1996 Planning CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 2, 1996
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 Sonsin called the meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Stulberg, Damiani
Oelkers
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall,
City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant
ELECTION OF
OFFICERS
Vice-Chairman Sonsin stated the first order of business for the January
meeting is to elect officers for the coming year. Vice-Chairman Sonsin
then opened the floor for nominations for officers. Commissioner
Underdahl nominated Bill Sonsin as chairman, seconded by Commissioner
Landy, and was unanimously approved by acclamation. Commissioner
Landy nominated Sharon Cassen for Vice-Chair, seconded by
Commissioner Stulberg, and was unanimously approved by acclamation.
Commissioner Landy nominated Commissioner Underdahl for Third Officer,
seconded by Commissioner Cassen, and was unanimously approved by
acclamation.
CONSENT ITEMS
No Consent Items.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC 95-31
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Sign
Variances/Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground
Signs that Exceed Sign Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709
42nd Avenue North, Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher,
Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner's representative was in the
audience, however the petitioner was not in attendance yet. Chairman
Sonsin asked for a motion to table Planning Case 95-31 until the petitioner
arrived.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to
table until later in the meeting Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign
Variances/Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground
Signs that Exceed Sign Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709
42nd Avenue North, Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher,
Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Landy,
Damiani
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers
Motion carried.
Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Stulberg,
PC 95-20
Item 3.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for informal discussion Item 3.2,
Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by
Defining Understory and Overstory Trees and Modifying Landscaping
Regulations for Semi-Public and Income Producing Property, City of New
New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - January 2, 1996
Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that this was not a formal public hearing, but
an informal discussion with the Commissioners, staff and.City Forester.
If an agreement can be reached, a formal public hearing will be held at the
February Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Brixius informed the Commission that this ordinance was a
recommendation that originated with the Citizen Advisory Commission last
May. The CAC requested that staff review the current regulations
pertaining to the landscaping requirements in the zoning ordinance. Five
recommendations came from that Committee including: (1) Eliminate the
list of suitable plant material from the ordinance §4.033(4)(b)(iv); (2)
Update the current list of trees prohibited on the public right of way and
include reasons why these trees should be excluded; (3) Establish a list of
trees prohibited on private property, including why those trees should be
on the list; (4) Establish an ordinance to set up a hazardous tree program;
and (5) Establish a boulevard tree maintenance program.
Mr. Brixius stated that staff responded to these recommendations. First,
the list of suitable plant materials was reviewed and staff was in
agreement that this list should be eliminated. The current list is limited and
outdated and puts unreasonable restrictions upon landscape designers as
far as what might be planted/placed within a property. There are species
and plants not currently listed that would be valuable additions within the
City of New Hope. Staff's recommendation would be to eliminate this
section of the ordinance by repealing it and establishing a preferred tree list
that would be used as a guideline rather than adopting this list by
ordinance. It would be available at City Hall and administered by the City
Forester. The second recommendation was to update of the current list
of prohibited trees on public right-of-way including the reason why the
trees are not allowed. There are a number of reasons why trees are not
permitted including: roots, poor tree strength, potential overhangs,
breaking of limbs falling on cars, etc. These reasons were outlined in the
planning report. After reviewing the list, it was determined a number of
trees should be added to this list including the female "Ginkgo" and Black
Locust. Some of the trees on the list should be deleted such as the Red
Maple, Tree of Heaven, Northern Catalpa and Elm varieties. The list of
trees for right-of-ways should be more specific as to what is or isn't
allowed. Mr. Brixius stated that it is important to understand that the only
areas this section of code deals with are the trees in the public right-of-
ways, under City control, and does not pertain to any areas of the yard
(private property).
Mr. Brixius continued saying the third recommendation was trees
prohibited on private property and reasons why the trees are on the list.
After much debate among City staff, the recommendation was not to try
to establish a list of prohibited trees on private property as enforcement of
this would be very difficult. When dealing with public right-of-way, the
City has control of the right-of-way and it can be effectively monitored and
enforced. However, when dealing with private properties and disputes
between neighbors, the situation becomes difficult and more problems
would be created for the City. Staff feels that establishing a hazardous
tree program, recommendation four, would be difficult to maintain,
especially on private property. It would be difficult for City staff to
determine what is a hazardous tree, when it becomes hazardous, what the
potential impacts are on the property, the location of the tree and impact
New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - January 2, 1996
on surrounding land. These areas leave the City open to much exposure
and staff feels it would be inappropriate to get into that position. The final
recommendation was to establish a boulevard tree maintenance program.
Staff is in agreement with this recommendation, however this is a Public
Works budget item rather than a zoning ordinance element. Therefore, this
recommendation is not being dealt with at this time.
Mr. Brixius summarized the changes saying there needs to be some
definition on overstory and understory trees: deletion of provisions for
acceptable boulevard trees; amend the prohibited trees within the public
right-of-way by deleting some and expanding other varieties. The
provision of §4.033(4)(iii)(bb-cc) allows for some trees to be located within
the public right-of-way or prohibited within the public right-of- ay and
should be approved by the City Forester. These include Coniferous variety
of trees and some lower or understory shrubs. Upon further discussion
with the City Attorney and staff, the conclusion was reached that this
provision be deleted from the ordinance, rather than leaving the decision
totally to the discretion of the City Forester, as there are already problems
dealing with trees of this type in the "site trinagle" on corner lots. Mr.
Brixius explained further that the City would also offer to its residents a list
of preferred trees as a guideline at City Hall which will not be a part of the
ordinance.
Commissioner Underdahl questioned whether the City could provide
guidelines for trees on private property. Mr. Brixius answered that the list
of preferred trees is what is suggested as far as guidelines. Staff felt it
best not to prohibit specific species because then the City is also
responsible for enforcement. The guidelines are the preferred tree list and
outlines all the trees that staff feels are preferable in the City and it will
exclude those that are not popular due to hardiness of the tree or not
appropriate for the Minnesota climate. These guidelines will include
private and public properties.
Chairman Sonsin questioned whether the Design & Review Committee had
a chance to rewew the changes. Commissioner Cassen felt that the
changes being recommended are favorable. Commissioner Stulberg agreed
that it makes sense to not try to regulate what goes on private property.
The Design & Review Committee can review the landscaping schedule on
a case by case basis and determine if the plantings are appropriate and in
line with City ordinances. Commissioner Damiani questioned how the
public would obtain this list of preferred trees. Mr. Brixius explained that
through publications, i.e., the City Report, SunPost and word of mouth,
the public can be made aware that there is a handout listing the preferred
trees. Mr. McDonald interjected that this will definitely be reported in the
City newsletter. Commissioner Cassen agreed that an article in the City
Report would be a good idea and also to include this information in the
New Resident Packet, or send to developers in the area. Chairman Sonsin
stressed that this information should be included in the next City Report
as residents will soon be thinking of spring and gardening.
Mr. Schuster, City Forester, added that the goal of this ordinance change
is to simplify things. Residents may not be aware of the scientific names
of trees as listed in the ordinance. If there are any questions, they can
contact the City Forester for clarification. Nurseries usually sell trees by
their common name, however they buy trees by their scientific name so
this information is available at the nursery. Some of the trees on the
preferred list are not as common .as others and it may not be known if the
New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - January 2, 1996
tree is hardy enough to withstand the Minnesota winters unless someone
takes a chance and tries to grow a lesser known variety. Rather than
including the tree list in the ordinance, it makes sense to just-have this
information available at City Hall for the public. The list will be a useful
tool in the long run. Chairman Sonsin questioned if the City is actively
trying new species to see what grows in Minnesota and if there was
written information that can be shared with the homeowner or does the
homeowner need to talk to the City Forester. Mr. Schuster informed the
Commission that the City does not do a lot of planting, but that he does
look for new species that will do well here. The Green Ash and Silver
Maple do well in New Hope.
Commissioner Underdahl wondered if the hazardous trees will be listed,
like the Ginkgo. Mr. Schuster replied that the preferred list instructs
residents to take into consideration the hardiness of the tree, mature size,
tolerance to salt, pest disease resistance, cleanliness, litter problems,
rooting habits, maintenance requirements and soil compatibility. Any tree
will fail eventually, however any one or combination of these items will
reduce the life of the tree. A homeowner should know the type of soil in
their yard and take into consideration some of the other requirements of
the tree they are planting and a lot of hazardous trees will be eliminated.
This information will be included with the tree list.
Commissioner Cassen suggested that if the list of preferred trees is listed
in the City Report, staff should also include information on site lines, not
only when the tree is planted but when the tree is mature. Chairman
Sonsin added that nurseries give information on how close trees can be
planted, but there are times the tree gets bigger than anticipated and this
should be considered at the time of planting. Mr. McDonald pointed out
that this is the reason coniferous trees were deleted from the boulevard
because the City is constantly dealing with the site triangle problem and
asking residents to trim back the large pines.
Chairman Sonsin commented that there will be formal public hearing on
this issue at the February Planning Commission meeting and if any of the
Commissioners have additional suggestions before that time, contact staff
or the Planning Consultant. Chairman Sonsin inquired about the height of
overstory trees being 25 feet or more and understory trees being 25 feet
or less. He suggested that this point be clarified so there can be no
questions raised in the future.
PC 95-31
Item 3.1
Chairman $onsin requested a motion to remove from table Planning Case
95-31.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
remove from table Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign
Variances/Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground
Signs that Exceed Sign Code Requirements in Number and Size, Autohaus
of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Landy,
Dam/an/
Voting, against: None
Absent: Oelkers
Motion carried.
Underdahl, Sons/n, Cassen, Stulberg,
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner is requesting sign variances/
New HoPe Planning Commission
- 4 - January 2, 1996
approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan to allow wall and ground signs that
exceed Sign Code requirements in number and size. In 1989, the City
approved the Aut°haus develOpment at 7709 42nd Avenue North..'.At the
time of the approval, Universal Color Lab, Inc. was leasing space in front
of the building, with the understanding that at some point in the future
they would be moving off of the site and that Autohaus would occupy the
entire building. Also a CUP was issued for a drive-through window this
past summer for Universal Color Lab to move into the Kuppenheimer
building across the street from the Autohaus site. Universal Color has
since moved out of the Autohaus site and into their own building.
Autohaus and related auto-oriented businesses are now in the process of
occupying the entire building and would like to proceed with the
installation of signage on the entire building now that Color Lab is no
longer located on the site. Some of the proposed signs exceed the
requirements of the Sign Code, therefore this application has been made
for variances. This particular site is zoned B-3, Auto Oriented, and
surrounding businesses are basically commercial in nature with the
exception of industrial zoning to the south.
Mr. McDonald reported that the Sign Code requirements are outlined in the
report. The Sign Code establishes criteria for signs that are accessory to
single occupancy and multiple occupancy businesses. Those requirements
are basically the same and staff have applied the multiple occupancy
standards to this request because there are going to be three auto-related
businesses in this building -- AutoBody Plus, Autohaus Sales, and
Autohaus Repair. Each will have a different entrance and different
signage. The ordinance states that "when a single building is devoted to
two or more businesses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building
shall be submitted." It is the City's intention to establish general
requirements for the overall building only, thus providing the building
owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with his individual
tenants on their specific ground signs.
Mr. McDonald continued saying that multiple occupancy structures may
erect ground signs that identify each separate and distinct occupancy. No
more than two ground signs are permitted on any lot and only one ground
sign if the building contains more than one wall sign over 10 square feet.
The maximum sign area shall not exceed 75 square feet, a height
requirement of 20 feet and a setback of 10 feet off the property line.
Autohaus is proposing to install two signs on one pylon. Each sign would
be 72 square feet and would be installed on the current support structure.
The support structure would be revised and radius end shrouds would be
added. The total height of the sign would be 20 feet. The bottom sign
would be 72 square feet (12' x 6') and would read "AutoBody Plus" with
red lettering, a black background and blue accent stripes. The top sign
would also be 72 square feet (12' x 6') and state "Autohaus Sales and
Leasing" with white letters with red accents and "ASE Certified Auto
Service" with blue letters. The entire sign would have a black background.
The Sign Code states that only one 75 square foot ground sign is allowed
if the building contains more than one wall sign over 10 square feet. The
wall sign package is more than 10 square feet, and if the petitioner wants
two ground signs, a variance is needed from the Sign Code. If the
petitioner proposed the two ground signs and wall signs of only eight
square feet, a variance would not be required. In a discussion with the
Planning Consultant, he indicated that the intent of the code is to either
allow a business a lot of signage on a ground sign or a lot of signage on
the wall, one or the other. The ground sign needs a variance because
New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - January 2, 1996
there are two signs. Mr. McDonald added that there is an existing third
ground sign on the site from the Animal Hospital, which is against Code,
and any granting of a variance needs'to include removal of this sign.
Mr. McDonald next discussed the wall sign package. The City Code states
that the total allowable wall sign area for a multiple occupancy structure
shall not exceed 15% of the combined wall surfaces and no individual
tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. Autohaus
is proposing six wall signs. The three on the front of the building would
include one sign of 16 square feet (2' x 8') for AutoBody Plus; one 30
square foot (30" x 12') Autohaus Sales & Leasing sign and one similar 30
square foot sign for Autohaus Certified Auto Service. In discussing with
the Planning Consultant, the opinion is that these signs are alright because
they are under the 100 square foot requirement. The sign plan for the
east elevation shows 9 square feet, however the measurements on the
sign calculates to 16 square feet. In discussing this with the consultant
for Autohaus before the meeting, he indicated that this sign is eight square
feet,- Revised plans should be submitted to show correct sizes of the
signs. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Sign Code states that delivery
signs not exceeding nine square feet may be located on side or rear walls
of the structure. The Commission will need to determine whether or not
these are considered delivery signs. The Sign Code also does not identify
how many delivery signs are allowed. Therefore, if the sign on the east
wall is indeed eight square feet and the Commission considers it to be a
delivery sign, it would not require a variance. There are two signs on the
west side of the building, One sign has the same discrepancy in the plan
and may be eight square feet for AutoBody Plus. The sign for Autohaus
Certified Auto Service is a 30 square foot sign and would require a
variance. In addition there would be two additional awning signs with the
company name on each awning.
Mr. William Cragg, Signcrafters, representing the sign company came
forward to answer questions. The smaller signs in question over the doors
are for customers to identify which tenant is in each space. The actual
signage for Autohaus will be a little larger than the other two businesses.
The lettering for the sign for Autohaus Service could be changed to allow
a smaller sign for that entrance. It was confirmed that the front signs
meet the Sign Code as they were proposed. The variances requested,
therefore, are for the signs on the east and west sides of the building,
which will be used for customer identificatiOn for each business as each
of the three businesses are separate, and for the ground signs.
Commissioner Landy questioned Why there is such a large variance being
requested for the pylon sign. Mr. Cragg replied this is being requested so
that each tenant can identify their separate business. The pylon signage
for Autohaus and Universal Color is the same square footage as what is
being proposed. Commissioner Landy pointed out that the Sign Code
states one 75 square foot ground sign and the request is for two 72
square foot ground signs. Mr. Cragg responded that there are two
separate companies and each is being identified. Commissioner Landy
disagreed with this point.
Commissioner Stulberg explained that the purpose of a variance is not
based exclusively on the desire to increase the value or income potential
of the business involved. While the Commission and Council desires to be
as agreeable as possible with businesses in New Hope, he would have a
hard time granting a variance when the purpose of a variance is so clear
New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - January 2, 1996
cut. Mr. Cragg stated that he would have to propose an alternate plan to
the customer. Commissioner Landy added that the purpose of a variance
is alSo to show hardshiP and in his opinion there is no hardship shown.
Autohaus has been in this location for several years and is well known.
Mr. Cragg replied that AutoBody Plus has not been in this location and is
a separate entity with a separate owner. Commissioner Landy also stated
that he would have a hard time granting a variance.
Mr. Tom Oestreich of Autohaus came forward. Chairman Sonsin
emphasized that the thrust of the planning report is that this is three
separate businesses, and he has always felt that Autohaus is one business
at that location no matter if it is sales or repair work. Chairman Sonsin
asked for clarification if there are three businesses with one owner or if
there are separate owners. Mr. Oestreich explained that originally there
was sales, service and auto body. The last few years the decision was
made to not be involved with the body shop business. Mr. Oestreich
stated that the body shop entity was sold along with all of the equipment.
Mr. Boettcher is the owner of the property. Autohaus Service and
Autohaus Sales remain from the original business. Mr. Oestreich has
proposed that he would buy out the service portion of Autohaus and lease
the space that was vacated by Universal Color. Chairman Sonsin
requested clarification on the businesses and owners and if there are two
or three businesses. Mr. Oestreich explained that he had thought about
changing the name of the service department, however so many
customers are referrals that this would be difficult to do. If the name
would be changed, it would be Autohaus of New Hope and the font style
would be different on the signage. If the plans proceed to buy out the
service department, Mr. Oestreich would be the owner of service, Mr. Jeff
Benzinger is the owner of AutoBody Plus, and Mr. Boettcher is the owner
of Autohaus Sales. Chairman Sonsin confirmed that there are three
separate businesses and three separate owners, assuming that the service
department sale proceeds.
Chairman Sonsin maintained that he shares some of the same concerns as
the other Commissioners with the size of the variance and the enormous
amount of signage. The business has been an asset in New Hope and the
site has vastly improved over the last several years. Chairman Sonsin
stated that the petitioner and staff should work together to cut down the
volume or number of signs to get the proposed sign plan in closer
conformance with the Sign Code while maintaining the petitioner's needs.
There are also several inconsistencies in the existing sign plan.
Commissioner $onsin advised the petitioner that this request would
probably be tabled and that they should submit a revised sign plan. Mr.
Oestreich called attention to the sign for the auto body shop and that it is
set further back from the street and needs to be larger to be visible from
the street. The petitioner felt that the wall sign is more important for his
service department. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the sign needs
to be as large as proposed. Mr. Oestreich explained that he has not had
opportunity to study the size of the signs extensively and was asked to
attend the meeting at the last minute.
Commissioner Cassen expressed that the front signage was alright since
this is advertising. The signs on the east and west sides of the building
are more directional signs to let people know where to go and the
proposed signs are much too large and should be greatly reduced in size
as these are not intended for advertisement. Commissioner Cassen agreed
that the .canopy signs are good. Mr. Oestreich stated that the service door
New Hope Planning Commission
- 7 - January 2, 1996
signage, which is where the customer would enter, is more important than
the signage over the garage door and also feels that there should be no
problem meeting code. Commissioner Cassen suggested that revised plans
be submitted that meet Sign Code requirements.
Commissioner Stulberg cautioned that the Commission should be careful
to approve such a large variance to the Sign Code in a major area of the
City's business community and have other businesses along the same
street request signage the same size. Mr. Cragg reminded the
Commissioners that the reasoning behind the 72 square feet for each sign
was that there are two tenants in the building and the understanding was
that each business was allowed that much signage. Other businesses in
the area have only one business per building, The lighting on the sign at
night will only have the letters illuminated and not the entire sign.
Commissioner Stulberg agreed that the problem is not the lettering, etc. of
the sign, but the quantity and size. Mr. Cragg asked for clarification of the
code to in order to revise the plans for the ground sign and was told that
one ground sign would be allowed with up to 75 square feet, if there are
wall signs over 10 square feet. The ground sign can have two names on
it. Chairman Sonsin reiterated that the Commission does not regulate the
content or what is written on the sign, but instead siZe. All three
businesses could be listed on the one ground sign. Mr. Cragg stated that
the sign plan would be revised.
Commissioner Landy reminded the petitioner that the second ground sign
from the Animal Hospital needs to be removed. Commissioner Underdahl
also reminded the petitioner that there is a 10-foot setback that needs to
be complied with.
Chairman Sonsin invited the petitioner to return with revised plans at the
February Planning Commission meeting and to work with City staff if more
direction is needed regarding sizes of signs to reduce the variance request.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Underdahl, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
table Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign Variances/Approval of
Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground signs that Exceed Sign
Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709 42nd Avenue North,
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Landy,
Damiani
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers
Motion carried.
Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Stulberg,
PC 95-21
Item 3.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for informal discussion Item 3.2,
ConsideratiOn of An Ordinance Reclassifying Various Conditional Uses as
Permitted Uses Within the B-l, B-2, B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts, City of
New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Brixius stated that he met with the staff and the Building Official and
it has been determined that there are a number of areas of the ordinance,
regarding what is a permitted use and what is a conditional use, that are
much more restrictive than need 'be. A conditional use permit is an
application process that takes 45-60 days and includes a $450 fee. In
reviewing this ordinance as far as age, established character and
established zoning and shopping center arrangements, staff feels that in
New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - January 2, 1996
a lot of cases the conditional use permits are not necessary and, in fact,
cumbersome for businesses to enter the community. In giving attention
to this issue, eaC~ ~0ning ·district was studied and specific
recommendations have been made as to what conditional uses should
continue to be conditional uses and what should be changed to permitted
uses. The purpose of the B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business, District is
to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited
office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for
whom the goods or services are furnished. This District is very limited in
the community in that there is only one B-1 Zoning District. The uses are
very restrictive within that District including government and utility
buildings, professional and commercial offices. When considering the
District and what it is intended to do, both of these uses could be
permitted uses within this District. This then gives this property an
opportunity to culminate additional uses without having to go through the
conditional use application process.
Mr. Brixius continued with the B-2, Retail Business, District which is to
provide for Iow intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with
the customer for whom the good or services are furnished, and is more
restrictive than the B-4 District. There are a number of uses listed as
conditional uses, however, some are listed as both conditional and
permitted uses. These become quite confusing as to how the uses should
be treated. In an effort to clarify this, several recommendations have been
made. In the B-2 District most of the uses that were previously listed as
conditional have been changed to permitted and include government and
utility buildings, professional and commercial offices, banks without drive-
through facilities, electronic appliance stores, fabric stores, restaurants
without drive-through facilities, camera and photographic supply and book
stores. Staff feels that each one of these uses can compatibly co-ex~st
within the character of the B-2 District and would still require a site plan
review and as a result feel that the conditional use requirements are overly
restrictive. Commissioners should note that in the case of banks and
restaurants with drive-through facilities staff is still asking that these be
listed as conditional uses as it is felt that traffic and drive-through
arrangements have extraneous impacts on the site that can affect adjacent
properties and should require closer inspection.
Mr. Brixius reported that the B-3, Auto-Oriented Business District, uses are
listed correctly and should remain as is.
Mr. Brixius continued with the B-4, Community Business District, by saying
that this is the most generalized District. The uses that would be changed
from conditional uses to permitted uses in the B-1 and B-2 Districts would
roll over as permitted uses within this District. One area of discussion was
a veterinary clinic and whether that use should be changed from a
conditional use to a permitted use. Staff felt that there are a number of
extraneous factors very unique to a veterinary clinic, such as the boarding
and keeping of animals, noise consideration, odors, disposal of deceased
pets, etc. which would require some attention by City. staff and it is being
recommended that this remain a conditional use. Recently discussed to a
great extent was commercial recreational uses and for the most part these
uses should remain a conditional use. However, there are opportunities in
the shopping centers for smaller commercial recreational uses, such as a
karate school or dance studio with less than 4,000 square feet of floor
area, be a permitted use within the B-4 District. The focus is to make it
eas~er to start a business in New Hope, to eliminate the areas of
New Hope Planning Commission - 9 - January 2, 1996
conditional use where it is not appropriate or required, and maintain the
integrity of the conditional use permit by requiring those uses which have
unique features and require special attention as conditional uses. The
changes that have been suggested are not unique within the character of
the Zoning Districts described. One of the exhibits included with the
planning report is a matrix showing how the changes were made, the
current use and the proposed change.
Commissioner Underdahl questioned the meaning, in the Planner's report,
of the item regarding restaurants without drive-through facilities proposed
to be conditionally permitted in the B-3 District and permitted in the B-2,
B-3 and B-4 Districts. Mr. Brixius replied that the sentence should read a
conditional use in the B-1 District not a conditional use in the B-3 District.
This use, restaurant without drive-through, would be allowed in a B-l,
Neighborhood, District by conditional use and the use would have to be
directly related to the neighborhood it is serving. The matrix shows
restaurants with drive-through facilities to be a permitted use in the B-3
District because this is an Auto-Oriented District. It was the consensus of
the Commission to change restaurants with drive-through to a conditional
use in the B-3 District. To clarify these uses it is noted that restaurants
with drive-through facilities are not permitted in B-l, and would be a
conditional use in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 Districts; restaurants without drive-
through facilities would be a conditional use in the B-1 District and
permitted uses in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 Districts.
Commissioner Underdahl also questioned #74 on the matrix regarding the
drive-in and convenience food which are not permitted in any District. Mr.
Brixius explained that the reason for this is that drive-in and convenience
foods have been combined with restaurants. The City Attorney listed
drive-in and convenience foods in one land-use arrangement in the draft
ordinance. The only distinction being whether the dishes/containers were
disposable or not. The land use categories are being combined to include
restaurants, convenience drive-in, etc.
Commissioner Underdahl wondered whether or not a drive-through needs
to be listed with the category of camera/photographic supplies since there
is now one use like this in the City and should this be considered. Mr.
Brixius agreed that this could be changed on the matrix to include a
conditional use for a drive-through camera/photographic supply.
Chairman Sonsin advised that if the Commissioners had any questions or
thought of any revisions that should be included in this ordinance to
contact Mr. McDonald.
Commissioner Underdahl questioned whether the issue of tattoo parlors
being a permitted use and some other businesses being conditional uses
has been corrected with this ordinance and it was confirmed these items
have been changed. Mr. Brixius stated that there is agreement that some
of the smaller type businesses would not need a conditional use permit
providing all the requirements are met. The City Attorney added that by
eliminating some of the conditional uses, the businesses will be regulated
through licensing procedures. Through licensing there is a set of
procedures that need to be followed prior to obtaining a license for tattoo
parlors, for example. The philosophical discussion centers around whether
tattoo establishments or 'the art of tattooing is a legitimate service
business the same barber shops, etc. It would be difficult for the City to
try and rezone a legitimate business out of the City. The way to insure
New Hope Planning Commission - 10 - January 2, 1996
against health and safety issues is through regulation by licensing
requirements. Commissioner Cassen also added that licensing would
provide for annual :in~ectiOns; ..
Commissioner Stulberg questioned the Building Official's memo regarding
the CUP process for drive-through eating establishments but not for any
other business as long as a site plan is on file. After some discussion by
the Commission and staff, the consensus was that the ordinance requires
the CUP process for all drive-through establishments because this does
affect the site and traffic patterns. Mr. Brixius cautioned that all drive-
through establishments should be handled in the same manner whether the
use is for an eating establishment or a bank or some other type business.
Chairman Sonsin recapped that all drive-through establishments would
require the conditional use process.
Commissioner Cassen questioned the zoning for the multi-family housing
just to the north of Kmart. Mr. McDonald replied that this is zoned R-5,
Senior/Disabled Housing,
Chairman Sonsin confirmed that there would be a formal public hearing on
this ordinance at the February Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Brixius
added that a corrected matrix will be sent to the Commissioners before the
meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
The Design & Review Committee did not meet in December, but will be
meeting in January. Mr. McDonald stated he believes that plans will be
submitted for an expansion by Taber Bushnell.
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards did not meet in
December, but will be meeting on JanUary 17th and will continue
discussion on flashing/moving electronic signs and 60-day zoning
legislation. Mr. McDonald added that an issue the Codes & Standards
Committee should review during 1996 is pawn shops. Staff has received
calls regarding this issue and the City does not have any regulations on
pawn shops at this time. The City Attorney mentioned that pawn shops
do have some inherent problems with them and it is possible to argue that
they could be prohibited. There are different schools of thought on the
idea of pawn shops. The Code does not list pawn shops specifically, and
under the current ruling if the Code does not list a business, it is prohibited
in the City. The Code should probably list some reasons why pawn shops
are prohibited.
Chairman Sonsin added that the Codes & Standards Committee should
also review other areas of the Sign Code. Mr. Sondrall raised the issue of
therapeutic massage and that this issue should also be reviewed by the
Codes & Standards Committee.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
New Hope Planning Commission
There was no discussion regarding the miscellaneous issues.
The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
Chairman Sonsin next discussed Committee assignments and the number
of Commissioners on the Planning Commission. Chairman Sonsin
- 11 - January 2, 1996
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
suggested that the Commission contain an odd number of Commissioners,
for purposes of maintinaing a quorum, and would like to see two new
members added, Mr. McDonald interjected that City Code currently.states
that "the Commission shall consist of ten members" and an ordinance is
being presented to the City Council to change this ordinance to read that
"the Commission may consist of ten members."
Chairman Sonsin asked if any Commissioners would like to change to a
different Committee and Commissioner Stulberg stated he was considering
moving to the Codes & Standards Committee. Chairman Sonsin remarked
that current Commissioners should change now if any wanted to and the
new Commissioners would be assigned to a Committee. Chairman Sonsin
stated that he would like to remain as Chairman of the Codes & Standards
Committee, in addition to being Chairman of the Commission.
Mr. McDonald stated he would let Commissioners know the date that Bob
Gundershaug will be recognized by the Council for his service to the City.
Commissioner Damiani commented that the public works remodeling
seemed to be very expensive. Commissioner Stulberg also mentioned that
the last report on the ice arena expansion seemed to be more expensive
than originally reported.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:38
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
New Hope Planning Commission - 12 - January 2, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 6, 1996
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:
Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani
Underdahl, Cassen
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil,
Administrative Analyst, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
CONSENT ITEMS
No Consent Items.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC 95-31
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Sign
Variances/Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground
Signs that Exceed Sign Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709
42nd Avenue North, Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher,
Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner asked that the Commission table
this request for one month. Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion to table
Planning Case 95-31 until the March meeting.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to
table Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign Variances/Approval of
Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground Signs that Exceed Sign
Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709 42nd Avenue North,
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani
None
Underdahl, Cassen
Commissioner Stulberg reported that there are new awning signs on the
building on the east/west elevations that have not been approved by the
Commission. Mr. McDonald stated that staff would look into this matter.
Commissioner Cassen arrived at 7:05 p.m.
PC96-02
Item 3.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Request for Site and
Building Plan Review/Approval for Building Addition, 7709 Winpark Drive,
Taber Bushnell, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald reported that Taber Bushnell is requesting site and building
plan review/approval for the construction of a building addition. They are
proposing to construct a 27,616 square foot warehouse addition on to the
south side of the existing building. The existing building is 54,500 square
feet and the addition would bring the total building size to 82,116 square
feet. The company produces metal stampings for the automotive,
computer and electronic industries. With the addition they would be
providing jobs for approximately 180 to 190 employees working on a
New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - February 6, 1996
three-shift operation. Staff considers this a routine site and building plan
review/approval with no variances or conditional use permit required. The
setback requirements are met and have been pointed out on the site plan.
Taber Bushnell is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District and
is surrounded by industrial properties. The southerly portion of the
property slopes downhill 27 feet from the west to the east.
Mr. McDonald continued saying that the special requirements for an I-1
Zoning District were pointed out in the planning report, namely that lot
coverage cannot be more than 40 percent of the lot, there is a lot area
requirement and the green area requirement cannot be less than 20
percent. The project data was listed on the site plan and in the planning
report. All I-1 requirements have been met including building to lot ratio
at 40 percent, green area is 22 percent and total required parking is 178
spaces and 184 spaces have been provided.
Mr. McDonald stated that City Department Heads reviewed the plans and
the Design & Review Committee also met with the petitioner. Items
discussed included: parking spaces and number of employees/shifts, truck
docks/traffic circulation/maneuverability, landscaping, snow storage,
grading/drainage plans and retaining wall, building addition and exterior
finish, lighting, roof-top equipment and refuse containers. Revised plans
were submitted as a result of the meeting.
Mr. McDonald pointed out the following details on the revised plans.
Snow storage has been added to the site plan on the south side of the
property and the petitioner has stated that snow would be hauled off the
site, if necessary. The trash/recycling area, which was not on the original
plan, has been identified and is shown to be on the northwest side of the
building and the area would be screened by the front building wall. The
new parking lot on the south will be all new bituminous with B6/12 curb.
Two new light standards are shown on the plan in the south parking lot for
exterior lighting purposes. There was a great deal of discussion at the
Design & Review Committee meeting regarding traffic circulation on the
site and signage. The Committee and staff requested that additional
directional signage be installed. The petitioner included the following on
the revised plans: 1. A "One Way Only - Do Not Enter" sign to be placed
along north end of westerly drive aisle. 2. Painted direction arrows
directing traffic to the north to be painted on westerly drive aisle for one-
way traffic flow. 3. A "One Way Only" sign to be placed along south end
of westerly drive aisle. 4. Two "Truck Entrance - One Way Only" signs to
be installed on east curb cut near loading dock. 5. "Truck Exit Only" sign
to be installed on most southerly east curb cut. Existing east curb cut to
be closed and two new curb cuts on east to be installed. A 50-foot
turning radius for trucks is shown on plan. After the Design & Review
meeting, the petitioner submitted revised plans and there were still some
problems with truck maneuverability so at staff's request the petitioner
submitted a second revised plan. The width of the building was shortened
to allow for an adequate maneuvering radius and the Building Official has
reviewed and approved the plans. The landscaping plan has been revised
to show existing and new landscaping and species have been identified.
A total of 57 new trees and shrubs will be added to the site. The exterior
of the building will be break-off block painted to match the existing
building. The loading dock area would be located at the southeast corner
of the building and will contain four overhead doors with dock bumpers.
Design & Review requested that the wall pack lighting be included on the
new addition and it is shown on the new elevations. A four-foot retaining
New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - February 6, 1996
wall would be installed on the southwest portion of the property at the
west end of the i~a~l~ing: area, Per the second revised plans, the petitioner
indicated that all roof-top mechanical units would be painted in colors to
match the building.
Mr. McDonald pointed out that the City Engineer reviewed the plans. The
grade of the parking lot is acceptable as presented in the plans. The
height of the retaining wall has been reduced so there is no encroachment
on the adjoining property. The following points from the City Engineer
have been included in the recommendations: the storm sewer connection
must be reviewed with Public Works; the plan be submitted to Bassett
Creek Watershed for approval; the owner shall be responsible for keeping
adjacent public streets clean of material from this site during construction;
and erosion control comply with City standards and the Hennepin Soil
Conservation District.
Staff feels the petitioner has addressed the majority of issues raised by the
Design & Review Committee and recommend approval per the conditions
in the planning report. Additionally, staff requests that the Planning
Commission add that a performance bond be required with the amount to
be determined by the City Engineer and Building Official. A performance
bond is a routine recommendation with industrial expansions of this type
and is mainly for landscaping.
Chairman Sonsin asked that the petitioners come forward to answer
questions of the Commissioners.
Mr. Jerry Hetland, President, CEO and owner of Taber Bushnell, came to
the podium. He noted Taber Bushnell does not own the building.
Commissioner Damiani questioned if the building addition would match the
existing building. Mr. Hetland answered that the plan is to match the
existing building as it stands. Rake block will be used and is stated as
such on the elevation plan. Commissioner Damiani inquired about the
plantings on the boulevard and whether or not these have been moved off
the City right-of-way. Mr. Martin Woody, Martin Woody Architects,
14001 Ridgedale Drive, Minnetonka, indicated that those plantings have
been moved. 'The new trees that are being added along the boulevard are
over the 2~" diameter. There are a few existing trees and some existing
shrubbery around the building. The petitioner stated that they did receive
the Preferred Tree List from the City and have followed the
recommendations.
Commissioner Damiani asked how much room there is between the parallel
parking and the side of the building. This is a one-way drive-through,
however the space seems to be tight. Mr. Hetland replied that there
would be 10-12' for driving through this area. Commissioner Damiani
questioned if there would be a problem in the future with reduced size
when snow is piled up. Mr. Hetland stated that there has not been a
problem with parking and driving through this area now and does not see
a problem in the future. If it would become a problem, the petitioner
stated that they would not allow parking in that area. This drive aisle is
only an alternate and not one of the main drive aisles.
Commissioner Cassen stated that currently there is a lot of snow piled up
on the west side of the building and wanted assurance that this would not
be the case in the future. Commissioner Cassen commented that the
New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - February 6, 1996
existing roof-top equipment needs painting and was under the impression
that all roof-top equipment would be painted the same color as the
building. The existing building is block construction therefore the roof-top
equipment would be gray in color to match the building and this was
confirmed. Commissioner Cassen expressed delight in the landscaping
plans with respect to the apartments that are visible to the industrial area.
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Damiani, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-02, Request for Site and Building Plan
Review/Approval for Building Addition, 7709 Winpark Drive, Taber
Bushnell, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. All roof-top mechanical units be screened or painted to match building.
2. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, including:
A. Storm sewer connection reviewed with Public Works.
B. Geo-grid fabric construction adjacent to retaining wall.
C. Bassett Creek Watershed Commission approval.
D. Owner responsible for keeping adjacent public streets clean of
material being moved off the site.
E. Erosion control shall comply with City standards and the Hennepin
Soil Conservation District.
3. Performance Bond to be submitted (amount to be determined by City
Engineer and Building Official).
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani
None
Underdahl
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on February 12, 1996
and Chairman Sonsin expressed delight in having Taber Bushnell expanding
in New Hope.
PC 95-20
Item 3.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3, Ordinance 96-2, An
Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Defining Understory
and Overstory Trees and Modifying Landscaping Regulations for Semi-
Public and Income Producing Property, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin explained that there was an informal discussion on this
issue at the January 2nd meeting and that this is the public hearing on this
planning case. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the City Attorney did make
the change that was requested at the January meeting pertaining to over
25 feet or under 25 feet. The Preferred Tree List has also been completed
and ready for distribution.
MOTION
Item 3.3
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
approve Planning Case 95-20, Ordinance 96-2, An Ordinance Amending
the New Hope Zoning Code by Defining Understory and Overstory Trees
and Modifying Landscaping Regulations for Semi-Public and Income
Producing Property, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani
None
Underdahl
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on February 12, 1996.
