was possible and Mr. McDonald stated that all mechanical permits are a standardized form and have the notation printed right on the form, although general building permits may not have it. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed with the petitioner that the old air conditioner was probably at least 20 years old and had been in place before he moved in to the home 5 years ago. He also confirmed that the privacy fence was in place when the petitioner moved in. Commissioner Sonsin questioned how long the air conditioner ordinance has been in effect and there was not a specific answer. He continued by stating his support for the variance since it was not a new installation but a replacement and that a privacy fence was in place for screening. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the fence was not in need of immediate repair and emphasized that if it ever becomes necessary to remove it that it be replaced with fence or screening so that there is always adequate screening around the unit. New Hope Planning Commission -2- May 5, 1992 MOTION Motion by Commiss£onerS~sin, second by Commissioner Underdahl, to approve Planning Case~92i4iis~ject to the following condition: That the existing privacy fence or comparable screening remain in place as long as there is an air conditioner in the side yard. Voting in favor: Underdahl, Zak, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent~ Lifson, Friedrich Motion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, PC 02-15 (3.4) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~?~W EXTERIOR STORAGE/PARKING OF BUS ON PREMISES AT 4800 BOONE AVENIJE NORTH New Hope Planning Co--~ission Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-15. Mr. McDonald explained that in response to complaints from property owners, the City has issued several citations to House of Hope Lutheran Church for the outdoor storage of a bus on the church property, therefore the request for an amendment to their condi- tional use permit because the original CUP did not include outdoor storage. He outlined three options that the church would like the Commission and Council to consider: first, allowing parking at any location on the lot; second, a specifically designated location; or third, a possible future arrangement with Homeward Bound to expand parking needs for both the church and Homeward Bound. He emphasized that the primary concern of staff is the screening issue. Mr. Bob Pray, Vice President of the House of Hope congregation, spoke about the frustration of the congregation because so many people worked so hard and put in a lot of effort and money to obtain the bus for use in their outreach ministry to transport members, youth, and especially senior citizens from Chardon Court, North Ridge and St. Theresa to worship services and other activities, and they feel the parking of the bus is only a very minor distraction to the appearance of the property. He stated that they were taken by surprise when they learned they had to have a conditional use permit to park the bus on the property. He acknowledged that they are currently improvising with other means of transportation and not using the bus until the matter is resolved. He pointed out where they proposed to park the bus, at the southeast corner of the parking lot farthest from all residences, but they also include a modification to allow the bus to be parked anywhere because different drivers at different times pull it over to various places for loading and cleanup, and they want to avoid citations for that. He provided pictures taken from a number of locations all around the church sh6wing the view of the bus, emphasizing that they had spent a great deal of money to make it a nice looking vehicle. Mr. Pray pointed out an area at the rear of the church that could be used for a garage area, but in order to get to it they would have to go to considerable expense to remove the bermed area on the south side. He called attention to the parking problem at Homeward Bound to the south of the church, stating that they have talked with Homeward Bound about an exchange of land for an easement to the area where a garage could be located, giving the church access to the back without the expense of removing the entire bermed area and giving Homeward Bound more parking space. He does not feel that such an exchange is imminent, however, Homeward Bound is aware that they will have to alleviate their parking problem in the near future. He added that there is also a possibility that several years in the future the church might opt to change to a van rather than the bus. Mr. Pray continued stating they have a problem with building an 8' fence in the front for screening purposes as suggested by staff because they do not want to hide their beautiful building which they are very proud of. He pointed out that fencing in the back would not be a problem if they can work out a solution with Homeward Bound. Chairman Cameron confirmed with the petitioner that the bus is currently used on Sundays only, and stored 6 days a week, but it would be put in service for Wednesday morning Bible Study if they could find a retired person to drive it on that day. -3- June 2, 1992 Chairman Cameron asked if they had considered off-site storage. Mr. Pray explained that they had looked into that option, but one site would cost $400 and it is 8 miles away in Maple Grove. A site they have found in New Hope which has fenced outdoor storage would also require a conditional use permit for the bus and would cost $600 per year. He commented that members of the congregation are having difficulty understanding the issue since many of them see neighbors with boats, campers, etc. parked on driveways. Chairman Cameronquestioned staff regarding several buses parked at Crystal Free Church and if complaints have been received about it. Mr. McDonald replied that the church there overlooks a highway and county road and is not surrounded by single-family residences. Chairman Cameron asked if they had considered parking the bus at the north edge of the parking lot at House of Hope. Mr. Pray advised that they have considered that area, and have put in a number of pine trees along there for screening, but they are still only 4' high. He pointed out that the north lot is lower than the rest of the lot and the bus would be much more visible to the houses on the east because they are located uphill from the area, even though they relocated some big pines along there. He emphasized that the current location gives them the maximum screening. Chairman Cameron noted that it can be seen from Boone Avenue. Commissioner Gundershaug ~sked if there are problems getting the bus started on Sundays in the winter time when it sits there all week and where the bus is currently being stored. Mr. Pray answered that they keep it in good condition. He added that they are not using the bus now and are paying rent for an off- site storage yard in Crystal. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered if they could add more shrubbery and screening around the area where they park the bus on the church ~-~ lot to make it less visible, or move the bus parking spot further back. Mr. Pray replied that they would have to abandon part of the parking lot and create landscaping in the middle of the parking lot and changes in the driving pattern. He added that they have considered a different spot 100' back, but it would create a big expense to move the berm, and they prefer to wait to see what Home- ward Bound intends to do. He indicated that he has had discussions with Homeward Bound and they are aware of the significant need to redo their parking area but do not currently have sufficient funds until they conduct a money-raising drive. Commissioner Underdahl commented that they drive by the area a number of times each week and notice the bus, but have discussed how the bus does blend in with the scenery. She added that she has walked around the area to see if the bus could be parked by the trash compactor, but trees would have to be moved and also the bus would be visible to more houses on the east. Commissioner Gundershaug asked where the bus was parked when the complaints were received. Mr. Pray advised that it was not in the location being discussed and he introduced Dan Hedman who addressed the Commission and stated that during the winter months it was parked in different spots to prevent snow and ice build-up around it so it would not create a traffic hazard. He added that he went up a couple times a week to make sure the bus started and would move it around. Chairman Cameron questioned if maintenance was done on the site and who normally maintains the bus if there is a problem. ~-~ Mr. Hedman replied that he changes the oil on site, but has never left a mess and always cleans up when he has finished. He indicated that he does maintenance on site when needed. New Hope Planning Colission -&- June 2, 1992 Mr. Pray pointed out that the proposed location for the bus is in a striped fire lane and the area will be restriped and the fire lane moved. ~ ~: ~¥~ ~ ~,'~ ~ ~ Commissioner Gundershaug questioned staff if permission could be granted for 6 months and given a review at that time and staff indicated it was a possibility since annual reviews are granted. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to speak on the case. Mr. Lance Barker, 8593 48th Avenue North, introduced himself and stated that he resides on the north side of the ~arking lot and is himself a Presbyterian minister and understands the issues, but his main concern is that the bus be stored in as inconspicuous place as possible. He explained that when he and his wife were looking for a home several years previously they were impressed with the uncluttered look that New Hope maintained. Commissioner Sonsin interjected the comment that there did not seem to be a feasible solution at this point, although he supports Commissioner Gundershaug's suggestion for a trial permit, but with an extension of time to allow for getting through the winter months of this year and also for time to work out a solution with Homeward Bound. He also proposed a condition that no bus maintenance be performed on the site. Chairman Cameron called attention again to the location behind the church and Mr. Prey explained that it would involve a major expense and the church council will not explore it. Commissioner Underdahl wondered if Homeward Bound would consider giving the church access'now and Mr. Pray again stated that it would involve great expense and further application to the City. Mr. Pray indicated that the congregation is having a difficult time understanding why the bus is of such concern when so many residents have boats and campers parked in their yards which are much more closer in view than the bus up in the church parking lot. Chairman Cameron explained that there are a lot of churches located in residential areas and the ordinances are meant to give residents reasonable protection from possible violations, and the City is not singling out House of Hope Church. Commissioner Zak pointed out that a house is a permitted use in an R-1 Zoning District and churches are not and therefore any church will have to abide by the code restrictions even if it does not make sense to them. She complimented the petitioner on the effort to beautify the bus, but would like to see them work out some different screening if they are given additional time to find a solution. She questioned why the area behind the church could not be utilized and asked for further confirmation on future plans if something can be worked out with Homeward Bound. Mr. Pray pointed out how a screened parking area or a garage could be developed behind the church if they acquire access through Homeward Bound, but it would be a major project to remove the sidewalk and excavate into the 8' berm to get to the back, and also in the winter time there would be a snow removal problem. Commissioner Watschke suggested the possibility of off-site storage space available at the school district bus garage. Chairman Cameron stated there is no room in the school district garage, but confirmed with staff that parking could be allowed in one of the nearby industrial areas or an area where outside storage of buses is included in their CUP, even Crystal Free Church. Mr. Pray reaffirmed that they have looked for and investigated several places and have found a location in New Hope for $600 a year, but it is possible that the owner may be required to apply for a conditional use permit. Chairman Cameron suggested the granting of the conditional use for a one year period thereby keeping the church alert to finding a resolution to the problem before it expires. New Hope Planning Commission -5- Ju~e 2, 1992 Me. ION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 92-15, Option $2, subject to the following conditions~ 1. The approval is only for a one(l) year period, during which time the church is to pursue other options to resolve the outside storage issue, and the church must come hack to the City in one (1) year with other options/solutions. 2. Absolutely no on-site bus maintenance. 3. Bus to bo parked in designated bus parking location in southeast corner of perking lot, per submitted plan. 4. Perking lot to be restriped in southeast corner to designate bus parking zone and relocated fire lane. Sonsin, Cameron, Gundorshaug, Voting in favor: Underdahl, Zak, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Lifson, Friedrich Motion carried. 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 D, & R, Design and Review met on the West Pac request and were impressed with their cooperation. 4.2 C. & S. Codes & Standards has not met but have a number of things pending for review. Chairman Cameron suggested'that Codes & Standard reexamine the air conditioner placement ordinance and compare it with other cities regarding requirements on air conditioners to see if more flexi- bility can be allowed on the issue, since rear yard decks and patios have become a popular lifestyle. 5. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the Montessori School site and was informed by staff that they have not returned the Development Agreement to the City, but there has been interest in the building for a medical clinic. Commissioner Sonsin also called attention to signs on the new Block Buster Video canopy and wondered if they have a permit for it. Staff agreed to check into it. Chairman Cameron expressed appreciation for the new signs at the Northwest Bank site. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested further review of industrial parking requirements and requested staff to research when it was last reviewed. Commissioner Sonsin wondered if there was any action from K-Mart and staff indicated they are still trying to get in touch with them. 6. NEW May 5, 1992, Planning Commission minutes unanimously approved. No BUSINESS comments on other minutes. 7. ANNOUNCE- No Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July, but if something MENTS critical comes up Commission will be notified. 