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