New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - February 6, 1996
PC95-21
Item 3.4
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.4, Ordinance 96-04, An
Ordinance Reclassifying Various Conditional Uses as Permitted Uses Within
the B-l, B-2, B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald reported that the City Planner has recommended eight
additional changes, basically to clean up the ordinance and delete some
repetition. The City Attorney will review the changes that have been made
since the last meeting. The Planner submitted a list of uses for each
Zoning District.
Mr. Sondrall stated he would explain each item that has been changed.
Item 7 refers to dry cleaning/cleaning and since this is already a permitted
use in the B-1 Zoning District, the reference to cleaning in the B-2 District
is not necessary due to the fact that there is a roll over provision making
it a permitted use in lesser intense Zoning Districts. As a result the
reference to cleaning in Item 7 was eliminated from the B-2 District with
the understanding that it is permitted in all Zoning Districts. Mr. Sondrall
stated there was difference in language in the cleaning process from the
B-1 District and the B-2 District, however it was concluded that the
distinguishing language did not have any outstanding meaning to it
regarding the cleaning process and therefore it was deleted from the B-2
District.
Item 8 deals with restriction on floor space for supermarkets and he felt
this was pertaining to some discussion several years ago regarding garden
novelty shops and limiting the floor space on novelty shops and was not
an intention to limit the floor space of grocery stores. The floor space
restriction included in this provision does not make a lot of sense as the
floor Space would be restricted based on lot size and building
requirements. In an effort to clean up and simplify this ordinance, it was
decided that this was not needed in the ordinance and has been deleted.
Item 15 talks about copying and printing services being listed as a
permitted and conditional use in the same Zoning District. The reference
to a conditional use has been eliminated, leaving copying and printing
services as a permitted use in all Zoning Districts. A reference to offset
printing and copying service was also deleted since offset printing and
copying service is much the same thing. The permitted use was deleted
from the B-4 District because of the roll over provision of the ordinance
from the permitted use in the B-2 District.
Item 25 refers to insurance sales and it was concluded that this is the
same as professional offices and as a result eliminated the insurance sales
language from the ordinance and from the B-4 District with the
understanding that due to the roll over provision it is already allowed in the
B-2 District as a permitted use and therefore would be a permitted use in
the B-4 District.
Item 37a refers to the drive-through service window. The Codes &
Standards Committee and staff wanted to make drive-through service
windows for all businesses, not just restaurants, a conditional use permit
in all Zoning DistriCts. If someone came to the Planning Commission and
Council with a business use on a piece of property that required a drive-
through service window, they would be required to apply for a conditional
use permit. The reason it is included in the B-1 and B-3 Districts is to
allow for the broadest application possible for drive-through windows. The
drive-through windows are applicable in all Zoning Districts assuming that
New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - February 6, 1996
the business use is permitted in that particular District.
Item 58 is another attempt to limit floor space. This section seems to refer
to accessory buildings in the B-1 District. Staff could not understand why
the ordinance would be limiting floor space for an accessory use in the
primary building. For example, if a business had two purposes for the
building, it would not make any difference to the City what percent of floor
space was attributable to one use or another as long as both uses were
acceptable and permitted uses within the City. The Planner, City Attorney
and City staff concluded that this meant an accessory building. The
ordinance was changed to reflect that. If there is an accessory building on
the property and it is allowed by code, it cannot exceed 30 percent of the
principal building to which it supports.
Item 64 was included as an informational item and Item 84 has been dealt
with through the pool hall ordinance. Commercial recreational facilities are
not allowed as a permitted use in the B-3 Zoning District. The codification
of the code will be taken care of with the next codification.
Mr. Sondrall continued with two additional changes. First, drive-up
financial was eliminated as a permitted accessory use in the B-2 Zoning
District as this would be a situation that would fall under the conditional
use permit drive-through windows. The second item deals with the list of
conditional use commercial enterprises in the B-2 Zoning District which
were eliminated because they would be dealt with in other areas of the
Code, either as specified permitted uses or specified conditional uses,
except for the use as a garden novelty store, which is to be maintained as
a separate conditional use permit in the B-2 Zoning District. The reference
to garden novelty stores remains since both Frank's Nursery and Lyndale
Garden are in a B-2 District.
Mr. Sondrall added that these changes should help to simplify this
ordinance and that other changes may occur in the future and will have to
dealt with at that time and the Commissioners agreed.
MOTION
Item 3.4
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
approve Ordinance 96-04, An Ordinance Reclassifying Various Conditional
Uses as Permitted Uses Within the B-l, B-2, B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani
None
Underdahl
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on February 12, 1996.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
The Design & Review Committee met in January with Taber Bushnell.
Chairman Sonsin asked if Mr. Lasky would be on the agenda for the March
meeting and Mr. McDonald stated that the deadline for submission of plans
would be February 9th. At this time there are no other applications for
March.
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in January to finalize
the issues presented at this meeting. The Committee will be discussing
New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - February 6, 1996
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENT
ADJOURNMENT
flashing/moving signs, the 60-day time limit and pawn shops.
Commissioner Stulberg confirmed that he would be joining the Codes &
Standards Committee.
There was no discussion regarding the miscellaneous issues.
The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
Commissioner Cassen questioned whether there have been any applicants
for Planning Commission members and Mr. McDonald reported there have
been eight applications submitted. Chairman Sonsin indicated his
preference to add two new members to the Planning Commission to keep
an odd number of members.
Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting would
be on Monday, March 4th, because of the precinct caucuses held on
Tuesday evening.
Mr. McDonald informed the Commissioners about the Remodeling Fair on
March 16th at Park Center High School.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:42
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - February 6, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996
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:
Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers
Underdahl, Damiani
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil,
Administrative Analyst, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
CONSENT ITEMS
No Consent Items.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC95-15
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for
Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow
Construction of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment Facility in a Mini-
Mall Concept with Future Retail Space Construction, David Lasky,
Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin commented that this is a new planning case and not a
continuation of the petitioner's previous case.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner is requesting a conditional use
permit/planned unit development approval to allow construction of a Car-X
Muffler, Brake and Alignment facility in a mini-mall concept with future
retail space construction.
Mr. McDonald reminded the Petitioners that the Commission considered a
similar request for a separate building in September, which was tabled
several months due to lack of details. In December and January, Mr.
Lasky met with staff and completely revised the plans to address a number
of concerns. New plans were submitted in February for consideration by
the Design & Review Committee and Mr. Lasky also appeared before the
City Council on February 12th to get Council input on the revised concept.
The revised site plan calls for the construction of a second principle
building, Car-X, on a 1.47 acre lot located on the northeast corner of 42nd
and Nevada Avenues. The eastern portion of the site is currently
undeveloped. It is proposed to be developed with a 4,800 square foot
Car-X automotive service facility and also a 2,268 square foot future retail
establishment. The site is located within the B-4, Community Business,
Zoning District and automotive service and repair establishments and
commercial planned unit developments are both allowed by conditional use
permit. Surrounding land uses include B-4 to the east, vacant B-4 City-
owned property to the west across Nevada Avenue, B-4 retail to the south
across 42nd Avenue and R-l, Single Family Residential, and R-4, Multi-
Family Residential, to the north.
Mr. McDonald explained that in 1990 the City initiated a zoning study of
all the properties on 42nd Avenue. At that time there was a mixture of
B-3 and B-4. The Planning Commission and City Council voted to rezone
all of the properties along 42nd Avenue to B-4 in order to unify existing
New Hope Planning Commission - I - March 4, 1996
land uses in the area and increase opportunities for future development.
Mr. McDonald reported that the new plans show the Car-X facility to be
interconnected to the site's existing retail structure and makes provision
for the future retail space. This case will be processed as a planned unit
development/conditional use permit. Due to the relative simplicity of the
new plans, staff and the Planning Consultant are recommending that the
concept plan, development plan and final stage all be considered at this
time. The Planning Consultant indicated in his report that the
modifications that have been made to the plans are highly positive, both
in terms of how the site functions, circulation and the appearance/
aesthetics of the building. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commissioners
that the property slopes downward 12 feet from 42nd Avenue to the
northeast, rear, corner of the property. This has been a major concern
during the development of the plans.
Mr. McDonald next described the site plan. The City Department Heads
met on February 15th to review the revised plans and the Design & Review
Committee met with the petitioner on February 16th. Several items were
discussed at these meetings including landscaping and green area along
42nd Avenue, grade at rear of building, exterior aesthetics of the building,
site lighting plan, parking areas, loading zone, trash enclosure on west side
of property, sod vs. seed in future retail area, sanitary sewer and water
service connections, bituminous vs. concrete curb, signage, and Fire
Department issues. Revised plans were submitted as a result of some of
the recommendations at these meetings.
Mr. McDonald explained changes made on the revised plans. Site data
included: existing site area at 63,458 square feet, new paved area at
40,200 square feet and new building construction at 4,900 square feet.
The existing building floor area is 2,400 square feet, future building area
would be 2,560 and total green space would be 15,958 square feet. All
setback requirements are in compliance with City code. The front yard,
42nd Avenue and Nevada Avenue, requires a 35-foot setback and the
proposed setback is 70 feet. The east side yard requirement is 10 feet
and the proposed setback is 36 feet. The north side yard which abuts a
Residential District requires a 50-foot setback and 73 feet is proposed.
The parking requirements for the existing building and the new Car-X
facility would be 55 off-street parking spaces. Sixty-five spaces are
shown on the plan and, therefore, the plan meets the current requirements
of the zoning code. One of the recommendations of the site plan was to
illustrate specifically where the handicap parking stalls would be. There
are three shown on the plan, with two located on the front parking area
near 42nd Avenue and one is located north of the existing building. The
parking stalls each meet the City's minimum size requirements. The site
plan indicates that all the parking areas will have bituminous surfacing and
striping.
Mr. McDonald continued saying one of the issues the Planning Consultant
pointed out in his report was that if in the future the Car-X facility would
convert to a retail use, then the parking requirements would increase from
55 to 70 spaces. Therefore, the 65 spaces shown on the plan would not
be sufficient. The petitioner could easily provide parking spaces in front
of the Car-X facility as there is adequate room for parking, a drive aisle,
another row of parking spaces and a sidewalk.
New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - March 4, 1996
Mr. McDonald noted that one of, the discussion points at the Design &
Review meeting was curbing proposed for the site. The site plan indicates
that the curb along the south parking area, around the plaza and at the
rear of the ~:8PO~J'~8 6biiding w5aid b~ concrete curbing. The plan shows
that the curbing to be installed on the north and the east sides would be
bituminous. The City Engineer feels strongly that the curbing should be
concrete mainly because bituminous is more prone to deterioration and
susceptible to snowplow damage, particularly because a lot of drainage
flows downhill to the north. The Design & Review Committee felt that a
combination of both concrete and bituminous may be acceptable. City
code does not specifically require interior areas of commercial parking lots
to be concrete, however, with a conditional use permit the Commission
can set certain conditions of approval. This may be an issue the
Commission should discuss.
The traffic circulation pattern of the site is considered positive and a vast
improvement over the previous plan. There is adequate area for vehicular
stacking, and access to the property would be via a 22-foot wide curb cut
from Nevada Avenue and a 28-foot wide curb cut from 42nd Avenue.
Another issue that was discussed last fall was the loading area. The site
plan does show that a loading area would be provided on the north side of
the Car-X facility and a future loading platform could be constructed, if
required. The Building Official has indicated that the loading berth area
meets code requirements. The City Engineer has consistently
recommended that the grade in the rear of the building be raised two or
three feet to be more functional with the loading area, however, the
petitioner and staff both recognize that changing the grade could cause
drainage problems for the business in the lower level of the existing
building. The grade of the property is not a condition of approval from
staff's point of view.
The snow storage is shown on the north side of the property and also at
the southwest corner. There are two trash enclosures shown on the plan,
one new trash enclosure at the rear of the building by the future loading
berth, and as was requested at the Design & Review meeting, the
petitioner has shown the area where the enclosure would be relocated at
the north parking area if the loading platform is installed in the future. The
trash enclosure that generated the most discussion is the one near the
access point along Nevada Avenue. The Planning Consultant felt strongly
that it should be relocated to another area, however, staff, the Design &
Review Committee and the petitioner have not been able to determine a
better location so that both tenants in the existing building have easy
access. The petitioner has screened the enclosure with plant material and
this is shown on the landscaping plan. The Commission should discuss
this issue further with the petitioner.
Mr. McDonald continued saying that the lighting plan should be revised as
it still shows some spillage onto adjacent properties. Lighting at property
lines should not exceed a one-foot candle. Two ground signs are proposed
for the site. The existing sign at 42nd/Nevada states the address of the
property and identifies the two existing tenants and would remain in place.
A new pylon sign would be installed at the 42nd Avenue entrance
identifying the Car-X Muffler Shop. Both signs are in compliance with the
Sign Code,
Mr. McDonald next explained the building design and elevations. The
elevations show that the buildings would be connected with a clock tower
New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - March 4, 1996
which would have a seam metal roof, a clock facing 42nd Avenue, and
vertical wood siding and trim. The area beneath the clock tower would be
open and the stairway down to the north would provide access to the
businesses in the existing building. An ornamental steel railing would
surround the staircase. The south elevation of the building would have
vertical metal panels on the upper portion and face brick on the lower
portion. The building would contain eight overhead doors that would face
42nd Avenue and the doors would have vertical glass panels. The south
elevation would also have the Car-X Muffler & Brakes wall sign, which
complies with the Sign Code requirements. The rear/north elevation of the
new building would be painted concrete block. The west elevation, which
faces Nevada Avenue, has been changed since the Design & Review
Committee requested that it be tied to the existing building. The revised
plan shows upper vertical metal panels and the lower portion of the
building would be painted concrete block. Windows have been installed
on the west elevation to tie it to the existing building. The east elevation,
which is where the future expansion would take place, would be painted
concrete block. There has been a lot of discussion about the aesthetics
of the building since the building has two fronts, one on 42nd and one on
Nevada. The Commission should decide if the additional treatments satisfy
the requirements. The block on the front part of the building will match
the block on the existing building. The total height of the building would
be 19 feet. Structures in the B-4 Zone cannot exceed three stories and,
therefore, height is not a problem.
Mr. McDonald next explained the landscaping plan. A total of 223 new
trees and shrubs would be planted on the site, which were listed in the
planning report. There would be Black Hills Spruce planted along the
north/rear of the property, Techny arborvitae would be planted around the
trash enclosure and on the west side of the property, juniper would be
planted along the 42nd Avenue curb cut and in the plaza area in front of
the building. An irrigation plan was included with the plans and shows
that all plantings on the north/south/west sides of the property would be
sprinkled. The green area is proposed to be seeded on the north, and the
future retail area would be sodded. Rock mulch would be located behind
the new building on the north side. Mr. McDonald noted that the Planning
Consultant made several recommendations regarding spacing and planting
and, therefore, staff recommends that the petitioner and City Forester
cooperate on the plantings.
Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioners to come forward. Mr. David Lasky
and Marissa Lasky, owners of the property, Ashby Carter of Car-X and
Bernie Herman, architect, came to the podium.
Mr. Lasky thanked staff and the Commission for their patience and
consideration during the attempts to develop this property.
Chairman $onsin stated that the Commissioners have several questions for
the petitioners.
Commissioner Oelkers remarked that it appears that the petitioners have
responded to all the items discussed at the Design & Review Committee
meeting. Extra arborvitae have been added around the trash enclosure and
the size of the enclosure has been reduced. The area to be sodded has
been discussed. The only concern remaining is the concrete curbing. Also
the handicap parking has been addressed.
New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - March 4, 1996
Ms~ Lasky asked to explain additional minor changes that have been made.
She stated she met with Councilmember Wehling to determine additional
items that may have been missed by the petitioners. They discussed the
back parking idt and safety concerns, landscaping and making this a safe
area for residents/customers. Councilmember Wehling's suggestions
included another window on the back of the building by the lunch break
room of the Car-X facility to give a better sight area to the back of the
building and also a window in the door that leads out to the loading
platform. Two trees have been eliminated in the row of trees on the north
side of the property abutting the apartment buildings. This was done for
a sight line so that someone from the apartment building might be able to
see if there was a problem of some sort with the back of the property.
This was, in effect, a filtering of the area instead of just a green wall. On
the east wall of the future site, there will be some landscaping against the
wall to soften the area. The plaza area will be attractive with colorful
plantings.
Commissioner Oelkers added that the changes as requested by Design &
Review have been taken care of nicely. The curbing is the only concern
that remains. Ms. Lasky interjected that there would not be any concrete
curbing around where the future retail building would be built.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned what type of tenants the petitioners are
shopping for. Ms. Lasky stated that they would consider a food oriented
business, something that complements the other users or some other retail
use. They are not looking to expand on the automotive use. The
petitioners are looking for an ensemble that helps everyone do business at
this site.
Commissioner Oelkers asked staff how the future development should be
handled as far as approval at this meeting. Mr. McDonald responded that
the future retail development could come back to the Commission for
approval as an amendment to the PUD and site and building plan review.
If the Commission would rather approve everything at this meeting, he
suggested adding a condition that the aesthetics of the future building
match the existing building. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if this was
acceptable with staff and it was confirmed. Chairman Sonsin reiterated
that this case is being presented as a PUD and the Commission should
consider the entire project including the future retail area. Commissioner
Oelkers again stated that the plans for the project look great. The grade
of the property has been discussed and it seems unreasonable to raise the
grade, which would then present water problems for the existing building
and business on the lower level of that building.
Mr. Lasky stated that the electrical contractor has stated that back side
house shields will be installed for controlling the light so it does not spill
onto the residential property to the north. This would meet the one foot
candle requirement.
Commissioner Cassen commented that it is very important to install the
concrete curbing in the back and the only bituminous to be allowed would
be around the future retail area. The back area will be snowplowed and
the curbing would be Subject to damage by the snowplows. Chairman
Sonsin asked for clarification on the location of the concrete and
bituminous curbing. Mr. Lasky pointed out that the curbing on the east
side of the building would be bituminous, which is the future retail area.
They will explore the possibility of more concrete curbing in the back
portion of the property. The problem at this point is financial. The cost
New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - March 4, 1996
of the new sewer and drainage system is approximately $20,000. One 0f
the contractors working on the additional loading berth estimates this cost
at $20,000 and the estimated cost of the clock tower is $35,000 plus.
These costs are mounting up rapidly and the petitioner stated that they are
trying to minimize some of the costs in other areas. Concrete curbing all
over would be desirable and, if it is not too costly, concrete would be
installed. Chairman Sonsin stated that on commercial developments, the
Commission has always requested and received concrete curbing around
the perimeter of the lot and parking area because it lasts longer, is more
resilient and there is less damage by snowplows, etc. The reason for the
bituminous around the future retail area is understood as this would not be
permanent. Chairman Sonsin concurs with Commissioner Cassen that
there should be concrete curbing around the rear of the lot as well as the
front. The Commission does not want to set a precedence of letting one
petitioner use bituminous when all other petitioners have been required to
use concrete curbing. Chairman Sonsin requested that the petitioner show
where the concrete curbing would be located on the plans. Mr. Lasky
noted that on the north side of the property where there are drainage
problems there would be one or two curb cuts depending on
recommendations by the City' Engineer and the petitioner's civil engineer.
Mr. Lasky asked if the concrete curbing on this north side could be
postponed until such time as the engineer's work out the drainage
problems and the best way to deal with this matter. Chairman Sonsin
questioned what curb cuts would be needed on the north side. Mr. Lasky
responded saying that there needs to be some way for the water to drain
past the curbing into the catch basin. The catch basins would be along
the property line, therefore, there needs to be some type of opening in the
curbing so the water can drain properly to the catch basins. Ms. Lasky
also noted that during the past couple years with the flooding that has
taken place, they have had to open up a couple areas along this line to
keep the water away from the lower level of the existing building. This is
another reason why the petitioners could not raise the grade of the
property. Chairman Sonsin again stated that the Commission would like
to see more concrete curbing along the north side, which is consistent
with what has been done in the City. He understands the petitioner's
needs for getting the water out of this area and supports that too,
however would prefer more concrete that what is shown on the plans.
Ms. Lasky asked if the Commission would consider concrete on the
Nevada side and leaving bituminous on the north side of the property.
Chairman Sonsin stated he would definitely like to see concrete on the
Nevada side because that is the side that the public would see. The
Commission would consider a request for bituminous, but would like to see
concrete on a substantial portion of the north side for permanency.
Commissioner Cassen asked if there is a target date for the future retail
area. Ms. Lasky stated that at this time there is no tenant for that site,
however, they are marketing the site. Ms. Lasky stated that Mr. Carter is
in the process of talking to prospective tenants but there is nothing in
writing at this time. The petitioners have talked with several businesses
but for one reason or another these have not worked out. Chairman
Sonsin asked what might be a range of dates. Mr. Lasky stated that once
the Car-X is built and prospective tenants can see the Car-X building and
get a better idea of what the future building will look like, it will be easier
to market that site. Based on past experience, a one-year cycle would be
a reasonable projection. Also once the site is landscaped, the lighting is
in place and a tenant is in the building, it is much easier fOr prospective
tenants to picture the proposed retail area. Chairman Sonsin questioned
New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - March 4, 1996
what the most reasonable constrUction schedule would be for the Car-X
assuming that this PUD would be approved by the Planning Commission
and City Council in March. Mr. Carter answered that from past experience
that once the ~i~Y Cbuncil has approved a project that it takes
approximately two to three weeks to get a completed set of building plans,
another 10 days to two weeks to pull permits, and another two weeks to
bid the project. Assuming that approval would be obtained in mid-March,
Car-X could be breaking ground by the end of April. It takes 90 to 120
days to build a typical Car-X facility. It could take 120 to 150 days to
complete the other site work with the clock tower, etc. The earliest
opening would be early September and the latest the first part of
November.
Chairman Sonsin questioned when Phase 2 might get underway assuming
the Car-X would open early fall of 1996. Ms. Lasky stated that they
would be marketing now off of plans and drawings. It will, of course, be
easier to market once the building is built. It could take six months to one
year to network and find a good tenant. If a tenant would be found now,
it would be possible the retail area could be built simultaneously.
Commissioner Oelkers confirmed that the petitioners are actively marketing
the property. Chairman Sonsin commented that the Commission does not
want this to be just a Car-X project with the retail area never getting built.
This case was proposed to be a mini-mall and there are concerns that there
is a lot of vacant retail space in the western suburbs. Traditionally the
Planning Commission does not deal with that issue as that is the risk the
petitioner takes. Ms. Lasky agreed that they would not want to build
something that does not have a user. Chairman Sonsin reiterated that the
Commission wants to see the whole project completed and not just half
the project. Sometimes projects get partially completed and then
something happens and the project remains uncompleted and detracts
from the surroundings rather than enhance the area in which it was built.
Ms. Lasky responded that they will aggressively market the property.
They would be searching for a tenant that would remain at the location for
several years. Mr. Lasky commented that it is essential for them to obtain
a tenant for that part of the property. They have corresponded with
different people over the years who did not want to develop the site, but
may be interested in a smaller project on the site once Car-X is built, the
clock tower is constructed and the existing building is upgraded. The
project will be much more marketable once all that work is completed.
They will more aggressively market the property once the plans are
complete and construction is started. It is difficult to say at this time just
how long it will take to market the property.
Chairman Sonsin questioned Mr. Carter on how many Car-X developments
of this type he has seen. Mr. Carter has been with Car-X for 13 years and
franchise development is the last job he held with Car-X corporate before
coming here. He has seen several developments similar to this ranging
from automotive mails to mixed uses like this proposal. From the
perspective of Car-X, they do not want another automotive use on the
site. They would prefer to see something that draws a fair number of
people to the site every day for some other reason than coming to Car-X.
Some type of food establishment, hair salon, small book store or
something that gives people some other reason to come to the site. They
like to be located near destination shopping, which makes the entire area
work. When a customer comes to the Car-X, they can get their hair cut
or something to eat rather than just sit in the waiting room. By the same
token, when someone comes to get a hair cut or something to eat, they
New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - March 4, 1996
also think to themselves that they can get their car fixed at that location.
From their perspective, Car-X has found mixed uses work better than
automotive malls. There were a lot of automotive malls built in the mid-
80's and most of them have not done very well because there is no other
reason for people to come to the site other than something for the car.
Mr. Carter confirmed that most of the Car-X locations are in mixed use
sites such as this one or stand-alone units adjacent to destination
shopping. The dominant structure is one user plus Car-X and the two user
plus Car~X is not uncommon either. At this time there is a development
in Mankato which is a Car-X plus three. Most of what is in this area are
stand-alone units. Chairman Sonsin questioned where there is another
project like this in the western suburbs. Mr. Carter responded that there
is one complex at Highway 394 and Louisiana, which is an automotive
development with a Car-X, car wash, quick lube and SuperAmerica,
although none of the buildings are connected. All the properties are
owned by the individual business operators. There is a development in
progress in Roseville of one automotive plus two non-auto uses, however,
this project involves renovating an existing building.
Commissioner Landy reminded the petitioner that the last time the
Commission reviewed this case there was a noise study submitted that
was somewhat old and wanted to know if anything been updated on
noise. Mr. Carter responded that nothing has been done on noise since the
building has been re-oriented to face away from the residential area and
the bays are located on the eastern end of the building. Even though the
noise study was old, it was an accurate study done at the time in Illinois.
Commissioner Stulberg questioned the petitioners regarding the curbing on
the north side of the property. It would seem that after working with the
City Engineer and the petitioner's civil engineer that a reasonable plan
could be worked out so that there would not need to be sections of both
concrete and bituminous curbing on that side of the property. The entire
property should ultimately be all concrete curbing. Commissioner Stulberg
asked the petitioners what the drainage problems were at different times
of the year and after different storms. Ms. Lasky answered that the site
has drained differently with each season. Ms. Lasky remarked that the
best solution would be to take a "wait and see" attitude at this time to see
how the drainage will react with the new construction and then deal with
where the openings in the curbing should be to reach the catch basins.
The petitioners would rather not have the draining water pool somewhere
along the curbing of the parking lot during the cold months of the year and
then have it freeze over the parking lot. Commissioner Stulberg stated to
the Commissioners that this may not be an immediately resolvable issue.
Commissioner Oelkers added that there has been some discussion
regarding a storm sewer through the site and asked staff if this has been
resolved. Mr. McDonald reported that the City Engineer has devised a
storm sewer plan where catch basins would be installed on the north
property line, which are shown on the petitioner's plans, the then go north
through New Hope Apartments and empty into Fred Sims Pond. This plan
has not yet been approved by Council. Mr. Lasky is aware that this could
be an assessment project. The engineering of this project has not been
completed yet. Commissioner Oelkers stated that it makes sense to take
a little time to see how the drainage will work after the construction,
however, in the end there should be concrete around the perimeter of the
property. The Commissioners agreed that there should be concrete all
around the building at the end of the project.
New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - March 4, 1996
Chairman Sonsin questioned the City Attorney whether the concrete
curbing, the timing of the retail, etc. can be included in the development
agreement. The Cit~ Attorney answered that the Commission is dealing
with an application that has been defined and proposed as a planned unit
development and the most appropriate action would be to approve the
entire plan, including the future expansion issues relative to the retail space
on the east, and put a time deadline on that portion relative to when they
have to build or else the petitioner would need to come back for Planning
Commission and Council approval. The incentive would be approval of the
total planned unit development and incorporate into the agreement the
proviso that if it isn't built within a certain period of time, whether that is
one year or two years or whatever, then the approval from the Planning
Commission relative to the future expansion would expire and the
petitioners would have to come back for an amendment to the planned
unit development plan for future expansion. A time limitation would be
added to the development agreement because circumstances can change
over time both with for the City and the developer. The other way to look
at this project is if that future expansion never occurs, does the project
before the Commission now satisfy code and meet the City's requirements
relative to utilization of the site. There are no requirements that the
developer/property owner utilize the entire site. The developer can build
in phases and had the City not heard about a future expansion of that
particular site, the Commission would be just looking at the Car-X site
along with the tie-in to the existing building. It seems that the best way
to handle this is to put a deadline on the condition of the entire site, and
if that deadline is not met, then that would require the developer to come
back to the Commission for site and building plan review and an
amendment to the planned unit development agreement.
Chairman Sonsin qUestioned what the normal timeline would be. The City
Attorney stated that there is not any normal timeline but it would be a
contractual thing that can be negotiated between the developer and the
City. The petitioner has stated that when the site is developed and future
tenants and users of the additional space can see the type of development
they would be getting into that he is hopeful, based on his experience as
a developer for many years, that the development could occur in a year.
A workable time frame for this development might be 18 months to two
years. The developers should be able to confirm some outside time frame
that they can work with, and assuming they do not keep to the deadline,
then they understand that they would need to come back to the
Commission/Council for the future expansion. Commissioner Oelkers
asked how the City would determine what needs to be accomplished
before the deadline and if submittal of plans before the deadline would be
enough to keep the planned unit development agreement from expiring.
The City Attorney responded once building permits are pulled the
commencement of construction can be pinned down. Commissioner
Oelkers wondered if the issue of concrete curbing on the north property
line could be postponed until the engineers come to an agreement and then
incorporate that into the development agreement. The City Attorney
stated that it could be imposed in the agreement now that concrete
curbing be installed around the entire perimeter. There are a wide range
of options that, as a Planning Commission, can be imposed as a
recommendation to the City Council that would ultimately go into an
agreement that deals with the planned unit development. A planned unit
development provides flexibility with the code based on the site
development and the intermingling of uses and the mixing of those uses
on the site to give it the most optimal development for what is being
New Hope Planning Commission - 9 - March 4, 1996
MOTION
Item 3.1
proposed. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if an occupancy permit for
the future retail can be tied into the planned unit development agreement
and the installation of the concrete curbing. In other words, the only way
the City would provide an occupancy permit for the future retail area is if
the concrete curb and gutter is in place as determined by the City Engineer
and the petitioner's civil engineer. The City Attorney reiterated that once
the expansion is completed on the eastern portion of the building that
concrete curb and gutter could be required around wherever it was
designated, and if the petitioner did not want to follow that requirement,
then the petitioner would be required to come to the City to get an
amendment to the planned unit development, otherwise they would run
the risk of being in violation of that planned unit development and the City
would have to make a decision on how to enforce that agreement. If the
petitioner agreed to this condition and then did not comply, they would be
in violation of the agreement and the City would have recourse. This
would be an acceptable way to handle the concrete curb. A certain
number of assumptions could be built into the planned unit development
agreement, and based on how those assumptions played out and how the
conditions played out, that would dictate how the concrete curb and gutter
would be dealt with. At this point the City Attorney stated he has
discussed the storm sewer/drainage issue with the City Engineer but not
with the petitioner's engineer. He was not aware of what the City's plans
are and how this would play into a requirement for the City and the items
being discussed. Another option would be to have the plans for the storm
sewer/drainage issue brought back to the Commission/Council for review.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 95-15, Request for Conditional Use Permit/Planned
Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction of a Car-X Muffler,
Brake and Alignment Facility in a Mini-Mall Concept with Future Retail
Space Construction, David Lasky, Petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Submittal of revised lighting plan to show a maximum of one (1) foot
candle at property lines.
2. Landscaping/plantings to be coordinated with City Forester.
3. Implementation of City Engineer's recommendations on sanitary sewer
and water connections.
4. Consideration be given to the location of the west trash enclosure and
the adequacy of the screening provided for it.
5. Continuous concrete curbing to be provided throughout the site except
that bituminous be allowed on the north and east sides and around the
future retail area until drainage issues are resolved and retail expansion
occurs.
6. The west building facade material to be reconsidered to match the
existing building finish.
7. Execution of a CUP/Site Improvement/PUD Agreement and
performance bond to be submitted (amount to be determined by
Building Official and City Engineer).
8. Future east side retail expansion can proceed without Commission/
Council approval, subject to the following conditions:
A. Building to match/blend with existing buildings.
B. Building permit for expansion to be sought by property owner no
later than April 1, 1998.
C. All bituminous curbing to be replaced with concrete curbing prior
to occupancy of retail area.
New Hope Planning Commission - 10 - March 4, 1996
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried~
Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers
None
Underdahl, Damiani
Commissioner Oelkers stated that the petitioners have submitted a good
plan for this development.
Chairman Sonsin commended the petitioners on the new plan and
welcomed Car-X to New Hope. This planning case will proceed to the City
Council on March 11, 1996 and requested that the petitioners be in
attendance since the Council may have additional questions.
PC 95-31
Item 3.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Request for Sign
Variances/Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground
Signs that Exceed Sign Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709
42nd Avenue North, Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher,
Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner requested in writing that the
Commission table this request until the April meeting. Chairman Sonsin
asked for a motion to table Planning Case 95-31 until the April meeting.
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
table Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign Variances/Approval of
Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground Signs that Exceed Sign
Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709 42nd Avenue North,
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers
None
Underdahl, Damiani
Chairman Sonsin questioned if the signage on the building is in compliance
with code at this time. Mr. McDonald responded that the front wall signs
are in compliance and the side signs may need to be checked out by the
Building Official.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
The Design & Review Committee met in February with Lasky.
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in February to discuss
a couple items. The Council has decided that they do not want to change
the code regarding the flashing/moving signs, therefore, this issue has
been dropped. It is Chairman Sonsin's intent to follow the direction of the
Council and not spend time on items they do not want to pursue. The
pawn shop situation was discussed and staff and Codes & Stadards are
recommending a six-month moratorium imposed on this issue. There was
also discussion regarding a resolution implementing a new state law which
became effective in 1995. The law deals with minimum requirements for
processing requests related to zoning. In the future, petitioner's requests
for tabling will need to be in writing, and in some cases may require a
faster process by the Planning Commission, including more denials. The
City Attorney interjected that under this law tabling a request would not
stop the request, the petitioner would need to ask for and agree to an
New Hope Planning Commission - 11 - March 4, 1996
extension. Possibly the petitioner would need to ask for an unlimit&d
extension or the only recourse the Planning Commission would have is to
deny the request.
April planning cases should include the Public Works expansion, Hoyt
industrial development on the remainder of his property on 49th Avenue,
Autohaus sign issue and a public hearing on the 60-day zoning law. May
issues could include Mobil Mart on 36th Avenue and pawn shops.
Chairman Sonsin stated that staff is requesting of the Commission a
motion supporting the moratorium and requesting a resolution establishing
minimum requirements for zoning applications.
MOTION
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
establish a six-month moratorium on pawn shops.
Voting in favor: Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Voting against: None
Absent: Underdahl, Damiani
Motion carried.
Mr. McDonald requested a motion from the Planning Commission
recommending approval by the Council of the resolution stating that the
City of New Hope will comply with the new state law.
MOTION
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to
recommend approval of a Resolution Establishing Minimum Requirements
for Accepting Written Requests Relating to Zoning.
Voting in favor: Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Voting against: None
Absent: Underdahl, Damiani
Motion carried.
The City Attorney added that this resolution establishes what the City's
procedure will be for accepting applications and starting the clock, which
will then ultimately be codified in an ordinance when there is a Planning
Commission public hearing in April on the zoning code.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
There was no discussion regarding the miscellaneous issues.
NEW BUSINESS
The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
Commissioner Landy questioned an item in the Council minutes of February
12th relating to Councilmember Enck directing the Citizens Advisory
Commission to work with staff and the Planning Commission to prepare
a street lighting plan/ordinance. He asked for clarification on this item.
Mr. McDonald stated this is possibly something that Public Works has
begun investigating and he would look into it and report back to the
Commission.
ANNOUNCEMENT
ADJOURNMENT
New Hope Planning Commission
Chairman Sonsin stated that two new Commissioners will be joining the
Planning Commission in April.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:22
p.m.
Respectfully st~ni~ed,
Pamela Sylvest~r, Recording Secretary
- 12 - March 4, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 2, 1996
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.
OATH OF OFFICE
Mr. McDonald administered the Oath of Office to the new Planning
Commissioners, Steven Svendsen and William Keefe, and welcomed them
to the Planning Commission.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Keefe, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Damiani, Svendsen
Stulberg
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil,
Community Development Specialist, Steve Sondrall, City
Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant
CONSENT ITEMS
No Consent Items.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC96-07
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Requests for Planned
Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit Approval and Lot Frontage
Variance to Allow Construction of Two Office/Warehouse Buildings, 7300
49th Avenue North, Brad Hoyt/J-S Winnetka, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. Brixius stated that the site in question is located on 49th Avenue and
is adjacent to the Minnesota/Northfield Railroad and the City's Ice Arena.
This site is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. Land uses surrounding the property
include Light Industrial to the south, Industrial to the west, railroad tracks
to the north and north of the railroad is R-l, Single Family Residential, and
on the east/southeast of the railroad tracks is also R-1 Zoning including the
New Hope Ice Arena and single family residential located in the city of
Crystal.
Mr. Brixius explained that the request is for concept/development/final
stage approval for planned unit development/conditional use permit. This
is necessary with two principal structures on a single lot using a shared
access point and shared traffic circulation system. PUD standards require
200 feet of frontage and the proposal is for 117 feet of frontage on 49th
Avenue, therefore, a variance to this requirement is also being requested.
The proposal includes two large buildings, one 52,000 square feet in size
and one 44,800 square feet in size, with integrated design. The proposed
use is consistent with I-1 Zoning. The lot area is 10 acres, which exceeds
the I-1 District standards. The lot width of 150 feet, measured at the
front setback line, is in compliance. The City standards require that a
reasonable use of the land be available and further states that the hardship
be of a non-economic hardship unique to the property. The property has
a unique configuration with a triangular shape. The railroad angles down
to the frontage on 49th Avenue. The property is accessed by a common
drive shared with Navarre Corporation. Staff feels that the unique shape
and narrowness is a hardship subject to the property. The site is greatly
in excess of what the I-1 standard requires. Additional setback of 185
New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - April 2, 1996
feet is provided between the building and 49th Avenue. This setback
provides for a greater setback and site distance off the street and it has an
interrelationship with Navarre through the shared access. Under these
circumstances, staff feels that the deficiency in frontage warrants a
variance and does not inhibit or hinder the design elements of the site.