8. ADJOURNMENT Meeting unanimously adjourned at 8:10 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -6- June 2, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1992 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL C~T~. Present: Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Cassen, Friedrich, Watschke Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 92-16(3.1) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~T~.OW AN EDUCATIONAL USE IN ZONING DISTRICT AT 4219 OREGON AVENUE NORTH Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-16 and stated that since it involves his employer, School District #281, he would withdraw from the discussion and Mr. Gundershaug would be Acting Chairman. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, outlined the request for a conditional use permit to allow an educational use in an R-4 Zoning District at Park Ridge Way Apartments. Parent-Child Center of School District #281 desires to conduct an early child- hood family education program in a 2-bedroom apartment unit located at 4301 Nevada Avenue North, #305, with a children's classroom, a parent education classroom, and an adult basic education classroom. He explained that this program was previously approved for another apartment complex location in 1986, was then later moved to Thorson School, and now they desire to establish the program at Park Ridge Way. He explained that it is a free service to families with young children for the purpose of learning and development, and indicated there has been no problem with the apartment building location in the past. Delores Fletcher, Coordinator of the Parent-Child Center, introduced herself and gave an overview of the program. She stated that over the years it has been learned that it is much more successful to bring classes to the people, since many of them do not have transportation to get to the main location at Cavanagh School in Crystal. Commissioner Sonsin wanted to know i~ there was adequate parking provided at the facility for people using the service. Ms. Fletcher answered that parking would be used mainly by staff, 3 or 4 cars possibly, as the objective is to bring the services to, and meet the need of, residents in the complex who do not have cars so they can take advantage of the program. She emphasized that if people have cars and can drive, it is preferred they drive to the Parent-Child Center at Cavanagh School and use the services there rather than at the satellite location, although they would not turn anyone away. Commissioner Zak voiced concerns regarding the railroad tracks in back and the playground area and addition of new equipment. Ms. Fletcher noted that the playground area is located at the front of the complex and children are supervised by 2 adults at all times. She explained that the children are only there about one and a half to two hours a day and most of the activity is carried on inside the building, with 15 minutes, at the most, of outdoor activity during that time. She explained that they do not plan to invest any money in new equipment since there is such a short play period, no structural changes inside the building are planned. commissioner Underdahl wondered if the program was still operating at Thorson School and Ms. Fletcher confirmed it is an ongoing program there. Acting Chairman Gundershaug addressed the restriping of the parking lot. Jan Jacobs, Manager at Park Ridge Way, stated that they normally do the restriping every two years and it will be done again in the spring of 1993. New Hope Planning Commission -1- August 4, 1992 MOTION PC 92-21(3.2) REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK VARI- ANCE TO ~T~.OW GARAGE ADDITION AT 2800 BOONE AVENUE NORTH New Hope Planning Commission Commissioner Gundershaugquestioned how long the program planned to remain at Park Ridge Way. Ms. Fletcher answered that they have a lease for one year and if enough people attend to merit spending the time and money the lease will be renewed annually. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 92-16 subject to parking lot restriping in white as stated in discussion, and that the Building Official be contacted by the petitioner before installation of any signage (if one is desired) to insure it complies with code requirements. Voting in favor: Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Gundershaug Voting against: None Abstaining: Cameron Absent: Cassen, Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. Ms. Fletcher extended an invitation to the Commission to visit the site and observe the program after they are in operation. Chairman Cameron resumed his post as Chairman and introduced Planning Case 92-21. Kirk McDonald described the request for a 20' variance to the front yard setback to allow construction of a 21' x 22' attached garage at the front of the home, so that the existing garage can be converted to a family room area. He stressed the code requirement for 50' front setbacks along collector streets, which includes Boone Avenue. He called attention to the elevation drawings in the packet to show how the addition will look and match the existing building and added that no change in the existing driveway/curb cut is proposed. He noted that the home cannot be expanded in any direction without some type of variance and pointed out that there is a similar addition on a house nearby. Mr. Harry Wong, homeowner, appeared before the Commission to answer questions. Commissioner Lifson questioned what use would be made of the old garage space after the addition, if exterior would match the existing building, and if the house w6uld remain strictly a single family unit after the proposed addition. Mr. Wong stated that it would be made into a family room and storage area for miscellaneous items. He confirmed that the new would blend in with the old and that there were no plans for anything other than single family use. Chairman Cameron asked the petitioner to confirm what he meant by living space and storage for the old garage space, if it would be heated and become part of the house. Mr. Wong replied that it will be part of the house, lighted and heated, with one big family room and possibly a section of it converted to a storage area. Commissioner Sonsin wondered if any other alternatives for an addition had been considered, either behind or into the north side yard. Mr. Wong answered that the first option they looked at was to put it in back of the house but in discussion with staff discovered that two variances were needed for that location, thus limiting the idea. He pointed out that there doesn't seem to be enough space on the side and would create a very short driveway. He affirmed that the present plan would be less costly and most practical. Chairman Cameron questioned staff regarding the rationale for the 50' setbacks on Boone Avenue and wondered if the City should consider the merits of a change to the ordinance rather than require homeowners to petition for front setback variances. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed with staff that there have been similar requests for this type of variance on major thoroughfares. -2- August 4, 1992 MOTION Mr. McDonald acknowledged that if there was another logical way to do the expansion and meet setback requirements, staff would not be recommending approval. Mr. Don Brennan, 2808 Boone Avenue North, neighbor to the north of Mr. Wong's property, introduced himself and expressed his concerns regarding negative effect of property values if such an addition is allowed and if the neighbor on the other side of him would also ask for such a setback, rendering his house clearly not as visible. He stated that the'least effect to his property would be an addition on the other side of the house, but in discussions with the homeowner it appears that the possibility of being turned down for the two variances needed there has caused the petitioner to be reluctant to follow that plan. Chairman Cameron asked for explanation of what the two variances are and wondered what size addition was considered if it was built behind the house, suggesting the possibility of adding on a smaller family room addition instead of a garage. Mr. Wong noted one variance is for the side yard and one is for the rear yard and he is confused in his understanding of the different variances. He stated that the first considered addition in the back yard was to be the same size, but the conclusion was that by using the old tuck-under garage and putting heat in it as a family room they could eliminate a heat loss problem, plus by increasing the living space within the existing structure it would look more uniform than a room added on to another area, and an attached garage addition would not look as different. Chairman Cameron asked the petitioner what his preference was between the two additions and Mr. Wong preferred the plan with the front addition and using the old garage space for living. Chairman Cameron suggested tabling the case for one month so that a closer look can be given to an alternative plan and let the Commission consider the two variances for a back addition rather than the one presented. Mr. Wong expressed concern over the cost of redoing the plans for an alternative, although he agreed to give it some consideration. Commissioner Underdahl wondered if the alternative plan would be for a garage or a. family room. Mr. Wong stated his feeling that converting the old garage to living space would give more uniformity to the looks of the home. He was uncertain as to what could be done for adding a garage somewhere else since it would create the need for a new driveway and the Commission indicated strong objection to two driveways. Chairman Cameron suggested the petitioner work with Mr. McDonald on alternate plans and get his professional opinion. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Underdahl, to table Planning Case No. 92-21 for one month. Voting in favors Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absents Cassen, Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. PC 92-22 (3.3) REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ~T.T,OW AN OFF- PREMISE SIGN ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT CORNER PARK AND TO EXCEED SIGN AREA REQUIREMENTS Planning Case No. 92-22 was introduced by the Chairman who once again withdrew since the petitioner for this case is also School District #281, and he relinquished the Chair to Mr. Gundershaug. Mr. McDonald explained that last spring members of the Pride Committee of Cooper High School had appeared before the City Council with a request to locate a message board sign on City-owned property at Corner Park. He added that the Council was supportive of the request at that time, but when the permit was applied for, staff requested that it go through the routine approval process because it involves an off-premise sign and also exceeds the sign area requirements necessitating variances. New Hope Planning Commission -3- August 4,1992 He continued the presentation, noting that he had asked Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation for the City, to be present to discuss her concerns since the sign is to be located in a City park. He went on with a description of the sign which would be ~-~' primarily a message board to promote school activities and community events and indicate location of the school. He described the setbacks, sign size and restrictions, location, and variances which are required. He pointed out there is a code amendment under consideration that addresses the size of signs allowed for govern- mental and educational entities, but it has not been finalized. He emphasized that this sign request is unique since the school itself is situated off the main thoroughfare and this would give the public some understanding of where the school is located. He out- lined the issues that need to be addressed and incorporated into a lease, including maintenance, graffiti cleanup, message content, frequency of message change, lighting and electrical connections to the site, costs of hookup, insurance liability, and concerns of the Park & Rec Department. Sharon Goodrie, representing the administration of Cooper School, addressed the Commission and introduced Kelly Rorick of the Pride Committee. Ms. Rorick stated that the Pride Committee, which is basically a student committee under staff advisory, will be responsible for the maintenance of the sign, changing of the message on a weekly basis, cleanup around the sign, and cleanup of graffiti if it occurs although that problem is not foreseen. She pointed out that they chose the more expensive type of lighting and the school will assume responsibility for payment. She added that they had gone through the School Board to get permission to build the sign and the School Board agreed to take on the insurance liability. She emphasized that the School Board had raised a concern about the neighbors position regarding the sign, so the Pride Committee sent a memo and picture of the sign to all the neighbors and asked if there were concerns about it, but received no response. She stated ~ that one of the School Board members made an effort to speak to some of the area neighbors and found no objections; this was confirmed by Ms. Goodrie. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered about the maintenance during the summer when school is not in session. Ms. Goodrie stated, that there is office personnel on duty at the school all summer long, and there are students who will take on the responsibility for changing the sign and taking care of summer maintenance. Commissioner Sonsin asked the Director of Parks to address her concerns. Ms. French stated that basically the concern is in regard to trimming, weed pulling and general maintenance of the area around the base where the mowers could not reach. Ms. Goodrie replied that there would be mainly rock and shrubs around the base, but the custodial people from the school will take care of it, and if there is a problem she assured that a call to the office would bring someone to take care of it. Ms. Rorick added that the Pride Committee will be given access to the maintenance equipment during the school year so that they can get the tools to do that work. She also stated that school bus drivers are also responsible for maintenance work and since they pass the site daily they will note when it needs trimming. Ms. Goodrie asked to address the graffiti issue and vouched that they have not had a graffiti problem in many years at the school building itself, but the graffiti on the two block houses is a tradition with students, particularly at graduation and special /-~ events. Commissioner Sonsin emphasized his concern is mainly with summer maintenance and sign changing when students are not in school. New Hope Planning Commission -4- August 4, 1992 MS. Goodrie replied that~ she preferred leaving the sign blank for the summer, but Dr. Breckenridge of the Cooper High School admini- stration maintains that there are many things going on during the summer that can be promoted there, and it will also be made avail- able to the City for promoting Park & Rec activities. She and Ms. Rorick both confirmed that the Cooper administration has said they will take responsibility during the summer. Ms. Goodrie added that they approved the lease idea because it provides all parties a written record to pass on to others who follow in administrative positions. Commissioner Sonsin called attention to the need for specific plans on the landscaping and identification of types of plantings to be used around the base. Ms. Goodrie confirmed that they will have the nursery they have contracted with provide the plans needed. Commissioner Sonsin pointed out the sign code requirement for 20 square foot maximum signage and asked what size lettering will be used and if they could work with the smaller sign area if the variance was denied. Ms. Goodrie emphasized that a smaller size sign would be less effective, especially since there will sometimes be multiple activities occurring which need to be publicized concurrently. She stated they plan to use 4 lines of 4-inch letters, as opposed to 3 lines of 6-inch letters. Commissioner Sonsin raised a concern about the messages going beyond regular school events and activities, and advertising fund raisers as well, such as cookie and candy sales, etc. Ms. Goodrie confirmed that it will strictly promote only school and civic activities. Commissioner Sonsin again confirmed that the maintenance responsi- bilities will be handled by the administration at Cooper High School and Ms. Goodrie responded that it should be so stated in the lease. Commissioner Sonsin questioned what type of messages would used in the summer. Ms. Goodrie stated that Dr. Breckenridge feels many messages will be available: summer school activities, programs, and registra- tion, and by August the announcement of school opening and start of football games, etc. Commissioner Sonsin emphasized that confirmation of insurance liability by the School District is necessary before approval of the request and Ms. Goodrie confirmed that when the Pride Committee asked the School Board for approval of the concept of the sign it was understood they would assume the insurance coverage. Commissioner Underdahl wondered what hours the sign will be lit at night. Ms. Goodrie and Ms. Rorick both stated that from dusk to 10:00 p.m. would be the maximum since by that time most school activities are over and always after 10:00 p.m. the lighting from the intersection will be bright enough, and it is possible that maybe it will not be lit during the longer summer daylight hours. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the light will be on a timer that will be set for 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Zak raised a concern regarding vandalism and wondered if a clause could be written in the lease to prevent a damaged sign not being repaired within a certain amount of time. Commissioner Underdahl wondered about the feelings and concerns of the neighbors and the discussion was then opened up to persons in the audience. New Hope Planning Commission -5- August 4, 1992 Mr. Don Hatcher, 8018 47th Avenue North, addressed the Commission, and stated that he was never contacted by the committee and his first knowledge of the plan for the sign was when he read it in the local newspaper and he personally contacted the neighbors and found only one who was contacted and that party was against the sign. He expressed the opinion that it was their park and they desire to protect it, and he pointed to a petition opposing the sign which he had drawn up and sent to the Mayor and City Council. He stated that is it a small park and the sign will take up too much space. He voiced his opinion that the sign will be a hazard for children because drivers will not see them crossing the street if they are busy reading the sign. He emphasized a number of problems that the neighborhood has been experiencing for years including drainage, trash, grass clippings, scattered nails, kids gathering in the park and hanging around and in the street, graffiti, and trashing of equipment, speeding problems, and lack of cooperation by the school administration. Mr. W. C. Morrison, 8038 47th Avenue North, addressed the Commission and stated his complaints about the lack of respect that the students have for neighborhood property, the noise from the school and buses, trees and street signs being knocked down, and his belief that the students would not respect the sign any more than anything else. He interjected that in some ways things have started to improve but are far from perfect, and he does not believe, even with assurances of responsible students and the administration, that the vandalism and graffiti problems will be controllable which will incur added expense to the school taxpayers and probably the City. He agreed with Mr. Hatcher that the sign will take a large area of the playground. Commissioner Underdahl expressed her frustration over how to resolve these types of problems with students and her understanding of the school's desire to try and create pride among the students for the school. Commissioner Sonsin commented that there seems to be two unequal issues being discussed, but the Commission has to make its decision based on the City sign codes and the facts presented in regards to that, rather than on the bigger continuing issue of the relation- ship between the school, the students, the faculty, the school district, and the_neighborhood. He acknowledged the frustrations of the neighbors and stated he would be supportive of some restrictions in the approval to include possible removal of the sign at the school's expense if problems with maintenance and vandalism continue. He voiced his feelings that is not the whole student body that is creating problems, and it is his hope that, with the help of the school administration, the majority of students will have influence over the others to resolve the situation and create a happier neighborhood and student body. He added that he felt the need for tighter control with a restriction in the approval that states if there is a problem with maintenance or damage, serious consideration and action should be taken to remove the sign. He concluded with an emphasis that the rules have to apply for the whole year, not just during the school session. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned staff if such restrictions can be put in the motion, such as annual review or rescinding of the variance. Mr. McDonald replied that annual review usually pertains to conditional use permits and not variances. He stated that the lease has not been written and any suggestions can be incorporated into it, such as a clause stating that if there is a problem and it is not taken care of within a specific time the City will correct it and bill the district. He added that he felt that under the lease agreement, there would be no maintenance problems if the school district is notified. Commissioner Zak wondered about the possibility of a temporary sign for a restricted time, but Commissioner Sonsin expressed concern that it would only create more problems. New Hope Planning Commission -6- August 4, 1992 MOTION Commissioner $onsi~ ~Ueried ~he petitiOner about possibility of tabling the request for one month. Ms. Goodrie answered that they prefer to move ahead right now and will cooperate with whatever is incorporated into the lease. Commissioner Underdahl, Commissioner Zak, and Commissioner Sonsin all expressed grave concern over the conditions that exist with a minority of students causing problems, but agreed the situation has existed far too long and needs addressing. Acting Chairman Gundershaug expressed the feeling that it will not be resolved through a sign. Commisisoner Zak wondered if the fact that the sign will be on City land is reason for requesting stricter control by the City. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 92-22 subject to the following: 1. Ail issues discussed in the testimony be incorporated into a lease executed between School District, Cooper High School, and the City of New Hope. 2. Monument be redesigned according, to staff recommendation to delete the 12-inch brick ledge near gorund level to reduce the potential for injury. 3. The plan revised to show appropriate levels of landscaping before the case is presented to the Council. 4. The lease with all the conditions be drawn up and signed before any groundbreaking or construction begins. Commissioner Zak asked for clarification that the decision includes a condition for annual review to be tied into the lease and Commissioner Sonsin suggested it be left up to the City Attorney. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the case would be brought back to the Commission and Mr. McDonald replied that it would not, but he will obtain a copy of the lease for the Commission. Voting in favor: Sonsin, Gundershaug, Voting against: Underdahl, Lifson, Zak Abstaining: Cameron Absent: Cassen, Friedrich, Watschke Motion failed. Acting Chairman Gundershaug informed the petitioner that, even though the motion failed, the City Council will discuss the case on Monday, August 10th, and the detailed landsgape plan should be ready at that time. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Design and Review Design and Review has not met, but will be meeting on August 13th to review plans for a North Ridge adult day care building at 5501 Boone Avenue North. 4.2 Codes and Standards 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Misc. Issues Codes & Standards has not met but a number of things are pending for discussion including government sign setbacks, change in the zoning restrictions for the former Country club site, zoning change for the proposed adult day care center, side yard air conditioners, apartment sign setbacks, and the Crystal Comprehensive Plan. New Hope Planning Commission Commissioner Sonsin responded to the staff request for input on Item No. 6 and stated that he was agreeable to the use of weighted bollards for the outdoor dining areas at Winnetka Commons, as long as weighting requirements be specified. Chairman Cameron asked for an update on the City Hall expansion and was informed by staff that the Council has approved it and funds are available and construction will start shortly. -7- August 4, 1992 NEW BUSINESS June 2, 1992, Planning Commission minutes unanimously approved. No questions or comments on other minutes. 7. ANNOUNCE- None. MENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT Meeting unanimously adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -8- August 4, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 IYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNE$OT& PLANNING COMMISSION MIIqUT~ CALL TO ORDER ROLL PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 92-21 (3.1) REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD SET- BACK TO ~.T.T,OW GARAGE ADDITION AT 2800 BOONE AVENUE NORTH SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug Cassen, Friedrich Absent: Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke, Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-21 and Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, explained the request was carried over from the August 4th meeting at the Commission's request for the petitioner to consider an alternate plan. He noted the petitioner met with staff to develop a concept plan and was present, with an alternative for adding a family room on the rear of the home, which requires a rear yard variance, rather than an addition at the front as originally requested. He added that the petitioner desired input from the Commission before he developed detailed plans. Mr. Wong addressed the Commission asking for their preference on a front or rear yard setback variance and the consensus was for the rear yard. Mr. Wong also asked for Commission reaction on the possibility of making the new addition a garage, installing a new driveway there and leaving the old driveway in place rather than remove it. He cited a home he had seen with a curved driveway that had an entrance on both ends of a lot, and wondered about that type of driveway installation as opposed to two driveways not connected. Chairman Cameron responded that driveways are controlled by curb cuts and second curb cuts require a variance, but driveways on two corners are not acceptable and instances where there are such double driveways were probably there before code was established. Mr. Wong asked for guidance on the next step to present his case and questioned if there were restrictions on addition of a two- story structure. Mr. McDonald confirmed that the height limit is 2-1/2 stories. Chairman Cameron informed the petitioner he could call upon staff with any specific questions. MOTION PC 92-24 (3.2) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO PARKING SET- BACK AT 8711 BASS LAKE RD Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 92-21 for an additional month. Voting in favors Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich Voting against: None Absents Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-24. Mr. McDonald explained that the application for this request was because of the upcoming County 1993 Bass Lake road widening and channelization project from International Parkway to Zealand Avenue, which impacts the petitioner's property at the southwest intersection of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. He outlined two plans that were developed for parking, one by the City and one by the petitioner, and pointed out the differences in green areas, parking spaces, angle of parking, and the reduction of a shared curb cut between the owner and the neighboring property allowing entrance only to the petitioner's property with exit onto Boone Avenue. He noted that a hardship has been created by circumstances beyond the control of the property owner. He emphasized that the Commission will have to decide which plan they prefer. New Hope Planning Commission -1- September 1, 1992 MOTION Commissioner Gundershaug and Chairman Cameron both questioned if and why the neighboring property could enter and exit at the existing curb cut but the petitioner could only enter. Mr. McDonald responded that Hennepin County redid the road in 1980 and at that time the agreement was that the corner property would be allowed to use that curb cut as an entry only. