Loading...
1998 Planning CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 3, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Vice-Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE Kirk McDonald administered the Oath of Office to John Cameron and Paul Anderson, and welcomed them to the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Sonsin Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Sue Henry, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary ELECTIONS Vice-Chairman Landy stated that the first order of business was election of officers due to the fact that the City Code states elections shall take place at the beginning of the first Planning Commission meeting of the year. The three officers to be elected are the chair, vice chair, and third officer. Duties of the chair are to conduct the meetings, appoint members to committees and to appoint the chair of each committee. The vice-chair takes the duties of the chair when that person is not in attendance and the third officer, accordingly. Vice-Chairman Landy opened the floor for nominations. Vice-Chairman Landy nominated Chairman Sonsin to remain as chairman, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, and was unanimously approved by acclamation. Commissioner Svendsen nominated Commissioner Landy as vice-chair, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, and was unanimously approved by acclamation. Commissioner Landy nominated Commissioner Svendsen as third officer, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, and was unanimously approved by acclamation. CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC98-01 Item 6.1 Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 6.1, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Shared Parking for 8000 Bass Lake Road at 7910-7914 Bass Lake Road, St. Therese Home, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow shared parking with an adjacent property at 7910-7914 Bass Lake Road. During the platting process last year, one condition of the plat approval was that St. Therese formalize the unofficial off-site parking arrangement by seeking a conditional use permit for the shared off-site parking. This request was to formalize the unofficial past use of 28 parking spaces on adjacent land owned by Kraus Anderson. Mr. McDonald reported that the St. Therese property was rezoned to R-5, Senior/Disabled Residential, last year in conjunction with the approval of the duplex demolition/parking lot expansion. The entire parcel consists of 9.4 acres and the existing land use is as a nursing home and elderly apartments. The L-shaped parcel contains 1.5 acres and is zoned B-2, Retail Business, and contains a small strip center fronting onto Bass Lake Planning Commission Meeting 1 February 3, 1998 Road. The proposed shared parking area is located on the east side of the Kraus Anderson property and has access off of Winnetka Avenue. Surrounding land uses include B-2 Retail Business and R-4 apartments to the east across Winnetka; B-3 Auto Oriented and B-2 Retail Business to the south at the intersection of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road; R-4 apartments and Village Green Golf Course to the west; and R-1 and R-2 residential to the north beyond the golf course. McDonald stated that St. Therese has 239 on-site parking spaces and has more parking than the zoning code requires. They do have a need for off- site parking for their employees, which is why there is an arrangement with Kraus Anderson for the off-site parking. McDonald reported that the application stated that there are times Monday through Friday that an average of 18 additional overflow parking spaces was needed. St. Therese currently contracts with Kraus Anderson for the overflow parking and has been in effect for several years and meets the needs of the St. Therese employees. The reason for the conditional use permit was merely to formalize the existing agreement. McDonald noted that property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, including the city of Crystal, and staff received one inquiry from Lyndale Garden Center. After the request was explained to them, they had no more concerns. McDonald explained that the purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety of the City. In making this determination on whether or not the CUP is to be allowed, the Planning Commission should consider the nature of adjoining land and buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises, the effect upon traffic or any other factors that would have an impact on the general welfare of the City. Other general criteria to be considered include the following items: consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with adjacent land uses, use conforms with all applicable performance standards of the Code, and no depreciation in value of the area. For this request, there are special zoning district criteria to be considered. The criteria for residential districts include: non-residential traffic to be channeled onto thoroughfares and not onto minor residential streets, proper screening from adjacent residential districts, and structure/site shall have an appearance to not adversely affect adjacent residential properties. The criteria for business districts include: use would not cause traffic hazards or congestion, adjacent residences would not be adversely affected by traffic/noise/glare/other nuisances, and nearby businesses would not be adversely affected. Due to the fact that both land uses already exist compatibly with the shared off-site parking use, staff finds that this request meets the general and CUP criteria. McDonald reiterated that traffic is directed onto a major thoroughfare, Winnetka Avenue, there is a pond to the north of the site that provides adequate screening, there are no residential properties close by and there has been no adverse effect on the existing customer traffic. McDonald stated that the Zoning Code states that off-site parking requires a CUP and lists specific conditions including: (1) Off-site parking be developed and maintained in compliance with all requirements of the City Code and this use meets the requirements. (2) There should be reasonable access from off-street parking facilities to the use being serviced and staff feels there is reasonable off-street access via the sidewalk along Winnetka Planning Commission Meeting 2 February 3, 1998 Avenue. (3) City Code requires that the site use be secured by a lease agreement between the parties with the term approved by the City Council, subject to approval by the City Attorney, filed with the City Clerk and recorded with Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, and a certified copy of the recorded document be filed with the City Clerk within 60 days of approval by the City Council. The two parties do have a License Agreement dated November 11, 1997, that includes a 60-day notice to terminate. Staff requests that a conditional of approval include a recording on both property titles within 60 days of Council approval. (4) This condition pertains to the proximity to multiple-family residences and staff feels that this does not apply to this request because St. Therese is not classified as multiple-family residence. (5) Proximity for non-residential use shall be located not more than 300 feet from the main entrance to the principal use being served. This CUP request does not comply with this requirement because a pond separates the parking lot from the nursing home and the distance to the entrance is 300 feet at the closest point across the pond. The yard area around the pond is a secluded, private space for residents. St. Therese does not desire to open the fence at the property line and build a bridge over the pond for employees to walk from the off-site parking area. The employees access the entrance of the building utilizing a sidewalk adjacent to Winnetka Avenue, which is approximately 600 feet. The nursing home and parking lot uses already exist and are compatible. (6) The Zoning Code in this instance requires that St. Therese would maintain the lease agreement for the off-site parking until such time as they would provide parking on the site or provide a site closer to the principal use. Staff feels St. Therese should maintain the lease until they construct additional parking on their property and/or lease space closer to the building. They do have space on their property for future parking expansion. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Report. Mr. Dave Bredenberg, Administrator of St. Therese Home, came forward to answer questions of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Keefe questioned staff's recommendation that upon termination of the lease agreement that off-site parking would be replaced with on-site parking within 90 days and wondered if this time span was from termination of the lease or from notification and whether or not the time span should be 150 days. Mr. McDonald commented that staff felt that if the lease was terminated that St, Therese should construct more parking area or find another site. One hundred fifty days would probably be a more reasonable time frame for construction of a new parking area or to find another site. Commissioner Svendsen asked the City Attorney whether the property address should be corrected to read "New Hope" instead of "Crystal" on the license agreement. The City Attorney recommended that this be corrected. He also noted that the code requires a lease and the document provided is a license agreement. The difference between the two is that a license agreement simply provides someone with the use of the property and does not give the party any real property interest in the property. A lease gives the party a property interest in the property. Due to the fact that code requires a lease and a license agreement has been provided, the conditions of approval should state lease/license agreement. MOTION Item 6.1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve Planning Case 98-01, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Shared Parking for 8000 Bass Lake Road at 7910-7914 Bass Lake Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 3, 1998 Road, St. Therese Home, conditions: Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following 1. Lease/license agreement to be filed with Hennepin County and a certified copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the City Clerk within 60 days of approval. 2. If the lease/license agreement is terminated, the off-site parking will be replaced with on-site parking within 150 days. 3. Change the address on the license agreement to state New Hope, Minnesota, instead of Crystal. Commissioner Kramer commented that his wife is director of residence at St. Therese, but did not feel that there would be a conflict of interest as there would be no financial gain for him, so he would be voting. Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether a license agreement could be filed. The City Attorney stated that a license agreement could be filed with Hennepin County if the property was Abstract. If the property was Torrens, a license agreement may not be acceptable. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Sonsin Motion carried. Landy, Oelkers, COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Svendsen reported that Design & Review did not meet since there were no applications that required review by the Committee. The March deadline for planning applications is February 6. No new applications have been submitted at this time. Commissioner Oelkers asked whether there were any pending applications. Mr. McDonald reported that several businesses are looking at expansions this year. There may be three or four building expansions on the April agenda. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Vice-Chairman Landy stated that Codes & Standards would be studying the Sign Code along with several other issues that would be presented to the Planning Commission in the next few months. Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee met with the City Council so the Council could review the work done by the Committee thus far and confirm that the goals and policies put together by the Planning Consultant and Committee were in agreement with the Council's direction for the City. The document would be informally presented to the Planning Commission at the March meeting for its comments. The next Committee meeting is scheduled for March 24. At that time, the Committee would compile the suggestions from the City Council and the Planning Commission and finalize the goals and policy statements. The update process is on schedule and should be completed this summer. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues Vice-Chairman Landy informed the new Commissioners of the Codes & Standards Committee and Design & Review Committee that are a part of the Planning Commission and explained the purpose of each. At the March meeting, the new Commissioners would be assigned. At that time other Commissioners may also switch Committees if they desire to do so. Planning Commission Meeting 4 February 3, 1998 m NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether the air conditioner ordinance would be returned to the Planning Commission for further review after the City Council declined to change the ordinance as recommended. Mr. McDonald stated that the Council wanted to review the air conditioner variances on a case-by-case basis. Mr. McDonald reported that staff would present several issues resulting from the Comprehensive Plan Update to the Council and ask for direction on the issues before beginning the background work on any ordinance changes. Motion was made by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 2, 1997. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan Update/Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that the March meeting would be held on Monday evening due to the fact that the caucus would be on Tuesday, the regularly scheduled meeting night. A notice for the date change would be posted. New Planning Commission schedules were handed out to all Commissioners. Mr. McDonald reminded Commission of the GTS training available for all Planning Commissioners and to call the office so registrations can be sent in together. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 5 February 3, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 xYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 2, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Cameron, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson Hemken, Kramer Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-31 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Ordinance No. 98- 04, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Reducing the Rear Yard Setbacks in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts and Amending the Setback Regulations on Collector Streets and Thoroughfares, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius, the Planning Consultant, stated that the ordinance was a result of several variances that were approved in the past, as well as an interest in making more buildable land. Due to the fact that New Hope has very little vacant land, one way to increase the amount of buildable land would be to reduce the required setbacks. A comparison of several neighboring communities was completed and it showed that New Hope has larger rear yard setback requirements than Brooklyn Center, Golden Valley, Plymouth or St. Louis Park. Brixius reported that the Codes & Standards Committee investigated three options: (1) leave the ordinance as it was, (2) reduce the rear yard setback to 30 feet from 35 feet, and (3) reduce the rear yard setback to 25 feet. By reducing the rear yard setback to 30 feet, the buildability of the lot would be increased by 8 percent and with a 25-foot setback the buildability of the lot area is increased by 16 percent. Either reduction would be a benefit to property owners. Therefore, the Codes & Standards Committee has made a recommendation to decrease the rear yard setback from a 35-foot setback to either 25 feet or 30 feet in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Brixius stated that the second portion of the code would reduce some of the setbacks along thoroughfares to allow for a setback equivalent to 75 feet from the center line of the street or 35 feet from the right-of- way line of the street. Currently, the Code requires 90 feet from the center line or 50 feet from the right-of-way line. Most right-of-way lines along major thoroughfares have been established and generally an 80- foot right-of-way has been utilized. By reducing the front yard setback along these thoroughfares, the buildable square footage of the lot increases. The existing side yard setback is 35 feet and the recommendation is to reduce the side yard setback to 30 feet or 70 feet from the center line. Commissioner Svendsen asked whether reducing the front yard setback Planning Commission Meeting I March 2, 1998 along 36th Avenue would cause a problem when the street is reconstructed to four lanes of traffic in the near future. This could also impact properties along 49th Avenue if that street is converted to four lanes of traffic. Brixius replied that after discussing the setback reductions with the City Engineer, the Engineer felt that an 80-foot right-of-way would be adequate to make those future improvements. An 80-foot right-of-way is currently being utilized along Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue, and would be adequate for any future improvements along other thoroughfares. Brixius stated that in areas that have not been platted, the suggested right-of-way would be 30 feet or 75 feet from the center line. Commissioner Svendsen reiterated that where 36th Avenue was widened to four lanes in Crystal, the property owners abutting 36th Avenue lost a great deal of front yard area. Brixius responded that in areas currently utilizing a 50-foot front yard setback, the setback would be changed to 35 feet making a big difference in the front yard, however, at the same time, the buildable area of the lot increases significantly. Commissioner Svendsen suggested that upon adoption of a reduced rear yard setback, or for any type of variance or improvement, that the City request a certificate of survey signed by a registered land surveyor in order to alleviate any mistakes in measurements. Chairman Sonsin stated that the reason the City has not always required a lot survey was the cost to the property owner. Commissioner Svendsen felt that the cost of the survey was small in comparison to the cost of an addition to the property. Commissioner Oelkers agreed and stated that several surrounding communities require a survey. Oelkers questioned why the front yard setback was not reduced to 25 feet. Brixius stated that the consensus was that the front yard was used for garage/driveway access and the Codes & Standards Committee wanted to be sure that there would be adequate visibility. Chairman Sonsin interjected that in some of the newer areas in Maple Grove and Plymouth utilizing a 25-foot front yard setback, that all of the houses are built using the same setback, which makes for a uniform appearance along the street. Due to the fact that New Hope was fully developed and had only scattered site redevelopment opportunities, a larger setback change would tend to make an uneven appearance along New Hope's streets. The Commission has always felt that the rear yard was the property owner's personal space and more lenience was given for variances in the rear yard. Oelkers stated that after reviewing the Comprehensive Plan Update that several areas slated for development or redevelopment might be better suited if a 2§-foot front yard setback would be allowed, such as Pond Place. Brixius replied that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee had not yet determined exactly what land use options would be appropriate. It may be possible to allow a smaller front yard setback in such a situation. Any future redevelopment resulting from the Comprehensive Plan, may require some innovation because of the size of the parcels and the cost involved. There was additional discussion regarding whether the City should require a certified survey from property owners. Mr. McDonald suggested that a condition requiring a survey should not be added to this amendment, but the Codes & Standards Committee and staff could research this issue and look at the past history. The City does require a site plan declaration. Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether or not a bay window would intrude into the setback or if it would be an exemption. Brixius stated Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 2, 1998 that generally setbacks are established by the exterior wall of the structure. According to the code, the definition of a setback is "the minimum horizontal distance between a building and a street or lot line, the minimum distance is measured at ground level from the lot line to a point on the ground under the most outwardly extended portion of the side of the structure nearest the lot line." Brixius added that there is a permitted encroachment section that allows several uses to project into the encroachment by two feet, however, this section does not specifically list bay windows. The City Attorney stated that his opinion was that a bay window would be an encroachment into the setback. The fact that there was no foundation under the bay window would not make a difference. Discussion ensued that a bay window was not at ground level, however, the definition states that the measurement is taken from the outward portion of the structure. Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether there should be some mention of a certified survey included with the amendment. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that mention of a survey would be better suited to another section of the code dealing specifically with that issue. This code section deals only with setback r.equirements. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to close the public hearing and approve Planning Case 97-31, Ordinance No. 98-04, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Reducing the Rear Yard Setbacks in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts and Amending the Setback Regulations on Collector Streets and Thoroughfares, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Cameron, Keefe, Svendsen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Hemken, Kramer Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, This ordinance amendment will appear on a future City Council agenda. PC96-27 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Comprehensive Plan Update review. Mr. Brixius stated that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee had been working on this for the last six months. One of the documents completed was the Planning Inventory, which was an accumulation of data concerning the natural environment, land use, social profile, transportation and community facilities. These are existing conditions in the community and would be the base data used in planning for the future. Brixius stated that New Hope's population has declined slightly during the last few years. There has been, however, an increased number of housing units with individual household size declining, due to more empty-nesters. The population forecasts from Metropolitan Council to the year 2020 indicates an additional 278 to 484 new housing units. The 1990 Census indicated New Hope to be an aging community. Some of the observational information that had been included in the plan update stated that New Hope was starting to repopulate as homes are sold to young families. This trend is good for the local retail community in that the young families with children generally spend their money in the community. Brixius stated that current land use patterns are reflective of single Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 2, 1998 family, medium and high density residential. A great deal of attention would need to be given to the commercial areas of the City for maintenance and upgrades. The industrial parks are areas of great pride in that they are fairly stable, provide diversity in tax base, provide local job opportunities and add to the economy of the community. According to the land use chart in the plan update, the total acreage of residential property equals 42.4 percent of the land total. The industrial acreage equals 13.6 percent and commercial equals 3.2 percent equals for a combined total of over 16 percent of the community. The City has done a good job in attracting economic development to provide a significant non-residential tax base to compensate for the burden that residential development brings on a community. Chairman Sonsin asked for clarification on the difference between medium and high density. Brixius replied that the land use breakdown for Iow density is 0-4 units, medium density is 5-10 units, and high density is over 10 units. New Hope does not have a great deal of medium density housing. Future developments of medium density housing would be an option to be explored. Brixius pointed out that New Hope had approximately 17 acres of vacant land located on several scattered sites. There is one very small parcel of commercial land available and approximately 10 acres of vacant residential land, with the largest single parcel being Pond Place, which is unplatted property just north of the Ice Arena. Brixius reiterated that new growth would not be an issue for the future, but rather the maintenance of existing housing stock, revitalization and maintenance of the commercial areas would be crucial as well as the promotion of expansion in the industrial areas. Brixius pointed out that the balance of the inventory provided an outline of existing conditions pertaining to transportation, parks, community facilities, etc. Commissioner Svendsen questioned the redevelopment plans for several of the proposed sites indicated on the map. Brixius replied that in some instances rezoning might be needed to accommodate the redevelopment, such as an existing commercial site to some type of residential development. Brixius explained that the tactics were different from the inventory in that the tactics are intended to identify issues and opportunities through the perceptions of community leaders, business people, and staff. These perceptions dictate how the community's plan and the goals and objectives move forward. Interviews were conducted with business leaders, various commissioners, and staff on a one-to-one basis to gain an understanding of their perceptions of the community. One major issue was community identity. The participants took great pride in the community's neighborhoods, strong industrial parks, park systems and the strong local government, however, they felt there was no real New Hope identity. Other community concerns included the aging of the land use in the community, along with maintaining the tax base. There were concerns regarding maintaining the single family neighborhoods and increasing the quality of the multiple family dwellings. The commercial areas also need attention. There were concerns with the aging population, greater ethnicity in the housing stock turnover, more single parent households, increasing numbers of lower income households, etc. Participants were optimistic that the single family housing stock in New Hope was in good shape due in part to the housing maintenance code. Concern was expressed over the multiple family areas of the City. Participants felt there was a growing need for medium density, life cycle type housing, to retain the elderly population, and there is a need for Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 2, 1998 higher value homes. Most participants expressed concern over the commercial areas of the City and the need to revitalize and capitalize on these areas. There was Concern that the commercial market has moved to Plymouth and Maple Grove. The site appearance of some of New Hope's centers are viewed as having a negative impact on the balance of the business community. Brixius continued by saying that the industrial land uses were seen as very positive with the only concern being that there is virtually no vacant land, therefore, any future development would have to be through in-place expansion. The Zoning Ordinance may need additional amendments to allow greater flexibility for industrial expansions, as well as for residential homeowners to utilize more of the rear yard. The community facilities were received favorably and the only concern was the maintenance of the facilities and higher service costs. Budgeting and finance would be a concern as redevelopment takes place. According to the participants, the school system was seen as contributing positively to the community's image and the relationship between the school district and the City has improved in recent years. Opposing opinions indicated that the lack of passing a referendum and upkeep of the buildings was seen as a detriment to the school district and the City. Brixius next reviewed some of the issues identified in each of the Planning Districts from staff's tour of the City. The specific issues were outlined in the Tactics section of the plan. Public Works prepared a five- year capital improvement plan which was also included in the plan update and indicated various areas that were scheduled to receive attention, such as street and utility improvements. Brixius mentioned that the 1975 plan utilized 30 Planning Districts which have utiliz-ed the current plan update. Brixius continued by pointing out some of the development/redevelopment opportunities in each of the Planning Districts, including: District 1: Redevelopment of multiple family twinhomes on Bass Creek Circle which are showing characteristics of poor building conditions, limited parking, etc. There are some noise problems along Highway 169 also. District 2: Strong residential area, with a natural park area. There are some issues pertaining primarily to a multiple family area at the southern end of the District. Districts 3 and 4: Most of the issues pertain to some of the multiple family dwellings along 62nd Avenue, along with a small commercial center at 62nd and Winnetka Avenues. There are several multiple family dwellings in the area north of Bass Lake Road that are currently in the process of redevelopment. Districts 5 and 9: New Hope's largest industrial park. Offers some opportunity for expansion. There is one vacant industrial lot that is available for development. District 6: There is an area of single family homes that offers some opportunity for redevelopment. District 7: The Bass Lake Road extension area offers opportunity for some type of redevelopment. Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 2, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting District 8: There are some industrial buildings along 54th Avenue adjacent to residential property that need some attention. This area has been identified as a potential Site for a different use or mixed land use through redevelopment. District 10: Strong single family neighborhood. District 11: Strong industrial site with recent industrial development. District 12: Strong residential neighborhood with potential for expansion of a multiple family use along Highway 169. The noise along Highway 169 is an issue that was identified in this residential district. District 13: The major issue here is the high school within a residential neighborhood and the dispersion of students at the end of the school day. District 14: Strong single family neighborhood. District 15: Industrial area along Quebec Avenue. Redevelopment opportunity for several properties at Quebec and 42nd Avenue, which may be redeveloped into a commercial land use. District 16.' Several scattered single family homes that are in need of redevelopment, along with some commercial redevelopment on 42nd Avenue. District 17: Entire City Center area was identified for potential redevelopment with a broad range of options. Alternative land uses may be appropriate for this District. District 18: Strong single family residential area. Post Haste Center offers opportunity for revitalization. District 20: Strong single family neighborhood. District 21: Strong industrial development area. District 22: Older residential neighborhood with some opportunity for redevelopment. There is a commercial area that offers opportunity for redevelopment. District 23: Some in-place expansion opportunities at the industrial sites. District 24: Strong single family residential area with some medium density housing showing signs of deterioration. There are a few sites that may offer some opportunity for commercial redevelopment. District 25: Strong residential area. District 26: Industrial area offering in-place expansion opportunities. Outdoor storage issues present problems at some of the sites. District 27: Several multiple family sites lacking amenities and adequate parking. Aesthetic concerns at the back of Midland Center. The intersection at Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road needs some attention. District 28: Some commercial sites along Winnetka with traffic 6 March 2, 1998 circulation problems. District 29: Strong industrial area with some outdoor storage problems. There is a single family home in the middle of this industrial park that may offer redevelopment opportunities in the future. Mr. Brixius stated that issue identification had been accomplished in each of the Planning Districts. The next step would be to prioritize the issues, due to the fact that there a great deal of redevelopment opportunities that would require a large amount of money. If an identified property was being used well, the City would not be interested in taking over the property. If the opportunity for resale arose or if the property was not being maintained and there would be a safety concern, the City may want to be proactive in the acquisition of the site. The City would need to determine when action was necessary and when it was not. Mr. McDonald interjected that some of the issues identified would be presented to the Planning Commission in the next few months. Brixius stated that the Committee had identified several goals to assist in achieving the kinds of living, working and recreations environments that are desired for the community. The policies attached to those goals are definite courses of action which would lead to the general achievement of the plan. Brixius explained that a land use plan would be prepared next by identifying areas where a land use change should be considered. Drafting of the text follow the land use plan. The public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Update would probably take place in summer. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Committee was looking forward to reviewing plans prior to the April Planning Commission meeting. Mr. McDonald stated that applications for April include Winnetka Center upgrade, Post Haste Center text amendment and upgrade, SuperAmerica redevelopment and Paddock Labs expansion. There may be two additional applications for April, including a CCI addition and Hardware Hank addition. McDonald stated that, according to the existing code, a day care center would not be a permitted use in a shopping center in a B-4 District, therefore, a text amendment would be required for Post Haste center. The day care may be a good way to revitalize the center. The SuperAmerica development would require the purchase and demolition of one or two existing buildings, and rezoning the entire site. Commissioner Svendsen extended an invitation to the two new Commissioners to sit in at the Design & Review meeting before being assigned to a committee. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards would be meeting on March 25 and would be reviewing the text amendment for the day care operation at Post Haste shopping center. Mr. McDonald stated that the accessory building ordinance amendment would be ready for review at the March meeting. The survey issue mentioned earlier in this meeting could be discussed by the Committee. The Planning Consultant was still reviewing the Sign Code. Chairman Sonsin mentioned that if any other Commissioners wanted to Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 2, 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT change t° another Committee to let him know. Sonsin mentioned that the Codes & Standards Committee is limited to less than four members so as to remain less than a quorum, and there is one opening at this time. Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee would be meeting on March 24 to continue discussion on the land use options. There was no discussion on the Miscellaneous Issues. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 3, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan Update/Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Commissioner Landy asked for clarification on the Flag/42"d Avenue development mentioned in the February 9 City Council minutes. Commissioner Landy commented that the 12 percent water rate increase was extremely high. Chairman Sonsin expressed concern over the sign pollution at 36th and Highway 169, with temporary signs posted all over the intersection. Boger Dental still has the For Lease sign up and wondered whether there was still vacant space in the office building. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the intersection at 36th and Boone needs major repair work. Commissioner Svendsen commented that it seemed to him that many residents in the City are now leaving the new, larger BFI garbage cans outside the garage instead of putting them in the garage or in another area of the yard screened from public view. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela S¥1vester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 2, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 7, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC98-02 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Commercial Day Care in a B-4 Zoning District, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval, 9440 36th Avenue North, Bright Start Children's Centers and Caribou Corners, LLC/Jay Mutschler, Petitioners. Mr. Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that this application was three- fold: a zoning text amendment that would allow commercial day cares in commercial zoning districts, a conditional use permit for a commercial day care in a B-4 District, and site/building plan review. Currently, the New Hope Zoning Ordinance allows commercial day cares in residential zoning districts as accessory uses, which are generally associated with churches and schools. The day care use is compatible within the residential district. After examining the code from adjoining communities, it was found that most of these communities allow commercial day cares in their commercial zoning districts close to places of work or shopping environments. Brixius added that one of the priorities of the Comprehensive Plan Update was the revitalization of New Hope's commercial areas. Staff feels that commercial day care facilities are a compatible and complimentary use within a commercial environment. An amendment to the code to accommodate potential tenants within the B-l, B-2 and B-4 commercial districts was seen as being appropriate. This amendment is consistent with the goals and policies for the comprehensive plan by making an effort to revitalize the commercial areas. The City Attorney prepared a text amendment that would allow commercial day cares within the B-l, B-2 and B-4 Zoning Districts by conditional use permit. The conditions that would be imposed on the conditional use permit include: adequate off-street parking with design and location so that there would be no interference with site circulation; off-street loading which may be reduced or waived if the site cannot accommodate a loading berth to the size required or that semi-truck deliveries to the site not interfere with customer/employee access to the building or parking demand; outdoor play area be landscaped and screened from adjacent residential properties; proper signage; compliance with the general Planning Commission Meeting 1 April 7, 1998 conditional use requirements of the code; and licensed by the state. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment. Brixius stated that this text amendment was associated with the Bright Start Children's Centers, which is currently located in the old Robbinsdale High School. Bright Start is proposing to relocate to the Post Haste Shopping Center. The shopping center is located at the corner of Highway 169 and 36th Avenue and contains approximately 22,000 square feet. It was constructed in 1971. The site needs some revitalization and site improvements. Bright Start would be a good addition to the center. Brixius explained that traffic circulation around the center provided access in two directions. Overall, the parking lot and driveways are in very poor condition and staff is recommending that the property owner make the necessary improvements to the parking lot, including striping per City and ADA requirements. Brixius added that the City Engineer recommended that storm water improvements be considered in conjunction with the proposed bituminous overlay. The site plan illustrated 22 parking stalls, and based on the ordinance, 38 parking stalls would be required for a facility of this size. However, Post Haste Shopping Center was developed when eight stalls per 1,000 square feet were required. Since that time, the ordinance was amended to require six stalls per 1,000 square feet. There is an over supply of parking spaces for the shopping center, therefore, no additional parking stalls are necessary for the day care. The front of the day care would be reserved for short-term customer parking for drop-off and pick-up of children. A condition of approval suggests that employee parking and the facility van be parked in the northern parking lot and be screened from adjacent residential properties. Brixius pointed out that a 7,000 square foot outdoor play area was being proposed in the northeast corner of the property within an existing 70-foot green area. This area would require some site grading and improvements to provide pedestrian access to the area. Staff recommended that Bright Start submit a landscape plan for screening the play area from the residential property, the hours of operation should be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and the crosswalk should be shifted to a 45 degree angle so that the crosswalk would be visible from both the south and west driveways. Signage would be provided to bring attention to the crosswalk. Brixius stated that the Planning Commission should discuss the crosswalk with the applicant, as Bright Start desired to leave the crosswalk at a 25 degree angle so that the sidewalk grade would not become excessive. The playground would be fenced and supervised at all times. The doors on the north side ~of the building would not be used for egress from the building. All playground traffic would exit the main entrance, proceed down the sidewalk, and cross in a controlled, supervised manner. Brixius stated that Bright Start had indicated that they would receive food supplies weekly to supply the kitchen needs. Supplies would be received through the front door, as there is no designated loading area for the shopping center. Staff feels that a separate loading area would not be required for the day care. Brixius pointed out that the applicant needed to provide an overall site landscape plan and was requesting permission to defer the installation of plantings until the fall of 1998. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission Meeting 2 April 7, 1998 landscaping for the playground area be installed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit. The balance of the center could be deferred until later in the year. The two trash enclosures would be combined and relocated to the northwest corner of the site. A comprehensive signage plan would be provided for the center by the summer of 1998. Lighting on the site would not be altered. Brixius reported that the City Engineer raised a number of issues regarding site drainage with the regrading of the playground area, as well as the lack of a storm sewer within the parking lot, which has contributed to the deterioration of the parking surface. Brixius reiterated that there are two sets of conditions being proposed. One that would affect the entire shopping center and that the applicant was asking for additional time to implement the improvements, and several conditions that would apply only to the day care and which must to be implemented immediately. Staff is recommending approval of the text amendment to allow commercial day cares in commercial zoning districts. Regarding the shopping center, staff desires that the shopping center commit to overall site improvements, including improvements to the sidewalks, shopping center parking area which includes resurfacing and striping, submission of a comprehensive landscape plan with the playground area being completed immediately and the balance to be completed by the fall of 1998, submission of a comprehensive signage plan, revision of the site plan to show relocated trash enclosures, and development agreement and security posted to insure that the improvements are completed in a timely manner. Regarding the day care's conditional use permit, the conditions would include designated short-term parking stalls, employee vehicles/van to be parked in north parking lot, door on north side of building to be used only for emergency egress, loading area requirements waived, playground operations limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., outdoor play area to be screened from adjacent residential properties prior to receiving occupancy permit, and applicant must demonstrate day care has been licensed by State of Minnesota, installation of fire lane signs, and site plan corrections per the City Engineer's recommendations. Chairman Sonsin asked for the opening date and was told June 1, 1998. Sonsin asked the petitioner to come to the podium to answer questions from the Commission. Ms. Terri Taylor, Regional Director of Bright Start Children's Centers, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, came to the podium. Ms. Taylor addressed a correction in the staff report. The time for afternoon pick up of the children would be from 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. Ms. Taylor pointed out that her region has seven centers in the Twin Cities area, and all centers are licensed by the State of Minnesota. The site at Post Haste Center would be licensed for 121 children. There would be two infant rooms - one with 12 infants and one with 8 infants, one toddler room with 21 children, two preschool rooms - one with 20 children and one with 30 children, and one school-age room licensed for 30 school- age children. Ms. Taylor stated that other than the main entrance doors, all the other doors leading from the classrooms to the outside can be accessed from the inside only for safety reasons. In the morning when parents bring the children, the parents are responsible for escorting the children into the building through the main entrance, signing them in and taking them Planning Commission Meeting 3 April 7, 1998 to the appropriate classroom. In the evening, the parents go to the classroom to pick up the children, come back to the main entrance to sign them out and leave through the main entrance. No child would be allowed to leave the building without their parents. Both preschool rooms would exit the building on the east side and walk to the playground. Per state regulations, the same ratio of teacher/children applies on the playground as well as in the classroom. The ratios of teachers to children are as follows: infants 1:4, toddlers 1:7, preschool 1:10, and school-age is 1-'15. The crosswalk the children would use to get from the building to the playground would be yellow-striped. Ms. Taylor emphasized that Bright Start believes the angle of the crosswalk should remain at 25 degrees for the safety of the children, because there would be a clearer view of children using the crosswalk from both the north and east side of the building. If the crosswalk would be moved, the view from the north side would not be as clear. Child care centers in Minnesota are strictly regulated with regard to safety. Bright Start, additionally, provide each staff person with emergency policies and procedures that everyone must know upon hire and which is reviewed with them on an annual basis. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the children's safety is a very important issue to them. Bright Start wants the children to have fun, have an educational experience, and be safe. Ms. Taylor called attention to the staff parking on the north side of the building. She requested the Commission consider an exception to that condition. One teacher opens at 6:30 a.m. in the morning and one teacher that closes the center at 6:00 p.m. In winter when it is dark outside in the early morning and evening hours, Bright Start would like to have these two people park on the east side closer to the main entrance for safety reasons. She also expressed concern about the safety of the van being parked so far from the main entrance and asked for consideration to park the van closer to the main entrance on the east side. The rest of the staff that arrives later can park on the north side. Ms. Taylor reiterated that there was a real need for quality child care in New Hope, and as a child care facility, felt they would bring stability and quality to the community. The program is set up in a warm and loving environment with age appropriate educational activities. Bright Start has already received several calls from families in this area wanting to know when they can enroll their children. Ms. Taylor stated that Bright Start would like to be a part of the New Hope community. Commissioner Svendsen thanked the petitioner for the information presented. Svendsen raised the issue of where the bus would pick up or drop off the school-age children, and whether it was determined yet if the bus stop would be on Jordan Avenue or whether the bus would drive into the shopping center parking lot. Ms. Taylor stated that she had some contact with the School District transportation department and was still working on that issue. Bright Start would like to have the bus come into the parking lot to drop the children off at the front entrance. Sonnesyn would be the home school for the children at the day care. A meeting would be set up with the School District at the day care site to determine the best way to handle this. The bus stop issue would be accomplished before the end of the current school year. Commission Svendsen asked about the commercial kitchen and expressed concern that no exhaust fans or rooftop units were shown on the plans. The architect reported that there would be an exhaust unit on the roof along with the units that are currently on the roof. Svendsen Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 7, 1998 responded that staff would require that the units be painted to match the building and the units should be shown on the plan. Svendsen stated that he did not see a problem with the opening/closing employees parking close to the main entrance, along with the facility van parked in the first stall by the playground. Commissioner Svendsen asked that the property owner come forward to answer questions. Mr. Jay Mutschler, representative of the owners of Post Haste Center, came forward. Svendsen questioned whether the location of the chain-link fence would be moved since it was set back quite a distance from the property line. Mr. Mutschler referred the question to the architect. Mr. Tom Prokasky, architect for the building, came forward. Mr. Prokasky stated that they had not anticipated moving the fence. Svendsen pointed out that staff was concerned about the maintenance on the other side of the fence if the adjacent property owners did not assume responsibility. Mr. Prokasky replied that they were unaware of the large distance from the fence to the property line until the site survey was completed. Along the north side there is approximately 25 feet from the fence to the property line and the average distance on the east side of the site is approximately 15 feet. Prokasky stated that the shopping center did not need the property and the adjoining neighbors were taking care of the property as part of their lawns and had been for quite some time. The shopping center owners at this point saw no reason to change the fence line. Mr. Mutschler stated that if at some time in the future that the property owners were not maintaining that portion of the property, the shopping center would maintain the property. Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether there would be some other screening of the gas meters. Mr. Prokasky replied that they could do some improvements on one side, however, the other side was left open for gas meter reading. There is also a four-foot berm that separates the meters from the neighbors. Svendsen stated that the Design & Review Committee had requested that the water service and utilities be shown on the site plan. Prokasky replied that they do not have this information at this time, but would ascertain that information. Commissioner Kramer wondered whether the shopping center could still claim that the property between the fence and the property line was still theirs after 20 years or so or would it defer to the neighbors who were taking care of it. The City Attorney stated that it was his opinion that someone could not acquire Torrens property through adverse possession. If there was some concern, it would be between the property owners and not the City. Kramer pointed out that his only concern was with the maintenance of the property if one of the neighbors quit taking care of that portion of their yard. The City Attorney replied that if the property was not being maintained, the City would contact the shopping center or the property owner. Commissioner Svendsen stated that, in his opinion, the 25 degree crosswalk could be left as it was. Commissioner Oelkers pointed out that if the crosswalk was changed, the sidewalk to the playground would also have to be changed and would then become quite steep because of the grade of the property at that point. Svendsen added that the sidewalk should be wheelchair accessible. Mr. Prokasky stated that the crosswalk would be seen by drivers from the north and east side of the center. Svendsen questioned if an agreement was reached with the Planning Commission Meeting § April 7, 1998 school district whether Bright Start would install ADA curb cuts for the secondary crosswalk from the southeast corner of the building, and this was confirmed by the petitioner. Prokasky stated that this would be done along with signage. The Post Haste Center is an older center and the owners realized that there were major upgrades that need to be accomplished to bring the center up to current code requirements. Svendsen stated that, in his opinion, the handicap signage could be placed on the side of the building rather than installing posts for the handicap signs in the sidewalk. Commissioner Svendsen questioned what landscaping would be proposed for the area around the playground to the north. Mr. Prokasky stated that a berm would be installed. The entire playground is fenced and sodded. If screening of the playground would be accomplished with plantings, the plants would need to be installed on the opposite side of the fence in the neighbors yards and then there is the question of maintenance of the new plantings. If the plantings would die, who would be responsible for replacement. Prokasky stated that there is quite extensive screening in place now, however, they were open to suggestions. Svendsen questioned whether the neighborhood meeting had been held and if there had been any feedback regarding the screening issue or other concerns. The petitioners stated that one couple had attended the meeting. Mr. Gary Bressler, architect for Bright Start, came forward. Bressler stated that the neighborhood meeting was held during the previous week with one couple, the Christensens, viewing the plans and expressing concern about playground activity. The major concern was the trash enclosure on the north side of the site, which seemed to be a focal point for the gathering of neighborhood kids. The landscaping issues were not mentioned. Svendsen called attention to the five-foot chain-link fence around the playground and wondered whether a gate was being proposed on the north side in the event that the day care staff would need access to the area outside the fenced playground. Ms. Susan Johnson-Jacka, Vice President of Bright Start Children's Centers, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Ms. Johnson-Jacka pointed out that the fence around the far northern triangular shaped area would be removed and not be used as a playground. A new fence would be installed that would that would make a straight line along the northern section of the property. There would be a lot more open space on that section of the property adjacent to the neighbors' yards. The berms on the far northwest corner of the property would remain. The berms that are being removed are on the front of the playground in order to create a more level playing surface. There are two separate playgrounds. Staff and children will enter the playground area and the toddlers will proceed to the left to a separate area with play equipment geared to that age level. The other playground on the right would have play equipment geared for preschool and school-age children. The children rotate in small groups on the playground, so all of the children would not be on the playground at one time. During the school year between 12:30 and 3:30 p.m. there generally are no children on the playground because that is nap time in the day care. The only time during the school year when there would be children on the playground during that time would be on a non-school day when the older children would be at the facility. During the summer the older children may make use of the playground during the early afternoon. Commissioner Keefe questioned whether there would be restricted access to the play area. Ms. Johnson-Jacka replied that there would be one gate to go into the playground and the Planning Commission Meeting 6 April 7, 1998 younger children Would then proceed through another gate into the toddler play area. A question was asked whether the playground would be locked at all other times. Ms. Johnson-Jacka responded that at most other centers a sign had been posted indicating private property. The gate to the play area is locked other than the hours the center is open. Commissioner Svendsen again raised the issue of a gate on the north side of the fence. Ms. JohnsomJacka stated that there would be no problem to install a gate on the north side for access to that area. The children are well supervised and the teachers provide many different toys and activities for the children while in the play area. Commissioner Svendsen questioned the schedule for the completion of site improvements, such as the sidewalk, parking lot overlay, etc. The architect answered that the overlay would be completed by July. Chairman Sonsin added that the City Council would need specific dates for the completion of the site improvements. Commissioner Hemken stated that she was familiar with Bright Start and felt it was a good operation and the children were reasonably well behaved. Chairman Sonsin asked how many children were at the current location in Robbinsdale and was told that there are 106 children at that location. Sonsin wondered if consideration was given to the traffic flow. Ms. Johnson-Jacka responded that the center opens at 6:30 a.m. and that parents have varied work schedules so not all children are coming at the same time. The busiest times are between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and by 9:30 most of the children have arrived. Staff also have staggered schedules during the day. Children are picked up starting about 3:00 p.m. with the heaviest times being between 4:15 and 5:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. At enrollment time, parents are asked for anticipated drop off and pick up times. Commissioner Svendsen asked the owner whether consideration had been given to widening the Jordan Avenue entrance, Mr. Mutschler stated that consideration was being given to widening the north side of the entrance off of Jordan Avenue. The architect added that the existing Jordan Avenue curb cut has the radius going to the south. The tighter radius is on the north side, which would exit onto a residential street. The architect did not feel it was necessary to change the curb cut since most of the traffic would exit to the south. The money saved on changing the curb cut could be spent elsewhere at the site. Svendsen expressed concern that the majority of parents would use the curb cut onto Jordan Avenue in order to utilize the controlled intersection at Jordan and 36th Avenues rather than trying to exit onto 36th Avenue from the south parking lot curb cut. Chairman Sonsin asked whether anyone in the audience desired to express their views or objections. Mr. Tom Christensen, 3639 Jordan Circle, came forward. Christensen stated he had lived at this location for 27 years. His concerns included noise from the playground, the relocation of the trash shed, the contents of the trash shed and the odor from dirty diapers, and whether the playground gate would be locked all the time. Commissioner Hemken questioned the distance from the back of the Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 7, 1998 house to the chaimlink fence, and Mr. Christensen stated the distance was approximately 30 yards. Christensen added that the original owner of the center had a neighborhood meeting when the site was being developed in 1971 and told the neighbors he would not zig-zag the fence line, but would do whatever the majority of the neighbors wanted. The neighbors on the north side wanted to have the additional 25 feet. The neighbors on the east side did not want the additional footage. Commissioner Oelkers questioned where the new trash enclosure would be located. Mr. Prokasky answered that the new location would be at the northwest corner of the property. Two items to consider are the setback requirements for the property and the visibility of the center from Highway 169. There is a small shed that houses the trash receptacles and the property owners do not want the view from Highway 169 to look like the back of the shopping center. Prokasky mentioned that the enclosure would have lap siding on the outside. The size had not been determined, however, it was anticipated that the enclosure would be approximately three car spaces. Commissioner Hemken raised the diaper/odor issue. Ms. Johnson-Jacka responded that at their other locations, garbage pick up is two times per week and there have never been any complaints about odor. Chairman Sonsin stated that two motions were required: one for the text amendment and one for the CUP and site/building plan approval. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on the zoning text amendment. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to approve a Zoning Text Amendment to allow commercial day care center in a B-4 Zoning District, 9440 36th Avenue North, Bright Start Children's Centers and Caribou Corners, LLC/Jay Mutschler, Petitioners. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that this Zoning Text Amendment applies to all B-l, B-2 and B-4 Zoning Districts and not just to Post Haste Center. Sonsin also mentioned that if the Zoning Text Amendment was not approved, Bright Start's application would not move forward. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None None This text amendment would be presented to the City Council on April 13, 1998. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve Planning Case 98-02, Request Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Commercial Day Care in a B-4 Zoning District, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval, 9440 36th Avenue North, Bright Start Children's Centers and Caribou Corners, LLC/Jay Mutschler, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. The shopping center owner commit to the following overall site improvements to be completed: Planning Commission Meeting 8 April 7, 1998 A. The sidewalks on the shopping center property be repaired including leveling the sidewalk, fixing broken concrete, etc. Sidewalk repairs must be completed by June 1, 1998. B. The overall shopping center parking lot be repaired and receive a bituminous overlay. The parking lot must be striped in accordance with the City zoning regulations and ADA requirements. Applicant shall submit a site drainage plan for review and approval of the City Engineer. Parking lot improvements must be completed by August 1, 1998. C. The applicant submit a landscape plan for City review and approval. Landscape plantings must be installed in accordance with the approved plan. The applicant shall remove dead landscape vegetation from the site. The installation of landscape screening around the playground and the removal of the dead landscape vegetation must be completed prior to issuing occupancy permit to the Day Care. The balance of the landscaping must be installed by November 1, 1998. D. The applicant will submit a comprehensive signage plan for City approval and notify the City when the plan will be submitted the week of April 13, 1998. E. The applicant will submit a revised site plan and design detail for the relocated trash enclosure for City approval and notify the City when the plan will be submitted the week of April 13, 1998. F. The property owner shall enter into a development contract and post a security to guarantee that the deferred improvements will be completed per the aforementioned schedules. 2. Conditions associated with the day care facility will be as follows: A. The day care designated seven parking stalls near the main east entrance as short-term parking. B. Day care employee vehicles, with the exception of two employee's vehicles who open/close the center and the facility's van, will be parked in the north parking lot. C. Except for emergency egress, the doors on the north side of the building will not be utilized for building egress. D.The loading area requirements are waived. E. Playground operations will be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and playground shall be locked at all other times. F. The outdoor playground must be screened from adjoining residential properties prior to the day care receiving an occupancy permit. G. Prior to building occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate that the day care has been licensed by the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services. H. Installation of Fire Lane signs and yellow striping, all traffic control signage and disability parking/signage be installed before occupancy of the building by Bright Start. I. Rear gate on playground fence to be installed to allow access to north side. 3. Site plan corrections, per the City Engineer's recommendations, i.e., existing utilities to be shown on the site plan, etc. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None None 9 April 7, 1998 This planning case will be presented to the City Council on April 13, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioners be in attendance at the Council meeting. The City Attorney clarified that there would be another public hearing on the Zoning Text Amendment at the April 13 City Council meeting because the publication requirements were not met for the Planning Commission meeting. PC98-03 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan and Variances to the Sign Code, 4301-4471 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Mall II/Robert Rappaport, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius explained that the applicant was requesting a comprehensive sign plan for Winnetka Center which required consideration of two variances. Winnetka Center was purchased last fall by Robert Rappaport, who is interested in changing the image of the center and improving the tenant base within the shopping center. Administrative approval was granted for the overall site including parking lot improvements for better access to the front of the building, new building canopies, and landscaping. The petitioner is seeking approval for the comprehensive sign plan. The wall signage would include awnings and cabinet lighting above each tenant bay and the signage meets all requirements as far as number of signs, sign area and location. The petitioner is also requesting two free-standing pylon identification signs. The current ordinance allows for a shopping center on a corner lot to have one identification sign per street frontage. The total sign area of each ground sign would be 198 square feet and the total height would not exceed 30 feet. Brixius explained that the variances being requested were two-fold. The petitioner had requested that both identification signs be located along Winnetka Avenue to provide shopping center identification along the major thoroughfare rather than along 45th Avenue, which is a residential street. Secondly, the applicant is requesting to place the sign approximately 19 feet off the property line. The face of the sign would then be located approximately 13 feet from the property line. The current Sign Code requires a 20-foot setback from the property line. Staff found that the location of both signs along Winnetka Avenue would be consistent with trying to revitalize this center. Due to the size of the center, the second sign would not be intrusive along Winnetka Avenue. The center is set back a large distance from Winnetka Avenue creating a hardship that is unique to this site as far as sight lines to the center and the effectiveness of the wall signage. Therefore, staff agrees that the location of both signs along Winnetka is warranted. Regarding the setback requirement, staff does not find a hardship along Winnetka Avenue that would prevent meeting the required setback. The sight lines are relatively flat, the area is visible from Winnetka, and the signs would not consume much needed parking space. Brixius added that staff had been reviewing the Sign Code in an effort to make the Code more user friendly as far as sign area, height, and location. Staff reviewed the first draft of the Sign Code revisions and one of the elements that is being considered is a recommendation to establish a single, uniform setback throughout the City for signage. The recommendation from the Committee, regardless of the type of free- standing signs, would be a lO-foot setback. This change has not been Planning Commission Meeting 10 April 7, 1998 reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee, Planning Commission, or Council, however, if the Commission feels that there is a degree of reasonableness in the setback reduction, the variance in this case could be approved. The Commission should remember that granting the setback variance would establish precedent and policy regarding an ordinance revision. Staff does feel that the lO-foot setback is appropriate, The large variety of sign setbacks was hard to enforce. Brixius pointed out that the Commission could either approve the variance and have staff present a text amendment in the future or deny the variance and require the 20-foot setback. Commissioner Landy asked for clarification on the requested setback. Mr. Brixius stated that the request was for a 13-foot setback. McDonald added that the post would be 19 feet from the property line and the face of the sign would be 13 feet from the property line. Mr. Rappaport, part owner of Winnetka Center, came forward to answer questions and stated that he owns several shopping centers in the Midwest, including Four Seasons Mall in Plymouth which is 100 percent leased at this time. Rappaport stated that he has great plans for the center and was requesting some help with signage for the existing tenants at the center. Commissioner Oelkers commended the petitioner on the plans and stated that he felt this was a reasonable request. Oelkers reported that the petitioner had explained in detail for the Design & Review Committee the plans for the center and there are some big changes coming. Rappaport stated they would create a rich and inviting atmosphere. They would be bringing in tenants with many employees at the center. Regarding the site improvements, the awnings would be back lit and be color coordinated with the balance of the building. The color of the building would be changed to a dark brown, which would make the tenant's signage stand out. Additional landscaping would be installed, The parking lot would also be changed so customers can park perpendicular to the building. Long-term plans would include attracting a restaurant for the corner of 45th and Winnetka. Commissioner Cameron requested clarification on why the sign needed to be move closer to the street. Rappaport indicated that moving the sign would be for better visibility and sight lines for potential customers traveling north/south on Winnetka. By leaving the sign in the parking lot, it would utilize a couple parking spaces. Another reason for not installing the sign on 45th Avenue was that the light from the sign would then shine in the windows of the adjacent apartment buildings. Commissioner Svendsen stated that he was in favor of moving the signs and felt it would be a positive move in attracting customers to the businesses in the center. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-03, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan and Variances to the Sign Code, 4301-4471 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Mall II/Robert Rappaport, Petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. Staff continue to work on the Sign Code update and establish a uniform pylon setback requirement for all Zoning Districts. Planning Commission Meeting 11 April 7, 1998 Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None None This planning case will be presented to the City Council on April 13, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioners be in attendance at the Council meeting. PC98-04 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Site/ Building Plan Review Approval for Building Addition, Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirement, and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 8201 54th Avenue North, CNH Architects and The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting site/building plan review approval for a building addition, a variance to the front yard setback requirement, and comprehensive sign plan approval. The City received a request from CNH Architects on behalf of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, to enclose the existing loading area along the north side of the building at 8201 54th Avenue. The new owner wants to rejuvenate the property by enclosing the entire front yard trucking docks and modernizing the front elevation of the building. The existing structure was built in 1966 with docks on the north side of the building and adjacent to the residential district. This arrangement of the loading area has presented noise and aesthetic issues for several years. The proposed dock enclosure will help improve the noise problems and aesthetic issues. The required front yard setback in this district and adjacent to a residential district is 75 feet. In order to enclose the existing loading dock, the applicant had requested a setback variance of 25 feet to allow the building within 50 feet of the north lot line. With the proposed addition, the applicant has identified site improvements in regard to parking, landscaping and building image. The applicant has also submitted an overall comprehensive sign plan for review. The existing structure is a multi-tenant building. The applicant has proposed two wall signs, one ground sign and directional signs as part of their comprehensive sign plan. McDonald explained that the existing parcel contains 13.2 acres and the existing office/warehouse building contains 342,000 square feet. Surrounding land uses and zoning are I-1 Limited Industrial to the east, railroad tracks and I-1 Limited Industrial to the west and R-1 single family homes and Begin Park on the north. The entire site is generally flat, but was built with the front trucking lot depressed eight feet below the street, which results in a drainage problem around the front loading dock doors. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified and staff have received one inquiry from an adjoining neighbor, who was pleased with the expansion after reviewing the plan. McDonald stated that the existing building meets the 75-foot setback variance, however, the loading dock presents compatibility problems. The Planner pointed out four conditions in his report supporting the requested variance, including 1) the site currently conforms to the front yard setback, 2) the site size and building configuration prohibits relocating the loading docks, 3) the building addition would enclose the loading docks and would not expand the usable floor area of the building, and 4) the proposed building expansion would improve the Planning Commission Meeting 12 April 7, 1998 aesthetics and noise issues. McDonald reported that the petitioner had submitted a letter with a list of reasons for granting the request, which was enclosed with the Planning Report. Staff feels that the relationship of the building's loading docks to the adjoining residential neighborhood does present a hardship and is unique to this property and warrants approval of the variance request. McDonald reported that the petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee and revised plans were submitted as a result of that meeting. Per City Code, 240 parking spaces would be required for this site and have been provided. The petitioner had eliminated several parking stalls on the northeast corner of the parking lot and replaced them with trees and shrubs per the recommendation of the Design & Review Committee. The enclosed loading area also provided parking spaces for seven semi-trucks. Nine handicap parking stalls have been provided on the site. The Committee discussed the fact that the site plan did not show curbing around the western property line. Curbing has been required for some industrial redevelopments in the past. This particular expansion does not affect the west side of the property, therefore, it would be up to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not curbing should be installed. A recommendation was made to increase the size of the curb cuts along the northern property line to 30 feet to create suitable turning/visibility space for trucks and the revised plans did show the widened curb cut. One existing curb cut would be removed from the center of the lot. There would be one-way traffic flow through the enclosure. The site plan shows the surface to be bituminous paving and meets the ordinance requirement. The proposed plan provides snow storage areas on the southern portion of the lot at both sides of the parking area. The existing site does not meet the 20 percent green area, however, based on the revised site plan, the green space requirement has been improved by removing two parking stalls, eliminating one driveway on the north side of the new loading dock area, and reducing the width of the northeast driveway and parking bay. McDonald stated that the petitioner had proposed removing the existing trees and shrubs on the north property line to improve the sight lines and the Design & Review Committee asked that the petitioner work with the City Forester to expand the variety of plantings. The building material would be precast concrete wall panels with a limestone aggregate finish and a decorative band around the top. There would be three roof-top units which would be painted to match the building. The lighting plan shows two new down lights over the entrance and exit of the enclosed docks. Staff requested that the foot candle levels be submitted. The trash storage areas are shown on the plan, however, staff requested detailed plans be submitted. The signage plan included a new 40-foot ground sign to be installed on the front property line. The aluminum sign would be 40 square feet with a lighted acrylic face. There would be two wall signs at opposite ends of the building to identify the tenants. McDonald pointed out that the City Engineer had concerns regarding the proposed building addition to be built over an existing private storm sewer. The existing catch basins were shown on the plan. A condition would be that an as built of the existing storm sewer be provided to the City. The City Engineer does not recommend that an easement be dedicated to the City, the storm sewer would remain private. Sanitary sewer and water service lines need to be shown on the plans. McDonald commended the petitioner on the revised plans, and stated Planning Commission Meeting 13 April 7, 1998 staff felt this would be a good addition to the City, and recommended approval subject tO the Conditions contained in the Planning Report. Mr. Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects and representative of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Hutson reiterated that the building was built in 1966 with the docks facing the residential neighborhood. Two of the major issues associated with the building would be to eliminate the noise problem and correct the disrepair of the loading docks. Hutson explained that the site does not allow for relocation of the loading docks, which is why they have proposed to enclose the entire dock area and contain the sound. Hutson showed the north elevation of the building as it would look before and after the landscaping would be planted. The existing building is brick with the back portion having some green fiberglass panels at the top. The new addition would be a limestone aggregate precast panel with a decorative band near the top. Hutson emphasized that this addition would be a benefit to the neighborhood as far as aesthetics and sound control, to the City by improving the area, and to the building owner by providing a more up-to-date and usable dock arrangement. Commissioner Svendsen mentioned that the southwest portion of the parking lot was currently under water after the recent rain and questioned how the petitioner proposed to remove the water. Hutson stated he was not aware that was an issue and would look into the matter. Svendsen asked whether the chain-link fence around the propane tanks in the south parking lot would be repaired as well as the fence at the southeast end of the building by the railroad tracks. Hutson replied that the owner was looking into removing the fence and tanks. As far as the fence by the railroad tracks, this would also be taken care of to eliminate any safety issues. Svendsen commended the petitioner on removing the asphalt in the front of the addition per Design & Review's recommendation, however, he called attention to the fact that there did not appear to be any lighting in the area over the new sidewalk. Hutson stated they added the sidewalk to improve the drainage around the building in that location. He did not anticipate the sidewalk being used for pedestrian traffic, especially at night. The petitioner also stated that the sidewalk was added due to the fact that generally grass does not grow well on the north side of a building. Svendsen emphasized the fact that regardless if this sidewalk would be used by pedestrians, the area should have some type of outside lighting, such as wall packs. Commissioner Cameron questioned how much truck traffic would be moving through the area. Mr. Hutson replied that the building was vacant now and stated he did not know what the truck traffic would be. Commissioner Kramer asked for clarification whether the petitioner would be moving the fence and the propane tanks or just the fence. Hutson replied that the tanks and fence would be removed and the asphalt repaired. MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-04, Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval for Building Addition, Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirement, and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 8201 54th Avenue North, CNH Architects and The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting 14 April 7, 1998 1. Provide "as-built" StOrm sewer plans and identify sanitary sewer and water service lines on the site plan. 2. The noise levels of the proposed exhaust fans must meet City noise standards. 3. The revised plans do not indicate foot candle level and this must be specified on the plan. 4. A detailed plan must be submitted for the east outdoor trash areas. 5. Petitioner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City and provide financial guarantee (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 6. Wall pack down lights be added to the north elevation of the building addition over the sidewalk area. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None None This planning case will be presented to the City Council on April 13, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioners be in attendance at the Council meeting. PC98-05 Item 4.4 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Request for Site/ Building Plan Review Approval for Building Expansion, 3940 Quebec Avenue North, Paddock Laboratories/Bruce Paddock and SKD Architects, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting site/building plan review approval for a building addition. Paddock Laboratories constructed an 80,251 square foot pharmaceutical manufacturing facility at 3940 Quebec Avenue North in 1994, when they relocated their entire operation from their former site on Louisiana Avenue. Since that time they have experienced continued growth and are now proposing an expansion of the existing facility. SKD Architects, on behalf of Paddock Labs, was petitioning for site/building plan review approval for two expansions onto the existing building: 1) a 19,830 square foot expansion of the building's warehouse component on the east side of the existing building, and 2) a 16,524 square foot one-story expansion of the production and laboratory facilities on the west side of the existing building. These two additions would bring the total building size to 116,605 square feet. The plans also include planning for the accommodation of a future warehouse expansion on the southeast corner of the building of approximately 15,840 square feet, which would maximize the development of that site. This approval does not include the future expansion. McDonald stated that this was strictly a request for site/building plan review approval. No additional requests for variances or exceptions to the Zoning Code are tied to this application. It is their intention to comply with all setback, parking, landscaping and site coverage requirements. The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and the warehouse/production/laboratory use is a permitted use within the I-1 Zoning District. Surrounding zoning and land uses include I-1 Limited Industrial to the north (Versa Die Cast), Residential-Office to the west (Holy Nativity Church), R-1 zoning east of the railroad to the east, and Beth El Cemetery (City of Crystal) to the south. The total area of the site is 7.5 acres. The topography of the property slopes 23 feet Planning Commission Meeting 15 April 7, 1998 from the southwest corner (cemetery) rear lot line to the street and the existing drainage pond at the east side of the lot. Property owners within 3,50' of the request have been notified, including the City of Crystal. One person from the adjacent church came to City Hall to review the plans and was satisfied with the expansion project. McDonald reported that the Planning Consultant prepared a report on this request, which included the special requirements for all Limited Industrial uses as follows: 1) lot coverage requirement was of 40 percent and the proposed building would cover 36 percent of the site, 2) the site contains 7.5 acres which exceeds the one acre requirement, and 3) the green area requirement is 20 percent and the proposed green area would be 28 percent. McDonald reported that the Design & Review Committee met to review the plans and revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. The building setback and height requirements have been met. A 20-foot rear yard setback was approved with the original building construction and would not be needed with this request. The height of the addition matches the existing building height and meets the requirement of not exceeding three stories. A total of 263 spaces are required with 53 of those spaces being required for the expansion. The proposed plan indicated 26§ total off-street parking spaces. State Statutes require seven accessible parking spaces for 201 to 300 total parking spaces with one of those spaces being van accessible. The site plan shows that nine spaces are to be utilized for disability parking. The parking stalls and drive aisles meet or exceed the cited stall dimension requirements. City Code requires that all off-street parking and driveway areas be paved and have perimeter curbing. The site plan indicated that the designated parking, loading and drive aisles would be paved and have perimeter curbing. McDonald explained that the landscaping plan showed eight new plantings and the relocation of some existing plantings. The applicant submitted a grading and drainage plan that was approved by the City Engineer and which was submitted to the Shingle Creek Watershed. The lighting plans indicate standard-mounted light fixtures with light contours from 5.0 to 0.5 foot candles. The only new light pylons are on the eastern 1/3 of the lot, near the pond, which are down lights similar to the existing lights. The building plans and elevations indicate that the proposed building material will be architectural precast panels, aluminum fascias, and glazing that match the existing building materials. This expansion project provides two seamless additions to the existing building with detailing and finishes to be duplicated on all building facades. McDonald stated that staff was not necessarily suggesting that a public sidewalk be required on the front property line of Paddock Laboratories along Quebec Avenue North, but that staff is interested in extending sidewalks in certain areas of the City. This is a policy decision of the Planning Commission and City Council as to its need. However, staff wanted to raise this as an issue for discussion as the City Council sometimes participates in a joint-cooperative agreement with the property owner for sidewalk installation. All utilities and relocated utilities are identified on the plans. No additional signage was proposed. Snow storage areas are identified on the plan on the east, west and north side of the property. There is an existing dumpster enclosure shown on the plan at the rear of the Phase I building addition expansion. Planning Commission Meeting 16 April 7, 1998 McDonald stated that the City Engineer reviewed the plans and had the following comments. A sidewalk extension along Quebec Avenue between Winnetka Avenue and 42"d Avenue and 42"d Avenue to 49th Avenue is recommended. There is an existing sidewalk on the south side of Quebec Avenue abutting the church property to the east of the Paddock Laboratories site. The owner shall assume all responsibility for cleaning and repairing Quebec Avenue resulting from the building expansion. The owner shall assume responsibility for cleaning/reshaping the slope adjacent to the pond following the grading operation. Mr. Mark Longworth, Vice President of SKD Architects, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Bruce Paddock, President, and Mr. Ed Maloney of Paddock Laboratories were also in attendance at the meeting. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the petitioner whether or not they would be willing to discuss the sidewalk issue with city staff. Mr. Paddock stated that there was some discussion of a sidewalk in 1992 when the building was constructed. Paddock stated that this is a light industrial area and he felt that a sidewalk generally was not required in that specific zoning district. He stated that there is very little, if any, pedestrian traffic around the building. For safety reasons, pedestrian traffic should be discouraged. Paddock added that they would comply with all requirements. Commissioner Oelkers also mentioned the NURP pond and the fact that there was some erosion taking place. Paddock responded that erosion control measures would be completed with additional grading, etc. according to the water districts specifications. A survey would be completed after the corrections have been accomplished. Oelkers commended the petitioner on the plans. Chairman Sonsin asked if there was anyone in the audience that desired to address the Commission. Mr. Richard Swenson, 3957/3959 Oregon Avenue, came forward. Swenson questioned the traffic patterns with the addition to the building. Mr. Longworth answered that there would not be any additional traffic east of the site on the Oregon Avenue. Any additional traffic would be on 36th and 42"" Avenues or Quebec and Winnetka Avenues. Swenson questioned what the visual impact would be on the adjacent residential areas. Mr. Longworth responded that the building would be somewhat closer to the residential areas, however, it would look the same as the existing building. The railroad tracks that are to the east of the site are elevated and provide screening. The east building elevation would extend out closer to the property line, but would not change the building substantially. MOTION Item 4.4 Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-05, Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval for Building Expansion, 3940 Quebec Avenue North, Paddock Laboratories/Bruce Paddock and SKD Architects, Petitioners. 2. 3. 4. Planning Commission Meeting Shingle Creek Watershed written approval is required because the lot is over five acres in size. The condition of the existing NURP pond must be verified and, if necessary, sediment should be removed. Plant sizes should comply with the minimum plant sizes specified in City Code. Discuss potential construction of public sidewalk along front 17 April 7, 1998 PC97-27 Item 4.5 MOTION Item 4.5 COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues property line of this site. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations. Development Agreement to be executed and performance bond provided {amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None None This planning case will be presented to the City Council on April 13, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioners be in attendance at the Council meeting. Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.5, Consideration of Ordinance No. 98-05, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Modifying the Regulations Applicable to Accessory Buildings and Garages in Residential Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Chairman Sonsin reported that staff had requested that this ordinance be tabled for one month. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to table Planning Case 97-27, Consideration of Ordinance No. 98-05, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Modifying the Regulations Applicable to Accessory Buildings and Garages in Residential Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None None Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Committee reviewed plans for the four planning applications presented at this meeting. Mr. McDonald reported that the Project for Pride in Living project on Bass Lake Road would be ready for review on April 16. Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in March and discussed the text amendment for the day care operation at Post Haste shopping center, the Sign Code and certificates of survey. The Committee decided that staff should ask the City Council whether or not a study should be undertaken on the certificates of survey before spending a great deal of time on that issue. The accessory building ordinance amendment would be reviewed again at the April meeting. Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee did not meet in March, but would be scheduling a meeting in April to discuss the land use portion of the Comprehensive Plan. There was no discussion on the Miscellaneous Issues. Planning Commission Meeting 18 April 7, 1998 NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to apProve the Planning Commission minutes of March 2, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council minutes were reviewed. Commissioner Svendsen reported seeing a sign for Ed's Expresso on the building at Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue and wondered whether a coffee shop was a allowed in an industrial zone. McDonald stated that staff would check on the nature of the business at that location, The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:17 p.m. _,,J~--pe~ctfully submitted, Pamela Sylvesterf Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 19 April 7, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 5, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Chairman Sonsin reported the Committee assignments as follows: Codes & Standards Committee: Sonsin, Chair; Landy; Keefe; Cameron. Design & Review Committee: Svendsen, Chair; Oelkers, Anderson. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee: Landy, Chair; Kramer; Hemken. CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-32 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Rezoning 7300 Bass Lake Road from B-3, Auto Oriented Business, and 7332 Bass Lake Road from R-O, Residential Office, to R-3, Medium Density, Zoning District, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Approval to Allow Townhouse Development, Variances to PUD Setback Requirements, Building Length, and Private Roadway Width, Site/Building Plan Review/Approval, and Preliminary Plat Approval of PPL Addition, 7300-7332 Bass Lake Road, Project for Pride in Living, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL) had submitted development applications for the redevelopment of a block of property between Pennsylvania and Nevada Avenues just north of Bass Lake Road. The block currently contains eight four-plex residential buildings, a non-conforming gas station, and a non-conforming office building. The current land uses have created a number of problems for both the City of New Hope and the adjoining Crystal neighborhood. McDonald pointed out that the property consisted of a small island of New Hope surrounded by Crystal single family homes on the east and west, Thorsen School property to the north, and St. Raphael's Church to the south. Due to the condition and character of the land use, this property had been identified as a priority for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan Update. The proposed project would provide rehab of the existing buildings, eliminate two non-conforming uses, improve the aesthetics along Bass Lake Road, bring one property manager/owner for the entire site, has the potential to resolve drainage problems on the site and the adjoining single family properties, and add significant landscaping to the site. McDonald stated that City of New Hope had made a financial commitment to assist with the redevelopment efforts. City staff had been meeting with PPL representatives, along with the Planning Commission Meeting I May 5, 1998 Planning Commission City of Crystal, the School District and adjacent property owners since December 1997. McDonald explained that the development application includes several requests. First, rezoning the entire site to R-3 Multiple Family Residential. There are currently three zoning districts for the project site including R-3 Residential, R-O Residential-Office, and B-3 Auto Oriented. Second, subdivision/lot combination to combine 11 parcels into a single lot and block legal description. The eight existing buildings are all under separate ownership, the gas station, the office building, and the school district property would then be under one ownership. Third, townhouses are allowed by conditional use permit/planned unit development. The steps for CUP/PUD are concept stage approval, development stage and final stage approval. The major issue outstanding with this development was drainage, which was why only concept stage approval was being considered at this meeting. Development/final stage approval would be presented to the Planning Commission after all outstanding details are completed. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not it is in agreement with the concept of the project. The fourth part of the application was for site/building plan review approval. McDonald reported that several internal variances were being requested from the setback variance, which do not impact the adjoining properties. The size of the parcel is 3.8 acres. PPL is in the process of acquiring, but does not currently own, all of the properties. The president of PPL is in attendance at the meeting and can explain the acquisition process to the Commission. McDonald stated that PPL began working with the City in the spring of 1997 to identify problem buildings and explore the possibility of redevelopment of one of the sites. This site was one of the City's highest priority redevelopment sites. The project would provide rehab to the existing four-plexes, eliminate the non-conforming gas station and office building, create three and four-bedroom townhomes which are in high demand, and provide a responsive single property owner. There would be an office manager/resident on the site to provide 24-hour service. There are a number of positive aspects to the proposed site which include the courtyard area with the mature trees on the site and the Thorsen Resource Center which would provide day care services as well as a number of other services. The project would have 34 rental units including 14 four-bedroom units, which would be created by renovating the current four-plexes into side-by-side duplexes and 20 new three-bedroom townhomes to be located along the north property line and on the southeast and southwest corners of the property along Bass Lake Road. All of the units would be oriented toward the interior courtyard area. There would be garages built between each of the existing buildings. McDonald explained that in the fall of 1997 PPL presented a concept proposal to the New Hope Economic Development Authority and the EDA approved a 9900,000 commitment in TIF funds toward this site plus additional funds for condemnation, if that was necessary. A meeting was held with the adjacent neighborhood, who are in favor of the project. There would be a number of funding sources utilized and PPL had received approval from Met Council and Hennepin County for the use of HOME funds. There are other funding decisions pending on the project. The proposed estimated time of occupancy for the project would be May 1999. Meeting 2 May 5, 1998 McDonald stated that two considerations for rezoning include whether or not there was a mistake in the original zoning and whether or not conditions have changed that warrant consideration of a change in zoning. Staff believes that conditions have changed and a change in zoning is warranted. The gas station and office building are located on small, over-utilized parcels and the condition of these sites could be improved if the sites are combined rather than redevelop each site independently. The gas station and office building sites are non- conforming due to required setbacks and lot area. The parcels currently have six curb cuts onto Bass Lake Road within a distance of 327 feet and is a dangerous arrangement. The project would reduce the curb cuts from six to two curb cuts. With a change in zoning, the City would allow for the assembly and redevelopment of the parcels comprising the project site. The conditions and character of the site have changed to warrant consideration of a change in the zoning. Staff recommends that the City approve the rezoning, but should withhold formal action on the rezoning until the development/final stage plans are approved and PPL demonstrates ownership of the entire site. McDonald explained that the purpose of a PUD is to provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated and coordinated unit as opposed to parcel by parcel and piecemeal development. It is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. PUDs are characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, and maintenance of open space and facilities. The ownership and any CUP/PUD approval should be subject to total site acquisition, how the project accomplishes the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, density reduction, utilities to be buried underground, resolution of drainage issues, and landscaping on the site. Private street width of 25 feet is required by Code and PPL had requested a variance to allow a 22-foot wide private drive. Staff felt this request could be granted as long as the applicant installs "no parking fire lane" signs and paints the curb yellow. The Zoning Code requires that townhomes provide at least one enclosed parking stall per unit. Each townhome would have a single car garage and one parking space in front of the garage. Nine guest parking spaces would be provided. City Code requires that buildings be set back 15 feet from the private street and parking area. The northeastern and northwestern most townhomes are within four feet of a guest parking stall. The site plan could comply with the elimination of the parking stall, however, the need for guest parking suggests that a variance would be appropriate. PUD regulations require a separation between buildings equal to one and one-half the sum of the height of the adjoining building. Two areas on the site do not meet this setback requirement. The first is a pre-existing condition with the current four- plexes within the center courtyard of the project, which would require a two-foot setback variance. The second area would be the setback between the new townhomes on the north end of the site and the garage additions on the existing buildings, which would require a two- foot variance. Several other PUD setbacks are being requested that would not impact adjoining properties and are the result of existing site constraints unique to this site. McDonald stated that the City Engineer reviewed the concept plan and he would comment on the drainage issues later in the meeting. It was staff's opinion that ample information had been submitted for PUD Planning Commission Meeting 3 May 5, 1998 concept stage approval and staff endorses the proposed land uses and was supportive of the general site layout. McDonald reiterated that the site consists of 11 parcels of land. The site exceeds the lot size standards of the R-3 Zoning District, and existing buildings comply with the required R-3 setbacks. The preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies and Hennepin County for review. Comments were included in the Planning Report. Hennepin County commented that it would like access limited to one entrance close to the westerly property line. The City Engineer contacted Hennepin County and explained in detail the project site plans and, therefore, was confident that Hennepin County would agree to two curb cuts. The usual utility easements were requested on the plat along with an additional right-of-way along Bass Lake Road. McDonald stated that staff is recommending approval of the concept stage CUP/PUD, variances, rezoning, site and building plan review and preliminary plat subject to several conditions, including that PPL acquire ownership of all properties, submit development/final stage plans that address the issues pointed out by Planning Consultant, Building Official and City Engineer, including drainage issues being resolved, preliminary plat to be revised to incorporate all recommendations and that the final plat be submitted with development stage plans. Mr. Mark Hanson, City Engineer, explained that when the site was developed years ago all of the drainage came out to Bass Lake Road on the east side of the site where a storm sewer exists. However, because the site is elevated above the abutting Crystal properties, there is drainage during the larger storms that spills over onto these properties to the west and east. It was intended that after redevelopment some of the drainage would flow to the north toward the Thorsen School parking lot where there is a storm sewer that takes the water away. Storm water cannot be taken to Bass Lake Road because there is no capacity for additional storm water. The goal would be that the storm water flowing to Bass Lake Road would not increase. The remaining storm water would be moved north along the east and west property lines to the Thorsen School property to an existing storm sewer. At the time the new ring road on the property is constructed, storm sewer and catch basins would be installed along the east and west property lines to accomplish this. There is a concern that the storm sewer in 58th Avenue would not have the capacity for additional storm water either. The goal would be to provide a small retention pond somewhere on the school property to retain the excess storm water until the storm sewer to the north has the capacity to take the water. This concept has not been approved by the School District or either City at this time. The southern portion of the site would continue to drain to Bass Lake Road the same as it does now. Hansen showed pictures so the Commissioners could see the large difference in grade between the site and surrounding properties. Commissioner Keefe questioned whether this was an area slated for improvement in the Storm Water Management Plan. Hansen stated that the Storm Water Management Plan generally looks at drainage areas in a bigger picture rather than smaller projects/areas. He added that water in the storm sewer in Bass Lake Road travels to Begin Park and the storm sewer in §8th Avenue drains to the New Hope golf course. These two storm sewers drain to West Broadway and eventually to Twin Lakes. Planning Commission Meeting 4 May 5, 1998 Mr. Steve Cramer, Executive Director of Project for Pride in Living, came forward to address the Commission. Cramer passed out a chronology of meetings/events to date regarding the project. Cramer pointed out that Lisa Kugler, development consultant, and Bob Lunning, architect, were available to answer questions from the Commission. Cramer reiterated the history of the project by stating that they had looked at several properties around the Twin Cities area and the New Hope site offered the opportunities that PPL wanted to accomplish along with helping the City with rehabbing several of its properties and resolving drainage issues. There would be 34 units of affordable rental housing in the development, with 12 units designated as public housing. The reception of this housing development has been very positive both at the elected official level and the community level. There would be a full-time, 24- hour per day, resident/employee on the site. The responsiveness to any potential problem on the site would be immediate. The physical environment would be dramatically improved. PPL has been in business for 26 years and own/manage about 400 units of housing like this proposed project throughout Minneapolis and St. Paul. Cramer stated that they had invited neighbors of the project to look at some of the other existing developments, and he invited the Commissioners to tour the other projects as well. Cramer thanked the Commission for their attention to all the details of the project. He also stated that there are substantial commitments for financing for the project already, I~owever, they are waiting for additional commitments from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The resources available for this type of project is limited across the state in relationship to the demand for those resources. Every step taken so far makes funding more competitive in the resource allocation process at the MHFA. Mr. Bob Lunning, Hokanson, Lunning, & Associates, architects for the project, stated that the site plan is an important element in showing how the site operates and how the site would bring people together. They are working with an existing condition of a ring road that runs around the site. They desire to bring as much activity as possible to the inner courtyard area and make the edges of the site abutting the neighboring properties more passive. He stated that more public entrances have been created into and out of the townhouses from the courtyard side of the buildings. There would be pedestrian doors on the courtyard side of all garages for access to that area for grills, chairs, etc. A playground consultant would be utilized to insure that there would be an area for children, with play equipment for different age groups. There would also be the open area at Thorsen School for older children to utilize for ball games, etc. Lunning continued by saying that they would try to improve the image of the existing buildings. With the addition of garages between the existing buildings, the building length becomes quite long, however, the overall character would be an improvement over what exists today. The materials for the new buildings along the north and south ends of the site would integrate well with the proposed aesthetics of the existing buildings. The building materials for the infill garages would be the same as for the new townhouses. Split-face concrete block would be used for the base and stucco above. The townhouse units would vary from each other as requested by neighbors. The stepping effect of the new townhouses should soften the appearance of massing of the buildings. There would be no front doors or garage doors on the building elevations along Bass Lake Road, and would fit well with the single family housing pattern of facing the north/south streets. The courtyard Planning Commission Meeting 5 May 5, 1998 space would be treated as the north/south street with the front doors facing the courtyard area. Commissioner Svendsen brought some of the changes to the attention of the Commission that had resulted from the Design & Review Committee's recommendations. One item was the lengthening of the garage by two feet to insure some additional storage space in the garages. Svendsen asked whether PPL had addressed the issue of visitor parking with respect to sidewalks. Lunning answered that this was addressed by bringing the sidewalk around the Bass Lake Road side of the building as well to shorten the distance from the parking area. A suggestion from the Design & Review Committee was to install doors on the road side of the townhomes for easier access. Svendsen stated that the police had expressed concern about visibility into the courtyard area. Lunning responded that they had provided an eight-foot driveway on each long side of the project by eliminating one parking space. The remaining space would then be used as a handicap space. Commissioner Svendsen next addressed the fire hydrants and the possibility of placing the hydrants on the inside of the ring road rather than close to the fence for easier access by the Fire Department. Lunning answered that the hydrants could be moved. Svendsen questioned staff on the lO-foot centered utility easement that was requested on the north lot line. The City Engineer replied that the detail of the storm sewer design would dictate where the easement would be placed. It was anticipated that the storm sewer would drain to the north and would be built on PPL's property which would require 10-15 feet. On the west side property line, a water main and sanitary sewer are also proposed to serve the new buildings to the north. By adding the storm sewer on the west also and with 10 feet between each line, an easement of 30 feet may be needed. Once the detail is worked out, the easements could be put on the plans. Svendsen asked that the easement rights for Minnegasco be put on the final plat also and this was confirmed. Commissioner Kramer had a concern with the long buildings and how the Fire Department would get behind the building in an emergency situation. He stated that he felt the hydrants should not be placed next to the buildings since access would be difficult for the Fire Department. He suggested that several hydrants be placed in the courtyard area. Lunning responded that they would work with the Fire Department and address whatever needs or concerns they had. Svendsen questioned whether PPL would be sprinkling the buildings. Lunning stated they had not considered this because sprinkling the entire buildings would be cost prohibitive. Consideration would be given to sprinkling the kitchen area and around the heating system. Kramer asked whether or not smoke detectors would be installed. Lunning replied that there would be hard- wired and battery operated smoke detectors in each unit. Commissioner Keefe wondered whether there would be a problem with some of the parking located only four feet from the building. Lunning stated that there are two locations where that happens and in both cases the parking space is by the garage and the townhouse floor is elevated one-story above grade at that point and should not be an esthetic or functional issue. Kramer was concerned that in winter there was the possibility of sliding on ice or snow into the building and suggested that timbers or curbing should be used. Kramer commended the petitioners on the installation of doors on the outside of the Planning Commission Meeting 6 May 5, 1998 buildings for easier access instead of having to walk around the buildings to enter the units. Chairman Sonsin stated that due to the fact that the rezoning is contingent upon PPL owning all of the properties, he wondered what was happening with the environmental aspects of the gas station site and the MPCA signing off that the site was not contaminated. Lunning replied that the site was investigated in 1991 by the MPCA and there was a "no action" letter in the file. At this time, no further action could be taken on the property until ppi would have possession of the property. Remediation could be accomplished at the time of excavation of the site and the removal of the tanks. Ms. Kugler, development consultant for the project, answered that the contamination found previously was when the old tanks were removed. According to the soil borings completed at that time, reports did not show any contamination migrating to the north. Kugler stated that PPL feels fairly comfortable with the fact that the tanks are new and there is a "no action" letter in the file. They would be receiving a recommended plan from the MPCA soon, which would recommend that they could choose to do soil borings now or wait for the tanks to be removed. Cramer added that they are cautiously optimistic that this would not be a huge barrier. Chairman Sonsin asked for clarification on the income limits for the subsidized units and if the tenants would need to be relocated in the event their income rose above the eligible level. Cramer stated that the income limits are geared toward the SMSA income and as that rises in the Twin Cities the income limits rise as well. Twelve of the units are designated as public housing units to be filled with people on the waiting list from the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and some of the units would be available for local residents. The people living in the public housing units would pay 30 percent of their income for rent and the balance of the rent would be subsidized by the Federal Housing Agency. The other units have set rent levels using specific formulas. As long as people qualify to move into the units, they can stay in the unit. PPL's obligation is to keep the rent at a constant level. Commissioner Svendsen asked for clarification on the arrangement with the unit to be used by Breckenridge Group Home. Ms. Kugler, who has been negotiating the purchase agreements for PPL, responded by saying that the land and buildings on the site are owned separately. The land including the road is owned by an association and the buildings are owned by individuals. The individual owners have rights to the land. PPL plans to purchase only the land rights for the Breckenridge property. PPL would have the right of first refusal. PPL would own the land rights so that they could make improvements on the building for a cohesive look for the project. If the owner of the building would decide to sell, PPL would have the right of first refusal. Svendsen reminded ppi that the Breckenridge building owner would also have to listed on the title and on the final plat. Ms. Kugler added that there would probably be two lots on the final plat. McDonald suggested that PPL describe the screening process for residents. Cramer explained that PPL had a lot of experience in property management and utilized a stringent screening process. He stated they look for tenants who have demonstrated three years of rental history, a criminal background check would be completed on everyone. They utilize a 30-day lease in the event there would be a problem and they would evict a tenant if needed. PPL's purpose is to help Iow/moderate Planning Commission Meeting 7 May 5, 1998 income families get on their feet and become contributing members of the community. They do not tolerate tenants who misbehave, are destructive of the unit, or do not contribute to the community. PPL's desire would be for the project to be a positive asset to New Hope and Crystal. PPL anticipates that there could be problems at the site, however, with an on-site manager, there would be a quicker response time. Cramer stated that the neighbors have been told that they could contact him personally if an issue was not being resolved to their satisfaction. Chairman Sonsin asked for clarification on the financing plans. Mr. Sondrall reported that the City would be contributing a loan that would probably not be repaid. The loan would be written as a loan/grant proposal, and if all conditions of the development agreement would be complied with by PPL, then the funds the City contributes to the project would be considered a grant and the loan would be forgiven. Commissioner Anderson asked what would happen to the current tenants in the buildings. Cramer stated that all of the tenants would be eligible for relocation assistance and would receive help in finding another apartment if they need it. They may also qualify for some financial assistance. PPL was working with the current owners so that as units become vacant during the purchasing process they would not be rented again. Sonsin questioned where tenants would go during the construction phase if they were going to live there after completion. Cramer stated that the current tenants would receive relocation help, but would need to reapply and meet screening standards in order to move back into the rehabbed or new units. Commissioner Kramer wondered if current tenants would receive priority treatment in order to move back into this development. Cramer responded that PPL has to comply with fair housing standards. Ms. Kugler added that people who are misplaced do have first priority. McDonald stated that a representative of the Police Department was present if any Commissioners has safety concerns, and there were none at this time. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 97-32. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 97-32, Request for Rezoning 7300 Bass Lake Road from B-3, Auto Oriented Business, and 7332 Bass Lake Road from R-O, Residential Office, to R-3, Medium Density, Zoning District, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Approval to Allow Townhouse Development, Variances to PUD Setback Requirements, Building Length, and Private Roadway Width, Site/Building Plan Review/Approval, and Preliminary Plat Approval of PPL Addition, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. PPL acquire ownership of all properties. 2. Submission of development/final stage plans that address all issues outlined by Planning Consultant, Building Official and City Engineer. 3. Drainage issues be resolved, per City Engineer's comments. 4. Preliminary plat be revised to incorporate all recommendations and final plat be submitted with development stage plans. Voting in favor: Planning Commission Meeting Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, 8 May 5, 1998 Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None None This planning case will be presented to the City Council on May 11, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioners be in attendance at the Council meeting. PC 98-07 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Discussion Regarding Certificate of Survey Requirement, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Chairman Sonsin reported that at the March Planning Commission meeting several Commissioners asked if the City would consider adding requirement for R-1 homeowners to submit a certificate of survey for all housing expansion projects rather than just a site plan declaration. Codes & Standards discussed this issue and asked the City Manager whether this issue would be something that would receive favorable support from the Council. The feedback to Codes & Standards was that this issue not be pursued. The City Manager said he did not feel the Council would feel the additional expense to the homeowner for the certificate of survey would be justified. Commissioner Kramer questioned what safeguards are in place to assure that the as-built is correct. McDonald stated that it was the opinion of the City Manager and Council that the site plan declaration process is adequate. There are specific checks completed by the Building Official during the inspection process. Sonsin added that a survey could be requested if the Building Official felt it was warranted. Kramer asked whether a new as-built is required after an expansion is completed on a property. McDonald answered that the site plan declaration is updated. Commissioner Oelkers stated for the record that he did not agree with the decision to not require a certificate of survey. PC 97-27 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Consideration of Ordinance 98-05, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Modifying the Regulations Applicable to Accessory Buildings and Garages in Residential Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that in the fall of 1997 the City Council asked the Planning Commission to review the accessory building and garage ordinance. In its current verbiage it is a violation to have an attached garage and a detached garage for the storage of vehicles. Codes & Standards studied this issue over the last several months and has incorporated some new language to allow for more square footage and two garages/accessory buildings per residential property. Mr. Sondrall explained that the ordinance was reformated so that it was easier to understand, both for staff and residents. The old ordinance prevented a property owner from having two garages on his property.' For example, if there was a single car attached garage and then a detached garage was constructed on the property, the New Hope Code stated that the property owner could only use the single car attached garage for storage and the overhead garage door had to be removed. Based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, this ordinance has been amended. The requirements and setbacks have been modified to meet current conditions. The standard size for a garage according to the Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 5, 1998 Uniform Building Code is 1000 square feet and a total of 1400 square feet for two buildings would be allowed. Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether only one curb cut would be allowed per property. McDonald stated that issue may be something for Codes & Standards to review. Svendsen added that property owners on a corner lot may want a second curb cut, or in the event that a property owner would construct a garage on the opposite corner of the property, he would need access from a second curb cut. Svendsen also questioned the section of the ordinance dealing with a three-foot encroachment into the required side yard setback for accessory buildings or garages if certain conditions are met. Oelkers asked for clarification on the encroachment of three feet into the five-foot setback in a side yard leaving only two feet to the property line. Sondrall stated that there are four conditions for a special side yard variance that permit a property owner to utilize the variance. Oelkers stressed the fact that a two-foot side yard would not be practical especially since the City is not requiring a survey. McDonald stated that he thought the three-foot encroachment related to the side yard setback abutting a street, which would be 20 feet. Oelkers reminded the Commission that a three-foot encroachment would also infringe on the site line on a corner lot. Oelkers suggested that the verbiage be changed to exclude the encroachment on the side yard interior. The City Attorney stated he would make the change in §4.032(3)(c) to read "Special Side Yard Setback Variances ...a three- foot variance into a required side yard abutting a street will be permitted for construction .... " MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to approve Planning Case 97-27, Request for Consideration of Ordinance 98-05, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Modifying the Regulations Applicable to Accessory Buildings and Garages in Residential Districts as amended, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson None None COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Committee reviewed plans for the PPL project in April. Mr. McDonald reported that Avtec would probably be ready with expansion plans for next month and Post Haste would be submitting a comprehensive sign plan. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in April and discussed the Sign Code, certificates of survey, home occupations, and accessory buildings. The agenda for the May meeting includes the Sign Code and home occupations. McDonald added that discussion on curb cuts could be added to the agenda. Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 Planning Commission Meeting Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee had scheduled a meeting for June 11 to incorporate the land use, Transportation Plan and Water Management Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. After the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee finishes its work, the Plan would be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in August. It is staff's opinion that the 10 May 5, 1998 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Plan would be submitted to Met Council by September. Svendsen asked whether the Plan would be submitted to abutting cities and this was confirmed. Adjoining cities are required to submit their plans to New Hope as well. It was the consensus of the Commission to have the Comprehensive Plan Committee review the plans from adjacent cities rather than Codes & Standards as had been done in the past. There was no discussion on the Miscellaneous Issues. Chairman Sonsin asked whether there were any applications or interest in pawn shops in the City since the adoption of the pawn shop ordinance. McDonald stated that there was no new interest. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 7, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council minutes were reviewed. Chairman Sonsin asked whether the Commission was open to moving the September I meeting date to September 8, McDonald stated staff would check into this date change. McDonald also asked whether the July meeting could be canceled if there were no outside planning applications and the consensus was that the meeting could be canceled. Commissioner Svendsen reported on the 42® Avenue Streetscape Task Force and the improvements being discussed along 42nd Avenue. He reported that the intersection at 42nd/XyIon would be improved, a bike path would be added off 42nd Avenue along the cemetery property, the area along 45th/Xylon would be improved, along with several other improvements. An open house is scheduled for later in May so businesses can look at proposed plans. Chairman Sonsin reported that the pavement at the intersection of 36th/Boone is getting worse daily and asked staff to look into this matter. McDonald responded that major reconstruction along 36th Avenue is scheduled to be completed within the next couple of years. Chairman Sonsin reported that there are temporary signs put up every weekend at Post Haste Center, and McDonald stated that staff has been working with the center's owner/tenants on this issue. McDonald stated that staff has also been working with Bright Start on the construction plans. McDonald introduced Sue Henry, Community Development Specialist, to the Commissioners. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 5, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Vice-Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Keefe, Sonsin Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC98-08 Item 4,1 Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval and Variances to Sign Code, 9408- 94.4'6 36~,h-.Avenue. North,--.Caribou-Corners~LLC/Jay~lVl~tschler,, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting comprehensive sign plan approval for Post Haste Center along with several variances to the Sign Code. McDonald reminded the Commissioners that Post Haste Center had been recently purchased and the new owners were attempting to revitalize the center. In April 1998 a zoning text amendment was approved to allow a day care center at the site. One condition of that approval was that a comprehensive sign plan for the center be submitted to the City. The petitioner requested several variances including a setback variance for the ground sign to be located along Highway 169. The other variances were related to the size of the shopping center identification and sign size. Property owners within 350 feet of the request were notified. Several inquiries from neighbors were received. McDonald reported that the Sign Code states that when a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building or shopping center needs to be submitted. The purpose of a comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of a multiple occupancy structure to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of the building. Due to the fact that sign locations and sizes may be of some significant importance in lease arrangements between the owner and tenant, it was the City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall building, thereby providing the building owner with some flexibility and responsibility to deal with each tenant. The general standards for wall signs are that no individual tenant identification can exceed 100 square feet in area, except that a tenant occupying a corner location that fronts two streets may display identification sign on both streets. A shopping center may erect one ground sign per street frontage to be used as an identification sign for the shopping center. It may not exceed 200 square feet in area or 30 feet in height. The sign needs to be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines, and individual businesses Planning Commission Meeting 1 June 2, 1998 within the shopping center may be allowed on the identification sign. The current sign code states that the shopping center must use 1,5 percent or more of the sign for the shopping center's identification. McDonald reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and revised plans were submitted as a result of that meeting. McDonald pointed out that after reviewing the Sign Code, it was determined that Post Haste Center would be allowed three ground signs due to the fact that the center has three street frontages. The owners are not proposing to erect a ground sign on Jordan Avenue. A new ground sign was proposed along Highway 169, as well as the existing ground sign located along 36th Avenue. The existing 36th Avenue pylon would remain in its present location and would be upgraded with new tenant names and graphics. The sign would include the names of eight tenants, include the Post Haste center identification at the top within the triangular shape which would match the similarly shaped gables on the main building. The area of the sign would be 10' wide by 21' tall for a total of 210 square feet. The triangle on the top would be 10 square feet for a total area of 220 square feet, therefore, a 20-foot variance would be required. The height of the sign would be 26 feet, which meets the Sign Code requirement of 30 feet. Another variance would be required if the sign remains as presented for the reduced shopping center identification. The Commission should ke~p i[~., mind~that the Codes & Standards Committee is in the process of updating the Sign Code. A recommendation from the Committee would probably include the elimination of a specific area designated for shopping center identification. In other words, the shopping center would be given a certain amount of area to use for tenants and/or center identification. The current code requires 15 percent of sign area or 30 square feet for center identification and the proposed sign would only have 10 square feet, therefore, a variance would be required. Staff feels the upgraded sign would be an improvement over the existing sign and do not have an objection to the reduced center identification size. Staff recommended in the report that the petitioner try to reduce the overall sign size to a maximum of 200 square feet to eliminate this variance. McDonald explained that the petitioner was proposing to erect a new pylon along Highway 169, due to the fact that the center was elevated quite high above Highway 169 and was difficult for travelers to see the center. This sign would be located in the parking lot and the petitioners are requesting a 10-foot setback variance to locate the sign 10 feet from the property line instead of 20 feet. The sign would contain the names of four primary shopping center tenants and would have a triangular shape on top similar to the 36th Avenue sign, however, the center identification would not be included on the new sign. The face of the sign would be 14' by 14' for a total of 196 square feet. Since there is no center name in the triangular portion of the sign, that area was not included in the total sign area and, therefore, meets the Sign Code requirement of 200 square feet. The height of the sign is 30 feet and meets the requirement. The current Sign Code requires shopping center identification on the pylon, and since none is shown for this sign, a variance would be required. Staff supports the setback variance because of the sign's location in the parking lot. The Commission should determine whether the center identification should be added to the sign. McDonald next reviewed the wall signs on all building elevations. The Planning Commission Meeting 2 June 2, 1998 sign for the Original Mattress Factory calculates to 101 square feet, and staff would not require a variance for one square foot. The balance of wall signs on the west elevation are under the 100 square foot requirement. Bridgemans desired to keep their existing cabinets on the west and south elevations. The balance of the tenants would have blue and red channel letters. The south and east elevation wall signs would be under the 100 square foot maximum. Bright Start is proposing to have its name and logo on the gable over the entrance. The original driving school sign measured 107 square feet, however, the sign size was reduced and now totals 97 square feet and meets the requirement. There would be no signs on the north side of the building. The existing mansard roof would stay the same with two gables constructed on each of the west/east/south sides of the building. McDonald reiterated that each tenant would be allowed 100 square feet for signage and all of the wall signs comply with the Sign Code requirements and no variances would be required. There would be eight wall signs having individual channel letters that are proposed to be mounted on an electrical raceway that would be centered vertically on the new green mansard roof edge. Those signs would consist of blue and red letters. There would be one triangular sign for Bright Start that would not be lighted and two rectangular cabinets for Bridgemans would remain on the south and west walls. .McDonald .stated ,that ~staff ~ad some,.concerns,.because the plans and the letter that was submitted did not agree. The letter mentioned awnings, however, no awnings were shown on the plan. Staff recommended to the petitioner that some of these issues be clarified and a revised letter and new east elevation were submitted. The revised letter was passed out at the Planning Commission meeting along with the revised east elevation. The revised letter stated that: 1) Wall signs would not exceed 100 square feet per tenant; 2) There would be two pylon ground signs, one along 36th Avenue and one along Highway 169; 3) Most tenants would have window signage; 4) The new plan shows an example of an awning, which would be constructed of an extruded aluminum frame with flex face awning material without lettering; 5) The east side would have unlit channel letters or halo-lit channel letters, with the exception of Bright Start; 6) There would be no signs on the north side unless a tenant only has a northern exposure. The revised letter reiterated that they were requesting two variances for the existing 36th Avenue pylon sign. The petitioner stated in the revised letter that they were giving up the right to a pylon on Jordan Avenue in return for the variances to allow a larger pylon on 36th Avenue and smaller center identification on the sign. McDonald explained that the petitioner was still negotiating with the Original Mattress Factory for the northwest corner of the building. If the Original Mattress Factory moved into this space, their signage would be on the west elevation and the tenant that would only have access via the north elevation would have signage on the north side of the building. Mr. Jay Mutschler, representative of the owners of Post Haste Center, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Svendsen requested clarification on the sign for Bridgemans. Mutschler answered that the signage would not change from the current signage. Svendsen called attention to the fact that the plan did not match the existing sign on the building for Bridgemans. Svendsen raised the issue from the Design & Review meeting regarding Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 2, 1998 utilizing signage similar to Bridgemans cabinet signs for all tenants so when a tenant changed only the lexon panel would have to be changed. Mutschler responded that the owners desired a better image for the center and suggested individual channel letters. From past experience, there are some business chains that do not lease space in buildings that utilize light boxes for signage. Svendsen pointed out that there was soffit lighting around the perimeter of the building and one concern of Design & Review was whether all the lights would be on a timer or if this would be left to each tenant. Mutschler replied that the lights would either be on a timer or be photo sensor type lights. Svendsen expressed concern for residents on the north side of the building if the lights would be turned off during the nighttime hours and the whole security issue. Mutschler stated that the entire parking lot is well lit and the lights stay on all night. Svendsen questioned whether Kinko's would want another sign on the building since they would be in a corner location. Mutschler stated that Kinko's had not yet committed to a lease. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that if Kinko's does sign a lease there was not enough space on either pylon sign for their name. Mutschler replied that the names on the pylon sign are not necessarily the names that would be on the sign, due to the fact that each tenant would have to pay for sign space and it would also depend on who the tenants are. Kramer stressed the fact -that the I~etitione.r woul.cl have to stay within the 20Q.~square foot limit regardless of how many tenants there were in the building and that all of the names may not fit on the sign. McDonald added that the purpose of the comprehensive sign plan was to set general standards for the shopping center and did not commit the owners exactly to the signs as shown on the sign. If another tenant moved into a vacant space and the same type of letters, etc. were used, the petitioner would not need to come back to the Planning Commission for a comprehensive sign plan amendment. The same would hold true for the pylons. Kramer stressed that there was no additional space on the pylon for another business name. Mutschler stated that the size of the tenants' names would be reduced so alt of the tenants that desired to pay for pylon space would fit, thereby keeping within the 200 square foot limit. Commissioner Kramer expressed skepticism regarding not including the center's identification on the Highway 169 pylon sign. Most people give directions by using a shopping center's name, and if that name is not on the highway signage, most people unfamiliar with the area would not find the business or shopping center and just drive by. Mutschler stated that the owner's main concern was for exposure for the key tenants. Kramer reiterated that if someone called one of the businesses not listed on the Highway 169 pylon and was told to look for Post Haste Center, there would be no way of knowing by looking at the pylon that this was Post Haste Center. Svendsen added that the center's name should be included in the triangle at the top of the Highway 169 pylon the same as the 36th Avenue pylon. Mutschler requested a variance to include the name on the sign, which would then put the square footage over the 200 square foot requirement. Commissioner Cameron questioned the awning issue and where the awnings would be attached on the roof. Mutschler answered that the awning would be the same size as the door width and sidelight, would Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 2, 1998 be mounted on the overhang, and extend out toward the parking lot. He stated that at this time they were not planning on installing awnings, however, they wanted the option to do so if the tenants desired an awning over their doors. Cameron questioned the petitioner on the color of the awnings. Mutschler stated that the color would have to be approved by the property manager. He also stated that the colors of the letters for the tenants may vary somewhat, depending upon the tenant and the color scheme that the business utilizes. Commissioner Svendsen asked for clarification on the mansard. Mutschler stated that the existing mansard would be removed and replaced with new metal flashing along with the mansard and gables to break up the long roof line. There would be two gables each on the west, east and south sides of the buildings. There would be no gable on the north side of the building. Svendsen informed the Commission that the elevations show the mansard somewhat lower than it would be and that there would be enough space under the mansard for awnings, similar to the existing awning at the cleaners. Vice-Chairman Landy clarified all the variances requested that the Commission would be voting on: 20 square foot area on the 36th Avenue pylon, reduced center identification on 36th Avenue pylon, 10- foot setback variance for Highway 169 pylon, area size on Highway 169 pylon-if center .identificati~)n is added,...reduced center identification on Highway 169 pylon if added, and if center identification is not added a variance would be needed for no center identification. Commissioner Oelkers asked whether the Bright Start sign would be lit. Mutschler responded that the Bright Start sign would be unlit in the gable. The sign shown on the plan is incorrect for Bright Start. Commissioner Svendsen requested that the revised letter dated May 27, 1998, 4:00 p.m. be entered into the record. Svendsen questioned the City Attorney whether there would be any repercussions with regard to the petitioner forgoing his right to a third pylon along Jordan Avenue in order to obtain the number of variances required with this request. The City Attorney answered that in the event there would be a new owner for the center and that owner desired to install the third sign, it was his opinion that a denial would be upheld because of the negotiation factor and the decision to grant the variances in lieu of giving up the ground sign. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-08. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-08, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval and Variances to Sign Code, 9408-9446 36th Avenue North, Caribou Corners LLC/Jay Mutschler, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. No ground sign to be installed on Jordan Avenue. Mutschler added for the record that Post Haste Center would forgo the right to construct a pylon ground sign along Jordan Avenue in exchange for the variances requested for the 36th Avenue pylon and Highway 169 Planning Commission Meeting 5 June 2, 1998 pylon. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Keefe, Sonsin Motion carried. Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen, This planning case will be presented to the City Council on June 8, 1998, and Vice-Chairman Landy requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. PC 97-33 Item 4.2 Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Discussion Regarding Curb Cuts in R-1 Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee reviewed this issue and determined that requests for additional curb cuts should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis through the variance process. Landy asked the Commissioners for comments and all were in agreement with the recommendation from the Codes & Standards Committee. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 ,Commissioner .Svendsen ,reported .that the Committee rev.iew~d pi,aris for the Post Haste comprehensive sign plan. Mr. McDonald reported that CCI would probably be ready with expansion plans for next month. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 Vice-Chairman Landy stated that Codes & Standards has been working on the Sign Code and would continue their review at the June meeting. Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee would be meeting on June 11 to incorporate the land use, Transportation Plan and Water Management Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan should be ready for presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council in July or August. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues There was no discussion on the Miscellaneous Issues. NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 5, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McDonald reported that there may be some planning applications that would be ready by the July meeting and asked whether the Commissioners would be in attendance in order to have a quorum. Most Commissioners stated they would be in attendance. McDonald raised the issue of the September Planning Commission meeting and the fact that Chairman Sonsin had suggested changing the date to September 8 after Labor Day. The consensus was that the meeting be held on Wednesday, September 2. Commissioner Svendsen questioned the three-foot side setback variance on the accessory building ordinance that was adopted at the May 26 Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 2, 1998 ADJOURNMENT Council meeting and whether the language change was the same as was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. The City Attorney explained that the language incorporated in the ordinance would not allow a three-foot variance for an interior side yard as was discussed at the May Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 7 June 2, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson Keefe, Kramer Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Sue Henry, Community Development Specialist, Phil Kern, Community Development Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC98-10 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Variance to Allow an Accessory Building (Gazebo Shelter) in the Front Yard of An Existing Principal Building, 7601 42nd Avenue North, Northwest Branch YMCA, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius stated that Northwest YMCA, located at 7601 42nd Avenue, was requesting a variance to place an accessory building in the front yard of the site, which is zoned B-4 Community Business. The total area of the site is approximately 8.8 acres and the intent is to establish a gazebo which would be a multi-use structure. In winter it would be used for Christmas tree sales and in summer it would be utilized for family functions and other programs related to the YMCA. Brixius stated that a variance should only to be granted where there is an unreasonable hardship that is unique to the property and prevents reasonable use of the site. After reviewing the application, it was determined that there is not an economic hardship and a lesser variance cannot be provided for. In looking at the site, staff feels that the configuration of the lot and the use of the property present a physical hardship that indicates the front yard would be a practical and reasonable location for the gazebo. The front yard setback is 180 feet from 42nd Avenue and the proposed gazebo would remain 70 feet from 42nd Avenue and would not intrude on the right-of-way or the streetscape itself. The gazebo would be an open air structure and would not negatively impact the aesthetic appearance in the front of the existing building. It would be a reasonable addition to the 42"d Avenue streetscape. Brixius reported that the Design & Review Committee reviewed the site plan, made a suggestion as to the location of the gazebo, and the revised plan shows the gazebo moved 20 feet to the east towards the parking lot. The building materials would be of a wood construction. The facility would have electrical service provided in the building. There would be lighting in the gazebo roof mounts shining down in the structure. The landscape plan provided lacked detail on the number and Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 7, 1998 quantity of plantings, size or species· A condition of approval should include a detailed landscaping plan. The contours of the proposed berm should be detailed in a manner that shows the height, slope, and configuration of the berm and how it would appear from 42"d Avenue. The site drainage on the plan shows drainage from east to west and the City Engineer recognized that the drainage runs from west to east and noted that the berm cannot interfere with the site drainage. Brixius reported that staff was recommending approval of the variance subject to several conditions contained in the Planning Case Report. Mr. Tim Bergstresser of the YMCA came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Svendsen questioned the location of the gazebo and whether or not it would be moved to the east closer to the parking lot. Bergstresster indicated that the new location is not shown on the site plan, but it was their intent to locate the gazebo 20 feet closer to the parking lot. The reason for the move was for better site lines from the existing building and security issues. Svendsen suggested that the petitioner explain the activities and/or groups that would be utilizing the gazebo. Bergstresser explained that during the warmer months the area would be utilized for family picnics as well as for parent/child programs, such as Voyagers and Pathfinders. During December the gazebo would be used for Christmas tree sales, with the proceeds used to support youth programs at the Y. Svendsen wondered whether the applicant would be adding a cupola on the top of the structure and the petitioner stated that this had not been discussed. Discussion ensued regarding the building materials of the gazebo, which would be a laminated beam structure with a roof consisting of asphalt shingles. Svendsen asked for clarification on the landscaping and electrical system. Bergstresser replied that the shrubs and construction of the building and electrical system would be donated by sponsors and friends of the Y. The lighting would be interior down lights with no outside lighting. All lights would be controlled from the inside of the main building. Svendsen asked who would be working with the petitioner on the grading that needed to be completed. Bergstresser stated that McCrossen Company had agreed to help with the grading per the City's recommendations. Commissioner Cameron questioned the use of electrical outlets in the gazebo. Bergstresser indicated that the power for the outlets would be shut off from the main building when not in use. Svendsen reported that all programs would be supervised at all times by youth workers, counselors, or parents. Commissioner Landy expresses skepticism with the hardship issue and asked for clarification on how this was determined. Brixius answered that in this case the site is very narrow and the building occupies nearly the entire width of the property with the required setbacks. The only other option would be to change the use of the rear yard to allow the gazebo to be constructed. Staff felt the recreation facility as well as the trail system and natural area were areas of essential service to the Y facility and did not see the disruption of the rear yard as a viable arrangement. In conjunction with the Christmas tree sales that takes place in the front of the lot, the gazebo would replace the temporary structure that had been used in the past. Commissioner Hemken asked what would be put inside the structure Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 7, 1998 and was told that picnic tables would be placed there. Hemken also questioned whether water would drain into the gazebo with the placement of the berm and how that would be handled. Bergstresser responded that the gazebo would be elevated somewhat, the rain would run down off the roof and around the shelter. Svendsen added that the drainage was an issue of concern of the City Engineer. The natural drainage flows from west to east to the parking lot and the gazebo would be placed in the middle of the swale which would block drainage. The City Engineer wanted to be sure there would be a good drainage plan that would allow the water to flow around the structure. Svendsen commented that it was his opinion that the Y would permit the public to utilize the gazebo in the concept of the 42n4 Avenue streetscape, when it was not being used for a Y program. Bergstresser added that the trail and playground in the rear yard are also open to the community. The gazebo could probably be rented out for private use. Chairman Sonsin questioned whether there would be plastic installed for a windbreaker during December when they were selling Christmas trees. Bergstresser replied that it was their intent to install temporary plastic walls on the gazebo during December. The gazebo would also be heated during this time. Sonsin asked when the landscaping would be completed. Bergstresser indicated that they would prefer to have it completed by September, however, funding was a major issue that could hold up the completion. Sonsin stressed that it would be desirable for aesthetic reasons to have as much completed this year as possible. Bergstresser stated that the grass would be installed. The trees and shrubs may take longer to complete. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-10. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve Planning Case 98-10, Request for a Variance to Allow an Accessory Building (Gazebo Shelter) in the Front Yard of An Existing Principal Building, 7601 42"4 Avenue North, Northwest Branch YMCA, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Before Council review, submit a written narrative that details the spectrum of likely, anticipated uses, hours of operation, and public access. 2. Before Council review, submit a detailed landscaping plan showing the following: A. Number, species and size of trees to be denoted on the plan (new or existing). B. Elevation and configuration of berm to be specified on the plan. C. Cross section elevation that illustrates how the accessory building and berm relate to the 42"4 Avenue views. 3. Accessory building must be compatible in color and design to the principal building and 42"4 Avenue streetscape, as approved by the Planning Commission. 4. Approval of a grading and drainage plan, subject to City Engineer review and comment. 5. Before applying for a building permit, submit a bond to ensure the installation of the erosion control, berm, sidewalk, and landscaping before May 15, 1999. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 7, 1998 Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Svendsen, Anderson NOne Keefe, Kramer This planning case will be presented to the City Council on July 27, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. PC 98-12 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow An Extended Church Campus at 4741 Zealand Avenue North, Crystal Evangelical Free Church (4225 Gettysburg Avenue North), Petitioner. Mr. Brixius stated that Crystal Evangelical Free Church was requesting a conditional use permit for the use of the vacant Homeward Bound Facility, located at 4741 Zealand Avenue North. The site is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The existing land use is a former institution/care center for disabled children, which was established 20 years ago. The site is currently vacant and the Comprehensive Plan Update has identified this site as needing a compatible reuse of this property. Within the R-1 Zoning District, churches and educational facilities are permitted by conditional use permit. Surrounding land uses/zoning include R~I Single Family/House of Hope Lutheran Church to the north adjacent to the site; R-1 Single Family/Cooper High School to the east across Zealand Avenue; R-1 Single Family/Highview School to the south adjacent to the site; and R-1 Single Family homes to the west across Boone Avenue. Brixius noted that the proposed use would be an extended campus for religious, small group education, prayer meetings, personal counseling, guidance Bible studies, individual office space, various committee meeting rooms, and equipment storage. Crystal Free has stressed that this location is not intended to be a worship or large group setting. The property would not be used for children's or nursery ministries. The proposed use would be compatible within the area, due to the fact that it would be Iow intensity, fits within the institutional facility, and offers an opportunity for redevelopment of the site through a number of improvements, such as expanded parking, improvement of bathrooms, re-roofing, elimination of laundry services, soffit and fascia cladding, wood panel siding replacement, sidewalk replacement, and replacement of select exterior doors. The applicants have indicated that the underground fuel tank and diesel generator located on the north side of the building would be removed. The trash enclosure would also be improved. The Planning Commission must make a determination on whether or not the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff felt that the proposed use would be compatible with adjacent land uses. Brixius explained that the site is fully developed and the proposed use would consist of renovation of the existing facility. The applicant stated in their correspondence that this would be a Iow traffic area. The projected peak enrollment would be 120 students, and the facility would utilize a shuttle service from the main church building. Based on city parking requirements, a total of 40 stalls are required, and the proposed parking with improvements would provide 66 stalls on site. The building meets all required setbacks. The shuttle bus route would follow 42nd Avenue, Boone Avenue and 47th Avenue and would not intrude on Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 7, 1998 residential streets near the parking lot. With the parking lot expansion, the entrance/exit area would be narrowed and new landscaping would be installed. The sod that was laid last year during a city improvement project had died along 47th Avenue and the applicant stated that this would be replaced and maintained. The concern of the City Engineer was the collection and drainage of the parking lot that flows to the northwest corner of the parking lot and then drains and outlets to the front part of the building, sheet drains across the front yard and across the public sidewalk. The City Engineer recommended that this be taken underground and taken into the public storm sewer. The City Engineer recommended that the Zealand Avenue cul-de-sac be vacated, while retaining utility easements, and turned back to the property owners. This area could then be utilized for additional parking that would serve all three uses. The Fire Department recommended that the entrance/exit lanes be posted as fire lanes. Brixius concluded by saying that the R-1 zoning is restrictive in what it allows and staff recommended approval of the proposed use, subject to the conditions contained in the Planning Case Report. Pastor Stephen Goold, Senior Pastor of Crystal Evangelical Free Church, came to the podium to answer questions. He was also accompanied by Pastor David Rodquist, Senior Associate Pastor, and Bill Johnson, architect for the project. Commissioner Svendsen asked whether a determination had been made regarding possible leakage from the underground tank. Goold stated that an environmental study had been completed and there was a minimal amount of leakage. The sellers had agreed that they would remove the tank at their expense and cover all costs for soil cleanup. Per the studies completed, there would be only a nominal risk/cost to remove the tank. Svendsen initiated discussion on the shared parking agreement with House of Hope Church and what would happen with the new ownership of the property. Goold stated that Crystal Free had met with representatives of House of Hope and a parking arrangement was not discussed. Goold stated that Crystal Free would probably need most of the parking spaces, however, if at some time shared parking was requested by House of Hope, Crystal Free would try to accommodate them. Svendsen asked for clarification on the shuttle service between the two buildings. Goold responded that during the week there would not be very many shuttle trips other than Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings. The maximum number of youth to be served at the extended campus at any one time would be 120. A number of senior high students drive cars and parents drive the junior high students. At peak times, there would be approximately three to four shuttle bus trips in each direction. Svendsen next raised the issue of the future entrance that was shown on the plans. Pastor Rodquist answered that a possible future entrance into the building may be utilized to provide access directly into the youth area rather than have students go through the administrative area. A sidewalk would be constructed along the south side of the administration building and an entrance would be installed in the section that joins the buildings. Svendsen pointed out that the applicant had met with the School District and had received preliminary approval for a joint parking agreement with the School District, if needed. Rodquist explained that they met with the Cooper High School principal and Tom Waleriu$ of the Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 7, 1998 MOTION Item 4.2 School District. Rodquist added that he realized a shared parking agreement would require a separate conditional use permit. Svendsen clarified the number of staff people occupying the Zealand Avenue facility Monday through Friday would be approximately 11 full-time employees and 10 part-time employees. Svendsen also pointed out that the laundry service area would dismantled. The kitchen would be maintained, however, the food service would be handled from the main campus. Rodquist interjected that this facility would not be utilized for any banquet type function, but since the kitchen is there, they may utilize it from time to time for appropriate smaller functions. Commissioner Landy raised the issue of shuttle drivers and who would be responsible for this. Rodquist responded that the vans are 21 person busses and drivers would need to have a chauffeur's license. There would be adults over 25 years of age from the church that would be the licensed drivers of the vehicles. The vehicles would be owned by the church. Landy cautioned that the busses utilize 42"d Avenue to Boone Avenue to 47th Avenue as the route to the extended campus. Commissioner Cameron asked that the petitioner clarify what type of work would be done to the building. Goold answered that there would be only cosmetic work done at this time to make the building functional for the intended uses. There are five different units at the site to be used as follows: one each for staff/office, junior high, senior high, youth staff offices, and care ministry/Bible study/personal counseling. Chairman Sonsin noted for the record a letter received from the Trish Kilkelly family stating their support of the proposed use. Svendsen questioned the feasibility of the Zealand Avenue vacation. Brixius pointed out that the proposed use complies with the parking requirements. The vacation of the Zealand cul-de-sac would be something the City may initiate sometime in the future with the cooperation of the three adjacent property owners to eliminate the need to maintain a dead-end street. In the event a vacation would occur, there would need to be some type of joint access easement established to provide access to 47th Avenue. The three property owners would then be responsible for the care and maintenance of the road. Jane Danielson, 8601 47th Avenue came forward to address the Commission. Danielson wondered whether there would be any change to the cul-de-sac as far as parking. Brixius stated that there is a small portion of the street that only serves the parking lots and there would be no change to the cul-de-sac. Brixius explained the vacation process for the benefit of the audience. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-12. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-12, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Extended Church Campus at 4741 Zealand Avenue North, Crystal Evangelical Free Church (4225 Gettysburg Avenue North), Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Parking lot expansion and landscaping be completed within 12 months of approval. 2. Installation of storm sewer, per City Engineer's recommendation. 3. Compliance with Fire Inspector's recommendations. 4. Explore feasibility of Zealand Avenue vacation. Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 7, 1998 Execute CUP Site Improvement Agreement with City and submit performance bond for parking lot, landscaping and storm sewer improvements {amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Svendsen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Keefe, Kramer Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, This planning case will be presented to the City Council on July 27, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. Pastor Goold expressed his appreciation in working with the officials of New Hope and stated that Crystal Free considers it an honor to be a part of the community. PC98-13 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Building Addition, 4500 Quebec Avenue North, Conductive Containers, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting site/building plan review/approval to allow a 9,470 square foot addition to the east/southeast sides of the existing building. The request was for site and building plan review only with no variances being requested. The property is located in an I-2, General Industrial Zoning District, and surrounding properties include I-2 General Industrial uses on the north, south, and across Quebec Avenue to the west, and R-4 high density residential (apartments) and R-1 single family homes to the east across the railroad tracks. CCI is a single tenant office-warehouse use, which is a permitted use in the I-2 Zone. Conductive Containers, Inc. purchased the vacant industrial building at 4500 Quebec Avenue North in 1995. The City acquired the vacant property at 4400 Quebec Avenue North, south of the site, for the construction of a storm water retention pond. The City sold the vacant parcel to CCI at a reduced price in exchange for an easement over the pond, and the additional property allowed for future expansion needs. McDonald explained that CCI was requesting approval to build a 9,500 square foot warehouse addition at the rear of the existing building and construct a small parking lot expansion. The existing site contains 139,185 square feet or 3.1 acres. The existing building contains 25,000 square feet and the expansion would contain 9,500 square feet for a total building size of 34,500 square feet. The parking lot is 25,606 square feet and the green area, including the pond, is 79,029 square feet. McDonald reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update encourages in- place expansion of industrial sites and gives note to the impacts of outdoor storage. The warehouse expansion would reduce the need for outdoor storage, thus enhancing the interests of the Comprehensive Plan. McDonald stated that a total of 29 parking spaces exist on the site and nine additional spaces would be required with the expansion. The petitioner is proposing to add 11 spaces for a total of 40. The request Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 7, 1998 meets all site/development standards, as well as zoning requirements. Department Heads, consultants and the Design & Review Committee reviewed the plans and revised plans were submitted. The setback on the north side of the property is 10 feet and the proposed addition would be 15 feet from the property line. The normal setback for the rear yard in an industrial district is 35 feet, however, the setback adjacent to a railroad right-of-way can be reduced to 10 feet. Per the site plan, there would be no outdoor storage with the building addition. Snow storage would be on the south side of the parking lot expansion, The building materials would be an 8" x 8" scored block pattern to match the existing building with no windows on the north or east walls. The west elevation would have an overhead door and the south elevation would have a steel stair and railing up to a service door. There would be a total of 40 parking spaces with the parking lot expansion and new curb and gutter would be added around the new bituminous lot. The lot would be graded to drain northwest toward the existing catch basin. Two ADA parking spaces are required. The revised plans show the current space at the front of the building and one additional space angled against the south wall of the building. The Building Official recommended that the angled space be relocated, due to the fact that it blocks the drive aisle. All utilities have been shown on the plans. The plans show that existing box elder and willow trees would be removed with the parking lot expansion. Other existing landscaping is shown on the plan. The rear of the property would be seeded and sod installed around the parking lot area. McDonald stated that staff recommended replacement landscaping be provided on the south side of the parking lot expansion. Wall pack lighting is shown on the south elevation near the steel stairway/service door. The existing building is sprinkled and the addition would also be sprinkled. The Fire Department recommended that the storage height in the addition be limited to 12 feet. McDonald reported that the City Engineer recommended that once the project is completed, the utility easements be recorded on the as-built plan, Any adjustment of existing utility structures should comply with the final grades and be coordinated with Public Works. McDonald commented that the petitioner did a good job addressing the concerns discussed by the Design & Review Committee and staff was recommending approval of the request, subject to the conditions in the Planning Case Report. Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioner to come forward and it was noted the petitioner was not in attendance, McDonald stated that the petitioner was mailed a Planning Case Report and was notified that he should be in attendance. Sonsin asked whether the Commission desired to tabled this planning case or approve it and request that the petitioner be in attendance at the City Council meeting. Svendsen stated for the record that when the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner that everything was acceptable and he felt a motion to approve would be appropriate. The consensus was to move forward. Svendsen commented that there was discussion at Design & Review regarding lighting on the east side of the building and it was determined that there should be no lighting on the east side next to the railroad track because of the vandalism aspect. MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen , seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-13, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Building Addition, 4500 Quebec Avenue North, Conductive Containers, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 7, 1998 1, Prior to building permit application, a revised site plan be submitted with the noted ADA parking correction. 2. Compliance with City Engineer's recommendations (6B and 6C). (6B! The existing sanitary sewer is shown on the site plan as previously recommended. However, it is recommended the recorded utility easements be shown on the as-built site plan once the project is completed. (6C) Adjustment of existing utility structures (manhole rims, etc.) shall comply with the final grades and be coordinated with Public Works. 3. Submit revised site plan showing replacement landscaping. 4. Compliance with Fire Department recommendations. 5. Site Improvement Agreement to be executed between petitioner and City with performance bond to be submitted for site improvement (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Keefe Motion carried. Sonsin, Oelkers, This planning case will be presented to the City Council on July 27, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin ask that staff request that the petitioner be at the Council meeting. PC98-14 Item 4.4 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Request for City Engineer/City Council Approval of 32-Foot Wide Driveway or a Variance to Allow an Increase in Curb Cut Width to 38 Feet, 2720 Nevada Avenue North, Pipe Fabricators, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that there were two different ways this request could be approved. Staff felt that the request should be for a variance. The petitioner was requesting approval of a 32-foot wide driveway or a variance to allow an increase in curb cut width to 38 feet. The Zoning Code states that the City Engineer could approve a 32-foot driveway, however, the Zoning Code defines curb cut from the property line. Therefore, the request would be for a 38-foot curb cut along with a 32- foot driveway. McDonald advised the Commission that if it was favorable to the request, to approve it, and then the Commission should look into making a Zoning Code definitional change. McDonald explained that the parking lot at Pipe Fabricators had recently been dug up for replacement and the tenant wanted to widen the truck entry point to better accommodate semi-trucks/tractor-trailers. Trucks have been constantly damaging the yard next to the existing driveway upon entering and exiting the lot. The existing drive is 24 feet wide. The City Code states that no curb cut access for commercial/industrial properties shall exceed 26 feet in width at the property line. The Code further states that curb cut widths not exceeding 32 feet may be permitted subject to review and recommendation of the City Engineer and approval of the City Council. The petitioner is requesting a 32-foot wide driveway, so one option would be to consider a driveway and curb cut the same thing and simply have the City Engineer recommend and Council approve the request. The second option would be to actually approve a variance to allow an increase in the curb cut width to 38 feet. Planning Commission Meeting 9 July 7, 1998 However, the term "Curb cut width" is defined in the Zoning Code as "curb cut width will be measured at the property line on a curb face to curb face basis." While the petitioner is requesting a 32-foot wide driveway with a 35-foot radius, the distance from curb face to curb face at the property line is 38 feet. If the Zoning Code definition of "curb cut width" is to be applied as it is written, it is the staff's opinion that, a variance should be required. McDonald reported that Pipe Fabricators was located north of Medicine Lake Road on the Nevada Avenue cul-de-sac in an I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District. The office-warehouse use was a permitted use in the I-1 District. Surrounding properties in all directions are also zoned I-1. The property contains 2.47 acres and the building contains 37,800 square feet (33,000 on the main level and a 4,800 square foot mezzanine level). Thirty-five percent of the property is green area. The warehouse space in the building is a single occupancy and the office space in the building is used primarily by the warehouse tenant. Two offices are rented by a second tenant. The Comprehensive Plan Update encourages the retention of industry and by allowing better access to the site, the City would be promoting industry. A total of 34-37 parking spaces were required, based on usage, and 40 parking spaces are shown on the plan for the current tenant (exclusive of outdoor storage). Fifty-seven spaces would be available without outdoor storage. McDonald explained several items that should be considered if the request would be processed as a variance. If a wider curb cut would be allowed, the Commission should consider the extent and nature of the vehicular traffic anticipated, the type and width of the street serving the property and where the curb would be located. It is staff's opinion that properties with significant trucking do need a 30 - 32-foot wide driveway. Nevada Avenue is only 32 feet wide. McDonald stated that city staff and the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and as a result revised plans were submitted. The City Engineer's recommendations were met. Additional landscaping detail was provided. The existing plantings would be trimmed and pruned, dead plants would be removed, bare soil would be sodded, and six new ash trees would be planted on the south side. In the past there was parking in the driveway area, and the plan now shows that the curb would be painted yellow and "no parking, fire lane" signs installed. Two disability parking spaces would be provided at the front entrance. Loading docks are noted on the plan. Exterior lighting is identified on the south side of the building. McDonald reported that there had been some outside storage issues in the past. The new site plan identifies a large outside storage area on the southwest corner of the parking lot and would have an eight-foot chain link fence with slats on three sides. A second enclosure is shown to be on the east side near the loading docks. Code allows outdoor storage up to 20% of gross floor area in the Industrial Zoning District and the requirements are met with this request. Staff would request more detail on the character and size of the storage items and materials. Staff was recommending approval subject to the conditions in the Planning Case Report. Mr. Jerry Fritz, General Manager of Pipe Fabricators, came to the podium to answer questions of the Commission. He stated that Rodger Finke, owner of the building, would be available for questions also. Commissioner Svendsen clarified that Nevada Avenue takes a jog to the west as it come north from Medicine Lake Road, making the turn Planning Commission Meeting 10 July 7, 1998 difficult for trucks, During discussions at the Design & Review Committee meeting, the City Engineer stated that if a 35-foot radius was utilized on the south side of the driveway, this would allow the trucks coming in to maneuver the corner without driving over the grass. By using the 35-foot radius, a 38-foot curb cut would be required. Svendsen asked for clarification on the storage materials and racks used. Fritz stated that he had been with Pipe Fabricators since April 1998. He continued by saying that all storage racks had been moved from the area in question. The raw pipe is now stored at another location in Golden Valley. The storage area would now be used for finished product while waiting for truck pick-up. Svendsen asked for clarification on the type of storage racking that would be utilized and was informed that there would not be a necessity for racking and the pipe would just be placed on the ground. Svendsen questioned whether the storage area would be lighted in some way, and wondered whether the outside lights on the building would be shifted so that they would not shine so brightly towards Medicine Lake Road. Fritz responded that he had not been past the building at night and was not aware that the lights were a problem. Svendsen questioned where the snow storage would be and requested that this be shown on the site plan. Fritz answered that snow would have to be removed frequently from the parking lot. Svendsen questioned whether the fork lift used to travel between the two locations had a "slow moving vehicle" marker on it and it was confirmed that a reflector was on the fork lift. Mr. Rodger Finke, one of the building owner partners, responded to the concern regarding the lighting on the building. He stated that the existing lights were on pivots and could be angled differently if the City desired. The driveway change would be a joint venture between tenant and landlord. Finke called attention to the fact that other businesses along Nevada Avenue also were having problems with the narrow turning radius for semi-trucks coming onto their properties from the street. Finke stated that there would be additional sodding completed at the east end of the building and a curb would be installed after the driveway entrance from the street was completed. Svendsen reiterated that the outside lighting was very bright. Finke remarked that they would angle the lights down so they did not shine outward towards the street. Fritz added that they do Icad trucks at night and there were some safety concerns with the lighting situation. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-14. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.4 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-14, Request for City Engineer/City Council Approval of 32-Foot Wide Driveway or a Variance to Allow an Increase in Curb Cut Width to 38 Feet, 2720 Nevada Avenue North, Pipe Fabricators, Inc,, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to building permit application, petitioner to submit signed statement regarding nature and detail of outdoor storage. 2. Financial guarantee to be submitted to cover landscaping restoration, curb work and screening fence (amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer). Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 7, 1998 PC97-25 Item 4.5 Voting against: None Absent: Keefe, Kramer Motion carried. This planning case will be presented to the City Council on July 27, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.5, Ordinance No. 98-03, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Chairman Sonsin stated that the Codes & Standards Committee had been working on the Sign Code for the past several months and there were a large number of small changes, some additions, and some deletions. Mr. Brixius stated that the reasons for the changes were 1) to simplify the ordinance to make it more user friendly, easier to understand and simpler to enforce, 2) bring the Code into competitive advantage as far as New Hope businesses having the same opportunity for signage as in other communities, and 3) correct some functional flaws in the existing ordinance. Brixius pointed out changes as follows: Section 3.41, Purpose: The basic change in purpose was to stress that this is a content neutral ordinance and the proposed code would be moving away from regulations that specify the type of signs or the content. This is intended to promote some creativity and effective communication. Section 3.42, Rules & Definitions: The section has been established on a Zoning District arrangement rather than land use in an effort to simplify the code and its application. Sign height was included as a new definition. Section 3.43, General Standards: New standards included are: sign permit, sign maintenance, and sign location. The current code did not have a uniform setback for signs and this section establishes 10 feet from the property line for all signs city-wide. Signs on corner lots are better explained in this section as far as number of signs and sight lines at the intersection of two streets. Section 3.435 addresses sign illumination. Previously the code had restrictions and hours of operation for commercial properties and the length a sign could be turned on. Staff was recommending that a foot candle be established so that businesses whose hours of operation are later into the evening can keep their sign on longer. Section 3.44, Prohibited Signs: Under this section, billboard signs are now prohibited in the City. Sonsin pointed out that the old Hardees restaurant signage is still in place, and that according to Section 3.451 Obsolete Signs of the existing code these signs should be removed. Planning Commission Meeting 12 July 7, 1998 Section 3.46, Permitted Signs: Identifiable address numbers was changed to 3 inches in height. Section 3.464, Public Convenience and Directional Signs: The open house signs were addressed in this section to allow these to be in place one day before and removed one day after the open house. Section 3.469: "For Sale" and "For Rent" Signs: The signage size for a single family home was increased to eight square feet, multi-family and commercial/industrial building signage can be 75 square feet, and for multi-family and commercial/industrial buildings with frontage on Highway 169 the signage was increased to two signs with a total area of 150 square feet. This is a new provision for buildings with highway frontages. Section 3,470, Construction & Remodeling Signs: Previously the construction and remodeling signs were 25 square feet and this has been increased to 32 square feet, which represents a standard size piece of plywood. Section 3.47, Residential Districts: A new provision in this section is reader boards and off-premise directional signs. Special event signage is also included. Section 3.474, Multiple Family Residential Signage: Area identification signage was increased from 25 square feet to 100 square feet. Section 3.48, Residential Office District: This signage is basically the same as the Residential District and was referenced in the proposed code. Section 3.49, Commercial/Industrial Zoning District: The language in this section has been standardized to include two wall signs per building, and have allowed 200 square feet to be utilized on one and/or two signs or 1,5 percent of the wall face. The freestanding sign for single occupancy businesses was dramatically simplified. The proposed code would allow one freestanding sign per lot up to 100 square feet, not to exceed 30 feet in height. This section pertains to single occupancy businesses. The window signage was standardized to 33 percent of the window display area to allow more flexibility for businesses. The signage for gas stations was simplified in that oil rack and tire tack signage was eliminated and included with general signs. Provisions for reader boards in commercial areas was also added. Promotional signage, i.e., banners and pennants, has remained basically the same as the existing ordinance. The grand opening portion is proposed to extend for a 30-day period. There is a provision for non-compliance. In the event there would be a violation, future permits could be withheld. Section 3.493, Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Buildings/ Shopping Centers: Much of the language has been retained as far as purpose, comprehensive sign information requirements, and individual walls signs. The major changes in this area relate to freestanding signs. Shopping centers containing four separate and distinct occupancies can erect one freestanding sign per street frontage not to exceed two signs per site. Each ground sign can be 200 square feet or one sign cannot exceed 300 square feet. Ground signs cannot exceed 30 feet in height. Reader boards have been incorporated into shopping center signage as a Planning Commission Meeting 13 July 7, 1998 permitted arrangement, A single occupancy, freestanding satellite site can install only one freestanding sign not to exceed 100 square feet. McDonald pointed out that the shopping center identification requirement has been eliminated on ground signs. Section 3.50, Non-Conforming Signs & Sign Structures: This section has not changed very much. The amortization schedule was removed and replaced with a five-year time limit for the replacement of legal, non-conforming signs. Section 3.51, Sign Variance: The variance procedure remains the same. Section 3.52, Review Procedures & Informational Requirements: This section is new and pertains to the sign application, permits, fees and Council approval. Brixius reiterated that the Sign Code was reformatted to make it more user friendly. A number of complicated issues were removed to make it easier for enforcement, The sign area requirements were increased to be competitive with adjoining communities. Chairman Sonsin thanked staff for all of the work that had been done on the Sign Code. He stated that Codes & Standards had reviewed the entire Sign Code item by item and asked that the Commission review the changes page by page in the event there needed to be some clarification or additional corrections made. Commissioner Hemken questioned what happened with non-conforming signs. Brixius stated that if the sign was illegal, the City could enforce the code and have the sign removed. The five-year limit pertains to signs that would become non-conforming as a result of the code changes. Commissioner Oelkers asked for clarification on Section 3.464 regarding the open house signs and the length of time the sign could be up. Brixius stated that this did not pertain to "for sale" signs. Directional signs in the boulevard to show where the open house would be, other than the property for sale, are prohibited. Sonsin interjected that any sign in the right-of-way would be prohibited except governmental signs. Oelkers requested clarification on apartment building "for rent" signs. Sondrall interjected that off-premise signs would not be allowed, however, there is one property in New Hope that technically would have a legal, non-conforming sign that would not need to be removed in the five-year time frame due to a previous court action. Brixius pointed out that there was a provision for churches and commercial/industrial sites where reader boards are an exception to the flashing sign requirement. The reader boards can be wall, freestanding or monument signs and are counted against the total sign area allowed within the respective district. The reader board cannot exceed 50 percent of the specific sign that would be erected. One reader board per premise would be allowed. There is also a minimum of a three-second delay between reader board messages to avoid scrolling, per Sections 3.492(7) and 3.473. Sonsin requested that the Commission review the proposed code page Planning Commission Meeting 14 July 7, 1998 by page and asked that Commissioners comment as necessary. Sonsin asked that a definition for freestanding signs be added, as well as monument signs. There was some discussion on roof signs, It was noted that there are no roof signs in New Hope due to the fact that they are prohibited. Svendsen questioned whether or not a sign on a mansard roof would be considered a roof sign. It was determined that a roof sign would be considered a sign on top of the roof. The definition could be changed to clarify the exact location for a roof sign. Sonsin pointed out that the wind pressure standard in Section 3.43 was changed to 80 psf wind pressure. There was some discussion on how a foot candle was measured and it was noted that there is a standard measurement within the Uniform Building Code that is utilized. Commissioner Anderson questioned billboard locations and was informed that there were no billboards in New Hope, but that a billboard would be a sign in excess of 300 square feet, Sonsin questioned how long a "for lease" or "for sale" sign could be up and that Section 3,469 should include a time limit. Sections 3.473(3)(c) and 3.492(7)(c) relating to reader boards should read "no more than one reader board per premise." Sonsin questioned the wording in Section 3.49(6) regarding banners, etc. pertaining to "on the premises" when it refers to a shopping center. Brixius responded that at a shopping center the banner could be anywhere on the entire lot where the tenant is located. Sonsin pointed out that in Sections 3.502 and 3.503 the language reads lawful non-conforming and legal non-conforming signs. The terminology for both of these should read legal non-conforming. Oelkers questioned whether a shopping center on a corner lot would be allowed a reader board on both of their freestanding signs and it was determined that only one reader board would be allowed. There was some discussion whether or not to allow one reader board per street frontage and not to exceed two readers boards per property. McDonald added that a definition should be included for reader boards, since the definition between the existing and proposed ordinances are different. Sondrall noted that the wording in Section 3.473(3)(d) and 3.492(7)(d) should be changed from "shall" to "may" display a graphic image. Commissioner Anderson commented on the section pertaining to special event signs and whether or not the three permits times 14 days each totaling 42 days could be divided up to more permits each year for a shorter time frame for each permit, due to the fact that his business runs special events several times per year. Sondrall responded that the administration/enforcement issue would become a problem in keeping track of all the special event permits. Brixius pointed out that window signage has been increased. Chairman Sonsin asked whether or not the Commission wanted to review the changes suggested at the next Planning Commission meeting or move the Sign Code on to the City Council, and the consensus was to move the Sign Code with changes discussed forward to the City Council. MOTION Item 4.5 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 97-25, Ordinance No. 98-03, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the corrections recommended by the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Planning Commission Meeting Cameron, Hemken, Svendsen, Anderson None Keefe, Kramer 15 Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, July 7, 1998 COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Motion carried. Chairman Sonsin stated that this planning case would proceed to the City Council on July 27. Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Committee reviewed several sets of plans. Mr. McDonald reported that Project for Pride in Living, Avtec PUD, a plat for Lyman Lumber, a garage variance and possibly CareBreak would be ready for August. Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards finished working on the Sign Code and would be reviewing bus bench signage, home occupations, curb cuts, and several other items in July. Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee discussed the land use portion of the Comprehensive Plan in June. The Committee would be meeting twice in July to finalize the Plan. The plan would be presented to the Citizens Advisory Commission on July 20. The plan would be ready for submission to the Planning Commission in August and to the City Council for review in September. There was no discussion on the Miscellaneous Issues. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 2, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commission that the Volunteer Appreciation Picnic would be held on July 28. He also read an article from the July 7 Star Tribune Sports Section regarding street naming by the Green Bay, Wisconsin, Planning Commission and direction from the City Council to develop a policy on this issue. Commissioner Landy pointed out that the scheduled August Planning Commission meeting is also National Night Out and asked whether the meeting night could be changed. It was determined that the Planning Commission meeting would be held on Wednesday, August 5. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:17 p.m. _~~~ e~)<~_.,zct f u I I y submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 7, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 2, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Oelkers Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Sue Henry, Community Development Specialist, Phil Kern, Community Development Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-32 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional Use Permit/Development Stage Planned Unit Development with Waivers to Allow Townhouse Development for Bass Lake Court and Plat Approval of PPL Addition, 7300-7332 Bass Lake Road, Project for Pride in Living, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. Brixius explained that in Al~ril 1998 Project for Pride in Living (PPL) submitted development applications for the redevelopment of a block betweeri Pennsylvania and Nevada Avenues. The property is surrounded by Crystal and contains a non-conforming gas station, a non-conforming office building, and eight four-plex apartment buildings. The area had presented a number of problems relating to building deterioration and had been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area requiring redevelopment. The PPL project proposed to purchase all the buildings and create 34 new townhome units as well as retaining the existing group home. The Planning Commission/City Council approved the concept plan and the rezoning of the R-O and B-3 Districts to R-3, Multiple Family Residential. The concept approval of the development recognized the need for a number of variances, including: a 15-foot setback from the curb to the private street, a setback variance between buildings and parking stalls, a building separation setback variance, building length variance, and a private roadway width variance. Brixius stated that since the approval in May, PPL had met with Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to discuss the final development plans and several modifications to the plan were made per MHFA recommendations, including: realignment of the private roadway, townhomes are on-grade and no basements with tuck-under garages, no common entry hall in the rehabilitated units, on-site office would be provided, site fence on the east/west property lines had been changed to wood, Breckenridge Group Home requested flexibility with garage requirements, and Breckenridge property owner requested that the site be established as a second lot within the plat. PPL would retain right of Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 2, 1998 first refusal if the Breckenridge property owner should decide to sell. Brixius confirmed that the subdivision would combine 11 parcels into a two-lot subdivision. Lot 1 would consist of the existing gas station, office building and seven of the existing four-plexes. Lot 2 would consist of only the group home. With the subdivision approval, a number of flexibility elements would be required to address Lot 2. The standard R-2 Zoning District minimum lot size isl0,O00 square feet. The existing Breckenridge lot contains 3,388 square feet, and through the platting process the lot would be enlarged to 3,780 square feet. Through the overall PUD, the density of the entire plat would be reduced from 13 units per acre to 9.1 units per acre. Secondly, the code requires that all lots have frontage on a public street. The Breckenridge lot would not have frontage on a public street. Lot access would be provided via an access easement over a portion of Lot 1. Flexibility would be required for property line setbacks for the building, which is an existing condition. Brixius stated that through the PUD design, the lesser setbacks would be acceptable. Brixius reported that setbacks from the east and west property lines comply with city standards. The setback from Bass Lake Road would be reduced to 28 feet with the dedication of seven feet to Hennepin County and a variance would be needed. Due to the change in housing design mandated by MHFA, a variance was being requested for a reduced distance in the property live: 14 feet for the handicapped unit and 20 feet for the balance of the units. These variances are essential to the overall subdivision approval. The County must approve the access points off of Bass Lake Road and at this time PPL has verbal approval and are waiting for a formal access permit. Easements are required along the property lines, as well as, a number of internal areas including a utility extension in the northern driveway area to catch basins on both sides of the property. Prior to final plat approval, property ownership must be demonstrated for all of the properties. The City Attorney pointed out discrepancies in the legal description for Lot 2, as well as the legal description pertaining to the overall site which would need to be corrected by the surveyor. The variances being requested for Lot 2 must be approved as a condition of final plat approval. The notarization language must be expanded to include references to the actual officer who would be signing on behalf of the entities, title evidence showing ownership is necessary. The City Engineer requested that documentation needed to be submitted regarding a drainage/utility easement over the east/west storm sewer and easements/rights-of-entry for construction would need to be obtained. Brixius stated that a planned unit development was intended to promote an innovative site design. Through the subdivision, a number of problem properties would be consolidated under a single ownership, which would improve management and maintenance of the site. The ownership of Lot 2 raises concern for uniform maintenance and an agreement should be reached between the two property owners. Utilities would be placed underground. Sanitary sewer would need to comply with city code. Clarificationwas requested regarding the fire service/back flow preventer. The City Engineer identified issues regarding utility looping and the need to have the water flow tested. The testing had been agreed to and would be accomplished in the presence of the Fire Inspector. All hydrants are required to have a flow of 1,500 GPM with 20 PSI. A number of issues were raised and have been resolved regarding the drainage plan. The overall drainage plan for the site was a Planning Commission Meeting 2 September 2, 1998 cooperative effort among New Hope, Crystal, the School District and PPL. Drainage problems at the back of the single family homes along Nevada and Pennsylvania would be corrected. Storm water drainage for the southern quarter of the site would drain to Bass Lake Road, with the balance draining north to a future retention area in the School District site. The improvements off site would include catch basins at the rear of adjoining properties which would take storm water flow back into the site and drain it north toward 58th Avenue. Crystal would need to meet with adjoining property owners to obtain storm drainage easements, constructing storm water improvements beyond the PPL site, storm water utility easements must be established on the final plat to cover the storm water connections between catch basins 2 and 3, including erosion control. Brixius continued by stating that a detailed landscaping plan had been provided by PPL showing how the site would be enhanced. With the dedication of seven feet along Bass Lake Road, a portion of the landscaping would be located in the County right-of-way. PPL's consultant inquired if the County would agree to an encroachment easement, would the City accept that. It was the opinion of the Planning Consultant that in the event that any utility improvement was necessary, it would result in lost landscaping/investment. Public Works staff and the City Engineer stated that there may be some flexibility with that issue, but staff was not prepared to offer a recommendation at this time. The City Forester had indicated that the linear design proposed was very formal and would require high maintenance. City staff strongly recommended that the entire site be irrigated. The City Forester was concerned that the Spirea proposed along the outer drives would be damaged with snow wash during plowing, and suggested that the Spirea be replaced with day lilies and hostas. PPL may wish to meet with the Forester to discuss options for these areas of the site. Brixius stated that from staff's perspective the roadway design had been redesigned and provided access to all buildings and increased the amount of parking. The central courtyard would be protected from the traffic. The sight lines and turning radius appear to be adequate with the exception of the northern corners, where the turning radius should be increased to accommodate large trucks and emergency vehicles. With the reduced street width of the private drive, several conditions were recommended including: private street be striped and posted "no parking-fire lane," 90 degree parking stalls to be nine feet wide and 20 feet, eight inches in length, and turning radius on northern end of property be increased to accommodate large trucks. Additional parking had been provided on the site. There were two parking stalls provided near the office area: one handicap and one regular. PPL had indicated that an on-site manager would be in the office and, therefore, would not be using a parking space. In the event a manager not residing on site would be utilized, that person would be required to park in another parking area. Two options were proposed to PPL for increasing the amount of parking spaces near the office including relocating the handicapped stall to the western private street or eliminate the curb island between the office parking and the first townhome driveway to provide a third stall. Brixius reported that the site has been designed with an internal trail system and sidewalks along the perimeter of the area. The northern townhomes have patios that outlet to the School District property, which would allow trespassing on property not controlled by PPL. The Planning Commission Meeting 3 September 2, 1998 CPTED officer suggested that there be a trail system installed to the Thorsen Community Center and that this trail be maintained year round. One option would be an eight-foot trail that would tie the patios of the townhomes on the north property line together and potentially travel in a westerly direction to a trail along the western border of the School District property to Thorsen. Outstanding issues regarding the trail include: the School District must approve the trail at this location and the connection to the Thorsen parking lot and the construction of the trail would have to be a cooperative effort with the cities of New Hope and Crystal and the School District and consideration should be given to the cost of the trail system, as well as the maintenance of the trail. Brixius explained that the renovation of the existing brick four-plexes would be changed to duplexes and improved with porches at the entrances. Each building would have a single attached garage. All trash for the new townhomes would be stored in the garage. The new buildings are on-slab, garage forward arrangements. Breckenridge had asked for exception to the ~ttached garage arrangement and had proposed a trash enclosure rather than an accessory building. Staff recommended that a trash receptacle similar in character to the garages be constructed. The group home would eliminate the garage on the south side of the unit in order to construct the utility building on the north side. The lighting plan was acceptable except for the entry points as far as wall pack lighting locations and nightwatch lighting to be mounted on eight existing poles on the east and west property lines. The signage proposed at both entrances meet setback requirements. The sign for the office must be relocated to meets setback requirements. Brixius concluded by saying that staff was recommending approval of the PPL development stage application, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Planning Report dated August 28, 1998. Mr. Chris Wilson, PPL Project Manager, Ms. Lisa Kugler, Consultant, and Mr. Bob Lunning, Architect, came forward to answer questions of the Commissioners. Mr. Wilson stated that PPL was committed to the project and the issues remaining are small items, and thanked city staff for their suggestions and cooperation. Ms. Kugler pointed out the irrigation issue and stated that the Minneapolis Housin.g Finance Agency (MHFA) was not supportive of financing an irrigation system. She stated that Breckenridge would pay a yearly fee for the maintenance of their property. Kugler reported that the School District was not comfortable with the trail on the northern property line and preferred that residents would exit to the interior of the project and proceed to the trail along the western border to Thorsen. PPL will do the snow plowing during the winter months. Commissioner Svendsen questioned who would absorb the cost of the irrigation system if MHFA would not cover the cost. Kugler replied that PPL would have to absorb the cost of the system. Commissioner Hemken wondered if the landscape plan could be less formal, which would result in less upkeep. Kugler responded that PPL desired to make a significant impact with this development and provide as much greenery/plantings as possible. Any landscaping provided, even a less formal plan, would need to be watered regularly. Commissioner Kramer voiced a concern regarding the accessibility for fire fighters/trucks on the north property line. Discussion ensued Planning Commission Meeting 4 September 2, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting regarding the backflow preventer as shown on the plans and the location of fire hydrants. Kugler interjected that the Fire Inspector was comfortable with the location of the hydrants and the width of the roadway for truck access to the buildings. There was discussion on the internal Iccp water system and whether or not it would be adequate or if another connection would need to be made to Pennsylvania or Bass Lake Road. Kramer was concerned with the tie-back into the private system. Svendsen pointed out that the plant schedule did not match the plantings identified on the plan, i.e., Virginia Creeper shown on the site plan but not on the planting schedule. Mr. Lunning replied that since many changes had been made, it was possible that one plan had been changed but not the other. Svendsen asked for confirmation that the landscaping at the rear of the townhomes on the north property line would be changed to reflect closing the access points to the School District property. Svendsen pointed out that the Spirea plantings would require more maintenance in the spring than some other plantings and asked whether PPL would hire a gardener to take care of this. Kugler responded that PPL preferred the Spirea because these plants grew bigger and fuller than the hosta or day lilies that were suggested by the Forester. Wilson added that PPL has someone on staff that would take care of gardening needs for the project. Commissioner Anderson interjected that he had driven past another PPL project recently and the development appeared to be well maintained. Commissioner Kramer wondered how big the water main was on the project. The City Engineer responded that a four-inch pipe had been found at the property line and it was assumed that it connected to a six inch main in Bass Lake Road. Kramer asked whether or not the private drive would be plowed the full width and it was confirmed it would be plowed curb to curb. There would be some snow built up by each driveway island. Svendsen discussed with PPL representatives the plantings proposed to be located in the right-of-way along Bass Lake Road and the fact that these plantings may need to be moved or could be lost in the event utility work needed to be completed in this area. Kugler responded that trees would be planted more than seven feet from the curb and there would be less expensive plantings in the right-of-way area. Commissioner Cameron questioned the testing for soil contamination at the gas station location. Kugler responded that Phase 2 investigation had been completed along with more soil borings and there was no evidence of additional contamination. There had been some clean up work done at the time the old tanks had been removed and the testing did not show any evidence of leakage from the new tanks. The tanks would be removed during construction. Commissioner Anderson questioned the nightwatch lights and how far the light would spread from the PPL property. Lunning replied that the lights have a cut-off on the back and the flow of light would shine down on the ground. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that PPL had stated they would plow the trail to Thorsen in winter, but wondered who would maintain the trail the rest of the year. Kugler replied that the details on maintenance would be worked out with Crystal and the School District. Chairman Sonsin asked whether there was anyone from the audience 5 September 2, 1998 MOTION Item 4.1 that desired to address the Commission. Mr. Don Beeler, 2916 Sumter Avenue, asked for clarification on the rezoning process for the property. Chair Sonsin stated that the Planning Commission does not rezone the property but only makes a recommendation to the City Council. He explained that at this point there are properties from three different Zoning Districts that would be utilized for this project. The rezoning would combine all of these properties to the correct R-3 Zoning District. Sonsin explained the zoning process for the audience. Beeler wondered what the cost would be to the taxpayer. Kugler responded that there would be no cost to the taxpayer. The City Attorney pointed out that there would be no cost to taxpayers from real estate tax dollars. TIF District monies would be utilized for this project and he explained that process. Kugler called attention to the fact that there were over 200 police calls to the existing project during the past year, which was also a large expense for the community. Brixius added that the Comprehensive Plan Update identified this area of the City as a top priority for redevelopment. Beeler questioned the type of peopl~ that lived at the group home. Kugler answered that the group home had been at that location for the past 12-14 years and was occupied by mentally handicapped adults. Mr. Victor Fish, 5608 Pennsylvania Avenue, whose backyard abuts the PPL property came forward. His concern was the snow plowing along the private drive and how high the snow would be piled up and whether the snow melt would drain onto his property. Kugler responded that the snow should drain back onto the PPL property. The fencing around the site would be six feet high, therefore, the snow mounds should not be visible from his property. Fish questioned who the typical renter would be, due to the fact that there are a lot of problem tenants/police calls at the site now. Wilson stated that PPL has managed many projects such as this over the past 26 years and is experienced in screening tenants and dealing with potential problems. A caretaker would be on the property 24 hours a day and could handle any problems that may arise. Adjacent property owners can call PPL with any concerns with regard to the project or tenants. Brixius added that there would be an advantage to having all buildings on Lot 1 owned by a single manager, rather than by several different off-site owners/managers as was the case previously. Fish wondered how many people are projected to live in the project. Brixius responded that there would be 34 units total: 14 four- bedroom duplexes and 20 new three-bedroom townhomes, plus the group home. At the current time there are 28 households in a smaller area. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 97-32. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 97-32, Request for Conditional Use Permit/ Development Stage Planned Unit Development with Waivers to Allow Townhouse Development for Bass Lake Court and Plat Approval of PPL Addition, 7300-7332 Bass Lake Road, Project for Pride in Living, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Rezoning. Recommend that the City take final action in rezoning the entire project site to an R~3, Residential Zoning District. Subdivision. Recommend that the City approve the final plat and related Planning Commission Meeting 6 September 2, 1998 variances for PPL Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise plat, per City Attorney recommendations, regarding legal descriptions and notarization language, and provide evidence of ownership. 2. Revise plat, per City Engineer recommendations, including easement over east/west storm sewer between catch basins 2 and 4 and easement rights-of-entry for construction. 3. Obtain appropriate permits from Hennepin County for work in right- of-way and restore all areas. 4. Revise plat to include Minnegasco easement. 5. The applicant outline the terms under which Lots I and 2, Block 1 of PPL Addition will establish uniform standards for property and building maintenance. Development Stage PUD. Recommend approval of the PUD development stage for PPL with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the following requested variances from PUD standards in accordance with the submitted site plan: A. Building setback from private roadways and parking areas. B. Setbacks between buildings. C. Length of the townhome structure, D. Private roadway width and parking lot dimensions. E. Perimeter setbacks. 2. Parking and Circulation: A. Increase turning radius on private streets at the north end of the site, per City Engineer's recommendation. B. All private streets must be posted "no parking-fire lane." C. Consider options for increasing parking near the office. 3. Drainage plan to comply with recommendations of City Engineer, 4. Utility plans to comply with 'recommendations of the City Engineer. 5. Respond to the issues related to a trail connection to Thorsen Community Center. 6. Location of trail to be approved by the City Engineer. 7. PPL enter into an agreement with the City of Crystal and the School District regarding the maintenance of the trail system to Thorsen. 8. Show snow plowing/storage/removal plans on site plan. 9, Landscape Plan: A. All plantings must be located on private property unless Hennepin County approves plantings to be located in the right- of-way. All trees must be set back five feet from the property line. B. The site landscaped areas must be irrigated, C. Replace the Spirea along the private streets with day lilies or hostas or something that would be agreeable with the City Forester. D. Submit updated plant schedule. 7. Eliminate trash enclosure in favor of a small accessory building that is architecturally compatible with the balance of the project. 8. Building materials are conducive to anti-graffiti protections. 9. Developer to enter into Site Improvement/PUD Agreement with the City and submit performance bond (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Planning Commission Meeting 7 September 2, 1998 PC 98-18 Item 4.2 Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers Motion carried. This planning case will be presented to the City Council on September 14, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. Sonsin commended the petitioners on the project. Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Brandell Fourth Addition and Side Yard Setback Variance to Allow Parking Lot Five Feet From Property Line, 9401-9443 and 9449 Science Center Drive, Liberty Property Limited Partnership and Marbell Realty LLC, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner was requesting preliminary plat approval of Brandell Fourth Addition and a side yard setback to allow the parking lot to be located five feet from the property line. The preliminary plat approval revolves around the petitioner purchasing 23 feet from an adjacent owner and the shift of the property line to the north to create additional parking for employees. The new property line would be located five feet from.an existing parking lot along a portion of the common lot line between the properties. City code requires a 10- foot parking lot setback, therefore, a five-foot variance was requested for that portion of the property which did not meet the setback requirement. The two properties involved are located at 9401 and 9449 Science Center Drive and both are office-warehouse uses. The I-1 properties are located at the southeast intersection of Science Center Drive and Highway 169 frontage road and are surrounded by industrial land uses and the CP Railroad on the south. McDonald stated that the petitioner stated in their correspondence they were requesting a variance for a small strip of land they desired to purchase from Marbell Realty, the owners of the property at 9449 Science Center Drive. Liberty Property Limited Partnership is the owner of the 9401 Science Center Drive L-shaped building. The land that needs the variance is approximately 23 feet wide and 175-200 feet long. Liberty Property purchased the 9401 building about 18 months ago and discovered that there was inadequate parking for the thenants in the building. The main tenant of the building had voiced their frustration to the new owners that there was not adequate parking and they may be forced to leave New Hope if additional parking could not be provided. In an effort to keep the tenant in New Hope, Liberty Property reached an agreement with Marbell Realty to acquire the land in question. The proposed parking lot expansion would add 29 parking spaces at the northwest end of the building. This piece of land did not meet the city code setback requirements because the asphalt is within five feet of the property line. The situation could be remedied by removing five feet of asphalt, however, it would have a negative impact on the delivery area for the north building. McDonald stated that it was staff's recommendation to leave the parking lots as they are and go through the variance process. Liberty indicated they would landscape near the improved area as well as upgrade the existing landscaping. They would install fencing to screen the trash dumpsters from view along major roads. Both sites are flat and elevated about 12 feet above Highway 169 and the frontage road. There are also two storm water runoff ponds on the property that were created when the property was developed in 1989. Planning Commission Meeting 8 September 2, 1998 McDonald reiterated that the request was a subdivision to revise the plat and shift the lot line, as well as a five-foot variance. The proposed Lot 1 would contain approximately 44 percent green area where 20 percent is required and the proposed Lot 2 would contain approximately 32 percent green area. McDonald stated that the preliminary plat had been submitted to city Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies and Hennepin County for comment and review. City Code states that copies of the final plat should be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation unless the requirement is waived during review of the preliminary plat. Due to the minor nature of this plat, the petitioner may request waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planning Commission as the petitioner desires to make the parking lot adjustments this fall. McDonald explained that the amount of area that would be traded is 9,545 square feet or .22 acres. The plat meets the lot area and width requirements. The City Attorney reviewed the preliminary plat and stated that the legal description needed to be clarified and evidence of ownership needed to be included on the plat. The City Engineer reviewed the preliminary plat and noted that a lO-foot wide drainage/utility easement should be provided along all lot lines and a 20- foot easement should be provided along the common lot line between the two lots. Hennepin County had no comments. NSP commented that the existing power pole in the area where the new parking lot expansion would take place would need to be relocated and any mature landscaping in the area should not exceed 20 feet in height. McDonald pointed out that the variance criteria was outlined in the Planning Report. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and revised plans were submitted as a result of that meeting. The revised plans included new lot coverage calculations; landscaping design plan; 338 parking spaces on the property including 13 handicapped spaces; screening fences; parking lot addition would be bituminous with concrete curb; parking lot expansion would be built over an existing storm sewer and any grading and catch basin work should be completed after erosion control measures are in place. Storm sewer work should be inspected by Public Works and City Engineer. The City Engineer specifically commented that the parking lot expansion grading not impact existing drainage from the property on the north to the two existing ponds; erosion and cleaning of the two existing ponding areas be considered as part of the parking lot expansion; and slopes to construct the two most easterly parking stalls would impact the existing storm pipe from the easterly pond and the petitioner should either extend the storm sewer pipe, construct a retaining wall to protect the slope, or eliminate the two easterly parking stalls east of the existing storm sewer manhole. McDonald stated that staff supported the granting of a variance because the location of the variance is on the lot line of the two parties exchanging property and any impact would be on these two property owners; the lot line shift was behind both buildings and elevated above the west roadway; the north property owner had one loading dock that was served off the south side of the building; the variance was for a short distance only; the granting of the variance would not diminish the property values; one component of the Comprehensive Plan was to promote business expansion/retention; and a hardship could be Planning Commission Meeting 9 September 2, 1998 identified due to the unique shape of the property. Mr. Doug Johnson and Ms. Kathy Ruesink, Liberty Property Trust, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Commission Svendsen asked for clarification on the purpose of the screening fence. Ms. Ruesink responded that the fence would provide a finished look by the dumpsters in the back of the building. Svendsen commented that the dumpsters should be enclosed per city code. Svendsen asked the City Engineer to comment on the two parking stalls that would be located over the storm sewer. Mark Hanson, City Engineer, replied that the property now slopes downward to the pipe and the petitioner should do one of three options: extend storm sewer pipe, build a retaining wall to protect slope, or eliminate the two easterly parking stalls east of the existing storm sewer manhole. Ruesink responded that they would prefer not to eliminate the parking stalls due to the fact that adding parking is the reason for the request. They would extend the storm sewer pipe, and if that did not work they would build a retaining wall. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the trash containers would not have walls around them. Due to the location of the dumpsters at the back of the building and some angled parking, a truck could not access them if the dumpsters were in an enclosed'area. All dumpsters are along the south side of the building and would be screened with a fence. Discussion ensued regarding the dumpster issue. It was noted that there are five separate tenants in this building, with the largest tenant occupying four separate spaces. There are dumpsters by the back doors for each of the tenants. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow the screen fence for the trash area at the rear of the building. Johnson stated that they were concerned with the aesthetic issue and would do whatever they could to properly screen the dumpsters from view along the street. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-18. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-18, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Brandell Fourth Addition and Side Yard Setback Variance to Allow Parking Lot Five Feet From Property Line, 9401-9443 and 9449 Science Center Drive, Liberty Property Limited Partnership and Marbell Realty LLC, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat to incorporate corrections recommended by City Attorney, City Engineer and NSP. 2. Landscape schedule to be submitted indicating exact number/type of plantings. 3. Parking lot expansion to comply with recommendations from City Engineer. 4. Site Improvement Agreement to be entered into with City and performance bond posted for parking lot and landscaping improvements (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 5. Planning Commission to waive review of final plat. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers Landy, Sonsin, Planning Commission Meeting 10 September 2, 1998 Motion carried. This planning case will be presented to the City Council on September 14, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. PC98-20 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage, 8489 North Meadow Lake Road, Richard & Liane Shive, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioners were requesting a variance to the side yard setback requirement t6 allow the construction of a garage onto an existing home. This property was one of the few in New Hope that did not have a garage. The petitioner purchased the property 10 years ago and had made significant improvements to the property. The home was constructed in 1962. A survey was completed which showed that there was a distance of 24.6 feet from the house to the property line at the closest point in the front and 27.6 feet from the farthest point at the rear. The survey showed that the property contains enough land for a 20-foot garage, maintaining a five-foot setback. McDonald stated the petitioners were requesting to construct a 22-foot wide by 26-foot deep garage on the north side of the house. A two-foot variance would be required so that the front side wall of the garage would be located three feet from the side yard property line. The petitioners indicated in their correspondence that they would like a 22-foot wide garage, which would allow them a more space for inside storage than a 20-foot wide garage. The property is located at the southwest intersection of 60 Y2 Avenue and North Meadow Lake Road. The property is 16,000 square feet on an irregular shaped lot with a 72-foot frontage on Meadow Lake Road and a 48-foot frontage on Meadow Lake. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes. The L-shaped lot is flat from the street to the home and then falls abruptly to a walkout basement and slopes down to Meadow Lake about 200 feet to the rear. Property owners within 350 feet of the request were notified and several neighboring property owners stopped to review the plans, including the adjacent neighbor to the north. McDonald pointed out that the Planning Report outlined the purpose of a variance. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and was supportive of the 22-foot wide garage because 20 feet was too narrow. In the past there have been some minor side yard variances granted for garage additions and expansions. It was confirmed that no easement would be encroached upon and the Committee confirmed that the architectural style of the addition would match the existing home. The Committee agreed that a garage was a necessity. The petitioner submitted revised plans and a corrected survey as a result of that meeting. McDonald stated that the revised survey showed two easements on the property: a lO-foot wide easement across the rear yard southwest of the house and a five-foot wide easement on a portion of the west rear property line. Neither easement involved the north side yard where the variance was being requested. The revised plans showed a 22 by 26 square foot garage that would be framed into the existing hip roof of the house. The interior wall of the house would have fire code gypsum board from the floor to the rafters, a metal fire door would replace the existing north side door, garage floor would be concrete with concrete steps to the entry, and a steel-panel garage door would be installed. Two 44 by Planning Commission Meeting 11 September 2, 1998 22-inch windows woUld be insta, lled in the garage, one on the north side and one on the west side. Building materials would consist of asphalt shingles and five-inch lap vinyl siding to match the existing house. McDonald reported that the property north of the site is located on a corner lot that fronts onto 60 Y2 Avenue and whose detached garage has a driveway entrance on North Meadow Lake Road. The garage is located three to four feet off the property line. There is a~so a timber wall located on the property line between the two properties. McDonald stated that staff supports the granting of a variance because of the unique shape of the property, the garage would enhance the property value, the addition of a garage would bring the property into compliance with current city code, additional off-street parking would be provided, it would not be located in a drainage easement, there would be no negative impact on the neighborhood, and similar variances have been granted in the past. McDonald mentioned that the neighbor to the north was supportive of the garage, however, was concerned that the drainage not be altered between the two properties. The Planning Commission should consider adding the drainage issue as a condition of approval. The City Engineer should visit the site to make any recommendations necessary regarding drainage. Commissioner Kramer confirmed that there was a retaining wall on the neighbors property and the petitioners could resolve some of the water issues by adding gutters to the garage roof. Richard and Liane Shive came forward to answer questions of the Commission. The petitioners stated that gutters would be installed on the garage roof. Commissioner Svendsen thanked the petitioners for having a survey completed and adding a garage to the property. He stated his concern was that because the houses were close together and with each house having an overhang on the side, there would not be much room for emergency vehicles to access the rear of the property. Mr. Shive responded that there is a dramatic drop-off at the rear of the house and it would probably not be possible for any vehicle to access that area anyway. Svendsen also mentioned the risk of fire for both property owners with the possibility of flamable/hazardous materials being stored in the garage. Mr. Tom Scherber, 8448 North Meadow Lake Drive, stated that he could not see the Shive's property from his home, but it was his opinion that the addition of a garage would improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Hemken asked why the petitioners wanted a 22-foot garage instead of a 20-foot garage. Mr. Shive responded that a 22-foot garage would better aesthetically match the existing home. The cost factor between a 22 or 20-foot garage was not significant. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-20. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-20, Request for Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage, 8489 North Meadow Lake Road, Richard & Liane Shive, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building materials, roof line and architectural style of garage to Planning Commission Meeting 12 September 2, 1998 match existing single family home. Petitioner to cooperate with neighbor to the north regarding drainage issues between the two properties. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, This planning case will be presented to the City Council on September 14, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner attend the Council meeting. Mr. Shive wondered who he should work with regarding the drainage issue and was told to contact the Building Official. PC96-27 Item 4.4 Planning Commission Meeting Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Update Approval, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius stated that this was the public hearing for consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The update process began in 1997 when the Tactics interviews were conducted which outlined the scope of the documents and paid specific attention to issues and areas of concern. A task force was selected and had reviewed each step in the update process. The Planning Inventory was assembled which gave a full description of community issues and existing conditions. Following the Inventory, the issues identified mainly pertained to maintenance of neighborhoods and existing land uses, enhancement of commercial and industrial areas, and specific areas for redevelopment. The plan issues were summarized showing city-wide in-place expansion of commercial and industrial properties that were showing signs of deterioration. After the issue identification, goals were established for what the City wanted to accomplish. Brixius discussed goals for each subsection of the plan. City-Wide Goals include: 1. Maintain and enhance New Hope's positive identity. 