The required setbacks all conform with the I-1 District standards. It should
be noted that there is a setback requirement of 50 feet for all PUD's that
abut up to a R-1 Zoning District. The suggestion here is that the R-1
Zoning Districts to the east and north follow the centerline of the railroad
right-of-way. The railroad right-of-way is a semi-public land use and not
a direct abutment to any property with residential characteristics. The
proposed setback of 36 feet off the railroad right-of-way plus half the
right-of-way amounts to an 86-foot setback from the R-1 District of both
the east and north sides, and this is conforming. The building heights
comply at 21 feet and conforms with the I-1 District. The proposed
buildings have a total lot coverage of approximately 20 percent of the lot
area and also conforms with the PUD standards and the I-1 standards of
40 percent.
Mr. Brixius continued saying the off-street parking 'shown on the plans
includes 111 stalls and the requirement for this type of facility would be
90 stalls. There was some irregularity between the site plan and the site
survey as far as dimension and number of stalls. The site plan allows for
50 stalls and the survey dimensions allow for 49 stalls, therefore, this item
should be clarified on the site plan so there are consistencies between the
drawings. All parking dimensions conform with City standards. Handicap
parking has been provided. The applicant is in compliance with the
curbing, surfacing and striping requirements of the Code. There are a
number of loading berths provided at each of the buildings. A previous
revision eliminated loading areas at the extreme southern portion of
Building A and the eastern-most portion of Building B. However, after
reviewing the revised site plan, a 5§-foot semi-truck would still encroach
into the 24-foot drive aisle and there is not sufficient turning radius within
the curb area to accommodate proper truck movements. This still raises
issue with design characteristics of this building. It should be noted that
the revised site plan scales out at 31 feet instead of the indicated
dimension of 36 feet at the southeast corner of Building A. There are
some inconsistencies between the site plan and the survey on this issue
and this item should be corrected. The eastern-most loading area on
Building B also lacks sufficient maneuvering area to accommodate a 55-
foot semi-truck without interfering with traffic circulation and landscape
areas as proposed on the site plan. The issues regarding proper
maneuvering and the use of the loading areas must be addressed.
Mr. Brixius explained that property access will be provided by a 32-foot
shared driveway with Navarre. Site inspection reveals that Navarre has
utilized this area for off-street parking. For joint use this area has to be
reserved exclusively for ingress/egress. Notification to Navarre that this
is the intended use by the City is indicated and recommended by the City
Engineer. The 32-foot ingress/egress or common access is intended just
for traffic circulation access and movement of trucks, not to meet required
off-street parking standards.
Mr. Brixius reported that the site plan complies with the green area
requirement. The applicant has complied with the recommendations of
Design & Review by eliminating a large portion of bituminous at the rear
of the building and leaving it as a green area. It still will be used for snow
New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - April 2, 1996
storage. Currently the revised plans provide for 32.2 percent of the total
site for green area. The landscape plan that has been submitted is highly
deficient based on the recommendations of Design & Review. A number
of elements that were discussed at Design & Review have not been
adequately addressed. These include the screening along 49th Avenue
and the extension up along the southeast property line. With residential
land uses existing to the southeast, Design & Review felt it was important
to screen the parking/loading areas. Screening of this property up to the
front of the Ice Arena building is necessary to provide proper land use
transition between the industrial uses and the residential uses to the
southeast. The three plantings being proposed on the southeast and the
two plantings in the front along 49th Avenue are deficient and staff is
requesting more intensive landscape screening and landscape plantings for
these areas. The second element was that there should be some
continuity along the common access drive between the proposed
office/warehouse and Navarre. The existing plantings include spaced
conifer trees and some deciduous tree plantings. The proposal includes
some clustering of junipers in sparse locations and the removal of what
was previously shown as some deciduous trees. Staff is requesting that
as part of the PUD approval and consideration that the planting along the
east side of the common access should mirror the Navarre landscape
arrangement. The area along the residential property to the north should
be broken up with some landscape plantings. The applicant has provided
five Black Hills Spruce in this area, however this is a 280-foot expanse and
staff does not feel that five plantings is adequate to break up the building
arrangement and staff is requesting some additional attention to this area.
The City has received some resident concerns regarding the appearance of
the buildings and consideration should be given to additional plantings on
the eastern portion of the property. The plantings that are being provided
on the front of the building are Iow-standing shrubs. Staff is asking that
some type of landscape element be included that provides a vertical
amenity that breaks up the massing of the building and enhances the
entryways. The final element discussed was that a seeding plan be
provided that prevents erosion and holds the seed in place to insure that
the ground cover is established.
The snow storage would be provided at the rear of the building and is of
adequate size. There would be limited snow storage in the front of the
building and staff is requesting that snow be removed from this area. The
City Engineer reviewed the revised plans and has made a number of
comments regarding the site plan and grading and utilities. The shared
driveway should be limited to ingress/egress only with no parking. The
City should address this issue with Navarre. Another concern that the City
Engineer noted in his comments was that the Comprehensive Storm Sewer
Plan shows three ponds in this location and only one pond is provided for
on the Drainage/Utility Plan. To insure water quality the City should look
into potential future ponds north of the railroad tracks to provide water
quality treatment for water as it moves on to Twin Lake. There is an
existing 10-foot utility easement that runs along the east side of Building
A. The City Engineer has expressed concerns regarding the treatment of
the in-place storm sewer and the easement over the storm sewer. It is
being requested that this easement be expanded to 20 feet and this needs
to be shown on the plan. The plans should also show the footing design
and location for the easterly wall adjacent to the existing storm sewer in
case of the need for repair or maintenance of the storm sewer. The
existing wetlands should be encompassed into a protected easement. The
grading along the railroad tracks should be that it directs storm water from
New Hope Planning Commission
- 3 - April 2, 1996
south to north,
Mr. Brixius continued with the comments from the Fire Inspector. There
are a number of issues that need to be resolved as far as the storage and
type of storage within the building. Unless the building is automatically
sprinklered, two additional hydrants would be required. If high-pile storage
is being proposed in the buildings, fire access is required around the entire
building. Storage limitations are identified in the planning report. This has
not yet been addressed.
Mr. Brixius explained that the building materials would be precast concrete
wall panels with insulated metal overhead doors. The front is somewhat
plain and would be accented with some landscaping and an accent line
around the perimeter of the building. The signage plan has not been
submitted. The lighting plan was revised and the Building Official has
approved the revisions. All lighting used to illuminate street parking areas
would be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring
properties and adjacent rights-of-way.
The Planning Consultant noted that there are a number of issues pertaining
to the landscaping and the loading areas, as well as other issues previously
mentioned. Based on these plan deficiencies, staff feels comfortable with
approval of the concept plan, but would recommend withholding
development and final stage approval until final plans address all the
specific issues discussed and have been submitted for staff and Planning
Commission review.
Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioner to come to the podium. Mr. Brad
Hoyt, J-S Winnetka, came forward.
Commissioner Cassen asked the petitioner to address the concerns of the
Commission regarding the landscaping and the truck drive aisles and turn
around areas. Mr. Hoyt responded that the truck drive aisles for Building
A is a close call and that the most southern loading berth would still
function for a shorter truck. There would be no problem eliminating this
dock door, if needed. The two dock doors in question on Building B could
be eliminated as well. Another option would be to make these dock doors
specific for UPS and van delivery/pick-up as the turning radius required
would not be as wide. Aisc the dock height could be reduced from four
feet to two feet. Regarding the landscaping, Mr. Hoyt stated his concerns
are from an economic point of view, The building coverage on this site is
only 20 percent or one-half of the allowed intensity, which has a direct
economic impact on the project. There is twice as much land being used
for the square footage of the buildings. He is bounded by railroad tracks
and an Ice Arena and does not feel that the property is adjacent to
residential areas. Mr. Hoyt stated he would review the landscaping
suggested by staff and the economic impacts on the project. This project
should be treated fairly and he should not be asked to do what other
applicants are not asked to do. He stated he would tour other projects to
see what other developers have done in similar situations.
Mr. Hoyt addressed the Navarre parking issue by saying the staff report
accurately portrayed this issue. Parking was discussed at the Design &
Review meeting. The petitioner stated that they have a letter from the
Navarre stating that additional parking would not be required. Even though
the building had less parking than Code required, the tenant had assured
him that there would be no problem. This is not the case now. Mr. Hoyt
New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - April 2, 1996
no longer owns the Navarre building. There is an agreement with Navarre
stating there is no parking on the new site and they are prohibited from
parking on the site. He asked the Commission to take this issue into
account when considering Navarre's planning process for expansion.
Mr. Hoyt stated that concept approval only would be acceptable at this
meeting, with development/final stage approval at the following meeting.
He stated that the continuation and the resulting total time frame would
be longer than that allowed by state statute, in his opinion, and he does
not feel that the continuation does complies with the definition of a restart
under that statute. He would object to a restart.
Commissioner Cassen commented that at Design & Review it was
requested that the common drive aisle be mirrored. There is sufficient
landscaping there, however it is not done in the manner suggested.
Commissioner Cassen stated that the City wants to be a good neighbor,
however the petitioner needs to be a good neighbor to the residents in the
area and there is definitely a site view of the warehouse and even though
there is going to be the Ice Arena there, you can still see down the railroad
tracks. It is important that a few more trees be added to the eastern area
along the railroad, which would result in one Blue Spruce for about every
60 feet. The Design & Review also requested that seeding be done on the
northeastern side of the property, which would be a savings over the
bituminous that was originally in the plan. Commissioner Cassen
suggested that consideration be given to adding some trees to this green
area for some diversity. Care will need to be given to the placement of the
trees as this will also be used for snow storage. The request by City
residents on the east side of the Building B should be considered as there
are no plantings shown on the plans for this area. Mr. Hoyt stated that if
there is a code or ordinance that provides for that, he would be
responsive, however the resident's concerns and his may not always be
the same. It seems that when there are concerns such as these between
residents and developers, the concerns are solved with the developer's
money. He will examine the Ice Arena landscaping plans to see what
plantings will be incorporated onto that property. This site is already a
vast improvement over what the property was like when he purchased it
ten years ago. There is over 250 feet from the building wall to the end of
the property line on the east, which should be enough of a buffer.
Mr. Hoyt addressed the fire protection issue next. The Fire Marshall's
report stated that if the building is to be used for high-piled storage it
requires a fire road around the entire building. This is inconsistent to any
policy the City has applied. He would like to discuss this with the Fire
Marshall to see if they can come to a mutual understanding on this issue.
The result of this meeting might be that the building height would be
lowered.
Mr. Hoyt stated that he will be looking at an aerial photo of his property
and the Ice Arena property to see the number of' existing trees on the
property and along the railroad. There is a woods on some of this property
and it can then be determined if any of those trees would be disturbed
during construction. Commissioner Cassen suggested that the existing
trees be added to the landscaping plan. Chairman Sonsin added that when
Mr. Hoyt takes his tour of other developments, he will find that over the
years the Planning Commission has requested a lot of landscaping with all
of the projects. Staff could suggest some of the more recent
developments if necessary.
New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - April 2, 1996
Mr. Hoyt stated that over the years there has been some
misunderstandings concerning specific points. He is pleased to see the
specifics concerning the Fire Marshall's concerns although he does not
agree. He will have his consultants work with the Fire Marshall in the next
couple weeks, and will address his concerns to the Commission at the next
meeting. They are hopeful that after going through the planning process
and City Council to have a fire protection plan agreeable to all parties so
there are no problems during the permit process, construction or
occupancy.
Commissioner Oelkers commented that his main concern is landscaping
along the southeast area by the railroad. Additional evergreens in this area
for screening would be his recommendation. The common drive aisle
should be mirrored with Navarre. He felt that the five spruce trees on the
north side of the property, as shown, would be enough screening in five
or six years.
Mr. Hoyt discussed the parking problems with Navarre. Navarre's staff is
also parking on the Jacobwith property, which is not improved for parking,
and in his opinion, they are parking illegally as that site. His property is
posted for no parking, but this has not been enforced by the police. He
has checked into towing companies but they require special bonding, etc.
so if a car is towed, they will get paid.
Mr. Brixius directed a comment to Mr. Hoyt that the fire lane parking was
posted on one side of the drive aisle but not on the east side. Possibly no
parking signs need to be posted on both sides of the drive aisle after which
it would be enforceable. Mr. Hoyt explained that his property was posted
for no parking. Mr. Brixius stated that there were no signs in place when
he drove through the property on his way to this meeting. Mr. Hoyt
responded that signs have disappeared from his property in the past. Mr.
Brixius continued saying that since this is a fire lane to post it uniformly on
both sides and the parking would be enforced. There are probably some
code enforcement elements that can be looked into. As far as landscape
planning, there is a provision that addresses a PUD and an I-1 District
which are more restrictive than other I-2 Districts, therefore what is being
suggested for landscaping is not unique and unusual. At the Design &
Review meeting, the suggestion for the green aisle at the rear of the
property is actually a cost savings from a grading and landscaping
standpoint.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl,
to approve Planning Case 96-07, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development/Conditional use Permit Approval and Lot Frontage Variance
to Allow Construction of Two Office/Warehouse Buildings, 7300 49th
Avenue North, Brad Hoyt/J-S Winnetka, Inc,, Petitioner, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The petitioner submit revised plans and documents for development/
final stage approval that addresses the following issues:
A. Consistency in the site plan and survey plan indicating the total
number of parking spaces.
B. The loading space maneuvering changes be incorporated into the
site plan as recommended in the report.
C. A joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress, and
maintenance of shared drives submitted and reviewed by the City
Attorney.
New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - April 2, 1996
D. The landscape plan be revised to incorporate the recommendations
of additional screening and landscaping:
1. Additional and landscaping required along the south and
southeast property lines.
2. Additional screening and landscaping required in the parking lot
island to the west of office warehouse "A" to mirror the
landscape provided on the Navarre property.
3. Additional screening required to the north and east of
warehouse "B".
4. A seeding plan be incorporated into the landscape plan that
specifies seeding type and amount, ground preparation, dates
of seeding, mulch type and erosion control areas.
5. Landscaping at the front of the Building A should consist of
plant type that provide some vertical amenity that breaks up
the building massing and enhances the entrances.
E. Comprehensive Sign Plan be submitted that shows all site signage
will comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance.
F. Existing 10-foot wide easement near east wall of southerly building
for 30 inch storm sewer be widened 10 feet to include a total 20-
foot wide easement.
G. Footing design for easterly wall adjacent to existing 30 inch storm
sewer be designed to allow a 1:1 side slope in the event the
existing storm sewer is open cut and repaired.
H. Existing wetlands be delineated and protected by an easement in
accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act.
I. The grading plan shall insure all drainage within the westerly right-
of-way of the C.P. Rail System is conveyed from the south to the
north.
J. The sanitary sewer serving the northerly building shall include
insulation in areas where cover is less than 4-5 feet. It is assumed
the sanitary sewer and water main serving Lot 2 will be private.
K. Recommendations of Fire Inspector to be incorporated into plans.
L. Petitioner execute a PUD Development Agreement with the City.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Landy, Underdahl,
Damiani, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Stulberg
Motion carried.
Sonsin,
Cassen, Oelkers,
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on April 8, 1996 and
requested that the petitioners be in attendance since the Council may have
additional questions.
Mr. McDonald questioned whether Mr. Hoyt should appear before the
Design & Review Committee in May with revised plans and Commissioner
Cassen responded that this would be a good idea. Commissioner Oelkers
asked if staff can be sure that the Fire Marshall meets with the petitioner
to resolve those issues. The Commission also requested staff should try
to resolve the parking problems with Navarre. Mr. McDonald informed the
Commission that according to the City Attorney the City is not in violation
of the timeline. The ordinance to be discussed later states that approval
has to be given within the first 60 days, but within the first 60 days the
City can give the petitioner notification of a 60-day extension, which will
be done before the 60 days expires, with the Council approval.
PC 96-05
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Request for Site and
New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - April 2, 1996
Item 3.2
Building Plan Review/Approval for Building Addition, 5500 International
Parkway, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated the City is requesting site and building plan review/
approval for a building addition. Staff is proposing to construct a 4,500
square foot building addition on the north and west sides of the existing
32,600 square foot Public Works facility. The project also involves
remodeling 4,200 square feet. With the addition, the total building size
will be 37,100 square feet. Excerpts from the Facility Assessment and
Building Program have been included in the planning report. The purpose
of the project is to make the building more functional, correct code
deficiencies and to bring the building into compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The remodeling includes office addition and lunch
room remodeling and relocation of employee locker facilities. This building
was constructed in 1980/81. In 1992 the City did a joint land purchase
with Custom Mold, which is located south of the Public Works site. There
was a vacant parcel between the two sites. A lot split was completed to
accommodate Custom Mold's expansion and the City acquired the north
half of that parcel which was known as Outlot A, Custom Mold Addition.
In 1993, the Planning Commission and Council gave approval to construct
a salt storage facility on the east side of the building and to develop the
newly acquired property on the south to accommodate the storage of
excavated materials. That project, which included additional landscaping,
concrete curb and gutter and new fencing, was completed in 1994.
Mr. McDonald noted that the facility is located in an I-1 Zoning District and
is surrounded by I-1 properties. Government and public utility buildings
and structures are permitted uses in the I-1 Zoning District. City Code
does not require a public hearing for site and building plan review,
therefore notices were not sent out to residents. If approved, staff would
be sending out project bulletins to the neighborhood to inform them about
what is taking place.
Mr. McDonald stated that the I-1 District does have special requirements
with the main requirements being lot coverage of not more than 40
percent, minimum lot area requirement of one acre, and green area not less
than 20 percent. The proposed building covers 18 percent of total area
and the green area is 28 percent of the lot. The setback requirements
comply with code with the front yard setback on International Parkway at
50 feet and the side yard setback to the north at 20 feet. The actual
setback on the front is 50 feet and the closest setback on the north side
is 52 feet and a 160-foot setback in the rear yard.
Mr. McDonald informed the Commission that the City Department Heads
reviewed the plans, and the Design & Review Committee met with the
petitioner on March 14 and discussed building setbacks, landscaping,
building materials for the new addition, exterior improvements to the
existing building, parking requirements, grading improvements, public and
employee entrances, exterior lighting, building identification signage and
rooftop equipment. Revised plans were submitted as a result of that
meeting. The following are some of the details included on the revised
plans. The Zoning Code requires 43 stalls and 50 stalls are being
provided. Eight stalls are proposed to be added on the north side. The
City has indicated that the additional parking is needed for seasonal
employees that are hired. Visitor parking signs will be installed at the front
of the new stalls. Two handicap stalls will be added on the south side and
signed with the appropriate signage. The expanded parking area will be
New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - April 2, 1996
bituminous with concrete curb and gutter. The existing fence and gate will
be relocated at the east end of the north parking area to provide additional
parking.
Mr. McDonald pointed out the trash dumpster would be located behind the
fence enclosure. Snow storage would be along the north property line.
Patio and walkway would be around the new addition. Landscaping was
installed in 1994, and with the new addition, a new landscaping plan has
been provided with 18 additional plantings being installed including
Colorado Spruce, Black Hills Spruce, Red Splendor Crab Apple, and
Marshall's Seedless Ash.
Mr. McDonald continued by explaining this plan moves the public entrance
from the north side of the building to the west side of the building so it
faces International Parkway and the employee entrance would remain on
the north side of the building. The new addition would have a standing
seam blue metal prefinished roof over the north and west employee
entrance to match other City buildings. The roof would have signage
stating New Hope Public Works and would be with 15" aluminum letters.
The lower portion of the addition would be integrally colored dark grey
rockface concrete block and the upper part would be light grey scored
concrete block with blue accents, blue metal cap finishing and blue tile
accents in front of the building. The exterior lighting on the north
elevation would have building mounted parking lot lights, the south
elevation would have wall mounted patio lights and the west elevation
would have wall mounted entry lights. The rooftop units are shown on the
plans to be painted and screened, therefore that condition in the planning
report can be eliminated as a condition of approval.
Ms. Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, and Mr. Paul Gannon,
Architect with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates came to the
podium to answer questions of the Commissioners.
Mr. Gannon explained the landscaping plan in further detail. Right now
there is extensive landscaping in front of the existing building including
mature ash trees. Since the building addition is primarily to the west,
three of the ash trees will be eliminated and would be replaced with some
deciduous and coniferous trees. There is some Iow-level plant materials
immediately in front of the building which would be relocated on the south
side of the building. There are some trees in the far northwest corner of
the property where the expanded parking is proposed that will be removed
and replaced with seedless ash trees and Colorado Blue Spruce along the
north property line, as well as, some Red Splendor Crab trees. There are
some Colorado Blue Spruce along the building setback line and some
accent trees off the lunchroom area. Any landscape material that is
removed would be replaced and along with adding 10-15 additional plant
materials.
Mr. Gannon next explained that the Design & Review Committee
suggested screening existing rooftop units and the proposal is to paint
them in a light grey or light blue color so as not to accent them and
hopefully this would suffice for existing units. Any new rooftop units
would be integrated into the architectural scheme. No rooftop units are
being proposed as they would be internalized. A request was made to
sandblast the existing masonry as opposed to just painting it. The initial
cost returns on this is approximately $12,000 and in addition the building
would probably need to be resealed. The projected cost of painting the
New Hope Planning Commission - 9 - April 2, 1996
building would be about $7,000 - $8,000.
Commissioner Oelkers reported that he noticed some broken fencing in the
rear yard after driving past the site. He also wondered whether the
existing landscaping timbers in the corner in front of the building could be
restained or replaced since they are showing a lot of wear. Mr. Gannon
stated this area would be considered in the whole landscaping scheme and
will probably be replaced. Commissioner Cassen added that the plantings
in this area also need to be replaced.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned the color scheme. Ms. Clancy
responded that upon discussions with the Public Works staff, Department
Heads and City Manager, the blue/grey color scheme would be pursued
rather than a dramatic change with the warmer colors. Ms. Clancy added
that it was decided that the color scheme should stay with the cool colors.
There is a building along Highway 169 in Plymouth with a similar color
scheme that is very attractive. Mr. Gannon stated that the architectural
character of the building in some respects presents an image that City
buildings are beginning to convey a signature entrance of a standing seam
metal roof. Most of the new materials that would be added would be
maintenance free materials, such as an integrally colored rockface block.
Glazed tile accent features would be integrated into the masonry to provide
character and variety. Most of the addition is on the front of the building,
and the image of the Public Works building would be greatly enhanced.
Commission Svendsen questioned whether there is any protection from
falling snow/rain over the employee entrance. The plan seems to show
some sort of protection at the main entrance. He questioned whether
there could be some sort of diverter included. Mr. Gannon stated that
some sort of gutter could be designed for that location. The roof is
projected out to provide a little cover over the doors at the main entry and
the employee entry.
Commissioner Landy asked for clarification on the estimated cost for the
project. Mr. Gannon stated that the projected cost is $531,000. In
addition, there is the painting of the exterior of the existing building which
is an additional $8,000. Ms. Clancy stated that the funding for the project
is coming from a combination of City funding sources that fund the
operations of Public Works, which include the Capital Improvement
Programs, the Central Garage Account, the Road and Bridge Account, and
any ADA requirements are being funded through Hennepin County. The
funding from Hennepin County is still in process.
Commissioner Cassen commented that the petitioner has done a great job
and came to Design & Review very well prepared.
Commissioner Oelkers had a concern regarding with the painting of the
existing building. He felt that spending the additional monies to sandblast
and seal the building would be a good idea.
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-05, Request for Site and Building Plan
Review/Approval for Building Addition, 5500 International Parkway, City
of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following condition:
1. Architect to review employee entrance roof for rain/snow protection
measures.
New Hope Planning Commission - 10 - April 2, 1996
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Damiani, Svendsen
None
Stulberg
This planning case will come before the City Council on April 8, 1996.
PC96-01
Item 3.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3 Consideration of An
Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §4.202 Regulating the Decisional
Process for Special Zoning Requests, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, stated this is the consideration of the
ordinance to deal with the new law that applies to the 60-day deadline for
zoning applications. Responding to a statement made earlier by an
applicant for a zoning request, the applicant is correct in that the new law
does provide for 60 days to act on a zoning request and that 60 days
starts to run from the date of the submission of the application. The
applicant failed to understand that the law also allows for an automatic 60-
day extension if it is requested by the City within the first 60-day period,
the extension is requested in writing and there is an indication in the
writing as to why the extension is needed. In the case of the Hoyt
application, the 60-day approval began on March 8 when the application
was submitted, therefore the application needs to be acted upon before
May 7. If the City does not or cannot act on the application within this 60
days, under the new statute the City can write a letter to the applicant
indicating that the City is taking the extension and that way the 60 days
is automatically extended to 120 days. This ordinance is codifying the
state statute. Included in the planning packet are a number of forms and
procedural requirements that staff would be implementing pursuant to the
adoption of this ordinance upon Planning Commission and City Council
approval. The application would be automatically extended to 120 days,
however it is the City Attorney's opinion that written notice of the
extension be mailed to the applicant before the 60-day expiration.
Mr. Sondrall explained that this ordinance was discussed several times by
the Codes & Standards Committee. The changes that were made since
the last Codes & Standards meeting, were to incorporate into the
ordinance a clarification concerning a notification for submission of the
application. The new law indicates that the approval process does not
start to run until the City accepts an application. That approval process
can be delayed if within 10 business days after the submission, the City
notifies the owner of an application that the application is incomplete. The
ordinance clearly states what is meant by 10 business days, which is a
term under the law that excludes Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.
The ordinance has been amended to specifically indicate this, therefore the
ordinance indicates how business days and calendar days are defined.
Mr. Sondrall stated that a minor change was made to indicate that the 60-
day extension that would make the total deadline 120 days is not
something that the applicant has any choice about or any option to agree
to. The word approved was eliminated and replaced with accept. The
applicant is required to sign the application and the language is included
on the application stating that there will be an automatic 60-day extension
of the deadline process to 120 days and that the applicant would be
accepting that. The applicant should be notified in writing of this
extension before the 60-day deadline expires if needed. Hopefully most
New Hope Planning Commission
- 11 - April 2, 1996
MOTION
Item 3.3
applications would be processed within the first 60 days. This new law
may not be beneficial to property owners and developers as the procedures
would become more rigid and inflexible.
Mr. Sondrall stated that the ordinance incorporates the state statute
dealing with this and it is a good idea to codify this in the City's code and
it is the recommendation of staff that the ordinance be approved.
Chairman Sonsin questioned if an application log would be used with every
planning case and this was confirmed. Mr. Sondrall noted that if the City
fails to meet the' deadline, the result could be approval of an undesirable
plan. Chairman Sonsin clarified that there could be more denials as a
result. Mr. Sondrall stated that if the City does not have the appropriate
information for an application, the only option would be denial.
Commissioner Underdahl questioned whether there might be a time limit
for re-application. Mr. Sondrall responded that he thought code imposes
a time limit of six months. Mr. Brixius interjected that a rezoning
application has a time limit of six months for the same application.
Chairman Sonsin stated that more pressure would be put on developers to
come the City with more complete plans. Mr. Son(frail noted that this is
not necessarily a helpful law for developers as it puts the Planning
Commission and Council in a position to deny if an agreement cannot be
reached and submission of material is not complete. Chairman Sonsin
noted that last month he stated at the beginning of the Lasky PUD that it
was a new application and not a continuation of the previous application.
Commissioner Underdahl questioned whether just the deposit in the U.S.
Mail was appropriate or if a postmark was more appropriate. Mr. Sondrall
stated this item would always be a proof problem and the postmark would
be something that would be in the control of the applicant. Staff would
need to document in the process when a letter for extension is mailed.
One option would be to prepare an Affidavit of Mailing and include in this
document what document is mailed and the date it is deposited in the U.S.
Mail. Another option would be to use Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested where a green card is returned from the Post Office and there
are some petitioners where this option would be recommended. He
recommended that an Affidavit would be sufficient stating what was
mailed and who mailed the documents. The City uses metered mail.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned if any consideration should be given
to electronic mail. Mr. Sondrall stated that this would be an option but the
easiest way would be by postal mail. By using the U.S. Mail, the City
should not have to worry whether the applicant received the fax or the
entire fax.
Commissioner Damiani questioned whether the fee would be increased if
an applicant would be wasting a lot of time. Mr. Sondrall responded that
issue is not dealt with in this ordinance. Fees cannot be revenue
producing only reimbursing the City's costs. Upon re-application there
would be additional fees/deposits collected. Mr. McDonald reported that
all planning consultant, legal and engineering fees are passed on to the
applicants on a quarterly basis.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to
approve Planning Case 96-01, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending
New Hope Code §4.202 Regulating the Decisional Process for Special
Zoning Requests, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
New Hope Planning Commission
- 12 - April 2, 1996
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Damiani, Svendsen
None
Stulberg
PC95-31
Item 3.4
Chairman Sonsin stated that Autohaus was not on the agenda, but that
case was tabled for one month in March and a motion was needed to
again table Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign Variances/Approval of
Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground Signs that Exceed Sign
Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709 42nd Avenue North,
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to
table Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign Variances/Approval of
Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground Signs that Exceed Sign
Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709 42nd Avenue North,
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Underdahl, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Damiani, Svendsen
None
Stulberg
Chairman Sonsin questioned if Autohaus would be back in May or whether
the planning case would be withdrawn. Mr. McDonald stated he would
check into it.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Committee met in
March with Brad Hoyt and City staff to review the Public Works
expansion. She questioned what would be coming up next month. Mr.
McDonald stated that Mobil Mart/Randy Rau would be submitting an
application for a car wash. The next Design & Review meeting is on April
18 at 8:00 a.m. There may be possible expansions at the Valspar building
and Ambassador Nursing Home.
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in March to finish
work on the 60-day ordinance. They also began discussion of some issues
on PUD procedure with small shopping centers and pawn shops. The
Committee will begin meeting on a fixed schedule. In the ordinance
discussed at this meeting, there was a provision for minor variances which
was established five or six years ago whereby these variances would be
dispensed without a formal hearing. The City Attorney feels that this may
not be legal, therefore, the Codes & Standards Committee will be looking
into this issue. If at all possible, it would be beneficial to all to not have
to bring these minor variances before the Commission and Council. Mr.
Sondrall stated that there is a provision for minor variances however a
procedure was never implemented. Mr. Brixius stated that the city of
Plymouth is going through a zoning ordinance update and they have
incorporated a minor variance, both by definition and procedure, in theirs.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
There was no discussion regarding the miscellaneous issues.
NEW BUSINESS
The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
New Hope Planning Commission
- 13 - April 2, 1996
ANNOUNCEMENT
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Oelkers questioned how big the house would be that is
proposed to be built on the property at 6067 West Broadway and Mr.
McDonald expalined tha thte foundation would be expanded. Sarah
Bellefuil has the building plans if he or any other Commissioners are
interested.
Chairman Sonsin informed the new Commissioners about the Committees
and that they could attend a Codes & Standards Committee meeting and
a Design & Review Committee meeting for a couple months before
deciding where they would like to serve. Both Commissioners have
attended the first of two training sessions.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:35
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
New Hope Planning Commission - 14 - April 2, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
May 7, 1996
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
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:
Keefe, Stulberg, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen,
Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
Landy
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil,
Community Development Specialist
CONSENT ITEMS
No Consent Items.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC96-07
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for
Development/Final Stage Approval for An Industrial Planned Unit
Development/Conditional Use Permit Approval and Lot Frontage Variance
to Allow Construction of Two Office/Warehouse Buildings, 7300 49th
Avenue North, Brad Hoyt/J-S Winnetka, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner is requesting development/final
stage approval for an industrial PUD to allow two office/warehouse
buildings on the property on 49th Avenue. At the April 2 Planning
Commission meeting, the Commission approved the concept stage for this
development and the City Council approved the concept stage on April 8.
The Commission and Council approved the concept stage subject to
several conditions which were listed in the planning case report and which
were to be addressed on revised plans. Hoyt Development prepared a
revised site plan, landscape plan and grading/drainage/utility plan in
response to those conditions, and is requesting development/final stage
approval.
Mr. McDonald reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the
petitioner on April 18 and had a detailed discussion regarding all the
conditions of approval. Revised plans were submitted as a result of that
meeting. The Planner and City Engineer submitted reports after reviewing
the revised plans and their comments have been incorporated into the
planning report. The first item concerned off-street parking spaces. One
condition was that the site plan be revised to be consistent with the
survey boundaries and this has been completed. The site plan and survey
indicate a total of 113 off-street parking spaces, which meets the City's
minimum parking requirement. The result of this is additional width in the
loading area. The second item regarded loading berths. There were
problems with the number and size of loading berths, both on the south
side of Building A and the east side of Building B. The petitioner eliminated
the berths which did not have adequate turning radius for trucks and the
driveway connection between the loading berths and the south parking lot
has been eliminated. All of the proposed loading spaces now provide
adequate turning areas for maneuvering of a 55-foot semi-truck without
interfering with circulation patterns and landscaped areas.
New Hope Planning Commission - I - May 7, 1996
Mr. McDonald continued saying that there were several items regarding
the landscaping that needed to be addressed. Additional landscaping was
required along the south and southeast property lines. A new hedge is
proposed to be planted along the southeast property line that would
provide 4-6 foot maximum height. The Planner recommended plantings
that would provide 7-8 foot height. This is an issue the Commission
should discuss. Additional landscaping has been provided on the south
part of the parking lot. The plantings shown along the south property line
upon entering the parking lot have exceeded the recommendations. The
Planner recommended some changes in this area and the Commission
should clarify the plantings for this area. The second item on the
landscaping plan regarded additional landscaping in the parking lot island
to the west of Building A to mirror the landscaping provided on the Navarre
property. The revised landscape plan included plantings that mirror the
landscaping on the Navarre property parking island. The third item
included additional screening to the north and east of warehouse "B". At
the Design & Review meeting the discussion centered on moving trees
from the bottom to the top of the berm away from the wetland. The
Committee recommended that a mixture of trees, Black Hills Spruce and
deciduous, be planted along the north and east side of the building. The
applicant has revised the plan to include Black Hills Spruce and maples.
The Planner noted the number of trees on the north side of the warehouse
had been reduced on the revised plan. The plan shows the trees wrapping
around the corner of the building and the Commission will need to decide
if the landscaping is adequate on that corner of the property. The seeding
plan has been incorporated into the landscape plan, as requested, and
specifies the seeding type and amount, ground preparation, dates of
seeding, mulch type and erosion control areas. This was incorporated into
the plan using MnDOT construction specifications. The last item regarding
landscaping was that the landscaping in front of Building A should consist
of a plant type that provided some vertical amenity that breaks up the
building massing and enhances the entrances. The juniper and arborvitae
that were originally proposed in front of Building A have been removed
from the plan and replaced with Spring Snow Crab. The Planner stated in
his report that this does provide the vertical element requested.
Mr. McDonald pointed out that there were three recommendations
regarding the grading/drainage plan. The first recommendation was that
the wetlands must be delineated and that a protective easement be placed
over them. The wetlands have been delineated on the plans, however the
protective easement has not yet been provided. The City Engineer also
addressed some concerns along the westerly right-of-way of the C.P. Rail.
No changes in the plans have been made and the Commission may want
to address this issue with the petitioner. There was a lO-foot wide utility
easement near the east wall of Building A as there is a 30-inch storm
sewer that runs through that area. The Commission requested that a 20-
foot wide easement be included on the plan, as requested by the City
Engineer, and the revised utility plan shows that the easement has been
widened to 20 feet. There was also a request that the building footing
plan for Building A be changed to allow a 1:1 side slope in the event that
the storm sewer would have to be opened up and this has not been
provided on the footing plan to date.
Mr. McDonald continued with the condition regarding signage. The
applicant was to submit a Comprehensive Sign Plan for all outside signage.
The petitioner has indicated the location of a masonry monument sign
located at the shared driveway entrance and is shown on the landscape
New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - May 7, 1996
plan. The sign would be 20' long x. 4' high or 80 square feet and does
meet City Code requirements. If more signs will be on the building, staff
will need more details.
Mr. McDonald stated that there was no information on the plans if the
concerns of the Fire Inspector had been addressed or whether the building
height had been reduced. The site plan does not show an access road.
The Commission should discuss this matter with the petitioner.
Mr. McDonald commented that the revised plans do address about half of
the issues that were requested previously. The Commission will need to
determine how important the remaining items are. A couple of the items
are documents that need to be submitted, such as the maintenance
agreement for ingress/egress and the protective easement for wetlands.
The Commission should determine what needs to be accomplished with
the landscaping plan and the sign plan and whether what has been
submitted is adequate. A couple minor issues to discuss would be the
footing design, which could be easily shown on the plan, and the grading
issues along the C.P. Rail. The issues with the Fire Inspector should be
resolved. Staff recommends that, if approved, it be subject to the
conditions in the report.
Mr. Brad Hoyt came to the podium to answer questions of the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Cassen first addressed some of the landscaping
recommendations and questioned why they were not implemented in the
revised plans. Mr. Hoyt replied that they did adopt most of the
recommendations and stated he did not understand they were
requirements. Within the constraints of the project's economic feasibility,
the petitioner stated they did provide a great deal of landscaping on the
project. They believe the amount of landscaping provided is sufficient.
Hoyt stated that the specific request for additional landscaping beyond
what is provided is not an obstacle and they would comply with the
Planner's recommendations in the report. Commissioner Cassen
complimented the petitioner on the proposed landscaping for the north and
east side of warehouse "B" and stated she felt no additional landscaping
or any change of the proposed landscaping was needed in this area.