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the need for the petitioner to go through the variance procedure when the hardship is being inflicted upon him by circumstances beyond his control. Alan Brixius, City Planner, replied to the question, stating that as part of procedure, the variance is recorded with the title to the property so that a future owner would still be entitled to the variance and future commissions/councils will be aware that it was officially granted and the non-conformity will not be questioned. Mr. Brinker addressed his proposal, stating that since the office area is in the front of the building the parallel parking would decrease the number of spaces so his tenants prefer the angle parking plan. He added that there will be a small decorative stone retaining wall built between the parking lot and the street in the front of the parking area. Commissioner Zak wondered if the angle parking could be turned toward the building rather than the street and create more room, and if in the darker hours of winter the shining lights from cars pulling into spaces toward the street would cause a hazard to traffic on Bass Lake Road. Mr. Brinker responded that they had discussed the possibility of parking next to the building, but it would result in less green area between the driveway and the street and would eliminate the shrubbery now in place in front of the building. He added that the parking lot is below the retaining wall and car lights do not create a problem. Chairman Gundershaug asked the petitioner about the conditions for approval established by the City, specifically the request for added trees as a replacement of previously planted trees and shrubs which are now gone. Mr. Brinker explained that the previous hedge turned out to be a bad hedge that the landscaper refused to replace so they had put rock in place of it, He expressed a problem with Item #4 requiring the property owner to be responsible for vehicle damage resulting from snow removal and rocks. He stated that he discussed this point with the County and they did not think it was enforceable. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve the"Brinker proposal" in Planning Case 92-24 with the conditions~ 1. Plant 4 new boulevard caliper trees (minimum2-1/2" diameter) in a city-approved location along Bass Lake Road, to compensate for the scarcity of landscaping on the site. 2. Restripe the entire lot in white per approved plan. 3. Install "NO EXIT" sign at location "S" on plan to remind users that Bass Lake Road is only an entry point as agreed by Hennepin County in 1980. 4. Install colored 1" landscape rock in the 2-foot space between the County retaining wall (low) and the new parking curb. Voting in favors Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich Voting against~ None Absents Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron advised the petitioner that the next City Council meeting will not be until September 14th and his case will be heard at that time. New Hope Planning Commission -2- September 1, 1992 PC 92-19 (3.3) REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT TO REZONE 5501 AND A PORTION OF 5425 BOONE AVENUE FROM I-1 TO R-5 MOTION PC 92-23 (3.4) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING REVIEW APPR. & CUP TO ALLOW ADULT DAY CARE FACILITY IN AN R-5 ZONE AT 5501/5425 BOONE AVENUE N MOTION PC 92-20 (3.5) REQUEST FOR TEXT AMEND- ING ELIMINATION OF SQUARE FOOT FLOOR LIMITA- TION REQUIRE- MENT ON LIMITED B-4 USES IN B-2 ZONE Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 92-19. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner has submitted a letter requesting tabling of the case. Chairman Cameron asked staff what issues prompted the request for tabling and was informed there were a number of them and it was preferred to resolve them before continuing. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 92-19 for one month. Voting in favors Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich Voting against~ None Absents Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron noted that Planning Case 92-23 is associated with the previous case and the request to table applies to this case as well. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 92-23 for one month. Voting in favors Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich Voting againsts None Absents Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. The next case, Planning Case 92-20, was called for by the Chairman and Mr. McDonald noted that this request for a text amendment to eliminate the square foot floor limitation requirement on limited B-4 uses in the B-2 Zoning District was initiated by the City early in the spring and is no way related to a forthcoming request by Lyndale Garden Center. He explained that over the past six months staff has had many inquiries on the old Country Club Foods site, but there are a very limited number of uses to which the property can be put under the current zoning code, so in an effort to get the vacant building marketed and back to an active use, staff proposes toeliminate the 3,500 square foot floor area limitation. He pointed out that the Planning Consultant prepared a report on the proposed amendment and the City Attorney has reviewed and is in agreement with the proposal and Codes & Standards Committee has considered it and recommends approval. He then turned the discussion over to Alan Brixius, City Planner. Mr. Brixiue reviewed the code intentions of the various districts, and added that the restrictions on type of uses and limitation on building size appear to be efforts to minimize the intensity of use within the district. He noted that upon survey and review it has been noted that it has not always been applied and is really now obsolete. He added that it doesn't seem to serve a purpose at this point and recommends that the restriction be eliminated. He pointed out that a number of B-2 uses are non-conforming to the regulation, and elimination of it would bring them into conformity as far as building size, and offer greater flexibility in future redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing buildings. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what would be permitted uses and Mr. McDonald called attention to the list of permitted uses in B-4 District at the back of the Commission packet and noted several businesses, a used car lot, a spa sales and showroom, a boat and marine sales, had expressed an interest but backed away upon learning of the limitation. New Hope Planning Commission -3- September 1, 1992 MOTION PC 92-25 (3.6) REQ~ST FOR ~YT AMeND- ALLOW OPEN SALES LOT, SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO ALLOW A GARDEN NOVELTY STORE AT 8001 BASS LAKE ROAD MOTION PC 92-17 (3.7) REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMEHT REGARDING APAR2~4ENT SIGN SETBACKS MOTION Mr. Brixius outlined the uses allowed in various districts and questioned if the desire is to change the character of the B-2 district to be more in line with B-4 or just left alone. He noted that Codes & Standards discussed the issue and the consensus was to maintain the B-2 and accommodate the one use. He called attention to the fact that the B-2 district does not accommodate outdoor sales, so it brings up another issue for Lyndale Garden Center request to locate on the Country Club Foods site. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed that they had discussed all the alternatives at Codes & Standards and their consensus is to maintain it as is. Chairman Cameron confirmed with the Planner and staff that they recommend approval of the amendment to eliminate the square foot floor limitation. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve a text amendment for elimination of the square foot floor limitation requirement on limited B-4 uses in & B-2 Zoning District, as delineated in Planning Case 92-20. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundersh&ug, Cassen, Friedrich Voting against: None Absents Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-25, noted a request to table the case, and asked if anyone wanted to discuss the case before it is tabled. Mr. McDonald stated that the plans came in late and there are issues which the petitioner wishes to address and return to Design and Review with revised plans. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 92-25. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrlch Voting against~ None Absent: Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron called for the next case, Planning Case 92-17. Mr. McDonald reviewed the request by the City to consider a sign code text amendment establishing new setback requirements for residential zoning districts. He noted this ordinance amendment was initiated as a result of Planning Case 92-06, a request by Royal Oaks Apartments for a ground sign setback variance, and pointed out that while the setback requirements for commercial and industrial signs is 10 feet, the requirement for multi-family residential signs is one-half the required 35-foot front yard setback. He added that the Planning Consultant prepared a report making a recommendation for a setback reduction and the City Attorney is in agreement and Codes & Standards recommends approval. Commissioner Sonsin stated that the planning case report summarizes the rationale for making everything equal and the same. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning ~use 92-17. Voting in f&vor~ Zek, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich Voting against~ None Absent: Underdahl, Lifson, Watschko Motion carried. New HopePlanning Commission -4- September l, 1992 PC 92-18 (3.8) REQUEST FOR TEYT AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING S IGNAGE REGU- LATIONS (SIZE AND SETBACKS) FOR CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, NON- PROFIT INSTI- TUTIONS, AND BUILDINGS MOTION 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Design and Review 4.2 Codes and Standards New Hope Planning Commission Planning Case 92-18 was calledforby the Chairman and reviewed by Mr. McDonald. He explained that the text amendment to establish signage regulations for Churches~ schools, non-profit institutions and government buildings was initiated by the City in conjunction with the City Hall Planned Unit Development and remodeling request in Planning Case 92-12. He stated that the sign request was removed from the remodeling request because the code does not address governmental signs and would allow only one sign rather than the two requested, one for City Hall identification and one directional sign for the Police Department, and staff discussed whether to apply for a sign variance or investigate a text amend- ment. He expressed his feeling that a variance for two signs could have been requested because of the unique nature of the City Ball building and that the requested sign&ge was appropriate to identify where specific departments are located and to correct a situation where people come in to City Hall looking for the Police Department and people enter the Police Department lobby wanting to pay water bills, but the decision was to investigate a text amendment. Be asked Mr. Brixius to explain the details of the amendment. Mr. Brixius explained this situation may not be unique just to City Hall, but any school, church, or institution that has multiple entrances would be included. He agreed with Mr. McDonald's explanation regarding a problem with entrance identification and need for directional information and stated that the City Ball situation was used as a model to draft the proposed ordinance. Chairman Cameron wondered what the City sign on 42nd Avenue is classified as. Mr. Brixius replied that it is considered an off-site directional sign and it is provided for in the code. Commissioner Sonsin brought up a concern raised at Codes & Standards regarding the code standard for size of message area, but not a standard for sign monument size. Mr. Brixius explained that historically there have not been problems with the foundation of signs and no regulations are yet in place to control size of the monument, just the message area. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 92-18. Voting in favor~ Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich Voting against~ None Absent~ Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke Notion carried. Design & Review met and discussed the North Ridge and Lyndale Garden requests and will be meeting again on both cases. Mr. McDonald noted that another request may be forthcoming for the next D & R meeting, a possible Car X shop on the Burger King site at Midland Center. Codes & Standards met and reviewed government sign setbacks, change in the zoning restrictions for the former Country club site, zoning change for the proposed adult day care center, side yard air conditioners, apartment sign setbacks, and the Crystal Comprehen- sive Plan. He noted there is still to be some discussion on the side yard air conditioner question. Commissioner Sonsin reviewed the Crystal Comprehensive Plan and cited several issues raised by the Codes a Standards Committee, which included apartment conversions, wetlands, Meilke field and 36th Avenue North shopping center. He stated the consensus with the apartment conversion question was that anything neighboring cities do affects multiple neighboring cities and should be dealt with under common rules. He noted that the volume of discussion centered on the relocation of the Crystal Airport and the general -5- September 1, 1992 MOTION 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 H£sc. Tssue8 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. ANNOUNCE- MENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT view is that the airport represents an enormous economic oppor- tunity for the whole area, high quality land under-utilized at present but with excellent development potential, increased tax base, and upgrade possibilities for all of the neighboring cities. He stated the Codes & Standards Committee is in support of the resolution prepared by staff on the Crystal Comprehensive Plan Update. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, that the Planning Commission endorse the draft resolution comments regarding the City of Crystal Comprehensive Plan Update and recommend the City Council approve same. Voting in favort Zak, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich Voting against~ None Abstaining~ Cameron Absent~ Underdahl, Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron lauded the Codes & Standards Committee for their recent efforts. Commissioner Sonsin noted that they still have work to do on the side yard air conditioners and apartment conversions and will be scheduling a meeting for later in September. Mr. Brixius suggested considering a study of the B-2 uses. No comments on miscellaneous issues, other than expression of appreciation for the completeness of the follow-up reports. August 4, 1992, Planning Commission minutes unanimously approved. No questions or comments on other minutes. None. Meeting unanimously adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, New Hope Planning Commission -6- September 1, 1992 PLANNING COJO(ISSlON MINUTES C,~?.?. TO ORDER ROLL CALL P~BLIC HEARINGS PC 92-21(3.1) REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK TO AT.T OW GARAGE ADDITION AT 2800 BOONE NOTION PC 92-19(3.2) REQUEST FOR TEYT AMENDMENT TO REZONE 5501 AND PART OF 5425 BOONE AVENUE NORTH FRei AR I-1 TO AN R-5 ZONING DISTRICT NOTION PC 92-23 (3.2) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/ APPROVAL AND CUP TO ALLOW ADULT DAY CARE FACILITY IN AN R-5 ZONE AT 5501/5425 BOONE AVENUE NORTH MOTION New Hope Planning Commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 6, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Watschke Absent: Underdahl, Lifson, Cassen Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Liz Stockman, Planning Consultant Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-21, noted that the petitioner has now requested the case be withdrawn, and called for a motion to accept the request. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to accept the petitioner's request to withdraw Planning Case 92-21. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, ~a~eron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Underdahl, Lifson, Cassen Motion carried. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-19 and noted the petitioner's have requested the case be tabled until the November meeting. Motion byCommissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 92-19 until November. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Underdahl, Lifson, Cassen Motion carried. Chairman Cameron noted that Planning Case 92-23 is associated with the previous case and the request to table applies to this case as well. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 92-23 until November. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Underdahl, Lifson, ~ussen Motion carried. -1- October 6, 1992 PC 92-25 (3.4) REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OPEN SAT._I~S LOT, VARIANCES TO AND/OR ~CH SETBACK, SITE/ BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL TO AT-T~)W A GARDEN NOVELTY STORE AT 8001 BASS LAKE ROAD PC 92-2S (3.S) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARI- ANCE TO SETBACK REQUTREMENT AND S TTE/Bu'rLD'FNG APPROVAL TO AT.T.OW A CAR-X MUFFLER SHOP AT 7900 27TH AV.N. MOTION PC 92-27 (3.6) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ~T.TON A HOME OCCUPA- TXON AT 3833 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH MOTION PC 92-28 (3.7) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SETBACK RE- QUXREMENT TO AT.T~)W ADDITION OF A 3-SBASON PORCH AT 4164 ENSIGN AV. N. COtO4XTTEE REPORTS (¢) Design and Review (4.1) New Hopm Planning Commission Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-25, and Mr. McDonald noted that the petitioners had not arrived. At the Chair's request the case was tabled until later in the meeting. Chairman Cameron called for the next case, Planning Case 92-26 and noted the request to table for one month. Commissioner Cassen arrived at this time. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to table Planning Case 92-26 for one month. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Fr£edrich, #atschke Voting against~ None Absent= Underdahl, Lifson Motion carried. Planning Case 92-27 was called for by the Chairman with a request for tabling. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to table. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, ~ameron, Oundershaug, Cassan, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against: None Absent= Underdahl, Lifson Motion carried. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-28 and Mr. McDonald noted ~etitioners had not arrived so it was automatically tabled until later in the meeting. Chairman Cameron suggested moving on to other agenda items while waiting for the absent petitioners to arrive. Design & Review discussed the Lyndale Garden and Car-X requests and will meet again on Car-X and North Ridge before the next meeting. -2- October 6, 1992 Codes and Staadards (~,~) OLD BUSXNBSS(S) Misc. ~ssues NEW BUS~NBSS(6) ANNOUNCEMRI~S MOTION PC 02-2s REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AT.T4)W OPEN SALES LOT, VARIANCES TO FENCE HEIGHT AND/OR FENCE SETBACK, SITE/ BUILDING PLAN REVTBW/APPROVAL TO ALLOW A GARDEN NOVELTY STORE AT 8001 BASS LAKE ROAD Codes & Standards met in September and discussed side yard air conditioners and subdivision platting ordinance and amendments which will be presented for public hearings in November. They will be meeting in October to discuss apartment conversions. No comments on miscellaneous issues. September 1, 1992, Planning Commission minutes unanimously approved. No questions or comments on other minutes. Chairman Cameron called for a motion to move the scheduled November Planning Commission meeting to November 4th, as Tuesday the 3rd is election day. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to meet on Wednesday, November 4th. Voting An favors Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Casssn, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against~ None Absent~ Underdahl, Lifson Motion carried. Chairman Cameron requested that Planning Case 92-25 be lifted from the table. Mr. McDonald introduced the request by Lyndale Garden Center, stating that the case was tabled at the September Planning Commission meeting and after a further meeting with Design a Review, plus a review by the City Engineer, a meeting of Codes & Standards to review the text amendment, a new report by the Planner, and a draft text amendment drawn up by the City Attorney, new plans were submitted. He noting that several issues regarding the case need to be discussed. He explained the issues, beginning with a zoning text amendment to allow a garden novelty store by conditional use ~ermit in a B-2 Zoning District and, if the text amendment is approved, the next item is for a conditional use permit to actually allow the use on the site. He further explained that depending on what is adopted as a text amendment, it may or may not be necessary to consider the issue of variances to the fence height and/or setback requirement. He noted the last item is site/building plan review/approval. Mr. McDonald further outlined the proposal by Lyndale Garden Center to completely redevelop the old Country Club Market site on Bass Lake Road which includes removal of a portion of the existing building at the front northwest corner, replacing it with a sloped- glass greenhouse, new decorative steel picket fence in the front for the storage/sales of plant materials, demolition of the existing loading docks in the back and construction of new recessed dock at the southwest corner, relocation of the siamese fire connection, new refuse enclosure, site signage and a considerable amount of new landscaping. He suggested that the text amendment be considered first. Chairman Cameron concurred that the issues should be dealt with one at a time. Mr. McDonald proceeded with the explanation that under the zoning code for a B-2 District, B-4 uses not marked with an asterisk are allowed provided that they do not occupy more than 3,500 square feet, but garden novelty store is marked with an asterisk. He called attention to the fact that at the September meeting the Commission approved a request that eliminated the square footage requirement, but that action was not acted upon by the City Council as they preferred to consider it in conjunction with the Lyndale request. He added that even with the elimination of the square footage requirement, the use still has an asterisk in front of it so without another text amendment the use cannot be allowed on that site. He explained that the original plan was simply to do a code amendment and eliminate the asterisk in front of garden novelty store and allow it as a "permitted use", but after further consideration with the Planner and Codes a Standards it was felt best to allow the use in a B-2 District as a "conditional use" so that the City would have more input regarding site development. New Hope Planning Commission -3- October 6, 1992 NOTION New Hope Planning Commission He referred to the copy of the text amendment in the packet and outlined the conditions listed and stated that basic issues concerned the fence height and fence setback and noted that the text amendment was basically designed around Lyndale's application. He pointed out that if the 7-foot height in the text amendment is agreeable to the Commission, no variance will be required for fence height. He continued with the setback issue, noting that the text amendment calls for a 15-foot setback and the Lyndale proposal shows a 10-foot setback, jutting to 13 feet at various points, so the Commission must determine if they want to leave it at 15 feet, thus requiring a variance or a revised plan, or change the text amendment to 10 feet instead of 15 feet. He added that it is staff's feeling that the jagged look of the fence in front is acceptable since it allows for inset of landscaping, but the Commission needs to take into account traffic conditions and how much setback is needed for vehicles as they come out of the curb cut and exit on to the street. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed a desire that the decorative fence should have a 75% o~en requirement as opposed to the 50% stated in the text amendment, stating that with 75% open area he would not be opposed to the 10-foot setback, particularly since the visibility to the right would not be a problem as traffic does not approach from the right. Commissioner Watschke expressed agreement with Commissioner Gundershaug and Chairman Cameron called on the Planner for an opinion. Ms. Liz Stockman pointed out that it was their opinion that a 15- foot setback was not overburdening to the applicant since the use is not currently allowed and the requirement is less than some other requirements that could be imposed for a new development, including screening along the residential area and other safety visibility concerns. She conceded that with the suggestion of greater open space in the fencing, the setback may not present as great of a concern. Commissioner Watschke pointed out that the 10-foot setback starts from the property line in back of the sidewalk area. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Watschke to approve the zoning text amendment request in Planning Case 92- 25, as set forth by the City Attorney, with the modification that the setback be changed to 10 feet and the open area of the fence be set at 75%. Voting in favors Z&k, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich, Watschke Voting againsts None Absents Underdahl, Lifson Motion carried. Mr. McDonald emphasized that variances are no longer required since the plan now meets the text amendment and all that needs approval are the conditional use permit and site/building plan review. He pointed out the surrounding zoning on the site and noted the code requirements for a conditional use permit. He reviewed the issues discussed at Design & Review and stated that the petitioner has submitted revised plans in accordance with all that Design & Review and the Building Official requested, including parking layout, fence detail, sign detail, landscaping plan with a total of 225 shrubs and trees added to the site, curb cut details with striping and directional arrows for entry and exit which have been approved by the City Engineer, snow storage area, and loading dock detail. He called attention to the Planning Consultant's suggestion for minor changes in the parking lot area, noting that staff has not made the changes as conditions of approval, but would rather leave it up to the discretion of the Commission since there is a question concerning the raised medians causing a problem with snow~lowing. He suggested that the Commission might wish to further clarify with the petitioner or the Planner any questions regarding the elimina- tion of several parking stalls as shown on the plan. -4- October 6, 1992 ~OTION Mr. Ed Sorgatz introduced himself and stated he is with Olson Co., general contractor for the project. Commissioner Watschke questioned the intended hours of operation for the business, the parking lot lighting and if those would remain on all nigh~ or be turned off at a specified time. Mr. Dick Dwyer, one of the owners, responded that their operational hours will be from 9=00 a.m. until 6=00 or 6=30 in the evening during the winter months, except for the traditional Thursday night hours which will run later. Summer hours will be have opening at 8=00 a.m. and closing at 8=30 p.m. on weekdays with Saturday hours set at 8=00 a.m. to 6=30 or 7=00 p.m. depending on the time of year and Sundays approximately 9=00 a.m. until 6=00 p.m. He added that is a practice in all of their stores to leave the lights on all night for security, but the lighting provided is directed downward so it will not interfere with surrounding areas. Mr. Sorgatz addressed the lighting question and stated that they will be using the lights that are now in location on the site, and pointed out that they are well-removed from the western curb line.that abuts the apartment complex. Commissioner Watschke wondered if anyone knew how Country Club operated the lights when they owned the site. Mr. Brian Naas, from Country Club Markets, responded that they were open until 10:00 p.m. and the lights were probably on all night. Commissioner Watschke directed a question to Mr. Dwyer regarding an issue raised at Design & Review concerning advertising banners. Mr. Dwyer responded that they do use banners approximately 5 feet in height and 2 feet in width for product signage at other locations, both inside and outside. He was cautioned by several Commission members to check on the New Hope Sign Ordinance, and he agreed to comply with all regulations. Commissioner Watschke further questioned the plan for painting the building and the roof top mechanical equipment and was assured that it would all be painted to match. He asked the petitioner if they were agreeable to the parking lot plan presented by the Planner with concrete medians in interior and reduction in parking spots. Mr. Sorgatz responded to the parking question stating that it might present a problem in plowing snow and the result would be broken curbs and generally a messy situation because the interior corners would be difficult to plow and result in added expense to bucket the snow out. He asked for leniency on the median issue for the interior of the parking lot, since intensive landscaping has been provided in the open areas. Chairman Cameron questioned Design & Review if all the issues discussed were dealt with in the new plan. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with the petitioner the elimina- tion of curbing at the southwest side of the parking lot and sprinkling of all the landscaping and shrubbery around the yard. He expressed favor with the customer loading zone which offers better service for customers to pick up material. He wondered if the parking lot would be restriped and patched this fall or next spring. Mr. Sorgatz replied that the customer loading would be marked and used as such, outside of a possible time or two when they are extra busy and someone parks there. He responded to the restriping question stating that the intention is to de-weed it, sealcoat it so that it is uniformly black, and restripe it, and it probably would not be done until spring as it is so late in the year now. There was no one present to speak against the case. Motion by Conlnissioner Watschke, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review to allow a garden novelty store in a B-2 Zoning District as requested in Planning Case 92-25, subject to conditionst New Hope Planning Commission -5- October 6, 1992 PC 92-28 (3.7) REQUEST FOR REAR YARD SETBACK RE- ~W ADDITION OF A 3-SEASON PORCH AT 4164 ENSIGN AV. N. MOTION 2. 