2. Protect property values and maintain a strong tax base. 3. Improve substandard and/or blighted areas. 4. A cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and strong functional relationships among activities is to be implemented. Brixius stated that the City has had a long history of community planning and existing neighborhoods are strong. As the community matures, the housing stock offers opportunities for improvements. Residential Goals include: 1. Provide a variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's changing demographics. 2. Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family residential neighborhoods. 3. Promote multiple family housing alternatives as an attractive life cycle housing option. Brixius reported that as a community ages, demographics show that there are housing needs that go beyond single family housing stock and the existing multiple housing stock. Housing that is attractive to empty- 13 September 2, 1998 nesters and the aging population are a focus point for the future. Retaining the strong character of the single family neighborhoods was identified as a strength of the community and something that needed to be promoted. Housing opportunities should be provided for people desiring to stay in the community, but do not want the responsibility of yard maintenance. Policy statements were formulated that were consistent with these goals. Commercial Goals include: 1. Maintain and improve New Hope's commercial areas as vital retail and service locations. 2. Redevelop commercial sites that display building deterioration, obsolete site design, land use compatibility issues and a high level of vacancies. 3. Create a cohesive and unified identity for New Hope's commercial areas. Brixius reported that through the Tactics interviews, staff heard from business owners and community leaders that attention had been given to the 42nd/Winnetka commercial area, but not the Medicine Lake Road/Winnetka area or Bass Lake Road commercial areas. A uniform identity for all of the shopping centers was appealing to the task force. Industrial Goals include: 1. Retain and expand New Hope's industrial land uses to insure a diverse tax base and local employment opportunities. 2. Redevelop industrial sites that display building deterioration, obsolete site design, and/or land use compatibility issues. Brixius pointed out that in-place business expansion would be a large part in fulfilling these goals. The City does not have much vacant industrial land available, therefore, staff was looking at ways to create land by changing setbacks, variances for parking expansion, and changing green space requirements. These are true for each of the City's land use categories, including single family neighborhoods, to allow expansion on the property. Community Facilities Goals include: 1. Maintain and improve existing services, facilities and infrastructure to meet the needs and interests of the community. 2. Utilize public improvements as a means for continuing civic beautification and an impetus for stimulating investment in private property. Brixius stated that maintaining quality public services encourages private property owners to maintain their property. Administrative Goals include: 1. Continue to operate the City within a fiscally sound philosophy. 2. Respond to the concerns an~ issues of New Hope residents. 3. Maintain a strong level of confidence in the City's advisory committees through member selection, committee continuing education, and lines of communication between the committees and City Council. Brixius commented that these goals reflect the City Council's ideas for maintaining a community with very little new growth or opportunity for new tax generation. Planning Commission Meeting 14 September 2, 1998 Brixius next pointed out the target areas for various land use areas. Residential - Low Density: Brixius reported that the housing stock was in good to excellent shape. The strategies for addressing the single family areas include maintair~ing and continuing to be proactive in point-of-sale housing maintenance code, which has been demonstrated as keeping New Hope's housing stock at a higher value than some of the adjoining communities. The City has been proactive with scattered site redevelopment with purchasing homes and either rehabbing the home or demolishing/new construction. There have been several areas identified as area redevelopment, some of which have been completed. One specific area identified for redevelopment was on Lamphere Drive. Residential - Medium Density: Brixius stated that the townhomes that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s are showing signs of age. These units have missed the point- of-sale maintenance code because the units were first occupied by the owner and years later were converted to rental units. One strategy for the medium density housing districts would be to give specific attention to these units as they become rental units. These units need to be held accountable to the same high standards as the single family areas. Brixius pointed out a number of areas which were identified for redevelopment. Developers who are interested in doing the project cooperatively with the City would be considered. Brixius reported that the City completed a 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study which revealed a need for higher value housing and more modernization of existing units. It also identified a need for attached housing such as twinhomes, townhomes and cooperative apartments, affordable rental, specifically for the elderly and disabled population. The City had been very proactive in many of these areas. Commercial: Brixius stated that the Comprehensive Plan had identified various areas for redevelopment, modernization and renovation. A couple projects have recently come before the Planning Commission, Post Haste Center and Winnetka Center, for renovation approval. Several additional areas were identified for redevelopment. A need was shown to maintain a uniform streetscape arrangement with the City of Crystal along Bass Lake Road. There was a site on 42® Avenue that was zoned industrial and was identified to be rezoned commercial for continuity along the street. Industrial: Brixius stated that industrial redevelopment strategies are primarily focused on in-place expansion of industries and business retention. There are very few sites for infill development. Some sites have experienced obsolete building design and building deterioration the are in need of redevelopment. Several industrial sites are located adjacent to residential areas and attention should be given to enhancing the two land use relationships. Brixius reported that the result of identifying the above elements was the generation of a proposed land use plan. There has not been a significant change in land use areas. The areas of change from the previous plan would be the redevelopment of the some commercial areas and apartments along 42nd Avenue to medium density residential, Planning Commission Meeting 15 September 2, 1998 Iow to medium density residential along 62'd Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue. Properties along Bass Lake Road have been identified for change as well as the Bass Lake Extension area and some of the deeper lots along Winnetka Avenue. Due to the purchase of the Homeward Bound site, a land use change' should be made for this property to a public/semi-public land use rather than Iow density. The industrial sites at 42nd and Quebec may be rezoned to commercial. There is some Iow to medium density residential along Nevada and Oregon to be redeveloped. Residential sites along Lamphere Drive have been identified for Iow to medium density residential. Another area identified for a land use change to commercial was on Medicine Lake Road and Hillsboro Avenue. Some of the land use districts were combined to reduce the number of districts from 30 to 19. Brixius stated that the 1995 Transportation Plan was referenced in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the following potential improvements: 1. Noise mitigation efforts along Highway 169 2. Streetscape improvements in the commercial areas 3. Intersection improvements at Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka to include a left turn lane 4. Intersection improvements at 42"d/Xylon 5. Improvement of turning radius at 49th/Boone to accommodate larger trucks Several plans are in place in the community including sanitary sewer, storm water management, transportation, public facilities, and park elements. The park section identified maintaining existing parks in the community and providing new e'quipment as needed. The final element would be the administrative section which focuses on recommendations on budgeting and financing and stresses the continued need for a five-year capital improvement program. Pursuing shared services in an effort to keep costs for services Iow and maintain the tax base. Community services stressed the need for open communication. Changes to the zoning ordinance include increasing the usability of residential lots, promoting in-place expansion for commercial and industrial zoning districts, modifying the housing maintenance code to address maintenance of medium density housing types. The sign ordinance had been recently updated to be more user friendly. Brixius explained that the public hearing was to receive public comments and comments from the Planning Commission. The Comprehensive Plan Update plus modifications would be presented to the City Council. After Council approval, the City would be required to submit the plan to adjacent jurisdictions, the School District, Hennepin County, watershed districts and Metropolitan Council. Met Council would review the plan as far as its consistency with the regional blueprint. After approval by Met Council, the plan would be utilized as a blueprint for the future development of the City. Chairman Sonsin reiterated that the plan is a guide for the City and does not mean that everything identified in the pi.an would happen. Many of the areas identified for redevelopment would be a joint effort with between the public and private sector. The City had been aggressive in scattered site redevelopment projects and in pursuing the goals as stated in the previous plan. Without a plan there would be no foundation in which to plan for the future. Chairman Sonsin commented that there are a lot of office buildings being constructed in other communities and New Hope has not been Planning Commission Meeting 16 September 2, 1998 pursuing this avenue of development. Brixius replied that an office use would fall in the commercial land use category. This was discussed by the task force and he noted that sites that were identified are occupied. One area for alternative land uses would be redevelopment of the 42"d/Winnetka area, i.e., Kmart site. Office buildings are allowed in all commercial zoning districts and any one of the sites would offer a viable alternative. Sonsin stated that the parks were identified as one of the City's strong amenities and wondered how the water quality issues were being addressed, especially Northwood Park and Hidden Valley. The City Engineer responded that the Storm Water Plan deals with this issue. Storm water runoff from residential areas leaves poor quality water in the ponds. Some success had been seen with alum treatments, however, this is short term fix. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that lawn fertilizers and runoff from streets are big contributors to the poor water quality. Commissioner Keefe interjected that the Storm Water Management Plan dealt with rainfall and water quality. Hanson added that the runoff from streets contains exhaust from cars, tires, etc., and should be intercepted before getting to the ponds. Discussion ensued on these water quality issues and what could be done for wildlife living near these ponds. Commissioner Svendsen complimented the task force committee members from the Planning Commission and staff for their good work on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that surrounding communities seemed to be providing open-covered shelter areas for use by the public and wondered whether New Hope would provide areas like this for family picnics, etc. Commissioner Keefe wondered whether the City was involved with purchasing blighted properties and land-banking the land until a larger project could be accomplished. Brixius replied that was being accomplished along the Bass Lake Road Extension area, where the City had been purchasing single family properties and land-banking the sites for a potential larger development. It was noted that the City would not be acquiring properties through the condemnation process for land- banking purposes. Generally, the City desired to work cooperatively with a developer in either residential or commercial/industrial properties. Commissioner Anderson wondered whether New Hope had some type of adopt-a-highway program to keep streets clean. Hemken pointed out that the City has a program like this. Kramer added that Hennepin County's sentence-to-serve program is available for litter pick-up along roadways. Chairman Sonsin asked for comment from the audience. Mr. Roll Berg, 2732 Lamphere Drive, came forward and thanked the Commission for comments regarding the fact that the plan was a blueprint. He was not comfortable with properties on Lamphere Drive being identified as redevelopment opportunities in the plan as it was his opinion that none of the properties in that neighborhood were blighted. All of the homes were well maintained. He voiced concern over the fact that the identified properties were proposed to be rezoned to R-2. Ms. Kay Anderson, 2809 Lamphere Drive, stated that her family had lived at that property for over 25 years and was surprised to see her property identified for rezoning and wanted to know who identified the site. She stated that her home was an older home, but it was well Planning Commission Meeting 17 September 2, 1998 maintained inside and outside. Brixius apologized to Ms. Anderson for including her property. He stated that property was identified as a possible land use change for Iow to medium density because of the larger lot size. The common practice for the City was to utilize a twinhome design rather than a single family design when redeveloping on larger lots. Ms. Anderson stressed that this neighborhood should continue to be a single family neighborhood with no multiple type dwellings. She asked for clarification by the statement of creating more land. Brixius stated that zoning codes were being reviewed and updated to allow homeowners the chance to expand or modernize their homes by changing some of the setback requirements to allow more buildable area on their property. Chairman Sonsin added that the Planning Commission regularly reviews the zoning code to make the code more user friendly for residents as well as businesses, which would allow homeowners the opportunity to add three-season porches or two-car garages, etc. Ms. Anderson stated that she liked the variance procedure and the fact that it was a public process. Sonsin explained for the audience the process used when a developer wanted to change a particular land use and develop the property. Brixius stated that the he was understanding that the desire was to retain the Iow density land use for the Lamphere Drive area. A New Hope resident stressed the fact that he moved into a nice neighborhood, had lived in this house for 15 years, and did not want to see the neighborhood change. Mr. Andy Anderson, 7801 Terra Linda, stated that a petition had been circulated, and signed by 108 people, requesting that the zoning be left at R-l, single family, rather than changing the zoning to allow twinhomes. Ms. Eleanor Berg, 2732 Lamphere Drive, emphasized that any home that had ever been put up for sale in this neighborhood had been sold within a few weeks, which would indicate that buyers think well of the neighborhood. Mr. Rolf Berg questioned the Commission whether any other land, such as the large parcel of vacant land by Gethsemane Cemetery, had been looked at. Brixius reiterated that the City's search for making land was to facilitate the property owners who desired to expand their homes by changing the somewhat restrictive codes. Brixius stated that a resident requesting a variance for an addition was not always granted a variance if they could not establish a physical hardship. For a homeowner to just add a garage to their property, there are several steps involved to getting a variance, including the public hearing. By updating some of the codes to be less restrictive, a homeowner can accomplish an addition without the public hearing and variance process. A resident at 2908 Sumter Avenue questioned whether staff had visited the properties in question before making the decision for rezoning to another land use. Brixius assured him that staff had conducted a city tour during the early stages of updating the Comprehensive Plan. Staff identified sites that were underutilized, such as large lots with smaller homes, that could accommodate a larger structure. Commissioner Hemken reminded the audience that there was a large task force that worked on the plan, most of which were New Hope residents, and concerned about their community. Planning Commission Meeting 18 September 2, 1998 Commissioner Kramer stated that the update process was a directive of the Metropolitan Council for all communities to update their Comprehensive Plans. He stated he was sympathetic to residents' concerns regarding the Lamphere Drive area, however, the task force and staff were just identifying potential areas for rezoning or redevelopment and not necessarily stating that any specific change would have to happen at all. Sonsin stated that there have been some situations where a rezoning was requested, and where the neighbors protested the change, and the Planning Commission and/or City Council voted down the requested change. Sonsin reminded the audience that the City Council would be hearing this on September 14 and encouraged the Lamphere neighbors to attend that meeting also. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 96-27. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.4 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 96-27, Request for Comprehensive Plan Update Approval, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following change: 1. Leave the Lamphere Drive properties Iow density residential rather than potential rezoning to Iow to medium density residential. Brixius indicated that he would present this plan update to the City Council with the change as stated. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Keefe, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, This planning case will be presented to the City Council on September 14, 1998. Chairman Sonsin commended Alan Brixius and the Committee for the fine job in completing the plan update. Ms. Kay Anderson thanked the Planning Commission and staff for hearing their concerns. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Anderson reported that the Committee reviewed several sets of plans. McDonald reported that the United Hardware building would be on the October agenda, and there may be several other applicants for October as well. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards discussed courtesy bus benches, curb cuts, the A.C. Carlson vacant property on Bass Lake Road, and the property at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue at its August meeting. Sonsin stated that home occupations would be discussed again in the next couple of months. Brixius questioned whether or not he should add the A.C. Carlson vacant property to the comprehensive plan land use map for a potential rezoning change. He added that any future rezoning had to be consistent with the plan or the plan would have to be amended at a later date. McDonald commented that due to the fact that a rezoning may Planning Commission Meeting 19 September 2, 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT not be supported by the Council, he felt that no change to the plan should be done at this time. Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee concluded discussion of the plan update. The Committee would continue meeting to review plan updates from neighboring cities as they are submitted. Sonsin questioned why it was taking such a long time to install the new signage at Post Haste. McDonald answered that the new mansard and signage was on order, according to the property owner, and they were waiting for it to arrive. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 7, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Chair Sonsin reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting would be on October 6, the regular night, and the November meeting would be held on Monday, November 2, due to elections being held on the first Tuesday. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:05 p.m. R..e__s~ectf ully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 20 September 2, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Kramer Keefe, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Alan Brixius, Plannin.g Consultant, Sue Henry, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS Chairman Sonsin introduced Item 3.1, Consideration of Ordinance No. 98- 18, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Measurement Procedures to Determine Maximum Curb Cut Widths, City of New Hope, petitioner. Chairman Sonsin stated that the ordinance amendment would establish curb cut maximums at 24 feet for residential properties and 26 feet for commercial/industrial properties and would be measured at a point setback 20 feet from the property line. The curb radius for any curb cut shall not exceed 35 feet. Curb cut widths not exceeding 32 feet may be permitted subject to review and recommendation by the City Engineer and City Manager. MOTION Item 3.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to approve Planning Case 98-17/Ordinance No. 98-18, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Measurement Procedures to Determine Maximum Curb Cut Widths. PUBLIC HEARING PC98-24 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for <iiscussion Item 4.3, Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell, Petitioners. Mr. Doug Sinclair, President of Tenant Services, Inc. and consultant for Border Foods, the franchisee for Taco Bell in Minnesota, came forward to address the Commission. Sinclair asked for a continuance of Planning Case 98-24 due to the fact that there were several issues regarding the site plan that needed to be resolved. Sinclair apologized to residents attending the meeting for the delay. Chairman Sonsin stated that since there were several neighbors at the meeting that Sinclair should address noise, hours of operation, and lighting. Sonsin pointed out that several years ago during consideration of a billiard hall at Midland Shopping Center that many of these same issues were raised by the neighbors. Sinclair stated they had not perceived there would be strong objection from the neighbors to the Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 6, 1998 Taco Bell operation and stated that was an oversight. He stated Taco Bell was entering into this location with the intent of being a good neighbor and felt their track record in Minnesota and elsewhere pointed to the fact that they would accommodate the neighbors' concerns. They would make every effort to take care of litter, prevent excess noise, and lighting issues. They are proposing to install shielding along the north property line to prevent excessive lighting to spill onto the residential properties. There would not be much additional lighting than what was already at the shopping center site. Another concern of neighbors was that at this type of site there would be speaker board noise and car noise. Sinclair stated he felt car noise could not be controlled because it related directly to the maintenance of the cars as provided by individual car owners. The drive-through would be structured so that the order board faced into the car and then the wall of the shopping center. New technology was available for order boards to reduce and dampen noise considerably. Sinclair pointed out that a neighborhood meeting would be held in October and a mailing would be sent to nearby property owners soon. Sonsin asked for clarification on the hours of operation. Sinclair addressed this by saying that some locations maintain drive-through hours as late as 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. The hours at this location have not yet been finalized. They desire to provide a service to their customers. If it would be determined that there would not be a demand for those hours, the facility would close earlier. If there would be a demand for late-night hours, and this results in a neighborhood issue, they would address it at that time. Sinclair' stated that issues such as noise, odor, etc. are addressed in the lease agreement between Kraus-Anderson and Border Foods. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the last show at Cinema Caf~ starts no later than 9:30 p.m. and would be finished by 11:30 p.m. Due to the fact that there were no other businesses open at that time, patrons would leave the site. With later hours for Taco Bell, there would be the potential for many people staying on the site later and causing problems for the neighborhood. Sinclair pointed out that Taco Bell has many sites adjacent to residential areas. There have been very few calls and complaints reported to the New Hope Police Department regarding the location on Bass Lake Road within the past several years. Taco Bell desires to offer this service to whomever is desirous of it. Sinclair stated that, as far as he knew, the only late night establishment was the VFW to the east. He reiterated that they would closely watch for any problems, and added that a facility in St. Paul now closes at 8:00 p.m. because there were problems at that location. The dining room would close at 10:00 p.m. for security purposes within the building and the drive-through would be the only part of the business that would be open later. If there would be people loitering outside the building after 10:00 p.m., Taco Bell staff would call the police. Sonsin encouraged the applic, ant to meet with the neighbors and address their concerns. Sinclair asked that anyone in the audience that desired to be notified of the meeting to let him know. Sinclair maintained that they would meet with Hennepin County representatives before the neighborhood meeting. Sonsin added that the petitioner should talk to staff regarding concerns of the neighborhood during the pool hall request from several years ago. Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 6, 1998 One member from the audience asked whether or not he could obtain a list of addresses of other Taco Bell restaurants. He also voiced objection to the proposed 2:00 a.m. closing time and stated that this time would not be consistent with other businesses in the area, nor would it be neighbor-friendly with the homes to the north of the site. Sonsin interjected that the community, as a rule, does not wish to become a late night gathering spot for anyone out at that time of night. Sinclair pointed out that if there were industries in the area running second or third shifts, this facility would give them somewhere to go for breaks. They are not locked into any particular closing time. They might propose one closing time for a specific period of time and, if there was limited business, they would change the closing time. MOTION Item 4.3 Sonsin pointed out that this matter would be tabled until the next meeting, which would be Monday, November 2, rather than the regular Tuesday meeting night due to elections. Motion by Commissioner Landy; seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to table until November 2 Planning Case 98-24, Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Kramer None Keefe, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson PC 98-22 Item 4.1 Planning Commission Meeting Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Variance to Allow an Air Conditioning Unit in the Side Yard, 9209 40 Y2 Avenue North, Duane & Mary Jo Russ, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioners were requesting a variance to allow an air conditioning unit in the side yard. The petitioner had an air conditioner installed this past summer on the rear yard patio of their home while they were out of town. The old unit was located in the rear yard on a wood deck. Earlier in summer new landscaping and patio blocks were installed and the contractor placed the new unit in the rear yard on top of the new patio I~locks. The petitioners felt that the unit was unsightly and desired to have the unit moved off the new patio blocks and have the unit placed in the east side yard outside of the privacy fence. The neighbors on the east have an existing fence and the petitioner's indicated that they would have an enclosure built around the unit to contain and to blend with the existing privacy fence. The unit would not be seen from the street due to the walkout basement and it would be tucked behind the fireplace chimney. The property is located on 40 % Avenue and the backyard abuts Northwood Lake. The property is 76 feet wide and 126 feet deep, and has approximately 9,500 square feet. The existing home meets all setback requirements. The topography of the property is level with the roadway in front and slopes at the midpoint of the house down to a walk-out basement. Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and the City received one letter from the neighbors on the east, which stated that they did not have a problem with the unit as long as an enclosure is built around it. McDonald reported that in 1992 the City Council approved an ordinance 3 October 6, 1998 that allowed existing air conditioners in side yards to be replaced, but since this unit was not in the side yard, the ordinance did not apply. In 1997 the Planning Commission recommended approval of an amendment to the City Code that would allow air conditioners in the side yard if certain conditions were met. The City Council did not approve the ordinance amendment and indicated they desired to review these requests on a case-by-case basis. The two basic reasons for prohibiting air conditioners in side yards included noise and aesthetics. The petitioners met with the Design & Review Committee and the Committee did not have any objections as long as adequate screening was provided. Staff did not have an objection to the variance because of the topography of the property, the unit would be screened from the neighbors, the unit would not be located in a drainage or utility easement, and the unit would be screened. Mrs. Mary Jo Russ, 9202 40 ¥2 Avenue North, came forward to address the Commission. Commissioner Hemken asked for clarification on the fence that would be constructed around the unit. Ms. Russ explained that the fence would match their existing privacy fence. Commissioner Kramer wondered how the new fence would connect to the fence by the fireplace. Ms. Russ replied that the new fence would be closer to the corner of the house. Commissioner Cameron asked that the petitioners address the noise concern of the neighbor. Ms. Russ explained that she had not seen the letter from her neighbor addressed to the Commission, and was handed a copy of the letter. The letter stated that there was no objection to placing the unit in the side yard if screening was provided to shield the noise. She explained that the new unit was very quiet and stated that when she had spoken to th~m earlier they had no concerns. The neighbors have a wooden fence along their property line also. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the Commission did not have a problem with the request, but wanted to be sure that when the unit was moved that there would be an enclosure constructed of materials similar to the existing privacy fence and adequate landscaping provided to screen the unit. Commissioner Kramer questioned whether there was any noise problem with the air conditioning unit on the west side of their home and Russ said there was no problem. Mr. Jere Gwin-Lenth, 9217 40 ~ Avenue North, the neighbors to the west of the petitioners, came forward. He stated that the new unit placed in the rear yard of the Russ's home was closer to his home than the house on the east and there was no problem with noise. He also stated that the back of the properties faced Northwood Lake and the sound carried away from the houses. Gwin-Lenth stated he supported the variance request. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-22. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to approve Planning Case 98-22, Request for a Variance to Allow an Air Conditioning Unit in the Side Yard, 9202 40 % Avenue North, Duane & Mary Jo Russ, Petitioners, subject to the following condition: 1. Adequate screening is provided around the unit, including an Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 6, 1998 enclosure constructed of materials similar to the privacy fence and additional landscaping is added, with screening plan to be submitted to the City. Enclosure and screening to be completed by May 1999. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Kramer, None Keefe, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson This planning case would be presented to the City Council on October 12, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. The petitioners stated that they would be out of town on that date, but would discuss this matter with staff. PC98-23 Item 4.2 Planning Commission Meeting Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Variance in the Fence Height Requirement to Allow Construction of a lO-Foot Sound Barrier/Fence, 8201 54th Avenue North, CNH Architects, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius stated the petitioner was requesting a variance for fence height on property located on 54th Avenue, which is zoned I-1. The property abuts R-1 single family properties to the north, as well as Begin Park. The site houses an office/warehouse building, which contains 369,000 square feet in area and had the loading docks facing north toward the residential neighborhood. The intent was to establish a noise barrier to screen audio problems, as well as visual concerns. The condition of the property had deteriorated and the applicants proposed to complete an upgrade of the property, including resurfacing the parking lot, removing the propane tank, along with a number of other improvements. A noise wall was proposed to better serve both the residential area and the industrial property. Brixius stated that the noise wall would maintain 550 feet in length across the front of the property plus 64 feet along the northwest corner of the property. The wall would be 10 feet high, which would be two feet higher than what code allows in the I-1 District. The height of the proposed fence would be 10 feet to provide full sight line screening for both the docks and the height of the trucks from the residential properties to the north. In the past the owners have looked at alternatives such as relocating the docks and enclosing the docks. Both of these alternatives have been proven to be impractical from either a financial standpoint or physical standpoint on the site. The current proposal would enhance the property by screening the existing loading areas. The fence would be of a wood construction with concrete pillars. An extensive landscape plan was proposed, which would be a combination of deciduous trees and conifers. The conifers are arborvitae which would be incorporated among the other plantings. Brixius explained that the basic principal would be to allow both of the land uses to remain and resolve compatibility issues. He stated that the sound wall and the landscape plan provide both an aesthetically-pleasing wall and noise barrier that would be effective in addressing the issues. An acoustic engineer examined the site and made recommendations pertinent to the noise level that would be maintained during daytime and nighttime use. The solution was the lO-foot sound wall. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and made several recommendations specific to the construction and placement of soil and fill against the wall to insure that the wall would not deteriorate over time. The City Engineer also made 5 October 6, 1998 recommendations regarding the entrances to the property. One entrance would be closed along 54th Avenue and the two remaining entrances do not directly align with the loading docks which would provide the most efficient traffic movement through the site and access to the loading areas. The lighting plan shows down lit illumination around the building and was intended to keep the lighting contours within the loading area. Brixius reiterated that staff believes this is the best solution for buffering the two incompatible land uses. The Design & Review Committee reviewed the plans and made ~imilar recommendations. Therefore, staff recommends approval for the variance, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, including compliance with the City Engineer's recommendations and the submittal of a grading plan, submittal of a truck Icg to the Building Official for one year, no outdoor storage, and entering into a development agreement with the City and posting bond. Commissioner Kramer questioned the maximum dBA on the trucks entering/exiting the area. No one had this specific information as staff had relied on the standard noise ordinance information provided by the Building Official. Mr. Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects and representative of the owner of the property, came forward to address the Commission. He stated that the building had been constructed in 1966, prior to code regulations for the location of loading docks on these buildings. The owner of the building desired to be a good neighbor and was sensitive to the noise issue and the aesthetics of the building. The building owners would be repaving the parking lot, removing the propane tank, replacing the overhead doors, along with other general maintenance items. The owners are trying to do all they can to mitigate the noise issues at the site. They are also providing a large amount of landscaping in front of the wall. Hutson reported that an acoustical engineer reviewed the project and made recommendations for an ~pproach that would be successful at this site. The result of this is a four dBA reduction in sound on this particular sound wall design. Chairman Sonsin asked for clarification on the dBA reduction. Hutson responded that 50-55 dBA was the maximum during the day for the L10 amount. The four dBA reduction would be approximately eight percent of that amount. Each dBA that was dropped thereafter would result in a greater percentage than at first. This would allow 12 trucks per hour at night to meet the L10 requirements and 17 trucks per hour during the day. The current tenant in that building had informed the owner that the maximum number of trucks they expect per hour at night would be eight. The building was not 100 percent occupied, therefore, it would be possible that the eventually the number could increase to the maximum number allowed. Sonsin wondered what the difference would be in putting up an eight-foot wall, allowed by code, and putting up the 10-foot wall. Hutson explained that the extra two feet would completely hide the line of sight of the trucks and dock doors and deflect the sound above the door/window openings of adjacent properties. Sonsin questioned the number of trucks per hour if the wall was reduced to eight feet. Hutson stated that the nighttime would remain at 12 trucks per hour and the number for daytime was not studied. Commissioner Kramer interjected that the dBA for trucks entering the site would be the limiting criteria. He felt the wall would offer some reduction, but would not determine the number of trucks. The determining factor would be how much time it takes to get the trucks into the site, turn off the engines, and then turn on the engines and exit the Planning Commission Meeting 6 October 6, 1998 site. Hutson maintained that the greatest benefit of the wall would be during the day. Sonsin asked the petitioner what would happen if the City Council did not approve the request for the variance. Hutson stated that they are trying to be a good neighbor, but were not being forced to construct the wall. Kramer stated that there would be a benefit to having the wall raised to 10 feet, and he would support the variance request. Sonsin reported that this property had been a problem since it was constructed in 1966, due to the loading docks in the front of the building. He stated that the City was interested in keeping the facility productive. Sonsin stated that he was in favor of the wall. Commissioner Cameron questioned what the maximum number of trucks would be that could utilize the facility during any given time period. Hutson replied that he did not know the answer to that. The idea was not to drive trucks in and out, but to load and unload merchandise at the facility. The time to load or unload a full truck could be an hour or more. Cameron felt there would still be noise as the trucks drive up and down the street, but felt the wall would be a good addition to the site and reduce the noise while the trucks were at the site. Mr. Jim Walseth, attorney for ~he petitioners, came forward to request clarification on condition #2 regarding the trucking log. Walseth stated that the property owner did not operate the trucks: the tenants did. He also asked for clarification on the timeline and the days of the week that trucks would be logged. Brixius stated that his understanding was to provide some baseline data that could be used in the event there were concerns or complaints to the City. The Building Official had requested the truck log, and felt that a weekday and weekend arrangement should be provided and that it was limited to one year after construction. Walseth wanted to know if the tenant should turn over the log to the building owner or the City. McDonald stated that this item could be clarified before the Council meeting. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-20. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.3 Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to approve Planning Case 98-23, Request for Variance in the Fence Height Requirement to Allow Construction of a 10-Foot Sound Barrier/Fence, 8201 54th Avenue North, CNH Architects, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Compliance with City Engineer recommendations, including submittal of grading plan. Submit a specific trucking log to the Building Official covering an agreed upon timeline for one year after wall completion. This will list all truck arrival and departure times between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. It is assumed that such records already exist for truck manifests, etc. No outdoor storage is included with the approval. Development Agreement to be executed with City and performance bond to be submitted for specific site improvements (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Kramer, None Keefe, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson Planning Commission Meeting 7 October 6, 1998 This planning case would be presented to the City Council on October 12, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner attend the Council meeting. PC98-16 Item 4.4 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Chairman Sonsin stated that this item was discussed briefly at Codes & Standards and asked that it b~ tabled for another month to allow for further discussion. A public hearing notice had been published, therefore, it was placed on the agenda with the desire to formally table it until November. MOTION Item 4.4 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to table until November 2 Planning Case 98-16, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Kramer, None Keefe, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Chairman Sonsin reported that the Design & Review Committee had met with the applicants for this meeting. McDonald added that the Archives expansion would be ready for November and Oildyne may be ready with expansion plans soon. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin stated that Co(les & Standards would be meeting at the end of October to discuss the R-2 lot size issue and home occupations. McDonald reported that the courtesy bench ordinance was being sent to companies that offer courtesy benches. Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 Vice-Chairman Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Update was approved by the City Council in September. The Planning Consultant was revising several pages. The final copies would be forwarded to the Met Council, as well as neighboring cities for review. The Committee would remain intact to review the plans from neighboring cities. Brixius added that Met Council was considering an extension to the December 31 submittal deadline. McDonald reported that the City Council had extended its thanks to the Committee for all the hard work put into the plan. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues Chairman Sonsin questioned the progress of the 42nd Avenue streetscape project. McDonald responded that the Council had authorized a feasibility study on a 3-2 vote. In order to prepare plans and specifications a 4/Sths vote was needed. The Council would be discussing this matter at a work session. The Council desires to see more redevelopment efforts on private property, specifically the Kmart site, to coincide with the efforts being made by the City on the specific streetscape project. Hemken asked how maintenance of the streetscape would be handled. McDonald stated that there would be a maintenance fund for sprinkling, weed removal, trash pick up, etc. that would be a~sessed to property owners abutting the Planning Commission Meeting 8 October 6, 1998 NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT avenue. There still was a lot of work to do before all the elements of the project are in place. Sonsin questioned whether anything was happening with the former Old America Store. McDonald reported that there was an inquiry for a teen center, however, staff felt this would be better served through the school system. Commissioner Hemken pointed out that there was a large number of individuals loitering late at night outside Bridgemans. Sonsin suggested that staff notify the Police Department of this and have them drive by at night. Discussion ensued regarding the improvements to the property. McDonald added that staff was still receiving complaints regarding screening at the day care center. Commissioner Kramer asked about the status of the Public Works Director position in the City and McDonald stated that the position was currently being advertised. Chairman Sonsin stated that due to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee was almost finished, Commissioners Hemken and Kramer would need to be assigned to one of the other subcommittees. Hemken and Kramer were bqth assigned to the Design & Review Committee. Commissioner Landy attends the Codes & Standards Committee meetings. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 2, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Kramer noted there should be one change to the September Planning Commission minutes on page 17 regarding a statement about the sentence-to-serve program. This correction will be made by staff. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting would be on Monday, November 2, due to elections being held on the first Tuesday of November. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:10 p.m.  ~fully submitted, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 9 October 6, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 2, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Aisc Present: Cameron, Keefe,'Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen Hemken, Anderson, Kramer Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary PUBLIC HEARING PC98-24 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell, Petitioners. Sonsin pointed out that the petitioner requested that this issue be tabled until the December meeting, due to the fact that they were considering alternative development plans. A suggestion was made to postpone this issue indefinitely, rather than putting this on the agenda each month. Discussion ensued regarding the 120-day notice from time of submittal, which would expire on January 9, 1999. It was noted that if action was not taken before the 120-day period without approval from the property owner, essentially, approval was granted. McDonald interjected that staff would be meeting with representatives of Taco Bell later in the week and the consensus was to table this issue until the December meeting. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to table until December I Planning Case 98-24, Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell. Voting in favor: Cameron, Keefe, Landy, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hemken, Kramer, Anderson Motion carried. Sonsin, Oelkers, PC 98-25 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval and a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback Requirement for Building Expansion, 3401 Nevada Avenue North, Benson-Orth Associates/Archives Corporation, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald reported that th~ petitioners were requesting site/building Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 2, 1998 plan review/approval and a variance to the rear yard setback for building expansion. Archives Corporation was proposing to double the size of its existing records storage warehouse on Nevada Avenue. The existing building contained 64,300 square feet and the proposed expansion on the south side would add 60,700 square feet, bringing the total building size to 125,000 square feet. The existing building was located on the rear property line, with a rail spur track located directly behind the building. McDonald stated the petitioner was proposing a new addition which would match the rear yard setback of the existing building. The rear yard setback for industrial buildings located adjacent to a railroad is 10 feet, therefore, the petitioner was requesting a setback variance of 10 feet. McDonald stated that the parcel contained 260,680 square feet. The existing building contains 8,660 square feet of office area and 55,670 square feet of warehouse space. The entire addition would be warehouse space. The building/site ratio with the addition would be 46.3 percent. Surrounding land uses include I-1 Industrial to the north, I- 2 General Industrial to the west, townhouses in the city of Crystal to the south, and a private school/church/playground in the city of Crystal to the east. A new NURP pond, new 12-inch storm sewer and 8-inch water service are proposed with the expansion. The topography of the site was unique, with a 930-~oot elevation high point at the south center of the property and then sloping down within 60 feet of the proposed building slab elevation of 905 feet. McDonald stated that property owners with 3§0 feet of the request were notified, including the city of Crystal, and no comments were received. McDonald pointed out that the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships exist that would prevent reasonable use of the property. Hardships may include narrowness, shallowness or shape of property or exceptional topographic or water conditions. McDonald reported that the placement of the addition would be on the property line to align it with the existing structure. In 1968 the City approved the existing building to be constructed on .the property line abutting the railroad and the applicant's request would allow for the addition to maintain a consistent building face. McDonald added that the topography restricted the applicant from reasonably utilizing the property. The slope of the land prevented the applicant from developing toward the southern property line without major excavation and regrading. Both conditions are believed to be unique to the property and staff felt these issues would not establish a precedent regarding future requests. McDonald stated that additional zoning criteria to be considered included: consistency with purpose of variance, no impairment of adequate light and air supply to adjacent property, no unreasonable increase in congestion on the public streets, no increase in the danger of fire or endangerment of public safety, no unreasonable decrease in property value. McDonald stated that applicable goals and policies from the 1998 Comprehensive Plan included: protecting property values and maintaining a strong tax base, and retaining/expanding New Hope's industrial land uses. McDonald added that staff was supportive of the variance McDonald reported that city staff reviewed the plans and the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meetings. The revised plans eliminated the front yard loading dock which would have required a conditional use Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 2, 1998 permit. The site contained 44 parking spaces and has "proof of parking" for an additional 54 spaces for a total of 98 spaces. McDonald stated that staff supports the "proof of parking" concept due to the limited number of employees at the site and the nature of the use. There are four handicapped parking spaces provided in the front of the building. Parking spaces will be restriped. The existing sidewalk and curb in front of the building will be modified for the installation of a handicapped access ramp. There would be ADA upgrades made to the restrooms on the main floor of the building. The site plan showed interior trash storage at the loading dock area. The plans indicated the distance from the existing building loading dock area to the north property line was 67 feet. The applicant indicated that semi trucks account for only five percent of the total traffic, and the remaining 95 percent would be by vans. The turning radius for semi trucks was shown on the plans. The 12 parking spaces at the northwest corner of the site would be removed and replaced with sod to increase green space. These 12 spaces would become part of the "proof of parking." The Fire Department had requested that a 24-foot fire lane be maintained at the northwest building corner. The fire lane would be yellow striped and appropriate signs installed. The fire lane would be one of the conditions of approval. McDonald continued by saying that level snow storage areas were identified at the east side of the existing parking lot. McDonald stated the City Engineer advised that concrete curb and gutter be constructed as part of future parking lot improvements. Fencing around the perimeter of the property was shown on the plans. New sidewalks would be installed in front of the new addition. Exterior lighting would include a wall pak on the front east side of the building addition, along with two wall bracket down light fixtures on the south side of the new addition. Two roof-top mechanical units are shown on the new addition and the plan states that they would be painted to match the building wall color. The building would be fully fire sprinkled. McDonald stated that the landscape area/site ratio is 41.2 percent and meets the 20 percent green area requirement. A landscape schedule was provided which showed that 11 Norway Maples and five Black Hills Spruce would be planted near the south/southeast corner of the new building. Three Maple Crimson King would be plant in front of the new addition and two Japanese Lilac trees would be planted in front of the existing building. Fifteen spreading yew shrubs would be planted in front of the building. There were several minor discrepancies between the planting schedule and landscape plan that would need to be clarified. The Design & Review Committee recommended that several wetland- type aquatic plants be planted around the NURP pond and these should be shown on the plan. The City Engineer stated that the building expansion provided for constructing a ponding area for storm water retention and water quality. It would be desirable if all storm water runoff could be directed to the pond. Roof drainage from the new building was illustrated to drain to the pond. The pond must be constructed in accordance with Bassett Creek Watershed approval. McDonald stated that a new eight-inch water service would be provided to the site. The height of the majority of the new addition would be 38 feet-eight inches. The portion of the new addition adjacent to the existing building would be the same height as the existing building. The building materials on the new addition would be random rib pre-cast concrete wall panels with painted color bands with a prefinished metal roof cap. Concrete block would match the existing building. The south elevation of the building would be bermed eight feet into the side of the Planning Commission Meeting 3 November 2, 1998 hill. McDonald stated that the° Building Official had indicated that the "ships ladders" inside the building were not acceptable to the exterior doors and that conventional stairways must be provided. A single ships ladder was required to the high roof. McDonald added that the petitioners should be especially careful of drainage issues due to the fact that they were building so close to the railroad right-of-way. McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval subject to the conditions contained in the staff report, including: replacement of ships ladders, clarification of plantings on landscape plan, fire lane to be installed, compliance with City Engineer's recommendations on water connection and grading/drainage, approval by Bassett Creek Watershed, and enter into a development agreement with the City and submit performance bond. Mr. Bernie Herman, Bernard Herman Architects, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. He stated that also in attendance were Mr. Jack Jerome, president of Archives Corporation, and Mr. Mike Munson, president of Benson-Orth Associates. He stated that questions pertaining to aspects of construction/schedule or facility operation could be directed to either gentleman. Herman stated that the staff report was very thorough, but that he wanted to discuss some of the exterior aesthetics of the building. The current building had a concrete block screen wall at the front, or a series of concrete blocks that are turned upside down and sitting on a steel frame. The proposal was to take the screen wall down, the balance was a concrete block infill with brick pilasters and a fascia at the top of the building, which projects approximately four inches beyond the plane of the concrete block. The petitioner proposed to put a synthetic stucco over the concrete block and cover the entire facade. There would be two to three color treatments with color bands to be established on the stucco exterior. Commissioner Svendsen asked whether the petitioners understood the reason for eliminating the ships ladders. Herman responded that when first meeting with city officials, the Fire Marshall had accepted the ships ladders, but this was later rescinded. The revised plans show stairs. Svendsen asked that the petitioners clarify the number of trees on the landscape plans/schedule. Herman stated that due to the fact that the truck dock at the southeast corner of the building was recently eliminated, and some of the plantings were proposed in conjunction with the dock, therefore, the numbers did not get changed on all of the plans/schedules. This would be corrected on the final drawings. Svendsen discussed the lighting at the front exist doors in the new addition and stated that the plans show one light for both doors. He stated he felt that the lighting contours did not show sufficient light for the two doors and the petitione, rs should consider a light by each door. Herman stated that they felt there would be at least a .5 candle with the street lighting nearby. The south side down lights were more for security issues. Herman maintained that adding a down light by each door on the front would not be an issue and could be accomplished easily. Svendsen pointed out that a suggestion had been made for some type of wetland plantings near the NURP pond at the Design & Review meeting and wondered what was being done with those plantings. Herman stated they had deliberately let that go at this time because their landscape consultant had not been able to define a species for this area. These plantings would be selected prior to obtaining a permit. Svendsen questioned whether there would be any additional signage. Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 2, 1998 Herman replied that they had not discussed signage. Mr. Jerome responded that if they did any signage it would be very subtle. They were not interested in advertising their presence for security purposes. Svendsen reminded them that if they would want to install signage that they would need to submit a plan and comply with the Sign Code. Svendsen pointed out that there was not a lO-foot buffer on the north side of the building by the dock' doors. Herman responded that area was for truck maneuvering. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-25. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-25, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval and a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback Requirement for Building Expansion, 3401 Nevada Avenue North, Benson-Orth Associates/Archives Corporation, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Ships ladders to be replaced with conventional stairways, per Building Official's recommendations. 2. Landscape plan clarification on Black Hills Spruce numbers, the quantities and size of plantings in the plant schedule {Black Hills Spruce, Maple Norway, and Maple Crimson King), and wetland plantings. 3, Fire lane to be installed, per Fire Department recommendations. 4. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations on water connection and grading/drainage. 5. Approval by Bassett Creek Watershed. 6. Development Agreement to' be executed with City and performance bond to be submitted {amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 7. Sign Plan to be submitted prior to building permit issuance, if necessary. Voting in favor: Cameron, Keefe, Landy, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hemken, Kramer, Anderson Motion carried. Sonsin, Oelkers, This planning case would be presented to the City Council on November 9, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. PC98-26 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow Parking One Enclosed Boy Scout Equipment Trailer in an Existing Parking Lot, 4800 Boone Avenue North, House of Hope Lutheran Church/Boy Scout Troup §34, Petitioners. Chairman Sonsin stated that the petitioners had withdrawn their request for a Conditional Use Permit .Amendment, and asked for a motion accepting the withdrawal. MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to accept the withdrawal of Planning Case 98-23, Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow Parking One Enclosed Boy Scout Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 2, 1998 Equipment Trailer in an Existing Parking Lot, 4800 Boone Avenue North, House of Hope Lutheran Church/Boy Scout Troup 534, Petitioners. Voting in favor: Cameron, Keefe, Land¥, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hemken, Kramer, Anderson Motion carried. PC98-16 Item 4.4 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Chairman Sonsin stated that due to the fact that the Codes & Standards Committee did not meet in October, staff asked that it be tabled for another month to allow for further discussion. This item was continued from the October meeting and, therefore, needed to be placed on this agenda, with a recommendation to table. MOTION Item 4.4 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to table until December I Planning Case 98-16, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Cameron, Keefe, Landy, Svendsen, Voting against: None Absent: Hemken, Kramer, Anderson Motion carried. Sonsin, Oelkers, COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee had met with the applicants for this meeting. Svendsen mentioned the fact that two additional Commissioners had been assigned to the Design & Review Committee, which would be over half the number of members of the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the open meeting law and whether or not this would be considered a public meeting. The requirements for an open meeting would then need to be met. McDonald stated that a notice was put up at City Hall and anyone that came in could attend the meeting. Sonsin suggested that this issue be deferred until December to allow the City Attorney time to review code requirements. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards did not meet in October, but would meet again on November 24 to discuss the R-2 lot size issue, courtesy benches, and home occupations. Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 Vice-Chairman Landy reported that no plans from neighboring cities had been submitted for review by the Committee. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 6, Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 2, 1998 ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council minutes were reviewed. Chairman Sonsin reported that Commissioner Keefe had submitted a letter of resignation upon completion of his term at the end of December. Sonsin thanked Keefe for his time on the Commission. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:40 p.m. l/.,jB~ctfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 7 November 2, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 1, 1998 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Absent: Keefe Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary PUBLIC HEARING PC98-24 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell, Petitioners. Sonsin pointed out that the petitioner requested that this issue be tabled until the January meeting, due to the fact that they were considering alternative development plans. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to table until January 5, 1999, Planning Case 98-24, Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Keefe Motion carried. Sonsin, Oelkers, Commissioner Landy questioned whether or not there would be a problem with the amount of time lapsed from application until the January meeting. Sonsin pointed out that the petitioner's attorney had submitted a letter requesting the additional time. PC 98-27 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for a Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition, 9325 31st Avenue North, Werner Langenbach, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner was requesting a variance to the side yard setback to allow the construction of a garage addition. The petitioner was requesting tO construct a 20 x 22-foot hobby garage Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 1, 1998 that would be attached to the west side of the existing house. The home is located on a corner lot and a 10-foot variance was being requested from the 20-foot setback requirement for a corner lot so that the side wall of the garage would be located 10 feet from the side yard property line along Independence Avenue. McDonald stated that the petitioner had indicated he would be storing two Model A Fords in the garage. The cars are only driven about a dozen times per year, and no driveway or curb cut was being proposed. The existing house placement and landscaping limit other garage expansion possibilities. The property is located on the southeast corner of Independence and 31st Avenues and contains 11,250 square feet. The house was built in 1969 and meets all required R-1 setbacks. There is a five-foot utility and drainage easement on the east side yard and south rear yard property lines. A 12 x 16-foot storage shed is located at the southeast corner of the property. The property is located in an R~I Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes. McDonald continued by saying that the existing curb cut on 31st Avenue would remain. No driveway is proposed or allowed by code for the second garage. The petitioner indicated in his correspondence that this location would be best because of the configuration of the house on the lot. The south side yard was considered, however, this would dramatically reduce the size of the back yard and block the window to the dining room. The proposed~ garage location would be set back far enough and would not interfere with any corner traffic. The garage construction would blend in with the house shape, roof pitch, windows, siding and shingles. The garage doors would be located on the south side and, therefore, the addition would not look like a garage from either street side. McDonald stated that the petitioner had contacted all of the neighbors that would face the garage and received signed letters from all of these neighbors stating they had no objection to the garage addition. McDonald reported that the code requirements regarding a variance were outlined in the planning report, which include consistency with the purpose of a variance, no impairment of light and air to adjacent property, no unreasonable increase in traffic, no increase in fire hazard or endangerment of public safety, and no decrease in property values in the neighborhood. McDonald pointed out that according to the illustrations included in the report showing the buildable yard allowed by code compared to the proposed garage addition, the addition would extend 20 feet over the buildable area. McDonald pointed out that the petitioner's property and the home to the south are separated by a distance of 55 feet and, due to the fact that homes are perpendicular and oriented to different streets the placement of the addition would not look out of place. This lot is a normal corner lot, 90 x 125 feet, but the home is an L-shaped, split entry with a front garage that reduces the size of the back yard. Garage expansion is not possible because of the five-foot setback and the front entry location. Placement of the original home was part of the existing hardship. If the building had been placed 20 feet from the west property line, a large expansion on the existing garage would be possible without a variance. McDonald reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed the possibility of combining the garage and shed, however, this would require a size variance. Basically the Committee discussed the exterior of the building. The Committee was supportive of the variance but felt one of the biggest concerns would be Planning Commission Meeting 2 December 1, 1998 the site line around the corner. It was determined this would not be an issue in this case because of the number of existing trees on the property. The petitioner submitted revised plans that included several elevations. The south elevation showed two garage doors. A pedestrian door would be located on the east side. Exterior lights had been added per the request of the Committee. The plans also indicated frost footings so that the area could be utilized as a house addition in the future. No interior access is planned between the house and the addition. New and existing landscaping was shown on the site plan. Staff requested that the Commission have the petitioner clarify the landscaping proposed for the west side of the house. McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval subject to the conditions in the report, including clarifying the Landscaping, building materials to match existing, and no business use of the addition unless code compliant. McDonald reported that after the Planning Commission packet was delivered, staff noticed that information had not been included in the report dealing with the ordinance change earlier this year on accessory buildings. Depending on the interpretation of the ordinance, another variance may be required for a third accessory building. Section 4.032(3)(f) states that "Every lot in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts shall be limited to no more than two accessory buildings, including an attached garage." McDonald asked for input from the Commission on its interpretation of the ordinance. McDonald added that this was a unique situation due to the fact that there would be two attached garages. If the request would be for an addition onto the existing garage, a variance would not be required. Another option was the fact that the addition was being constructed with frost footings and could be converted to a house addition in the future. McDonald added that city staff had contacted the petitioner about removing the shed, however, it was the petitioner's desire to keep the shed. Mr. Werner Langenbach, 9325 31st Avenue North, came forward to address the Commission. Commissioner Svendsen stated that he appreciated the petitioner's cooperation in making the changes that were suggested at the Design & Review Committee meeting, and adding extra shrubs on the west side of the addition. Svendsen reminded the petitioner that his boat was to be stored off this site. It had been discussed at Design & Review that the inside walls would be insulated and sheetrocked. Langenbach confirmed that the insulation and sheetrock would be completed. Commissioner Hemken wondered why the petitioner was calling this a proposed garage addition and not, for instance, a hobby shop. Langenbach responded that he wanted the name to reflect the use. Sonsin interjected that the word garage had a somewhat negative connotation. The Council might be interested in granting a more limited variance for this rather than granting a variance for two garages and an accessory building. A name change to proposed addition or unfinished hobby room addition might be warranted. Commission Kramer interjected that the name should reflect the proposed use and follow code requirements, especially if there would be flammable material stored in the addition, like a car and gasoline. Commissioner Cameron questioned what would happen if at some time in the future this use would be converted to living space. McDonald stated that the garage use could be converted to living space at any time. Planning Commission Meeting 3 December 1, 1998 MOTION Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin questioned how the cars would get into the garage. Langenbach replied that the Model As have very large tires and could drive over the curb without any problem. He stated that he would drive over the curb on Independence Avenue and across the lawn between the trees to get into the garage. The cars only weight about 2,000 pounds and would not destroy the lawn. There would also be very limited usage for the cars stored in this garage. The car that he uses most of the time would be stored in the existing garage. Commissioner Oelkers asked staff whether or not the site lines for the corner lot had been approved by the Police Department. McDonald replied that there was a 20-foot site triangle on the corner. Sonsin added that there are existing trees on this corner and the proposed addition would be set back quite a distance from the corner. He did not feel there would be a problem with site lines. Svendsen agreed with Sonsin that there would be no obstructed site lines. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that his interpretation of the changes to the accessory building ordinance was that there had only been a language modification change and that there was no change in the number of accessory buildings allowed. He stated that, in order to move forward with this request, it would be important to indicate that the addition would have frost footings, that it would be insulated and sheetroeked, and would have the potential for a house addition when no longer needed for a garage purpose. Svendsen stated he agreed with this and added that there should be a fire wall between the house and garage, which would be required by code. Sonsin pointed out that two variances would be required: one for the side yard setback requirement and one for a third accessory building. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, suggested that the Commission could include language regarding a restrictive covenant being placed on the variance request that would require the garage to be converted to living space upon the happening of specific events, such as sale of the house or discontinuance of the use. The City Council may be more receptive to the variance request knowing that the addition would be constructed as an addition to the house, but not finished, and used for storage of two antique cars. Oelkers stated he was not comfortable with the inclusion of a restrictive covenant. If the petitioner would decide to sell the house, the buyer may desire to utilize the space as a garage. He felt that the conditions could include that no driveway ever be installed from the garage to the street. Kramer added that he thought the intent of the ordinance was to restrict two separate accessory buildings on the property and did not necessarily refer to attached garages. He stated he felt the addition needed a variance, however, the situation was unique. Kramer stressed that the intended use of the addition would be an attached garage. A motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing on Planning Case 98-27. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 98-25, Request for a Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition and a Variance to Allow a Third Accessory Building on One Lot, 9325 31st Avenue North, Werner Langenbach, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 1, 1998 1. No driveway or hard surface from the third accessory building to the street. 2. No curb cut on Independence Avenue. 3. Clarify new landscaping on west side of addition. 4. Building materials to match existing structure. 5. No business use of addition unless code compliant. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Keefe Motion carried, Sonsin, Oelkers, This planning case would be presented to the City Council on December 14, 1998, and Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner be in attendance at the Council meeting. PC98-16 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Chairman Sonsin stated that due to the fact that the Codes & Standards Committee asked for additional research to be completed and requested that it be tabled for another month to allow for further discussion. This item had been continued from the October and November meetings and, therefore, needed to be placed on this agenda, with a recommendation to table. MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to table until January 5, 1999, Planning Case 98-16, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Cameron, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Keefe Motion carried. Sonsin, Oelkers, COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee had met with the applicants regarding the garage variance. McDonald added that the application deadline for the January meeting was at the end of this week and possibly Taco Bell may be submitting new plans. McDonald stated that several big items were in the planning stages for next year, including CareBreak and an expansion for Navarre. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in November to discuss home occupations, the R-2 lot size issue, and courtesy benches, and would continue discussions on all these issues at the meeting in December. Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 Vice-Chairman Landy reported that no plans from neighboring cities had been submitted for review by the Committee. Met Council is reviewing New Hope's plan. McDonald added that a number of neighboring cities Planning Commission Meeting 5 December 1, 1998 have asked for an extension to the December 31 deadline. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Landy pointed out that the bus route that had been approved for Crystal Free Church to its extended campus was not being utilized and the buses were using 45th Avenue to Boone. McDonald stated that after their conversation he had called the church and talked to Pastor Rodquist regarding the bus route. Rodquist apologized and indicated that he would talk to the bus company to be sure the drivers would utilize 42"d Avenue to Boone Avenue to the site. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 2, 1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. There were no other announcements. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 6 December 1, 1998