Commissioner Cassen questioned what the Spring Snow Crab looks like
and was told there are white blossoms on it during the summer.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that it appears there will be very little color
around the building during the winter. Commissioner Cassen asked the
petitioners if they could incorporate some coniferous and deciduous trees
so there would be some green in winter. The petitioner agreed to combine
the Spring Snow Crab with arborvitae in the front of Building A.
Commissioner Cassen asked the petitioner if it would be agreeable to plant
the Dwarf Amur Maple which grows 7-8 feet instead of the Dwarf
Ninebark and the petitioner agreed. Mr. Hoyt questioned the issue of the
earth mound in the rear green area as recommended by the Planner in his
report dated May 1. Commissioner Cassen stated that this referred to the
mound of dirt at the back and to the east of warehouse "B". Mr.
McDonald responded that this was not included in the recommendations
because it was staff's understanding that it would be spread out during
the construction and grading process. Mr. Hoyt pointed out that the dirt
would not be removed from the property, but as shown on the grading
plan, it would be spread out. Mr. Hoyt explained that the mound of dirt
would be used to change the elevation of the building.
New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - May 7, 1996
Commissioner Cassen questioned the footing design on the east wall of
Building A and Mr. Hoyt replied that this was an oversight and would be
corrected on the plans. The structural engineer would be taking care of
this when the structural design is completed for the building.
Commissioner Cassen questioned if there is a joint maintenance agreement
with Navarre and was told that there is an agreement and it has been
recorded. The petitioner will provide a copy to City staff. Mr. Hoyt stated
that the wetlands easement will be extended. Regarding the grading issue
near the C.P. Rail, Hoyt stated that the water drains from south to north
and they are not doing anything to change the drainage pattern. He stated
objection if he would be required to change or alter the drainage for
neighboring properties. Mr. McDonald interjected that the City Engineer
wants to insure that the water will still travel from south to north.
Commissioner Cassen noted that the final grade will be subject to review
by the City Engineer.
Commissioner Cassen expressed concern about the unresolved issues with
the Fire Inspector. Mr. Hoyt explained that the information cannot be
provided until they know who the tenant would be and what they would
be using the building for. The petitioner stated he takes exception to the
fire access road and the application of codes and is not sure how to deal
with this issue. He stated he may need to discuss this with City Council.
The Fire Code is different than the Building Code. The Fire Code coincides
with the product being stored in the building or the building use and then
determines exactly what type of system to use. Instead of looking at the
code which provides for "or" and instead say "and", you can make the
whole system not work properly. That situation exists on at least one
building they have constructed. The petitioner stated that he will not
know what type of fire system to use in the buildings until he knows the
tenant and the use/merchandise stored in the building. Commissioner
Cassen wanted to know if there has been any comments from the Fire
Marshall regarding the deletion of the road around Building A. The concern
on Building B was for tall storage and being able to get around the building
which is a requirement by the Fire Marshall. Mr. Hoyt remarked that the
road is an elective in the Fire Code, which makes a provision for when
topographical or geographic constraints make it impossible to install the
fire access lane that the Fire Marshall may waive that requirement. The
building next door (Navarre) has a road on only two sides of the building
and is considered a Class 5 Flammable, which is the most combustible
there is. This requirement has not been applied on all buildings in New
Hope. Mr. Hoyt stated that the buildings may be constructed in phases
and have Building A built first and construct Building B after it is leased.
Commissioner Cassen asked staff if a condition could be added that would
include a yearly review of materials by the Fire Inspector and staff
responded in the affirmative. Chairman Sonsin inquired how long the lease
might be with the tenants of the buildings. Mr. Hoyt responded that he
would lease for a five-year minimum at this location. Most companies do
not lease for more than ten years. Chairman Sonsin informed the
petitioner that the Commission is looking at the future and what type of
tenant might be in the building in 10-15 years and whether the
requirements of the Fire Code are in place. A sprinkling plan should be
provided for the Fire Marshall; the hydrants are fine. The Commission and
Council might request at least the road and sprinkler for the buildings until
a more definite plan is submitted. Mr. Hoyt feels this is not right as it is
the Fire Marshall's job to go out and inspect buildings, and if the use of the
building has changed, the lease would be changed according to that tenant
and an inspection process would take place. The Fire Marshall could then
New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - May 7, 1996
force the new .occupant to install systems appropriate for their use. Mr.
Hoyt feels that since the fire access road has not been enforced for other
buildings in the City he is being discriminated against by being forced to
install the road.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned why the parking lot connection was
eliminated from in front of Building A, Mr. Hoyt replied that the road was
deleted because of the requests to remove dock doors based on the traffic
traveling around the building. They will be using the 1 §0-foot rule, which
means the Fire Department can get to any portion of the building with
150-feet of hose. In this case a fire truck can come up to both sides and
get all the way around the building and does not hamper the access in
terms of fire. The grade would still be the same so if someone needed to
drive over the grass they could. In some cases the developer has installed
a turf block below the grass which supports a vehicle's weight, and they
would be willing to install a turf block by Building A if this would be
requested. The goal was to eliminate the concerns about traffic
maneuvering that was causing the removal of the dock doors. Removing
the road does not inhibit the access to the building.
Commissioner Cassen inquired about the signage. It was indicated in the
report that the sign would be 20' x 4' or 80 square feet. If there is going
to be any additional signage, details need to be provided, Mr. Hoyt
responded that they do not have any other information regarding signage.
The 80 square foot sign mirrors the signage for the Navarre building. If the
building is multi-tenant, there will be signage but it is typically limited to
doors or ground mounted pylons rather than putting signs on the building
walls. Commissioner Cassen reminded the petitioner that the sign plan
would need to be submitted for approval.
Commissioner Underdahl questioned what fire protection plan would be
used. Mr. Hoyt replied that the buildings would be sprinkled and two fire
hydrants are provided. Chairman Sonsin asked if the petitioner had already
met with the Fire Marshall. Mr. McDonald remarked that one of Mr.
Hoyt's associates did meet with the Fire Inspector. Chairman Sonsin
stated that there is confusion in the reports as to what is required and
what is being provided.
Commissioner Keefe asked if a condition can be applied regarding the high-
pile storage and remove it later if it is not required. Chairman Sonsin
replied that the fire protection plan needs to be acceptable to the Fire
Inspector based on what would be in the building. The Planning
Commission should not require a condition like that as it would detract
from the potential use of the warehouse,
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
approve Planning Case 96-07, Request for Development/Final Stage
Approval for An Industrial Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use
Permit Approval and Lot Frontage Variance to Allow Construction of Two
Office/Warehouse Buildings, 7300 49th Avenue North, Brad Hoyt/J-S
Winnetka, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner submit revised plans and documents that addresses the
following issues:
A. A joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress, and
maintenance of shared drives be submitted and reviewed by the
City Attorney.
New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - May 7, 1996
B. The landscaping plan be revised along the south and southeast
property lines and west side of Building A, per the
recommendations in the Planner's report.
C. Comprehensive Sign Plan be submitted that shows all site signage
will comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance,
as outlined in the Planner's report.
D. Footing design for easterly wall adjacent to existing 30-inch storm
sewer be designed to allow a 1:1 side slope in the event the
existing storm sewer is open, cut and repaired.
E. Existing wetlands be protected by an easement in accordance with
the Wetland Conservation Act.
F. The grading plan shall insure all drainage within the westerly right-
of-way of the C.P. Rail System is conveyed from the south to the
north and the grading plan be subject to approval by the City
Engineer..
G. Recommendations of Fire Inspector be incorporated into plans with
annual review of the buildings by the Fire Inspector.
H. PUD Agreement be executed with the City and a suitable
'performance bond be posted.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned if the Commission is recommending that
an access road around the building be part of the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Cassen stated that this would need to be resolved with the
Fire Inspector. Mr. McDonald pointed out that in the Fire Inspector's
memo it gives some alternatives, one of which is a sprinkling system, and
the petitioner has agreed to this.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg, Underdahl,
Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Landy
Motion carried.
Sonsin, Cassen,
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on May 13, 1996 and
requested that the petitioners be in attendance since the Council may have
additional questions.
PC 96-11
Item 3.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Request for Site and
Building Plan Review/Approval and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Car
Wash Expansion, 9400 36th Avenue North, Randy Rau/Mobil Mart,
Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that petitioner is requesting site and building plan
review/approval and a conditional use permit to allow car wash expansion.
The owner of the Mobil Mart gas station and convenience store at 36th
and Jordan Avenues is proposing to expand the existing car wash building
and convert it from a touchless car wash to a conveyorized car wash. In
converting the car wash from a self-service to a full-service operation, the
owner is proposing to expand the car wash to the west. The site plan
shows the building would be lengthened from the existing 45 feet to 145
feet and the proposed addition would be 2,500 square feet. It would
increase the existing car wash building area from 3,800 to 6,300 square
feet. The property is located in a B-3, Auto Oriented, Zoning District.
Surrounding land uses include R-1 Single Family Residential to the north
and across Jordan Avenue to the east, R-O Residential Office to the south
along with some additional R-2 Single Family Residential and B-4
Commercial (Post Haste Shopping Center) to the west. Construction
New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - May 7, 1996
approval and a PUD/CUP to allow a convenience store at this site was
approved in 1990; and a minor ground sign variance for an off-premise
sign was approved in 1991. The topography of the site is flat except for
a berm on the east side of the property along Jordan Avenue. Property
owners within 350 feet of the site were notified, including the City of
Plymouth, and staff have not received any comments on the plan.
Mr. McDonald reviewed the purpose of the conditional use permit stating
that it is should provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible
degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated
uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. The City may
consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar
use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other
lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or any
other factors that the City shall deem a requisite for making this a
compatible use. Outlined in the planning report were other general criteria
to be considered: the Comprehensive Plan and whether this use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; whether the use is compatible
with adjacent land uses; performance standards; the proposed use will not
tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed; and certain
criteria for specific zoning districts. For Business Districts items to be
considered include: the proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or
congestion; adjacent residential zoned land will not be adversely affected;
and that existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected because
of a curtailment of customer trade or intrusion of unduly heavy non-
shopping traffic or general unsightliness.
Mr. McDonald pointed out that the principal use, convenience store with
gasoline, and the accessory use, the car wash, are both conditional uses
in the B-3 zone. The City Code states that car washes including drive-
through, mechanical and self-service, are allowed as conditional uses in the
B-3 zone provided that the certain conditions are met which were listed in
the planning report and include compatibility, stacking, surfacing, drainage,
access and noise.
Mr. McDonald explained to the Commission that the plans were completely
revised since the time of the Design & Review meeting. The original plans
had cars entering the car wash on the west and exiting on the east and
out onto Jordan Avenue via an existing drive. Due to a lot of discussion
with the Design & Review Committee and past problems with noise
concerns from the neighborhood, the Committee encouraged the petitioner
to reverse the flow of traffic to have less of an impact on the
neighborhood. The revised plans show cars entering the car wash from
the east and traveling to the west which will eliminate a lot of the noise
along Jordan Avenue from the dryer fans. The berm along Jordan Avenue
has been extended around the corner to help block noise. The existing exit
onto the northeast drive has been eliminated so Mobil Oil customer traffic
cannot exit out onto Jordan. This will place most of the retail traffic onto
36th Avenue, which is a collector street. By eliminating this curb cut, the
car wash water dripage and resulting ice/potholes on Jordan Avenue
should be eliminated. Another improvement is that the canopy lights that
are visible to the homes north of the area will be blocked by the expanded
car wash roof.
Mr. McDonald reported that a pre-application meeting was held with the
petitioner, the Department Heads reviewed the plans, and the Design &
Review Committee met with the petitioner to discuss how the plans could
New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - May 7, 1996
be revised. Revised plans were submitted as a result of that meeting. The
cars will enter the car wash via a new 15-foot wide drive aisle around the
south and east sides of the existing convenience store by entering on the
east and existing on the west side of the building. A rock-face retaining
wall will be constructed on the south/east/north sides of the drive aisle.
The present berm will be cut in half, the retaining wall installed and then
the drive. From the street, the berm will still be visible. City Code requires
20 parking spaces and 22 are provided with this plan. Twelve spaces are
at the gas pumps. With the installation of the new drive, the handicap
parking stall has been relocated to the southeast side of the new car wash
building. A new recycling center enclosure would be on the northeast side
of the property, The new addition complies with the setback requirements
which are 10 feet on the north and 35 feet on the west. The vacuum
islands would be installed on the north side of the proposed building.
Additional ground lights would be installed at the west end of the new
building at the exit point. All the curbing on the site would be B6-12
concrete curbing. The building elevations show that the exterior materials
of the new addition would match the existing building. The building would
have a standing seam metal roof and brick walls, The north and south
building walls facing the residential areas would have decorative glass
block windows. New signage is to be installed stating "Perfect Express
Car Wash" on the south building elevation. The Sign Code allows 125
square feet and the proposed sign is 3' x 36' or 108 square feet and
therefore meets code requirements. Existing signage on the west elevation
of the convenience store is to be removed. The other signage on/off the
site will remain the same other than the wording may be changed. There
is one 40 square foot ground sign on the property and one 200 square foot
ground sign near Highway 169 on which the name of the car wash may
be added. The existing berm along the east side of the convenience store
would be partially removed to accommodate the drive aisle, but would
appear the same from Jordan Avenue.
Mr. McDonald stated that the landscaping schedule was outlined in detail
in the planning report. Some of the plantings would be new and some
would be transplanted. Twelve new junipers that would be planted along
the south side of Building A. Existing coniferous, Summit Ash, Canada
Red Cherry and Alpine Currants that are currently located on the site in the
area of the new drive aisle or the expanded building area would be moved
and transplanted on the site. The plan shows a full irrigation system for
all sod and plantings.
The City Engineer reviewed the plans and made some recommendations
for additional elevations to be shown and made comments regarding the
alignment of the car wash exit and snow removal in the entry drive aisle.
Staff recommends approval, pending public input, per the
recommendations in the planning report.
The petitioner, Mr. Randy Rau, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned the snow removal. Mr. Rau answered
that the snow on this site would need to be hauled away as there is not
room for snow storage on the site. Commissioner Oelkers asked what the
height of the retaining wall would be. Mr. Rau stated that the architect
has indicated to him that more details would be needed and after they
meet with the landscape architect this information would be provided. At
the present time it looks as if the retaining wall would be 3'-4". The car
New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - May 7, 1996
wash floor and drive aisle drQps down somewhat, therefore, what would
be seen from Jordan Avenue looking toward the drive aisle might only be
the top of the vehicles. Chairman Sonsin asked for clarification on the
highest point of the berm and was told it would be 3'-4" as measured
when MnDOT was at the site. The street is lower than the elevation of
the car wash. Commissioner Oelkers stated that the revised plans resolved
a lot of the issues discussed at Design & Review.
Commissioner Cassen questioned how trucks would get in close enough
to make a pick up at the recycling center on the north side of the building
with parking stalls right up to the gates. Mr. Rau explained that the gates
of the trash enclosure are faced toward the west instead of toward the
houses so there would be less damage done to the gates if inadvertently
left open and the aesthetics of the enclosure wall to the north facing the
residential area would be more pleasing than gates that might be left open.
He stated that the parking stalls right there are hardly ever used.
Commissioner Cassen stated that the three vacuum islands are on the
north side of the building by these parking stalls also and possibly parking
stalls five and six could be eliminated or crossed out since there are two
more stalls provided than code requires. Rau stated that the parking lot
will be restriped when construction is completed. The City Engineer
recommended that the car wash driveway be realigned to be perpendicular
to the shared driveway, which may warrant a concrete median. The
petitioner stated they wanted to show that they could do everything on
site without bothering adjoining properties. The petitioner stated he is
agreeable to exiting straight out of the car wash. Hydraulic floor heat
would be installed at the exit and would extend past the exit for about 20
feet so there will not be any ice build-up at the exit. Commissioner Cassen
reminded the petitioner that Design & Review did recommend arrows out
to the street to direct traffic away from the parking lot. The directional
arrows should direct traffic from cutting through the parking lot of the
shopping center to exit the car wash and the petitioner was agreeable with
this.
Commissioner Damiani inquired about the lighting plan on the new drive.
Mr. Rau responded that the only lighting that would be added on the
outside is a pole light that shines downward at the west end of the car
wash at the exit. There is one light at the east end of the car wash. The
berm will be wrapped around the corner. They tried not to add too much
lighting so as not to bother the neighbors. The height of the roof is higher
than the canopy so a lot of the lights would be blocked to the north.
Commissioner Damiani questioned if there would be some type of lighting
in the drive aisle as cars would enter the car wash. Mr. Rau stated he
discussed this with the electrician and stated that some down lights might
be needed, but the only lighting that could be put in there would be on the
step retaining wall. On the first platform of the retaining wall, which
would be shown on the landscape plan, more shrubs would be added and
lighting in between the shrubs. This would keep the lighting Iow to the
ground and not bother the residents on Jordan Avenue. Commissioner
Damiani questioned the height of the car wash and if a large van would be
able to run through it. Mr. Rau stated that there is 90" clearance and the
equipment is the tallest that they could purchase.
Commissioner Stulberg asked how the snow would be removed from the
drive aisle that leads to the car wash entrance. Mr. Rau stated that there
would be a snow melt system along the entire length of this drive aisle,
which is set at 70 degrees. Commissioner Stulberg wondered what would
New Hope Planning Commission
-9- May 7, 1996
happen if there was a large snowfall of 15-20" or more and if the snow
melt system would accommodate this type of snowfall. Mr. Rau
responded that he does his own plowing, and with a large snowfall, he
might need to back drag the snow out of the alley.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned if a large vehicle, such as a Suburban,
would be able to easily turn the corner into the car wash. Mr. Rau stated
that the Building Official measured the turning radius and found it to be in
accordance with code.
Commissioner Cassen asked about signage at the entrance to the car
wash. Mr. Rau stated that at other locations he uses 2'x 2' directional
signs stating "Do Not Enter - Car Wash Only". Commissioner Cassen
pointed out this should be indicated on the plan.
Chairman Sonsin asked for the sequence of operation in terms of
purchasing gas, paying, vacuuming, going through the car wash and
leaving. Mr. Rau stated this is an exterior wash only, and the driver would
stay in the vehicle and ride through to the end. The c'ustomer would first
come into the convenience store to buy a ticket for the car wash, however
not all of the gas customers utilize the car wash. The customer then gets
in line for the car wash. The attendant meets the customer at the
entrance to assist the customer on the conveyor, the car is prepped and
then continues through the wash. The vacuuming can be done before or
after the wash. The vacuum islands are on the north side of the building
so the vehicles then need to go out and around to the vacuums. The cars
would then probably exit onto Jordan Avenue using the shopping center
driveway. Chairman Sonsin wondered what percent of the customer
would use the vacuum. Mr. Rau replied that during the winter there are
very few and at this time of the year the average might be 20 percent.
Chairman Sonsin wanted clarification on how many cars can be stacked
in the drive aisle. Mr. Rau answered that ten cars can be stacked in the
drive aisle. On some days, it might be possible that more cars would be
in line waiting for the car wash. Typically the speed of the conveyor
moves about 50 cars per hour, or one car per minute, through the wash.
An example would be from the Brooklyn Center store on a 500 car day,
the most cars in line was about 15 at one time. At this location if the
drive aisle would be full, cars could also stack in front of the island just
west of the entrance. There would be room enough for double stacked
cars and still have room for cars purchasing gas at the gas island.
Chairman Sonsin wondered if anything would be done at the entrance so
customers would not block this entrance while waiting in line for the car
wash. Mr. Rau state this is a concern and signage would be installed
stating "Do Not Block Entrance". The hours of operation now are 6 a.m.
to 10 p.m. and the new hours would be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. The attendant
tries to shut the line down about an hour before closing so that the car
wash itself can be washed down each night by closing time. If there are
several cars in line, the attendant tells the cashier to stop selling tickets.
Chairman $onsin asked the audience if anyone was in attendance
concerning this case and, if so, to come to the podium.
Ms. Joan Johnson, 3551 Independence Avenue North, came forward. She
stated she is the closest residential neighbor and felt that the Petitioner ran
a fairly good operation. She had concerns regarding the transport drops
after closing, or after dark. The transit parks in front of the island just
west of the Mobil Mart entrance and there is about one drop every day or
New Hope Planning Commission - 10 - May 7, 1996
two. Mr. Rau explained that when he orders gasoline, he gives
instructions for it to b~ dblivered before 9 p.m. Ms. Johnson was
concerned that when the transport is dumping no cars can be stacked in
that area waiting for the car wash. She was also concerned that there is
not enough lighting in that area because when a transport is dumping after
closing, the outside lights are turned off, the area is very dark, and the
trucks do not leave on any lights. It is difficult to see in this area after
dark and she would like to see more lights required in this area. Ms.
Johnson is also concerned about the limited visibility behind the car wash
and neighborhood kids hanging out by the shopping center. Ms. Johnson
questioned whether the waste water from the car wash would go into the
storm sewer. Mr. Rau explained that they have three holding bays and
they reclaim some of the water for pre-wash. The EPA does not require
special handling of the waste water. He does, however, pump out the
sand and sediment that is washed off the cars. They do have a flammable
waste trap for oil and grease so that does not go into the sewers.
Chairman Sonsin questioned if there would be a problem with adding
additional lighting on the island where the transport dumps. Mr. Rau
stated he thought there were existing lights there and would check into
this lighting issue. Commissioner Cassen stated that the plan indicates
eliminating existing lighting and adding new lighting. Commissioner
Stulberg asked if when the tanker is dumping whether the car wash would
shut down. Mr. Rau indicated that cars can get around the tanker to get
in line for the car wash. Commissioner Stulberg questioned if it is
reasonable to assume that tankers would not be dumping after dark in
winter when it gets dark early. Ms. Johnson interjected that she is
concerned with the dumping after closing when all the lights are turned off
and the tankers do not leave on any lights while dumping. Commissioner
Stulberg asked if the lights could be put on timers so the lights would be
on an additional hour after closing. Commissioner Svendsen asked if there
is a problem with anyone dumping any foreign materials into the tanks and
was told this has not been a problem.
Chairman Sonsin asked if there is any leakage from the tanks. Mr. Rau
answered that this site had a spill when the previous owner was at this
site. The spill has been cleaned up and the EPA has cleared the site.
Commissioner Underdahl wondered if it is possible to leave on some of the
lights and Mr. Rau stated he would take care of this immediately.
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to
approve Planning Case 96-11, Request for Site and Building Plan
Review/Approval and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Car Wash
Expansion, 9400 36th Avenue North, Randy Rau/Mobil Mart, Petitioner,
subject to the following condition:
1. All building and ground signs to comply with Sign Code and all
directional signs and painted arrows on pavement to be clarified on
plans.
2. Height of retaining wall to be indicated on plan.
3. Grading plan to clearly indicate all contour elevations.
4. Snow to be hauled off the site if adequate storage is not available and
this is to be indicated on plan.
5. Car wash driveway exit to be realigned perpendicular to the shared
driveway.
6. Existing traffic flow, lane widths, parking isles and drive aisles be
shown for the shopping center and car wash site to ensure there is
New Hope Planning Commission - 11 - May 7, 1996
not a conflict with the flow of traffic through the shopping center
parking lot.
7. Two parking spaces on north side near recycling center (numbers 5 an
6) to be deleted and be marked with crossouts on pavement.
8. Annual inspection by staff.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg, Underdahl,
Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Landy
Motion carried.
Sonsin, Cassen,
This planning case will be presented to the City Council on May 13, 1996.
PC96-14
Item 3.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3 Request for Site and
Building Plan Approval for Warehouse Addition and a Variance from the
Side Yard Driveway Setback Requirement to Allow Relocation of Curbing
on North Side of the Building for Truck Maneuvering, 3501 Nevada Avenue
North, Marv Schmidtz/Pro Engineering, Inc., Petitioner.
Ms. Bellefuil stated the petitioner, Pro Engineering, is requesting site and
building plan approval to allow the construction of a warehouse addition
and a variance from the side yard driveway setback requirement to allow
the relocation of curbing on the north side of the building to allow for truck
maneuvering. The addition would be 8,458 square feet and would be
constructed on the rear side of the existing 25,000 square foot building.
The petitioner is also requesting a five-foot variance from the ten-foot
parking setback requirement which is required for parking lots in non-
residential areas. The variance would accommodate truck maneuvering as
shown on the plan. The property is 2.01 acres and is located on the west
side of Nevada Avenue just south of 36th Avenue. The property is located
in an I-1 Zoning District and is surrounded by I-1 zoning on the north and
south, R-4 multi-family and I-2 industrial to the west and the city of Crystal
to the east. Pro Engineering is a metal stamping company that has been
in business since 1973. They currently employ about 25 people and they
expect to add eight employees once the addition is complete. The
petitioner stated on the application that the site and building plan approval
and variance request should be granted because the business is growing
and all other requirements are met.
Ms. Bellefuil pointed out the purpose of a variance is to permit relief from
strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent
reasonable use of the property. Hardships can include the size or shape
of the property, topographical conditions or water issues. The hardship
cannot be created by the owner, or if the variance is granted, it should not
alter the character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair
the neighboring properties.
Ms. Bellefuil stated that this variance is necessary to allow for adequate
truck maneuvering by the truck dock that would be added on the north
side of the building. The ten-foot parking lot setback would be reduced to
five feet for about 130 feet. The setback requirements for this property
are met, with the front yard setback requirement at 50 feet and the actual
setback at 83 feet, the side yards are to be 20 feet and the actual
setbacks are 42 feet on the north and 20 feet on the south. The rear
setback should be 35 feet and the actual setback is 74 feet. Staff feel
that the five-foot variance is justified because the lot is long and narrow,
New Hope Planning Commission - 12 - May 7, 1996
the building meets all setback requirements, the variance will occur at the
rear of the lot instead of at the front, and the industrial building to the
north is located at the northern property line of that site with a parking lot
between the buildings, therefore the adjacent property would not be
negatively impacted by the variance.
Ms. Bellefuil reported that a pre-application meeting was held with the
petitioner. The Department Heads reviewed the plans and the Design &
Review Committee met with the petitioner to discuss the plans. Revised
plans were submitted as a result of the Design & Review meeting. In
reviewing the revised plan, a total of 47 parking stalls are provided with
a total of 28 stalls required, snow storage and the trash enclosure are
noted on the plans, wall pek light fixtures (new and existing) are shown on
the plans, there is no new landscaping proposed as there is substantial
landscaping on the site, which is shown on the plan. The exterior would
be finished in similar materials as the existing building, and one new
rooftop unit would be added, which is not included on the plan, but would
be painted to match existing.
Ms. Bellefuil reviewed the City Engineer's comments saying that the storm
water runoff from the western portion of the site runs to an existing
drainage swale located along the west property line, which in turn conveys
drainage north to a ponding area located south of 36th Avenue. There
would be no drainage upgrades at this time, but if in the event that this
business and surrounding businesses want storm sewer, they would need
to petition the City in the future. The grading plan indicates that there is
an existing drainage tile on the south side of the building, and the plan
should indicate the size, depth, and location of discharge. Also, the grades
should be revised to provide a minimum of one percent in the new trucking
area.
Ms. Bellefuil stated that staff recommends approval of the five-foot parking
lot setback variance and site/building plan review/approval subject to
conditions that include rooftop equipment to be painted to match building
or be screened and implementation of City Engineer's recommendations.
Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioner to come forward to answer questions
from the Commission.
Mr. Marv Schmidtz, owner of Pro Engineering, came to the podium. He
stated he has been at this location since 1990. Mr. Bob Olson, general
contractor, could answer any technical questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Damiani asked whether the new rooftop equipment would
be painted to match the existing. Mr. Schmidtz replied that most of the
existing rooftop units are toward the front of the existing building and one
additional unit would be at the rear of the new building addition. The
entire building would be repainted when the construction is completed.
Commissioner Damiani questioned if a retaining wall would be built in the
area of the variance since there is such a steep drop-off. Mr. Schmidtz
stated he would rather have Mr. Olson answer that question.
Commissioner Damiani questioned if the pallets and other items stored
outside would continue or if it is temporary. Mr. Schmidtz replied that this
is very temporary and the truck drivers are to pick these items up and
return them. About every week or two there is a private party that picks
up these items and hauls them away. The steel scraps are kept inside.
New Hope Planning Commission - 13 - May 7, 1996
Commissioner Damiani redirected the retaining wall question to Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson replied that the grade problem in this area relates also to one of
the concerns of the City Engineer regarding the one percent drainage from
the trucking area out to the northwest corner. By lowering the grades
through that area, the petitioner can address some of the grade changes
with the parking lot to the north. If needed, they could do some retainage
along the curb. They will determine what is needed during construction
and grading. Commissioner Damiani asked for clarification on the grading
and paving of that whole area on the west. Mr. Olson stated that the
western area would be repaved after the grading is finished. The
bituminous on the eastern portion of the site is in good condition.
MOTION
Item 3.3
Motion by Commissioner Damiani, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
approve Planning Case 96-14, Request for Site and Building Plan Approval
for Warehouse Addition and a Variance from the Side Yard Driveway
Setback Requirement to Allow Relocation of Curbing on North Side of the
Building for Truck Maneuvering, 3501 Nevada Avenue North, Marv
Schmidtz/Pro Engineering, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
Rooftop equipment to be painted to match building or be screened.
Implementation of City Engineer's recommendations, including:
A. Storm water conveyed overland to the west property line shall be
properly protected to prevent erosion, i.e., geotextile fabric and
Class 2 rip rap.
B. The grading plan shall show the slopes between this parking lot
(additional bituminous maneuvering strip) and the parking lot to
the north and reflect the new slopes that will result due to the
construction of the maneuvering strip. In the event slope
easements of retaining wall construction is warranted, it shall be
noted on the plan.
C. The grading in the flat area that may result immediately south of
the new addition shall not block drainage from the south and shall
convey drainage along the common lot line to the west.
D. The plan shall indicate the size, depth, location of discharge, and
what function the existing drain tile along the south side of the
building serves.
E. Grades should be revised to provide a minimum of one percent
along the north curb line to the existing building and proposed
addition.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg, Underdahl,
Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Landy
Motion carried.
Sonsin, Cassen,
This planning case will be presented to the City Council on May 13, 1996.
PC95-31
Item 3.4
Chairman Sonsin asked the Commission for a motion to table Planning
Case 95-31, Request for Sign Variances/Approval of Comprehensive Sign
Plan to Allow Wall and Ground Signs that Exceed Sign Code Requirements
in Number and Size, 7709 42nd Avenue North, Autohaus of
Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin explained that Autohaus had again requested that this
planning case be tabled for another month. Staff did notify the petitioner
New Hope Planning Commission - 14 - May 7, 1996
that the Commission Wou!d take some action in June. Chairman Sonsin
stated the petitioner could Withdraw the request or the Commission may
deny the request based on the sign plan submitted in January. Mr.
McDonald indicated that there have been some recent changes in the
management/ownership of the property and he thought revised sign plans
would be forthcoming.
Motion by Commissioner Underdahl, seconded by Commissioner Cassen,
to table Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign Variances/Approval of
Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground Signs that Exceed Sign
Code Requirements in Number and Size, 7709 42nd Avenue North,
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg, Underdahl,
Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Landy
Motion carried.
Sonsin, Cassen,
Chairman Sonsin requested that staff take the appropriate action with the
petitioner in checking into the existing signs on the building that have not
been approved by the Commission.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Committee met in
April with Pro Engineering, Mobil Mart and Brad Hoyt.
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in April to continue
discussion on Pawn Shops and one of the police officers joined in the
discussion. There will be public hearings on a few of the other topics at
upcoming meetings. Mr. McDonald added that staff met to prepare
reports for the next Codes meeting.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether there would be a study on the
curbing issue and whether the code could be changes so it would be
required to have concrete, not bituminous, curbing on the properties. Mr.
McDonald stated that staff would be supportive of this change and would
pursue it with the Codes Committee so there are no questions when the
Commission requests concrete curbing.
Commissioner Svendsen reported that at the GTS training session the new
Commissioners attended, one topic discussed was the open meeting law.
As he understands the law, the Codes & Standards Committee might be
in violation if there is a quorum present. Chairman Sonsin stated that
there are only four official members of the Commission on the Committee.
Commissioner Svendsen and Keefe are considered observers until they are
officially appointed to one of the Committees. The City Attorney is looking
into this matter.
Commissioner Damiani asked about the status of Phoenix Manufacturing.
Mr. McDonald replied that Phoenix is vacating the building as of July 31
and the building will probably be demolished this fall. Chairman Sonsin
questioned the status of Ben Franklin. Mr. McDonald stated that the
building is sold and new tenants would be moving in.
New Hope Planning Commission - 15 - May 7, 1996
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENT
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Svendsen stated that during the training session that he
attended the issue of the retention of the Planning Commission tapes came
up and that as he understood it, the City should retain the tapes for at
lease a period of three years. The tape recordings should be kept in case
of any litigation as the recordings would be admissible. The recording
secretary will check with the City Clerk to find out the retention schedule
for the tapes.
The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
Mr. McDonald inquired if the Commission would be available for a July
meeting if it is necessary and indicated that it would be held on July 2.
Several Commissioners stated that they would not be in attendance in
July, however there would still be a quorum with only a few
Commissioners absent. Mr. McDonald added that there will be a Design
& Review meeting on May 16 for the Ambassador Nursing Home
expansion. There are also a couple minor variances that would be on the
agenda in June,
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:07
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester,
Recording Secretary
New Hope Planning Commission - 16 - May 7, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 4, 1996
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:
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Damiani, Svendsen
Underdahl, Oelkers
Sarah Bellefuil, Community Development Specialist, Dan
Licht, Planning Consultant
CONSENT ITEMS
No Consent Items.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC96-16
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for a
Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction
of a Sun Room Addition, 4076 Ensign Avenue North, Clifford and Elizabeth
Miller, Petitioner.
Ms. Bellefuil stated that the petitioner is requesting a nine-foot variance to
allow construction of a 12' x 18' sun room. The addition would place the
building 26 feet from the rear property line. The existing .home is "L-
shaped" and is located 38 feet from the rear yard property line. The rear
setback for residential property is 35 feet, therefore the request is for a
nine-foot variance. The sun room addition would be located on the east
side of the property and extend nine feet into the rear property line
setback. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential
District and is surrounded by single family homes. The property owners
within 350' were notified and staff received no comments.
Ms. Beliefuil continued saying that after reviewing the proposal against the
criteria for permitting a variance, staff felt that several factors were met
with this request. There may be undue hardship because the house design
and lot depth were beyond the control of the petitioner. The porch design
would not alter the character of the neighborhood. Regarding use
compatibility, many of the homes in the area already have porches.
Property values in the neighborhood would not decrease because of the
porch addition but may increase. Ms. Bellefuil pointed out that after
talking to the Planning Consultant, he stated that he did not see this as a
hardship because many of the lots are the same size and all residents in
the 'area would be dealing with the same situation if they wanted to
construct an addition to the property. The Consultant did mention that the
Planning Commission might want to examine the current setback
requirements.
Ms. Bellefuil added that the petitioner submitted a booklet that shows the
design of the sun room, which was included in the planning packet. The
building materials of the proposed addition would be white enamel frame
with windows. In reviewing the plans, staff noticed that the roof style on
the sun room addition would be a shed style roof which is different than
the gable roof on the existing home. The Commission should question the
petitioner if it would be possible to change the roof style to a gable roof
New Hope Planning Commission - I - June 4, 1996
MOTION
Item 3.1
on the proposed addition. Ms. Bellefuil stated that the contractor is also
in the audience if the Commission would need to ask questions of him.
Pending public comment, staff recommends approval of the nine-foot rear
yard setback variance to allow the sun porch addition, subject to
consideration be given to upgrading the porch roof to a gable roof.
The petitioner, Clifford Miller, 4076 Ensign Avenue North, and Tom
Crotteau, SRC Sun Rooms, came forward to answer questions.
Commissioner Landy asked if it is feasible to change the style of the roof
pitch. Mr. Crotteau replied that it is possible to change the style of the
roof, however, the petitioner came to his business during a promotion of
one type of sun room. In order to change the pitch of the roof, the cost
would increase dramatically. Mr. Miller interjected that the additional cost
would not enable them to build the addition. The petitioner also said that
his neighbor, has an addition with a roof line identical to this, which was
granted in 1981. Commissioner Svendsen expressed concern over the
load capabilities of the flat roof. Mr. Crotteau stated that there would be
a l-inch drop per foot, which equals 40 pounds per square foot. This
meets/exceeds state guidelines for the snow load.
Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on the tree and shrub cover at
the rear of the property and the height of the trees. Mr. Miller responded
that he does not have any large trees on his property. The neighbor right
behind his property has large trees. The petitioner stated that he has some
small dogwoods on his property at the fence line. Chairman Sonsin
wondered how the building materials of the addition would wear compared
to the building materials of the existing house. Mr. Crotteau explained that
the building materials are all aluminum alloy steel and hardboard, which
would be expected to last a long time. A security door and electricity have
been added to the sun room and there would be no heat as it is a three-
season porch. Mr. Crotteau added that there is a lifetime warranty on the
product.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to
approve Planning Case 96-16, Request for a Variance from the Rear Yard
Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Sun Room Addition, 4076
Ensign Avenue North, Clifford and Elizabeth Miller, Petitioners, subject to
the following condition:
1. Consideration be given to upgrading the roof pitch to match the house
roof pitch of 4:12.
The petitioner stated again that it would not be financially feasible to
change the roof pitch and would this be a problem. Commissioner Landy
explained that the Commission would like to see the pitch changed, but it
is just a suggestion. Chairman Sonsin interjected that if the Planning
Commission approves this case, the City Council will review it on June 10.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Damiani,
Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on June 10, 1996.