3. customer pickup. Voting in favor: Z&k, Sonsin, Cameron, Friedrich, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Underdahl, L£fson Motion carried. ~nnual conditional use perait review by staff. Any signs or banners must meet City Code requirements. Eliminate 2 stalls at the southwest corner to facilitate Gundershaug, Cassen, Chairman Cameron welcomed the petitioner to New Hope and the petitioner expressed pleasure at the comfortable process it was working with New Hope in getting thingz done with a minimum amount of time and input. Chairman Cameron expressed appreciation of the comment and in turn complimented the petitioner for presenting a well laid out plan. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 92-28 to be lifted from the table and asked Mr. McDonald for a review of the case. Mr. McDonald explained the request for an 8-foot rear yard setback variance to allow a three-season porch to be constructed on an existing deck at the rear of the house. He pointed out that the degree of the variance is fairly minor considering the limited buildable space on the lot, the existence of a number of trees on the rear lot line' serving as a buffer, and a large open space between the home and townhouses to the east, which are all good points for granting of the variance. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 92-28, subject to the conditions: 1. Exterior design to match the existing home in roof pitch and siding. 2. Owner to submit an **as-built*' lot survey within 14 days of building permit application to verify the changes in tho lot size and the home/porch location. Voting in favor: Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Oundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich, Watschke Voting agn£nst: None Absent: Onderdahl, Lifson Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT(8) Meeting unanimously adjourned at 7.45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Coemiszion -6- October 7, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINI~ES November 4, 1992 CALL TO ORDER" The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL C~?~. Present= Lifson, Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen Absents Underdahl, Friedrich, Wa~schke Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 92-07(3.1) REQUE ST FOR VARIANCE TO EXPAND NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND A REAR YARD SETBACK VARI- ANCE TO AT.TOW A GARAGE ADDI- TION AT 2800 BOONE AV. N. MOTION Pc 92-19 (3.2) REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT TO REZONE 5501 AND PART OF 5425 BOONE AVENUE NORTH FROM AN I-1 TO AN R-5 ZONING DISTRICT Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-07, noted that the petitioner has now requested the case be withdrawn, and called for a motion to accept the request. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to accept the petitioner's request to withdraw Planning Case 92-07 subject to requested conditions allowing petitioner to reapp1y in 1993 with no additional fee. Voting in favor: Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen Voting against~ None Absent: Underdahl, Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. Commissioner Underdahl arrived at 7:05 p.m. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-19 and Kirk McDonald explained it is a rezoning request being made in conjunction with Planning Case 92-23 which is a request by Senior Outreach Services and North Ridge Care Center proposing to construct an adult day care facility across Boone Avenue from their existing site in North R'idge Care Center. Ne explained that the property in question at 5501 and a part of 5425 Boone is designated as an I-1 Limited Industrial District and health care facilities are not allowed in that district, therefore rezoning to R-5 Senior/Disabled Residential is necessary since adult day care facilities are allowed as a conditional use in the R-5 District. He noted that the property has not yet been acquired and the rezoning of the site will be subject to acquisition of the property, thus the ordinance wall not become official until acquisition and completion of the development. He pointed out the conditions that warrant a rezoning and the Planning Consultant and Codes & Standards Committee have reviewed the issue and along with staff feel it is beneficial to maintain a clustering of health care facilities in the area which support one ano=her, rather than at a remote site in some other area. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed that Codes & Standards Committee support the rezoning subject to the conditions listed in the report, specifically that if the facility is not constructed the rezoning will be null and void. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned staff if a time limit could be established for the official rezoning. Mr. McDonald explained that in all zoning requests for new develop- ments, the actual ordinance for the rezoning is not officially published until construction is completed, but that it might be possible to add time limit conditions. New Hope Planning Commission -1- November 4, 1992 NOTION PC 92-23 (3.3) REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDTNO PU~ ~T~/ APPROVAL AND CUP TO ~T.T4)W Mary Jane Thompson, Administrator for Senior Outreach Services Adult Day Care Program, addressed the Commission and introduced Ms. Toni Peters, Director of the Adult Day Care Program, Katherine Lloyd, President of Board of Directors, Chuck Thompson from North Ridge and Ken Gallus representing St. Therese, both of whom support the program, and Lenny Samuelson, Construction Manager of the development. She explained that the demand for adult day care as an alternative to long term care in a nursing home has been rapidly growing and that they have doubled the number of persons they serve in just the past year. She pointed out that due to a moratorium on nursing home beds there is an emphasis by the public and third- party payers to develop alternative services to nursing home placement and adult day care is a very economical health program which allows persons to come one day or 6 days a week, allowing relief time for care givers. She emphasized that because of the aging population they are working with increasing numbers of Alzheimers patients for which Ms. Peters has developed several special programs, and they are running out of space at North Ridge so the plan is to construct a facility where they can accommodate up to 120 people. Mr. Charles Lee, owner of the Lee Brothers property at 5425 Boone, stated his opposition to the rezoning because of the added traffic in to the site. Commissioners Gundershaug and Underdahl requested confirmation that the current plans include all the property in question and rezoning cannot proceed until the property is acquired. Mr. McDonald pointed out that if the Lee part of the property is not acquired and the petitioner decides to build on the remaining section only, revised plans will have to be brought back to Design & Review and the Commission for approval. Chairman Cameron questioned how the City is involved in the property acquisition. Mr. McDonald answered that the City has been involved with the 5501 property for several years and has had it appraised at different times, and the City Council has authorized the citY Manager to enter into negotiations with the property owner, including eminent domain proceedings if necessary. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 92-19 requesting rezoning of 5501 and a designatedunspecifiedportion of 5425 Boone Avenue North from I-1 to R-5 District, subject to: 1. Acquisition of the property by the City and/or North Ridge/Senior Outreach Services. 2. Platting of the property/subdivision with legal description. 3. Only the property acquired for the Adult Day Care facility will be rezoned. 4. Rezoning subject to approval of the CUP for facility and completion of the project within 2 years. 5. Rezoning not to be officially published or changed on the zoning map until after the property acquisition of property and completion of construction of facility. 6, If the facility is not constructed on the proposed site, the proposed rezoning is null and void. Voting in favor~ Lifson, Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Caszen Voting against~ None Absent~ Friedrich, Watschke Notion carried. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 92-23. Mr. McDonald explained that this is the second part of the previous case, requesting for site/building plan review approval and conditional use permit to allow adult day care facility on the site. He outlined the request and the criteria to be considered in the granting of a conditional use permit, such as nature of New Hope Planning Commission -2- November 4, 1992 ADULT DAY CARE FACILITY IN AN R-5 ZONE AT 5501/5425 BOONE AVEN'u'E NOHTH adjoining lands or buildings, whether or not a similar use is in existence, effect upon traffic, etc. .He noted that plans were originally submitted in August, but flew revised plans were sub- mitted in September which changed the concept and relocated the main building entrance to the east on Boone Avenue rather than to the north. He stated the plans meet all the setback requirements. He noted the access area for the Senior Outreach busses as well as for drop-off of individual patients. He pointed out the amount of parking that is being provided and stated that North Ridge has included ample parking so that the amount: of on-street parking by employees on Boone Avenue can be reduced. He described the design and floor plan of the building, drive accesses, landscaping, signage, and other aspects. Mr. Samuelson presented an architectural sketch and explained the desire to develop a continuity between all of the buildings associated with the complex. He pointed out that the reason for choosing the site across the street is because there is no other land that is adjacent to and contiguous with North Ridge to expand the Senior Outreach Services program and stay within the confines of New Hope. He noted that original plans included using 100 feet of the Lee Brothers property, but because of the City's concern regarding the Lee Brothers, the plans were reoriented and adjusted to use only 75'. He stressed the vulnerability of their patients and described the plan for a controlled drop-off and patio environment for them, plus an easy access for emergency vehicles. He added that consideration is being given to the possibility of installing some type of controlled signal at the crossing area so that traffic can be temporarily halted to allow employees and others to cross safely. Commissioner Cassen requested a confirmation on numbers of employees and patients coming to the facility and the effect on traffic. Mr. Samuelson replied that there will probably be about 30 employees and most of the patients will be brought to the facility in one of 8 busses that are provided, and possibly only about 15 to 20 cars a day will be bringing and picking up patients. He emphasized the size of the parking lot to accommodate the cars now parking on the street. CommisSioner Cassen expressed her concern for persons having the cross the street between the buildings and requested that consideration be given to the installation of some type of signal or crosswalk markings to allow them to cross safely. Mr. McDonald acknowledged that the City does do all the crosswalk markings where necessary, but he would check on the process for the installation of a signal if that is deemed necessary. Chairman Cameron suggested that it might be important to include a requirement for provision of crosswalk safety before the case goes to the Council. Commissioner Cassen asked for confirmation of snow storage area and wondered if the retention pond could be used. Mr. McDonald emphasized that the snow piled on the retention pond would prevent proper operation of the retention pond and storm sewer when the snow was thawing. Mr. Samuelson pointed out the northwest corner of the parking lot as an out of the way area that would not conflict with parking as there is sufficient number of parking spaces provided. Commissioner Cassen noted that a sprinkler system was not provided and suggested that with such an extensive landscaping plans there should be provision made for sprinkling. She also confirmed with the petitioner that rooftop equipment will be painted to match and screened, and site lighting will be provided and will be of adequate density to provide safety for shift workers who have to use the parking lot late at night. New Hope Pl&nning Commission -3- November 4, 1992 NOTION Commssioner Gundershaug expressed concern over the street parking and recalled a Design & Review discussion of installing an access door for employees from the underutilized parking lot on the north end of North Ridge. He also voiced concern over for snow storage in the 'parking lot interfering with parking. Mr. Samuelson agreed that they would conform with a requirement to remove the snow if there is a shortage of parking. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with pegitioner that parking lot lights will be on all night for safety reasons and will be down directed so as not to be a nuisance. He suggested that before the Council takes action on this request, the petitioner make some provision to address access to the north end parking lot. Commissioner Cassen complimented the petitioner on the well-done and complete plans. Motion by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 92-23, subject to the following conditions: PC 92-26 (3.4) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARI- ANCE TO SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND STTE/BUILDING Pm RBVT~/ APPHOVAL TO ~?.?~)W A CAR-X MUFFLER SHOP AT 7900 27TH AV.N. 1. Acquisition of the property by the City and/or North Ridge/Senior Outreach Services. 2. Platting of the property/subdivision with legal description. 3. Conditional Use Permit subject to approval of rezoning. 4. If facility not constructed on the proposed site within 2 years, rezoning and conditional use permit are null and void. 5. Provisions be made for safe crosswalk betwwen the existing North Ridge facility and the new Adult Day Care facility. 6. City may require removal of snow from site if it is determined that snow storage eliminates needed parking spaces. 