New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - June 4, 1996
PC 96-17
Item 3.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Request for
Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Nursing Home Expansion,
Ambassador Good Samaritan Center, 8100 27th Avenue North, Petitioner.
Ms. Bellefuil stated that petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit
amendment for the expansion of Ambassador Good Samaritan Center on
Medicine Lake Road. Ambassador is proposing to construct a two-story
addition on the east side of the existing building. The addition would
include an 8,565 square foot first story and a 1,948 square foot addition
to the basement. The expansion will include remodeling of the existing
building, adding an elevator, fire sprinkling both the new and the old
portions of the building, decreas!ng the bed count in the building from 114
beds to 94 beds. Currently there are three beds per room and with the
expansion this will be decreased to two beds per room. Because the
building is located in an R-O Zoning District where nursing homes are
allowed by conditional use permit, the proposal requires an amendment to
the existing conditional use permit. Property owners were notified within
350' and the property owner in the adjacent apartment complex came in
to review the plans. He was concerned that the expansion would increase
the parking problems in the area, however this concern was eliminated
when he realized that the bed count would be reduced.
Ms. Bellefuil reported that after reviewing the plans, staff found that the
criteria and requirements for a conditional use permit are met for the
proposed building expansion. The Design & Review Committee met with
the petitioner on May 15 and the issues discussed included the purpose of
the expansion, sprinkling the building, the addition of an elevator, exterior
lighting and landscaping, building materials, water service to the site
because of the fire sprinkling, and deliveries by vendors to the site.
Ms. Bellefuil continued saying that in response to the Design & Review
Committee's requests, the petitioner submitted revised plans. Items
addressed included setbacks and Ambassador meets all the setbacks
required, a new 6-inch watermain would be brought to the site from
Medicine Lake Road for fire sprinklers, 55 parking spaces are provided
although only 35 are required, two new rooftop units will be added and
they would be color-clad to match the existing building, a retaining wall
and stairway would be installed on the east side of the addition. The
Design & Review Committee discussed truck deliveries with the petitioner.
There was some discussion about a hammer-head for semi-trucks, but
because of the large amount of space needed to accommodate this it was
decided that this would not be feasible. Parking lot striping was completed
at the site about two years ago and would not need to be done at the time
of the addition.
Ms. Bellefuil reported that the Consultant and City Engineer reviewed the
plans and the Engineer recommended that the overland drainage from the
Virginia Avenue cul-de-sac be directed along the northeast line in the area
where grading is required to construct the addition. The grading for the
new addition should not encroach into the overland drainage swale from
the Virginia Avenue cul-de-sac to the east. The existing storm sewer in
the easement area should be protected and any damage that results should
be repaired by the contractor. The proposed retaining wall requires
engineering drawings which should be provided by the petitioner. Erosion
control along the east should be in place during construction.
Ms. Bellefuil stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP
New Hope Planning Commission
-3- June 4,1996
amendment for the expansion subject to compliance with the City
Engineer's requirements and annual review by City staff.
Mr. Jim Jasper, Administrator of Ambassador Nursing Home, and Mr.
Steve Knutson, Wolfgram Knutson Architects, came to the podium.
Commissioner Svendsen remarked that all of the changes the Design &
Review Committee suggested were made on the revised plans, including
the wall pak lighting on the lower level exit. It was noted on the plan that
the new rooftop units would be color-clad or painted similar to the other
units and he wondered whether the older rooftop units would be painted
because they would be a different color. Mr. Jasper stated that some of
the units were added last summer and these units plus the new units
would be painted to match the building. Commissioner Svendsen raised
the issue of the trash enclosure and the fact that there are no gates on it
so that the dumpsters are in plain view of Medicine Lake Road. Mr. Jasper
maintained that there were doors in the past and that the with the large
size of the opening of the trash enclosure, one door was too heavy and
two doors did not work correctly either. He noted that the wall of the
enclosure was built so that residents of the nursing home would not see
the garbage and stated that they would look into this matter.
Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether the additional trees shown on
the plans that were to be a gift to the nursing home would still be
provided. Mr. Jasper stated that a staff member would be donating some
trees. Some of the trees were rearranged near the back wall to break up
the long mass of wall. Mr. Knutson added that they were considering a
rock face retaining wall instead of a concrete wall. Commissioner
Svendsen asked if any consideration was given to a turn-around area for
semi-trucks that would be delivering food for the nursing home. Mr.
Knutson replied that there are no state monies to construct a turn-around
area and when the Building Official reviewed the plans he agreed that there
really was not enough area on the site without bringing trucks right up to
the resident's rooms.
Commissioner Cassen questioned what type of items are put in the trash.
Mr. Jasper replied that there is a cardboard recycling bin, glass/can bin,
and regular trash. Commissioner Cassen asked where the used medical
supplies are kept. Mr. Jasper responded that these are disposed of with
a separate company and are stored in containers inside the building, and
the company comes inside to remove the containers. These items cannot
be placed in regular garbage as it is infectiuous waste and needs to be
incinerated. These items are disposed of according to state law.
Commissioner Cassen strongly recommended that the trash enclosure have
doors in consideration of neighboring properties. The plans indicate that
there is a fence around this area. The plans also show a door, however,
there is no door on the enclosure. Commissioner Cassen indicated that
she wanted to make the inclusion of doors to the trash enclosure one of
the conditions of approval. The petitioners stated that they would look
into this issue. The problem with two doors and a support in the middle
is that the garbage trucks then cannot pull up all the way to the entrance.
Commissioner Damiani interjected that there are some supports that can
be removed when the garbage trucks pick up and then replaced.
Commissioner Cassen commented that there seems to be a large amount
of shrubs that died over the winter and wondered whether these would be
replaced. Mr. Jasper responded that there were trees and shrubs lost over
the winter and when the City constructed the sidewalk along Medicine
New Hope Planning Commission
June 4,1996
Lake Road a few years.,ago. Also part of the sprinkler system was
damaged then. The Petitioner added that they are looking at replacing the
lost trees and shrubs.
Commissioner Cassen stated that there still is concern over the large
trucks going into the delivery area because they have to back onto the
property from Medicine Lake Road and questioned what the garbage trucks
and small delivery trucks do. Mr. Jasper replied that these trucks pull
straight in to unload and back out onto the street. Commissioner Cassen
questioned whether the driveway at the northwest corner of the area could
be widened so some of the smaller panel trucks could turn around on the
property or if one or two of the parking stalls could be eliminated that are
close to the delivery area. Mr. Jasper answered that he didn't feel that
enough space would be provided for a turn-around by eliminating a couple
parking stalls in this area. The new parking area on the far northern
portion of the site was to eliminate any parking on the street by,staff
during the daytime hours. Commissioner Cassen pointed out that this is
a safety issue because of the long driveway. Mr. Jasper stated they
would review this.
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-17, Request for Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for Nursing Home Expansion, Ambassador Good Samaritan
Center, 8100 27th Avenue North, Petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with City Engineer's recommendations.
2. Attachment of single or double doors onto the existing trash
enclosure.
3. Existing and new rooftop units to be painted to match building.
4. Eliminate one or two parking stalls near trash enclosure/delivery area
to allow garbage trucks and small delivery trucks to turn around and
exit the site more efficiently.
5. Annual review by staff.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Damiani,
Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers
This planning case will be presented to the City Council on June 10, 1996.
PC96-18
Item 3.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3 Request for a Variance
from the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a
Garage Addition, 3840 Gettysburg Avenue North, Leona Bigelow,
Petitioner.
Ms. Bellefuil stated that the petitioner is requesting a two-foot variance
from the side yard setback requirement to allow for the construction of an
8' x 17' "L-shaped" garage addition. The addition would place the building
three feet from the side yard property line. The setback requirement for
a residential property line is ten feet or five feet for a garage. The
petitioner currently has a single car garage and the addition would make
the garage a standard 22-foot double garage. The property is 9,000
square feet. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential
District and is surrounded by single family homes. The property owners
New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - June 4, 1996
within 350' of this property were notified and staff have received no
comments.
Ms. Bellefuil continued saying that in reviewing the proposal against the
criteria for permitting a variance, staff feels that several factors are met by
the request. Regarding undue hardship, a single car garage may be
considered a hardship by today's standards. Many of the homes in this
area already have double car garages. Property values in the area may not
be diminished by the addition of the garage by may be enhanced. In
talking with the Planning Consultant, he does not feel that this is a
situation of hardship, the Commission may want to review the setback
requirements as far as today's standards are concerned. In the area where
the garage is currently located, there is a concrete slab along with a fence
to block the neighbor's view. The adjacent neighbor's property to the
north has a garage next to the proposed addition. The new garage would
be stucco to match the existing house and the petitioner has stated that
they would be re-roofing the whole house when the addition is completed.
Ms. Bellefuil added that pending public comment, staff recommend
approval of the two-foot side yard setback variance to allow the garage
addition subject to the building materials matching the existing home.
Ms. Leona Bigelow and Mr. Rollie Benson, 3840 Gettysburg Avenue North,
came forward to answer questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Stulberg wondered whether additional bituminous will need
to be laid to extend the driveway the entire width of the proposed garage.
Mr. Benson stated that the driveway would be the same size as the
garage. Commissioner Stulberg questioned what would happen to the
existing concrete pad beside the garage. Mr. Benson replied that the
concrete would be removed before the construction of the addition.
Chairman Sonsin wondered how close the concrete pad is to the property
line and was told that it is about one foot from the line. The storage
building on the slab will be removed. Chairman Sonsin wanted clarification
that this will be a two-car garage and not two one-car garages and this
point was confirmed.
Mr. Benson clarified one point in the planning report by saying that the
addition would be 8' on the front x 31.5' deep x 17' at the rear of the
garage.
MOTION
Item 3.3
Motion by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-18, Request for a Variance from the Side Yard
Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition, 3840
Gettysburg Avenue North, Leona Bigelow, Petitioner, subject to the
following condition:
1. Building materials of addition to match existing home.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Damiani,
Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers
This planning case will be presented to the City Council on June 1 O, 1996.
PC95-31
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.4, Request for Sign
New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - June 4, 1996
Item 3.4
Variances/Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground
Signs that Exceed Sign COde Requirements in Number and Size, 7709
42nd Avenue North, Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher,
Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin reported that this planning case was heard and tabled at
the January meeting and has been tabled every month since that time.
Ms. Bellefuil stated that the petitioners came in to City Hall the last week
of May with rough sketches of plans, which were not sufficient for the
Planning Commission. Staff is asking the Commission whether they want
to table this matter again or deny the request.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to
deny Planning Case 95-31, Request for Sign Variances/Approval of
Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Wall and Ground Signs that Exceed Sign
Code. Requirements in Number and Size, 7709 42nd Avenue North,
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas Boettcher, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin further stated that he felt the petitioners have not acted
in good faith, have put up non-conforming signs and have not responded
to staff for reasonable requests for information. He also stated that he
would support denial of this request. Commissioner Cassen agreed with
the Chairman. Commissioner Keefe questioned parts of the Sign Code and
if a certain section was violated would the petitioner be prohibited from
applying for any variances for 12 months. Chairman Sonsin responded
that would be up to staff to determine this point.
Ms. Bellefuil reported that Mr. Jeff Benzinger from AutoBody Plus did talk
to the City Manager to ask if the ground sign lettering could be replaced,
which approved by the City Manager.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Damiani,
Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers
This planning case will appear before City Council on June 10, 1996.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Committee met in
May with Ambassador Good Samaritan Center. At this time there are no
new planning cases for July.
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in May and will meet
again on June 19. They will continue to work on the pawn shop issue and
a couple of minor issues. Staff should determine if the setback
requirement issue is something that the Codes & Standards Committee
should be reviewing. Any major variances should be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. Ms. Bellefuil stated that staff would ask Council if
this is something that should be pursued.
Commissioner Cassen added that she understands that the City does not
have an ordinance requiring a turn-around area or loading berth for semi-
trucks at nursing home facilities. This may be something that staff should
review at not only nursing homes, but also for other large buildings similar
New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - June 4, 1996
to this. She felt this should be a requirement because of the safety
concerns. Chairman Sonsin suggested that staff check with Council to see
if they want the Planning Commission to proceed on this matter.
Commissioner Cassen wondered if the City would change the ordinance
to require a turn-around area for trucks, could the Planning Commission
request that petitioners change the turn-around area if they come to the
City for a variance or other type of request. Chairman Sonsin replied that
staff should check with the City Attorney to see if non-conforming items
could be reopened. Commissioner Cassen added that there might be
other types of buildings that do not allow for loading berths, but have large
semi-truck deliveries and/or large garbage trucks/recycling trucks.
Commissioner Svendsen expressed concern about the dumpsters on the
north side of Midland Shopping Center and if anything could be done about
this. Chairman Sonsin stated that this has been discussed several times
during the last few years. Each time this condition was included the
planning case was withdrawn.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Chairman Sonsin stated that there were some letters included in the packet
from the City Attorney regarding the.open meeting law. This was
discussed at the last Codes & Standards meeting. It is the opinion of the
City Attorney that any time a quorum is present, five Commissioners, the
meeting would be subject to the open meeting law. The City Attorney
also felt that any time the Design & Review Committee meets with
petitioners the meeting would be subject to the open meeting law
regardless of the number of Commissioners present. A notice should be
posted for the Design & Review Committee meetings. Chairman Sonsin
added that citizens have the right to come to the meetings to listen, but
they do not always have the right to address the Committee. The only
time the citizens can address the Committee or Commission is during the
public hearing.
Chairman Sonsin reported that Commissioner Underdahl is stepping off of
the Codes & Standards Committee until after November elections, so the
Committee will remain with four Commissioners.
Chairman Sonsin officially appointed Commissioner Svendsen to the Design
& Review Committee and Commissioner Keefe to the Codes & Standards
Committee.
NEW BUSINESS
The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Ms. Bellefuil announced that there would probably not be a July Planning
Commission meeting since there have been no new planning applications
at this time. Staff will notify the Commissioners after the application
deadline regarding the July meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:49
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - June 4, 1996
CITY oF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 6, 1996
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:
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen,
Svendsen
Oelkers, Damiani
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil,
Community Development Specialist, Steve Sondrall, City
Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING
PC96-28
Item 2.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 2.1, Request for a
Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction
of a Two-Car Garage Addition, 4057 Boone Avenue North, Doug Norwick,
Petitioner.
Ms. Bellefuil stated that this is a request for a one foot variance from the
side yard setback requirement to allow for the construction of a 26' x 30'
two-car garage. The property is located on a 9,375 square foot lot and
the existing structure meets all setbacks. The proposed garage addition
would meet front and rear yard setback requirements, but not the side
yard setback requirement which is the reason for the variance request.
The property is located on the west side of Boone Avenue and is
surrounded by single family homes on the north, west and south and
Gethsemane Cemetery is across the street. Currently, the petitioner has a
one-car detached garage, and the petitioner desires to demolish the single-
car garage and construct an attached two-car garage. The double-car
garage would be located four feet from the north property tine, therefore,
a one-foot variance from the five-foot side yard setback requirement is
required. The property owners within 350' have been notified but no one
has responded.
Ms. Bellefuil continued saying that after analyzing the property, staff
believes that there are a number of factors which warrant a variance
including the following: 1) the construction of a two-car garage is
compatible because all the surrounding homes have attached two-car
garages; 2) the addition of the attached two-car garage will add value to
the house and the surrounding neighborhood; 3) the variance will not
impact the neighbors to the north because their garage is on the south
part of the property, therefore the garages will be side-by-side; 4)
variances for garages have been approved by the Planning Commission
numerous times in the past. Pending public comment, staff recommends
approval of the one-foot side yard setback variance to allow the addition
of a new attached double garage, subject to the condition that the
building materials and roof pitch match the existing structure.
Mr. Doug Norwick, 4057 'Boone Avenue North, came to the podium to
answer questions of the Commissioners. Mr. Norwick informed the
Commissioners that the roof pitch has been changed in order to save a
New Hope Planning Commission - I - August 6, 1996
window on the existing house. The new pitch would be 3.5/12 instead of
4/12. The existing pitch on the house is 4/12 and therefore the new
garage pitch would not exactly match the house.
Commissioner Landy asked the petitioner whether there would be a
problem with the building materials matching the existing house and was
informed that this would not be a problem.
Commissioner Svendsen stated that after a review of the plans he did not
see a reason for a one-foot variance. By making the inside entryway one
foot shallower so there is a 20-foot width for the cars, the extension from
the house would be 25 feet and, therefore, no variance would be needed.
Commissioner Svendsen felt that there is no real hardship created by
cutting the size back to 25 feet instead of 26 feet. Mr. Norwick stated he
felt that a 26-foot garage would be a legitimate request. Commissioner
Svendsen also questioned the plans that show a 40-foot extension to the
rear. Mr. Norwick stated that the architect drew up the plans with the
40-foot extension and the petitioner later felt that would be too large and
then decided on the 30-foot length.
Commissioner Keefe questioned whether the existing structure meets all
setbacks. Ms. Bellefuil replied that the existing detached garage and
house meet the setbacks, but the new garage addition would not meet
the setback on the side yard. Commissioner Keefe continued saying the
current detached garage is five feet from the property line, and according
to code, the garage should be ten feet from the property line. Ms.
Bellefuil explained that the existing garage may have been built before
setback requirements were incorporated into City code. The site survey is
dated 1964.
Chairman Sonsin clarified the variance request by saying that the garage
would be 26' x 30' and a one-foot variance is needed on the north side
because of the 26' width. The roof pitch would be 3.5/12.
Commissioner Cassen stated she did not feel that this was a hardship
situation. A hardship would be having only a single-car garage. A double-
car garage would definitely add to the neighborhood and to the value of
the home. The proposed garage is oversized. Another reason this would
not be a hardship is that the lot is not unusually narrow or unusually
shaped, which is why the Planning Commission has granted variances in
the past. Typically a garage is 20' or 22' wide. Commissioner Cassen
questioned the petitioner whether he would have a problem making the
garage narrower. Mrs. Norwick commented that building materials are cut
to even lengths (in two-foot intervals) and by making the garage one-foot
narrower, they would still need to buy the 26-foot lengths. The other
alternative would be to make the garage 24 feet, which would cut the
side entry to four feet. Commissioner Cassen stated that the average
hallway is about three or three and one/half feet wide. Mrs. Norwick
replied that the area in question is intended to be a mud room and not just
a hallway. Currently they enter directly into the kitchen or living room
areas with no place to remove muddy shoes, etc. Mr. Norwick added that
they felt the size was appropriate. The 26-foot addition allows for the
extra square footage in that room.
Mr. Howard Shapiro, 4056 Cavell Avenue, came forward from the
audience with a concern regarding the hours of building construction
during weekdays and weekends. He stated that the Planning Commission
New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - August 6, 1996
MOTION
Item 2.1
granted a variance ~o an~0~hgr.neighbor for driveway construction and the
people working on that job started construction very early in the morning
on weekdays and weekends. Mr. McDonald stated he believes that the
construction hours are 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on
weekends. Mr. Sondrall added that the construction hours are regulated
by code in the noise ordinance. Mr. Shapiro questioned the length of the
project. Mr. Norwick stated that the total project would take
approximately four weeks since they would be taking down the existing
garage themselves. Chairman Sonsin instructed Mr. Shapiro that if there
would be problems with noise to contact the Inspection's Department.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to
approve Planning Case 96-28, Request for a Variance from the Side Yard
Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Two-Car Garage
Addition, 4057 Boone Avenue North, Doug Norwick, Petitioner, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Building materials to match existing structure.
2. ' Roof pitch to be 3.5/12.
3. Garage dimensions to be 26' wide by 30' long.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg,
Cassen
Voting against: Svendsen
Absent: Oelkers, Damiani
Motion carried.
Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin,
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on August 12, 1996.
PC 96-29
Item 2.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 2.2, Request for a
Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction
of an Addition, 3532 Ensign Avenue North, Jonathan & Christy Arnoldy,
Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners, are requesting a variance from
the side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a 12' x 13'
addition and a 12' x 13' open porch/deck onto the rear of the existing
residence. They are proposing to construct a master bedroom addition,
which would be on the north side of the home. The addition would
extend out 12 feet from the existing structure and would be 26 feet wide.
The rear portion would contain an upper level porch and open deck with
an open exposed roof. City code states that the side yard setback
requirement is 10 feet for interior lots, with the exception that an
attached garage can be located five feet from the property line. The
proposed house addition would be located three feet from the side yard
property line, therefore, a seven foot variance from the ten-foot setback
requirement is being requested. This property is located on a l O0-foot
deep lot with a 90-foot wide frontage on Ensign Avenue. The property
is located on the east side of Ensign Avenue just south of the 36th
Avenue intersection. The property is located in a Single Family
Residential-Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes.
The new Kimball Subdivision is located to the east of the property.
Mr. McDonald continued saying that the petitioner stated on the
application that he would reside the entire house with maintenance-free
siding, aluminum soffit and facia, and a new asphalt shingle roo~ would
also be installed. The petitioners also stated on the application that
New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - August 6, 1996
they feel the request should be granted so that they gain additional
living space and to improve the aesthetics and appearance of the home.
The petitioner met with the staff in a pre-application meeting, which is
routine procedure now with the 60-day notification law. Property
owners within 350 feet of the request were notified. The only comment
received was a letter from the adjacent property owner to the north
saying they were aware of the variance and have no objections.
Mr. McDonald stated that the criteria for granting a variance were listed
in the planning report. Staff indicated that there might be some
justification for the variance to accommodate the expansion due to the
shallowness of the lot. If the petitioner constructed an addition onto
the rear, a variance would also be required because of the shallow lot.
The use compatibility is maintained since many of the homes in the area
have completed additions. The other requirements in the code for light
and air, street congestion, and public safety are not in conflict with this
request. Property values preservation is enhanced with the addition
because it will not be too close to the adjacent home. There is a 90-
foot distance between the existing house and the house to the north.'
The only condition from staff's point-of-view is that, if approved,
building materials and roof pitch should match the existing structure.'
Mr. Jonathan Arnoldy, 3532 Ensign Avenue, came forward to answer
questions of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Stulberg directed the first question to the City Attorney
by asking if there would be a problem in the future if the adjacent
property ever sold and the new owner objected to the variance. The
City Attorney responded that there would be no liability. Commissioner
Stulberg asked about the length of the project from start to finish. Mr.
Arnoldy stated that his contractor has explained that there is a three to
four week wait for trusses, therefore the length of the project would be
from four to six months long. The project would be started this summer.
The petitioner would be doing all of the interior work and the contractor
would be doing the exterior work, excavation, pulling the permit, roof,
etc.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that after looking at pictures of the
property, a rear yard variance must already have been granted since that
addition does not meet the rear yard requirements. He stated he has a
concern with the seven-foot variance for a side yard, leaving only three
feet to the property line. He continued saying that in this case there is
a large amount of property between homes, but wondered what would
happen if another petitioner came in and also wanted a large variance d
leaving a minimum of distance between homes. The ordinances set the
standards for the City and this variance, he feels, goes too far beyond
what is reasonable. Commissioner Svendsen felt that there was no
hardship presented by not adding on. After reviewing the planning
report and the plans, it seems that the lilacs and other bushes on the
side yard property line would have to be removed. Mr. Arnoldy stated
that he planted these shrubs before the idea of an addition came along.
This is a 1965 rambler with extremely poor closet space. The addition
would provide for a large walk-in closet. They are also adding another
shower with the three-quarter bathroom in the master bedroom. It may
not be a hardship without the addition, however, it is a real
enhancement to the City and to the neighborhood to add on to the
home. Mr. Arnoldy also stated that he has put a large amount of money
New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - August 6, 1996
into the house and that-the values of New Hope do not necessarily
support it, but he feels that the addition will increase the value of the
home to about $150,000 within a few years. He likes New Hope and
would prefer to stay in the City. Mr. Arnoldy informed the
Commissioners that he would be matching the roof lines, installing high-
quality steel siding, and a new roof. The adjacent home is parallel to
36th Avenue and there is a large amount of distance between the rear of
that home and the rear property line, so if that home owner wanted to
add on to the back of the house, there would still be a large back yard.
The petitioner continued saying that the addition would be a real
enhancement to the neighborhood with the Kimball Addition
$200,000+ homes behind his property.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned where the air conditioner would be
located. Mr. Arnoldy responded that the air conditioner would be
moved to a. location under the deck where it would be hidden from
view, yet accessible for service. The gas meter would be moved to the
front and screened with a bush. The lilacs would be moved to another
part of the property. The Japanese yews would be moved from the side
to the front of the property.
Commissioner Cassen asked staff if a variance has ever been granted to
within three feet of the property line. Mr. McDonald stated this would
need to be researched. Commissioner Cassen stressed that if this
variance is granted a precedent will be set. A five foot variance would be
better and she asked the petitioner if they would consider a lO-foot
addition instead of 12 feet. Mr. Arnoldy pointed out that changing the
plans by two feet would drastically change the bathroom to a half bath
instead of a three-quarter bath and they would lose the shower. The
proposed bathroom is approximately 8' x 6' so changing the footage by
two feet would affect the floor plan a lot. Deleting two feet also affects
the storage space capabilities of the home. Commissioner Cassen asked
what the size of the master bedroom would be and was told it would be
16' x 13'. Commissioner Cassen suggested that if the addition would be
cut back by two feet, the size of the bedroom would be 14' x 13' and the
petitioners could still maintain the three-quarter bath and the walk-in
closet.. Mr. Arnoldy stated that the pr.oject would be more worthwhile by
leaving the size as is. Something else to consider is the limited storage
space in the home. The mechanical area in the basement also takes up
badly needed storage space. With the extra space in the home, he felt he
would not need to construct a storage shed in the yard. Commissioner
Cassen emphasized again the fact that the Commission would rather not
set a precedent with such a large variance and the small side yard.
Chairman Sonsin stated he had a concern with the large variance request.
Variances of this sort do create a precedent that the Commission needs to
live with when dealing with other requests. Mr. Arnoldy stated he can
understand about creating precedents, however, he reiterated that there is
a great deal of distance between his property and the adjacent property.
The petitioner stated that it seemed to be worthwhile to pursue the
project and construct a significant addition. In defense of the project, Mr.
Arnoldy again stated that the distance to the adjacent home is so large
and storage space is badly needed. Chairman Sonsin said he looked at
both properties and could see that argument. Chairman Sonsin stated
that if the variance would be granted, a precedent would then be set by
creating a variance that runs seven feet into a ten-foot setback. Mr.
Arnoldy asked why the code does not include a statement regarding the
New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - August 6, 1996
MOTION
Item 2.2
distance to an adjacent home.
Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioner how he would feel if the
Commission tabled this for one month so staff could research this issue to
see if a variance this large has ever been granted. Mr. Arnoldy replied
that he wants to move forward as quickly as possible to complete the
project in a timely manner. Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioner to
review the plans to see if the addition could be constructed so that the
variance request would be four or five feet. A seven-foot variance is
extreme in the eyes of the Commission. The Commission does not have a
problem with rear yard variances. A front yard variance is rarely granted
and a side yard variance of seven to ten feet is a big variance. Mr.
Arnoldy asked for clarification if the addition should be 10~ x 13' which
would be a five-foot variance. Chairman Sonsin stated that the
Commission is viewing this from a precedent setting point-of-view and
that they are not against the proposed addition. Commissioner Sonsin
asked that staff check to see if a variance was needed for the porch on
the rear of the house. Several of the Commissioners concurred with
Chairman Sonsin.
Commissioner Keefe wondered about the possibility of the adjacent
neighbor replatting his property and selling part of it to Mr. Arnoldy.
Motion by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner LandY, to
table for one month Planning Case 96-29, Request for a Variance from the
Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of an Addition,
3532 Ensign Avenue North, Jonathan & Christy Arnoldy, Petitioners.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg,
Cassen, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers, Damiani
Motion carried.
Landy, Underdahl Sonsin,
Mr. Arnoldy wanted clarification on the procedure for next month and
whether he needed to return with new plans and/or variance. Chairman
Sonsin replied that staff would research previous variance requests of this
size and whether or not the variance was granted or denied, and if so,
under what conditions. The petitioner should also work with his architect
and look at the plans to see if the size could be cut down to something
the Commission can work with comfortably. Mr. Arnoldy asked if a five-
foot variance has ever been approved. Chairman Sonsin stated that staff
should research this first because he did not know for sure what has been
done in the past. The petitioner should check with staff in a couple
weeks to see what has been determined on past variances. Chairman
Sonsin stated that after the Planning Commission moves this issue on to
the City Council, the Council will make their own decision after reviewing
the facts.
CONSENT ITEMS
Chairman Sonsin explained that there are four items on the Consent
Agenda. These are all ordinances that the Codes & Standards Committee
has been working on for several months. One public hearing will be held
for all four ordinances. A separate discussion can be requested for each
ordinance, if needed. Each ordinance would require a separate motion.
After discussion of each ordinance the public hearing was closed. Motion
New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - August 6, 1996
Case 96-21
Item 3.1
MOTION
Item 3.1
was made by ~ Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Underdahl. Voting in favor: All. Motion carried.
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, An Ordinance
Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-
Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street
Parking Areas, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin commented that some of the wording has been changed
in this ordinance amendment. This began from the Lasky case where
asphalt curbing was requested by the petitioner rather than concrete
curbing. The precedent has been concrete curbing but this wording
change formalizes the ordinance.
Commissioner Cassen stated she understands why single family and two
family is an exception for this ordinance, but wondered why townhouses
and condos aren't required to have concrete curbing. Many times there
are townhouses that have a legal description as condo so how does the
City determine what the right definition is. What happens in the future if'
townhouses are rehabbed or a new development is constructed. Concrete
curbing would be required at these developments. Commissioner Cas~en
suggested that townhouses not be exempted from the ordinance
amendment. The City Attorney clarified that Commissioner Cassen
wanted townhouses and condos to be required to install continuous
concrete curbing. Commissioner Cassen confirmed this saying there is
guest parking included at these developments. Many times townhouses
are considered a condo because of the legal description. Mr. Sondrall
stated that in New Hope the condos are mostly double units.
Commissioner Underdahl stated that there are several townhouses just
south of Bass Lake Road between Boone and Winnetka. Chairman Sonsin
questioned the zoning of townhouses in the code and it was determined
that townhouses are in the R-3 District, which, by definition, is something
other than single family or two family homes. The City Attorney stated
that R-3 uses are subject to this ordinance. The only Zoning Districts that
are exempt are Single Family (R-l) and Two Family (R-2). If the use does
not fit in either Single or Two Family Districts, then the use is not exempt.
The City Attorney explained that the revision mainly involved commercial/
industrial uses and not any type of residential uses, however the wording
could be changed to include R-3 uses as well. The Commissioners
recommended that the wording be changed before a vote is taken on this
ordinance.
Chairman Sonsin suggested tabling this ordinance until the wording is
changed and the Commission can review the revision. Mr. McDonald
interjected that staff and Codes & Standards only studied the issue of
concrete curbing at industrial/commercial sites and did not consider
residential areas. Additional time would give staff time to identify the
definition of townhouse, where the townhouses are located in the City,
what type of curbing there is now, and provide more information to the
Commission. Commissioner Cassen added that this ordinance would then
apply to any new developments.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to
table for one month Planning Case 96-21, An Ordinance Amending New
Hope Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by
Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - August 6, 1996
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg,
Cassen, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers, Damiani
Motion carried.
Landy, Underdahl Sonsin,
Case 96-23
Item 3.2
MOTION
Item 3.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, An Ordinance
Amending New Hope City Code Section 3.463 by Permitting Wall Signs
on Churches, Schools, Non-Profit Institutions and Governmental Buildings,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin stated that this ordinance deals with signage for the new
Ice Arena addition and making the Ice Arena equivalent to similar
buildings.
Commissioner Underdahl questioned if a church could now put up a sign
on the side of the building and this was confirmed. Commissioner
Svendsen wondered if this ordinance gave preferential treatment to the
City. The City Attorney responded that the ordinance was studied
because of a request by the City, but it is applicable to all of the uses that
are within the code. The need for the ordinance is in response to the
desire of the City to put up a significantly large sign on the Ice Arena. Mr.
McDonald added that as City projects are being initiated, staff is learning
that City Code does not always specifically address City buildings. In
1992 when the City Hall remodeling project was being done, staff found
that the City Code did not allow any ground signage for public buildings.
At that time the code was amended to allow a 75 square foot ground sign
for the City Hall because the Sign Code did not allow it, yet the Code
allows signage for all other commercial or industrial businesses in the City.
In 1995 the Wall Sign Code was amended for the bowling alley because
they wanted to put up a large wall sign and the Sign Code said that a
business could have two 100 square foot front wall signs but did not
allow the business to combine the signs into one sign. At that time the
ordinance was amended to allow for one 250 square foot wall sign. Staff
did not realize until the Ice Arena project that the Sign Code does not
address or allow for any wall signs on public recreational buildings. The
City should be allowed the same type of signage as any other single
occupancy business. Chairman Sonsin concurred with staff.
Motion by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-23, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code
Section 3.463 by Permitting Wall Signs on Churches, Schools, Non-Profit
Institutions and Governmental Buildings, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg,
Cassen, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers, Damiani
Motion carried.
Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin,
This Planning Case will proceed to the City Council on August 12, 1996.
Case 96-25
Item 3.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3, An Ordinance
Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.125(2)(d) Regulating Food
Handling Licenses as Subordinate Uses for Automobile Service Stations,
New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - August 6, 1996
MOTION
Item 3.3
City of New Hope, PetitiOner.
Chairman Sonsin stated that this ordinance amendment was requested by
the City Council after they passed the enabling ordinance to get the code
in compliance with past action. This is basically a language change in the
ordinance.
Commissioner Underdahl wondered if this in relation to the SuperAmerica
with the deli bar. Chairman Sonsin stated that this refers to any
establishment that sells food to be taken out or heated on the premises.
Mr. Sondrall added that this is in response to a request from staff to
clarify definitions pertaining to what licenses should apply to which uses.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to
approve Planning Case 96-23, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code
Section 3.463 by Permitting Wall Signs on Churches, Schools, Non-Profit
Institutions and Governmental Buildings, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg,
Cassen, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers, Damiani
Motion carried.
Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin,
This Planning Case will proceed to the City Council on August 12, 1996.
Case 96-06
Item 3.4
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.4 An Ordinance
Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(10)(z) Regulating Parking
Requirements for Shopping Centers, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin explained that this ordinance amendment is to simplify
parking requirements for shopping centers.
Commissioner Underdahl wondered if there will be less blacktop around
shopping centers with this change. Chairman Sonsin explained that the
ordinance is simplified. The ordinance now requires six spaces per 1,000
square feet of area. Mr. McDonald added that during the Lasky
development discussions there was some concern among staff as to
whether it was a shopping center or not. If it would be defined as a
shopping center, then it had to be processed as a PUD. The discussion
consisted of how many stores were considered a shopping center. The
Planner studied the issue and reported that the Lasky development would
be a shopping center and had to be processed as a PUD, therefore Codes
& Standards studied the parking requirements to see if the ordinance
should be changed. The decision was that it should not be changed. If
the shopping center parking requirements are applied to the small
developments, the Lasky development would have been required to
provide 117 spaces. Chairman Sonsin stated that the change would
reduce the amount of parking area required. The change is for 6 spaces
for every 1,000 square feet instead of 10 spaces for the first 20,000
square feet an additional 8 for the next 10,000 square feet and then 6
spaces for any footage over 30,000 square feet. A developer can provide
more if they want. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the City could
require more spaces. Mr. Sondrall stated that the City could not require
more spaces without legislating a different ordinance into effect.
Commissioner Svendsen clarified that this has nothing to do with the
New Hope Planning Commission - 9 - August 6, 1996
MOTION
Item 3.4
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
handicap parking requirements.
Commissioner Cassen stated that there is a definite shortage of parking at
the New Hope City Center where the health club is located and wondered
what ratio of parking was applied to that center since there is a shortage
of space. Mr. McDonald reported that six spaces are required for over
30,000 square feet. Mr. Sondrall explained that there were some other
issues that were dealt with that concerned those two separate shopping
centers and the mixed uses in the centers. The health club is a use that
does generate a lot of parking at certain times during the day. If the
Planning Commission felt that a commercial recreational facility in a B-4
Zoning District required a need for more parking than what this ordinance
would provide, this issue should be referred back to staff or the Planner to
study. Mr. McDonald pointed out that this ordinance does not reduce the
amount of parking required for large shopping centers. Commissioner
Cassen stated that her concern was that this is not enough, however a
health club is a unique situation. The City should not put such limitations
on parking which would create more problems. Mr. Sondrall stated that
the direction has been to require less parking because the thought is that
the parking standards have been too strict and thus preventing new
developments from coming into the City. Chairman Sonsin reminded the
Commission that several years ago the parking space width was reduced,
which allowed for more spaces to be provided in the same amount of
space.
Motion by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 96-06, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code
Section 4.036(10)(z) Regulating Parking Requirements for Shopping
Centers, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg,
Cassen, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers, Damiani
Motion carried.
Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin,
This Planning Case will proceed to the City Council on August 12, 1996.
Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Committee did not
meet in June or July. Mr. McDonald reported that September applications
are due on August 9. There is a possibility of a new plan being submitted
for the Hoyt property for one building and a large expansion on the
Archives building south of 36th and Nevada Avenues.
Chairman Sonsin asked about the Tasks Unlimited project. Ms. Bellefuil
replied that there is a twin home located on 36th and Independence
Avenues. Tasks Unlimited would purchase the property for a group
home. The Council approved the purchase and Northwest Hennepin
Human Services (CHDO) also would have to approve the funding for the
project. The City is not involved with the project other than to give a loan
to Tasks Unlimited which they would have to pay back. Mr. McDonald
added that this is a permitted use.