7. Annual review by staff. Voting in favors Lifson, Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Qundershaug, Cassen Voting against~ None Absents Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron called for the next case, Planning Case 92-26 and Mr. McDonald outlined the request to demolish the vacant former Burger King site at Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road to allow for construction of a Car-X Muffler and Brake Shop. He reviewed the specific requests and variance needed and noted that due to the location on the intersection it can be considered a unique parcel of land. He noted that Burger King had been granted very similar variances on the north and west sides when it was approved in 1973. Mr. Naftali Alkalai and Mr. Bob Mikulak introduced themselves as the owner of the Car-X shop and construction supervisor, respectively. Mr. Mikulak noted that this will be the second location for one of Mr. Alkalai's shops. He affirmed that this operation would generate less traffic and need for parking than the former owner, due to reduced business hours from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays, and improvement in traffic flow with the elimination of a curb cut. He explained the proposed landscaping and presented photos of other Car-X stores he has built, stating that the signage will be in accordance with New Hope Code. Commissioner Cassen questioned if the petitioner was proposing any outside storage and cautioned that it is not allowed. She confirmed that the petitioner has written agreements with Midland Center for the parking and snow removal and noted that they must be submitted to the City. She also called attention ~o the necessity of submitting detail of the trash enclosure on =he plans. She suggested additional landscaping be placed on the west side. Mr. Alkalai stressed the lack of space between the property line and the building, but confirmed that they will meet the request. Commissioner Cassen asked where and when deliveries will be made, size of trucks used, and if adequate turning radius is provided. New Hope Planning Commission -4- November 4, 1992 MOTION PC 92-27 (3.5) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT TO AT~,OW A HOME OCCUPA- TION AT 3833 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH New Hope Planning Commission Mr. Alkalai replied that deliveries come from Racine, Wisconsin and will be made in medium-sized semis to the south side of the build- ing once every two weeks and Usually between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Commissioner Cassen expressed concern over the backup of outgoing traffic onto Medicine Lake Road which she has noticed on visits to that Center. Mr. Mikulak pointed out the truck lanes and the maneuvering area on the site plan and expressed the opinion that the truck driver would proceed to a more convenient exit lane if he noticed a backup of traffic. Commissioner Cassen asked for confirmation of the area lighting and if there will be lighting on the building. Mr. Mikulak pointed out that there is adequate lighting in the center and there will be a security light over the back door which will be focused down, remaining on all night. Chairman Cameron questioned the number of employees and where they will park, number of customers at any given time, if they will be required to wait, and if there will be cars left overnight. Mr. Alkalai responded that there will be 4 employees and the manager and parking will be on the center parking area; there may be up to 6 customers in an hour although most people leave their cars to be serviced and picked up later on. He affirmed that cars left overnight are always inside the building but that happens very seldom. Commissioner Underdahl questioned the number of overhead doors and it was pointed out there are 3 on each side. Motion by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 92-26, subject to the conditions~ 1. Development Agreement and performance bond required for all curbing, removal of Winnetka access, and landscaping. 2. Existing utilities to be cut and capped at property line under city permit, with inspection by public works before demolition. 3. Petitioner to submit parking agreement and snow removal agreement to City prior to construction per leased space from Midland Center. 4. Add landscaping to west side of building, appropriate for that side of building. 5. Annual review by staff. Voting in favor: Lifson, Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen Voting against: None Absents Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron welcomed the petitioner to New Hope. Planning Case 92-27 was called for by the Chairman and Mr. McDonald reviewed the request for a conditional use permit to allow a home occupation, explaining that it resulted from an order by the Building Official for the petitioner to make application for a CUP in response to complaints about traffic and trucks parking. He outlined the criteria for permitted and conditional use occupa- tions, including adverse effect on the neighborhood by employees coming to the residence, lack of screening, square footage used for the business, traffic to and from the house. Mr. Robert Goldman, petitioner, expressed his feeling that he was forced into applying for the conditional use permit and that the $75.00 fee should be waived. He stated that he is only an employee of a plumbing company in St. Louis Park, has a journeyman's license not a master plumber license, so he cannot operate or own a shop of his own, and he brings home old plumbing supplies which he breaks down and separates into parts for recycling. He pointed out that, other than his friends, the only person coming to his house is a -5- November 4, 1992 MOTION PC 92-31(3.6) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SET- BACK REQUTRE- CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 5313 PEHNSYL- VANIA AV. N. NOTION PC 92-32(3.7) REQD'ESTPOR VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SET- BACK REQUIRE- CONSTRUCTION OF 3-SEASON PORCH ADDITION TO EXISTING HONE AT 9009 42NDAVENUEN. MOTION bookkeeper who comes three time a week to do invoices and his household bills because he has a learning disability and cannot do those things himself. He explained that the parked vehicles are all registered to him, have insurance, have no commercial plates or markings on the trucks. He expressed the opinion that other neighbors have vehicles and boats parked, another one runs a day care, and that they adversely affect the neighborhood more. Commissioner Sonsin noted that the report indicates complaints have been received and no one has been able to gain entry to the home to verify if it is being used for businesses.. He confirmed that the bookkeeper is there to help with personal matters and not the business and there are no deliveries made or supplies picked up. He suggested that the petitioner work with the Building Official and staff to allow an inspection of the premises, and also submit a detailed sketch of the garage area with specific dimensions showing what area is being used for supplies. Mr. Goldman stated that he has no problems with his neighbors, with one exception. He listed a number of improvements he has made to his home in the 12 years he has lived there to update it. He claimed he has never stored his supplies outside, but occasionally they are there until he has time to put them inside. He expressed displeasure at unannounced visits and denied that entry had been refused. He agreed to table the case and work with staff to resolve the issue and submit drawings. Commissioner Zak confirmed that he is paid to do invoices at home. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to table Planning Case 92-27 for one month, Voting in favor= Lifson, Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-31 and Mr. McDonald outlined the request for a variance for the construction of a garage and pointed out the non-conformity of the placement of the house on the lot requiring a minor variance. He noted that the petitioner has lived in the home 39 years without a garage and that neighbors have stated that they have no objection to the addition. He added that materials and roof pitch will match. Commissioner Underdahl asked to be excused from the case because the petitioners are friends. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning Case 92-31, subject to conditions: 1. Exterior design, roof pitch and materials of garage addition to ~atch existing home. Voting in favor= Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen Voting against= None Excused: Underdahl Motion carried. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-32 and Mr. McDonald explained the request for a 3-season porch which requires a sizeable variance because of the placement of the house on the lot and the taking of right-of-way when County Road No. 9 was widened. He pointed out that the degree of non-conformity of the existing building would not be increased by the addition a~d the location of the porch is the only practical solution and will not encroach on the utility easement. He added that materials and roof pitch will match existing house. New Hope Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Lifson, to approve Planning Case 92-32, subject to condition= -6- November 4, 1992 PC 92-29 (3/8) TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SIDE YARD AIR CONDI- TIONERS MOTION PC 92-30(3.9) R~T~$T TO CON- SZDER ORDZNANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE LATINGTO PLACEMENT OF NONUMENTS MOTION COMMITTEE REPORTS (4) Design and Review (4.1) The exterior of the porch to match existing home in roof pitch and siding. Voting in favor= Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Oundershaug, Cassen Voting &gainst= None Absent= Friedreich, Wat$chke Motion carried. The Chairman called for Planning Case 92-29 and Commissioner Sonsin explained that Codes & Standards Committee has studied the issue which will allow the replacement of an:existing side yard air condi- tioner with a new unit, which complies with noise ordinance and is properly screened, without making application for a variance. He emphasized that a variance is still required if a new unit is to be placed in the side yard where one did not exist prior to this time. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that the permits issued for air conditioner installations make this requirement absolutely clear. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to recommend to the Council that a text amendment as outlined in Planning Case 92-29 be approved. Voting in favor= Lifson, Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Oundershaug, Cassen Voting against= None Absent= Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 92-30 and Commissioner Sonsin explained the text amendment regarding monumentation of plats. He noted that this issue was started by Hennepin County and it allows the City to approve and register a plat without requiring the setting of a monument marker if weather does not permit. He added that this approval will be for each individual case, not on an overall basis and it must be completed within one year. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Underdahl, to recommend to the City Council approval of a text amendment as outlined in Planning Case 92-30. Voting in favor: Lifson, Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Oundershaug, Cassen Voting against= None Absent: Friedrich, Watschke Motion carried. Design & Review met again on Car-X and North Ridge. Codes Standards (4.2) OLD BUSINESS(S) Misc. Issues a n d Codes & Standards did not meet in October but will meet in November to discuss apartment conversions. No comments on miscellaneous issues. The Commission expressed overall appreciation for the miscellaneous issues reports which bring them up-to-date on past and current issues. NEW BUSINESS(6) October 6, 1992, Planning Commission minutes unanimously approved. No questions or comments on other minutes. ANNOUNCEMENTS(7 No announcements. ADJOURNMENT(8) Meeting unanimously adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -7- November 4, 1992 CXTY OP ~ llOPB 4401 H~N~PZN CO;fl~', MXIOfBSO~A PLANNZNG C(J~(:ISfZON MZNUTBB CALL TO OItD~R ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 9:2-27 (3.1) REQUEST FOR CONDZTZONAL USE PBRMZT TZON, 3833 GETTYSBURG, AV. kcenber 1, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present~ Lifson, Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen, Friedrich Absent: Watschke Also present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-27 and Kirk McDonald reviewed the specifics of the case which was originally tabled at the November 4, 1992, meeting and petitioner was instructed to meet with staff on the issues. Mr. McDonald confirmed that he'and the Building Official had visited the site and he presented a picture of the various vehicles which were stored in the driveway, noting that all were licensed and operable and not in violation of City Code. He pointed out that the step van did have plumbing supplies inside. He stated that they were allowed inside the house and noted one room was equipped with a desk as if to be an office. He added that the garage had a quantity of old plumbing supplies which the petitioner claims he collects for recycling. Mr. McDonald further stated that staff had consulted with the City Attorney to determine if the petitioner was indeed conducting a business out of his home and the City Attorney agreed that by the standards of the City Code it could be considered a home occupa- tion, since there is a large number of supplies being stored on the site in the garage and van and a bookkeeper comes to the residence to handle invoices. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the main source of irritation from the neighbor centered on the van parked in the driveway and suggested that the petitioner might voluntarily offer to store it off-site where he works to ease the situation. He noted that the conditions for granting the home occupation conditional use have been revised to include a minimum of 200 square foot of garage space be available for parking, a maximum of no more than 300 square foot of the property to be used for the storage of plumbing supplies, panel truck has to be operable and currently licensed or removed, no storage of any type of plumbing supplies outside, and an annual inspection by staff. He emphasized that this case presented a great deal of difficulty in making a conclusion. Mr. Robert Goldman, petitioner, expressed his feeling that he has been unjustly cited due to a neighbor's complaint and he defended the storage of the scrap plumbing materials he collects for recycling. He claimed he was put under undue pressure to spend $75.00 to obtain a conditional use permit because he does not at this time own a business. He defended the bookkeeper coming to his house to help him because he has dyslexia and he needs someone to do the paper work and write his checks for him. He claimed discrimination because he has the bookkeeper in one vehicle coming to his house compared to a neighbor with a day care center and many vehicles. New Hope Planning Commission -1- December 1, 1992 Chairman Cameron explained that a home occupation does not neces- sarily mean business ownership, but the code applies to any type of activity, storage of materials, or employees, equipment, and trucks coming to a home in connection with an outside business. Mo. Mlchelle Dyson, who lives at the same residence, addressed the Commission and questioned the difference between the pmtitioner needing a bookkeeper to help him with his reading disability and a hypothetical handicapped person in a wheelchair who has a paid nurse or attendant coming to their home to take care of them and help them. Mr. Goldman maintained that he is being discriminated against since he does have a type of disability. Chairman Cameron questioned the parking of the van with plumbing supplies in the driveway and if it could be moved off-site. Mr. Goldman replied that it is set up to do plumbing jobs and service and he sometimes leaves it off-site at certain jobs. He explained he keeps a second van for use in case the other one breaks down and he needs to get to a job. He defended the condition of the storage van and pointed out that there is shrubbery growing along the area where the van is stored in the driveway to screen it from the neighbor. Chairman Cameron asked if the petitioner had seen the new conditions outlined by staff and the reply was that he had not. Commissioner Underdahl wondered if a doctor has diagnosed the petitioner's dyslexia and if he has always had that problem. She also questioned how many cars come to the house during the day. Mr. ~oldman replied that his dyslexia has been diagnosed as severe and he always had to have help all through school. He added that the bookkeeper might come three times a week and his boss sometimes comes occasionally to have dinner, but does not come in a marked truck. He emphasized that he has nothing delivered to his house, that he picks everything up himself in his truck. Ms. Dyson interjected that all materials on site are recyclables. Mr. Goldman emphasized that he collects these recycle materials as a hobby to provide himself with vacation money and that if he knew that he had to pay for a conditional use permit and have annual inspection and be scrutinized by the City, he would have found another place for it. Commissioner Friedrich questioned if the vehicle stored in the garage was a hobby vehicle and the petitioner confirmed that it is and that he also has another such vehicle stored somewhere else which he brings there to work on in the summer. Commissioner Underdahl questioned staff regarding the "reduced- visibility" CUP referred to in the report and Mr. McDonald explained that in the original report it was intended to require that some of the parked vehicles be reduced, but review of City Code showed it does not limit number if they are' all legally licensed and operable. There were no further questions from the Commission and Chairman Cameron called for a motion to approve the conditional use permit as defined in the report. New Hope P~anning Commission -2- December 1, 1992 MOTZOM Motion by Commissioner Sonain, second by Commissioner Fr£edrich, to approve Planning Case 92-27 sub, oct to the following conditions, 1. Minimum of 200 square feet of garage ava41able for park~ng. 2. Naxhum of 200 square feet of properS! used for plumbing business storage on site. 3. L~rge panel truck stored on site must be licensed and spot&bls upon request or be removed. 4. No outside storage of old toilets, pipes, and supplies related to the business. S. Mox4mum of 3 business-related visitors at one time, with related vehicles parked in driveway. 6. Annual inspection bT staff. PC 92-33(3.2) RBgUBS~ FOR REAR YARD SB~- CO~STRU~'~J~Z 011 O~ ~ DB~, 2724 AQUI~ AV. N. Voting in favor, Lifson, lek, Ca~eron, Oundershaug, Cissen Voting against~ Underdahl, Sonsin Absent s Wetschke Motion carried. Chairman Cameron informed the pot£tioner that the City Council the final decision makers and they will hear the case on December 14th, at which time he can explain his objections to th~m. Mr. Cameron asked if the conditions were clear and the petitioner stated he didn't have a problem with them. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-33 requesting a rear yard setback variance to allow construction of a porch and deck. Commissioner Lifson requested permission to withdraw from the case because of a conflict of interest. Mr. McDonald outlined the request, pointing out a non-conformity because the house ie constructed facing to the w~st while the south is actually considered the front due to the narrower frontage. He stated that all setback requirements are n~t even though the house is oriented in the wrong direction. He emphasized that the peti- tioner had put a lot of planning into how the porch and deck should be built to maximize privacy for themselves and the neighbors, putting the porch on the side toward a neighbor's garage and the deck off the back. He pointed out that both neighbors to the side and the rear had boon in to view the plane and had no objections. Mr. Michael Reich, petitioner, added that have a concern regarding neighbors' privacy and it is their intent to put in seam additional screening landscaping after the construction is completed and they get a ~tter view of where it will be needed. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed that the exterior materials and construction will match the existing structures. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to approve Planning case 92-33, sub, oct to the condition that exterior materiels and roof pitch of porch match existing structure. Voting in f&vor, Underdahl, Sak, Sonsin, ~_neron, Oundershaug, cassen, Friodrich Vo~ing against, Mens Not voting t Lifson Absent, Watschke Motion carried. Now Hope Planning Commission -3- December 1, 1992 PC 92-35 (3.3) ns~.ms~ t~ost cx~mx~x~ uII PI~JEX~ SX~ Of ~- ~ XM~B XM ~ V~X~ ~ ~UX~, 353X G AY. M. Cha£z~uan Cmmm~on called for Plann£ng Came 92-35 and amksd the H~. HcDon&Zd expl&£ned that the ~mt£tioner £s requesting an ~mndm~nt to a conditional user,it to e~and the outd~r Ito~age ~,, ~mm b~ 2,Z00 m~m~e fee~ and ~nc~eaee ~hm n~ of m~o~ on ~hm m~e f~om 3 ~o 5, and m vm~Zance ~o ~hm g~mmn a~ea dmveZo~d ~n X986 and ~n 1987 a cond~onmX use ~ wam fo~ ou~doo~ m~o~mge w~h m~c~f~c cond~onm~ bu~ ~hm umm ham m~mndmd beyond wha~ wmm o~g~nmZZ~ approved and ~hm Xnm~c~o~ hmo ~mmumd a n~m~ of o~dm~m ~o m~hm~ ~mducm ou~doo~ m~o~mgm o~ mppZy fo~ m condZ~onaZ umm~ ~o~nd wmm p~mv~oumZ~ m~p~ov~. He added ~hm~ ~n ~mm~nmm ~o ~hm pubX~c heaven9 no~cmm mmn~ ~o eu~ound~n9 pco~ty ~e~m ho had one c~n~ f~ DZck Cu~ o~m~ of ~hm p~o~ on ~hm no~h~ who ~m~om~md ~hm~ d~m~nmgm bm~n~o~md mo ~hm~ ~ does no~ fXow on ~o h~m p~o~ m~ncm ~hm~ harm mx~enced many d~m~nagm p~obZ~e ~n ~ha~ Xow m~m. He ~n~ed ou~ ~ha~ ~he Bu~Zd~ng Off~c~aZ has a concern mm ~o how ~hm ~a~Ze~m a~m ~o be Xa~d ou~ bmcaume he beZ~mvem ~ ~pac~m ~he ~u~n~ng ~ad~um fo~ ~uckm and ~he ~one~ ~m p~e~a~ed ~o mdd~eee ~h~s ~emue. He expZa~ned g~emn a~em vm~mncm ~m m~no~ bu~ ~ ~m d~f~cuX~ ~o g~mn~ any g~mmn m~ea vm~mncm on ~h~m ~. Karl Dmv~d~ ~onm~ and o~e~ of ~he p~o~ ~mm~nded ~o ~hm ~u~n~n9 ~md~um ~mmum~ e~a~ng ~hm~ ~hm c~any ~hat ~mn~m m~cm ~h~m ~hm one who p~m~Z~ hmo Za~gm ~ckm c~ng ~n to m~m~ and ho p~mmmn~ m Zo~m~ f~ ~hm ~ck~n~ compmn~ mm~em ~ho cen~m~ which e~a~mm ~hey have no~ mx~mncmd any mn~ o~ mx~ p~obX~m w~h ~hm~ 53' ~a~Zecm. He ~n~ ou~ ~hm ~aZZm~o m~m ~u~nmd mo ~hm~ ~hm backs m~m ~o ~hm no~h ~hm p~mvm~X~ng w~ndm mm~ ~o c~ f~ m p~obX~ couXd bm c~em~ed when ~hm m~cofo~ ~md~ng ~nmuXm~on m~o~md ~nm~dm ~hm bXowm ou~ of ~hm ~a~Xm~e and a~ound ~he Xo~. He e~Xm~ned ~ha~ ~hm mou~h mx~m~n~ fence Z~ne w~ZZ ~a~n ~n pXmce and 3 new ~ence Z~nem w~ZZ bm addmd w~h a roZZer ga~e fo~ access and e~mem of a~em. Ho ~ecaXXed ~ha~ m~ ~hm ~of ~hm o~9~naX cond~onaZ use m~X~cm~on ~hm~ agreed ~o a modification of ~hm pXan ~o accomo- dm~m ~hm g~n m~mm aX~houvh ho ~ ~hm~ ~uXd mvmn~uaXX~ have p~obX~m~ and he a~ed ~o v~oZm~onm ~ha~ have occu~ed e~nce that ~. Ho ob~mc~ ~o mmvm~mX of ~hm cu~mn~ conditions ~ha~ a~m ~m~, eno of ~h~ch ~s a dmveXo~mn~ ag~mn~ and bond~ and ho mmmu~ ~hmt he wouXd no~ do an~hZng dm~n~mX ~o h~m ~o~- ~ ~o d~mXum ~ m~ncm ho fmmXm hm hmo a mubm~aXZ~ ~ne Zook~n9 butld~ng ~d ho m~ndm a ~o~ of ~ and ~ne~ keeping ~ up. He mdd~mmm~hm ~mmum of ~hm g~n m~mm and cmnted ~hm~ ho d~d no~ ~ whelm ho couXd ~ add~onmX g~mmn m~mm bmcmumm ho hmo ~o utZXZzm ~hm~mm~yond ~hm curb XZnm ~n ~hm back fo~ enow He ~n~md ou~ ~hm~ ~hm conc~m~m ~m oxeyes ~m~n on~o ~hm~ o~ ~m~k~ng Zo~ and chmnnmX~ ~o ~hm ex~m~ng e~o~ emwm~ m~ ~he of ~hm p~o~ and an~ new a~mm w~ZX dra~n l~kmw~mm. Ho ~m~em~ed e~ modification of ~he conditions se~ fo~h ~n ~he C~mm~onm~ Gunde~mhaug conf~~he d~a~nmgm and ~ha~ ~he fence ~d ga~em ~uXd mm~ch ~hm cu~mn~ e~o~age a~em fencing. ~. David ~n~ ou~ ~he~e w~XZ be ~ oep~m~m e~o~age w~h eepm~m~m ~oXZm~ 9a~ee~ one fo~ h~e ~en~m~ and one fo~ h~m use. Mo~ Eopm PXann~ng Ooom~ssion -4- December 1, 1992 Commissioner Gundershaug stressed the Commission's hesitancy to grant even a 2% green area variance and wondered if there was anywhere on the sitethat green area could be added. Mr. David replied that theoretically there is none. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the need for the additional storage trailers, if they are licensed, and if all storage will be limited to the trucks and storage area and nothing else stored outside on the site. Mr. David explained that originally his renter moved his trucks in and out of the site, but eventually determined it was easier to store the trailers and have hie customers come to the site to pick up materials rather than haul it to them, and confirmed that they are licensed. He affirmed that there will be no storage outside of the areas in consideration. Commissioner Gundershaugemphasized that the condition requiring a bond is to insure that everything is completed as shown in plans and he strongly advocates such bond requirement. Mr. David voiced his objections to this requirement. Commissioner Zak commented that she had visited the site during the day and found a lot of outside storage visible and wondered if the requested amount of storage area will be enough to keep it inside. Mr. David answered that a lot of the materials have to be moved in and out and around as they are needed and he is trying to create an area to handle all that so that he does not have to continually answer the citations he receives. Commissioner Zak further commented on the open trailer doors and the unsightlyrusty pipes that block them open and also wondered if a gate could possibly installed on the north side of the storage area and if there could be some trees on the west side to help screen the storage area. She also questioned what lighting is provided around the area. Mr. David replied that a gate could not be installed there because it is utilized for snow storage when there is a large amount of snow. He questioned if trees would survive at that location and he expressed the opinion that he cannot justify putting money into trees to make the area look that much better since, the railroad does nothing to improve their property. He pointed out that the back area is not all that visible. He added that if it would be allowed he would like to put some type of overhang on the fenced area to keep everything under cover, although he cannot justify the cost of doing it right now, but maybe will do it as he has materials available. Mr. David addressed the lighting stating that there is no lighting at the back fence area, but the rest of the yard is well lit with lights on all sides of the building. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the trailer doors and gates are closed and locked at night. Chairman Cameron called for a motion, although he indicated that he would be voting against approval because he does not agree that a green variance should be granted and he suggested that if said variance is needed, perhaps the petitioner has outgrown the site. New Hope Planning Co~ission -5- De=ember 1, 1992 MOTION PC 92-36 (3.4) REQUEST FOR EXPAND NON- COI~'ORMZNQ ALLOW CONSTRUC- TION OF PORCH, 350! VIRGINIA MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to approve the request to amend the conditional use permit to allow expansion of outdoor storage area and increase in trailer limit, &ud to reluctantly approve a 2% variance im ~he green area as requested in Planning Case 92-3S, sub, oct to conditionss ~-~ 1. A development contract and bond be submitted to enforce the new slab, matching scroanimg fence, and trailer moves, and be hold im effect for 24 months (bond to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 2. PFopez~y owner to agree that future C~P violations resulting in citations will provide a basis for staff to bogimaction to re~ove ~he CUP approvals from the prope~y. 3. An~%lll inspection by staff. Voting im favors L£fson, Undardahl, Sak, Oundershaug, Cassan Voting againsts Sak, Cameron, Friedrich Absents Watschke Motion carried. Chairman cameron introduced the next planning case, No. 92-36. Commissioner Underdahl excused herself from the case as the petitioner is a friend. Mr. McDonald outlined the request for a variance to expand a non- conforming structure to allow construction of a porch on the rear. He explained the non-conformity is due to the house being built on & corner lot facing the widest part of the lot whereas the front is actually the narrow end. He noted that all setback requirements are met. Chairman Cameron confirmed with the petitioner her intent to match new materials and roof pitch with existing structure. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve Planning Case 92-36, sub, oct to the conditions~ 1. "Aa-built' survey to be submitted within 7 days of building permit application. 2. Exterior porch materials and roof pitch to match existing. Voting in favors Lifson, Zak, Sonsim, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen votimg agaimats None Mot votimg$ Underdabl Absents Friedrich, Watschka Motion carried. REPORTS (4) Design and Review (4.1) Design & Review did not meet. Codes and Codes & Standards canceled the scheduled November meeting and will Standards (4..2) plan to meet in January date to discuss apartment conversions. OLD BUSINBSS(S) Misc. Zssues No comments on miscellaneous issues. NEW BUSXHBS8(6) November 4, 1992, Planning Commission minutes unanimously approved. No questions or comments on other minutes. New Rope Planning Commission -6- December 1, 1992 ANNOUNC'~4m~B ( 7 A.D~OU~(8) Commissioner Friedrich announced that his term on the Commission is up at the end of 1992 and he will not be seeking reappointment. The members of the Commission unanimously expressed regrets and extended thanks for his many years of service tothe City. A unanimous acclamation by the Commission members was accorded the Management Assistant on the occasion of his 40th birthday and for spending it in the line of duty carrying out the City's businessl Meeting unanimously adjourned at 8~10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary Ne~ ~ope PlannAng Co~m£ssion -7- Deceaber 1, 1992