Mr. McDonald added that there is also one minor variance for a garage
addition on the September agenda.
New Hope Planning Commission
- 10 - August 6, 1996
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in June and July and
will meet again on August 28. They continued to work on the pawn shop
issue and met with a member of the Minneapolis Police Department to
discuss the Automated Pawn System, The intent of the Committee is to
wrap up their work in the next month or two and bring the information to
the Planning Commission for discussion and some action, The Automated
System will be ready sometime during or shortly after the first quarter of
1997 and the Council would not want to move ahead with this until the
APS is ready for use. The Committee is also reviewing accessory
buildings and setbacks.
Commissioner Svendsen wondered if there is a sunset time for the
Planning Commission meetings, Mr. Sondrall stated that the Chairman
controls the meeting, The Council has a policy that says they will not
meet beyond 11 p,m. The Commission would need to be reasonable and
allow for public discussion otherwise the public hearing becomes
meaningless, There can be a limit to the amount of time each person
would address the Commission. Commissioner Svendsen stated he talked
to a member of the Moundsview Planning Commission and they set up a
time limit of 10:30 p.m. where they would move to adjourn the meeting
and by election of all the Commissioners then hold a special meeting to
continue,
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENT
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
There were no other announcements
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:15
p.m,
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester,
Recording Secretary
New Hope Planning Commission - 11 - August 6, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 3, 1996
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:
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen,
Oelkers, Damiani Svendsen
None
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil,
Community Development Specialist
CONSENT ITEMS
There were no consent items presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC96-29
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for a
Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction
of an Addition, 3532 Ensign Avenue North, Jonathan & Christy Arnoldy,
Petitioners.
Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion to remove this item from last
month's action to table. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by
Commissioner Svendsen to remove from table. All in favor. Motion
carried.
Mr. McDonald reported that at the August Planning Commission meeting
the petitioners requested a variance from the side yard setback
requirement to allow the construction of a 12' x 13' addition and a 12' x
13' open porch/deck onto the existing house. They were proposing to
construct a master bedroom addition to the north. The addition would
have extended 12 feet out from the existing structure and would have
been 26 feet wide. The side yard setback requirement in a Single Family
Residential Zoning District is 10 feet, therefore, the addition would have
come within three feet of the side yard property line and a seven-foot
variance would have been needed. The Planning Commission discussed
this case at length at the August meeting and the majority of the
Commissioners did not favor granting the original request. The request
was tabled until the September meeting and three actions were requested
by the Commission. First, staff was to research past variances to
determine if a seven-foot variance from the side yard setback requirement
had ever been granted. Second, the Commission asked that the petitioner
consider revising the plans for the addition by several feet so that such a
large variance was not necessary. Third, staff was to research the
deck/porch addition in the rear yard. Staff completed the research on
variances back to 1980 and found that the largest variance ever granted
for a house addition where there was a 10-foot side yard setback was five
feet, which was granted in 1985. There have been other variances for
rear yard additions, garage additions on the side yard, or for non-
conforming houses on a corner lot. Specifically for a situation like this
with a lO-foot side yard setback for a house addition, the largest variance
ever granted was five feet. This information was sent to Mr. Arnoldy and
Chairman Sonsin and staff recommended that Mr. Arnoldy strongly
consider revising the plans because staff felt that the Commission would
New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - September 3, 1996
not recommend approval of the original request.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner met with staff and submitted a
revised site plan, floor plan, cross sections, and new elevation photos,
which showed a two-foot reduction in the width of the addition from the
original request. The revised plans show a 10-foot wide addition, which
would encroach five feet into the side yard setback requirement at the
closest point on the northwest corner. The northeast corner of the
addition would be about 7,5 feet to the property line. Mr. Arnoldy can
explain the floor plan to the Commission. Staff was mainly concerned
with the outside dimensions of the house and the encroachment into the
setback. Staff felt that the petitioner has done a good job revising the
plans and followed the recommendations of the Commission and staff.
The petitioner also submitted a letter stating that the entire home and
addition would be re-sided with new high quality steel siding and a new
asphalt shingle roof would be installed on the existing home. The existing
windows in the house would be reused in the addition and the building
materials of the addition would exactly match the existing structure.
Mr. McDonald continued explaining that staff researched the porch issue
and found that the house was built in 1965. In 1986 the former owner
applied for a building permit to construct the elevated deck in the rear
yard. At that time the former owner submitted a site plan that was
inaccurate. Staff reminded the Commission that decks are allowed as
encroachments in rear yard setback areas. The building permit was
allowed for the elevated deck. The home was then sold in 1990. In 1991
Mr. Arnoldy applied for a building permit using the same site plan and
applied for a permit to enclose the deck and construct the porch. The
Zoning Code states that when decks become enclosed they are
considered part of the structure and are then supposed to meet the
setback requirements. Since the building plan and site plan had already
been approved, the lnspection's Department approved the permit. There
was probably an error on the part of the City as well as the former owner.
Staff discussed this matter with the City Attorney and it was determined
that no action by the Planning Commission was necessary on this
particular issue. It would be considered a legal non-conforming use. The
Building Official would need to be more careful checking lot sizes and
setbacks in the future. In order to have everything perfect, each
homeowner would need to have a certified survey of their property when
applying for a variance. In place of the survey, a site plan has been used
for many years, which is not always 100 percent accurate.
Mr. Jonathan Arnoldy, 3532 Ensign Avenue North, came to the podium to
answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Arnoldy stated that at the last
meeting it was brought to his attention that the Commission did not want
to set a precedent by approving a seven-foot variance and he was told to
modify the plans somewhat. Mr. Arnoldy explained that the addition was
reduced by two feet so the variance requested now would be five feet at
the closest point to the property line. By requesting a five-foot variance,
there would be no new precedent set since this was done in the past. Mr.
Arnoldy called attention to the signed letter that was submitted with the
planning report from the adjacent neighbor pointing out the great distance
between the two homes, He stated that on the north side of the home
where the addition would be constructed there are the lilac bushes, pine
trees and maple tree which offer a buffer between the two homes. Mr.
Arnoldy reiterated that the building materials of the addition would be all
steel siding. All building materials would match the existing structure.
There are no changes in the windows since the windows from the
New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - September 3, 1996
eXiSting structu~b ~ill b~i~e~§ed in the new addition. The ,roof line will
remain the same. A lot of thought and care went into planning for this
addition so it would not look like an addition, but rather a part of the
house.
Commissioner Stulberg commented that the petitioner has done a great
job revising the plans to meet the recommendations of the Commission
and had no further questions.
Commissioner Oelkers wondered what would be done under the deck. Mr.
Arnoldy answered that there would be rock under the deck and
landscaping. The existing rock would be moved. There would be a full
basement under the bedroom. The air conditioner unit would be moved
under the deck and out of site.
Chairman Sonsin stated he was impressed with the plan and his concerns
with the size of the variance have been resolved with the reduction to a
five-foot variance. He explained again his concern from the previous
month and not wanting to set a precedent with the seven-foot variance.
Chairman Sonsin added his appreciation with the petitioner's willingness
to work with the Commission on this issue.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to approve Planning Case 96-29, Request for a Variance from the Side
Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a 10-foot Wide
Addition, 3532 Ensign Avenue North, Jonathan & Christy Arnoldy,
Petitioners.
1. Building materials and roof pitch to match existing structure.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned staff whether there is a utility
easement in the side yard setback. Mr. McDonald responded that the
easement is five feet on each side of the property line. Commissioner
Oelkers wondered why the City does not require an "As Built Survey"
from each petitioner as that would eliminate any error on the City's part
or the petitioner's part. Several other cities in the area do require the
survey as part of the application process. Chairman Sonsin and
Commissioner Cassen confirmed this was a good point.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Underdahl
Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
None
None
Sonsin,
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on September 9,
1996.
PC 96-30
Item 3.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Request for a
Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction
of a Garage Addition, 7251 40m Avenue North, Richard & Patricia Bruins,
Petitioners.
Ms. Bellefuil reported that this request is for a 10-foot variance from the
rear yard setback for the construction of a garage addition. The petitioner
currently has an attached single car garage on the east side of the house
and would like to construct a 12' x 22.8' addition that would expand the
existing garage into an attached double garage. The addition would be
located 25 feet from the rear yard property line, which is the reason for
the lO-foot variance. The property is in a R-1 Residential District and is
New Hope Planning Commission - 3 ~ September 3, 1996
surrounded by single family residential properties. The lot is 77.5 feet on
the front and 117.5 feet in depth. The house was built perpendicular to
the front lot line and the front door faces the side yard along 40th Avenue.
If the addition were to be built in the side yard, only a five-foot setback
would be needed, but since the addition would be built in the rear 35-foot
setback, a lO-foot variance is required.
Ms. Bellefuil continued saying that after analyzing the variance request,
staff found that undue hardship can be argued because the lot is
undersized and the fact that the house faces the wrong way, which is out
of the control of the current owners. In addition, the garage addition
would not alter the character of the house. Most of the houses in the area
already have two-car garages. The home to the east was also built facing
north with the garage adjacent to the petitioner's garage. The two
garages would be 50 feet apart once the addition is built. No other
options are available for this property for a garage addition Ms. Beilefuil
explained that the Planning Commission and City Council approved a
variance on this property in 1984 for a porch which is eight feet from the
side yard property line. Pending comment from neighbors, staff
recommends approval of the lO-foot rear yard setback variance subject to
the condition that exterior building materials match the existing structure.
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Bruins, 7251 40m Avenue, came to the podium to
answer questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Keefe questioned staff whether the house on the east is
spaced appropriately from the side yard. Ms. Bellefuil replied that since
the houses would be 50 feet apart after the addition that the adjacent
house would probably be encroaching into their rear yard setback also.
Commissioner Keefe asked whether the driveway would be enlarged to
service the double garage. Mr. Bruins responded that the driveway is a
single entry from the street and expands out near the garage to double
size and that the curb cut onto the street would not be enlarged. Mrs.
Bruins added that the existing structure has cedar shake siding and
everything will be replaced with vinyl siding and the home will be re-
roofed. Commissioner Keefe inquired if the garage doors would match and
it was confirmed the doors would match.
Commissioner Svendsen commented on the actual front of the property
being different than the address, which is 40th Avenue. Mr. McDonald
explained that the Zoning Code defines the front yard as the portion of
the lot with the narrowest width. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that this
issue was studied several years ago, and since there are so many non-
conforming houses on corner lots, staff and the Commission decided to
leave this ordinance as it was.
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-30, Request for a Variance from the Rear Yard
Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition, 7251
40th Avenue North, Richard & Patricia Bruins, Petitioners.
1. Exterior construction materials of addition to match existing
structure.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Underdahl
Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
None
None
Sonsin,
New Hope Planning Commission 4 September 3, 1996
Case 96-21
Item 3.3
MOTION
Item 3.3
This planning case: Will PrOceed to the City Council on September 9,
1996.
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3, An Ordinance
Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-
Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street
Parking Areas, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin reported that this issue was considered last month.
Commissioner Cassen raised the question whether townhomes and
condominiums should be included or not. The planning case was referred
back to staff and staff requested tabling this issue for another month for
further study. Mr. McDonald interjected he wanted the Commission to be
certain of what would be voted on. Staff would like further study by the
Planning Consultant regarding the size of the complex, guest parking
areas, etc.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to
table for one month Planning Case 96-21, An Ordinance Amending New
Hope Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by
Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Commissioner Cassen expressed that she would like to see apartment
buildings included in the study and to be sure the study is complete so
these issues do not come up again. Chairman Sonsin suggested that this
issue be reviewed by Codes & Standards before being presented to the
Planning Commission. Commissioner Cassen added that staff should be
sure to include all commercial/industrial developments, multiple dwelling
units, including twin homes if they are within an association, and other
townhomes if they are within an association. Twin homes by themselves
would not need to be included.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Underdahl
Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Sonsin,
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Committee did not
meet in August. Mr. McDonald stated that the deadline for planning
appliqations for October is the end of the week. There is a possibility of a
new one-building proposal on the Hoyt property and St. Therese Nursing
Home site improvements. St. Therese bought the duplex to the north and
a rezoning and a site and building plan review would be required to
expand the parking lot. The property from the first duplex St. Therese
bought was never rezoned so the additional properties would now be
rezoned to make the entire property consistent with the R-4 zoning.
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in August and most
of the meeting was devoted to pawn shops. The next meeting is
scheduled for September 25 to continue pawn shop discussion and a few
other issues.
New Hope Planning Commission
-5-
September 3, 1996
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
There was no discussion on miscellaneous issues.
Chairman Sonsin reported that construction had begun at the Mobil
Station on 36~ Avenue. Mr. McDonald stated that there was a noise
violation reported by a citizen because construction crews started working
long before 6 a.m. The Police Department responded and the issue was
resolved
Commissioner Underdahl wondered about the acquisition of the homes at
Sumter and Bass Lake Road and if all of th® homes would be demolished
and the sites left vacant. She also wondered if there was any time frame
for the acquisition of the homes. Mr. McDonald responded that the homes
are being acquired on a voluntary basis only. The last home purchased
was in poor condition and would be a key property for future
redevelopment of the area. All of the properties would be seeded and
maintained by the City. Commissioner Cassen added that by purchasing
the properties on a voluntary sale basis, the City would not be responsible
for relocation costs for the sellers.
NEW BUSINESS
The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
The October agenda could include the Hoyt expansion, St. Therese, a
variance for a house addition on a cul-de-sac lot, the perimeter curb
ordinance, and pawn shop discussion.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Sonsin asked staff to distribute the Pawn Shop Notebooks to
the balance of the Planning Commissioners along with updates for the
Codes & Standards Committee members. Chairman Sonsin explained that
the proposed ordinance would be found in Section 9 of the notebook. The
desire of the Codes & Standards Committee would be to have an informal
discussion in October with the full Commission and a formal public
hearing in November. Council would then have time to review this issue
before the moratorium expires in March 1997. If Commissioners have
questions or comments regarding the materials in the notebook, calls
could be directed to Mr. McDonald or any of the members of Codes &
Standards Committee. Any changes or recommendations from the
Commission could then be reviewed at the Codes & Standards meeting at
the end of September.
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the November Planning Commission
meeting date of Monday, November 4, was established before knowing
that two Commissioners would be running for office in the November
elections. It is the desire of the Chair to have a full Commission and in
respect of the Commissioners running for office, a suggestion was made
to hold the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, November 6. It
was the consensus of the Commission to change the date of the meeting
to Wednesday, November 6, which would follow instead of precede the
November 5 General Election.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:35
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - September 3, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 1, 1996
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:
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Svendsen
Underdahl, Oelkers, Damiani
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall,
City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Mark
Hanson, City Engineer
CONSENT ITEMS
There were no consent items presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC96-34
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for a
Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Expansion of
an Existing Screened Porch to a Four-Season Porch, 3809 Xylon Avenue
North, Michael & Pamela Terres, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald reported the petitioners are requesting a variance from the
rear yard setback requirement to allow the expansion of an existing
screened porch to a four-season porch. This case also involves a variance
to expand a non-conforming use. The property is located in an R-1 Zoning
District and is surrounded by single family homes on the north, east and
south. The rear yard of the property, where the variance is being
requested, abuts up to Northwood Park. The property is located on a
9,500 square foot lot on the west side of the cul-de-sac where Xylon
Avenue and 38~ Avenue intersect.
Mr. McDonald explained that the petitioners are proposing to expand the
existing 10' x 13', 130 square foot, screened porch, located at the
southwest corner of the home, and convert it into a 20' x 21', 420
square foot, four-season, main level porch. City code states that the rear
yard setback requirement is 35 feet. The proposed porch expansion would
be located 11 feet from the rear yard property line at the closest point,
therefore a 24-foot variance from the 35-foot setback requirement is
being requested. The existing home was constructed on this oddly shaped
cul-de-sac lot in 1962. The existing home does not meet the 35-foot
setback requirement, because the existing porch is located 21 feet from
the rear yard property line. The petitioner stated on the application that
the request is due to the shallow lot and the fact that they want to invest
in the home and upgrade the current living spaces.
Mr. McDonald pointed out that the criteria for granting a variance was
explained in the planning report. There needs to be an undue hardship that
prevents the reasonable use of the property, where circumstances are
unique to the property, and a hardship may exist by reason of
narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the property. City staff found that
there are several criteria in the code that may be met with this request.
Undue hardship could pertain because the lot is very shallow. The original
home and lot were approved by the City when the property was platted.
The lot is only 83 feet deep at the center and therefore nearly impossible
Planning Commission Meeting I October 1, 1996
to build any home that complied with all the zoning setbacks. Use
compatibility is maintained with the request since many of the homes in
the area have porches of this type. No expansion or investment is really
possible without a variance somewhere on the property. Property values
preservation is met because the porch expansion would not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
Mr. McDonald added that the petitioner had submitted the details on the
porch addition. The porch would be sided with 12-foot masonite lap siding
to match the existing structure. Shingles would be light gray asphalt and
would match the existing structure. Quality Anderson type windows and
doors would be installed in the porch. The planned roof pitch would
change at the bearing wall that separates the garage from the expansion.
The interior ceiling would be vaulted at the same pitch as the roof. The
one concern that the Building Official noted was the inconsistent roof
styles. He feels that a more attractive roof connection would be a
matching slope gable roof. Currently the existing roof has a 4:12 pitch
and the proposed roof has a 2.4:12 pitch. Staff is recommending approval
of the variance with the conditions that the building materials of addition
match existing structure and petitioner cooperate with the Planning
Commission and staff and consider an upgrade in the roof design that
would match the house more appropriately.
Mr. Michael Terres, 3809 Xylon Avenue, approached the podium.
Commissioner Landy commented that his concern was not so much the
variance request because of the odd shape of the lot, but rather the roof
and asked the petitioner to expand on that and his conversations with the
Building Official. Mr. Terres replied that he had talked with a structural
engineer about some other ideas. An alternate design could be
implemented to keep the pitch as it is and just raise it up and move the
center peak further to the west. The petitioner stated he is agreeable to
this change. Commissioner Cassen agreed that the variance request would
be acceptable because of the odd lot shape and the rear yard abutting a
park.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to
approve Planning Case 96-34, Request for a Variance from the Rear Yard
Setback Requirement to Allow Expansion of an Existing Screened Porch to
a Four-Season Porch, 3809 Xylon Avenue North, Michael & Pamela
Tetras, Petitioners.
Building materials and roof pitch to match existing structure.
Petitioner consider an upgrade in the roof design and meet with the
Building Official to fine tune a more conventional and attractive roof
line.
Mr. McDonald advised the petitioner to submit a revised plan before the
Council meeting on October 14.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers, Damiani
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on October 14, 1996.
PC 96-33 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Request for Rezoning
Item 3.2 From R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) Zoning District to R-4 (High
Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 1, 1996
Density Residenti~i) zoning 5istrict and' Site/Building Plan 5801/5803 and
andReview/Approval for Parking Lot Expansion at 5801/5803 & and and
5805/5807 Winnetka Avenue North, and 8000 Bass Lake Road, St.
Therese Home of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the property in question
is located north of Bass Lake Road, just north of St. Therese's existing
parking lots. The proposal is for the acquisition of a twin home lot, which
would be converted into an expanded parking lot that would net an
additional 19 spaces. St. Therese also owns a twin home lot just south of
the newest acquisition. As part of the application, St. Therese is
proposing to combine all of the property into one parcel and rezone the
entire property. The subject property is currently zoned R-4, Multiple
Family. The site abuts an R-2 area. The site in question is also zoned R-2.
The first application for consideration would be for rezoning. The criteria
that is established in New Hope's history for considering any change in
zoning has to meet one of two questions. First, was the request a result
of a past zoning mistake. The mere existence of the twin home on the lot
was consistent with the R-2 zoning, therefore no mistake was originally
made in establishing the original zoning. Secondly, has the character of
the area changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change. In this
respect, staff feels that St. Therese is an on-going vital land use in this
area of New Hope. Any expansion and on-going maintenance to insure the
continued operation and function is appropriate for the area. It is staff's
opinion that, due to the influence of this multiple family use, the character
of the area has changed with the use of St. Therese and the need for
additional parking. The Planner recommended to the Planning Commission
to make the same finding. In addition, the Planner emphasized that the
proposed expansion and maintenance of St. Therese is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Plan that New Hope recently
adopted with regard to providing a full variety of housing, providing
sufficient levels of accessory uses to service the facility, such as parking,
the need to provide safe and adequate access to the site.
Mr. Brixius explained that this acquisition was an intrusion on the R-2
area. In respect staff met with St. Therese and asked for certain
concessions in site design to insure that compatibility would occur. The
original plan proposed a five-foot setback on the northeast property line.
At the request of staff, this setback has been increased from five feet to
13 feet, a 48-inch fence is being proposed and a row of 7-foot conifer
trees are also being proposed in this area. The Planner pointed out that St.
Therese gave specific attention to maintaining the compatibility of this use
in relationship to the remaining twin home to the north. This area would
be used exclusively for parking and not an expansion of the building,
therefore the use still maintains a significant setback. In considering the
rezoning, the individual lots that have been acquired do not meet the
15,000 R-4 or R-5 zoning standard. Staff is strongly recommending and is
agreeable to St. Therese replatting all of the lots into one parcel, which
would include all of the land that St. Therese owns. The proposed use will
not overburden existing facilities. This would be a parking lot and the
change in use would lessen the actual land use on site. Traffic generation
is within the capability of streets. One curb cut would be eliminated and
the traffic would be circulated through another curb cut and will reduce
some congestion by providing additional on-street parking. The internal
on-site circulation will function better.
Mr. Brixius stated that the request was for R-4 zoning was consistent
with current zoning on the site. Upon examination of the use of St.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 1, 1996
Therese as a nursing home and elderly housing, the R-5, Senior Citizen
Housing, would be more in tune with the housing provided by St.
Therese. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that instead of expanding
the R-4, Multiple Family, the entire St. Therese site plus the two additional
lots to the north should be rezoned to R-5, to be more restrictive.
Mr. Brixius continued saying the second application requested was for site
plan review for expansion of the parking lot to add an additional 19
spaces. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and
raised several points and St. Therese has addressed each point as
requested. First they increased the setback on the north property line from
five feet to 13 feet and are providing a 48 inch board-on-board fence. The
landscape plan illustrated a provision for seven-foot high white spruce
trees along the north property line. Staff feels that St. Therese has
provided adequate screening of the parking lot area between the trees/
landscaping and the fence. State statute requires a specified number of
handicap parking stalls, 1:25 parking stall ratio and St. Therese would be
providing 10 handicap stalls and a total of 243 stalls. There was concern
over the storm sewer discharge at the northwest corner of the property. A
retaining wall would be replaced and the storm sewer extended. It would
be connected into an existing storm sewer pipe, per staff requirements, to
eliminate some of the overland drainage. Site lighting has been provided
with information as far as lighting patterns and illumination patterns. The
Building Official has verified that this meets the City's requirements of less
than one foot candle at the property line. The current curb cut onto
Winnetka that currently serves the twin home would be eliminated and it
would be replaced with proper curbing along Winnetka. The previous site
plan showed the drive aisle between the northern parking stalls and the
east/west parking stalls was at 22.5 feet. The petitioner has eliminated a
curb barrier at that location to provide the proper 24 foot distance. A
fence detail was provided. The petitioner has agreed to platting the
property. This would be a subsequent application.
Mr. Brixius added that Design & Review requested additional plantings
along Winnetka and this has been provided. In the original landscape plan
there were several trees planted right on the property line, which have
now been moved back two feet from the property line per the request of
the Design & Review Committee. In conclusion, Mr. Brixius stated that the
proposed zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
compatible with the area. With the approval of the rezoning, staff
recommends approval of the site plan. The petitioners have fulfilled the
requests of the Design & Review Committee.
Chairman Sonsin wondered which request should be approved first and if
there would be a need to approve the site plan if rezoning did not take
place. The Planner suggested rezoning the property regardless of how it
would be used.
Mr. Mark Hanson, City Engineer, came forward to explain the drainage
and storm sewer plans. The existing parking lot collects all the storm
water and discharges it into an existing catch basin through a pipe. It then
overlands along the golf course/property line to an existing 30-inch storm
sewer. This 30-inch storm sewer is a significant storm sewer in that it
provides drainage for all of the golf course.
With the parking lot expansion, all the drainage will continue north/
northwest and then collect in the northwest corner with the slope coming
back towards the golf course. St. Therese has abandoned the existing
Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 1, 1996
storm sewer sd ther~ Would not be any discharge of storm water along
the golf course/property line to the 30-inch pipe. A new catch basin
would be built to collect the water from the existing lot and the new lot
which would discharge directly into the storm sewer. There would not be
any overland drainage along the common golf course/property lot line.
Another item of concern was the retaining wall on the northwest side of
the property. The retaining wall is there because the grade difference in
that area was relatively steep, Staff asked the petitioners to remove the
retaining wall, extend the storm sewer pipe approximately 18 feet,
reconnect the existing flared end and provide a gentle slope over the pipe,
thereby eliminating the wall. This has been accomplished. An easement
over the 30-inch pipe, which is a public storm sewer, is shown on the
plan. The storm sewer that connects to it would be private and St
Therese's responsibility. At this time there is no record of an easement
over the pipe and this would be secured in addition to the other
construction that has been requested. Through the platting process it is
staff's hope to resolve and improve a wet area on the golf course
adjacent to Fairway No. 2 where storm water is accepted from the St.
Therese site.
Mr. Dan Swedberg, principal architect with HGA Architects, came forward
to answer questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Cassen expressed her pleasure in working with all the
people involved from St. Therese and commended them on the good job
in the changes that were made. She added that by working together the
changes to the plans were made in a timely manner. Commissioner
Cassen stated that she would be in favor of the R-5 zoning since it would
offer a more exact definition of the use of the property rather than using
the R-4 zoning. Commissioner Cassen stated she would be in favor of
platting all of the properties into one parcel.
Commissioner Svendsen commended the petitioner on the good job done
in revising the plans and stated it was a pleasure to work with them.
Mr. Swedberg voiced his appreciation in working with City staff and how
quick this request has moved along. Sr. Bernice, CEO and president of St.
Therese, also thanked City staff for working with them and all of the help
offered.
The City Attorney suggested using two separate motions, one for
rezoning and one for the site/building plan review/approval. There should
not be any conditions attached to the motion for the rezoning. The
conditions in the planning report should be attached to the site plan
review.
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Request for Rezoning to R-5 (Senior/Disabled Residential) Zoning
at 5801/5803 & 5805/5807 Winnetka Avenue North, and 8000 Bass
Lake Road, St. Therese Home of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers, Damiani
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on October 14, 1996.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 October 1, 1996
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-33, Request Site/Building Plan Review/Approval
at 5801/5803 & 5805/5807 Winnetka Avenue North, and 8000 Bass
Lake Road, St. Theresa Home of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the
following conditions::
1. Performance bond be submitted for improvements; amount to be
determined by City Engineer and Building Official.
2. Complete platting of all parcels into one lot within six months and
provide necessary easements.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers, Damiani
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on October 14, 1996
The City Attorney stated that two motions were necessary because the
rezoning was required to have a 4/Sths vote by the City Council and the
site/building plan approval requires a majority vote.
Case 96-21
Item 3.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3, An Ordinance
Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-
Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street
Parking Areas, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at
the September Planning Commission due to a question by one of the
Commissioners regarding types of properties to include, was referred back
to Codes & Standards for review, and was now back before the
Commission. There was a request for a motion to remove from table.
MOTION
Item 3.3
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded be Commissioner Stulberg, to
remove from table Planning Case 96-21, An Ordinance Amending New
Hope Code Section 4.036(4)(h){xv! Regulating Off-Street Parking by
Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas,
City of New Hope, Petitioner. All in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. McDonald reported that the ordinance was sent to Commissioner
Cassen after the Codes & Standards meeting and that he discussed the
changes with Commissioner Cassen. The City Attorney then prepared the
final ordinance which states that all off-street parking areas would be
required to construct perimeter concrete curbing around parking areas
with the exception of single family, two family and townhouse units with
direct access to garages. The Planner did a lot of research on this issue
and further questions could be directed to him. Commissioner Svendsen
added that the qualification of being able to drive from the street into the
garage makes a definite distinction of how to separate what properties are
included or not included in this ordinance. Commissioner CaSsen added
that she did several drive-bys of all the townhouse areas so she could
determine exactly what was meant. One development had a combination
of the short driveway to garage, a long driveway, and an area for guest
parking - Sandpiper Cove. In this instance the developer would be required
to install concrete curbing in some areas. Mr. Brixius stated that in the
case of a Planned Unit Development the Planning Commission would need
to make a distinction between what constitutes a driveway with direct
access to a garage and what is a private street. After determining this,
Planning Commission Meeting 6 October 1, 1996
MOTION
Item 3.3
PC96-06
Item 3.4
MOTION
Item 3.4
then a determination can be made to insist on concrete curbing on the
private streets. There are not too many townhomes having access to
public streets, but there are several twin homes that do have access to
public streets and these homes should not be treated any differently than
a single family home. A three-unit building, under the same conditions,
should not be treated any differently. That was the rationale for the
language in the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Cassen felt the
language used was good. She stated that other cities do not have the
continuous curbing, but rather "tire bumper" type curbing.
Motion by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 96-21, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code
Section 4.036{4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring
Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas, City of New
Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers, Damiani
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on October 14, 1996.
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.4, An Ordinance
Amending New Hope Code §4.036(10)(z) Regulating Parking
Requirements for Shopping Centers, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commission that this item was discussed
at the September meeting, it moved forward to the City Council, was
referred back to the Codes & Standards Committee and Planner to review
the ratio of parking spaces to the square footage of shopping centers, and
the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the Council is for no
change. The Codes & Standards Committee felt the ordinance is adequate
with the additional research done to back up the recommendation.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that in looking at the parking lots at
different times of the day and the drawings of the shopping centers, there
really are no problems with the smaller units. Some of the larger centers,
especially at New Hope City Center, the parking lot seems to always be
full. The ratio for this center would be the same as what is proposed, so
he felt there would be no reason not to change the ratio for the smaller
centers. Commissioner Svendsen stated that it would be better for the
smaller centers to have the number of required parking spaces changed.
Chairman Sonsin added that shopping center developers usually do not
build parking lots too small to serve their clientel.
Motion by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-06, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code
Section 4.036(10)(z) Regulating Parking Requirements for Shopping
Centers, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers, Damiani
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on October 14, 1996.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 October 1, 1996
PC96-35
Item 3.5
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.5, Recommendation/
Response to City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Re-
Guide 5.76 Acre Parcel from CL, Limited Commercial, to CS, Commercial
Service, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Brixius stated that the parcel of land in question is located in the
southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and 49"` Avenue/Schmidt Lake
Road. The City of Plymouth is proposing a land use change from the
current Comprehensive Plan from Limited Commercial to Commercial
Service. This would be accompanied by rezoning to accommodate a
convenience gas/grocery, a 6,500 square foot restaurant and an
automobile service center. To accommodate this, Plymouth would have to
change the land use plan, which requires a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. As part of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Plymouth is
required to refer this to other affected jurisdictions, which would be New
Hope.
Mr. Brixius explained that in reviewing this amendment there are a couple
of issues that are applicable to New Hope. First, this area is directly
across from a single family subdivision that'is oriented toward Highway
169, however, there is a significant separation with the highway right-of-
way, a wetland, and Erickson Drive. Visibility of the site could be a issue
and the Comprehensive Plan amendment that was submitted did not
include any landscaping or treatment along the highway. Second, there
would be a significant increase in traffic associated with the change in
land use. Staff raised the issue of how it would affect traffic on 49"`
Avenue. The document submitted stated that approximately 40 percent of
the traffic would use 49"` Avenue coming into New Hope. The City
Engineer reviewed to amendment to make sure 49"` Avenue had sufficient
capacity and also that traffic movement over the 49"` Avenue bridge and
movement into New Hope would be sufficient as far as safety and
capacity to handle any increase in traffic. After review of the plan, it was
reported that the increase in traffic would not cause a degradation of the
service level. There would be a significant impact on the service road as
far as queuing of the signals and traffic in and out of that area. The
Planner continued saying that staff has prepared a resolution for the
Planning Commission that indicates the review and expresses the
concerns which would be forwarded to Met Council and the City of
Plymouth.
Mr. Hanson pointed out that the traffic along 49"` Avenue in New Hope is
high currently. The average daily count on 49"' Avenue was at 7,300 in
1992 and 7,000 in 1996. The traffic to this development is estimated at
1,760 trips per day coming from New Hope. In assuming that some of
this traffic is dual trips, a more realistic approach would be 1,000 trips per
day, therefore the count could be as high as 8,300. That roadway, based
on its width, design, section, etc., could easily accommodate 10,000
vehicles per day and, if need be, could accommodate up to 14,000. Staff
does not see the additional traffic as being a significant impact. There is
no development foreseen in New Hope that would cause the traffic count
to increase significantly. The issue that most concerns staff are the
signals proposed to be built at the exit/entrance ramps for the highway,
such as what is built at 36"` Avenue and Highway 169. These signals are
proposed to be built in 1998. The concern is with the traffic on the
service road and the potential for this traffic to back up depending upon
when the traffic signal is installed. There could be some striping done to
offset this situation. It is staff's opinion that this would not be a
substantial impact.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 October 1, 1996
Chairman sonSin wona~ed if the reduction of vehicles between 1992 and
1995 was a significant amount. Mr, Hanson replied that the counts are
done every two to three years and the numbers have not fluctuated
significantly even from the 1980s,
Chairman Sonsin commented that after reading the draft resolution he had
some concerns with paragraph #2 regarding the landscaping/screening/
buffering and wondered if this was needed since there is a major highway
and wetland area between the proposed development and the residential
area in New Hope. Mr. McDonald pointed out that this was included in the
Planner's report and that there was not enough landscaping information
provided from Plymouth. Chairman Sonsin reiterated that this would not
impact New Hope significantly with the highway between the two cities.
Commissioner Landy stated that would be consistent with New Hope's
views of screening and buffering with any other development in the City
and saw nothing wrong with keeping that paragraph in the resolution.
Commissioner Cassen added that the development would still need to be
aesthetically pleasing.
Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion to pass the resolution.
Commissioner Keefe questioned the length of the resolution. Mr.
McDonald responded that in the past the Planning Commission has laid
out all the findings in the resolution, with the City Council ratifying the
Planning Commission's resolution of findings..
MOTION
Item 3.5
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded bY Commissioner Cassen, to
approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-1, Regarding Comments
on City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planning Case 96-
35, Recommendation/Response to City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to Re-Guide 5.76 Acre Parcel from CL, Limited Commercial,
to CS, Commercial Service, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Svendsen
None
Underdahl, Oelkers, Damiani
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on October 14, 1996.
PC96-04
Item 3.6
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.6, Informal
Discussion/Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the
New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for
Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods Dealers and An
Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn
Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District, City of New Hope,
Petitioner
Chairman Sonsin reported that the Codes & Standards Committee began
work on this item in February, did extensive research, and have discussed
this many times. The City Council enacted a moratorium on March 11,
1996, and subsequently extended it to March 11, 1997, against the
establishment of any kind of pawn brokering or any related activity. The
notebooks that were passed out in September contain work completed by
the Planner, the City Attorney, and staff. It contains information from the
City of Minneapolis on the Automated Pawn System (APS), which will be
explained at this meeting. This is the informal discussion, and assuming
there are no major problems with the presentation, the formal public
Planning Commission Meeting 9 October 1, 1996
hearing would take place in November after which the ordinance would be
passed on to the City Council for consideration. The Planner will discuss
the zoning issues, the City Attorney will explain the licensing, and a
representative from the Minneapolis Police Department will explain the
Automated Pawn System.
Mr. Brixius explained that the ordinance amendment included in the
planning report is twofold. The first pertains to zoning and the second is a
business licensing ordinance. Initially staff gathered as much information
as possible pertaining to how the City should deal with these uses. New
Hope was not the only city studying this issue. Bloomington's City
Attorney, Greg Brooker, prepared a survey of pawn broker ordinances in
Minnesota and had done an analysis of state and local regulations on
pawn brokers. Other information and ordinances pertaining to these items
was included in the notebook. Any ordinance that would outright prohibit
pawn shops as a permitted use is undefendable and the City Attorney
concurs with this. These are commercial operations and have the same
type land use characteristics as other commercial operations, both retail,
lending institutions, etc. As a result, their reputation alone is not the basis
for prohibition. The next step to determine is where pawn shops should be
allowed. Typically these are similar in character as retailing and financial
lending institutions, with regard to building size, customer base, character,
customer attraction, parking and circulation. As such, the most
appropriate land use district is the Commercial Zoning District. Other
communities have provided for buffer zones to provide separations
between sensitive uses. In the case of adult uses, there were numerous
studies and documentation that indicated negative secondary impacts
associated with adult use operations that justified limitation of location
and buffer separations, or required setbacks from sensitive uses. In this
respect, research done on this issue indicated that there are no negative
impacts associated with this. Different professionals will give opinions as
to their perceptions and their influences, but there is no real
documentation. Therefore, the buffer zones that other communities have
implemented are put in place mainly because someone else included it in
their ordinance. The bUffer zone in most communities had not been
challenged. In research conducted by the Planner, it was found that if
pawn shops would be confined to the commercial district, these districts
provides some separation of uses from less intense districts and some
separation with regard to setback and proximity. The buffer zone element
is not something recommended in New Hope.
Mr. Brixius next discussed whether this should be addressed as a
conditional use or a permitted use within the district. The language used
clarifies that it would be a permitted use in the B-4 District. The basis for
this, similarly to commercial recreational uses, is that if the use is in full
compliance with code, the emotional debate should be removed relating
to whether the use is a negative impact on the area. The City cannot
prohibit pawn shops as the background information supports. If the City
sets the criteria and say they are a permitted use, the form for emotional
debate is avoided. It was the recommendation of Codes & Standards to
look at this as a permitted use within the most intense commercial
district. Business licensing would provide more regulation.
The City Attorney explained the licensing ordinance. This ordinance is
based on an ordinance from the City of Minneapolis since New Hope is
very interested in using the Automated Pawn System (APS) when the
system is ready for use. The City of Minneapolis is developing the system
for the purpose of creating a data base and assisting the New Hope Police
Planning Commission Meeting 10 October 1, 1996
Department, among others, in regulating the pawn industry which appears
to be an industry that is a growth industry in Minnesota and essentially is
an industry that could not be zoned out of existence in the City. About
two years ago the City Attorney issued an opinion suggesting that it
might be possible to defend an ordinance that indicated that pawn shops
were a prohibited use within the City. An argument for this would be that
the pawn industry is an inherently bad industry and is susceptible to
crime, fencing operations, the promotion of burglary operations. The State
of Minnesota and the legislature in the State have passed four statutes
dealing with the pawn industry. The most recent of these statutes
implement minimum regulations for the regulation of the industry. The
City Attorney added that it would be hard to argue that the pawn industry
is not a legitimate industry when the State and legislature said that it is.
Therefore, if there is a finding that the pawn industry is legitimate, the
City would not be allowed to zone out of the City any industry and still
pass constitutional muster of due process and protection. Just because a
City doesn't like a business, does not mean that people cannot engage in
that business within the City if it is determined that it is a legitimate
business. Due to the fact that New Hope had a specific and expressed
interest by a pawn broker, the staff felt that it was necessary to develop
regulations to deal with this industry that is essentially going to be here
sooner or later. As a result, staff felt that by implementing regulations
now the City could better work with legitimate pawn brokers.
Mr. Sondrall explained the content of the ordinance section by section:
8.33
deals with the purpose of the ordinance. There are two purposes
including crime prevention and consumer protection. The pawn
brokering business is not primarily a fencing operation or an
operation to launder money or receive stolen merchandise. Police
Departments do have concerns about that and the regulations in the
licensing ordinance should help to effectively eliminate the people in
the business who are not legitimate and who are attempting to
engage in that type of activity. This ordinance, especially when the
APS is operational, will assist the New Hope Police Department
insuring that the pawn brokering businesses in the City would not be
engaged in those kind of activities.
8.332 lists the definitions. The important thing to note about the
definitions is that the definition of a pawnbroker does not include
banks, savings and loans, or credit unions. The definition of precious
metal dealer and second hand dealer includes persons dealing in
used goods, which would be the main concern. The source of the
goods is unknown when dealing with these items and the City needs
to be sure these are the types of goods that are not a part of a
burglary, robbery or illegal transaction. As a result, the definitions
deal with individuals who are going to be dealing in used goods. The
other important definition deals with a reportable transaction, which
is every transaction involving merchandise. Each transaction that
comes through the pawn brokering business would be a reportable
transaction. The only transaction that would be excluded from a
reportable transaction would be one that has been reported, such as
one being redeemed or extended or renewed. Bulk purchases would
not be a reportable transaction, nor would retail and wholesale sales
of merchandise. Commissione~ Svendsen asked whether precious
metal as permitted in the B-1 Zoning District as reported in
§4.102(10) and which states the definition of coins and philatelic
(stamps) store is included in this ordinance. Since coins are a
Planning Commission Meeting 11 October 1, 1996
Planning Commission Meeting
permitted use in the B-1 District, would the ordinance have to be
amended by taking this out of the B-1 District and putting it into the
B-4 District. The City Attorney confirmed that the permitted uses in
all districts may need to be reviewed. A coin dealer could possibly
fall under the definition of a precious metal dealer. Precious metal
dealers are regulated by the State of Minnesota. Coins are definitely
part of the regulation under this ordinance.
8.333 licensing would be required. The license cannot be transferred to a
different person or location. Multiple licenses would be allowed, but
each separate location would need its own license. No limit has been
set yet, but a limit could be set. A problem might occur in setting a
limit if a justifiable reason cannot be found. If a justifiable reason can
be found for limiting the number of pawn shops in the City, because
they are' not a protected class, the City would only need to show
that there is a governmental interest to limiting the number of shops
in the City. Unlike liquor, the liquor statute gives the City the
authority to limit licenses. The new State law on minimum
regulations does not provide for that, which does not mean that the
City cannot be more stringent than the minimum State law, but if
the City would be challenged on that point, a legitimate
governmental basis for the limitation would be required. Chairman
Sonsin added that this point was discussed at one Codes &
Standards meeting and it was decided that the limitation for liquor
licenses came about because it was a controlled substance and
pawn brokering is not. Mr. Sondrall stated that the marketplace
would govern the amount of businesses that can come in the city as
well as the availability of locations if pawn shops would be limited to
the B-4 Zoning District.
8.334 deals with exceptions to the license requirement. This statute
states that precious metal dealers would not need a license as long
as they meet certain provisions of the ordinance. The State
Consumer Protection Law provides for the licensing of precious
metal dealers. The language that was inserted into this ordinance
comes right out of Minnesota Statutes dealing with precious metal
dealers and is found in §§325F.734 to 325F.742, which is the
section dealing with trade regulations for consumer protections. That
statutory reference deals with precious metal dealer licenses and all
of the exceptions that the State law provides for people who deal
with precious metal. They are not required to have a license under
State law. Additionally, there is a reference to Chapter 80A included
in the ordinance which deals with regulation of securities. There are
such things as metal investment contracts and precious gem
contracts which is why a securities regulation is found in the
precious metal dealers license. Chairman Sonsin added this would
deal with buying and selling futures contracts with gold, platinum,
silver or other metals. Mr. Sondrall continued saying that those are
people who do not need a precious metal license in the state either.
Anyone dealing with the occasional garage, yard or estate sale,
would have to comply with the requirements that are imposed on
the precious metal dealers despite the fact that they are not licensed
by the state. Paragraph 2 of this section deals with transactions that
do not require a second hand dealers license. Most of this section
deals with yard sales, garage sales, and sales that are not going to
extend over a 72-hour period and where people own the property
that is being sold. As a result the thought was that licensing those
types of transactions would not be appropriate.
12 October 1, 1996
Planning Commission Meeting
8.335 deals With the business'manager issue of the ordinance. If the
entity that is interested in a pawn operation in the New Hope is a
corporation, the concern would be that there is someone on site
who has been investigated and who has supervisory capacity.
Incorporated into the ordinance is the provision that if the actual
licensee is a corporation, the corporation would be required to name
an individual as the business manager. If the licensee is a partnership
or an individual who is not going to be on site providing supervisory
capacity of the business, the actual business manager on site needs
to be named so there is some accountability. The minimum
requirement of time for the licensee to spend on site would be 40
hours per month. If the licensee would not be spending that amount
of time on site, the named business manager would also be
investigated and that person would be required and accountable for
the day-to-day operation of the business. The purpose of the section
is to insure that the City always knows who that individual is and
that this individual has been investigated for the appropriateness to
run the operation if the licensee is not going to be the person on site
doing that.
8.336 deals with the license forms which would be provided by the City.
8.337 deals with application execution. The information will be sworn
information so it would have to be attested to by the applicant and
any false representation made on the application would be grounds
for denial of the initial application or cause for revocation if the City
finds out after the license was granted that the information provided
on the application was incorrect and was falsely misrepresented.
8.338 deals with the application verification. The Police Department
would be doing the investigation and verifying the information that
was provided by the applicant, which is consistent with the process
used for liquor license applications.
8.339 deals with application consideration. This deals with new
construction and says that any building under construction will not
be issued a license until there is a certificate of occupancy issued for
the building.
8.340 deals with the fees. Lt. Phil Hafvenstein of the Minneapolis Police
Department can share more information on fees when he explains
the APS. Mr. Sondrall explained that there are four different fees
factored into the ordinance, which may seem somewhat ownerous.
There is an application fee which is set at $500 and is non-
refundable. There is an investigation fee which could be anywhere
from $1,500 minimum to $10,000 maximum based on costs.
Essentially this fee is broken into two parts. If the investigation can
be completed within the State of Minnesota, or if all the information
on the applicants would be contained within the State of Minnesota
and staff is dealing with residents in Minnesota, the fee would be a
flat fee of $1,500. If the Police Department needs to investigate the
applicants outside Minnesota, the fee would be based on the actual
cost of the investigation, but not to exceed $10,000. These are the
two fees relating to obtaining the license. The next two fees deal
with the license fee and the billable transaction fee. The Codes &
Standards Committee discussed the fees and together with staff set
the annual license fee of $12,000. A neighboring municipality
(Golden Valley) has an ordinance like this and uses a fee of
13 October 1, 1996
Planning Commission Meeting
$12,000; and that fee has been challenged and upheld in court.
Therefore, Codes & Standards and staff decided to adopt $12,000
for the license fee. License fees are fees that can be implemented by
the City to reimburse itself for costs of regulation. License fees
cannot be used as revenue producing fees nor can they be
structured as a tax. The City needs to show that by implementing
the fee they are simply reimbursing the costs for the regulation on
the industry. The pawn industry is perceived as labor intensive and
time intensive. Prior to the APS, when the work had to be done
manually, the estimated amount of time taken was half of one police
officer's time and two clerical people at an estimated rate of
$28,000-30,000 and $72,000, respectively, per year. The purpose
of APS is that hopefully this will reduce the time intensity of
regulating the industry and may produce a more equitable way to
regulate the industry.
The billable transaction fee is a fee paid by the pawnbroker every
time a pawn occurs within the business. The information would be
transmitted to the Police Department-via a computer modem and
would cut down on the cost to regulate the industry. As a result the
license fee should probably be lower than $12,000 because it might
be assumed that there is some overcharging being done by charging
both fees. City staff have been talking to people from Cash 'N'
Pawn, who may make application to the City, and who seem to be a
legitimate business. Their point is that if the City charges a $12,000
annual license fee and also charge a billable transaction fee, such as
$1.50 per transaction times 10,000 pawns per year, the total
charge would be $27,000 per year to operate the business.
According to pawn brokers, they are the "poor person's bank" and
they make loans as small as $10 and that people actually have a
need to obtain such a small loan, which could not be obtained from
a bank. It would not be cost effective for the pawn broker to make
that type of loan with the proposed license fee and billable
transaction fee, which is their argument for the City charging both
fees. They do not have a problem being charged either the high
annual license fee or the billable transaction fee, but not both fees at
the same time during the course of the year. The Commission should
discuss this issue and come to a consensus before passing this issue
on to the City Council. Chairman Sonsin indicated the feeling he
received was that the Council would rather not see a pawn shop in
the City and, therefore, was following that line of thought by having
stringent regulations and fees. it was his feeling to leave the fees as
proposed and let the City Council make the final decision. Mr.
Sondrall pointed out that it is possible the City may not be able to
justify a high annual license feel and a billable transaction fee that
produces a revenue to the City from pawn transactions in the
$27,000 to $30,000 range. Golden Valley does not have a billable
transaction fee, just the $12,OOO annual license fee. Mr. Sondrall
pointed out that if the City would charge that amount of money,
that staff needs to be able to justify the cost. If staff would not use
the APS and would do the work manually, the cost may be justified,
however, by using the APS the cost would be lower to regulate the
industry. Maybe the City should not charge the high annual license
fee being proposed if also charging the billable transaction fee as a
basis for the billing system. If ever there would be two pawn
brokering businesses in the City, by using the billable transaction fee
they each would be paying for usage, which seems to be a more
equitable fee than a flat fee that was adopted because it was upheld
14 October 1, 1996
Planning Commission Meeting
in the past. Chairman Sonsin added that a decision needs to be
made on exactly what type of fee to be used. The argument could
be made for the annual license fee for the base cost of setting up
and maintaining a pawn broker on the system whether they send in
one transaction a month or several hundred transactions. The billable
transaction fee would be for processing the cost of the transaction
once everything is all set up. The dollar amount may not be correct
at this point, but it was his feeling that the approach makes sense.
Mr. Sondrall stated that Minneapolis charges a smaller annual license
fee and uses the billable transaction fee.
8.341 deals with the $5,000 bond that would be charged. This is to
insure that the individuals comply with all of the requirements of the
ordinance and it would potentially be forfeited if the business was
mismanaged.
8.342 makes the licenses renewable each year.
8.343 would deal with the death of a licensee in the event that the
licensee was a partnership or an individual. If this did occur, the
estate of that individual would have 90 days to close the pawn
business.
8.344 deals with conditions of approval for license. This section contains
information on who cannot obtain a license. Chairman Sonsin
questioned whether the condition pertaining to an applicant also
holding an intoxicating liquor license was just for an establishment in
New Hope or anywhere. Mr. Sondrall interpreted this to mean in
New Hope because it deals with the license under this code. The
requirements are the same for all three entities, individual,
partnership or corporation. Section (b) contains some language from
the Minnesota Statutes §364.03, which is the criminal rehabilitation
law. This prevents a city from denying someone a license to operate
a business despite the fact that the individual had been convicted of
some crime that was related to the business if he can show proper
rehabilitation. If someone had at one time been convicted of a crime
that relates to the pawn brokering business, such as receiving stolen
property, this would put him in the category of occupation related. If
he could show that he had been rehabilitated under that statute, the
City could not deny him a license. Commissioner Svendsen
commented that something he read in another ordinance that was
well written was whether or not the pawn broker had his license
revoked elsewhere. If that was so, he felt that would be grounds to
deny a license. Another determining factor would be whether the
individual was a U.S. citizen or an alien. Several other
commissioners agreed with these points. Mr. Sondrall responded
that if the individual had his license revoked elsewhere and it was
industry related and the individual could show rehabilitation then
even though the City had that terminology in the ordinance, the City
not deny the license. Mr. McDonald questioned why the individual
could not have an intoxicating liquor license at one establishment in
the City and also have a pawn brokering license. Lt. Phil
Hafvenstein, Minneapolis Police Department and Commander of the
License Division which has responsibility for pawn shops, second
hand goods dealers, all the liquor and gun permits to purchase and
carry, and lawful gambling in Minneapolis, answered that having a
license for both liquor and pawn breeds an unhealthy relationship for
an indigent or a person unable to overcome the temptation to drink
15 October 1, 1996
by pawning the family heirlooms. Mr. Sondrall continued by
explaining the Commission should-look at expanding eligible
locations to the B-3 and B-4 Districts and dealing with the
coin/stamp dealer. The Planner interjected that coin dealers are one
of the exemptions from the pawn dealerships because of the
precious metals. The Codes & Standards Committee could determine
if this needed to be addressed further. It may be exempted from the
pawn licensing requirement. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that the old
Ponderosa site in question was zoned B-3 and Codes & Standards
concluded that this location is an appropriate place for a pawn shop.
The Planner noted that while the Ponderosa site in the B-3 District
may be appropriate, there may be other B-3 District sites that are
not appropriate. Therefore, a rezoning of that site may be a better
idea than allowing pawn shops anywhere in the B-3 District.
Planning Commission Meeting
8.345 begins to deal with licensing restrictions and the technical record-
keeping system that the APS will help with. Most of this section
comes directly from State Statutes. One thing the City Attorney
pointed out was the part dealing with photographing the pawned
item and the seller. The photographing specifically needs to be cross
referenced with all of the other information. All of the information
would have to be available to the police, and the customer must be
made aware of the photographing process both verbally and by
signage on the site. This may deter a burglar from trying to pawn
stolen goods if he knows that a photograph will be taken, he would
need to provide identification, and all the information 'would be
supplied to the police on a daily basis. The people in the pawn
industry want to keep their business above board and assist the
police in deterring crime and catching the individuals who are
involved in illegal activity. There is a 60-day holding period on the
merchandise being pawned. A pledgor has to attest to a statement
that the goods are not stolen and the statement acknowledges that
the person to redeem the property can only be the seller of the
property or someone he has assigned to redeem in writing. The
information of the pawn broker needs to be available to the City
during business hours and the records have to be kept for three
years. The section on billable transaction fees deals with if the APS
fails and pawn brokers need to record it manually. If the City's
computer fails and is unable to accept the information from the APS,
then the charge would still be by the modem rate. (The idea of a
manual charge vs. a modem charge has not been discussed or
incorporated into the ordinance at this time.) A weekly report also
needs to be submitted to the Police Department on items that have
the potential to be stolen, which are listed in the ordinance. Lt.
Hafvenstein felt this part was unnecessary to include in the
ordinance. This originated from the old Minneapolis second hand
goods dealer ordinance which provided some exclusions for reporting
to the police certain transactions. His recommendation was to delete
this part from the ordinance. Mr. Sondrall continued explaining
paragraph 7 deals with a 90-day holding period. (After some
discussion the consensus was to change the paragraph 2 under
record keeping to 90 days.) This section prevents the pledgor from
redeeming the property for 72 hours. The hours of operation would
be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. There would be no purchases from
minors. There would be no gambling allowed at these establishments
other than the purchase of State lottery tickets. Goods that would
not be accepted for pawn would include items with altered or
obliterated serial numbers. The pawn dealer has to provide a regular
16 October 1, 1996
business day for the last day of redemption and cannot make that
redemption day a holiday or other day the operation is not open.
There is no obligation for the pledgor to redeem the property. It was
the consensus of the Commission to change the 60-day time frame
in paragraph 18, effect of redemption, to read 90 days. The section
regarding transactions involving only holding title to property was
taken from Minnesota Statutes~ which deals with abandoned motor
vehicles and the Uniform Commercial Code. If there would be a
pawn transaction with a car as security, the pawn broker would be
subject to that law. The ordinance states that all payments would be
by check and there would be no cash payments by the pawn broker
to the pledgor. This policy must also be posted by the Pawn broker
which would also deter the criminal coming in hoping to get instant
cash for' something obtained illegally. It also provides an audit trail
that can be checked when the check is cashed. A pawn broker
would not be able to deal in firearms and guns unless there is also a
federal firearms license. The pawn broker would be informed that he
is not to deal with illegal weapons, which are listed in the ordinance.
8.346 indicates that the license is not transferable.
8.347 deals with suspension or revocation of license, or convictions for
theft. It also deals with suspension provisions and hearing
provisions. It explains when suspension can take place without a
hearing and when a hearing is required.
8.348 deals with permitted charges, three percent per month. This
section also allows for a $20.00 storage fee, which is a monthly
storage fee, possibly for a car, etc. Mr. McDonald wondered
whether outside storage would be allowed. The Planner stated that
in the B-4 District outdoor storage would require a conditional use
permit. In this ordinance outdoor storage had not been addressed. A
pawn broker cannot divide the transaction to increase the fees. Any
interest or fees in excess of the law will violate the pawn. The
schedule of charges would have to be posted in a visible location.
8.349 deals with prohibited acts.
8.350 says that the pawn broker is a bailee and is accepting a bailment,
and if the individual comes back to redeem the property, and it is
not there, the pawn broker is subject to a civil suit for the value of
the property.
Chairman Sonsin questioned the wording under Section 2 on the
investigation fee where it states that the Minnesota only investigation fee
shall not exceed $1,500 and stated this should read the fee is $1,500 as
opposed to shall not exceed $1,500.
Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether the definition for storage
should be added to the ordinance. Mr. Sondrall responded that it was his
opinion that storage would be charged on everything. The pawn broker
could charge interest and a storage fee.
Commissioner Keefe suggested no deletion of the section on the weekly
reporting in the case of manual reporting, which could serve as a synopsis
of the hot sheets. Mr. Sondrall reiterated that the pawn broker would be
required to turn in a daily manual report.
Planning Commission Meeting 17 October 1, 1996
Planning Commission
Lt. Hafvenstein came forward and the Commission thanked him for
coming to the meeting to explain the Automated Pawn System. In the old
Minneapolis second hand goods ordinance, there was a clause that read
the same as the section relating to "items for which reports to police are
required" which stated reports did not need to be sent in except for
specified items. This information would be reported either manuatly or
through the APS daily and, therefore, would probably eliminate the need
for a weekly recap. The APS provides the ability to use the information
reported in a timely fashion.
Mr. Sondrall stated that one criticism voiced by Jack Hartsoe of Cash 'N'
Pawn was the requirement of pawn brokers to take digitized pictures of
every single pawn transaction or trying to describe the property through
digitized photographing., Jewelry especially does not show up well in the
digitized pictures and may not produce any useful information. It may be
very difficult for the system to accept it because it takes seven minutes to
send the transaction over the modem. If there are thousands of
transactions a day, the volume would be too much, and the picture of a
small item of jewelry may not be real clear anyway. Lt. Hafvenstein stated
that the transmission was not correct that was provided to Mr. Hartsoe. If
that were true CompuServe and America On-Line could not exist because
the first page that drops down would take seven minutes to get to there.
Lt. Hafvenstein continued saying that the actual running of tests of the
"jay-peg" compression process indicates that the down-loading of the
typical number of daily transactions (less than 100 in most stores) and of
those probably half would have to have photographs attached would only
be several minutes for the entire day's activity. Mr. Sondrall reminded the
Commission that the moratorium runs through March 11, 1997, and the
recommendation to the Council should be to continue the moratorium until
the APS is complete, even if the moratorium would have to be extended
again. When the APS is running, the moratorium could be terminated and
the ordinance implemented. Lt. Hafvenstein reported that the status of the
APS is on time. It is anticipated that the acquisition of the hardware for
the operating platform would be in house in October and the quality
assurance and functional testing'of it completed in October. It is
anticipated that there would be bata testing and roll out in November and
December; and depending upon. how fast qualified point-of-sale venders
are brought on board, testing in one or two stores from Minneapolis and
St. Paul would take place in January. Hopefully, the entire system would
be ready in the first quarter. St. Paul has passed its ordinance which
embraces the APS and which provides for billable transaction fees and is
very similar to this proposed ordinance. Minneapolis has started billing
their transactions as if they were electronic at the $1.50 fee that the
Minneapolis Council set in January. Therefore, the shop that sends in five
transactions a day is treated the same way as the shop that sends in 100
per day. The position is defensible when it comes to correlating the
license costs to what is being charged to the pawn brokers. The billable
transaction fee in Minneapolis is structured around the APS fee, which is
structured on a projection that over five years the city will get to the point
where they are able to recover the cost of developing the APS, which is in
excess of $300,000, and Minneapolis is covering this cost. Through the
sharing of the system and through billing the individual communities that
are a part of it, the City of Minneapolis should be able to recapture that
equitably from everyone benefiting from the system. The cost of the
system is about 90¢ to 95¢ per transaction based upon all the estimates..
At the end of the month a bill wouldl be provided that lists all of the pawn
shops and how many transactions took place at 90-95¢. Each community
can then "value add" their cost to the operation to recover the true cost
Meeting 18 October 1, 1996
of regulating the industry. The pawn shops who are a client of APS,
would then be billed for all of the transactions that went through the
system.
Lt. Hafvenstein next pointed out some things about the APS that could be
appreciated by elected officials. First, it gives a "plug-in-play" solution to
regulation for pawn dealers that is not intrusive or ownerous, and would
be recoverable in cost. Second, it provides the only way to share
information about pawn transactions among jurisdictions. Any burglary
items from New Hope would probably be pawned in another municipality.
The pawn system would allow someone in New Hope to go into the
program on his computer and view every transaction that was reported
anyplace in the metro. It is the only system in the country that would
allow multiple jurisdictions sharing information related to pawn
transactions, which would be a huge crime fighting tool. It would also
allow identification of several items taken at one burglary and to trace
where all items have been pawned. Some pawns shops are known for
specific items, such as jewelry, musical instruments, etc. Burglars know
this and therefore go to the shop they can get the most money for the
item to be pawned. Lt. Hafvenstein believes there is a need for pawn
shops. They are the poor person's bank and the fact that they provide a
necessary service is not questionable. Regulation cuts to the issue
because for years they were not regulated. At the last legislative session,
the State legislature provided a lot of the input for this by setting
minimum standards for communities that decide to license and regulate
pawn shops in Minnesota. Among those standards were a number of
consumer oriented issues that were driven by the consumer union people
at the legislature. Some of the issues included things like what is printed
on the receipt, your responsibilities, and interest charges. The lieutenant
pointed out that the $20 storage charge only applies to those items which
are not in the pawn brokers possession. Translation if the broker takes the
title to a vehicle and the pledgor continues driving the car, the broker
cannot charge $100 per month to store the title at the pawn shop. There
is no limitation of reasonable storage and handling charges in the present
law. There is a three percent per month interest cap, but no storage
minimum. Title pawn is bigger in other parts of the country as opposed to
Minnesota. Another item mentioned earlier was the $10 transaction. The
average transaction is between $40 and $60 based on the numbers from
information gathered by Minneapolis, There are some $10 transactions,
but that is rare. The $1.50 charge is passed straight on to the consumer
and there have been no complaints from the industry or from the
consumers. The interest limit is three percent per month on the item
based uPon what was advanced on it. There is only reasonable storage
and handling fees, so you go right back to the 20-30 percent per month
that the industry is built on and survives on.
The Automated Pawn System in its present configuration will first come
as data collection without the video imaging, which is part of phase 3.
The development of phase 3 is for late 1997. However, everything is
being built in such a way as to allow easy acceptance of the video
imaging. The industry that is providing the technology to capture and send
this to Minneapolis states that this is being done in other aspects. The
other part of the Automated Pawn System that bodes well for
communities is that it becomes a crime fighting tool just by the enactment
of the ordinance. The inclusion of video cameras, signage, responsibility,
keeps burglars from trying to pawn the merchandise. Including precious
metal dealers and second hand goods dealers in the ordinance is good
because these are businesses that can be compromised by elements of
Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 1, 1996
society that would try to pawn stolen merchandise. The pawn industry
can be a victim just the same as anyone else in business. If the broker
takes in stolen merchandise and the police match a serial number and take
the item from the shop, the pawn dealer out that money. The APS would
allow for a greater number of investigators to compare their losses against
a greater data base than ever before. It will not eliminate the need for
individual departments to generate individual queries on items that qualify
to be in the NClC system (National Crime Information Computer). When
making a police report, it has a serialized item and a value in excess of
$250 in theory and is entered as a lost item under those criteria into the
NClC. There is no method presently to have the APS computer talk to the
NClC computer to make these runs. There would still be clerical costs to
obtain this information. A report can be generated from the system that
gives the information on every item that would be in NClC. APS would
generate management reports, hit reports, and is working on a "frequent
. flyer" report (someone who has been in the pawn industry more than
three times in the last 30 days with more than three televisions).
Lt. Hafvenstein reported that the actual APS service would be housed at
the Minneapolis Police Department. The pawn shops in each municipality
would be connected by modem and down loaded on a daily basis to the
APS server. The server would then combine it with information from every
other pawn shop in the metro area and send it back to each city on a
query basis for the Police Department to utilize. It would generate the
monthly billing process for the City's use. Another aspect of APS which
would enhance the citizen's chance of recovering stolen merchandise
would be the intended use with insurance companies. At the last
legislative session, the data privacy laws were modified to make all
information regarding pawn transactions available - the product is public,
the people is private. The citizen would not be able to see who brought
the item to the pawn shop, but they will be able to see whether the TV
with a certain serial number/model number is in the system. The pawn
industry has been involved with the development of this from the
beginning. The bottom line is that responsible dealers want to be able to
advertise that they are regulated. There would be a certain amount of
stolen items that gets through the system. Hopefully, there would be a
higher percentage of item found than ever before. The APS program for
New Hope is being developed. One of the driving forces is that by August
1, 1997, the minimum standards that were passed in the last legislative
session have to be included into any jurisdiction's regulation scheme. APS
happens to fulfill about 95 percent of those requirements. Chairman
Sonsin confirmed that the City of New Hope has given their letter of
intent to participate in the APS when it is operational. Lt. Hafvenstein
stated that the letter of intent was well received and was shared with the
Mayor of Minneapolis, who is a strong supporter of APS. Lt. Hafvenstein
emphasized they are dedicated to making it run. The same team has been
working on the system from the beginning and will continue to work
together through the first year of operation.
Mr. Brixius questioned the average number of transactions for a pawn
shop in Minneapolis. Lt. Hafvenstein responded that the average would be
about 8,000, however, the high and Iow is in excess of 20,000 and less
than 400. St. Paul has in excess of 60,000 transactions with 10
licensees. Pawn shops can be very small shops or very large businesses.
The Planner then asked about the charge per transaction to the cities. Lt.
Hafvenstein replied that the 90-95¢ is an estimate and would be finalized
closer to the end of the year. That number represents the anticipated total
cost of developing and operating the APS for five years divided by the
Planning Commission Meeting 20 October 1, 1996
total number of transactions that are projected to go through the system.
The cost of the clerical help and the pawn detail officer is added to that
figure. The manual transaction fee would be $2.50 because it would take
about $ l's worth of energy, people, equipment, etc. to input from a piece
of paper what the electronic people send over the modem. The manual
transactions need to be in the system. That is something that would be
dealt with within the department in Minneapolis because though the
facility is provided through APS there is no central pool for entering that
data. By being a service provider, Minneapolis provides a service for each
city and takes none of the regulatory authority and none of the obligation
or responsibility from the city. If they took over some of the responsibility
from the city, there would need to be a joint powers act agreement. The
Planner wanted clarification on the fees. The pawn shop interested in the
site in New Hope could generate in excess of 15,O00 transactions per
year, because it would be in a good location and is an up-tempo store.
The Minneapolis fee structure was driven by input from the large pawn
dealers in Minneapolis. Dealers suggested keeping a high annual fee
because they knew the projection of the billable transaction fee, and if
there was a high annual fee, the billable transaction fee would be less.
The annual fee is $2,500 in Minneapolis and that amount may be
evaluated again in the next six months. When there is a billable
transaction fee in place, you are able to quickly adapt to whatever the
costs are and pass them through. The Planner raised the issue of whether
or not a dealer could transfer some of the transactions to a municipality
not using the APS in order to get by with fewer billable transactions. Lt.
Hafvenstein answered that it could be possible, but the dealer would be in
violation of the ordinance because business should be done at the location
recorded and is not transferable. The biggest advantage to having the
APS in place and proactively stopping thieves from coming through the
door is that it gives investigators an opportunity to do some good
proactive investigation as to whether dealers are accurately reporting
what is coming in. An investigator can pull off the computer a random
sampling of transactions from any given day and then go to the shop and
check to be sure everything checks out correctly.
Chairman Sonsin thanked Lt. Hafvenstein for sharing this information with
the Commission. The Lieutenant added that he would be glad to help in
any other way he can in the future.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Committee met
twice with St. Therese because the first set of plans were not complete
and the Commission would not have been able to move that item on to
Council.
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met and the results were
presented at this meeting. There were a couple other items that were
discussed. One being sales of outdoor plants/temporary greenhouses
which would be left as is, and if staff ever does want to allow that, it
would be subject to the same standards as the outdoor produce regulation
with a very small stand only. It is not the desire of the Commission to
have the small stands in competition with established businesses in the
City. There was also a brief discussion on opinion signs. Code does not
allow these signs at this time and it is the desire of Codes & Standards
and staff to leave the ordinance as is.
Chairman Sonsin wondered when the Planning Commission should
forward all of the pawn shop information to the Council. Mr. McDonald
Planning Commission Meeting 21 October 1, 1996
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
replied that on the present schedule it would go to the Council in
November and would probably be tabled until a work session. Mr. Sondrall
stated that wOuld be his recommendation since the APS is not in
operation yet. The City could justify another extension of the moratorium
because the basis of the ordinance is for operation with the APS. Mr.
Brixius added that as long as progress is made in completing the APS, the
study is in place. Mr. Sondrall stated no one would challenge when the
ordinance would go into effect if told the ordinance would go into effect
when the APS is on line, which should be in a couple months, after which
time the moratorium would be canceled and the ordinance would take
effect. It was the consensus to go ahead with the public hearing in
November. The City Attorney pointed out that a public hearing would not
be needed for the pawn licensing ordinance because that is contained in
Chapter 8, but the public hearing would be needed to decide where the
pawn shops would be located.
There was no discussion on miscellaneous issues.
Commissioner Cassen commented that Council did not feel the seven-foot
variance approved for 3532 Ensign set a precedent. Mr. Sondrall stated
that you have to qualify whether you are setting a precedent or not based
on when the applications come in and how you treat individual applicants,
such as applicants being distanced by time. Most variances for side yard a
rear yard setback cannot be justified under the statute as a hardshiip
because they are all economically driven. Most of them are not related to
the uniqueness of the property but are primarily related to a property
owner wanting to overuse his property. Just because a variance was
granted in the past, the City does have a right to enforce the zoning
ordinance despite the fact that it was not enforced in the past. This does
not prevent the City from enforcing it in the future. We don't totally
emasculate the ordinance and basically dismantle it because we granted a
variance in the past. It is not so much a legal issue as a fairness and
policy issue.
Commissioner Cassen expressed a concern to have Planning
Commissioners and City Councilmembers take classes in planning and
zoning issues so that they have an understanding as to why the rules and
regulations and ordinances are the way they are, especially since there
will be several new Councilmembers after the election this fall. Mr.
McDonald stated that new Planning Commissioners do take classes after
their appointment. Commissioner Cassen continued saying that the
ordinances are in place for a reason and the citizens would only be hurt in
the long run, for instance by allowing such a large variance. Things do
change and ordinances do need to be reviewed from time to time.
Chairman Sonsin suggested that maybe the Council and Planning
Commission hold a joint session after the beginning of the year or possibly
have someone come in for a training session. Mr. McDonald stated that
City code does allow for a Councilmember to sit in on the Planning
Commission. Even though Council has wanted the Planning Commission
to be independent, having a Councilmember on the Planning Commission
would lend some continuity between the two.
NEW BUSINESS
One correction to the Planning Commission minutes was pointed out and
this will be corrected.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Sonsin called attention to the old Ponderosa building and the
Planning Commission Meeting 22 ' October 1, 1996
ADJOURNMENT
fact that is looks more like an abandoned building with all the weeds on
the property. Mr. McDonald replied that a notice has been sent out and
that he would follow up on this.
Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting
would be on Wednesday, November 6, in respect for two Commissioners
running for office. For the 1997 schedule, the only conflict might be in
November, which would be election day. He wondered if the Commission
can still meet on Tuesday if there is not an election in New Hope. Mr.
McDonald responded that staff would check on this when putting
together the 1997 schedule.
Chairman Sonsin stated he took exception to the statement by one
Councilmember that she thought that the Commission had not driven by
3532 Ensign Avenue before the Planning Commission meeting to view the
site. He asked for a show of hands from the Commissioners as to how
many of them drove by 3532 Ensign Avenue and all of the Commissioners
had driven by the site at least once and he asked that this be noted in the
record. One of the Commissioners also lives within 350 feet and received
a public hearing notice.
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that Codes & Standards had discussed
putting a blanket requirement in the code regarding property owners
paying their property taxes before applying for a variance, building permit,
etc. There was an interesting discussion at the last Council meeting about
unpaid utility bills and felt this should also be included in the code. He felt
this issue should be reviewed further next year.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:00
p.m.
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 23 October 1, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 6, 1996
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:
Keefe, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Damiani
Stulberg, Svendsen
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall,
City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Sarah
Bellefuil, Community Development Specialist
CONSENT ITEMS
There were no consent items presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC96-36
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for
Site/Building Plan Review/Approval and a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to Expand Veterinarian Clinic, 8119 Bass Lake Road, Bass
Lake Pet Hospital/Dr. Richard Cameron, Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald reported the petitioner is requesting site and building plan
review/approval and a conditional use permit amendment to construct an
addition onto an existing building. The Bass Lake Pet Hospital is proposing
to construct a 46' x 20', 920 square foot, addition on the south side of
the existing building. The existing building is 1860 square feet and the
addition would increase the total building size to 2780 square feet. The
property is located in an R-O, Residential Office, Zoning District at the
southeast quadrant of Bass Lake Road and Wisconsin Avenue.
Veterinarian clinics are allowed as a conditional use in this Zoning District,
which is why the building addition requires an amendment to the existing
conditional use permit. The original vet clinic was constructed in 1977
and a CUP was granted by the City for the use at that time. Surrounding
land uses are single family to the east and south, R-1 single family and
R-4 high density residential across Wisconsin Avenue and across Bass
Lake Road to the north are R-4 apartments and Village Green Golf Course.
The petitioner stated on the application that the purpose of the one-story
addition is to add more dog and cat kennels, office, surgical room, break
room and employee entrance. The petitioner met with staff on October
28. Property owners were notified. The property owner to the east,
adjacent to the property in a single family home, came in to review the
plans and did not have any problem with the expansion. Another neighbor
came in to look at the plans and is in the audience.
Mr. McDonald outlined the code requirements for a conditional use permit.
The purpose of a CUP 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. In
making this determination, the City may consider the nature of adjoining
land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and
located on the same premises, effects upon traffic and any other factors
deemed as a requisite. Other general criteria to be considered include:
whether or not the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 6, 1996
compatibility with adjacent land uses, conformance with all applicable
performance standards, and no depreciation in value. There are specific
zoning criteria that should be considered for residential zones including
non-residential traffic being channeled onto thoroughfares or onto a street
abutting a business leading directly to thoroughfares, the proposed use
would be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residential land so existing homes will not be materially depreciated in
value, and the structure and site should not have an appearance that
would have an adverse affect upon adjacent properties. There are three
other criteria for an R-O District which include street access, traffic flow
and buffers.
Mr. McDonald stated that the proposal meets the criteria. Staff feels the
use-is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with
adjacent land uses, the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance
have been complied with, the use would not depreciate the area along
Bass Lake Road as the expansion should increase the values in the
neighborhood, non-residential traffic would be channeled onto Bass Lake
Road via Wisconsin Avenue, additional landscaping/screening is being
proposed with the expansion, and due to the residential appearance of the
existing building, the addition will aesthetically match the existing building
and will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties.
The Commission should take into consideration that this is an expansion
of a use that is already in existence and the expansion would probably
produce a nominal increase in passenger cars.
Mr. McDonald informed the Commission of setback requirements and
explained that the existing building and proposed addition meet the zoning
setback requirements. The front yard abuts Wisconsin Avenue and the
setback requirement is 35 feet with the proposed setback at 95 feet. The
rear yard (east) setback is 35 feet. The north side yard along Bass Lake
Road is 35 feet at the closest point, with the setback requirement along a
thoroughfare at 35 feet. The requirement for the side yard to the south is
10 feet and the proposed setback would be 20 feet.
Mr. McDonald reported that plans were submitted to the City Engineer for
review and comment. The Department Heads reviewed the plans and the
major issues discussed were parking, landscaping, outdoor dog walk area,
building materials, security lighting and drainage. The Design & Review
Committee met with the petitioner and discussed the same issues along
with parking spaces, dog walk area, survey, retaining wall, snow storage,
signage, trash enclosure, and County right-of-way. Revised plans were
submitted as a result of that meeting. City Code requires 14 parking
spaces and the revised plans included an improved parking lot design with
16 straight-in 90° parking spaces with a hammerhead area on the north
end for cars to back out of the parking spaces. The lot meets all code
requirements with stalls dimensioned at 8'9" x 19' and a 24' drive aisle.
One handicapped parking space with ramp is provided at the southeast
corner of the lot. The trash enclosure is shown on the Site Plan at the
southeast corner of the parking lot. A future seven-foot right-of-way
easement to Hennepin County is shown on the Site Plan. The Grading
Plan shows B6/12 concrete curb and gutter for the parking lot. The
Landscaping Plan shows the existing and new landscaping. New plantings
would include two Dogwoods, three Spruce, two Juniper and three
Honeysuckle. The existing ground sign is shown on the Landscape Plan
and no new signage is proposed. Adjacent residential structures are
shown on the plans. Corrections have been made to the elevation
drawings to include windows on the west side of the building. The
Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 6, 1998
building addition~'WO61d-b~e similar to the existing building. The gable roof
and asphalt shingles of the addition would match the existing building.
The existing building materials are an embossed concrete brick block with
a pattern and a painted background. The contractor stated that these
materials are no longer available, therefore, the west elevation and south
corner of the building would be brick painted to match the existing
building. The south and west elevations would be painted block to match
the color of the building, but would not have the brick type texture. The
addition would be trimmed in wood to match the existing building. There
is an existing wall pack on the north side of the building that is controlled
by a timer. The petitioner submitted correspondence stating they are
proposing to install additional security lights over the existing east exit
door and the two south doors of the proposed building, which is what the
Police Department suggested. The City Engineer commented that this
does not require review by the Shingle Creek Watershed District. The
plans and grading have been revised so that a storm sewer is not
necessary at this time. Staff feels that the petitioner addressed the
concerns of the Design & Review Committee. The one concern of staff is
that pets are not allowed in the dog walk area without supervision.
Chairman Sonsin questioned whether platting should be required or not.
Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, replied that platting is not required for a
conditional use permit. The Planner, Mr. Brixius, stated that as long as
there is one owner and one use there would not be any concerns for
platting.
Dr. Richard Cameron, owner, and Mr. Edward Anderson, Olson General
Contractors came forward to answer questions of the Commission.
Mr. Anderson announced that the application was signed by Dr. Gary
Gibbons and the ownership changed on November I when Dr. Cameron
bought the business. Dr. Cameron has been operating the clinic for the
past nine years.
Commissioner Damiani called attention to the trash enclosure and
wondered if there would be a gate on the front side of the enclosure. Mr.
Anderson answered that the enclosure would have three sides and no
gate so that the trash pick up would be easier. Commissioner Damiani
pointed out that the City typically requires a gate. The gate could be
removable or one that would swing open. Mr. Anderson stated that they
could add either type, but that the removable gates seem to be a problem
in winter. The trash containers in the enclosure are completely enclosed
so it should not be an eyesore. An employee car would be parked in front
of the enclosure during working hours. Commissioner Damiani emphasized
that a gate would be required to screen this area from the adjoining
residential area. Commissioner Damiani wondered whether the exterior
lighting would be a sensor type or timer controlled. The petitioner stated
he preferred a sensor light for security reasons, so if thece was any
movement the light would come on. Commissioner Damiani next asked if
the lot would be resurfaced and restriped after the work was completed
and that this should be shown on the plans. Mr. Anderson responded that
there would be parking stalls added along the west side of the lot. A
utility/plumbing line would be cut through the existing lot so the lot would
need to be sealcoated and striped when the work is completed.
Commissioner Damiani questioned the location for snow storage and
noted that this should be shown on the plan. The petitioner answered that
there is a lot of room for snow storage and that the pattern of plowing
may determine where it will go. The lot in the past has been plowed south
Planning Commission Meeting 3 November 6, 1996
to north so snow probably would be stored on the north and/or west sides
of the lot.
Commissioner Landy asked Dr. Cameron how many animals are kenneled
on the premises and how many more kennels are being proposed with the
expansion. Dr. Cameron replied that they do not board animals. The
kenneling would be mainly for an overnight stay after surgery and there
could be up to 10 or 12 animals on that day. This expansion of kennel
spacing would basically provide more room to move around. The addition
adds a surgery room and a separate, enclosed radiology room. It is not
anticipated that there would be much of an increase in the number of
animals being serviced, the would just be more efficient with the services
they are providing. They mostly service dogs and cats and an occasional
rabbit,
Commissioner Landy requested clarification from staff regarding the right-
of-way along Bass Lake Road. Mr. McDonald stated that the County had
indicated to City staff that at some time in the future when they would
widen Bass Lake Road that they were interested in a seven-foot right-of-
way. The petitioner was not agreeable to 'ded. icating it at this time, so
staff asked that the right-of-way be shown on the Site Plan for future use.
Chairman Sonsin confirmed with the petitioner that this would be a
possible future need. Dr. Cameron expressed his concern in holding down
unnecessary expenses at this time.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned if the setback for the parking lot would
be affected by the right-of-way. Mr. Brixius answered that the easement
becomes the property line because the right-of-way extends onto the
property. It should not affect the setback because there would be
sufficient setback from the parking lot to accommodate the right-of-way
easement line.
Commissioner Cassen commented that the petitioner did a nice job in
revising the plans. She suggested that the new plantings not be in the dog
walk area and instead be around the fence on the outside.
Chairman Sonsin asked if there was anyone in the audience concerning
this case. Mr. Randy Jaques, 5621 Wisconsin Avenue, came forward to
discuss his concerns regarding the trash enclosure and parking. Mr.
Jaques asked for clarification regarding the right-of-way for Hennepin
County and whether this meant there would be a curb cut onto Bass Lake
Road. The Planner stated that it would not be likely that a direct access to
Bass Lake Road would be approved. Chairman Sonsin added that the
contour of the property is not conducive to allowing a curb cut and the
City does not generally approve direct access onto County roads.' Mr.
Jaques felt that aesthetically the building looks fine and suggested a few
more plantings on the south side for screening from the adjacent
residential home.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Damiani, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 96-36, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/
Approval and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Expand
Veterinarian Clinic, 8119 Bass Lake Road, Bass Lake Pet Hospital/Dr.
Richard Cameron, Petitioner.
1. Escort or supervision required in dog walk area at all times.
2. Trash enclosure to include a gate on the front for screening purposes.
3. Snow storage to be shown on site plan.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 6, 1996
4. Move new Dogwood from inside dog walk area to another area.
5. Annual review by staff to include review of parking
Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioner that if parking spills onto the
street, the City might request him to expand the parking lot on the
pr°perty.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carded.
Keefe, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Damiani
None
Stulberg, Svendsen
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on November 12,
1996.
PC96-04
Item 3.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2 An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Cod~ by Establishing Licensing
Regulations for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods
Dealers and An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by
Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Brixius explained that there are two regulations being considered. First
land use issues as far as zoning, and secondly the operation
characteristics, which are dealt with in the licensing ordinance. Codes &
Standards studied a variety of ordinances and saw that several other cities
have adopted ordinances which have specific requirements such as
spacing, buffering, separation, etc. In evaluating these codes the
Committee could not find any information that justified any negative
secondary impacts that would separate this use from any other retail or
lending operation. During the adult use study, there were specific findings
prepared by the Attorney General's office that stated the introduction of
adult use had negative secondary impacts on surrounding properties.
There was no information found that was pertinent to pawn shops.
Consideration was given to whether pawn shops should be a conditional
use permit or a permitted use. When looking at all of the information,
pawn shops are legitimate businesses and have the same characteristics
as other retail businesses or lending institutions. Codes & Standards
concurred that the most appropriate zone would be the B-4 Zoning
District, which is the most intense Zoning District allowing for a full range
of commercial operations. The Committee and staff felt that the pawn
shop would blend with existing uses and the B-4 District would provide
adequate separation from lesser intense land uses. At the informal
discussion in October, the issue of location was addressed. An inquiry had
been received by the City regarding the old Ponderosa building on Bass
Lake Road, which is zoned B-3. That site may be appropriate for this type
of operation. It is in close proximity to commercial operations in New
Hope and Crystal and may be an appropriate re-use of that building. There
was some discussion whether pawn shops should be allowed in the B-3
District. The Planner stated that it is his opinion and the opinion of staff
that rather than change the ordinance to allow pawn shops in B-3
Districts, which are generally smaller more confined sites, to possibly
rezone this particular site to B-4. The advantage of rezoning this site
would be that it would be geographically specific and would not expand
to other areas. A question raised by a Commissioner at the informal
discussion regarded the B-1 Zoning District and allowing coin and
philatelic stores and whether this conflicted with the ordinance. In the
Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 6, 1996
license provisions, there are certain exemptions from the precious metal
dealers license, i.e. selling of coins and bullion or ingots, and therefore
would not be in conflict with the B-1 District. The recommendation
presented at this meeting is to allow pawn shops in the B-4 Zoning
District as a permitted use.
Mr. Sondrall explained that the purpose of the licensing ordinance is two-
fold. The first would be crime prevention and the second would be
consumer protection. These are two governmental purposes for why the
City is implementing this ordinance. The ordinance would license pawn
shops, and included under the requirements of the licensing provisions,
are second hand goods dealers and precious metal dealers. The license
provides for four separate fees to be charged as part of the license. There
would be a non-refundable application fee of $500. There would be an
investigation fee, which allows for the investigation of corporations or
individuals. If the investigation occurs within the state, the investigation
fee would be $1,500. If the investigation requires the Police Department
to go outside of the state, the minimum would be $1,500 to a maximum
of $10,000, based on the actual costs of the investigation. The ordinance
provides for an annual license fee of $2,500,_ which was reduced from
$12,000 in the draft ordinance. A billable transaction fee would also be
implemented, which bills the licensee for transactions as they are made.
The billable transaction fee would be either $2 or $3 per transaction. The
difference between the two fees would be whether the transaction is
reported utilizing the Automated Pawn System or reported manually. The
billable transaction fee allows the City to recoup its costs for the expenses
it incurs in regulating pawn shops, second hand goods dealers and
precious metal dealers. Approximately 50 percent of the billable
transaction fee would be the City's user fee and would be paid to the City
of Minneapolis for the use of the Automated Pawn System.
Mr. Sondrall continued by explaining the general license requirements that
would be implemented by the City when the APS is in operation. The APS
is a very thorough computerized data base collection system that would
allow the Police Department to track every merchandise transaction that
occurs in any pawn shop or second hand goods or precious metal shop.
Every licensee would be required to transmit to the Police Department on
a daily basis information about the various transactions that have occurred
within the business. The ordinance would also require the licensee to
inform the customer about the fact that the information is being provided
to the Police Department. The customer would be made aware of the
identification and photographic requirements and that this information
would be transmitted to the Police Department. The purpose would be to
let criminals know that pawn shops are not in business to facilitate the
perpetrating of crime in the form of stolen property.
Mr. Sondrall reviewed the changes that have been made as a result of the
informal discussion with the Planning Commission in October. There have
been some general licensing requirements imposed on the licensee. One of
the requirements is that if there is any change in ownership by the
licensee, whether a sole proprietor, partnership or a corporation, that this
would require a new investigation of the new owner. A suggestion from
the Commission at the last meeting was that a new investigation be
completed only if there was a ten percent change in ownership, which
seemed reasonable. However, the new state regulation on pawn shops
and pawn licenses requires a new investigation whenever there is any
change in ownership. Due to the fact that state regulations are minimum
standards, the City could be more stringent than those regulations, but
Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 6, 1996
the City cannot be less-stringent. Codes & Standards was concerned
about some of the provisions of license eligibility, therefore a requirement
was added that the licensee be of good moral character and repute, which
is also a requirement of the state law. The ordinance also requires that the
proposed licensee be a citizen of the United States or a resident alien. All
of the holding periods were changed from 60 days to 90 days. The
reqUirement for a weekly report was eliminated that required the
itemization of various things, because the transactions would be reported
to the Police Department on a daily basis. The requirement for pawn
shops to make payment by check only was eliminated, which allows the
pawn shops to pay cash for the transactions. The pawn shop is
essentially a bank for the monetarily disadvantaged and it Would not make
sense for this person to have to pay a fee to cash the check from the
pawn shop. Regarding the difference in the billable transaction fee of $2
or $3, it is believed that if the computer system would go down and the
transactions would need to be reported manually, the cost would increase
somewhat,
Chairman Sonsin asked whether any consideration should be given for a
maximum amount of cash paid for any one. transaction, The thought
behind the check was for tracking purposes and the person needing to
provide identification when cashing the check, Mr, Sondrall stated that
the petitioner or Police Department could probably better discuss this and
inform the Commission of the average amount of a pawn transaction,
Commissioner Landy asked whether there is a means of increasing the
billable transaction fee if the cost to the City would increase, Mr, Sondrall
replied that this fee could be increased at any time through an ordinance
change by the City Council, The Police Department and Council would
need to monitor the cost to the City regularly and adjust the fee when
necessary,
Commissioner Underdahl wondered whether the Automated Pawn System
would really hinder burglars from pawning stolen merchandise in the pawn
shops. The City Attorney stated he believes that this ordinance should
have a deterrent effect on the crime problem. Assuming that pawn shops
are a legitimate business, this ordinance will insure that the businesses in
New Hope are doing everything they can to prevent laundered money and
stolen property from coming through the businesses. The Planner added
that the difference is that by entering into the APS, New Hope would be
sharing information with other cities so that if a crime does occur the
stolen merchandise can be tracked with other communities that are a part
of the system. The APS would be a deterrent for criminals in New Hope
because there are many communities not a part of the system and who
have tracking capabilities. Mr. Sondrall added that the photographic
identification of both the property and the person pledging the pawn and
the fact that the pawn dealer is required to verbally tell the person as well
as display this information in writing on the premises, would be another
deterrent for pawning stolen property. Commissioner Underdahl called
attention to the fact that with adult uses there was an increase in crime in
the surrounding area and wondered if that would be true of pawn shops.
Mr. Sondrall responded that there have not been any studies done to
document any negative impact of pawn businesses.
Lt. Phil Hafvenstein, Commander of the License Division of the
Minneapolis Police Department which is spearheading the development
and implementation of the Automated Pawn System, came forward to
answer questions of the Commission. Lt. Hafvenstein stated that the City
Planning Commission Meeting 7 November 6, 1996
of Minneapolis has estimated the cost for each billable transaction fee to
be 95¢. He also stated that the benefit of the Automated Pawn System is
the ability for participating communities to track merchandise that may be
stolen with each other. The only other way for Police Departments to
track this merchandise is through the National Information Computer
System (NCIC). Because most communities have manual reporting
systems, the information is not shared from one community to another
and stolen merchandise can be pawned in another community without
being traced. There have been two more communities that have joined
together with Minneapolis' APS since New Hope joined. Regarding the
issue of negative impact on communities with pawn shops, there has
been no correlation documented between a pawn shop and an increase in
crime. There is, historically, an association with poorer communities and
the pawn industry and the relationship with the financially disadvantaged
in these communities. Pawn shops serve a legitimate business function in
this regard. The City of Minneapolis requires payment by check from
second hand goods dealers and allows payment with cash from pawn
dealers. The logic behind this is so a finance charge is not levied on the
person cashing the check at another financial institution. Minneapolis has
not studied the concept of paying by check over a certain dollar amount.
At this time one of the two large pawn dealers does pay by check. Lt.
Hafvenstein stated that all of the changes that have been made in the
ordinance since the last meeting are good.
Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on the relationship between
New Hope and Minneapolis through the APS. Lt. Hafvenstein responded
that the Minneapolis Police Department would be providing a service to
the subscribing communities. Minneapolis would collect the information
from the transactions sent from the pawn shops and give it back to the
New Hope Police Department along with all the information from every
community that is a part of the Automated Pawn System. It would be a
non-joint powers proposition. New Hope would be, in effect, a contract
vendor taking advantage of a centralized computer system. Some
communities may want to join APS on a viewer only basis if these
communities do not have a pawn shop. Commissioner Keefe wondered if
the ordinance is adopted and a pawn shop does not come into New Hope
for several years, would the City still join on a viewer only basis. Mr.
McDonald commented that New Hope has sent a Letter of Intent to join.
Lt. Hafvenstein called attention to the fact that the billable transaction fee
would be $2 if the failure of the APS would be the fault of the service
provider. If the community's computer is at fault, the transaction fee
would increase to $3 for the manual reporting.
Commissioner Cassen asked about the range in value for pawned
merchandise is and what the average transaction dollar amount.
Mr. Bernard Brennan, area manager for Cash 'N' Pawn, came forward to
answer questions of the Commission. He stated that from his experience
the range in value can start at $5 and go as high as $25,000, which was
for several Kodak computer printers at one of his shops (this was paid by
check). Mr. Brennan stated that Cash 'N' Pawn pays by cash because
they feel that it is a disadvantage for their customers to give them a
check. The customer would then have to go to a check cashing
establishment or a bank to cash the check. The majority of their
customers do not have a bank account which is why they go to the pawn
shop in the first place. Most check cashing establishments charge 10
percent to cash a check and Cash 'N' Pawn feels it is unfair to their
customers to lose another 10 percent. The average loan is about $50 to
Planning Commission Meeting 8 November 6, 1996
$55 and about 80 percent:~,;all loans .are for $100 or less. Cash 'N' Pawn
operates 10 pawn shops in several markets with four shops in the Twin
Cities area. They are interested in the old Ponderosa site on Bass Lake
Road, Their plan is to open another six stores in the Twin Cities area
within the next 12 months.
Mr. Brennan stated that he received a copy of the ordinance and had a
few items to discuss with the Commission, The first item was Section
8.344(5)(a) regarding a license .not being granted if the owner of the
property being leased/rented is ineligible for a license, Mr. Brennan stated
that they do not own the buildings in which they do business. They lease
for five to seven year periods with options to renew. He questioned what
would happen if the owner of the property would fail to meet all the
requirements of the Code, since they do not know the backgrounds of all
the property owners. Mr, Sondrall responded that if the property owner
did not meet all of the requirements, the site would be ineligible for a
license, Lt. Hafvenstein interjected that this verbiage is in the Minneapolis
ordinance and is there specifically to disallow a strongman operation being
fronted by someone else. Mr, Sondrall added that the ordinance is set up
to only allow pawn shops in the B-4 District, where most of the locations
would be shopping centers and not free-standing stores.
Mr. Brennan next questioned Section 8.345(6) dealing with the holding
period for pawnbrokers. He stated that this ordinance requires a 90-day
holding period, whereas the cities of Fridley, Hopkins and St. Paul all have
a smaller amount of time required for holding the goods before resale.
There is a difference between items purchased and loans. Items
purchased in Hopkins have to be held for 10 days from the date the
transaction took place. The holding time for purchased items in Fridley is
30 days, which was just changed from 10 days. Cash 'N' Pawn holds all
purchased items for at least 15 days, or longer if there is a request from
the Police Department. St. Paul's ordinance states purchased items are to
be held for a period of 30 days. Mr. Brennan asked the Commission to
consider changing New Hope's ordinance to reflect a similar holding
period. Lt. Hafvenstein pointed out that the State Statute requires a 60-
day holding period. The City of Minneapolis had a 120-da¥ holding period
and has since gone to 90 days for pawned items. The point that Mr.
Brennan makes is legitimate in that the item that is pawned is pledged and
the pawn shop cannot sell it to someone other than the pledger for a
period of 90 days. The concept of buying the item and reselling it is
different. Minneapolis has a 30-day hold on these items which was
recently increased from 15 days. This allows adequate time for the Police
Department to check on stolen items. Lt. Hafvenstein stated that 30 days
is an adequate hold time for purchased products and 90 days is typical for
pawned items. Chairman Sonsin asked Lt. Hafvenstein if he was familiar
with the lO-day holding period that Mr. Brennan referred to and Lt.
Hafvenstein stated that was the minimum amount of time but that 15 or
30 days was more common. Thirty days allows a little more time for the
Police Department to track the items, especially when holidays and
weekends are included in the time frame. The City Attorney and
Commission concurred that a 30-day hold for purchased items would be
incorporated into the ordinance, and that the hold for pawned items
would remain at 90 days.
Mr. Brennan continued with his review of the ordinance with Section
8.345(7)(e) regarding the receipt and the fact that the date and amount
for the item pawned be written on the receipt. None of the other cities
they operate in require Cash 'N' Pawn to do this. All of the cities have
Planning Commission Meeting 9 November 6, 1996
slightly different requirements. When the State law went into effect on
August 1, they tried to make the tickets unifOrm so that all of their
locations were the same. This is one reason they went with the 30-day
hold for purchased items and the 90-day hold for pawned items, even
though the State Statute and not all of the cities require this time frame.
Twenty percent of all loans during the year are forfeited and the
merchandise is put up for sale. The pick-up ratio is about 80 percent and
most loans are in the store for a period of 45 days. Mr. Brennan went on
to explain their policy of redeeming the pawned items to the pledger and
the time frame in which the pledger comes back to the pawn shop. Mr.
Brennan asked that this section be removed from the ordinance. Chairman
Sonsin pointed out that 8.345(7)(e) correlates with State Statute Section
4(1). Lt. Hafvenstein interjected that the maturity date in the State
Statute was intended to be the ending date of the 60 day requirement of
the State law. The ordinances of Minneapolis and St. Paul stated that the
last regular day of business which the item must be redeemed by the
pledger without risk that the item would be sold and the amount
necessary to redeem the item on that date be printed on the receipt. Most
pawns do not go the full 90 days, but this is the reality of the contract
being entered into. It was the Consumer Advocacy Group that brought
forward the changes to State law since they felt it was necessary to
inform the pledger of the total finance charge due at the end of the
holding period that the ordinance sets. The statement in the ordinance
was included to show the pledger the maximum amount they would have
to pay in order to redeem the pawn. Mr. Sondrall stated that there is
some confusion in the State Statute referring to entries on pawn tickets.
It indicated that at the time of the transaction the pawnbroker shall
record, in a computerized record approved by the municipality, the date of
the maturity and the amount due. In subdivision 2 it goes on to say what
needs to be printed on the pawn ticket and this section does not indicate
specifically that the maturity date and amount need to appear on the
ticket. Chairman Sonsin maintained that subdivision 2 was additional
verbiage that was needed to be on the ticket for 'the protection of the
consumer doing the transaction, which is. over and above the data
required. Mr. Sondrall emphasized that subdivision 2 clearly states that
"the following shall be printed on all pawn tickets," whereas subdivision 1
states that "the pawnbroker shall immediately and legibly record in English
the following information on a computerized record approved by the
municipality." As part of the computerized record, the City could require
the pawnbroker to print this information on the pawn ticket. Mr. Sondrall
pointed out that the City can be more stringent than the State
requirements so New Hope could require this information on the ticket,
however State Statute would not require us to make the pawnbroker
include this information on the printed ticket. Lt. Hafvenstein added that
he felt the first section of the State Statute addressed the minimum
information needed and the second part was additional information to be
included on the ticket. The Minneapolis ordinance requires all the
information. Lt. Hafvenstein stated he could appreciate the concerns of
Mr. Brennan and the need to include the maturity date and amount for the
full 90 days when most pawns do not extend beyond 45 days. Mr.
Sondrall added that each municipality had its own ordinance and
requirements, and in the future there might be some state guidelines for
municipalities to be consistent with what is required. Mr. Brennan stated
he did not remember this wording in the St. Paul ordinance. Lt.
Hafvenstein expressed skepticism that it would have been left out of St.
Paul's ordinance since St. Paul based their ordinance on the Minneapolis
ordinance which includes this wording. Chairman Sonsin commented that
at this time he felt the wording should remain in the ordinance. The City
Planning Commission Meeting 10 November 6, 1996
Council may make additional changes when they study this issue.
Mr. Brennan next reviewed Section 8.349(1)(b) and (d) regarding the
possession of stolen goods and disclosing to the pledger the name of the
purchaser. Before Mr. Brennan continued with this section, he briefly
explained to the Commission his background and how he got involved in
the pawn industry. He stated that the Cash 'N' Pawn stores more closely
resemble a high-class retail store than a pawn shop. They work closely
with the Police Departments in all the communities that they operate a
pawn shop. As a company, they work with the police if they think that
the pledger is bringing in stolen merchandise and have been responsible
for a lot of stolen merchandise being recovered. The reality is that there is
nothing that anyone can do to eliminate stolen merchandise from being
pawned, The national statistic of stolen goods in pawn shops in America
that is recovered in pawn shops is one tenth of one percent. The
Automated Pawn System is a wonderful idea because it will find more
stolen merchandise. Mr. Brennan stated that there are signs in all of his
stores that say they report everything to the Police Department daily.
Chairman Sonsin stated that this ordinance is being drafted to be
pawnbroker neutral. Someone may apply to the City who is a legitimate
business and there may be someone apply who is not legitimate. Mr.
Sondrall pointed out that the statement in the ordinance "possess stolen
goods" means intentionally possessing stolen goods and Chairman Sonsin
suggested changing the wording as such.
Mr. Brennan next commented on (d) of the same section regarding
disclosing to the pledger the purchaser's name and the purchase price. He
believed this infringed on the right of privacy of anyone who buys
anything in a pawn shop. The ordinances for Fridley, Hopkins, Brooklyn
Center, St. Paul and probably Minneapolis, state that the requirement for
any sale over $75 is to get the name, address and telephone number of
the person purchasing the item and for the pawn shop to keep it on file. A
worst case scenario would be that the pledger did not come back within
the 90-day holding period, the item was sold, and then the pledger came
back and demanded the name of the person who purchased the item.
Under this ordinance, the pawn shop would be required to provide this
information. The pledger then could go to the purchaser's home and
demand they give the item back. Mr. Brennan stated that they keep the
name and address of all purchasers over $75. The ordinance for Hopkins
states under the disposition of articles: "When any article is sold or
disposed of by the licensee, the records shall contain an account of such
sale with the date thereof, the interest and charges accrued and the
amount for which the article was sold and in the case of items sold for
more than $75, the name, address and telephone number of the
purchaser." Fridley's ordinance is similar except the amount is $100. He
felt that this wording should be changed to reflect something similar to
the ordinance of Hopkins or Fridleyo Chairman Sonsin asked staff where
this wording came from. Lt. Hafvenstein said he could not find similar
language in the Minneapolis ordinance, however this is not unique
language. The State Statute says "Any personal property pledged to a
pawn broker within this state is subject to sale or disposal when there has
been no payment made on the account for a period of not less than 60
days past the date of the pawn transaction, renewal or extension. No
further notice is necessary." Mr. Sondrall pointed out that an individual
who does not redeem a piece of property within the allotted period loses
all title and right to the property. It does not make a lot of sense that the
pawn shop dealer be required to disclose to the pledger, who has given up
his right to the property, the identity of the person to whom the item was
Planning Commission Meeting 11 November 6, 1996
sold. The pawnbroker should still be required to collect this information,
but it should not be mandatory that the pledger needs to have this
information. The Commission and staff concurred that subsection (1)(d)
should be removed from the ordinance. Lt. Hafvenstein informed the
Commission that the APS purges the information from the system after
the allotted holding period. Commissioner Underdahl questioned whether
the name, address and phone number then needed to remain on file. This
was confirmed, however disclosure was the issue with this. Mr. Sondrall
stated he wasn't sure if the pawnbroker needed to keep this information
on file because the APS purges the information after 90 days. Lt.
Hafvenstein interjected that no identification information is requested for
people who buy products from a pawn shop because the only product
they could buy is something that has been held for the 15 or 30-day
period or something that has come out of pawn 60 or 90 days out. As
long as the product is sold after the legal time limit, it does not matter
who bought the merchandise. Mr. Sondrall added that by not keeping
track of all of the purchasers, there would be some finality to the
transaction.
Mr. Brennan suggested that the ordinance more clearly define a police
hold Section 8.345(5) because as stated in the ordinance an item could
stay on hold forever. All the other ordinances, including Minneapolis, have
a specified period of time for the police hold. Lt. Hafvenstein stated that
police holds are defined into categories including an investigative hold,
which is 15 days and has to be confirmed in writing within 72 hours and
a police hold, which is 90 days and can be renewed every 90 days. Mr.
Sondrall suggested that New Hope adopt the verbiage from the
Minneapolis ordinance.
Commissioner Land¥ pointed out that the annual license fee as stated in
the ordinance is $25 instead of $2,500 and this would be corrected.
Mr. $ondrall wondered whether the proposed changes should be brought
back to the Commission or presented to the Council and it was the
consensus of the Commission to move the ordinance forward.
Commissioner Underdahl questioned how Cash 'N' Pawn determines the
locations for the pawn shops. Mr. Brennan responded that locations are
based on demographics and income levels of $36,000 - $38,000 or more.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned why pawn shops are allowed and not
billiard halls. Chairman Sonsin replied that the state regulates pawn shops.
Mr. Sondrall added that the City allows billiard halls, but that particular
petitioner withdrew the application.
Chairman Sonsin questioned whether there should be one or two motions
and Mr. Sondrall replied there should be three motions: to close the public
hearing, to approve the rezoning ordinance and to approve the licensing
ordinance. Motion by Commissioner Underdahl and seconded by
Commissioner Cassen to close the public hearing. All approved. Motion
carried.
Chairman Sonsin emphasized that the Commission would be voting on a
generic ordinance and it does not refer to any specific piece of property
nor does it refer to any specific operator of such businesses.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to
Item 3.2 approve Planning Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the
Planning Commission Meeting 12 November 6, 1996
New Hope CitY Code by' Establishing Licensing Regulations for
Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods Dealers, City of
New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the changes discussed at this meeting.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers,
Damiani
None
Stulberg, Svendsen
MOTION
Item 3.2
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
approve Planning Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amending The New Hope
Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4
Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Cassen, Damiani
Oelkers
Underdahl
Stulberg, Svendsen
This Planning Case will proceed to the City Council on November 25,
1996. Chairman Sonsin suggested that Mr. Brennan contact staff before
the meeting whether or not his presence is required at the meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Committee met with
the Pet Hospital.
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards did not meet in
October and would not be meeting in November or December. Codes &
Standards will meet on January 24 to discuss a proposed ordinance
related to DNR Shoreland and a proposed ordinance relating to the
regulation of antennas and towers. He suggested finding out if the City is
interested in pursuing an ordinance requiring petitioners being current on
both property taxes and utilities bills before submitting an application for a
variance, CUP, etc., and include a sunset provision in this ordinance. He
also suggested consideration of an ordinance regulating political lawn
signs.
Commissioner Landy questioned whether Codes & Standards would be in
violation of the open meeting law with Commissioner Underdahl back
from her leave of absence on the Committee. Chairman Sonsin replied
that Commissioner Underdahl is a member-at-large, and this will need to
be discussed in the next couple of months.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
There was no discussion on miscellaneous issues.
NEW BUSINESS
Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
Chairman Sonsin asked if there were any new applications for the
December meeting and Mr. McDonald replied that there is one code
change on the December agenda at this time.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Sonsin stated that there would be a small celebration with cake
and coffee in honor of the two candidates, Commissioners Cassen and
Planning Commission Meeting 13 November 6, 1996
ADJOURNMENT
Underdahl, who ran for office during the election.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:10
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commissiqn Meeting 14 November 6, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 3, 1996
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:
Keefe, Landy, Stulberg, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen,
Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
None
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil,
Community Development Specialist Alan Brixius, Planning
Consultant,
CONSENT ITEMS
There were no consent items presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC96-37
Item 3.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, An Ordinance
Amending the New Hope Code by Permitting Two Family Dwellings
Within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Planning Consultant Alan Brixius pointed out that the Stuhr property,
which is zoned R-4, has had a history of development requests. At the
present time there is a request for a twinhome on the petitioner's property
located at 5641 Wisconsin Avenue. The size of the site is approximately
21,000 square feet with a 98-foot width, and is located on the southwest
quadrant of Wisconsin Avenue and Bass Lake Road. The narrow access to
the site on Wisconsin Avenue complicates the site design. As late as'
1988 there was consideration of a seven-unit apartment building on this
site. Staff feels that the twinhome concept is an appropriate use of the
site based on the size, location, and constraint of the site.
Mr. Brixius explained that two options were available. The first was to
amend the R-3 District and have the use roll-over to the R-4 District to
allow twinhomes in this District. The second would be rezoning the site.
Staff feels that the twinhome use in the R-4 was appropriate since the
use is similar in character to a townhome and has the same medium
density characteristics, which would be five to ten units per acre
according to the Comprehensive Plan. As far as the application throughout
the community, tf~ere are numerous R-3 and R-4 Districts, but after
reviewing these Districts with the Building Official, there are no other
vacant sites other than the Stuhr property that would be immediately
available. In most cases the R-3 and R-4 properties are developed to the
maximum density. If the Code text would be amended it would basically
address the Stuhr property and proposed development. With respect to
rezoning, it is staff's opinion that there was a mistake in the past in that
the site is not of a size and location capable of handling anything more
intense than a twinhome. Staff would recommend an amendment to the
R-3 District rather than rezoning. A single lot rezoning can create some
problems as far as land use compatibility and proximity, and staff does
not feel that the zoning amendment allowing a twinhome in the R-3 and
R-4 District would be inappropriate.
Commissioner Keefe wondered why the Multiple Family section of the
Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 3, 1996
Code would be amended rather than including a separate section relating
to twinhomes. Mr. Brixius stated that there needs to be some separation
of uses in residential districts rather than rolling all uses into one which
can present some compatibility concerns. The proposed amendment
relates specifically to one property and staff does not see it being applied
elsewhere within the R-3 or R-4 Districts. The simplest and easiest way to
accommodate this use would be to add two family uses into the medium
density district and the R-3 is a medium density residential district.
Twinhomes, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, fit into this district and
are in character with other medium density housing types.
MOTION
Item 3.1
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 96-37, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope
Code by Permitting Two Family Dwellings Within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning
Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Commissioner Cassen questioned why the foundation for the twinhome is
already in place at the site on Wisconsin Avenue. Mr. McDonald answered
that the City Manager had approved the request. The Stuhrs toured the
'twinhomes built by the City, they liked the designs, and obtained a copy
of the blueprints. The error in the Code was discovered at the time the
Stuhrs came in to apply for the building permit. Staff had assumed that an
R-2 use rolled over into the R-3 and R-4 zone. At that point the City
Manager was asked whether the twinhome should be put on hold until the
Code was amended, and he felt that since this was clearly an error in the
Zoning Code, the project could proceed.
Commissioner Oelkers wondered what would happen if the Planning
Commission did not approve the amendment. Mr. McDonald stated that
the amendment would move forward to the City Council. Chairman
Sonsin added that the Council had the power to override the decision of
the Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission that
the twinhome would be a good use for the property.
Voting in favor: Keefe, Landy, Stulberg, Underdahl, Sonsin,
Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
This planning case will proceed to the City Council on December 9, 1996.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 4.1
Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Committee did not
meet in November. Mr. McDonald stated that the application deadline for
January is not for another week and one-half. At this time there are no
pre-application meetings scheduled and, therefore, there may not be a
January Planning Commission meeting.
Codes & Standards
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards did not meet in
November and would not meet again until January 22. Items to be
discussed would include the DNR Shoreland ordinance, cable towers,
unpaid property tax/utility bills and political campaign signs.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
There was no discussion on miscellaneous issues.
Commissioner Oelkers asked about the status of the Lasky development.
Planning Commission Meeting 2 December 3, 1996
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McDonald reported that the project is on hold. Mr. Lasky had
requested TIF assistance from the City, the Council gave concept
approval, and then Mr. Lasky contacted City staff and asked that the
project be put on hold because Car-X withdrew. Mr, Lasky is seeking
another use for the property. Commissioner Oelkers stated that there is a
new "build to suit" sign on the property.
Planning Commission minutes were approved as written.
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that there would be one vacancy on the
Commission in January due to the fact that Commissioner Cassen would
be moving on to the City Council. Commissioner Underdahl's term expires
at the end of 1996 and she stated she would like to be re-appointed.
Chairman Sonsin asked about the time frame for appointing new
Commissioner. Mr. McDonald stated that Commission openings would be
advertised in the newspaper in December and that Council could then
interview candidates in January. Chairman Sonsin stated that if there are
no planning applications for January and there is no meeting, officers will
be elected at the February meeting and committee assignments would be
completed at that time.
Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that Bob Gundershaug had
resigned at the end of 1995 and about the same time was in a serious
automobile accident. He had served for 20 years on the Planning
Commission and for most of those years was the Chair of Design &
Review. He was Chairman of the Planning Commission during 1995. The
Council passed a resolution honoring him at the beginning of 1996, but
because of his slow recovery had not made a special presentation to him
at a Council meeting. The presentation of a watch will be made by Mayor
Ed Erickson at the beginning of the December 9 Council meeting and
Commissioners are encouraged to attend.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:14
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 3 December 3, 1996