Loading...
1995 PlanningCITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 3, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS Present: Absent: Also Presen{: I_andy, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Stulberg Underdahl, Oelkers Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Administrative Analyst No Consent Items. Bellefuil, PUBLIC HEARING PC 94-30 Item 4.1 Vice-Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Construction of a 40,000 Square Foot Office/Warehouse (Paper Transfer) Facility and a Conditional Use Permit, 7300 49th Avenue North, Hoyt Development, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner is requesting to withdraw their application, due to the fact that the facility is going to locate in Maple Grove. Commissioner Oelkers arrived at 7:03 p.m. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve the withdrawal of Planning Case 94-32, Request for SIte/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Construction of a 40,000 Square Foot Office/Warehouse (Paper Transfer) Facility and a Conditional Use Permit, 7300 49th Avenue North, Hoyt Development, Petitioner. Commissioner Sonsin noted that it would not be necessary to include the planning case report in the packet for a withdrawal request. Voting in favor: Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers Voting against: None Absent: Underdahl Motion carried. Gundershaug, Cassen, Stulberg, PC 94-34 Item 4.2 Vice-Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Preliminary Plat approval for Marky Addition, 5009 Winnetka Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the City of New Hope is requesting preliminary plat approval of Marky Addition. The property at 5009 Winnetka is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and the purpose of the plat is to subdivide the property into two equal parcels, two lots, to accommodate the construction of a zero lot line handicapped accessible twin home. This is a City project that is being done in conjunction with CO-OP Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation. The City will oversee construction of this house and upon completion it will be sold to qualified buyers who have signed a New Hope Planning Commission I January 3, 1995 purchase agreement prior to the start of construction. Mr. McDonald reported that the City acquired the vacant, deteriorating home and property from HUD in February, 1994. There was an old deteriorating farmhouse on the property. After an extensive environmental and historical review was completed on the property in the spring, the Fire Department utilized the vacant home as a test burn site this summer and once the training was completed the home was demolished and the site was cleared and made ready for development. Mr. McDonald explained that in June, 1994, the Planning Commission and City Council approved the rezoning of this property from an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, so that the property could accommodate a twin home. Mr. McDonald continued that the City is currently working with Equal Access Homes, Inc. on a twin home design that is accessible to people with disabilities. The City Council provided input on concept design plans at the December 12th meeting and plans and specifications will be considered at the January 9th Council meeting. If approved, bids will be sought and considered in February. It is anticipated that construction of the twin home will begin in March and be completed by July, 1995. The elevations and floor plans of the twin homes were shown at this time to the Commissioners. Mr. McDonald further explained that as per routine policy the preliminary plat was submitted to Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment and the City did receive several comments. The staff is not requesting waiving review of the final plat by the Commission, which would be in February, unless the Commission feels it is not necessary to review the final plat. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified of the plat along with an informational letter describing what the City is doing with this property. Mr. McDonald informed the Commission that the total area of the plat is 25,199 square feet and has a width of 168 feet including the 40 foot Winnetka Avenue easement. Excluding the Winnetka Avenue easement, the frontage along 51st Avenue is 128 feet which is the shortest side, or the front of the property. The homes will face 51st Avenue. Hennepin County will not allow additional curb cuts along Winnetka Avenue so the curb cut that is there now will be eliminated. Mr. McDonald stated the twin home proposed for this site does meet the setback requirements: the front of the structure will be located 30 feet from 51st Avenue; the east side will be located 35 feet from Winnetka Avenue; the rear of the structure will be located 47 feet from the south property line, which exceeds the 35 foot requirement; and the west side will be located 35 feet from the west property line, which exceeds the 10 foot requirement. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if the two foot bay windows are within the City Code and Mr. McDonald informed him that a two foot encroachment is allowed for certain ornamental features, chimneys, eaves, gutters, etc. Mr. McDonald went on to explain that the plat subdivides the property into two equal parcels. The minimum lot area is 7,000 square feet and both lots contain 9,600 square feet and the minimum lot width for a twin lot is 35.5 feet and both of these lots will be 64 feet wide. New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - January 3, 1995 Mr. McDonald stated the City Engineer reviewed the plat and requested that sanitary sewer and Water service be verified and stated that the easements are properly shown on the plat. The City Attorney reviewed the plat and recommended that the signature line on the plat be changed to the New Hope Economic Authority and that a couple conflicts in the legal description be worked out with Hennepin County. Hennepin County also reviewed the plat and commented that the existing 40 feet of right of way is sufficient along Winnetka Avenue and stated that no additional curb cuts are allowed along Winnetka Avenue and that access must be via existing City streets and that County right of way be restored after construction is completed. The Planning Consultant reported that the property was not previously platted, therefore the preliminary and final plat are necessary. Restrictive covenants will be drafted by the City Attorney with the pre-purchase agreements that will discuss items like outside maintenance, etc., since both sides will have separate owners, but that the outside appearance of the structure needs to remain the same. No comments were received from the utility companies on the plat. Mr. McDonald stated that it is staffs recommendation to approve the preliminary plat subject to the eight conditions contained in the report, including the conditions by the City Engineer, City Attorney and Hennepin County. Vice,Chairman Gundershaug asked for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the section in the planning report dealing with the setbacks and if the east/west sides were wrong. It was noted that the report was wrong and that the east side is along Winnetka Avenue and the west side is along the adjoining property line. Commissioner Sonsin stated that he did not feel it was necessary that the final plat come back before the Commission and that this recommendation be waived. Also questioned in the report under the City Attorney comments was who was checking the property records, etc., and that this item was not listed in the letter from the City Attorney. Mr. McDonald reported that the City Attorney will be taking care of this item and that the revised letter was received at the last minute and was included in the packet. An initial review of the plat was done and after checking with Hennepin County the discrepancy with the seven foot strip was discovered, which the City Attorney included in the recommendations of his revised letter. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if Code states that there can be an encroachment on a house and wondered why. Mr, McDonald stated that an encroachment is allowed for certain features but he was uncertain whether bay windows were included or not. Commissioner Oelkers reiterated that there will be no basement and that there would be a foundation under the windows, so that is not a cantilever but a foundation portion of the building. The setback then is 33 feet and not 35 feet. If this is the case, isn't the City proposing something that goes against Code. Vice-Chairman Gundershaug noted that this meeting is to look at the plat and not the construction of the homes. Mr. McDonald stated that he would look into this matter. The Building Official reviewed this plan and didn't mention a problem. After checking into this further and if a problem is found, the plat will need to be revised because it does need to meet the City Code. Commissioner Oelkers commented that possibly the lot line subdividing the property could be moved so that Lot I would be 62 feet and Lot 2 would be 66 feet so that there would be no question that the bay windows meet the 35 foot setback. Mr. McDonald answered that the intent was to split the lot into equal parts so that each property owner had the same amount of property and so each parcel would New Hope Planning Commission 3 January 3, 1995 sell for the same amount. Commissioner Oelkers commented that two or four feet should not make much difference in selling the property. It might be easier to sell with the setbacks being different on each parcel. Commissioner Oelkers felt that the west parcel would sell easier than the parcel along Winnetka Avenue so the City should make the east parcel as attractive as possible. Commissioner Cassen agreed with this approach. After further discussion about various options for setbacks, Mr. McDonald reconfirmed that the Commission wanted the plat changed to show a lot width of 60 feet on the west and 68 feet on the east, which would move the structure four feet further from Winnetka Avenue and clear up all setback issues. The Commission agreed that this was what they wanted. Commissioner Oelkers noted that he felt the small bay window should be enlarged to the size of the entire dining room wall with three windows instead of one window in the center, which then makes this room 12' x 11'6" instead of 10' x 11'6" with a small bay window. He stated that the cost of adding the extra windows would not be too great and staff said they would look into this. Commissioner Sonsin asked the Commissioners their feeling on waiving the review of the final plat and was informed this would be okay. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the 20 foot easement on Winnetka Avenue. Mr. McDonald answered that there is a 40 foot right of way which will be deeded back to the City, which includes the sidewalk. The additional 20 feet shown on the Building Official's map in question was for a utility easement which runs the length of Winnetka Avenue, but it was discovered later that when the utility lines get to this property they cut around the property and not through it. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case 94-34, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Marky Addition, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 3. 4. 5. Voting Lot widths to be changed so that Lot 2 has a 68 foot width and Lot I has a 60 foot width. Planning Commission waives review of Final Plat. Verification of sanitary sewer/water service, per City Engineer. Verification of Winnetka Avenue right of way, per City Engineer. Signature blank for the owner on the final plat should reflect signatures by the President and Executive Director of the New Hope Economic Development Authority, per City Attorney. Legal description to be changed to same description as shown on Certificate of Title, per City Attorney. The plat illustration and legal description needs to be changed to show an exception for the west seven feet of the east 40 feet of the property, as this seven feet is owned by Hennepin County, per City Attorney. All access to the plat will be via the existing City street system (51st Avenue), no driveway access onto Winnetka Avenue, per Hennepin County. An approved permit be obtained from the County prior to any construction within the County right of way and all areas in right of way disturbed during construction to be restored, per Hennepin County. in favor: Landy, Sonsin, GUndershaug, Cassen, Stulberg, New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - January 3, 1995 COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 6.1 Codes & Standards Item 6.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ELECTION OF OFFICERS Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Oelkers None Underdahl This planning case will be heard by the City Council on January 9, 1995. 'Design'& Review Committee did not meet in December. Codes & Standards did not meet in December. Commissioner Sonsin asked the status of A.C. Carlson and Mr. McDonald answered that there has been no change. Commissioner Sonsin also asked what the status is on Cooper High School. Mr. McDonald stated that the engineers from the City and School District met last month to work out what part of the project each would do and to synchronize the time schedules. On the agenda, for the January 9th Council meeting, is the approval of plans and specifications for the Cooper street plans. The City is responsible for the extension of 47th Avenue and the parking lot improvements. The neighbors have been invited to attend this meeting because there are still alternates on whether Zealand Avenue will be a cul-de-sac. If the plans and specs are approved at that meeting, then the City will ask for authorization to advertise for bids, with bids to be opened in the first part of February. That will coordinate with the School District asking for bids also in the middle of February. The City would probably get the bids but not award the contract for the street work until the School District has awarded the contract for their work. Construction could possibly start right after school gets out in June. The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA minutes were reviewed. Commissioner Sonsin observed that the Commission, up to this point in the meeting, does not have any legal officers since City Code states the appointments expire December 31 st. Is it possible to change City Code so that the January meetings are legal. Vice-Chairman Gundershaug opened the floor for nominations for officers. Commissioner $onsin nominated Commissioner Gundershaug as chairman, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, and was unanimously approved by acclamation. Commissioner Cassen nominated Commissioner Sonsin as vice-chairman, seconded by Commissioner Landy, and was unanimously approved by acclamation. Commissioner Sonsin nominated Commissioner Cassen as third officer, seconded by Commissioner Landy, and was unanimously approved by acclamation. Chairman Gundershaug announced that the new commissioners would be appointed to committees at this time. Chairman Gundershaug stated that since he has been chairman of the Design & Review Committee and has now been elected chairman of the Planning Commission, he feels it is time to step down from the Design & Review Committee, but that he would help out on the Committee for a couple months. Chairman Gundershaug appointed Commissioner Cassen as chairman of the Design & Review Committee, and New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - January 3, 1995 ADJOURNMENT Commissioners Stulberg and Oelkers as members of the Design & Review Committee. Commissioner Landy had previously volunteered to be placed on the Codes & Standards Committee. Chairman Gundershaug questioned if thers will be additional commissioners appointed to the Planning Commission. Mr. McDonald stated that the City is advertising for new members. Commissioner Sonsin stated that it was his preference that the Council appoint no more than one new commissioner, as there are already three new members on the Commission and it is important that the new members receive proper training and become accustomed to the Commissions 'operations. Chairman Gundershaug informed the new members to the Design & Review Committee that the meeting time is on the second or third Thursday of the month (depending on the application deadline) at 3:45 p.m. and both commissioners stated that this time frame was fine. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:28 p.m. ,~ctfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -6- January 3, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oelkers, Stulberg Cassen Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-01 Item 4.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Commercial Recreational Facility (Karate School) at Winnetka Center, 4441 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Associates/Samuel Morris d/b/a Taekwondo USA, Petitioner. Ms. Bellefuil stated that the request is for a conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational facility at Winnetka Center. The petitioner is proposing a Taekwondo/Karate For Kids school at Winnetka Shopping Center. The purpose of the school is to teach both children and adults the art of Taekwondo. The location of the school is 4441 Winnetka Avenue, which is in a vacant space south of Super Value store. The space is 19 feet wide and about 100 feet deep. The plans show a lO-foot wide tiled area at the front door, a large workout/gym area that will be carpeted and include gym mats. There will also be an office, changing rooms and a bathroom that will be accessible to students and staff/teacher. The petitioner also has one school in St. Paul with 80 students and he anticipates up to 240 students at this facility. Ms. Bellefuil informed the Commissioners that the petitioner stated that the primary purpose of the business is to teach the technique and philosophy of Taekwondo. Karate For Kids will teach children ages 3 - 15. Their class sizes will be at a ratio of 20:1 and the children will be split according to age and rank/belt. Classes will be from 5 - 9 p.m. on weekdays and from 9 - 12 noon on Saturday. Classes for young children will be 30 minutes and adult classes will be 45 minutes in length. The petitioner will instruct all of the classes. Ms. Bellefuil pointed out that the shopping center is zoned B-4, Community Business, District and has ample parking spaces. Property owners within 350 feet were notified and staff did not receive any responses from the notifications. Ms. Bellefuil explained that the City defines commercial recreation as a bowling alley, pool hall, dance hall, skating facility and other similar uses. Both the City Attorney and staff have determined that a karate school is similar and, therefore, commercial recreation by definition. In November of last year the City Council approved a six-month moratorium on the location of any pool or 'billiard hall, but this moratorium does not affect this karate school. New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - February 7, 1995 Ms. Bellefuil pointed out that commercial recreational facilities are allowed in a B-4 District by conditional use permit provided the following conditions are met: 1) access; 2) proximity to residential areas; 3) compatibility; 4) screening from residential; 5) vehicular access; 6) shielded lighting; 7) surfacing, and 8) landscaping. Staff finds that all of these items are met. Since this is considered a routine request, the Design & Review Committee did not meet with the petitioner due to the simple nature of the request. No sign plan was submitted except for a letter from the petitioner stating that the sign on the front wall will be replaced. Staff recommends that the signage comply with the Winnetka Shopping Center Sign Plan and the New Hope Sign Code. Ms. Bellefuil stated that Staff recommends approval of the request for a CUP to allow a commercial recreational facility at Winnetka Shopping Center subject to the conditions outlined in the planning case report. Chairman Gundershaug asked the petitioner to come to the podium and Sam Morris, 1811 Walnut Lane, Eagan, came forward to answer questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Morris stated that he runs a school in St. Paul two nights a week at the YWCA. Mr. Morris wishes to open a karate school in association with the American Taekwondo Association. Commissioner Underdahl questioned the number of students that would be in class at one time. Mr. Morris answered class sizes would be no more than a 20:1 ratio. If there are more students than 20 per class, another instructor would be needed to help teach. One other time when there-may be a lot of people in the school would be during testing when parents come to watch the children test. It is possible to have up to 100 people depending upon the number of students in the class. Mr. Morris stated that the name of the business is Taekwondo USA. Karate For Kids is ATA's program designed for kids. Kids learn differently and have more fun in class. The program is designed to build self- confidence, self-esteem, goal setting and accomplishing these goals. Chairman Gundershaug asked what the ages of the students would be. Mr. Morris answered that the ages would be from 5 - 14 years old. With a class being added at a later date for tiny tots/3 - 4 year-olds. About 80 - 85 percent of the students are children. Some parents just drop the kids off for class and some parents like to stay and watch. Commissioner Underdahl asked for clarification on the times of the classes. Mr. Morris stated that the school is open evenings from ,5 - 9 p.m. and Saturday mornings for 2 - 3 hours. The testings are once every two months during the normal class time. Commissioner Underdahl also asked when the philosophy is taught and was informed that this is part of the program and taught during regular class time. Mr. Morris stated that all students come with different levels of ability, both physically and mentally, and he tries to instill in them a positive, everyone's a winner attitude. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the windows at the front of the building would be changed and was told that the appearance of the building will remain the same. Mr. Morris stated that he felt it was important to keep the appearance of the school clean and professional looking. The question was also raised on signage for the business. Mr. Morris stated that new lettering will be put on the sign that is provided at the shopping center. Commissioner Underdahl asked if there will be food New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - February 7, 1995 and beverages available and Mr. Morris said no. Commissioner Landy wondered why New Hope was chosen for the school. Mr. Morris stated that he works for a vending company and travels all over the city and has looked at a lot of different spaces. He stated that a big draw for this shopping center was that Circus Pizza would be right next door and would bring a lot of families with children. Mr. Morris noted that he will be the head instructor and all sales work will also be done from this location. Mrs. Morris will also be working at this location. Commissioner Sonsin asked how the students are found. Mr. Morris stated the best way is to have an advertisement in the yellow pages. Flyers can be sent out in the area. Making presentations at different groups also works. Word of mouth is the best way, but since the school is new to this area, this form of advertising will take a while to build on. Mr. Morris also stated that they will try to do some demos and have a grand opening. Locating next to the Circus Pizza should help to promote the school since that is a family oriented business. Commissioner Sonsin questioned when he plans on opening the school and was told April 1 st is the tentative date. MOTION Item 4.1 Chairman Gundershaug reminded the petitioner that there is a sign ordinance and that the new sign would need to be in compliance with the City and with the shopping center sign plan. Mr. Morris stated he is aware of the sign code. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to approve Planning Case 95-01, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Commercial Recreational Facility (Karate School) at Winnetka Center, 4441 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Associates/Samuel Morris d/b/a Taekwondo USA, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. All signage to comply with the Winnetka Shopping Comprehensive Sign Plan and the New Hope Sign Code. 2. Annual review. Center Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sons/n, Gundershaug, Stulberg, Oelkers None Cassen This planning case will be heard by the City Council on February 13, 1995, and Chairman Gundershaug welcomed the petitioner to New Hope. PC 95-02 Item 4.2 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience Food/Gourmet Coffee Shop/Deli at Midland Shopping Center, 2737 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Richard Forpahl, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a convenience food/gourmet coffee shop/deli at Midland Shopping Center, which is a B-4 Zoning District. The petitioner is proposing to open a moderate priced espresso and tea shop with assorted ready-to-eat foods to dine in or carry-out. Mr. McDonald reported that the proposed coffee shop/deli would be New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - February 7, 1995 located in tenant space//4 at the shopping center, which is located three spaces south of Cinema 'N' Drafthouse. The space is 80 feet in length and 18 feet in width and contains 1440 square feet. This property is zoned as B-4, Community Business, Zoning District. Surrounding land uses and zoning include R-2 duplexes to the north; R-O, Residential/Office, B-1 and B-3, Business/Auto and R-4 (apartment) zoning to the east across Winnetka Avenue; R-O zoning (Ambassador Nursing Home) to the west; and Golden Valley/residential across Medicine Lake Road to the south. Mr. McDonald mentioned that the shopping center use was approved as a PUD and parking was based on a variety of tenant uses. The center has 250 spaces available and this is ample space and meets ordinance requirements. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified and staff received several favorable comments from the public on this request. Mr. McDonald pointed out the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, 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 on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use or~ the general welfare, public health, and safety. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility, performance standards, no depreciation in value, traffic, nearby residences, and effect on other businesses. Mr. McDonald reported that City Code defines "convenience food establishment" as "an establishment which serves food in or on disposable containers in individual services for consumption on or off the premises. Customers are generally served at a pick-up station by clerks rather than served at tables, booths or eating counters by waiters or waitresses". Convenience food establishments are allowed in the B-4 Zoning District as a conditional use provided that the following conditions are met: 1) compatibility; 2) green strip; 3) lighting; 4) curbing; 5) vehicle access; 6) drainage; 7) surfacing; 8) loading berth; 9) refuse storage. Mr. McDonald noted that staff finds that the majority of these requirements are met. Staff considers this a routine request, as many other similar conditional use permits have been approved on other properties in both the B-3 and B-4 Zones. Most of the calls staff received on this planning case were from residents wondering why a convenience food establishment had to have a conditional use permit. Mr. McDonald stated that all food establishments have gone through the same procedure. The Design & Review Committee did not meet with the petitioner, per staff's recommendation, due to the routine nature of the request. Mr. McDonald pointed out the proposed hours of operation are: Monday - Thursday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., Friday 6:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m., Saturday 9:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m., Sundays and legal holidays they will be closed. Mr. McDonald also nOted that trash containers will be located in the restaurant near the entrance/exit and will be maintained by the tenant. New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - February 7, 1995 The petitioner stated in his letter that an additional container will be placed on the walk near the ft°nt of the store if business warrants and will also be maintained by the tenant. There are currently containers on the sidewalk along the front of Midland Center which are maintained by the Center management. Staffing of the business will consist of the owner with the addition of one employee (spouse) or an additional employee as business warrants. Mr. McDonald commented that the rear portion of the tenant space will contain the food preparation area with counters, shelving, food prep tables and sinks. One item that the petitioner should clarify is whether or not food will be cooked on the premises or if pre-cooked foods will be warmed and served. The front portion of the tenant space will contain customer seating: 5 tables (24" x 42"), 24 chairs and stools, a 10' x 2' counter and 3' x 3' condiment counter. There is a single restroom which is handicapped accessible, however, the current plans show that it would not be directly accessible to the public. Although it may or may not be a direct requirement under the State Building Code, the staff feels that access to a restroom should be provided if patrons will be consuming food on the premises. If this facility only had carry-out food, staff would probably not be as concerned. Staff is recommending that the petitioner alter the plans to allow direct access to the restroom by the public. Mr. McDonald added that a menu was submitted in conjunction with the application and is included with the planning case report. The types of foods served will include soups, salads, sandwiches, desserts, snacks, breakfast rolls, beverages and a variety of types of espresso. Mr. McDonald stated no signage plans were submitted with the application and staff recommends that a condition of approval be that any signage erected comply with the Midland Center Comprehensive Sign Plan and the New Hope Sign Code. Mr. McDonald pointed out that several facilities in New Hope have requested outdoor dining during the summer months. This application does not include a request for outdoor dining and a separate conditional use permit will need to be obtained if outdoor dining/seating is desired in the future. Mr. McDonald stated staff is very supportive of the CUP request and feels that the new coffee shop/deli will be a good addition to the shopping center. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the status of the overall outdoor trash enclosures for the center. Mr. McDonald stated that the City is working with Kraus-Anderson on developing a plan for the trash problem and several other issues and should be rectified some time this year. This should not be a tenant issue at this time. Chairman GUndershaug asked the petitioner to come to the podium to answer questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Rick Forpahl, 1436 Colorado Avenue, St. Louis Park, came before the Commissioners. Commissioner Sonsin asked Mr. Forpahl to explain his background in terms of the restaurant business. Mr. Forpahl stated that he has been in this New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - February 7, 1995 business for the past 25 years. He has worked primarily for hotels, Sheridan, Marriott, Omni, and a country club for the last six years. The petitioner stated he previously worked as a food and beverage manager and restaurant manager. This is the first facility owned by the petitioner. Mr. Forpahl confirmed that the hours as stated in the report are correct. Commissioner Sonsin reminded the petitioner that there is no outdoor dining allowed with the present request. Mr. Forpahl asked the Commission if the outdoor dining could be added to the request at this time rather than going through this process again. Mr. McDonald answered that an outdoor seating plan would need to be submitted that would comply with the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Underdahl added that this outdoor seating plan would need to be submitted by February 13th before the City Council meeting because the Council would need to see the final plans before approving the application. Commissioner Sonsin requested that the petitioner discuss the process to be used for food preparation. Mr. Forpahl reported that most of the food would be done on premise. Mr. Forpahl stated there has been some discussions with the Building Official as to what types of outlets can be used for the ovens, etc. The Health Inspector has stated that an Otis One- Fyre cooking oven is acceptable, microwave oven, and soup kettles. At this time the petitioner does not know if a convection oven used for browning baked goods will be acceptable, because of the ventilation. Mr. Forpahl commented that if ventilation is required, he will not sell products that require that type of preparation because of the cost factor. Salads will be done on premise and the dressings, some pastries and desserts;, but nothing that requires a considerable amount of cooking. Commissioner Sonsin reiterated that the salads and desserts would be prepared on premise and if a convection oven can be used, the petitioner will bake on premise. Soups will be pre-prepared at a commissary facility and brought in and reheated. There will be no cooking that will require physical modification. Commissioner Sonsin reminded the petitioner that there are some concerns about the restroom and direct public access to it and that this item will be one of the conditions of approval. This is especially important because of the indoor dining. Mr. Forpahl stated that the plan could be changed to make the restroom accessible to the public. At this time it is accessible, but the traffic pattern is through the kitchen. Commissioner Sonsin informed the petitioner that the restroom is not really accessible if the public would need to walk through the kitchen and that the petitioner should make.it accessible through a separate corridor. Commissioner Sonsin reminded the petitioner that the City has a Sign Code and that he should get the signage approved before putting it up. Commissioner Sonsin stated that the idea for a coffee shop is good and the few items mentioned should be able to be rectified quite easily. Commissioner Oelkers inquired of staff about the back of the shopping center and "sometime this year" for getting the trash, etc. taken care of and that this time frame is unacceptable. The same problem arose during the pool hall planning case last fall and Kraus-Anderson stated in a letter that the issue would be rectified within six months. To date nothing has been taken care of and the back of the center is still unsightly. Mr. Jeff Hart from Kraus-Anderson came forward to discuss some of these concerns. Mr. Hart stated that he did not know if the back of the center New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - February 7, 1995 was budgeted for this year or not and that Barb Van Auken could better discuss these issues. This is a separate issue and should not be made a part of the decision for Mr. Forpahl. Commissioner Sonsin agreed that the ongoing problem with the back of the center should not be a part of this discussion. Commissioner Oelkers felt that if the City keeps on letting this go that Kraus-Anderson may never do anything about it. Mr. Hart reminded that Commissioners that there is definitely a place to put the trash, but that it is just run down. Commissioner Sonsin informed Mr. Hart that the problem needs to be corrected sooner than "sometime this year" and that future applications could be held up if progress is not seen soon. Chairman Gundershaug asked if the representative from Kraus-Anderson could be at the Council meeting on February 13th and Mr. Hart stated that he would talk with Ms. Van Auken and have her call staff this week. Commissioner Landy stated that someone from Kraus-Anderson should update the Planning Commission regarding the center. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the access for the restroom and if that meant walking through the kitchen. Mr. McDonald stated that staff felt there should be a separate corridor for public access. After checking with the City Manager, regardless of whether it is a building code requirement or not, staff feels that there should be a restroom accessible to the public on the premises. Hopefully Mr. Forpahl can modify the plans to provide a wall along one of the sides so that diners can get to the restroom. Commissioner Oelkers asked what the rear portion of the space will be used for and was informed that the area will be storage space and office. Moving the restroom to the front area is cost prohibitive. Mr. 1-1art interjected that a different design can be looked at if Kraus-Anderson can have the cooperation of the Council so it can be economically feasible to do so. Since there is a limited budget, the hope is not to have to move plumbing. Commissioner Sonsin reiterated that public access should be separate rather than walking through the kitchen area for health reasons. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if there is plumbing where the hand sink is shown on the plan and was answered that plumbing will need to be brought to that area. Kayla Golden, a resident who lives at 8117 28th Avenue behind Midland Shopping Center, came to the podium and stated that the restaurant Kinhdo does not have a restroom accessible to the public. The resident stated that there are other establishments in Midland Center that do not have a restroom available to the public. Jackie Shepherd, 8501 28th Avenue, came to the podium and stated she feels this will be a good addition to the center. Ms. Shepherd questioned if the hours would change at a later date. The parking lot on Friday and Saturday nights during showtimes at the Cinema 'N' Drafthouse is almost full. There could be problems with parking on those nights with the coffee shop open until 9:30 p.m. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that if the outdoor dining is going to be added to this conditional use permit that the plans would need to be turned in by February 10th and it would also be helpful to have modified plans of the restroom by February lOth so it can be inserted in the Council packet. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-02, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience Food/Gourmet Coffee Shop/Deli at Midland Shopping New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - February 7, 1995 Center, 2737 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/ Richard Forpahl, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans be altered to provide access to the restroom for the public. 2. All signage to comply with the Midland Center Comprehensive Sign Plan and the New Hope Sign Code. 3. Annual review. Commissioner Sonsin questioned how the Planning Commission should handle the outdoor dining issue since the Commission has not seen the plans, Mr. McDonald suggested that part of the motion could be that outdoor dining is approved if a plan is submitted that meets all the requirements. Commissioner Sonsin stated that then the Commission is approving something they have not seen, and if for some reason it does not meet the requirements, it is not fair to hold up the rest of this application, Commissioner Sonsin suggested leaving the request as is for now and outdoor dining would have to be brought back before the Commission if the petitioner decides on this later, Voting in faVor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Stulberg, Oelkers None Cassen This planning case will be heard by the City Council on February 13, 1995. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 6.1 Codes & Standards Item 6.2 Design & Review Committee did not meet in January. Codes & Standards will be meeting on the pool hall study on February 9th. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA minutes were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Landy wondered if it is possible to have representatives from Kraus-Anderson come before the Commission to discuss the various issues surrounding the center, trash, etc. Chairman Gundershaug stated it is his understanding that the Commission cannot act unless something is brought to them. Commissioner Sonsin stated that this is not an issue the Planning Commission takes lightly, but if there is another petition by Kraus-Anderson, the Commission will look into these issues further. Mr. McDonald reported that one of the goals of the City Council for 1995 is to focus on commercial properties and in doing this the Council wants to encourage meetings between City officials and owners/managers of all the shopping centers. The City just met with Kraus-Anderson on February 6th. Commissioner Underdahl felt that when new businesses move into a center that is not as well kept up it tends to make the business a little more slack also. Commissioner Stulberg suggested that the next petitioner desiring to move into Midland Center be required to meet with Design & Review before coming before the Commission to discuss the outdoor trash New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - February 7, 1995 ADJOURNMENT issue. Commissioner Sonsin stated that a few years ago Winnetka Commons had some problems that were not being addressed and the City and Planning Commission finally told the developer that the Commission would not approve anything else until the problems were corrected. After a couple of times trying to lease space to new tenants who needed to come before the Planning Commission, and no approval given, the problems were corrected. Mr. McDonald informed the Commission that Bob Cameron is being recognized for his service by the City Council at the February 13th meeting and they are welcome to attend if they so desire. Commissioner Underdahl pointed out that she noticed in the City Report that TwinWest had a presentation last fall in New Hope. She requested that staff keep the Commissioners informed about these types of events as she would have attended. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 9 - February 7, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 4, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani Stulberg Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant OATH OF OFFICE Kirk McDonald administered the Oath of Office to new Planning Commissioner James Damiani. CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-03 Item 4.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a 5-Foot Variance to the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow for an Adequate Turning Radius and Stacking Space for Additional Car Wash Operations at Texaco, 9400 49th Avenue North, Tom Schlangen, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner is requesting a 5-foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement to allow for an adequate turning radius and stacking space for additional car wash operations at Texaco Station on 49th Avenue. The existing building contains a convenience store, a brush-type car wash on the south side of the building, a storage area and office in the center of the building, and currently two vehicle repair bays on the north side of the building, and the petitioner is proposing is to remove the two vehicle repair bays on the north and convert/ reconstruct this area to create two touchless car wash bays. Mr. McDonald explained that the City Code states that any curb barrier shall not be less than five feet to any lot line and the petitioner is requesting a five-foot setback variance on the west side of the property, to expand the driveway area that would serve the new car washes. The petitioner is proposing to move the concrete curb back to the property line. The distance of the five-foot setback area would be approximately 85 feet along the west property line. The property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 49th Avenue and Highway 169. The property is located in a B-3, Auto Oriented, Zoning District and service stations and car washes are allowed as a conditional use permit, which was previously granted. Surrounding land uses include I-1 Limited Industrial to the north and east, R-1 Single Family Residential to the south, and Highway 169/ Plymouth to the west. Mr. McDonald stated that this request will not change the building size as it is just an interior conversion request. Design & Review met and one of the things discussed was the traffic circulation and the parking. Staff finds that the parking is adequate and meets Code requirements as 20 on- site parking spaces are provided and both the proposed new car washes New Hope Planning Commission - I - April 4, 1995 and the existing car wash have existing stacking room for seven vehicles. The topography of the site is at grade with the frontage road, but is depressed well below the northbound ramp to Highway 169. The petitioner states on the application that the additional area is required for cars to enter the car wash bays. Property owners within 350 feet of the request were notified and staff received no inquiries. Mr. McDonald noted that the normal variance criteria were outlined in the report and reminded the commissioners that a hardship has to exist which can be defined by reason of narrowness, shallowness or by shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The circumstances also should be unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Other criteria include impairment of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonable increases in congestion in the public street, etc. Mr. McDonald stated that this request does not include a building that is to be built closer to the west property line, but a driveway approach to the new car washes. The reason that the request cannot match the existing car wash driveway setback of five feet on the south side is because of the second wash bay. Bypass room is needed for the two lanes at the new wash area which brings it out to the property line. The variance request does not abut a residential or another developed lot. It is unique because it is located adjacent to the State right-of-way for Highway 169 and there is a distance of approximately 170 feet between the building and the northbound ramp of Highway 169. There is also a significant grade change. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on March 15th and discussed a number of items. As a result of that meeting, revised plans were submitted. Some of the items included in the revised plans include a landscaping schedule showing existing plantings, existing plantings that will be relocated and new plantings. The existing plantings that will be relocated, which were shown in the report, will be relocated to the north and east sides of the property. There will also be 16 new Juniper plantings on the north and east sides of the property. Existing lighting for parking lots and building wall packs have been shown on the plan. The snow melt areas are shown. The floors and center car wash bay in the existing building will be removed with a new floor to be installed with a slope. The doors on the car wash are air operated, there will be no roof-top mechanical equipment. Approximately 200 cars per day use the existing brush wash and 175 cars per day are expected to use each of the new touchless washes. The car washes wilt have heated entrance/exit pads in the winter to prevent ice build-up. Also added to the plan was the turning radius of the vehicles, signage which allows for one "Exit Left" sign located near the exit and one "Stop - Drive Ahead Next Available Wash Bay" sign located on the west side of the property near the car wash entrance. Existing curbs will be removed and new curbs will be installed. Trash units and recycling center will be located on the north side of the building. There will be decorative concrete block with glass block windows on the north elevation with masonry sill units on the exterior of the building. Staff found that the majority of the items requested by Design & Review have been incorporated into the plan. Mr. McDonald pointed out that staff views this request as a reduction of the type of hazardous operation in the building since the petitioner will be removing the motor vehicle repair and converting that space to a car wash. New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - April 4, 1995 Chairman Gundershaug asked that the petitioner come to the podium. Mr. Tom Schlangen, 9400 49th Avenue North, came forward to address the Commission. Mr. $chiangen noted that the five-foot setback was not only for the second car wash bay, but for both bays because the turning space has always been tight in that area. Commissioner Cassen questioned the location of the recycling center. Mr. Schlangen pointed out the location on the plan and stated that it will be made of the same materials as exist now or decorative block. The existing area is the same type materials as the building, but since there will be decorative block on the doors, the petitioner stated there may be decorative block on the recycling center also. Commissioner Cassen wanted clarification if the recycling center is trash only or if oil will also be recycled. Mr. Schlangen noted that more people are recycling cardboard, etc., and the petitioner wants to provide an area for people to dump these items, however the existing space does not allow enough room to expand. Commissioner Cassen asked where the snow storage will be and was told that snow storage will be on the north side along the curb line. There has been no problems with harming plantings, etc., as this is where the snow has been stored since opening in 1986. Commissioner Cassen also questioned if the color on the block will match the existing building. Mr. Schlangen stated that last year the front of the building, up to the existing car wash area, was painted, and when the work is complete this year, the balance of the building will be painted the same color. Commissioner Underdahl wanted clarification on just how many car wash bays there will be when the project is finished. Mr. Schlangen answered that there will be three bays, 1 brush wash and 2 touchless washes. Mr. Schlangen noted that last year all of the cement was dug up at the entrance/exit to the car wash and around the curb in front of the building and the snow melt was installed so none of the water will carry out to the street. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-03, Request for a 5-Foot Variance to the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow for an Adequate Turning Radius and Stacking Space for Additional Car Wash Operations at Texaco, 9400 49th Avenue North, Tom Schlangen, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. All signage to comply with the New Hope Sign Code and to be approved prior to installation. 2. Lot to be restriped as soon as weather and asphalt repairs permit, including the north stacking lane radius striping. 2. Annual inspection, with no resulting nuisance or on-street water problems. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani None Stulberg This planning case will be heard by the City Council on April 10, 1995. PC 94-35 Item 4.2 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Regulations GoVerning Commercial Recreational New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - April 4, 1995 Facilities and Pinball Machine, Video Game and Pool Table Licenses, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, reminded the Commission that last fall there was an application from On Cue Billiards to enter Midland Shopping Center. That shopping center is in a B-4 Zoning District and, as such, commercial recreational uses are allowed by conditional use permit. On October 10th the Planning Commission voted in favor of the CUP and the application was forwarded on to the City Council, who received many concerns and complaints from neighbors of the shopping center. Most of the complaints were centered around the activities, the management and the hours of operation for the billiard facility. Subsequently, this request was tabled and eventually the application was withdrawn. After the application was withdrawn, the City Council authorized staff to look at the best way is to manage and regulate billiard halls. Since that time staff has studied what other cities do and generally find that billiard halls are typically included as commercial recreational land uses, similar to bowling alleys, health clubs, arcades, et¢. They are allowed by CUP within the most intense commercial zoning district. The CUP allows the City to put additional performance standards on these various uses to insure compatibility with the neighborhood. Additionally, the majority of the communities that deal with these also include business licensing requirements. Business licensing requirements go beyond the land use elements and goes to the actual operation of the facility and allows for more strict and severe policing performance. Currently New Hope has billiard halls and pool halls included under commercial recreational definition within the zoning district and are allowed in two zoning districts, in the B-3, by permitted use, and B-4, by conditional use. New Hope also has business licensing requirements for all pool tables and pinball machines, so there are performance standards that mandate licensing requirements. Additionally, Section 9.24 outlines curfew requirements, which was one of the concerns that was expressed during the consideration of On Cue Billiards. The City already has a curfew requirement that specifically spells out the curfew for residents under the age of 15 and also residents under the age of 18. Specific attention is given to curfew laws pertaining to places of amusement. There are provisions already established in the City's Code that gives some regulation authority. Mr. Brixius stated that in reviewing what the New Hope has versus what other communities have and also in discussions with the Codes & Standards Committee, staff have made a number of changes to the regulations. First and foremost, the recommendation of staff and Codes & Standards is to repeal commercial recreational land use from the B-3 District. The B-3 District is the automobile oriented district with very few small sites. The size and location of these sites warrant consideration for repealing this from the standpoint of the size of the facilities that are necessary to accommodate the tables and the proximity to residential neighborhoods. In that regard, the Committee felt it was prudent to repeal it out of the B-3 District and to retain it in the B-4 District. Secondly, staff felt that an outright prohibition of billiard halls did not seem to be appropriate and therefore would restrict them to the most intense commercial district. From the standpoint of a land use perspective, billiard hall verses bowling alley verses health club, parking and general land use are similar in character and to restrict one without restricting the others raised issue. The primary concern during the meetings involving the billiard hall was the operation itself. In discussions with many other communities, New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - April 4, 1995 the consensus was that the licensing requirements needed to be stricter to specifically address the operational characteristics of these facilities. Therefore, the change~ that Staff is suggesting for the B-4 District CUP are somewhat limited. The first change deals with access. Currently, the City requires all of these commercial recreational facilities to have access off of an arterial street. The amendment, prepared by the City Attorney, suggests that the wording be refined to state minor arterial streets verses what is defined by §13.022 of the City Code, so there is a definite definition of what streets apply. The second change to the CUP deals with proximity to Iow-density residential neighborhoods. In review of the current B-4 Districts, the way this is established is a 1 §0-foot property line to property line setback which would basically eliminate any commercial recreational use within a community. Staff is suggesting a 150-foot separation from the front door access to the nearest R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. In this way there will be some separation and protection for these Iow-density residential areas. Section 8.09 of the City Code deals with pinball machines, video games and pool tables. This area is the most extensive revision being suggested. The requirements are being expanded to include video arcades as well as pinball machines and pool tables. Specific attention is begin given to prohibition of gambling and increasing the requirements for the license application. Staff feels that the license application requirements need to include identification of property owner, management team, specific investment groups and assurance that there are managers on-site. This also gives the Police Department an opportunity to do background checks and gives staff the opportunity to fulfill their obligation to the City. The next section is the hours of operation. This was a condition that was imposed by the Planning Commission on On Cue Billiards and was an item of great discussion even after the request proceeded to the City Council. Staff is suggesting that the hours of operation for any properties containing five licensed pinball machines, video games, pool tables or any combination thereof may not be open from 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. This gives some close-down and also avoids the loitering and truancy at late hours. Some other suggestions include the requirement of a specific manager that will be identified and will be on-site during business hours so if problems do arise there is a contact person. Something that was acquired from the St. Paul ordinance is a Code of Conduct. This specifically relates to truancy, age restrictions, prohibition of vice, prohibition of transferring of possessions, prohibition of persons loitering or persons obstructing or interfering with pedestrian traffic on sidewalk areas adjacent to the property or causing harassing, threatening or annoying behavior to any persons directly adjacent to the property being licensed. In this respect, the City would be focusing on the application and operation of the facility. The final changes deal with revisions to the fee requirements to include video games in the licensing requirement. Staff feels that restricting the geographic application uses, intensifying the performance standards of both Zoning Districts, and intensifying the restrictions through business licensing gives the greatest control over these facilities. Commissioner Underdahl questioned again the age restrictions. Mr. Brixius answered that City Code, Section 9.241 9.244, deals with age restrictions for persons under the age of 15 and under the age of 18, the responsibility of parents and, specifically, the places of amusement. Commissioner Underdahl also questioned if guardian meant legal guardian or just someone over the age of 18. Mr. Brixius stated he did not know for sure how this was interpreted. Commissioner Sonsin stated he believes this means legal guardian. Commissioner Underdahl noted that in New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - April 4, 1995 reading over the materials provided in the report, she noticed that at existing pool halls many times during the late hours it was reported that people were not playing pool but just hanging around or playing video games. It seems that if these establishments are just a place to hang out that this is a real concern because there are enough police calls for loitering now. Mr. Brixius stated that this is why the Planning Commission made the recommendation for limited hours of operation for On Cue Billiards. The performance standards for code and conduct rules and management rules give police enforcement opportunities that were not existing before. Commissioner Underdahl asked if there was any way that the City could restrict having a billiard hall. Mr. McDonald stated that billiard halls could be outlawed in the whole City. Mr. Brixius commented that Commissioner Underdahl's concerns are legitimate but they can apply to a bowling alley, an arcade, or a health club. These characteristics are not solely unique to billiard halls and could apply to any commercial recreational facility. Without proper licensing the same problems could happen anywhere. Commissioner Underdahl stated she felt that billiard halls are not family oriented establishments but just seem to be a place for the younger crowd to hang out which is her major concern. Mr. Brixius explained that staff addressed this problem the best way possible for all commercial recreational facilities. Commissioner Sonsin noted that even US Swim would not be considered family oriented during the later hours as there are a lot of Younger adults congregating there at that time. This is prObably also true of the bowling alley. The problem in outlawing some types of establishments is where to draw the line because there are potential problems everywhere. It is not the desire of the Committee or staff to recommend so many restrictions that no recreational facility can operate in New Hope. Commissioner Sonsin stated that this is the final recommendation of the ordinance to the Planning Commission. Mr. McDonald suggested in the report that this ordinance might adversely affect the bowling alley. As the ordinance is now, any establishment with more than five video machines cannot be open later than 1:00 a.m. The bowling alley has eight machines but staff confirmed with them that they always close at 1:00 a.m. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 94-35, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Regulations Governing Commercial Recreational Facilities and Pinball Machine, Video Game and Pool Table Licenses, City of New Hope, Petitioner, Commissioner Underdahl questioned if voting for this is just amending this ordinance and also shows approval of the ordinance. Commissioner Sonsin stated that this is the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council that the changes that were developed by the Codes & Standards Committee are endorsed by the Planning Commission and are recommended to the Council for final action. If voting no, the Codes & Standards Committee needs to do more research and redo the recommendations. Mr. Brixius noted that if voting in opposition to the ordinance to also express the reason why. Voting in favor: Voting against: Landy, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani Underdahl (because of concerns about approving New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - April 4, 1995 Absent: Motion carried. a billiard hall, which she feels is not a family- oriented establishment, for the City) StUlberg This planning case will be heard by the City Council on April 10, 1995. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 6.1 Design & Review Committee met in March to look at the Texaco plans. Mr. McDonald reported that at this time there are no new planning cases for the Design & Review Committee for May. Codes & Standards Item 6.2 Codes & Standards will be meeting in April on several issues, including the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. McDonald informed the Committee that any time a neighboring city amends their Comprehensive Plan the adjacent cities receive a copy and are supposed to comment. The Planning Consultant will review this Plan and submit his recommendations. Mr. McDonald also stated that the City is looking at some possible revisions to the sign ordinance. Another item to consider is tattoo parlors. The City Attorney just prepared a report on a tattoo parlor as the City had an application taken out. There has also been a request for adult entertainment ordinance information from someone in Minneapolis. OLD BUSINESS There was nothing new to report. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA minutes were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Sonsin reported there is a sign violation he would like the City staff to follow up on at the Northwest Professional Building on the south side of 36th Avenue across from Poste Haste Shopping Center. The dentist office hung up a canvass sign on the outside of the building about February 1st for dental health month, however, the sign is still there after more than two months. Chairman Gundershaug reported that Mr. Damiani will be joining the Design & Review Committee. Commissioner Landy questioned the request for another off-sale liquor license at Poste Haste. Mr. McDonald stated that there are two requests for liquor licenses, one off-sale at Poste Haste and one on-sale for the old Ponderosa building. The City limits liquor licenses to three off-sale and three on-sale and at this time no licenses are available. The City Council is discussing liquor licenses. It was noted that Bridgemans will open at the end of April or the first part of May. The coffee shop should be opening soon and the karate school is open at this time. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - April 4, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 2, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers (arrived 7:10), Stulberg, Damiani None Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-05 Item 4.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of C.C.I. Addition, 4400/4500 Quebec Avenue North, Conductive Containers, Inc., Petitioner. Ms. Bellefuil stated that the petitioner, Conductive Containers, is requesting preliminary plat approval of C.C.I. Addition. Ms. Bellefuil informed the Commission that in June of 1994 CCI contacted the City and stated they were interested in purchasing the vacant industrial site at 4500 Quebec, however that existing site would not accommodate the maneuvering of semi-trucks without utilizing a portion of the vacant lot to the south at 4400 Quebec. The vacant property at 4400 Quebec is identified in the City's preliminary Surface Water Management Plan as a possible future ponding site. Staff felt that the two properties could be combined to accommodate CCI's trucking needs and by retaining an easement on the property the City could resolve its ponding issues. At the October 24th EDA meeting, staff discussed purchasing the 4400 Quebec site jointly with CCI, and the 4400 Quebec site would be deeded over to CCI and the City would retain a large easement for future storm water pond. The EDA approved a motion authorizing staff to proceed with the purchase of 4400 Quebec. Ms. Bellefuil reported that CCI agreed to the platting of the two properties into one parcel. The City is coordinating the plat and CCI is responsible for all surveying and platting costs. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, has 4.6 acres and meets both lot area and lot width require- ments for an I-2 District. The preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and their comments are listed in the planning case report. Ms. Bellefuil stated that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of C.C.I. Addition, subject to the conditions that the final plat incorporate all recommendations and revisions listed in the report. Ms. Bellefuil also reminded the Commission that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review unless this recommendation is waived at this time. Chairman Gundershaug asked the petitioner to address the Commission. New Hope Planning Commission - I - May 2, 1995 Mr. Brad Ahlm, President and part owner of Conductive Containers, Inc., 4500 Quebec Avenue, came forward. Mr. Ahlm stated his appreciation and the efforts of the City in working together on this project. Mr. Ahlm stated there are no problems with the recommendations of the staff. Commissioner Underdahl asked if the petitioner already occupies the 4500 Quebec site and it was confirmed that this is correct. Commissioner Underdahl also questioned what is being used for a turn around area now. Mr. Ahlm answered that, after talking with the Building Official, it was recommended that when the City does the ponding, the ground will have settled and CCI will then be able to asphalt the parking lot. Commissioner Underdahl asked if the area will be landscaped or cleaned up in some other way. Mr. Ahlm stated that when the pond is done the area will be grassed and eventually additional landscaping will be completed. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to approve Planning Case 95-05, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of C.C.I. Addition, 4400/4500 Quebec Avenue North, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Plat to incorporation all recommendations/revisions requested by City Engineer, City Attorney, Building Official and NSP. 2. Waiver of review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None None This planning case will be heard by the City Council on May 8, 1995. PC 95-08 Item 4.2 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for Building Addition, 9210 52nd Avenue North, Industrial Tool, Inc./Olson General Contractors, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner is requesting site/building plan review/approval for a building addition. Industrial Tool, Inc. is proposing to add a 10,000 square foot warehouse/manufacturing/office addition to their existing 20,000 square foot facility. The addition would be added to the rear (east side) of the existing facility. During the Design & Review meeting, the petitioner indicated that they produce custom automated machines for the auto industry, for example the water pump that is installed in cars. The company currently employs 33 employees and it is anticipated that 10 new employees would be added with the building expansion. The property is located at the east end of the 52nd Avenue cul-de-sac and is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District. Surrounding land uses are all I-1, Limited Industrial, with a wetland located to the east of the site and the Soo Line Railroad right-of-way located directly north of the site. The topography of the site slopes down hill from the railroad tracks towards the southwest with a 15' elevation change. The existing building and the proposed addition meet all setback requirements and performance standards. This is a permitted use in the I-1 Zone and no variances or conditional use permits are necessary. The petitioner stated on the application that the request should be granted to allow the logical expansion of an established local business. New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - May 2, 1995 Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that the I-1 Zoning District contains special requirements with the two primary requirements being lot coverage, not more than 40% of the lOt should be covered by the building, and green area, at least 20% of the lot has to remain a green area. In this case the requirements have been met with the building lot coverage being 23% and the green area is 53% of the site. The existing parking lot will also be expanded to the east to provide for a total of 56 parking spaces and the lot does meet City Code requirements. Mr. McDonald noted that the building materials of the addition will match the existing building, with the south wall being corduroy block and the remaining walls being painted concrete block. The addition would include a 16' x 14' overhead door on the south wall. The height of the addition will be two (2) feet taller than the existing building to accommodate overhead cranes which will be installed. Mr. McDonald stated the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner in the middle of April and the issues discussed included exterior lighting, building materials, roof-top equipment, landscaping, existing outdoor storage concerns, trash enclosures, parking lot expansion and curbing, Watershed District submittal, building sprinkling and fire hydrant. Revised plans were submitted by the petitioner as a result of the meeting. The revised plans included a landscape schedule and plan which shows 4 new Black Hill Spruce. Design & Review also asked the petitioner to plant trees along the area the parking lot will be expanded and 3 new Linden trees are shown in this area. The snow storage area is shown on the east end of the parking lot with a flat, drive-over curb to push the snow into this area. The remainder of the curbing would be B612 concrete curbing. The HVAC roof-top equipment is shown to be painted to match the building. The future hydrant is shown at the southeast corner of the parking lot. The building addition will be sprinkled. The Fire Chief had requested a hydrant, but it is not a requirement. The hydrant issue will be addressed at a later date. The plans show new and existing exterior lighting, which will be mainly wall packs on the building. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the City Engineer reviewed the plans and recommended that because this location is next to a DNR protected wetland that the Watershed District needs to review the plans. Staff feels that the Watershed District will require ponding for water quality purposes so one of the conditions of approval is that the requirements of Shingle Creek Watershed District be met. Erosion control shall comply with the requirements of the City and Hennepin County Conservation District. The drainage and utility easements have been properly shown on the plat. Mr. McDonald reported that staff recommends approval of the site/building plan review/approval subject to the conditions in the planning case report. Chairman Gundershaug asked the petitioner to come to the podium. Mr. Ed McDonald, owner of the building and President of Industrial Tool, Inc. addressed the Commission. The petitioner did not have anything else to add to the report. Mr. Ed McDonald stated they use large pieces of equipment that take a lot of floor space and they are growing out of the building. Mr. McDonald apologized for the temporary outside storage, but noted there just was not room inside for the boxes and wood. The Building Official told the petitioner that a fenced area could be used for outside storage, but the petitioner does not want to use a permanent outside storage area. New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - May 2, 1995 Commissioner Cassen noted that there are barrels and wood outside at this time. Mr. Ed McDonald stated that the wood is almost gone and the barrels will be removed as soon as possible. The barrels are used in shipping and will be returned to customers when returning equipment. During the next few weeks some of the equipment will be shipping out and the barrels will be moved back inside. With the addition, the plan is to keep everything inside the building. Commissioner Cassen questioned if there would be any type of chemicals in the barrels that neighborhood kids could get into when playing in the area. Commissioner Cassen noted that the follow through on the landscaping and curbing, etc. was great. She confirmed that the building materials and color would be the same as existing. Mr. McDonald noted that some of the building was just painted and the new addition will be painted to match along with the roof-top equipment. Mr. McDonald noted that there will be trees along the parking lot. Chairman Gundershaug questioned the hours of operation. Mr. McDonald answered that a flexible day shift is worked between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. There are a few times that workers may stay late to get a job finished, otherwise, there is not a regular night shift. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-08, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/ Approval for Building Addition, 9210 52nd Avenue North, Industrial Tool, Inc./Olson General Contractors, Inc., Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Review and approval of the plan by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, with all requirements of the Watershed District to be met. 2. Erosion control to comply with City and County requirements. 3. Completion of all the improvements to the site prior to occupancy of the addition. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None None This planning case will be heard by the City Council on May 8, 1995. PC 95-08 Item 4.3 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Recommendation/Response to City of Plymouth Comprehensive Guide Plan Major Amendment to Add 130 Acres of the Proposed 161-Acre Wayzata High School Site to the MUSA and Reguide the Entire Site from LAR to LA- 1, City of Plymouth, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that a couple of years ago the Commission reviewed a comprehensive plan amendment for the City of Crystal and this is the same thing for Plymouth. The normal process would be to refer this amendment to the Planner, then to Codes & Standards, then to the Planning Commission and then to Council. Since there was no Codes & Standards meeting in April and since this is a simple amendment, it was submitted to the Planner and staff is now bringing this to the Commission hoping that the Commission can act on the Planner's recommendations. There seems to be very little impact on the City of New Hope, therefore, staff felt there was no reason to hold this over for New Hope Planning Commission -4- May 2, 1995 another month. Staff's recommendation is to adopt the Planner's recommendations and forward those on to the City Council and the City of Plymouth and the MetrOpOlitan CoUncil. Chairman Gundershaug asked the Commissioners for comments or questions, Commissioner Sonsin stated the report looked fine and had no additional comments or questions. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to approve Planning Case 95-06, as submitted by the Planning Consultant Recommendation/Response to City of Plymouth Comprehensive Guide Plan Major Amendment to Add 130 Acres of the Proposed 161-Acre Wayzata High School Site to the MUSA and Reguide the Entire Site from LAR to LA- 1, City of Plymouth, Petitioner, Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None None This planning case will be heard by the City Council on May 8, 1995. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Design & Review Committee met in April with Industrial Tool. Mr. McDonald reported that Hoyt Development, between Navarre and the Ice Arena, will be coming in the next couple weeks. Also a possible Lasky development on 42nd Avenue could be coming in for the June meeting. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues Codes & Standards did not meet in April and will reschedule. Mr. McDonald stated a May meeting will be scheduled. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the status of the pool hall issue and was told that Council will be discussing this at their work session on May 15th. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA minutes were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Underdahl thanked the City for sending three Commissioners to the Land Use Seminar and noted that it was very useful. Mr. McDonald stated that the TwinWest "State of the City" address will be held at City Hall on May 31st at 7:30 a.m. and Commissioners are welcome to attend. Displays will be set up showing all the development and engineering projects going on in the City and the City Manager will be giving a speech. Commissioner Cassen asked when the Bass Lake Road Redevelopment Project will be presented to the Council. Mr. McDonald pointed out that an informal meeting with the neighbors will be held on May 3rd. The Council directed staff to come up with some planning and financing options and meet with the neighbors and then to come back to the Council. The Council will then need to make a decision on whether or not to pursue the acquisition of a couple of the voluntary properties in that area. If the Council decides to proceed, then the matter will come back to the Planning Commission. A couple owners of big parcels have indicated New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - May 2, 1995 ADJOURNMENT their willingness to sell to the City. There are also a couple other properties for sale in that area. The City would probably not do this through condemnation bet on a voluntary basis over a 3 - 5 year period. Commissioner Cassen questioned if this project would proceed in phases and Mr. McDonald stated that there is no answer to that question yet. There would be substantial City investment in this project, This area is in · a TIF District. Commissioner Underdahl wondered if this would be an affordable housing project. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the original intention was single family housing, but townhome developments would be another option. Commissioner Underdahl stated she would rather have scattered site housing rather than row houses. Commissioner Cassen noted that the City has very few townhouses and sees this project as a phase 1-townhouses and phase 2-single family homes. She also noted that the City does not have townhouses for younger families or empty nesters, etc. This development would not need to be split-entry homes all in a row, but rather several different styles of homes. Commissioner Oelkers interjected that Brooklyn Park has built some very nice townhomes in the last few years and this would be something to look at for this area in the City. Mr. McDonald asked if he could report to the City Council that the Planning Commission is in support of this development and it was confirmed this would be fine. Commissioner Cassen also noted that with townhouses there would be an association which would keep up the land and grounds. Commissioner Oelkers remarked that there is a strong market for townhouses now. Chairman Gundershaug asked if there will be a July Planning Commission meeting. Mr. McDonald stated that there is not a meeting on the schedule, but if several planning cases would come in, staff would check with the Commissioners to see if a meeting could be scheduled. Commissioner Cassen questioned the trimming of pine trees in the site t'riangle line for corner lots, etc., and wanted to know what the ordinance states regarding the number of feet from the street back onto the property. Commissioner Cassen wondered how this ordinance is enforced and why some residents are cited and others not. Mr. McDonald stated he did not know the exact footages, but would look up the information and fax it to her. The Inspections Department enforces that Code and other Codes on a complaint basis. Commissioner Cassen stated that the property owners at 7941 59-1/2 Avenue were told to trim back the pine tree in their yard during a Code Compliance Inspection. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:35 p.m. ~J~,,spectfully submitted, pamela Sylveste Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - May 2, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 6, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen (arrived 7:05), Stulberg, Damiani Oelkers Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-09 Item 3.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation for a Home-Based Electrolysis Business, 8820 45th Avenue North, Ester Warsett, Petitioner. Ms. Bellefuil stated that the petitioner, Ester Warsett, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a home occupation for a home-based electrolysis business. The petitioner stated in a letter, which was included with the report, that she conducted a part-time home electrolysis business at her previous address located at 3425 Hillsboro Avenue North. The Planning Commission and City Council approved that CUP for a home occupation in 1988. While the business was at that location, there were no problems, and there was an annual inspection of the site. The petitioner has moved to the current location within the past year and is requesting to operate the same business at the new location. Ms. Bellefuil reported that the property is zoned R-1 and is surrounded by R-1 single family homes. The property has a 75-foot frontage on 45th Avenue and contains 10,125 square feet. The business would be conducted in a 70 square foot room in the basement of the home. Client parking would be in the driveway, with access through the front door and proceeding down the stairs to the basement. Ms. Bellefuil noted that property owners within 350' of the site were notified and that staff received several inquiries from neighbors, with one resident indicating opposition to the use. Ms. Bellefuil explained that when the petitioner applied for a CUP in 1988, she stated there would be 3 - 5 customers per week, by appointment only, and that a sign would not be used. At this time, the Commission should confirm with the petitioner the number of clients expected. Pending input from the neighborhood, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the electrolysis home occupation, subject to the following conditions: 1. Maximum of two customers per day, not to exceed four per week; 2. Compliance with City Sign Code regulations; 3. Compliance with egress window requirements; 4. Annual inspection. New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - June 6, 1995 Chairman Gundershaug asked that the petitioner come forward to answer any questions from the Commission. Ms. Ester Warsett, 8820 45th Avenue North, came to the podium, and stated that she will comply with the conditions for a conditional use permit. The petitioner questioned the necessity for the egress window since there are two windows in that room. There is also a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the room. The petitioner asked the Building Official about the egress window and the Building Official told her the window size is okay as is. Chairman Gundershaug noted that the window requirements would have to comply with Code. Commissioner Sonsin questioned what the Code requirements are and the petitioner stated the window is 6" to 8" too small. The Planning Consultant reported that the egress window requirements would be contained in the UBC requirement and that there are no other specific requirements other than the State Building Code. If there is a question as to the size, staff would rely on the Building Official's determination. The requirement may be due to the fact that this is a commercial operation and that the room is below grade. Commissioner Sonsin wanted clarification on whether or not the window meets the requirement. Ms. Warsett stated that the window does not meet the size requirements, but her question to the Planning Commission is that since this is not a sleeping room does she need to have an egress window. Chairman Gundershaug said this point should be clarified with a motion. Commissioner Sonsin requested that the petitioner~describe her customer expectations. Ms. Warsett stated that she has been in business for eight years and that business has increased slightly. This is a part-time, supplemental income and she desires to see no more than three people per day and no more than nine per week. At this time there are nine customers per week. The petitioner stated she sees clients one at a time by appointment only and that client turn-over is every few months. Commissioner Sonsin asked if there are any plans for signage and was told no. Chairman Gundershaug inquired about the parking for clients. Ms. Warsett stated that clients would park in the driveway, which spans across a double car garage. There would be no excess trash involved with this business. Commissioner Underdahl questioned how customers would know about the business with no signage. Ms. Warsett stated that she advertises in the yellow pages, gets doctor referrals or by word of mouth. Commissioner Underdahl also asked if this is a licensed business. Ms. Warsett stated that Minnesota is not a regulated state, but that there is a bill in Congress. The petitioner stated that she is active on the Minnesota Health Allied Electrology Association board. The board believes in standards of hygiene and safety for the clients. Ms. Warsett stated that she wears gloves and uses disposable probes. The national association, American Electrology Association, has a set of guidelines which she follows. Commissioner Underdahl asked if a wash basin/water are needed during the procedure and was told that there is a bathroom in the basement where hands can be washed before and after. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-09, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation for a Home-Based Electrolysis Business, 8820 45th Avenue North, Ester Warsett, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - June 6, 1995 1. Maximum of three· (3) customers per day, not to exceed nine (9) per week. 2. Compliance with City Sign Code regulations. 3. Compliance with egress window requirements, either as defined in the State Building Code or subject to approval of the Building Official. 4. Annual inspection. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Stulberg, Damiani None Oelkers This planning case will be heard by the City Council on June 12, 1995. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 Design & Review Committee did not meet in May. Codes & Standards Item 4.2 Commissioner Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards met in May and discussed three issues. The first was the Bass Lake Road Housing Redevelopment Project with some preliminary discussion on codes, etc. This project will be discussed by Codes & Standards for possible rezoning and then proceed to Design & Review for building plans. This will be a long-term project. Ms. Bellefuil reported that assessments have been completed on two of the properties and two other property owners have also shown interest in selling. The Planning Consultant interjected that the project may contain up to eleven properties. A neighborhood meeting was held and the residents were informed that this would be a voluntary acquisition. Most residents were receptive of the idea. Also discussed were possible modifications to the Sign Code for shopping malls/centers and businesses. The Codes & Standards Committee is willing to work on this issue pending more definitive input and direction from the Council and City Manager. Finally, there was discussion on tattoo parlors and that Codes & Standards will continue to work on this issue to develop an ordinance, but desires more direction from the City Council. The Planning Consultant noted that .areas being looked at on this issue are to include personal services such as electrolysis, tanning booths and other cosmetic type businesses. Another meeting will be scheduled in the next month. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Bellefuil informed the Commission about the upcoming Shop Neighborly New Hope campaign and invited the Commissioners to come to the City Hall/Civic Center Park on June 14th. Ms. Bellefuil stated that the Commission should tentatively schedule a Planning Commission meeting for July 11th, if a meeting is required in July. At this time there are no new applications, however the deadline for the July meeting is June 9th. The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA minutes were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - June 6, 1995 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:18 p.m. Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - June 6, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Landy, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani Underdahl, Cassen Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-10 Item 3.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Addition of a Retail Drive-Through Window for Photo Drop-off/Pick-Up on the East Side of the Existing Building, 7700 42nd Avenue North, Universal Color, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the addition of a retail drive-through window for photo drop-off/pick-up on the east side of the existing building. Universal Color, Inc. is currently located in the front part of the Autohaus site. They have been in the City for 15 years and are presently leasing space at Autohaus and have been looking for a suitable building in New Hope for the last several years. The Kuppenheimer business is located directly across 42nd Avenue and Kuppenheimer is not renewing their lease with the owner of the building and Universal's lease with Autohaus expires in November. Therefore, Universal Color is purchasing the Kuppenheimer building at 7700 42nd Avenue so that they can remain in New Hope where their customer base is established. Mr. McDonald explained that Universal Color currently has 12 full-time employees and they anticipate adding another five employees within the next several years. The benefits that the City can see with this arrangement, besides the additional employment and keeping this business in the City, include eliminating the potential for a vacant building on 42nd Avenue and allowing Autohaus to complete the improvements to the front of their property, as originally planned. Mr. McDonald informed the Commission that Color Lab requested, and the EDA approved, a gap financing loan for the building acquisition and improvements in April/May. The closing will take place in July/August. Mr. McDonald stated that the Kuppenheimer building is located in a B-4, Community Business, Zoning District and is surrounded by B-4 uses with the Sunshine Factory located to the east, Alex Audio & Video behind them to the north and New Hope Car Wash to the west. The only B-3 zoning in the area is Autohaus to the south. Mr. McDonald explained that Universal Color is requesting to add a retail drive-through window on the east side of the existing Kuppenheimer New Hope Planning Commission - I - July 11, 1995 building and the Zoning Code requires a CUP for drive-through windows for convenience food establishments, financial institutions, and similar businesses. The Kuppenheimer building lot contains 34,200 square feet and the existing building contains 5,400 square feet. The easement labeled Rhode Island Avenue on the east side of the property is not a City street or public right-of-way; it is an easement owned by the Kuppenheimer property, which provides access to Alex Audio & Video and to the apartment complex to the north. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no inquiries about the request. Mr. McDonald pointed out in the report the purpose of the CUP is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses within the City. In making the determination of whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, 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 on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety. Other criteria to also consider are the Comprehensive Plan and whether this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, whether the use is compatible with adjacent land uses, the proposed use should not depreciate the area in which it is proposed, and specifically for business districts, consideration should be given to traffic and the effect on other nearby businesses. Also listed in the report are the requirements for drive- through windows. The major point being the automobile stacking distance of not less than 90 feet which is to be provided at the service window. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for stacking of automobiles. The whole design should be in such a manner as to minimize automobile and communication noises, headlight glare particularly to residential properties, and to maximize the maneuverability of vehicles on the site. Mr. McDonald reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioners and discussed traffic circulation and signage, landscaping and asked that a landscaping schedule be provided, an elevation of the drive- through window was requested, along with parking requirements and layout, dumpster enclosure, and snow storage. Revised plans were submitted as a result of that meeting. The revised plans show the parking to include 28 regular spaces and one handicap space, which exceeds the City requirements. The handicap space was moved further to the west on the front of the building as was requested by Design & Review, and allowance was made for nine customer spaces in front of the building, eight customer spaces on the south side, and eleven employee spaces on the east side of the building. The reason that the parking exceeds the code requirements is that the petitioner indicated that some time in the future an expansion in the rear of the building is possible. The plans show that the parking lot will either be patched and restriped or seal coated and restriped depending on the bids that come in. A new parking lot peninsula with landscaping will be added on the east side of the 42nd Avenue entrance to help channel traffic through the parking area and to provide additional landscaping. Traffic should enter on 42nd Avenue and continue through the parking lot to the east and exit on Rhode Island Avenue and back to 42nd Avenue. A landscaping schedule has been provided which shows a total of 22 new plantings. The new Dwarf Lilacs would be added New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - July 11, 1995 to the new parking lot peninsula and to the existing green area at the southeast corner of the parking lot where the current pylon sign is located. The Petitioner i§ P~P~i~ t~)rel°cate the two existing boulevard trees to the west side of the building and to replace them with two smaller Purple Leaf Sand Cherry trees so there would be better visibility of the sign. The dead vegetation at the rear of the building will be removed. The petitioner is proposing to relocate the existing ground pylon sign from the southeast corner of the parking lot to the new parking lot peninsula near the 42nd Avenue entrance or construct a new ground sign at the new location and then remove the old ground sign. The petitioner will also utilize front wall signage similar to what is in place. Specific signage plans have not been provided and any CUP approval should be contingent on compliance with the Sign Code. An elevation and details of the drive-through window to be located on the east side of the building have been provided. The window will have a fabric awning overhead and a window unit for drop- off/pick-up of orders. Seven concrete filled pipe ballards, 4' above grade, will be installed along the east side of the building to protect the corner of stoop, side of building and drive-up window. The existing unscreened dumpster pad at the north edge of the lot will be abandoned and a new concrete pad with 6' high wood screen fence with gates will be constructed at the rear northeast corner of the building. The snow storage area is not depicted on the plan, but there is adequate space at the north end of the lot where the existing dumpster pad will be abandoned. The petitioner indicated that hours of operation will be from 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. No major changes are planned for the exterior of the building. The existing windows may be replaced with thermoglass and trim/grill work may be repainted. The petitioner indicated that a new roof was installed · on the building within the last several years. Mr. McDonald stated that staff finds that the majority of recommendation~ made by the Design & Review Committee have been incorporated into the plan and feels that this will be a good use for the building and recommend approval subject to the conditions in the report. Chairman Gundershaug wondered who it is that maintains Rhode Island now. Mr. McDonald pointed out that Kuppenheimer has been maintaining the easement. Chairman Gundershaug asked that the petitioners come forward. Mr. Paul Anderson and Mr. Mike Diedericks, partners in the business, came to the podium. Chairman Gundershaug raised the issue of Rhode Island and who it is that maintains the street, who plows it and what kind of arrangement is there with the property owners behind the Kuppenheimer building as to who will keep it up. Mr. Anderson stated that this was a surprise when an offer was made on the property. That road is identified by a separate PID number and was identified as Track B on their purchase agreement. Previously, according to Universal Color's real estate agent, the apartment management has been plowing the street in winter. The road is in fairly good shape. Mr. Anderson indicated they will contact Alex Audio & Video and the apartment building and see if some type of maintenance agreement can be reached. There is no agreement in writing now and there was no agreement with the previous owners. There was an easement granted to the apartment building and to Alex that came with the properties, with no maintenance agreements in place. Chairman Gundershaug commented that this iseue should be resolved before the City Council meeting. Mr. McDonald interjected that this issue was discussed before the property was purchased and one possibility is that Universal New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - July 11, 1995 Color could come to the City and petition that the City take this portion of Rhode Island over as a public right-of-way. In order for this to be done some improvements would need to be made so there is adequate turn around space for the snow plow without the plow having to turn around in the apartment parking lot. The City Engineer has put together some cost estimates and plans as what that would be. The next step is for Universal Color to decide what they want to do. Commissioner Oelkers wondered if there would be arrows on the street to aid in traffic flow through the parking lot and whether the parking lot will be repatched. Mr. Anderson answered that they will probably be repatching, depending on how the bids come in. As for the arrows, some type of signage will be used to advertise the photo drop-off and from that point the exit will be just to the right of the building. Some type of exit sign can be used. Commissioner Landy noted that there does not need to be anything electrical, but just an arrow on the pavement or "exit only" sign to direct the traffic out onto Rhode Island. Mr. Diedericks stated that since the parking lot will be restriped anyway, a directional arrow could be painted as well for the exit. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if staff has talked to the City Forester about the relocation of the boulevard trees and Mr. McDonald stated that the City Forester is still looking into this issue. Mr. McDonald asked that the Commission approve this request with the condition that the tree issue be worked out later. Commissioner Oelkers stated that the extra shrubbery will make the site look nicer. Commissioner Damiani wondered whether there would be anything else done just to the east of the handicap space, such as an island with landscaping, etc., so that people do not cut through there as was discussed at Design & Review. Mr. Anderson noted that for the ease of snow plowing no island would be installed there. Th~ handicap space was moved further to the west, sacrificing additional parking, so cars would not cut across the handicap space. The island issue has not been forgotten, but is not in the budget right now. Commissioner Oelkers complimented Universal Color regarding the changes that have been made. Mr. Anderson noted that they will maintain the property since they are the owners. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if the restroom inside needed to be accessible to the public and Mr. McDonald answered no. Commissioner Landy wondered if the existing sign will be moved or a new sign built. Mr. Anderson stated that as cars approach from the east the existing sign is not easy to see because of the large tree on the southwest corner of the lot to the east. At this time designs are being looked at for a new sign rather than moving the existing sign to a new location. The old sign would then be removed. Chairman Gundershaug stated that after looking at the landscape schedule he feels it would be beneficial to have a few evergreens included with the new plantings instead of all trees and shrubs that loose their leaves in fall. The contractor from Olson Company stated that the plantings chosen followed the City plan. Chairman Gundershaug stressed his point of possibly planting several evergreens instead of all lilacs and asked the petitioners to review the landscaping plan again. Commissioner Stulberg was concerned as to how traffic could be controlled and how to keep it from coming into the parking lot off of New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - July 11, 1995 Rhode Island instead of 42nd Avenue or if this could become a problem. Mr. Anderson stated that this should not be a problem as there usually are not more than f°b~ ~us~b~ers in the building at one time, other than possibly around holidays. Most of the traffic on this section of Rhode Island seems to come from the apartments. As there was no other discussion, Chairman Gundershaug asked for a motion. MOTION Item 3.1 Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-10, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Addition of a Retail Drive-Through Window for Photo Drop- Off/Pick-Up on the East Side of the Existing Building, 7700 42nd Avenue North, Universal Color, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. All signage to comply with Sign Code regulations. 2. Relocation of City boulevard trees to be reviewed/approved by City Forester. 3. Consideration of adding evergreen trees to the landscape plan. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None Underdahl, Cassen This planning case will be heard by the Ci,ty Council on July 24, 1995. PC95-11 Item 3.2 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.2 Request for an Amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Signage on Bass Lake Road, 5701 International Parkway, Griffin Companies, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan to allow signage on the north wall of the building abutting Bass Lake Road. Rosewood Corporation received approval to construct this building in 1980. It is about a 50,000 square foot multi- tenant office/warehouse building at the southwest intersection of Bass Lake Road and International Parkway. The Zoning Code setbacks that apply to this building are unique because it is on a corner. The east side of the building/property (fronting International Parkway) is considered the "front yard," the north side (fronting Bass Lake Road) and the south side are considered the "side yard," and the west side of the building/property is considered the "rear yard." Two variances were granted with the construction approval, 1) A 15-foot side yard setback variance to allow the building to be located 20 feet from the Bass Lake Road side yard property line instead of the required 35 feet (due to soil conditions and the need to provide the parking and truck areas on the south side of the building), and 2) A variance to allow parking in front of the building (this requirement was eliminated with an ordinance amendment for the I-1 Zoning District in 1994). Mr. McDonald went on to explain that according to Planning Commission/ City Council minutes from 1980 when the building was approved that general sign criteria was also approved, but the minutes do not state that comprehensive sign criteria was approved. In 1981, Rosewood Corporation came back to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval of a comprehensive sign plan for the building. The petitioners New Hope Planning Commission -5- July 11, 1995 indicated in the minutes and the plans showed that there would be no signs on the north side of the building. The size of the individual tenant sign space was 16' x 3' and the minutes indicate that there would be eight (8) signs on the building, to be placed either to the right or the left of the tenants entrance doors. The petitioner also requested a variance for one sign to be located on the west side of the building. The plans showed the building identification sign would be placed on International Parkway at the main entry. The comprehensive sign plan was approved, as described above and as shown in the attached plans, which allowed signage on the east (front), south and one sign on the west side (by variance). Mr. McDonald went on to explain that the present owner of the building, Griffin Companies, is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan to allow signage on the north side of the building which faces Bass Lake Road. There are several tenants in the building. The petitioner states that one of the tenants, Sir Speedy Printing, is requesting additional signage on Bass Lake Road due to the recent relocation to the area by Chippewa Graphics and Insty Prints both which face and have pylon signage on Bass Lake Road. The petitioner also states that another tenant, Solid Rock Gymnastics, is having difficulty in establishing their business here because they cannot have any signage on Bass Lake Road. The petitioner states on the application that this request should be approved because the current sign plan allows signage only on International Parkway which serves traffic into and out of the industrial area but doesn't do anything for traffic which passes by on Bass Lake Road. Mr. McDonald stated that the building is located on a 3.9 acre parcel and the elevation of the site is depressed several feet below Bass L-ake Road. The Russian Olive trees required along the north side of the building are now mature which help screen and soften the building. Property owners within 350' feet of this request were notified and staff have received several inquiries about this request but nothing opposing the request. Mr. McDonald reported that the sections of the Sign Code pertaining to this planning case were included in the report. There is specific criteria for buildings with individual tenants, single occupancy businesses and there is other criteria for signs that are accessory to multiple occupancy businesses in business and industrial areas. Basically these are the requirements to follow for this case. The Comprehensive Sign Plan states that when a single principle building is devoted to two or more businesses that a Comprehensive Sign Plan for the entire building is proposed and the effect of the plan is to allow and require the owner of a multiple occupancy structure to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of the building. It is the City's intention to establish general requirements for the building thus providing a building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with his individual tenants and their specific sign needs. The Comprehensive Sign Plan criteria states that the total allowable sign area for each multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed ten percent of the wall area for industrial areas. No individual tenant sign may exceed 1OO square feet. Also for tenant identification signs, individual tenants located within the multiple occupancy structure shall be permitted to display individual identification signs. A tenant occupyirig a corner location fronting two streets may display identification signs to both street frontages. According to this it would seem that the Code allows an individual tenant located on a corner to display identification signs on both sides of the street. This was not, however, included in the original Comprehensive Plan back in 1980. New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - July 11, 1995 Mr. McDonald includedin the report the spec f cations for the revised plan, which include: 1)'~ {~n~nt WOUld be allowed a sign at the entrance to their leased space; 2) The allowed signs would be 3' high by 16' long, similar to what was approved in 1981; 3) Tenants would also be allowed a second sign if approved by management, and if a second sign is installed, the aggregate square footage of the two signs cannot exceed 70 square feet; 4) Code maximums for each wall are calculated, with the proposed signage under the ten percent allowed. The petitioner should clarify the number of signs requested for the north wall and if the band runs the length of the north wall or just on the ends. Mr. McDonald reported that Mr. Brinkman from Sir Speedy Printing and he drove around the building looking at signage on the building now. Currently there is no signage on the north side of the building. The traffic in that area has changed in the past few years and a signal was installed at the intersection of International Parkway and Bass Lake Road a couple years ago with additional road work being completed. The east side of the building facing International Parkway has one sign near the Sir Speedy entrance. Apparel Tech and United Hardware also use entrances on that side but have no signage. Solid Rock Gymnastics is located on the south side of the building which also faces International Parkway and they have a temporary sign by the door. Foy's Pigeon Supply has a sign by the entrance door on the south side of the building. In 1981 Independent Metal's sign on the west side of the building, which is visible when driving east on Bass Lake Road, was approved. The petitioner is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Sign Plan to allow Sir Speedy Printing and Solid Rock to display signs on the north wall of, the building. Mr. McDonald noted that City staff has differing views on this request. The Building Official is recommending denial because it is his opinion that the building setback variance in 1980 was granted with the condition of no signage being established on the north wall. However in reviewing the minutes, the minutes do not clearly state this. According to the minutes, the setback variance was granted without any conditions. The next year the Comprehensive Sign Plan was brought back which excluded signage for the north wall. The Community Development staff, including the City Manager, are not opposed to an amendment that would provide some type of reasonable signage on the north wall of the building, as the City is striving to maintain and improve the business climate. Chairman Gundershaug asked that the petitioner come to the podium. Mr. Wes Johnson of Griffin Companies came forward. Commissioner Sonsin asked for clarification of the type of signage that would be put on the north wall of the building if this request is approved. Mr. Johnson stated that the signage would be similar to what is on the other sides of the building. Currently the sign criteria calls for box signs or flat metal/plastic signs. The same type would be used for the north side of the building. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the size for each of the two tenants requesting signs. Mr. Johnson answered that the signs would be uniform in location on the sign band on the north side of the building. The elevation shows a band around all four sides of the building. There is no requirement that all signs need to have the same lettering or that all signs need to be box signs. Commissioner Sonsin stated the request is a good idea, but he would feel better about it if the signs that face Bass Lake Road could be uniform in size rather than all different sizes which would detract from the building. Mr. Johnson pointed out that what would New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - July 11, 1995 dictate the size of the sign would be the length of the tenants name. It would be difficult to know what restrictions to use to accommodate the tenants and yet have the uniform look the Commission is asking for. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Comprehensive Sign Plan states that the maximum size is 3' high by 16' long which would apply to any signs on the north side of the building. Commissioner Sonsin asked if only the two signs are being requested now. Mr. Johnson reiterated that this is a multiple tenant building and this could change as tenants move in or out of the building and what their sign requirements might be. At this point only two tenants are requesting signage on the front of the building, Sir Speedy and Solid Rock Gymnastics, who is trying get their business started in this location and is having a tough time without signage on the front of the building. Solid Rock has a five-year lease so they will be at this location for at least that long or lOnger. Commissioner Landy inquired if the signs will be illuminated. The Sir Speedy sign will be illuminated, however, the sign for Solid Rock will be individual flat letters. The Sir Speedy sign will be a box sign, similar to what is on the building now which is 3' x 12'. The new sign will incorporate the new logo and colors and will be back lit. Commissioner Stulberg questioned if the signs meet the City Sign Code does management of the building still have ultimate say in whether the sign goes on the building or can the building management veto the sign even if it meets the Sign Code and the tenant just puts it up. Also when the tenant moves out are there any requirements for removal of the sign and in how timely a manner will this be done and what will the building condition be after the sign is removed. Mr. McDonald stated that the owner of the building has the responsibility for the signage. The City approves a general plan that gives the owner the right to work with the tenant, but the owner is the one to say yes or no to any sign. Regarding the removal of the signs when a tenant leaves, there is nothing in the Sign Code that addresses this issue. Commissioner Stulberg noted that since this is on Bass Lake Road and in the gateway to New Hope there should be some mention as to the timely removal of the signs as tenants move out. Commissioner Sonsin stated that the property owner would need to keep up with the maintenance of the building after the sign was removed to keep the building attractive in order to rent out the space. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if the gymnastic business was a permitted or conditional use in the I-1 Zoning District. Mr. McDonald confirmed that it is. Commissioner Damiani inquired if there has been any thought to putting up a monument sign since this is a multiple tenant building. Mr. Johnson stated that this was suggested by the Building Official and was brought before the asset manager. This idea was rejected and the preference was to go with the signage as it is rather than constructing a monument sign. This was mostly a financial decision. Mr. Johnson noted that the monument sign is a good idea, especially for Sir Speedy, whose signage cannot be seen if traveling eastbound on Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Sonsin interjected that the Sir Speedy sign is very visible when traveling westbound on Bass Lake Road and traveling through the intersection at Bass Lake Road and International Parkway. Mr. Johnson noted that the setbacks for the pylon signs are such that the location of a monument sign that would include all the tenants names would sit back away from the intersection and not accomplish what it was meant to do. New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - July 11, 1995 MOTION Item 3.2 Motion by CommiSSi0der S0nsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-11, Request for an Amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow Signage on the North Wall of 5701 International Parkway, Griffin Company, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None Underdahl, Cassen This planning case will be heard by the City Council on July 24, 1995. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 Design & Review Committee met in June with Universal Color. There will be no meeting in July. Codes & Standards Item 4.2 Codes & Standards did not meet in June but will be setting a date for a July meeting. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA minutes were reviewed, Commissioner Sonsin and Commissioner Damiani voiced opposition to the market study to be completed for the shopping centers. Commissioner Sonsin pointed out that the area is over built with strip malls as can be seen by the many vacant store fronts. Commissioner Damiani emphasized that there needs to be a destination retail store in the shopping center to get the people to come to the center. Impulse shoppers will not come to the center if they cannot see what stores are in the center. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the change in the number of clients that the Council approved for the electrolysis business from the June Planning Commission meeting. Mr. McDonald stated that the presentation to the Council was what the Planning Commission recommended. After the presentation and just before Council was ready to vote, the petitioner came forward and asked for a change in the number of clients and the Council approved the increase. Council minutes have been amended accordingly to show this change and approval. Commissioner Oelkers asked how the athletic field project is doing and it was noted that the street/parking lot improvements are several weeks behind schedule. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McDonald informed the Commissioners that there will be a meeting on August 1st to address some City ordinance issues. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:47 p.m. ~ p~a ectfully submitted, me~a ~y~vester, R~!cording Secre~t~y New Hope Planning Commission - 9 - July 11, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 1, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani Cassen Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant. CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-04 Item 3.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Code by Amending Maximum Signage Area for Front Wall Signs Accessory to Single Occupancy Businesses and Industrial Uses, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius reported that there was a number of sign elements that the City staff brought to the attention of the Codes & Standards Committee that required attention. The most predominant being more flexibility in" wall signage requirements so that New Hope Bowl could proceed with their improvements. What is being proposed is a change in wall signage requirements for commercial and industrial areas. Currently the City allows up to 15 percent of commercial building face or 10 percent of industrial building face to be used for signage provided it does not exceed two signs each having a total area of 125 square feet. What is being suggested is the elimination of the provision that would restrict an individual sign to 125 square feet and allow a maximum of 250 square feet, either to be used in one sign or a combination of two signs. This gives some flexibility, and with the 15 percent and 10 percent cap remaining, there is still some control as to the scale of the building and will not be detrimental in any way. Chairman Gundershaug questioned if the letter size would remain the same and Mr. Brixius replied that everything else remains the same. The only suggestion is that the total sign area be changed to give some flexibility in its use. Commissioner Sonsin commented that Codes & Standards agrees that this change is a good idea and recommends approval. MOTION Item 3.1 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-04, Request for An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Code by Amending Maximum Signage Area for Front Wall Signs Accessory to Single Occupancy Businesses and Industrial Uses, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani New Hope Planning Commission - I - August 1, 1995 Voting against: None Absent: Cassen Motion carried. Commissioner Sonsin added that the Codes & Standards Committee will be discussing other signage issues at their meeting in August. PC 95-12 Item 3.2 This planning case will be heard by the City Council on August 14, 1995. Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.2 Request for An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Code by Establishing Regulations for Outdoor Sales of Seasonal Farm Produce and Allowing Sales in the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius stated that the proposal is to amend two portions of the City Code. First is the zoning ordinance and the second is the business permitting ordinance. Outdoor sales of seasonal farm produce is what is being addressed in this planning case. There have been several requests by people who sell farm produce this year. The current application requires approval of a conditional use permit, which addresses outdoor storage and runs with the property. The application fee and process is cumbersome and time consuming. Staff would like the Commission to consider allowing the use by an administrative review process, similar to what is being used in neighboring municipalities. Mr. Brixius continued by stating that these types of sales are beneficial to the community, especially with the loss of the grocery store so ther~ would be no competition with any established business. Staff and the" Codes & Standards Committee reviewed Golden Valley's ordinance and modeled New Hope's ordinance after it. Basically, the City will allov~ seasonal, temporary sales as a permitted use in the commercial and industrial districts. It will be defined in the zoning ordinance and the only condition that would be imposed is that the sellers comply with the business licensing ordinance. The second change to the business licensing would be a statement of purpose intended for temporary seasonal sales which outlines the requirements for seasonal sales in that the sales operation needs to meet the zoning performance standards, must receive a permit, receive permission from the property owner, and comply with any federal or state licensing requirements. The permit will run for 90 consecutive days after which an extension could be pursued. The sales operation would need to meet a number of performance standards, including the following: * The location may be on an improved lot within an improved parking lot meeting all the required setbacks for that parking lot or on an unimproved property provided that the sales operation maintains at least a 25-foot setback from curb. This setback is used to eliminate the need for survey and to make it easily understood and easily measurable and enforced. * The hours of operation would be limited to the hours between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. * Allowance is made for some manufactured sales as far as processed agricultural products such as juices and honey. * The maximum area occupied by any structure, booth, kiosk, vehicle, equipment, or any combination thereof cannot exceed 360 square feet. This limitation does not apply to the product display or sales area. * The site plan needs to demonstrate adequate parking and no New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - August 1, 1995 interference with traffic circulation on any improved lot. * Signage for the Sales operation would be counted separate from the maximum aii°~ed fo~ th~: ~rinCipal use otherwise occupying the site. A maximum of two signs per site would be allowed not to exceed a total area of 64 square feet of signage. * Any outdoor sound system used in connection with the sales operation could not be audible from a distance of 10 feet from the sales structure. Any additional lighting for the sales operation would have to be shown on the site plan. * Any on-site cutting or consumption of the produce or product would be prohibited, per recommendations of the City Sanitarian. * One trash can would be required to be provided on the site and the sales area must be cleaned daily. Overnight storage of any produce, product or merchandise is prohibited. There would be an administrative application to be reviewed by the Building Inspector, and if all conditions were met, the application would not need to be considered by the Planning Commission or City Council. The requirements for the application include the following: * A completed application form provided by the City. * A permit fee in the amount of $1OO. * Written consent of property owners. * Detailed site plan showing dimensions and location of any structure or equipment and the dimensions and location of any sales display area. Also, for unimproved property, the distance from the site to the street curb lines would be required to be a minimum of 25 feet. * Drawings or photographs of any structure, vehicles or equipment to b,e. used for sales operation. * A parking and circulation plan. * Dimension drawings or photographs of any signs to be used for the sales operation. * A lighting plan. Chairman Gundershaug questioned the need for insurance. Mr. Brixius stated that the insurance issue has not been addressed. Mr. McDonald responded that the temporary stand at City Center did give the City a Certificate of Liability Insurance. Chairman Gundershaug emphasized that insurance should be included. Commissioner Sonsin expressed concern over the temporary stand now in City Center and the free-standing sign that was moved from in front of the stand along Winnetka Avenue to 42nd Avenue in front of McDonalds. He stated he felt there should be some type of limitations included in this ordinance as to where or how far away from the stand the free-standing signage can be placed. Mr. Brixius noted that this issue has been discussed among staff and it is felt that directional signs should not be allowed away from these facilities, even though they are temporary. Other businesses are not allowed to have directional signage, off-premise advertising, etc. and the standard should be the same for all businesses. The 64 square feet of signage should be used in conjunction with the structure or vehicle. Mr. Sondrall commented that the Sign Code already deals with this issue and off-premises signage is prohibited by the Sign Code. The people at the temporary stand should be instructed to remove the sign or move it back to the sales display area or, as is indicated in this ordinance, it should be incorporated into the property signage that is advertising the principal uses on the property. Commissioner Sonsin asked staff to have the Building Official visit this stand in the morning regarding New Hope Planning Commission August 1, 1995 moving the free-standing sign. Mr. Brixius noted that this stand is on the New Hope Center site and the sign they are using is a directional sign. A directional sign would be allowed by the pylon sign for the center. Mr. Sondrall confirmed that the produce stand can have a sign by the sales display area. The sales display area has not been strictly defined by Codes & Standards so that staff can determine traffic flow patterns, visibility to the street and parking. If the on-sale display area is approved by staff to be the entire parking lot area, for example at the New Hope Center, then anywhere at the New Hope Center where there is a sign, it needs to meet the New Hope ordinance. When applying and interpreting the ordinance after it becomes effective, staff will limit the size of the display area to some reasonable area which has to be depicted on a site plan and then the sign has to be in that area or it has to be on the pylon that is advertising the center. Mr. Sondrall added that it might be possible that the produce sales people could tack up some signage on the center pylon sign, and that under this ordinance they could do that and the City might allow it on a trial basis because it is temporary in nature. Chairman Gundershaug asked if the pylon sign is limited and Mr. Sondrall responded that the requirements are being waived as they relate to this use. The ordinance states that 64 square feet are allowed either on the center's sign or it can be put in the display area in addition to whatever else may be allowed. Commissioner Sonsin stressed that, given the temporary nature, there would not be a problem with the sandwich-board sign if it is on the sidewalk right next to the stand and not farther away from the stand. Most of the stands have signage attached to the stand also. Mr. Sondrall noted that the directional signs are somewhat the same in the nature as garage sale signs which are not regulated. The produce stands a? different in that they are run strictly as a business. Mr. Sondrall also noted-. that the ordinance addresses the signage issues. Commissioner Sonsin inquired how the City or ordinance would handle the situation if the produce sellers wanted to pick another location in the City if the first location was not advantageous for them. Since the location is on the original permit would the City charge another fee for the sellers to move the stand. Mr. Brixius responded that the City still needs to go through the same application process and the same fees/charges should be used. Commissioner Underdahl added that the inspector would still need to go out to look at the new site. Chairman Gundershaug questioned the number of sites that could be located in the City. Mr. Brixius answered that any commercial or industrial district could have a site, so there could be about six produce stands. There is no limitation on how many could be in one shopping center at this time. Mr. Brixius noted that the definition specifically states farm-grown, fresh produce, which eliminates a wholesale purchase for resale. Mr. McDonald wanted clarification if a relocation will be handled the same as a new application. Mr. Brixius stated that his suggestion would be to handle this as a new application and the City would charge another fee, but it is up to the Commissioners. The consensus by the other Commissioners is to handle a relocation as a new application. Commissioner Sonsin also questioned the lead time for an extension of time on the application. Mr. McDonald stated that the City would expect a two-week notice if the produce sellers want an extension of time before the expiration of the permit, otherwise the application process would begin again and the fee charged again. Commission Underdahl questioned if additional paperwork would be needed for the extension. Mr. McDonald stated that an application would be developed that the seller would need New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - August 1, 1995 to complete and turn in to the City with plans. The simplest way to handle an extension .w°uld be to have a notation on the application for an extension of time. The lead time is basically for the inspector, and in case there have been problems with the stand, then the extension will not be granted. Mr. McDonald mentioned wording changes as recommended by the Building Official: on page I of the ordinance under Section 8.312(1) change the word "listed" to "allowed" to then read "No such operation shall take place in a zoning district for which it is not allowed as a permitted use."; page 3 Section 8.312(11) add "beyond" to read "Any use of an outdoor sound system in any connection with the sales operation shall not be audible from a distance beyond 10 feet from the sales structure of sales display area."; and page 4 Section 8.313(2)(a) change the amount of time for reviewing the initial application from three weeks to two weeks. Chairman Gundershaug asked if the Commission was ready to make a motion on this ordinance and it was confirmed the Commission was ready. MOTION Item 3.2 Motion by Comr ioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Plannir~, ~e 95-12, Request for An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Cod~ tablishing Regulations for Outdoor Sales of Seasonal Farm Produce e,~ ,'~wing Sales in the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts, City o:' ~-Iope, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Inclusion of a ~,quirement for insurance. 2. Inclusion of a requirement for sandwich-board signage. 3. Wording changes as recommended by the Building Official. 4. Lead time for an extension. Mr. McDonald noted that a survey of other communities was completed since the planning report was done to see what other communities charge for produce stands. The consensus was that New Hope will charge a fee of $100 along with the application process. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None Cassen This planning case will be heard by the City Council on August 14, 1995. PC 95-07 Case 3.3 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.3, Request for An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Allowing Tattoo Businesses as Permitted Uses in the Commercial Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner. MOTION Item 3.3 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to table Planning Case 95-07, Request for An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Allowing Tattoo Businesses as Permitted Uses in the Commercial Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None New Hope Planning Commission -5- August 1, 1995 COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 Codes & Standards Item 4.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Absent: Cassen Motion carried. Design & Review Committee did not meet in July. Codes & Standards will be meeting in August to discuss the tattoo parlors. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the Bass Lake Road Housing Redevelopment Project and what is happening on this project. Mr. McDonald answered that the City is holding a Purchase Agreement for one property and appraisals have been completed on two others. Staff was requesting authorization from Council to proceed at the July 24th meeting. Also on the agenda was the hiring of a relocation firm because according to the City Attorney, since this is a specific project area, the City has to comply with the Uniform Relocation Act. The Council tabled the two items of proceeding with the Purchase Agreement and proceeding to negotiate with the other two owners until the relocation consultant can provide staff with a reasonable cost estimate and explanation of the costs the City might incur to relocate residents even though they are voluntary sales. These items will be on the agenda again on August 14th. Commissioner Oelkers informed the Commissioners and staff of a project in Plymouth at 57th and Maple Lane with some very nice units. The concept used at that location was a multi-family with 2-6 unit buildings," which sold very quickly. There is approximately 2200 square feet in the units with the average sales price of $130,000. The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA and HRA minutes were reviewed, Mr. McDonald stated that there will probably be a Design & Review meeting and Commissioners will be called to confirm. August 11th is the deadline for the September meeting and Car-X on 42nd Avenue will probably have their application in by that time. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -6- August 1, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Stulberg Oelkers, Damiani Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney. CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-14 Item 3.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation for a Home-Based Pet Grooming Business, 3656 Maryland Avenue North, Christine Ernst, Petitioner. Ms. Bellefuil reported that the petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a home occupation for a home-based pet grooming business. The petitioner is a professional pet groomer and is presently employed as a pet groomer in St. Paul and desires to open a pet grooming business in New Hope so that she can work from home. The property is located at 3656 Maryland Avenue and is surrounded by R-l, single-family uses. The lot is typical with a 75-foot frontage and is approximately 10,800 square feet. The pet grooming business would take place in the laundry room of the petitioner's home. Customers would park in the petitioner's driveway when dropping off their pet. The grooming takes from one to three hours and the petitioner plans on attending to two to three pets per day. The hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Property owners within 350 feet of the petitioner were notified and no one has responded. Ms. Bellefuil stated that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the planning report. Chairman Gundershaug asked the petitioner to come forward. Ms. Christine Ernst, 3656 Maryland Avenue North, came to the podium. Ms. Ernst commented that the junior high bus stop had been moved to the north side of her home on the opposite side of the street instead of at the house just to the south. The petitioner remarked that the animals in her home for grooming would be contained in clean kennels, which are plastic type cages, so they would be completely by themselves and not with other dogs to be groomed or with her pets. The dogs are kept apart for safety, sanitary and professional reasons. Commissioner Underdahl asked if the petitioner has any pets and, if so, where Would they be kept while grooming other animals. The petitioner answered that she has three small poodles who are kennel trained and while other dogs are on the table the poodles would be kept in their kennels. At this time the kennels are in the laundry room but could be moved to another area of the home. Commissioner Underdahl pointed out New Hope Planning Commission - I - September 5, 1995 that having all the dogs together could cause barking. The petitioner stated that her dogs would then be placed in another room, either in the basement or in an upstairs room, to control the barking. Commissioner Underdahl also questioned if any of the dogs would be dropped off early in the morning and left all day. The petitioner stated she would try to avoid that situation as most of the pet owners would rather leave their pet for only the amount of time it takes for grooming, which would be one to three hours. If the pet owner would need to leave the pet for a longer time period, the pet would be contained in the kennel. The petitioner stated she does not want barking in her home. Commissioner Underdahl expressed concern regarding having two dogs in the home and then having a third dog dropped off. The petitioner maintained that through scheduling she would avoid this problem to be sure that one dog was picked up before another dog was dropped off. The petitioner commented that with a small business such as this some of the pet owners would probably choose to stay during a short'clipping session and take the dog home immediately after or some of the owners run short errands and come back to pick up their pet. Commissioner Underdahl raised the issue of what would be done with dog waste. The petitioner responded that the dogs would need to be walked prior to the session and that, in most cases the sessions are quite short and the dog would not need to be walked. If the dog did need to be walked during the session, the petitioner stated she would walk the dog on a leash in a separate area of her back yard and that waste would be picked up immediately and disposed of. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the petitioner would be selling any pet products from her home. The petitioner stated this is not in her plans as there are several pet shops in this area. The only products she would have is what would be used for the grooming. Commissioner Landy questioned if the petitioner's back yard is fenced and if she would let the pets run in the yard. The petitioner stated she would not use the yard for a holding area for other pets as the yard is for her family. Commissioner Landy asked if there would be any signage used for this business. The petitioner stated that she does not plan to use signage, however if she did, it would only be some small sign by the door and in off hours the family name would be placed by the door. Advertising would be placed in the SunPost. Commissioner Landy asked staff if the City inspector would do the annual inspection or if a veterinarian would do the inspection. Mr. McDonald confirmed that the inspection would be done by City staff, and if questions arose, a veterinarian would be consulted. Chairman Gundershaug asked about the hours of operation. The petitioner stated that the hours in the proposal were from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., but most of the appointments would be scheduled for the middle of the day. At this time there would be no weekend appointments. If Saturday or Sunday work was needed, the petitioner stated she would work out of a local shop. Chairman Gundershaug asked if anyone concerning this planning case was in the audience. Mr. Mark Hofmaster, 3648 Maryland Avenue, came to the podium to question the amount of time the each dog would be at the petitioner's home other than the time allowed for the grooming and would three dogs be allowed at the home at one time. Chairman Gundershaug questioned the petitioner and it was noted that there would be three per day and only two at one time. The grooming for each dog takes from one to three New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - September 5, 1995 hours. Chairman Gundershaug asked the petitioner to state again how long any one dog might be at her hor~b, The petitioner answered that at the very longest a dog would be at the home would be if the dog was dropped off at 8 a.m. and not picked up until 4 or 5 p.m., but she would do her best to have each owner pick up the dog as promptly as Possible. If one dog would be dropped off in the morning and not be picked up until in the afternoon, the petitioner would schedule appointments so that there would be no other overlapping of dogs during the day. Commissioner Sonsin noted that keeping one dog for a longer time frame would cut into the business the rest of the day. Ms. Lois Dalum, 3649 Maryland Avenue, came to the podium to ask if the business picks up dramatically could the petitioner hire someone to help out part-time and cause more traffic. Chairman Gundershaug stated that the limit is three dogs per day maximum. Ms. Dalum also questioned if the Ernst's driveway would be used for drop-off and pick-up of the animals instead of the street in front of neighboring homes. It was confirmed that the driveway would be used. Chairman Sonsin stated that the City ordinance does not allow non-family employees in a home business without prior approval of the Planning Commission. MOTION Item 3.1 Ms. Maureen Bailey, 3700 Maryland Avenue, came forward to express two concerns. The first concern is barking, and the second concern is to be sure the dogs are leashed when being dropped off and picked up. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Sonsin, to approve Planning Case 95-14, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation for a Home-Based Pet Grooming Business, 3656 Maryland Avenue North, Christine Ernst, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Limit of three dogs per day, two dogs at a time in the home, with no barking complaints from neighbors. Annual inspection by City staff. Clean, sanitary dog confinement and washing/clipping surfaces. Scheduled appointments must not overlap adjacent bus stop times. Dogs to be leashed upon arrival and departure. No product sales from the home. Dog waste to be cleaned up. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen Damiani None Oelkers, Damiani This planning case will be heard by the City Council on September 11, 1995. PC 95-16 Item 3.2 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.2 Request for a Sign Variance to Allow Pylon Ground Sign(s) with Multiple Tenant Identification and Size/Areas in Excess of Code Standards, 4301-4471 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Associates, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner is requesting several variances to allow a replacement pylon ground sign at Winnetka Shopping Center, located at the intersection of 45th and Winnetka Avenues. Winnetka Associates is New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - September 5, 1995 proposing to replace the existing pylon sign on Winnetka Avenue. The proposal is to update the sign by removing the existing cabinet and replacing it with a new cabinet, and reusing the existing footing. The new sign would meet the height, setback and area requirements. The Sign Code requests that signs not be taller than 30 feet and this sign would be 25 feet. It meets the setback of 20 feet and the base would not be moved from its current Iocatation and the area would not exceed the 200 square foot limit as the total square footage of the sign is 175 square feet. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commissioners that the Sign Code was amended in 1992 when Winnetka Commons Shopping Center was constructed. Before that time the Sign Code did not allow any tenant identification on shopping center signs. It only allowed the shopping center logo. In 1992 the Sign Code was amended to allow tenant identification for five shopping center tenants. Mr. McDonald explained that the proposed sign does not meet several of the Sign Code requirements. The first issue is that the shopping center name identification must use 30 percent or more of the square footage of the signage. The plan shows the Winnetka Shopping Center name identification as utilizing 15.4 percent square area of the identification ground sign, therefore a variance is needed. The second item is that the tenant directory shall not exceed 70 percent of the square area of the identification ground sign. No individual tenant identification sign within the directory shall exceed 28 square feet. This proposed sign shows that 84 percent of the total sign would be devoted to tenant identification, therefore a variance is required. The individual tenant identifications meet the 28 square foot maximum. The third item states that the tenant directory shall not exceed five individual business identification signs. The proposed sign shows nine tenants that would be identified, Marquette Bank, Ace Hardware, SuperValu and six smaller tenants. The fourth item states that all tenant identification signs shall be of uniform style, letter font, color and composition. Business Iogos are not permitted. The sign shows that the "Ace Hardware" logo would be utilized so this point should be clarified. Mr. McDonald continued by saying that staff have been meeting with Winnetka Center on the sign plan as well as a number of other issues since SuperValu left a vacancy in the center. The City is currently participating with the center in a Market Study to fill the vacant space. The plans included in the report are a revised set of plans as the original plans showed the sign much larger and exceeded the Code and had spaces for 10 individual tenants. The revised plans come closer to the Sign Code requirements, however these plans still do not meet the requirements. The petitioner states on the application that the variance request should be granted because the pylon sign would better identify the businesses in the center and allow visibility of business names from Winnetka Avenue. Winnetka Center is considering applying for a Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment this fall to install new canopy signage throughout the center to update and improve the overall visibility and image of the center. Mr McDonald noted that the Sign Code states that where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that a variance can be granted. The items to consider include: unique conditions, variation purpose, cause of hardship, effect of variance, and impairment of light and air to an adjoining property. The proposed pylon ground sign does not meet Sign Code standards because (1) the Shopping Center identification New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - September 5, 1995 is too small compared to what the Sign Code requests, (2) the total area devoted to tenant identification is to° large, (3) the number of tenants identified are too many, and (4) a business logo is utilized on one of the tenant identifications. Each of these four requirements are fairly minor, however the Commission will need to decide whether a variance should be granted. Mr, McDonald pointed out that the Codes & Standards Committee have been looking at Sign Code modifications and a survey of existing shopping center pylon ground signs was completed this spring. There are other centers in the City that do not comply with the Code or have been granted variances in the past. Chairman Gundershaug called for the petitioner to come to the podium. Ms. Lawana Varajon of Winnetka Associates came forward to answer questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Varajon stated that they are attempting to help the small businesses in the center. The businesses are struggling with the loss of SuperValu. The center sits quite far back from Winnetka Avenue and the businesses are not seen from the street. The business owners have requested to get their names on the pylon sign. Ms. Varajon stated that Winnetka Associates would like to help the businesses in any way possible and asked the Commissioners for consideration of the request. Commissioner Sonsin stated he is not supportive of the proposal at this time because of the extensive study of the sign Code in 1992 related to this same situation which did not allow any tenant identification. The Planning Commission also did a lengthy study and that is where the existing limit of five tenant identification signs came into effect in the current ordinance. The need to identify major tenants is understood, however it is not felt that every tenant should be identified. For example, Post Haste Center, whose sign has all the names listed, is difficult to read. The Commission recommended five names to be listed on the pylon sign for any center. Secondly, there is a Market Study in progress regarding Winnetka Center and the tenant problems. Commissioner Sonsin went on to say that Mr. McDonald reported that Winnetka Center is looking at updating the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the center. Commissioner Sonsin stated he felt that this proposal is premature and should be combined with the other two proposals, especially the Comprehensive Sign Plan as opposed to this issue being a separate request. Aisc the results of the Market Study should be reviewed before going ahead with any changes to the pylon sign. Commissioner Sonsin stated he is sympathetic to the problems of the center but that he would not support the proposal at this time. Commissioner Underdahl wanted to know which businesses would be addressed in the six spaces proposed. Ms. Varajon responded that the tenants would decide which business names should be included on the sign. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the sign would be in compliance with the Sign Code and if the business names include Iogos. Ms. Varajon replied that the business names would be in compliance with the Sign Code. Ace Hardware's logo could probably be changed. Commissioner Underdahl remarked that she likes to have the Iogos on the sign to better identify the business. Signs with the same font and letter size are difficult to read, and most of the signs do not list addresses with the businesses. New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - September 5, 1995 Commissioner Cassen commented that the ordinance needs to be reviewed, that there have been a lot of changes as far as businesses are concerned, and that the City should support the shopping centers. As a consumer she feels the business logo stands out on the sign for easier identification when driving by the center. The variation in fonts is also easier to read than all one style. As far as the Post Haste sign, it is cluttered and could be presented in a better way. Commissioner Cassen stated she feels that the ordinance needs to be reviewed, but that the Commission should not rush to make changes on the sign at Winnetka Center. Commissioner Underdahl questioned when the Comprehensive Sign Plan will be reviewed. Ms. Varajon replied that the Sign Plan probably would not be done until late in the fall or early next year. The timing depends upon the tenants and how they feel. Right now the tenants are very upset and Winnetka Associates are worried that there could be a dark center as the tenants are struggling. Commissioner Underdahl inquired as to the type of building signage. Ms. Varajon reported looking at canopies that have been up for a couple years and stated she does not feel canopies would be right for the center. Another type of signage being reviewed is a metal roof that adds onto and builds up what is there. This type of signage should hold up for 20 years, Chairman Gundershaug questioned if all the centers could be reviewed at once instead of just changing one center at a time. Mr. McDonald stated that Codes & Standards did a Sign Code modification at the last meeting. There are a number of issues in the Sign Code that need to be addressed and staff will be meeting with Codes & Standards with other recommendations. The biggest violator or the Sign Code is Post Haste. City staff have met with them and have encouraged them to work on a new pylon sign. Chairman Gundershaug stated hesitation in acting on one center sign without knowing what the other centers want to do and instead address all of the center signs at one time. For this reason Chairman Gundershaug feels that this motion should be tabled until the entire matter is reviewed by Codes & Standards. Commissioner Underdahl requested that Ms. Varajon have some of the tenants of Winnetka Center write some notes on their feelings of the sign and the center. Chairman Gundershaug requested a motion to table this issue until the November 7th Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Item 3.2 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to table until November 7th Planning Case 95-16, Request for a Sign Variance to Allow Pylon Ground Sign(s) with Multiple Tenant Identification and Size/Areas in excess of Code Standards, 4301-4471 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Associates, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Stulberg Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers, Damiani Motion carried. Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, CASE 95-15 Item 3.4 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.4, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - September 5, 1995 of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment Facility, 7180 42nd Avenue North, David Lasky, i petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner is requesting Concept Stage Planned Unit Development approval to allow construction of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment facility. They are proposing to construct a 4,235 square foot Car-X Muffler Shop on property that is located at the northeast intersection of 42nd and Nevada Avenues. There is currently a 4,400 square foot building located on the corner, which used to be the old City Hall and liquor store, and now contains G.I. Joe Surplus on the top level and Down On 42nd Consignment on the lower level. This PUD application is to allow two buildings on one parcel of land. Mr. McDonald stated that the history of the property was outlined in the planning report. The property is currently zoned B-4, Community Business, although it has had different zoning classifications in the past. A number of parcels along 42nd Avenue were rezoned to B-4 in 1991 after a zoning study to allow a greater variety of commercial use. Crown Auto is located to the east of the property and is zoned B-4, the vacant City- owned property to the west across Nevada Avenue is zoned B-4, south across 42nd Avenue is zoned B-4, and to the north there is R-l, single family, and R-4, multi-family, residential. Gill Brothers Funeral Chapels will be bringing in a planning application to construct a funeral home on the City-owned property. The topography of the property is a significant issue with this case. There is a 12-foot drop on the property from 42nd Avenue to the northeast corner/rear of the property. Mr. McDonald continued that the petitioner states in the application that the proposed building would be similar to other buildings of the chain. The Car-X Muffler Shop would be designed and treated in a more sophisticated manner. It is their intention to make the building and surrounding land attractive and functional. The new business would provide employment for the people in the area as well as a needed service to the community. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received several inquiries from neighbors about the request. Several people came in to look at the plans. Mr. McDonald informed the Commission the purpose of the PUD is to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture. The process is a three- stage process with any of the stages being combined. The first stage is a concept stage, which should be fairly complete, and approval is given for the concept. The second approval is for the development stage plan and final plan, which are generally combined in one process. The information and documentation that is required for a concept stage PUD was included in the planning report. Mr. Lasky received a copy of the report and he is aware of staff recommending tabling at this time. Most cases that are to be tabled are not discussed, however staff wishes discussion to take place and a presentation made by Mr. Lasky so the Commission can give feedback on other items to be included in the general concept plan. Mr. McDonald went on to say that the Design and Review Committee met with the applicant on August 17th. The issues discussed were traffic issues and the location of the curb cut on 42nd Avenue. Currently the curb cut is shared by Mr. Lasky's property and Crown Auto. Also discussed was the need for a Noise Impact Statement particularly for the adjacent residential properties to the north. There is also a need for screening to provide a buffer between the residential property to the north New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - September 5, 1995 and the business. There are some drainage problems on the property that should be addressed through a joint effort between the City and property owners to the north. Maintenance of the common space needs to be addressed as well as the trash storage. Integrated planning and architecture of two buildings on one site needs to be reviewed and there is a need for market feasibility information. As a result of that meeting, revised site and landscaping plans were submitted along with a narrative addendum packet. The revised site plan included more plantings along the north side, trash enclosure was shown, loading areas and pedestrian stairway to the lower level parking lot was indicated. The narrative in the packet included information on maintenance, an acoustical study, market analysis, hours of operation, and delivery truck sizes. Mr. McDonald reviewed some of the items still missing from the revised plans which include: existing zoning and present use of lands within 500 feet, vicinity map, and covenants. Items that need to be discussed further include: possibly shifting the 42nd Avenue curb cut which was recommended by the Traffic Engineer, revision of parking areas, an acoustical impact statement was submitted however staff feels that additional material is needed for impacts on the residential properties to the north, more specific details on the plantings needs to be submitted along with a planting schedule, additional greenery along 42nd Avenue which could be difficult to accomplish in this situation because the farther back the building is pushed from 42nd Avenue the higher the construction costs escalate because of the steep bank, also some integrated planning and architecture showing how the Car-X Muffler Shop will blend with the building already there, also the details on the storm sewer need to worked out. It is staff's consensus that this is good start but feel that it should be more complete before the concept is approved. Chairman Gundershaug requested that the petitioner come forward to answer questions from the Commissioners. Mr. David Lasky of 2506 Monterey Avenue, St. Louis Park, came forward, along with his daughter, Marissa Lasky. Mr. Lasky stated the property is owned by the Lasky family, amd he reviewed the history of the property by stating that in 1978 the City, who owned the property and liquor store wanted to market the property. Mr. Lasky knew of someone who wished to take over the bar business and in turn asked Mr. Lasky to for help by buying the property and helping them buy the business. About 1984 another party bought the bar business and after a few years lost the liquor license. The first owners of the bar business took it back and tried for 1-1/2 years to find another owner. The Laskys foreclosed on the business after they defaulted on mortgage payments. The building, although run down, was well-built. The Laskys spent approximately $250,000 on rehabilitating the building and found two tenants, G.I. Joe Surplus and Down On 42nd Avenue. As time went on the Laskys pursued other possible uses for the remainder of the site. In approximately 1989 the City approached the Laskys and Jim Lupient about an auto mall on the site. Mr. Lasky stated that in his opinion of auto malls are not a solid type of development. Mr. Lupient sought approval from the City for the auto mall, received approval from the Council and then terminated the project. A few years ago the Laskys again tried to market the property and sought out a wide variety of uses for the property. Finding a customer for this property, which he considers the second best location in the City, was extremely difficult because the topography of the property undulates from east to west and north to south and is expensive to develop. Car-X approached New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - September 5, 1995 Mr. Lasky to let him know of their interest in the property. After some discussion with the City so see if there was any interest in this type of establishment, other Car-X facilities were visited to see what could be done on this site. The financial operations of Car-X franchises were studied in Minnesota and Wisconsin along with the individuals behind this franchise. Car-X is responsible, successful, and they run a clean, good operation. Car-X will do a number of things by taking a black-topped area and making it much more interesting by the designs of the architect. Employment and a beneficial service will be added to the City. Hopefully, the Commission will see that this PUD is feasible and approval can be given even though there are some loose ends that need to be worked out. This request is for a small building to be constructed on the site not a large,' complicated shopping center. This site needs some development to make it more attractive, to make it more useful, and a taxable entity. Ms. Marissa Lasky called attention to the length of the building on the Site Plan and stated that the correct length is 77 feet. Mr. John Nissen, Bernard Herman Architects, came forward to clarify the site and landscaping work on the project. The proposal is to leave the curb cut where it is primarily because of the east/west access on 42nd Avenue and so full use of both directions is maintained. There is an island in front of the property running east from the intersection, and if the curb cut is moved to the west, that will block off traffic entering from the east to be able to turn into the site or people leaving the site and turning east. Some additional parking was added on the west side of the parking lot for the existing building. The problem being faced with the dead-end parking area on either side of the north end of the building is that a level area needs to be maintained so that cars can enter the service bays, therefore, this area cannot be sloped properly to connect the upper and lower levels. There is about a six-foot differential between the twe levels. Chairman Gundershaug questioned why there is so much parking. Mr. Nissen explained that the idea is that the businesses will be there for a long time, but if more would be needed in the future, it is being provided now. Mr. Ashby Carter, General Manager of Minne Mufflers a franchisee of Car- X, commented that the reason for the additional parking is that Car-X employs from six to eight people at any one location. In order to keep convenient parking close to the bays for customers, the employees can then park on the lower level on the north end of the property. Chairman Gundershaug emphasized that only 39 spaces are required for the site and why have 65 spaces been provided. The Commission would rather see green area than blacktop. Commissioner Cassen questioned the amount of turn-around space for cars that pull into the last spaces provided on the northern end of the upper level parking area. These end spaces on both sides of the building should be X'ed out so there would be no parking there. Mr. Nissen stated that there is some turn around space provided and the drive is fairly wide. Mr. Nissen continued with the provision made for the loading space. Car-X would have no semis loading or unloading on the site. For future use, a platform and ramp could be built on the northeast property line of the lower level parking area to the upper level just east of the trash enclosure to accommodate the trucks and to transport the merchandise into the building. The semis could then back up to this platform to unload or load merchandise. Another site issue is the plantings. This was not discussed in great detail at the Design & Review meeting, however the landscape New Hope Planning Commission - 9 - September 5, 1995 plan shows in more detail the types of plantings. Ms. Lasky remarked that one of the benefits to leaving the area at the north end of the building flat rather sloping it is that plantings can be utilized to provide a buffer between the business and the residential properties. The trash enclosure also provides a buffer. There will also be several plantings by the stairway to the lower level parking area. Mr. Nissen added that the area to the north of the building is being used for screening as well as a buffer area for the residential properties. The landscaping will also slow down some of the run-off that now washes over the site. Mr. Carter continued to explain that he is involved in the site selection process. Car-X feels that New Hope is a feasible location for a Car-X Muffler and Brake Shop. Part of the reason for feeling that New Hope will again be a good location is that the Car-X shop that previously was in New Hope was successful. Market intelligence confirms that the shop does a better business with identification signs up rather than no signs. Car-X would like to come back to this community, with Car-X signage, to honor the warranties from the 4-5 years the previous Car-X was in the City. Regarding the noise impact, Mr. Carter inquired as to what else was needed besides what was submitted from other sites. Commissioner Landy asked for some clarification on the report and Mr. Carter responded that when getting away from the building, like the residences to the north, the building noise cannot be heard over the traffic noise on 42nd Avenue. Mr. Carter added that after sitting in the parking lot on the site for a period of 30 minutes, he could not hear the noise from the Champion Auto next door over the noise on 42nd Avenue with the car engine running or turned off. The positioning of the bays facing north and south provides some buffer and the placing of the greenery directly in back of the building will provide noise buffer also. The building should provide some buffer of street noise to the residences. Mr. Carter emphasized that there is a vested interest in trying to maintain some identity of the building as a Car- X rather than an add-on to the building that is currently on the site. The previous Car-X on Winnetka was tastefully constructed and this site should have architecture to show this building as a Car-X, such as brick/block color. Ms. Lasky pointed out the curb cut is not being moved. The resolution of the curb cut issue with Champion Auto was that the City would move the curb cut so each property would have their own. The reason for this change was that petitioner did not wish to have cars from Champion driving on his property at the entrance or having cars from Champion using the parking lot to cut through to Nevada Avenue. At the time 42nd Avenue was developed, this was the location proposed for the curb cut. One problem that might arise by moving the curb cut is with the County and whether or not it is okay with them. Also the eastbound traffic would not be able to enter the driveway due to the island on 42nd Avenue nor could customers exit to the east. Mr. Lasky next raised the issue of drainage. Over the years the water has drained basically in two spots. In one gully just opposite the rear door by Down on 42nd and to some extent off into a corner. The plans for the Car-X will not increase the amount of water run-off by the existing building. With the proposed building, there should be less water running to the north than currently flows. The sewer would be an interesting idea. It is not our intent to change the contour of the existing land. If there would be a large change in the terrain of the land because of construction, we would expect that there would be some obligation to cure that New Hope Planning Commission - 10 - September 5, 1995 drainage. If the City desires a sewer, we can discuss the ideas, however we do not feel that installing a sewer is the property owner's responsibility. Ms. Lasky added that the architect had some nice ideas as to how to redirect drainage to slow it down and change the configuration of the land so that it does not all slope to the back. The upper level where the building would be constructed would now be flat so there would not be the rush of water flowing down to the northeast corner of the property. The far northeast corner of the property will have some unconventional plantings so that would slow down the flow of water over that portion of the property. Mr. Lasky added that the property has improved over time since he purchased the property in 1978, and with the addition of the Car-X and more landscaping the property would again be vastly improved. Each party may have to make some concessions in order for this proposal to work. Another way to look at this situation is to question if this is in line with what the City is trying to accomplish along 42nd Avenue. There should be a common denominator in the flow of landscaping along the street from Winnetka to Maryland. Each property should have some individuality so that the landscaping is appropriate for the site. Our proposal would be a substantial improvement over leaving the balance of this property vacant. The petitioner asked that the Commissioners approve the concept stage PUD because it will be a step in the right direction and details can be refined later. At this time no borings have been done to see if the property will sustain the kind of building and loads being proposed. There is also a water table problem in the existing building that would need attention. The petitioner is anticipating getting these details worked out this fall so that in spring construction could begin. Commissioner Cassen stressed the importance of shifting the 42nd Avenue driveway to south center upon the advice of the Traffic Engineer. At the Design & Review meeting, staff did not have the information from the Traffic Engineer, however the Building Official's input was discussed. The turning radius of the present driveway for making a right-hand turn onto 42nd Avenue is pretty tight and the recommendation of the Design & Review Committee was to make the island wider in that area. Ms. Lasky interjected that the building was moved back two feet from the original plans to make the area wider. Commissioner Cassen asked if the end of the island by the driveway entrance could be made wider to make turning a little easier. Mr. Nissen reasoned that then the driveway in front of the building would become narrower. Commissioner Cassen stated that the request is to just have the end of the island closest to the driveway entrance wider. Mr. Nissen again stated he did not feel that would make the drive in front of the building any better since then cars traveling east to exit the site would need to swing out to move around the end of the island. Chairman Gundershaug interjected that the Commission was just making suggestions for them to consider because the final plans would be what is approved or rejected. He reminded the petitioners that everything developed for the PUD has to be shown on the plans and that is what the Commission will be voting on. Commissioner Cassen continued the discussion with the dead-end parking shown on the plan. The north end parking spaces on each side of the building in the upper level parking lot should be eliminated so there is an adequate amount of space to back out and turn around. The spaces should be X'ed out to indicate there is no parking in those spaces. Ms. New Hope Planning Commission - 11 - September 5, 1995 Lasky questioned moving some of the green space out and marking the area that is left. This is also a concern with the additional parking shown for the existing building, Commissioner Cassen commented that the loading space was not necessarily for Car-X, but should they ever leave, another business may need the loading area. Mr. Nissen explained the proposed loading area by saying the semi could back up to the far east end of the lot on the lower level where a platform could be built with a ramp that would lead uphill to the building. Commissioner Cassen also noted that the concern is how the semi would be coming onto the site, is there a wide enough radius to turn, and how the truck would exit the site because traffic cannot be backed up along 42nd Avenue. Future plans should indicate how the trucks would come onto the site and the turning radius. Commissioner Cassen pointed' out that a plant schedule should be submitted. Russian Olive trees are shown and these are not a favorite tree in the City. City staff can provide a list of the acceptable plantings, Commissioner Cassen reminded the petitioners to provide color pictures of other Car-X facilities that are similar in design and color, etc. to the proposed building at this site so the Commission can see what the building will look like and the color scheme. Commissioner Cassen explained that the reason the Design & Review Committee asked for an acoustical study is because the doors in summer will probably be open and a house and apartments are close to the site and the noise carries farther in summer than in winter when the doors would be closed. Mr. Carter commented that the study that was submitted was conducted with the doors open. Commissioner Cassen stated that other staff in the City would analyze the report. More detail needs to be provided on the fencing around the trash enclosure also. Ms. Lasky asked if there are any required materials for the trash enclosure and was informed that the enclosure would need to be coordinated with the building or match the building and drawings would need to be provided to the City. Other maintenance items that need to be shown on the plans are snow removal and whether there is to be a sprinkler system. Another item to submit with the plans is the signage, which needs to conform to the Sign Code. Commissioner Landy noted that the noise study is somewhat confusing and also reminded the petitioners that the study is four years old. Chairman Gundershaug questioned if the building would be coordinated with the existing building, either materials or color. The petitioners answered that the browns would be similar, however Car-X has to use their color scheme. Chairman Gundershaug expressed his concern regarding the current plans. The driveway is a major concern and this should be addressed on future plans. There is also no reason for all the additional parking along the north lot line. As long as the ordinance says 39 spaces are required, and if you feel 50 are needed, provide the 39 required and if 50 are needed at a later date, these could be added. The Commission would much rather see greenery. Chairman Gundershaug stated he felt the loading dock as proposed is impractical and would not be used. No future tenant for the building would want to bring supplies into the building from that far away by unloading on a lower level, outside dock and travel uphill quite a distance into the building. A future problem would be that the semi will stop in the driveway in front of the building to unload where it is closer to the shop door instead of trying to back in the New Hope Planning Commission - 12 - September 5, 1995 MOTION Item 3.4 PC 95-07 Case 3.3 space on the lower level. The landscaping is another big concern. A planting schedule should be submitted to show what exactly will be planted, with the exception of taking out the Russian Olives. More landscaping along the upper level parking area on the north side should be heavily screened. There also needs to be more landscaping along the front on 42nd Avenue. The plantings along this 300-foot island do not have to tall just provide more plantings. This Commission has been strict on landscaping in the past and require more plantings than what is shown on the plan. The drainage and the storm sewer are items that the City Engineer required. These are all concerns of the Commission that will need to be addressed. Ms. Lasky questioned the decision of whether to put in a storm sewer or not is the decision of the City Engineer and confirmation was given. Chairman Gundershaug added that the City staff is here to help but that the Commission would react to t'he final plans, and if the items discussed are not met in the PUD, the decision would be negative. Ms. Lasky again questioned the loading dock and what could be done regarding this item. Chairman Gundershaug stated that the loading dock as shown is impractical. Mr. Carter pointed out that the Design & Review Committee requested that a loading dock be provided. He also stated that Car-X does not use semi trucks to bring in supplies as their supplies are brought to the site on half-ton, two-wheel drive pick up trucks on a daily basis and the merchandise is delivered into one of the bays. The only large trucks that would come onto the site would be a small cube van that the uniform company uses or a 14 or 16-foot flat-bed truck that would come from time to time. The largest truck is a garbage truck. Chairman Gundershaug replied that these trucks also need a place to load or unload and this should be designated on the plans, The Commission needs to look at the long-range plans and the problems that would face another business if they need a loading dock in the building. Chairman Gundershaug asked for a motion to table for 30 days until the next Planning Commission meeting on October 3rd. He urged the petitioners to work closely with City staff to work out the details of items discussed at this meeting. Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to table Planning Case 95-15, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment Facility, 7180 42nd Avenue North, David Lasky, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Stulberg Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers, Damiani Motion carried. Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Commissioner Cassen left at 8:40 p.m. Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.3, Consideration of :An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing License Regulations for Tattoo Businesses and Allowing Tattoo Businesses as Permitted Uses in the Commercial Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner. New Hope Planning Commission - 13 - September 5, 1995 Mr. McDonald reported that the City has received some inquiries regarding the location of tattoo parlors at shopping center sites, and although no formal application has been made, staff feels that it is coming. The normal response to the inquiries have been that it is not a permitted use, but after having the City Attorney and Planning Consultant look at this issue, they think that this would be a difficult type use to refuse due to the other types of personal services that are allowed in the City Code, such as barber shops, beauty salons, etc. With staff input, the City Attorney and Codes & Standards Committee met several times and the City Attorney drafted an ordinance which defines personal services and allows them in all the Business Zoning Districts. The City Attorney reported that additional information regarding this type of use was included with the planning report. From a legal perspective a tattoo business is a legitimate business and this type of personal service business needs some regulation and cannot be zoned out of existence or, indicate that because the City does not have a specific section in the Zoning Code that indicates a tattoo establishment as a permitted use, that somehow it is not permitted. Although the zoning ordinance is set up to be selective, it can be argued that the tattoo business is similar to other personal service businesses that are permitted thereby, since this is a legitimate business, it is permitted. The ordinance is self-explanatory. Most ordinances have a purpose clause which, in this case, would be public health and safety. Any time needles are used and the skin is pierced there is a health risk. The ordinance has been set up so that it is a licensing ordinance and it is indicated in the ordinance that tattooing is a permitted use in the business districts within the City, however any permitted use would be required to apply for an annual license. That license would regulate the licensee during the course of the license year. The City Attorney stated the ordinance deals with the application process. Commissioner Sonsin had earlier expressed concern over the section dealing with payment of real estate taxes. The City Attorney continued by saying that in a letter to City staff regarding this issue and during research discovered that liquor license holders, who may not own property,, have to comply with the provision that real estate taxes be paid on the property. As indicated in the letter, there is a precedent that the City requires liquor license holders to be sure real estate taxes are paid on the property and that is why it was left in this ordinance. The Commission can delete this section, however there is a precedent for it in the City so it would not be the first time that the City required a tenant in the application process to verify or require that taxes are paid on the property that they are going into. There is a slight variation for the different applicants in the application process, whether the applicant is a natural person, a partnership or corporation. There are regulations for all applicants dealing with the application process. The license fee is handled by Chapter 14 with a license fee of $100 being proposed and an investigation fee of 9200. According to a survey completed on surrounding communities, most require approximately the same amount. Some of the regulations for persons ineligible for a license are fairly common, such as a minor, a person convicted of a crime that deals with this type business, or any person who is not a citizen of the United States. There is a provision dealing with locations that are ineligible such as properties that are delinquent on taxes or properties that are not zoned correctly, clearly indicating that properties serving alcoholic beverages would not be able to have a tattoo parlor operating on the same premises. New Hope Planning Commission - 14 - September 5, 1995 General license requirements state no tattooing on minors unless there is written permission from a parent and the parent accompanies the minor at the time the tattoo was being administered. The City Attorney continued saying that Codes & Standards was concerned with license transfer and hours of operation being 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. The Police Chief questioned why a tattoo business needed to be open at 7 a.m. and requested that this time be set back. Commissioner Underdahl interjected that the ordinance should be changed to state an opening time of 9 a.m. and Commissioner Sonsin agreed with this change. The City Attorney continued with the licensed premises and stated that the license is only effective for the contiguous area and expansion would require additional approval by City staff. There is a provision for insurance and the health and sanitation requirements are listed. These are basically regulations that have been pulled from other community ordinances. All needles would need to be disposable needles or a one-time use needle and most of the people operating this type of business are probably operating in that way now. Requirements for furniture and garments to be worn by the operator and essentially sanitation issues for the convenience of the individual who is receiving the tattoo as well as the cleanliness of the person who is giving the tattoo. The tattoo artist could not be under the influence of alcohol at the time of administering the service. Aisc included in the ordinance is wording to eliminate the possibility of a home occupation for this type of business. The Code has been amended to make this ordinance a permitted use in all B-1 Districts. The changes in the definitions that would include tattoo parlorsas a personal service along with a number of other personal services. The City Attorney continued with the concerns of the Police Chief and stated the opening time be changed to 9 a.m. and an employee list would be required, but the employees would not need to be licensed. There would simply be a license that would go to the establishment. The license fee of $100 is not to generate revenue but to reimburse costs to the City for administering the license. The special events section of the ordinance was based on a section that Bloomington included in their ordinance. Bloomington included this because of a convention that was held in that community for tattoo artists and they created a special event license rather than a permanent license for the convention. An example for New Hope would be if the organizers of Duk Duk Daze would want a tattoo artist at this event, then a special event license could be included in the ordinance. Chairman Gundershaug remarked that he felt the section on the real estate taxes should be eliminated and Commissioner Sonsin agreed. The City Attorney pointed out that it is to the benefit of the tenant to make sure that the real estate taxes are paid on the property. Commissioner Landy responded that he felt this section should remain in the ordinance as it is included for someone wanting a liquor license and it is more protection for the citizens. Commissioner Sonsin emphasized that liquor is a controlled substance and drug and most of the liquor license holders in New Hope are large establishments. If the operator of a small business is being singled out and no one else in the City needs to comply with this, then the Code should be amended so that this is a condition of approval for every PUD, CUP, variance, etc. There is then the problem of verifying and policing it. Unless there is a delinquency problem in New Hope with commercial properties, this item should not be included in the ordinance. Chairman Gundershaug asked how the rest of the Commissioners felt regarding this item. Commissioners Stulberg and Underdahl both feel this item should be New Hope Planning Commission - 15 - September 5, 1995 deleted. The Commission directed staff to delete the requirement that all real estate taxes for the licensed premises must be current, since the business tenant should not be responsible for real estate taxes owed by the landlord. Commissioner Sonsin reiterated that the property tax section would be deleted from the ordinance and the opening time would be changed to 9 a.m. According to the survey that staff conducted, the fees ranged from $400 to $100. The Police Chief questioned the $200 investigation fee, however the Commission feels the investigation fee should remain in the ordinance. Commissioner Underdahl wondered about the employee list that would be received when the business opened and would the list have to be updated as employees change. The City Attorney stated that the list would be required annually. Mr. McDonald stated the Police Chief questioned if anyone hired by the tattoo business could administer the tattoos. The City Attorney noted that there is no State license for tattooing so anyone that knows how to tattoo could do it. Commissioner Underdahl wondered if the ordinance should specifically state that a new employee list would be required annually and the City Attorney recommended that the employee list be eliminated because when an employee list was required for the liquor establishments staff was constantly checking on the employees and the Police Chief felt that it is not the responsibility of the City but that of the employer. The City Attorney added that staff should probably concern itself more on the individual business operator than the employees. The ordinance requires proof of insurance. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the City can require that all employees receives a list of the health requirements and the City Attorney stated that is the responsibility of the employer. The Commission unanimously agreed to delete this requirement from the proposed ordinance. MOTION Item 3.3 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Approve Planning Case 95-07, Request for An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing License Regulations for Tattoo Businesses and Allowing Tattoo Businesses as Permitted Uses in the Commercial Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Stulberg None Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani This Planning Case will come before the City Council on September 11, 1995. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 Design & Review Committee met on August 17th with David Lasky. Codes & Standards Item 4.2 Codes & Standards met in August to discuss the tattoo parlors. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues Commissioner Underdahl commented that individual businesses are allowed a large sign of their choosing and in a shopping center the businesses are New Hope Planning Commission - 16 - September 5, 1995 NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT very limited in what signage or logo can be used. 'It seems the City is selective in what signage it allows. Commissioner Sonsin stated that the businesses are given some concessions in the shopping center that they would not receive as an individual business. The City Attorney stated some concern over the limiting of Iogos. In the past the logo issue did not hold up in court when a business challenged the City on this issue and he felt that the logo should not be prohibited. Commissioner Sonsin stated the idea was for uniformity rather than advertising the business and so the sign did not get cluttered. The City Attorney stated that Code allows advertising of products made on site and it may not be possible to make a distinction like this. Aisc unique lettering on a sign could be viewed as a logo. Commissioner Underdahl questioned why the center name needed to be so much larger than the individual business names. Commissioner Sonsin noted that the pylon signs are for center identification and not for individual businesses identification. The City Attorney pointed out that the Building Official had made a reference to in terms of a mislabeling of a center. He is possibly making reference to the plat name of the New Hope Mall and the City cannot require a center operator or owner to only identify the center based on the plat name. If this were the case, more attention would have to be given to the plat name to make sure it would also be a good name for the center. The property owner can call the property anything he wants regardless of what is on the plat. The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA and HRA minutes were reviewed. Commissioner Landy questioned the comment in the Council minutes regarding why Armstrong High School was transferring from the Classic Lake Conference to the Minneapolis Conference and it was noted that this was not correct. There were no announcements. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjOurned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 17 - September 5, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 3, 1995 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 Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg Landy, Underdahl, Damiani Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-17 Item 3.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval for a Single Principal Building Devoted to Two or More Businesses, 8700-8748 East Research Center Road, Twin City Garage Door Company, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner is not present and the consensus was to table this planning case until later in the meeting. MOTION Item 3.1 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to table Planning Case 95-17, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval for a Single Principal Building Devoted to Two or More Businesses, 8700- 8748 East Research Center Road, Twin City Garage Door Company, Petitioner, until the petitioner arrived. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, None Landy, Underdahl, Damiani PC 95-18 Item 3.2 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.2 Request for Site and Building Plan Review and Setback Variance to Allow Construction of an Entrance Canopy, 7300 42nd Avenue North, Gill Brothers Funeral Chapels, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that Gill Brothers is requesting site and building plan review approval for the construction of a funeral home and a variance from the setback requirement to allow the construction of an entrance canopy fronting 42nd Avenue. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 7,800 square foot funeral home on property currently owned by the City at the northwest intersection of 42nd and Nevada Avenues. The City has been marketing the property for the past year. The property was platted last year combining a number of parcels that were acquired during the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment project. The property is located in a B-4 Zoning District and the funeral home is a permitted use in the B-4 Zoning District as it is a "roll-over" permitted use from the B-2 Zoning District. Mr. McDonald went on to say that besides site and building plan review/approval, the petitioner is requesting a variance from the 35-foot side yard setback requirement on 42nd Avenue to allow the construction New Hope Planning Commission - I - October 3, 1995 of an entrance canopy. The Zoning Ordinance defines the front of the property as that part with the narrowest frontage on a public right-of-way so the east side of the property fronting Nevada is actually the front of the property and 42nd Avenue is considered the side yard. The setback requirement for side yard is 35 feet. Due to the narrowness of the property the petitioner is requesting a 24-foot variance to locate the entrance canopy 11 feet from the side yard property line. Mr. McDonald stated that the process for purchasing the property, the 90- day Exclusive Negotiations Agreement and the Tax Increment Financing assistance that staff and the petitioner have been exploring is outlined in the planning report. Staff anticipates that the Development Contract and the Purchase Agreement will be presented to the City Council at the October 9th meeting. Mr. McDonald pointed out that for a variance request a hardship has to exist, which can be narrowness, shallowness, shape of property, or circumstances unique to the property. Staff feels that this variance is justified due to the fact that the property is long and narrow and does have an unusual shape. The property is 135' wide and 435' long and has limited access on the county road. The request for the canopy is reasonable as the canopy is standard for mortuary use and it only consists of a roof supported by two posts, therefore it will not visually intrude upon 42nd Avenue development. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request for the canopy. Mr. McDonald reported that the building exterior is to be brick veneer with aluminum soffits and facia with an asphalt shingled roof. The entrance canopy would accommodate entering and existing during inclement weather. The funeral home was designed to include a lobby, reception area, work office, visitation room, music room, arrangement office, lounge area, children's room, men's and women's restroom facilities, prep room, mechanical room, and garage. There will be no cremation on-site. Mr. McDonald mentioned that City Department Heads and the Design & Review Committee met on September 14th and reviewed the plan. Items discussed at Design & Review included: the need for architects signature, existing landscaping should be shown, shifting of building to avoid 930,000 storm sewer relocation cost, underground irrigation, additional lighting on north side of building, the need for more vertical plantings next to building, refuse storage, the need for sign plans, buffer needed on north adjacent to drive, additional green area near the intersection, clarification of continuous curbing, exterior building materials, and the variance request for the canopy. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting and included all of the items discussed at the Design & Review meeting. 1. The Zoning Code requires 20 stalls per chapel, and there will be two chapels at this location, and the plan provides 67 stalls. All parking and drive areas will be bituminous. 2. Five-foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk will surround the building. 3. All parking lot islands are painted stripes, which was discussed at Design & Review. 4. Handicapped parking stall, curb cut and signage provided on east side of building. 5. Catch basin is provided for storm sewer in center of west parking lot and will drain to existing storm sewer. There is a storm sewer that runs down the center of the property. The original plan showed the building over the storm sewer, which would necessitate the relocation New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - October 3, 1995 of the storm sewer at a cost of 930,000. With the revised plans, the building has been shifted to the east so the storm sewer does not need to be relocated. 6. New 24-foot 42nd Avenue "entry/exit" curb cut which has been approved by Hennepin County. 7. New 24-foot Nevada Avenue cul-de-sac curb cut has been revised to clarify traffic flow and reduce asphalt. 8. All parking/drive areas to be surrounded by B6-12 curb and gutter. 9. Refuse enclosure within building. 10. Two 25-foot high shoebox type light standards provided in west parking lot. 11. Seventy-five square foot pylon sign, 20 feet high maximum, 10 feet off property line near 42nd Avenue entry/exit. Details of the sign have not been provided, but the code does allow a 75-square foot sign, so one condition might be that the sign meets City code requirements. 12. "One-way" traffic direction sign shown at southwest corner of building, directing traffic east under canopy. Traffic striping is shown on one-way (under canopy) drive. 13. "Do Not Enter" sign shown near south/east curb .line. 14. Building has been shifted to the east to eliminate expensive storm sewer relocation. 15. Snow storage areas are shown on the plan (west and east). 16. Lot Coverage: Building - 12%; Bituminous - 50%; Green Area - 3EP/~ 17. Soffit downlighting is shown on all sides of building. 18. The landscaping plan has been revised at the request of Design & Review to include the following: A. A large green mass area has been created at the signalized intersection without infringing into the site triangle. When the 42nd Avenue Project was done there was an agreement that the apartment sign would remain on the corner. B. A Lilac hedge has been provided as a buffer along the 6-foot wide perimeter at the north by the apartments. C. Arborvitae have been added next to the building for a "vertical element." D. Existing landscaping is shown with the existing evergreens to be relocated on the site. E.All landscaped areas will be sprinkled. F. A planting schedule has been provided, which shows 130 new plantings plus the existing, as follows: Common Name Size Quantity Marshal Seedless Ash (Fraximus Pennsylvanica) 2 1/2" Ca. 4 Spirea Snowmound (Spiraea Nipponica) 24" Ht. 34 Silver Queen Maple (Acer Saccharipum) 2 112" Ca. 4 Black Hills Spruce (Picea Glauca 'Densata') 6' Ht. 14 Cherry Purple Leaf Sand (Prunus Cistena) 16 10 Lilac 36" Ht. 60 Arborvitae 6' Ht. 4 Mr. McDonald pointed out that the City Engineer reviewed the plan and noted that there was a mistake made on the survey when the property was platted. The City sidewalk encroaches into the property by two or New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - October 3, 1995 three feet on the southeast corner, so if this cannot be corrected on the plat, staff is requesting that the City retain an easement which would be prepared by the City. The building slab elevation should be raised nine inches above the west parking lot elevation due to flooding at the 42nd railroad underpass. Any private storm sewers need to be reviewed and approved by Public Works and appropriate erosion control measures need to be used. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if one handicap parking stall is enough and Mr. McDonald confirmed that the Building Official had reviewed the plan. The petitioner announced that there are two handicap stalls shown on the plan. Chairman Gundershaug requested that the petitioner come forward. Mr. Dan McGraw, Gill Brothers Funeral Chapels, Inc. came to the podium to answer questions of the Commissioners. Commissioner Oelkers wanted confirmation on the density and screening of the Lilac hedge on the north lot line. It was noted that there are to be 60 Lilacs planted and that the break shown in the hedge is fine. Commissioner Oelkers questioned staff regarding the cul-de-sac area and who retains this area. Mr. McDonald noted that the City retains the public right-of-way and any other matters regarding this would be handled through the Purchase Agreement. Commissioner Cassen questioned the amount of parking provided. Due to the fact that the visitation room can seat 200 people, how will parking be accommodated if seating is at capacity with only 67 parking spaces. Mr. McGraw responded that at their other locations an extremely large crowd is unusual. In an instance where the crowd will be over 100, the petitioner stated they suggest that a church facility be used to accommodate the people. For families that are not affiliated with a church and a large group of people is anticipated, in the past permission has been obtained from the police to park cars along the street. This situation occurs infrequently and oftentimes only if the death is of a younger person, and the larger crowd would be for the funeral. For visitation, the people come during a longer time span, usually from 4 - 8 p.m., and although there may be a large number of people, the numbers are spread out to accommodate the parking. Commissioner Cassen questioned if arrangements can be made with adjacent businesses in the event additional parking arrangements need to be made. Mr. McGraw explained that at the Bloomington location they do have an agreement with a neighboring business and a neighboring church to use their parking lots, and the petitioner added that there is someone directing traffic to the additional parking areas when it is needed. At the location on Lyndale which is abutting a church parking lot, the mortuary has 35 stalls and very seldom need to use the church parking area. Commissioner Cassen mentioned that the area to the east of Nevada will have a large parking area and could possibly be used for overflow parking. Mr. McGraw confirmed that he would hope to get to know the local business owners and to have an agreement with them for parking before the need arises. Chairman Gundershaug remarked that the bowling alley across 42nd Avenue might be a possibility for additional parking. Mr. McGraw stated that it would be difficult for people to cross a busy street and the ideal area would be the property just to the east. Mr. McGraw pointed out that funerals are at off-hours, generally between 10 a.m. and I p.m. and there is always a traffic policeman for the funeral procession. New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - October 3, 1995 MOTION Item 3.2 Commissioner Damiani arrived at 7:20 p.m. Chairman Gundershaug questioned what would happen to the wood fence on the north property line. Mr, McDonald confirmed that the fence belongs to the apartment complex and will remain in place. Commissioner Sonsin questioned whether cremation would be done at this facility in the future. Mr. McGraw answered that they make all arrangements for the families requesting cremation, but that the cremation is done at another facility. Gill Brothers contracts with Lakewood Crematory in Minneapolis, who is zoned and licensed for that purpose. The embalming is done on-site and the embalming room meets all the current OSHA, EDA and Minnesota State Health Department codes and regulations. Commissioner Sonsin expressed concern over the body fluid that is displaced by the embalming process. Mr. McGraw informed that this is put into the sanitary sewer system. There are bio-hazardous wastes that are contracted out for disposal, currently with BFI Waste Medical, in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Commissioner Sonsin questioned the difference between hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Mr. McGraw explained that certain soiled items such as colostomy bags, tracheotomies, anything in the mouth, a sheet that might be soiled with blood and clothing articles are bio-hazardous waste and there is a special storage facility for these items until BFI picks up the waste materials. As far as embalming, the blood and other fluids that are taken out of the body are put into the sanitary sewer system which, has in the past and currently, is being reviewed by MPCA in c°njunction with the State Health Department Mortuary Science Unit. The mortuaries are inspected by the State Health Department. Commissioner Sonsin asked about the hazard if the deceased was HIV positive or had hepatitis. Mr. McGraw stated that the hazard would be with the embalmer. By the time the fluids are discharged into the sanitary sewer system and reaches the waste plant in Pigs Eye, the diseases are no longer a problem because of the time the fluids have been in the system. HIV dies within two - three hours after death. The State Health Department does regulate quite heavily and requires annual inspections to be sure the facility is operating per code. Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case 95-18, Request for Site and Building Plan Review and Setback Variance to Allow Construction of an Entrance Canopy, 7300 42nd Avenue North, Gill Brothers Funeral Chapels, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. City retain an easement to correct the sidewalk encroachment at the south property line. (Easement to be prepared by City.) 2. The building slab elevation must be at least nine inches above the west parking lot elevation in the event of 42nd railroad underpass flooding. 3. The private storm sewers connecting to the public storm sewer shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 4. Erosion control features shall be in place to prevent erosion off-site and through the public storm sewer. 5. Performance bond to be posted for on-site amenities and public improvements with amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official. 6. Signage to comply with City Sign Code. New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - October 3, 1995 Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Abstain: Motion carried. Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg None Landy, Underdahl Damiani This planning case will be heard by the City Council on October 9, 1995, and Chairman Gundershaug welcomed the petitioner to New Hope. Commissioner Cassen commented that the funeral home will be a nice complement to the City. CASE 95-15 Item 3.3 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.4, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment Facility, 7180 42nd Avenue North, David Lasky, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner requested that this issue be tabled until the November meeting. MOTION Item 3.3 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to remove and table until the November meeting Planning Case 95-15, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment Facility, 7180 42nd Avenue North, David Lasky, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None Landy, Underdahl CASE 95-17 Item 3.1 Chairman Gundershaug introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval for a Single Principal Building Devoted to Two or More Businesses, 8700-8748 East Research Center Road, Twin City Garage Door Company, Petitioner. MOTION Item 3.1 Chairman Gundershaug stated that since the petitioner is not present and this planning case is tabled until the November meeting. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to table until the November meeting Planning Case 95-17, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval for a Single Principal Building Devoted to Two or More Businesses, 8700-8748 East Research Center Road, Twin City Garage Door Company , Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani None Landy, Underdahl COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 Design & Review met with David Lasky and Gill Brothers Funeral Chapels on September 14th, Mr, McDonald informed Design & Review that Mr, Lasky called and stated that numerous changes were being made to the plans and those items would be reviewed by the Committee again before being brought to the Planning Commission, New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - October 3, 1995 Codes & Standards Item 4.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Codes & Standards did not meet in September. Commissioner Sonsin questioned whether the Winnetka Sign Plan that was tabled for two months would be on the agenda for November. Mr. McDonald stated that it would be on the agenda and that is one of the reasons that a Codes & Standards meeting would need to be scheduled for October. The Planner is preparing a report on shopping center sign study which will be presented to the Committee and then bring this issue to the Commission to determine any changes to the Code, before addressing the Winnetka Center Sign Plan. The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes and EDA minutes were reviewed. Mr. McDonald informed that Commissioners that there is a School Board election on November 7th and that as a governing body the Planning Commission should not meet between 6 and 8 p.m. on November 7th, therefore, the meeting date can be rescheduled or the starting time could be changed to 8 p.m. rather than 7 p.m. Mr. McDonald stated that for the November meeting there will possibly be eight planning cases. The consensus of the Commission was to meet on Wednesday, November 8th. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - October 3, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 1995 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, Oelkers, Stulberg, Damiani Gundershaug Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Mark Hanson, City Engineer CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items, PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-17 Item 3.1 Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 8700-8748 East Research Center Road, Twin City Garage Door Company, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported the petitioner is requesting Comprehensive Sign Plan approval for a single principal building devoted to two or more businesses. The petitioner is Twin City Garage Door Company and there are two tenants occupying the building at the northwest intersection of Boone Avenue and East Research Center Road: Twin City Garage Door Company and Elliott Auto Supply. Twin City Garage Door Company is requesting approval to erect signs stating the occupants of the building and to erect a canopy sign over the business entrance. There is currently one ground sign on the property. There are currently no permanent wall signs on the building; only temporary canvass signs identifying the two businesses. The comprehensive sign plan would consist of installing the following three (3) signs: 1. 40 square foot pendant mounted ground sign listing both tenants. 2. 1/2 barrel canopy sign over the Twin City Garage Door Company entrance. 3. a 32 square foot wall sign adjacent to the entrance of Elliott Auto Supply. Mr. McDonald stated that the purpose of the request is to help customers find these places of business. The property is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District. The Sign Code does allow comprehensive sign plans when a single principal building is devoted to two or more industrial uses. A comprehensive sign plan is required to be submitted for the entire building. It is the City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall building, thus providing a building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with the individual tenants on their specific sign needs. Further requirements to be met are the total allowable wall sign area for multiple occupancy structures which cannot exceed 10% of the total wall in Limited Industrial Districts. No individual tenant identification signs may exceed 100 square feet. No more than {wo overall building identification signs on one wall are allowed. Individual tenants located within the multiple occupancy structure are permitted to display individual New Hope Planning Commission - I - November 8, 1995 identification signs if they have separate exterior entrances and both of these companies have separate entrances. Multiple occupancy structures may erect ground signs and may identify each separate and distinct occupancy on the ground sign. The Sign Code includes maximum height provisions in relation to the street classification. The petitioner is on a collector street where the maximum area is 40 square feet and a maximum height of 15 feet. Mr. McDonald reiterated that the petitioner is requesting to install one 40 square foot pendant mounted ground sign measuring 10' x 4' listing both tenants. The sign would not be lighted. Twin City Garage Door Company would be identified on the upper portion of the sign, which would have a white background with red and black lettering. Elliott Auto Supply would be identified on the lower portion of the sign, which would have a gray background with blue lettering. The cabinet and pole of the sign would be black. Two business identification wall signs on the south side of the building would be installed: Elli0tt Auto Supply would have a 42" x 108", 31.5 square feet, flat wall sign installed adjacent to their entrance and Twin City Garage Door would have a new red canopy over their entrance which would contain three small signs with white lettering, each sign would be 18" x 7' equalling 10.5 square feet each for a total of 31.5 square feet. The Sign Code would permit 100 square foot wall signs for each tenant and the requested signs would be 24 and 32 square feet. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that this matter was tabled at the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting due to the fact that the petitioner was not in attendance. Staff requested that the petitioner submit a scaled plan of the Elliott Auto Supply Company, Inc. sign. As a result the petitioner did submit a scaled sign plan which shows that the proposed wall sign will measure 42" in height and 108" in length or contain 31.5 square feet. The wall signs proposed for both businesses will be similar to their portion of the signage on the proposed ground sign. Vice-Chairman Sonsin asked that the petitioner come forward. John Reno, 1860 107th Avenue, Coon Rapids, and Marc Little came to the podium, both representing Twin City Garage Door. Commissioner Underdahl requested clarification on how the canopy will fit onto the building. The sign for Elliott auto would be located next to their entrance door and would be approximately six feet off the ground. The half-barrel canopy will fit over the Twin City Garage Door entrance doors and be supported by two posts. There will be graphics on the both sides of the canopy and the business-name on the front. Commissioner Underdahl questioned how the signs will be linked together. Mr. Reno stated that linking the signs is difficult to do. The petitioner stated he asked Elliott Auto to also install the half-barrel canopy but they did not want to spend the extra money. The petitioner also stated that at some point in time Twin City Garage Door will probably occupy the entire building. There is about three years left on the lease with Elliott Auto. At this time there are no plans to try to link the two signs together because the color schemes of the two businesses are quite different. Commissioner Underdahl reminded the petitioners that linking the signs was one of the conditions of approval. The question was asked if the address numbers will also be on the sign and the petitioner stated that the address numbers will be on the ground sign but not on the canopy over the doors. The businesses will also have the address numbers on the glass over the door. New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - November 8, 1995 Vice-Chairman Sonsin questioned if the new pendant/ground sign would be in the same location as the.existing sign and this was confirmed. MOTION Item 3.1 Motion by Commissioner Underdahl, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to approve Planning Case 95-17, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 8700-8748 East Research Center Road, Twin City Garage Door Company, Petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. Consideration be given to visually linking the signs together. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Underdahl, Stulberg, Damiani None Gundershaug Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, This Planning Case will be heard by the City Council on November 13, 1995. PC 95-19 Item 3.2 Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2 Shopping Center Sign Study/Consideration of Ordinance No. 95-17, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Permitting Reader Boards on Shopping Center Identification Grounds Signs and Eliminating Regulations for Business Logo Use and Tenant Directory Limitations, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Vice-Chairman Sonsin noted that Planning Case 95-19 is indirectly linked to Case 95-16, which is the third item on the agenda. Mr. McDonald reported that this study is a result of action taken at the September 5th Planning Commission meeting. When the Commission considered the request from Building Management, Inc. they wanted to replace the existing pylon/ground sign at Winnetka Shopping Center on Winnetka Avenue with a new sign. The proposed sign would have required four (4) variances because the current ordinance requires that (1) 30% of the sign be devoted to shopping center I.D. and their proposal contained only 15% of the area, (2) the Tenant Directory should not comprise more than 70% of the sign and the proposal was for 85% of the sign, (3) Code allows five tenants to be identified and the proposal was for nine tenants, and (4) Code prohibits the use of Iogos and the Ace Hardware logo is used on the sign. The Commission tabled the request and directed the Codes & Standards Committee to review the Shopping Center Sign Code requirements and to make recommendations as to whether they felt the requirements should be amended to allow more flexibility. The Planning Consultant outlined in his report the intent and requirements of the current Sign Code and surveyed surrounding communities for their regulations on shopping center ground signs. Codes & Standards met on October 30th to discuss this matter and their recommendations are included in the planning case report. The City Attorney also attended the Codes & Standards meeting and prepared a draft ordinance which was a result of the recommendations of the Committee. Mr. McDonald noted that a survey of surrounding cities indicated that most cities regulate tenant signs through the regulation of the maximum sign area provisions for shopping center signs. Most cities regulate sign size rather than sign content or presentation. In the majority of the cities that New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - November 8, 1995 were surveyed, if an individual shopping center owner wanted to list the tenants within the complex, they could do so under the confines of the sign area requirement. The survey did not show that New Hope is any more restrictive in regard to sign size and height requirements as most of them have 200 square feet/30-foot height and similar setback requirements as New Hope. New Hope could be considered restrictive regarding tenant directory signs. New Hope is the only city which specifically regulates tenant directory signage on a shopping center signs. New Hope limits the number of tenant signs to five total, and limits them to 70 percent of the entire sign. The intention of the sign ordinance is to provide equitable signage for all businesses to provide identification of their business while reducing confusion and hazards from unnecessary use of signs. The Planning Commission and City Council need to make a policy decision on whether or not to control content and presentation of signs beyond the current regulation of size and height. Mr. McDonald went on to say the Codes & Standards Committee is recommending that five changes be made to the Sign Code as outlined in the ordinance. Under the portion of Code which describes shopping center sign requirements, it states that tenant identification is allowed providing the following five conditions are met. The first requirement is that the shopping center name identification must use thirty (30) percent or more of the square area of the identification ground sign. The Committee is recommending that the code be amended to reduce that to 30 square feet which is fifteen (15) percent of the ground sign. The Committee felt that there should be some shopping center identification but maybe 30 percent of the sign is too much. This reduction will allow greater flexibility in tenant signage and still keeps the shopping center name as the focal point of the sign. The second provision states that the tenant directory may not exceed 70 percent of the ground sign, the Committee felt this provision should be eliminated. It is obvious that if 30 square feet of the sign needs to be used for shopping center identification, then the other 170 square feet can be used for tenant directory. That provision also includes the restriction that no tenant signage shall exceed 28 square feet. The Committee is recommending that the shopping center owners be given the discretion to use that portion of the ground sign as they see fit. The third part of the ordinance states that the tenant directory shall not exceed five individual business identification signs, The Committee is recommending eliminating this requirement altogether. This will provide shopping centers with maximum flexibility and would place no restriction on the number of tenants identified. The fourth part of the ordinance states that all tenant identification signs shall be of uniform style, letter font, color and composition, and business Iogos are not permitted. The Committee felt that signs were more appealing with Iogos and different size fonts and styles and the Committee is recommending repealing this requirement that all tenant signs be uniform in style, as it is the consensus that signs are more pleasing to the eye if they are not all uniform in nature. Other cities do not regulate letter fonts or Iogos. The fifth item includes a prohibition against reader boards and even though the current proposal for the Winnetka Center sign does not include a reader board, the original plan submitted did have a reader board and the City requested the reader board be removed. The Committee is recommending that the prohibition against reader boards be eliminated; that reader boards be allowed and be considered as part of the tenant identification portion of the sign. One of the biggest problems the City has is the number of temporary signs erected by businesses. The Building Official is constantly trying to keep track of who has three week permits for temporary signs. The Committee New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - November 8, 1995 felt that if reader boards were allowed at shopping centers there would be more flexibility to change messages on a frequent basis and solve the problem of keeping tra¢l~ of the tempOrary permits. Also, several variances have already been granted for reader boards at shopping centers. Reader boards would also assist in the promotion of City-wide events, such as the Shop New Hope promotion. Lastly, the City has a reader board on 42nd Avenue. Vice-Chairman Sonsin remarked that the report was quite complete and asked the Commissioners if there were any questions. Commissioner Cassen questioned why the condition for shopping center identification is 30 square feet rather than 15 percent. Mr. McDonald answered that the Committee did recommend 15 percent and the City Attorney drafted the ordinance to state 30 square feet (which is 15 percent of 200 square feet). Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Commission could modify the ordinance. Commissioner Cassen recommended that the ordinance be modified to state 15 percent of the sign area. MOTION Item 3.2 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to approve Planning Case 95-19, Shopping Center Sign Study/Consideration of Ordinance 95-17, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Permitting Reader Boards on Shopping Center Identification Grounds Signs and Eliminating Regulations for Business Logo Use and Tenant Directory Limitations, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. Shopping Center name identification requirement be changed from 30 square feet to 15 percent of the sign area. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Stulberg, Damiani Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, This planning case will be heard by the City Council on November 13, 1995. CASE 95-16 Item 3.3 Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3, Request for A Sign Variance to Allow Pylon Ground Sign(s) with Multiple Tenant Identification and Size/Areas in Excess of Code Standards or Amendment to Shopping Center Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow New Pylon Ground Sign, 4301-4471 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Associates, Petitioner. Vice-Chairman Sonsin pointed out that no variances are now required for Planning Case 95-16 due to the fact that the changes in the Sign Ordinance have eliminated the request for variance. Mr. McDonald stated that the only action now needed is approval of an amendment to the Winnetka Shopping Center Comprehensive Sign Plan. Vice-Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion on the amendment to the Shopping Center Comprehensive Sign Plan. MOTION Item 3.3 Motion by Commissioner Underdahl, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-16 an Amendment to Shopping Center Comprehensive Sign Plan to Allow New Pylon Ground Sign, 4301-4471 New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - November 8, 1995 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Associates, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Stulberg, Damiani Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, This planning case will be heard by the City Council on November 13, 1995. CASE 95-27 Item 3.4 Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.4, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the Construction of a Second Sheet of Ice at the Existing New Hope Ice Arena, 4949 Louisiana Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius stated that Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation, Jim Corbett, Recreation Facilities Manager, and Mark Hanson, City Engineer, are all in attendance to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Brixius explained that the application is a conditional use to expand on the existing Ice Arena. The Ice Arena is zoned R-1 and is located north of 49th Avenue and along the eastern border of New Hope abutting Crystal. The current facility contains 34,263 square feet and the proposed second sheet of ice addition is 31,403 square feet and would bring the total building to 65,666 square feet. This expansion is being done in conjunction with the New Hope/Plymouth Athletic Association. The expansion will provide for a variety of activities, increased demand for ice time and the opportunity for women's hockey in the school system. New Hope has a strong chance to receive grant monies. Mr. Brixius reviewed the conditional use permit requirements. Determination needs to be made if it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatibility with surrounding land uses, compliance with performance standards, no depreciation in the area, and specifically in residential districts how traffic will be managed, proposed screening and compatible appearance. The site area is 5.5 acres and is oversized as far as an R-1 zoning lot and setbacks for the facility comply with those required within the R-1 District. The facility is expanding in size and the parking requirements are increased. It is estimated that the parking demand for this type of facility is 306 stalls. At Design & Review, it was specifically indicated to staff that all parking should be provided on site. Modifications were made for parking in the front of the building at certain locations where there were curb cut islands and some parking was expanded on the northern edge. Additional parking is provided along with western property line, which includes 90° parking for the first several hundred feet and then a one-way drive along the back of the building which is intended for service vehicles only. Employee parking is also provided at a 90° angle and will be signed as one-way traffic so traffic will only flow northbound. The service bay is 16 feet in width and capable of handling one-way traffic and a turning radius from the angled parking. With the modifications, 307 parking stalls have been provided. All required handicap parking stalls have been provided and all stalls have been properly dimensioned. With the exception of signing the one-way traffic lane, the overall circulation system and parking dimensions have been satisfied. New Hope Planning Commission - 6 - November 8, 1995 Mr. Brixius continued saying site access is intended to come from three locations, two off 49th Avenue and one off Corvallis Avenue, which is separated somewhat from the main parking area and provides for truck entrance/exit. One element discussed during staff meetings was the potential impact of traffic into surrounding residential areas. As a City facility, there currently is in place a traffic management plan where police/police reserves are in attendance at major events to insure that traffic patterns move away from the residential areas. Therefore, this conditional use amendment is in compliance with that traffic requirement. Mr. Brixius added that the building height is in compliance with the R-1 standards. He stated that it should be noted that with the amount of impervious surface, building and parking areas, there is a very limited amount of area for snow storage and a snow storage plan should be provided and addressed as part of the conditional use approval. There is landscaping provided at the perimeter of the site. Larger boulevard trees and some coniferous are shown in the area off of 49th Avenue and also along Louisiana. Areas at the front of the building have been landscaped to provide some relief within the parking areas. The overall landscape plan is adequate. A condition sited at Design & Review was for some type of irrigation and maintenance of these areas. Areas used for snow storage should be treated appropriately from a landscape perspective to avoid damaging landscape materials. Mr. Brixius stated that the trash enclosure is intended to be located on the west side of the building and will be screened and blended into the total architecture of the building. Lighting is identified and will comply with all requirements to avoid intrusion into residential neighborhoods. The architect has attempted to blend the architectural materials of the buildings. The roof of the addition will mimic the vaulted roof of the existing structure. The signage is intended to be over the entrance and a freestanding sign will be located at the entrance across from Maryland Avenue. Although not specifically identified on the site plan, loading is intended to occur on the northeast corner of the existing structure. The one-way traffic lane provides access for that loading area. This area is set back at a lower elevation than the street and is screened by a berm and a change in elevation. Mr. Brixius emphasized that in the 1975 Comprehensive Plan this area was identified as a facility that is intended to be programmed to meet the future needs of all the population. This is representative of both the school district's and the community's changing needs and equitable treatment between men's and women's sports. The New Hope Ice Arena serves all of School District 281, plus areas of Plymouth and Maple Grove that lack these facilities. The demand for ice time is rapidly growing and the City now has an opportunity to expand the facility. The conditional use permit and the plans that have been submitted do comply with the requirements and the recommendation is for approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Damiani questioned if the rear parking by the one-way drive will be marked for employee parking only and it was confirmed this will be marked for employee parking and one-way traffic. Considering the proposed traffic and the three driveways, will another access point be needed. Mr. Brixius pointed out that traffic will be channeled onto 4gth Avenue to exit the area as quickly as possible. No other access point is intended for Louisiana in order to keep traffic out of the residential New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - November 8, 1995 neighborhoods. The existing locations make the proposal more acceptable and lends more control as to where the traffic is released. A third drive on 49th Avenue closer to the intersection would lead to more congestion at the intersection. Commissioner Damiani noted that at Design & Review a suggestion was made as to moving some of the Spruce trees out closer to the boulevard for screening spill-over lighting. Mr. Brixius responded that Spruce trees were moved from some spill-over areas close to the intersection back so as not to interfere with visibility lines. The trees were never on the boulevard area but in the setback area between the parking and boulevard line on Ice Arena property. There should be no problem with spill-over lighting. Commissioner Cassen requested more Black Hills Spruce along 49th Avenue and also on Louisiana between 49th and 50th Avenues. Commissioner Oelkers added that possibly more trees should be added along Louisiana to keep car lights out of the residential area. Mr. Brixius responded that the landscaping plan could be reviewed again by the City Forester with the suggestions given. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the architecture of the building and the use of vertical block on the existing building and broken block on the addition and questioned what the purpose this serves. What is the reason, according to the landscaping plan, that there is Ivy on the new building and not on the existing building. Mr. Hanson speculated that possibly the building was designed this way because of costs or 'for an architectural statement. The City Forester can review this issue as the City Engineer can only speculate on the omission of Ivy on the existing building. Commissioner Oelkers suggested that the building materials of the addition be more closely blended with the existing building. The parking area is great and he is in agreement with Commissioner Cassen that more greenery is needed. Mr. Hanson reiterated that possibly the reason for the different look of the addition is to create a different design on the south wall along 49th. The architect may be trying to break up the look of the long wall by using the cut-off block. It is possible that the new building may be a different color. Larger buildings of this type are now using a color stripe around the perimeter for a little different loOk. It appears the architect is stepping down the front of the building as the grade goes down to 49th Avenue. If it is more desirable to use the cut-off, this could possibly be included in the plans. Commissioner Cassen asked if the colors on the existing building are natural and stated that an updated color scheme would be advantageous. The lower block on the existing building appears to be damp with possibly some green growth on the block. An update on this portion of the building should also be considered. The wood finish on the building is also quite weather-beaten. Mr. Hanson noted that the south facia will be covered except for the very top. Vice-Chairman Sonsin maintained that the other sides of the building need updating. Mr. Hanson emphasized that this updating would depend on cost and the money available. Commissioner Cassen pointed out that the exterior is very important and should be of top priority. Commissioner Cassen wondered if the fencing along the railroad would be replaced. Mr. Hanson answered that portions of the fence would be taken down where the grading would impact it, specifically along the new building, and after the new grading is completely in place, the fence would be put back up. There are no provisions with this plan to put in New Hope Planning Commission - 8 - November 8, 1995 new fencing along the railroad. Commissioner Cassen noted that the black cyclone fencing is verY attractive and should be considered. Commissioner Stulberg raised the issue of the traffic plan and with the doubling of parking, should there be "stop" signs by the exits. What is the plan for controlling traffic after major events. Mr. Hanson stated that, similar to the traffic plan for Cooper High School, the police/police reserves help out with traffic. The Facilities Manager could review this item and provide input as to how often the parking lot would be full and when police reserves would be needed. The amount of accesses for the number of parking stalls provided is acceptable. From a traffic management standpoint, it is preferred to limit the number of accesses. When the project was initiated in the mid-1970s, the Corvallis access was not intended to be a major access and will not be a major access with the new plan either. The traffic exiting the lot is required to exit to the west and not east into Crystal. Commissioner Cassen questioned how City staff determined the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Brixius remarked that the 306 parking spaces are based on City statue 4.036(10)(u) "other attractions," which addresses private hockey arenas but does not address public arenas. The interpretation was that the arenas would be similar in character and design and the requirement for parking is 20 off-street spaces plus one additional off-street space for each 200 square feet of floor area over 2,000. At one time the thought was that 306 spaces was excessive, however after further study of examples around the nation, this amount of parking is about the same as other facilities. Based on the historical use of the property, it is anticipated that 90 percent of the time full capacity will not be achieved. However when Armstrong and Cooper play each other it is anticipated that the lot would be at capacity. Commissioner Cassen inquired if street parking would be allowed and the answer was no. Commissioner Damiani asked to have the trash area pointed out on the plan. Mr. Brixius stated that a wood cedar fence would enclose the trash enclosure on the western side of the building and there will be an exit out of the building to this area and the employee parking area. Commissioner Damiani wanted clarification as to the snow removal plan. Mr. Brixius noted that the snow removal would need to be one of the conditions for the conditional use permit as this was not identified on the plan. Commissioner Cassen questioned the path for delivery trucks, the docking area and the turning radius. Mr. Brixius noted that the loading/docking area contains sufficient width and dimension for large trucks. Some receipt of goods will occur at the front of the building and the front driveway has sufficient width for trucks. Most of the loading is anticipated at the northeast corner of the building. The Facilities Manager added that the delivery truck for cleaning chemicals comes to the loading dock. Supplies needed on the lower levels are delivered to the loading dock and supplies needed on the top level are delivered to the front door, which would include concession supplies. Commissioner Cassen commented that traffic movement should be noted on the plans, including where the deliveries will occur and the turning radius for the trucks. Commissioner Underdahl questioned the amount of greenery by the loading dock. Mr. Brixius pointed out that there is a significant slope by the loading area and the loading area sits lower than the grade of the street, therefore this area is screened from the street. Commissioner Underdahl New Hope Planning Commission - 9 - November 8, 1995 commented that the planning case report states there may be opportunity for in-line skating and does this also include in-line hockey. The Facilities Manager confirmed that there will be in-line hockey. Vice-Chairman Sonsin noted that all utility lines currently run under the parking lot where the new arena is proposed, and if the utility lines would be rerouted, the location should be shown on the plans. Mr. Hanson informed that the sanitary sewer does run through the middle of the parking lot and would be rerouted along the south and west sides of the proposed building and enter the building where the majority of the plumbing fixtures are located. The water main currently runs through the center of the property and would also be relocated along the south and west sides of the building. There will be a hydrant located approximately mid-point along the west side of the building and the water service will continue on into the building. There will be a fire connection on the southeast corner of the proposed building. Vice-Chairman Sonsin questioned the accessibility for the handicapped population. Mr. Hanson stated that the project includes modifying the existing elevator, either by relocating the elevator or providing two doors for access. Both methods are being studied to determine which is preferable. The proposal at this time is to do some work with the existing elevator to try to make it work for the proposed addition. The final plan for the elevator will be somewhat dictated by cost. Vice-Chairman Sonsin questioned the impact of the project on the existing ice arena during construction. Mr. Hanson responded by saying the bituminous immediately south of the existing ice arena will be removed. He pointed out that from the front door of the arena to the ice sheet there is about a 12-foot elevation difference. Therefore, a lot of excavation would be extended from the south side of the building because the second sheet of ice is intended to be at the same elevation as the first sheet. Basically everything south of the existing building, during construction, would be fenced off for the construction. The easterly side of the building where the existing parking lot is will remain in place until a point in time where this area will be removed, regraded and rebuilt. Because of the grade changes, the entire parking lot will be removed and new curbs and bituminous surfacing will be constructed. Vice-Chairman Sonsin questioned if all activities at the arena will take place during construction. The Facilities Manager confirmed that the arena will stay open as much as possible during construction. Mr. Hanson reported that construction should begin in April and the new facility could be open in October. Vice-Chairman Sonsin questioned the funding for the project and was informed that "Mighty Ducks" grant monies have been applied for and this property is now included in the TIF District and would be funded with tax increment funds. The School District will not be participating in funding as the School District rents ice time. Vice-Chairman Sonsin commented regarding the facility in Blaine and the proposal to construct four sheets of ice and how this will impact the facility in New Hope. The Facilities Manager explained that the current demand for ice time is so great that New Hope residents are having to rent ice time from other facilities. With the second sheet of ice in New Hope, residents will be able to use a home facility. MOTION Item 3.4 Motion by Commissioner Damiani, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-27 Request for Site/Building Plan New Hope Planning Commission - 10 - November 8, 1995 Review/Approval and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the Construction of a Second Sheet of Ice at the Existing New Hope Ice Arena, 4949 Louisiana Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. The drive aisle located along the site's western border is established (through the use of signage) as a one-way route. 2. The City Engineer determines that the site's 30-foot wide curb cut onto 49th Avenue is acceptable. 3. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regards to grading and drainage issues. 4. Either the site plan is modified to designate snow storage areas or clarification is given that snow is to be hauled off site. In no case may snow be stored in landscaped areas where vegetative damage could result. 5. If applicable, the site plan is modified to identify exterior trash handling areas. All trash handling equipment must not be visible from adjoining properties. 6. All parking lot lighting is arranged to deflect light away from adjoining property and public rights-of-way to ensure no off-site spillage. 7. All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. 8. The site plan is modified to identify facility loading areas. 9. The City Building Inspector provide specific comment in regard to structure ventilation as it relates to potential fumes generated from ice resurfacing equipment and other Building Code issues. 10. Landscaping plan to be updated to provide additional Spruce trees along 49th Avenue and Louisiana Avenue and Boston Ivy to be extended around existing building. 11. Clean-up exterior of existing building. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Stulberg, Damiani Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, This planning case will be heard by the City Council on November 13, 1995. CASE 95-23 Item 3.5 Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.5, Request for Rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, Zoning District to Allow the Construction of a Handicap Accessible Twin Home, 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Brixius reported that this is a request from the City of New Hope to rezone a property from R-1 to R-2 to allow for the construction of a twinhome. The address is 6073 Louisiana Avenue located in the extreme northeast corner of the community. This property was purchased for redevelopment in conjunction with CDBG scattered site housing funds for the provision of assisted or subsidized housing for the handicapped. The rezoning is necessary because the twinhome is not allowed in an R-1 District. The twinhome unit is allowed providing each lot has a minimum of 7,000 square feet and this property exceeds that amount. Mr. Brixius explained that in reviewing any type of rezoning, the typical New Hope Planning Commission - 11 - November 8, 1995 standard that the City has held to is if a previous zoning mistake was made. In reviewing the area, the R-1 zoning is reflective of existing uses along 62nd Avenue. These lots are single family homes with oversized lots and in that respect there was no mistake in past zoning. The area basically is single family. The area to the south is zoned R-4, Broadway Village Apartments, and there is a single family home included in this zoning. The City has initiated other areas of the City for housing redevelopment as some of the philosophies of the City have changed in order to provide more affordable housing for the handicapped. Therefore, there is some volition in consideration of the rezoning. Additional criteria includes consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The areas laid out for city residential land uses is 0-4 units and the proposed development of 16,600 square feet meets this interpretation and results in a Iow-density character. Additionally, the City has a number of policies that promote the provision of affordable housing and a variety of housing needs, such as handicap and Iow/moderate income households and the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan is being maintained with the proposed twinhome. The proposed use is compatible with present and future land uses. The properties to the north along 62nd Avenue are single family homes with small houses on large, oversized lots. The property immediately to the south contains a single family home, which is zoned R-4 and under the R-4 density the single family home is a non-conforming use. Across the street in Crystal is a playground area and the impact of the proposed use would be minimal. Mr. Brixius reiterated that the request is for rezoning the site to R-2. The density would be consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed housing type is two family versus single family so there is some differentiation with the housing type. The proximity of a single family home to the south does raise some issue, however, this is an R-4 area and would be better suited to a lower density residential zoning, either R-2 or R-1. The proposed site is 16,600 square feet in area and allows adequate lot area per unit. The twinhome meets all the standards of the R-2 Zoning District. There has been no appraisal value completed, however, the unit value of the structure is comparable with the surrounding area and it is not anticipated that this structure will cause a depreciation of adjacent properties. To accommodate development upon the subject site, new sewer and water stubs will be extended from Louisiana Avenue. These improvements are required and will not overburden the system. There would not be a large increase of traffic on Louisiana or 62nd Avenue as the proposed use is only for two units. Mr. Brixius concluded by saying that any change in zoning becomes a policy or land use decision for the specific site. The general proposal is consistent with density and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The variation is in the housing type in the proposed area and if a two family unit can co-exist in a single family area. It is staff's understanding that the twinhome can compatibly exist and the use fulfills some of the City's goals as far as housing for the handicapped population. Commissioner Underdahl questioned the plans for the sewer and water and how this will be accomplished. Mr. Hanson explained that the sewer and water would be extended up Louisiana Avenue. There currently is sanitary sewer in Louisiana Avenue serving existing properties. There is also a water main serving existing properties. Service to the twinhome will be extended from these lines. New Hope Planning Commission - 12 - 'November 8, 1995 MOTION Item 3.5 CASE 95-24 Item 3.6 Vice-Chairman Sonsin expressed concern regarding the rezoning. There was no mistake in the original zoning. He feels the area has not changed so as to warrant a rezoning. The single family home to the south is a nice house and is fairly new and there is a quite a lot of open land and/or trees to buffer the home from the apartment complexes in the area. There are single family homes along 62nd Avenue. It does not seem right to single out a piece of property and rezone it R-2, for a twinhome, in the middle of other single family homes as this would detract from the area and probably adversely affect the single family home to the south. Mr. Brixius maintained that the R-4 District to the south does allow for single family uses in that area as well as the full range of high density residential uses. In locating the single family home in the R-4 District, the determination was made that the single family use was compatible with the high density uses. Perhaps to maintain the future integrity of both sites, the R-2 District would be appropriate as the twinhome would be located in a peripheral area of the residential area. The R-2 District is limited to single and two family dwellings. This is a City initiated project to construct a two family dwelling on the site. Vice-Chairman Sonsin noted also that approving rezonings sets a precedence that the Commission should not just single out and rezone a piece of property. Mr. Brixius pointed out that the parcel of land to the south is an R-4 District even though there is a single family home located in the District and, as such, an R-2 District could be located adjacent to it. Commissioner Cassen confirmed that the addition of the twinhome would not depreciate the properties in the area. The proposed twinhome is a good plan and might enhance the area. By leaving the property as a single family lot, and with the high cost of land, the home that would need to be constructed would be much too expensive for the lot. Also, the twinhome would have a zero-lot-line and each unit would have individual ownership. Commissioner Oelkers agreed that taking this large lot and making it two would enhance the value of the neighborhood. The value of each twinhome would be comparable to, if not more than, the surrounding houses. There appears to be a good balance of apartments and single family homes in the area. Motion by Commissioner Underdahl, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 95-23, Request for Rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, Zoning District to Allow the Construction of a Handicap Accessible Twin Home, 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Damiani Voting against: Sonsin Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, This planning case will be heard by the City Council on November 13, 1995. Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.6, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Cameron 3rd Addition to Subdivide the Property Currently Known as Cameron 2nd Addition into Two Parcels to Allow the Construction of a Zero-Lot-Line Handicap Accessible Twinhome, 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner. New Hope Planning Commission - 13 - November 8, 1995 Ms. Bellefuil informed the Commission that the City of New Hope is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for Cameron 3rd Addition. The rezoning of this property to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, was discussed as Planning Case 95-23 earlier at this meeting and will appear on the Council agenda on November 13th. The purpose of the plat is to subdivide the parcel into two lots to accommodate the construction of a zero-lot-line handicap accessible twinhome. The project is being sponsored by the City in conjunction with the Metropolitan Council and CO-OP Northwest Community Housing Revitalization Corporation and is being funded with a variety of funding sources, including funds from the Federal HOME Program, CDBG Scattered Site Housing funds, and a Metropolitan Council Housing Assistance Loan. Mr. Bellefuil reminded the Commissioners that in 1993/1994, the City of New Hope purchased, rehabilitated and sold the property at 7109 62nd Avenue North. As part of that project, the City split off the rear 100 feet of the property due to the depth of the lot. At the same time, the owners of the corner lot located at 7105 62nd Avenue North decided to subdivide their property and sold the rear 100 feet to the City. The City combined both properties to create a new parcel as part of the City's Scattered Site Housing Program. Ms. Bellefuil pointed out that the City will be using the same design as the twinhome built at 51st and Winnetka Avenue North. The only change in the design is that the rear of the building will be extended 10 feet to accommodate a third bedroom and second bathroom in each unit. The City Council approved the updated plans and specifications at their October 9th meeting. Bids were opened on November 3rd and the bid will be awarded at the City Council meeting on November 13th. Ms. Bellefuil noted as per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, the City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. Comments were received from the City Attorney, City Engineer and Building Official and were included in the planning case report. Ms. Bellefuil continued saying the site is approximately 16,600 square feet and that Lot I is a little smaller than Lot 2 due to the angled lot line on the northern side of Lot 1. The total frontage of the property is 100 feet, the back property line is about 96 feet and the depth of the property is 166.67 feet. The setbacks are 30 feet from the front, 10 feet from each side and 35 feet from the back. The twinhome meets or exceeds all of the setback requirements. The minimum lot size is 7,000 square feet and the proposed use exceeds the footage with Lot 1 having 8,210 square feet and Lot 2 having 8,335 square feet. The lot frontage requirement is 37.5 feet and the actual footage for each lot is 50 feet. Ms. Bellefuil pointed out that the final plat needs to be submitted to the Planning Commission unless the Commission waives review of the final plat. Staff is requesting that the Commission waive this requirement so the final plat can proceed to Council on November 27th. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Cameron 3rd Addition subject .to the following conditions: 1. Final plat review to be waived by the Planning Commission. 2. The utility easement along the southern property line be changed to 15 feet from 5 feet to allow for a new storm sewer. New Hope Planning Commission - 14 - November 8, 1995 MOTION Item 3.6 3. Change the owner to the New Hope EDA. 4. The plat name of "Cameron 2nd Addition" which was used for the previous plat be renamed "Cameron 3rd Addition." 5. Change the legal description to read "Lot 2, Block 1, Cameron 2nd Addition". 6. Correct lot square footages: Lot 2 = 8,335 and Lot 1 = 8,210. Commissioner Sonsin wanted clarification on conditions #4 and #5. Ms. Bellefuil stated that the current legal description on the plat is "Cameron Addition" not "Cameron 2nd Addition," therefore #5 is correct in that the current plat legal needs to include "2nd". Ms. Bellefuil explained further that originally this parcel was to be named "Cameron Addition" and Hennepin County informed the City Attorney that this name was already in use so the parcel was then clarified by naming the parcel "Cameron 2nd Addition." Commissioner Underdahl questioned how much yard there will be around the proposed twinhome. The backyard will have a 60-foot setback, the sideyard setback will be 20 feet and the front will consist of a 30-foot setback. Each unit will have a backyard of approximately 60 feet by 50 feet. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the plans for the twinhome stating the possible necessity for a handicap bathroom other than the master bathroom in the event the handicap person was a child. Mr. McDonald noted that the home was designed by Equal Access Homes, who is an expert in accessibility construction. Ms. Bellefuil stated that the original plans showed the second bathroom as the larger handicap accessible bathroom. It is possible to add a second doorway into the master bathroom so it would be accessible from the hallway too. Also, Commissioner Oelkers raised the issue of the accessibility to the backyard only by going out the front door. Ms. Bellefuil answered that there is a door to the backyard from the master bedroom to a patio in the back. Commissioner Oelkers commented on the design of the roofline. Ms. Bellefuil responded that the Council requested a gable roof rather than a hip because they did not like the idea of water running onto the driveway. Commissioner Oelkers also wondered, since there is a large backyard, why one of the units could not be pushed back two feet or so to give some design feature to the front of the house instead of the large expanse of a four car garage at the front. Commissioner Cassen agreed that moving the garage would add some dimension to the front of the house and asked that the plans be brought back to the Commission. Mr. McDonald interjected that the Planning Commission does not review plans for single family homes. Commissioner Cassen suggested that staff take these recommendations back to the designer. Commissioner Underdahl also agreed that there should be some exit to the backyard without going through the bedroom. There was agreement that the twinhome is a good use for the land. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve Planning Case 95-24, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Cameron 3rd Addition to Subdivide the Property Currently Known as Cameron 2nd Addition into Two Parcels to Allow the Construction of a Zero-Lot-Line Handicap Accessible Twinhome, 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: New Hope Planning Commission - 15 - November 8, 1995 1. Final Plat Review to be waived by the Planning Commission. 2. The utility easement along the southern property line to be changed to 15 feet to allow for a new storm sewer. 3. Change the owner to the New Hope EDA. The preliminary plat currently lists the City of New Hope as the owner. 4. The plat name "Cameron 2nd Addition" was used for the previous plat of this property, therefore the current plat should be renamed "Cameron 3rd Addition". 5. Change the current legal description to read "Lot 2, Block 1, Cameron 2nd Addition". 6. Correct lot square footages: Lot 2 = 8,335 and Lot I = 8,210. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Stulberg, Damiani Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, This planning case will be heard by the City Council on November 13, 1995. CASE 95-15 Item 3.7 Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.7, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment Facility, 7180 42nd Avenue North, David Lasky, Petitioner. Vice-Chairman Sonsin reported that the petitioner met with Design & Review in August in preparation for the September Planning Commission meeting at which time the case was tabled. The petitioner again met with Design & Review in September and asked that the case be tabled at the October meeting. Design & Review met with the petitioner once again on October 19th which takes us to the November meeting. There still are 17 conditions that are unresolved. Some of the conditions are quite significant, including the location of the building, site plan, drainage, etc. Vice-Chairman Sonsin stated that he felt the Council has expressed some discomfort with the idea of an auto-oriented business on the site and a couple months ago a funeral home was approved across the street. Vice- Chairman Sonsin stated as a Planning Commissioner he feels that to approve the concept with 17 conditions is not acceptable, especially when several major issues are unresolved. Before taking a lot more time to go through the details, the Commission should determine if the proposed Car- X is a viable plan. The Council will be looking for an exemplary structure given their feelings about the site.' It does not seem fair to use Planning Commission time, Commissioner's time and staff time if the plan is not feasible. Vice-Chairman Sonsin commented that, as long as he has been a Commissioner, a planning case has not been approved with this many conditions. Mr. David Lasky and Ms. Marissa Lasky came to the podium. Mr. Lasky began by saying that in trying to comply with the Commission and Design & Review, they realize that the 17 conditions listed will have to be dealt with and anticipate dealing with them. There are only a few that are of some concern at this time. Vice-Chairman Sonsin emphasized that all 17 are of concern to the Commission and the question to be answered is when will these issues be dealt with. The Commission will not send this concept plan on to Council with all of these unanswered questions. After meeting five times with the Commission or Design & Review, the items New Hope Planning Commission - 16 - November 8, 1995 need to be dealt with now. Mr. Lasky noted that during the course of discussions, the questions that were raised were dealing with the location of the building, curb cuts, and landscaping. They felt it appropriate to deal with the major issues and then, if the concept was acceptable, they would meet with staff and deal with the other issues. Most of the issues are not a problem as far as additional detail is concerned and they are fully in agreement with all of the items recommended. There are some questions they would like to discuss. Mr. Lasky suggested that if the concept of the building is acceptable that the Commission approve the concept and let the staff deal with some of the details as it is easier to work with a smaller group of people. They will come back to the Commission when more of the details are worked out. Some of these issues they thought were resolved and are listed again in the conditions. Vice-Chairman Sonsin raised the issue of the building location which is a major issue and can the building be constructed as the staff and Design & Review have suggested. Mr. Lasky stated they explored several different ways to locate the building and this plan is the only .viable location that works well with exposure to the street, avoidance of noise to the surrounding area and avoiding a substantially large cost ($50,000) to locate the building farther back on the property which would cause other problems. This is a very difficult lot to work with, considering the 12-foot drop from the front to the rear. The building was located so there would be a driveway in the front with access to parking. The City Engineer stated that the building location is difficult because of the elevation difference on the site. By constructing the building as proposed based on separating the north parking lot from the building, the site will be more difficult with regard to circulation on the site. The issue of locating the building further to the north still does not leave a good turning radius to exit onto 42nd Avenue going east without encroaching into two lanes of traffic. Therefore the access onto 42nd Avenue is a concern, especially with the large number of vehicles traveling on 42nd Avenue. There could be a lot of congestion with the access for the proposed Car-X and Champion Auto and Maryland Avenue so close together. Possibly the access could be moved further west to the center of the site and changing the grade so that the site works all as one instead of a step elevation. These are the opinions from an engineering perspective. Vice-Chairman Sonsin continued that with the first condition stating the building location is not acceptable the basic concept plan would not get very far without some meeting of the minds among the petitioner, City staff and City Engineer about what is acceptable to everyone. Commissioner Oelkers wanted clarification from the City Engineer if the whole lot should be level. The City Engineer stated the whole lot did not have to be flat just that everything should work together to include the north lot. A different type of use seems to be created because the north parking lot is at a different elevation which becomes very restrictive to that small building in that area and how the north lot is accessed, especially looking at service vehicles and other vehicles coming into the site. Vehicles entering the site will need to use a parking stall to turn around to get back out. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the $50,000 figure to move the building. In his opinion there is about a six to seven-foot drop which is about nine courses of block. If the building would be moved back about 10 to 15 feet, about 750 blocks would be needed to bring the building back and include a walk-out basement for storage. Ms. Lasky indicated that their concern was for future expansion for Car-X or whoever may be there and not for under-building storage. Moving the building back New Hope Planning Commission - 17 - November 8, 1995 would exclude ever expanding and the petitioner did not want to limit their business. Commissioner Oelkers indicated that he felt a Car-X at this location would be a viable business, however there is a safety concern with the drive aisle. Ms. Lasky asked how future expansion would be addressed with moving the building back as suggested. Mr. Lasky indicated that with the heavy load levels on the floor, Car-X preferred staying away from a basement type structure. Car-X is not interested in the storage and the construction costs skyrocket with building a structure with an open area underneath a heavy load slab. Commissioner Oelkers suggested that the open area then be filled in with sand, etc. so there is no open area under the floor. Ms. Lasky maintained that by moving the building back there is less space for adding on the north side of the building. Commissioner Oelkers responded that there cannot be more building constructed on the property than it allows. Ms. Lasky stated that one plan showed the driveway on 42nd Avenue as an ingress driveway only so as to eliminate the larger turning radius. Mr. Lasky added that the island in front of the building has been changed to allow for better turning. Commissioner Oelkers stated that, in his opinion, a disservice is being done to the Commission, staff and the petitioner by continuing to disagree at this meeting. The petitioner should meet with staff to try to come to some agreement on these items. Vice-Chairman Sonsin stated that the intention is to retable this planning case and the feeling of Design & Review is that there are a lot of issues that need to be worked out. Some of these issues are design issues and some are concept issues. There are some big concept issues remaining, such as building location and drainage, and the petitioner will need to sit down with staff and decide if these issues can be resolved. Ms. Lasky stated they would like to deal first with the issues that will decide whether or not this concept will move forward. The petitioners thought some of the 17 conditions had already been resolved. Mr. Lasky indicated they needed some direction from the Commission if the concept of Car-X would be approved if they deal with all of the conditions listed in the report. Mr. Lasky remarked that each time they meet with staff different issues become important. He wanted to know if the City will allow a CaroX at this location. Vice-Chairman Sonsin responded that the Council has studied auto uses in the City in past years. As far as concept is concerned at this time, and with the conditions listed, the concept would not be approved by the Commission. If, after working with City staff, the concept can be refined to where it looks like a viable concept, then bring the concept back to the Commission for review. Some concepts, however, just do not work. MOTION Item 3.7 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to table Planning Case 95-15, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment Facility, 7180 42nd Avenue North, David Lasky, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Stulberg, Damiani Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Abstain: Oelkers Motion carried. Commissioner Cassen reiterated that some of the very important issues that need to be resolved are the curb cut to provide minimal turning radius New Hope Planning Commission - 18 - November 8, 1995 for westbound exit. She explained that at earlier discussions the petitioner did not want to use a one-way traffic pattern off of 42nd Avenue, therefore, a wider turning radius was requested and in order to achieve this wider radius the building needs to be set back. Ms. Lasky reminded Commissioner Cassen that at the meeting this was discussed staff requested that a corner of the building be angled so as to provide a larger turning radius. At the last meeting the ideas expressed seemed to be that leaving the building where it is might be acceptable although not ideal. Commissioner Cassen also raised the issue of the truck loading berth, and although Car-X might not need a loading dock, it is the Commission's job to also look at the future. Vice-Chairman Sonsin instructed the petitioners to meet with staff again and see how to proceed from here. Mr. Lasky agreed that they would meet with staff to try and resolve the major issues remaining. Commissioner Oelkers commented that if a future expansion will be proposed, the petitioners should be sure to bring these plans when they meet with staff or Design & Review as this could also determine the outcome of the project. Vice-Chairman Sonsin expressed concern on the loading dock issue and looking to the future in the event that Car-X is no longer in this location. CASE 95-26 Item 3.8 Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.8, Comment on Request for Concurrent Detachment from City of New Hope and Annexation to City of Crystal, 3700 Winnetka Avenue North, Beth El Synagogue/Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated in September Anderson Associates contacted the cities of New Hope and Crystal and requested a joint meeting between the staff of the two cities to discuss a proposed joint development project between Beth El Cemetery, which is located in New Hope, and Adath Chesed Shel Emes Cemetery, which is located in Crystal. They talked about doing a joint PUD project which would involve relocation of curb cuts, expansion of the interior road system and construction of a chapel, which would be constructed across the city boundaries because this is at a high point on the property. Due to that complication and a number of others including going through both city's planning processes and the two Watershed Districts, the conclusion was reached that it might be easier if the project took place in one city or the other. Due to the fact that this "island of Crystal" in New Hope contains multi-family residential on 36th Avenue and SuperAmerica, taxable property, it was felt that it would be more appropriate to detach the tax exempt Beth El Cemetery from New Hope and have it annexed by the City of Crystal. There is a representative from Beth El Cemetery in the audience. Mr. McDonald stated that staff is requesting input from the Planning Commission on this request. There has not been an annexation for a long time in the City. The City Attorney explains the procedural aspect of the request in his report. The process can be initiated by the two municipalities, which is what staff suggests because public hearings can be avoided and the process moves faster. Another way to proceed would be with a request from the petitioner, which is explained in the report. Mr. McDonald reported the City Engineer stated that from an engineering standpoint the annexation of Beth El Cemetery will have no adverse effect on the City of New Hope relative to sanitary sewer and water service. Storm water drainage is conveyed, for the most part, to the northeast corner of the property to a ponding area located east of Paddock Laboratories. Pond expansion may be required if additional development New Hope Planning Commission - 19 - November 8, 1995 is allowed on the cemetery property. Therefore, New Hope's review for storm water runoff is required. New Hope's State aid allocation for State aid street improvements and sewer and water are not affected. Therefore, annexation of Beth El Cemetery to Crystal would not impact our State aid allocation. Residential property along the west side of Winnetka Avenue in New Hope obviously is impacted by future development in both cemeteries. The Planning Consultant had some general comments which were included in the report. Mr. McDonald reported that the City Council discussed this item at a work session and concluded that they would favor the annexation. Their concerns were that staff and consultant costs should be covered by the petitioner, that the City should have input on the development including any changes on Winnetka with the fencing, curb cuts and entrance, and Council wants this property to always remain a cemetery and tax exempt, and if at some time in the future this parcel would change to commercial, taxable property, New Hope should take the property back. Vice-Chairman Sonsin expressed concern by letting Crystal take this property and in effect making the "island of Crystal" larger instead of smaller. Why isn't the proposal to take the Crystal cemetery portion of the property and bring it into New Hope. Commissioners Cassen and Underdahl also agreed with making the "island" smaller instead of larger. Commissioner Cassen continued by saying some of the other "islands" should also be changed to New Hope and to try and straighten out the eastern boundary of New Hope. Vice-Chairman Sonsin wondered if possibly the entire "island" could be brought into New Hope. There are several areas of overlapping of City services and utilities. Commissioner Oelkers suggested that maybe a trading of land could help accomplish a straighter boundary between the two cities. Commissioner Landy questioned what Crystal's feeling is about this. Mr. McDonald responded that Crystal would not want to give up taxable property, but that there are no strong feelings about the cemetery land going to either one city or the other. Commissioner Landy stated this case should then be expedited so that the petitioner can move forward with construction. Commissioner Oelkers feels that New Hope should annex the Crystal cemetery so that the City can regulate fencing, curb cuts, etc. that would be constructed along Winnetka Avenue, which is in New Hope. Mr. Stanley Segelbaum, 1611 Fairway Lane, St. Louis Park, co-chairman of the Beth El Memorial Cemetery, came to the podium. This subject was brought before representatives of both New Hope and Crystal and the recommendation from that meeting was that New Hope detach the Beth El Cemetery and allow Crystal to annex it. It will be easier for the two cemeteries to continue with the development under the regulations of one city. The only question to come up was the curb cut, and it seems that Hennepin County has approved the curb cut. There would be only one entrance to the cemetery property. Mr. Segelbaum expressed interest in expediting the project and not allowing the "island", which has been in existence for many years, to delay approval for this project. This is a new issue that does not pertain to the planning case at hand. Vice-Chairman Sonsin questioned when construction is to begin. Mr. Segelbaum stated that plans have been developed for the chapel and the access roads, however, they have not set a commencement date for construction until approval was received from both cities. The Commission assured the petitioner that they would not hold up the process by trying to transfer taxable Crystal property into New Hope now. Vice-Chairman Sonsin New Hope Planning Commission - 20 - November 8, 1995 assured the petitioner that the Commission is supportive of the project. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the entrance/exit is in Crystal or New Hope. Mr. Segelbaum answered that the current entrance/exit is along the boundary line with Beth El's entrance in New Hope and Adath's entrance in Crystal, both along Winnetka Avenue. The proposal is to have one joint entry that leads to the chapel, which will be in the center, and the road surrounding the chapel. MOTION Item 3.8 Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, indicating support for the project to be located in one municipality, but indicated their preference that New Hope Annex the Adath Chesed Shel Emes Cemetery into New Hope to make the "island of Crystal" in New Hope smaller rather than Crystal annexing land from New Hope as presented in Planning Case 95-26, Comment on Request for Concurrent Detachment from City of New Hope and Annexation to City of Crystal, 3700 Winnetka Avenue North, Beth El Synagogue/Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., Petitioner. Voting in favor: Underdahl, Sonsin, Damiani Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Abstain: Landy Motion carried. Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg, The petitioner asked for clarification of the motion and the motion was read to the petitioner. Mr. Brixius interjected that this planning case will go to the City Council and base the recommendation on the most expedient process. Commissioner Landy said it sounds like New Hope will approve annexing the land to the south and then tell Crystal what is happening and the two cities will delay the process in deciding who will detach and who will annex. Mr. Brixius said his interpretation of the discussion is that the most expedient path will be used. The City Council will make the decision and not necessarily base their decision on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. This planning case will be heard by the City Council on November 13, 1995, and the petitioner is invited to attend. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 Design & Review met with David Lasky and staff regarding the Ice Arena. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the handling of the Lasky planning case and noted that staff and Commissioners seemed to take a different course of action at the last Design & Review meeting. It should be determined what is the most important issue and then tell the petitioner. Mr. Brixius stated from his observation there were some mixed messages presented at the last Design & Review meeting and the petitioner may have gotten confused. Vice-Chairman Sonsin mentioned again that the Council has been consistent for a number of years saying that they do not want an auto- oriented business on this site and the Commission should be up front about this point so the petitioner is not lead to believe this project will be approved if the Council is not in agreement with this use. Mr. Brixius cautioned that if the City is looking for new retail on this location it will not be found according to the market study completed. The study shows the New Hope Planning Commission - 21 - November 8, 1995 Codes & Standards Item 4.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT businesses in this area to be automobile oriented, therefore, getting the best site design and the most attractive building design possible is imperative. The market study shows that this area is not receptive to the traditional retailing found in New Hope. Vice-Chairman Sonsin agreed that there are currently several auto-oriented businesses in this area. Mr. McDonald stated that the Council would probably approve the use if it meets all of the conditions of the PUD. Commissioner Stulberg questioned the checklist provided to perspective builders, and if the checklist is not completed prior to submission, it seems reasonable that the builder would not appear before the Design & Review Committee or the Planning Commission. If the plans do not meet the requirements of the City Engineer or setback standards, then the planning case should not move on to the next step in the process. Codes & Standards met in October to discuss the rezoning and the portion of the sign ordinance heard at this meeting. They will continue to discuss flashing or moving signs as part of the sign ordinance, along with several other issues. The next meeting is November 29th. There was no discusSion regarding the miscellaneous issues. The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. City Council minutes, EDA and HRA minutes were reviewed. The 1996 Planning Commission calendar was reviewed and notations were made that the March and November meeting nights have been changed to Monday evening instead of Tuesday evening due to a precinct caucus in March and elections in November. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:55 p,m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 22 - November 8, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 5, 1995 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 me~eting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, Landy, Gundershaug, Damiani Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Stulberg, CONSENT ITEMS No Consent Items. PUBLIC HEARING PC 95-30 Item 3.1 Vice-Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for a Building Addition, 7201 Bass Lake Road, The Wedding Chapel, Petitioner. Vice-Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion to table Planning Case 95-30 until later in the meeting due to the fact that the petitioners were not present. MOTION Item 3.1 Motion by Commissioner Underdahl, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to table Planning Case 95-30, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for Building Addition, 7201 Bass Lake Road, The Wedding Chapel, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, Stulberg None Landy, Gundershaug, Damiani CO M M ITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 The Design & Review Committee met with Scott and Diana Ellingson from The Wedding Chapel in November. Mr. McDonald noted that City staff met with David Lasky regarding revised building plans. The deadline for submitting applications for the January meeting is December 8th and Laskys would need to submit revised plans by that date and again meet with the Design & Review Committee if they intend to be on the January Planning Commission agenda. Codes & Standards Item 4.2 Vice-Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met on November 29th to discuss changes in the ordinance pertaining to trees and that the Committee would informally discuss these changes with the Commission at the January meeting and vote on the ordinance in February. An informal discussion on Business District permitted and conditional uses would also take place at the January meeting. The ordinance regarding flashing or moving signs will be discussed at the Codes & Standards meeting .on January 17th. Commissioner Cassen asked if the City Forester would meet with the Design & Review Committee to discuss the changes in the tree ordinance. Mr. McDonald answered that he thought the public hearing on the tree ordinance would be held in January, therefore the Design & Review Committee could meet with the Forester at their New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - December 5, 1995 PC95-30 Item 3.1 December meeting. If there is no December meeting, the public hearing could be held at the February Planning Commission meeting so Design & Review can meet with the Forester at the January meeting. Vice-Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion to remove Item 3.1 from the table as the petitioners had arrived, and the motion was carried. Mr, McDonald reported that the petitioner is requesting site and building plan review/approval for a building addition. The Wedding Chapel is proposing to construct a 2,416 square foot addition along the south and east sides of the existing building, which contains 4,638 square feet, to allow for additional dressing rooms, garment preparation room and receiving area. The building addition would bring the building size to 7,054 square feet. The property is in a B-2, Retail Business, Zoning District on the south side of Bass Lake Road. It is a permitted use in the B-2 District. Surrounding land uses include single family residential north of Bass Lake Road, which is Crystal, St. Raphael Catholic Church to the west, which is also Crystal, R-2 and R-3, two family and medium density residential to the south, and B-2 Retail across Maryland Avenue to the east. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Nevada Avenue right-of-way is located in the City of New Hope and the Maryland Avenue right-of-way is located in the City of Crystal. This building was constructed in 1976 as a restaurant and costume/clothes rental is a permitted use in the B-2 District. The setback requirements for this property are unique in that the lot frontage is considered to be Nevada Avenue, as the Zoning Ordinance defines lot frontage as "that boundary abutting a public right-of-way having the least width." Therefore, Bass Lake Road is considered to be the side yard and Maryland Avenue is the rear yard. The building addition Would be located 10 feet from the south side yard property line and would meet the side yard setback requirement. There are no variances or conditional use permits required with this request. Mr. McDonald noted that all site data was included in the planning report. Existing parking provides 75 stalls and code requires 47. Mr. McDonald stated that Design & Review met on November 22nd with the petitioner and discussed the following: 1) landscaping; 2) security system for back of building which was requested by police; 3) loading area for truck deliveries with two options being revising existing curbs and islands to improve the turning radius on north side of building or installing a new curb cut on Maryland Avenue; 4) downlighting on the building; 5) rooftop equipment; 6) trash enclosure; and 6) signage and the petitioner indicated there are no signage changes planned. Revised plans were submitted as a result of that meeting. A landscape schedule for existing and new plantings was provided showing 11 new plantings. Red Pines will be added along the south property line and on the east side of the building. Spreading Yew will be added on the east side of the bUilding near the entrance doors. The site contains several perennial flower beds with over 2,000 bulbs planted. Landscaping rock will be added to the south side of the property between the addition and the south property line. Snow storage is indicated on the plan on the east side of the building. The plans indicate existing fence on the south property line and trash enclosure on the west side of the building. Six new soffit downlighting fixtures are shown for the proposed addition to match existing building, and notes on the plan indicate rooftop equipment will be screened. The building elevations show that the addition will have building materials consisting of New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - December 5, 1995 horizontal lap siding, cedar trim and stucco overhang to match existing building. Mr. McDonald continued saying two alternate truck access routes have been submitted and City staff feels either alternate is appropriate. Alternate A shows curb cut islands would be revised to accommodate maneuvering of truck traffic coming in off Bass Lake Road and proceeding through the parking lot to the west and exiting onto Nevada Avenue with deliveries being made to the west receiving door. The curbs and islands would have to be modified to accommodate this truck traffic. Alternate B represents a request to the City of Crystal to install a new 2§-foot curb cut on Maryland Avenue to accommodate truck maneuvering. Trucks would then enter the parking lot off Bass Lake Road, make deliveries to the front door and exit onto Maryland Avenue. He stated that the petitioners should be asked for an update on this issue. There are notes on the plans that all deliveries are made by vans and straight body trucks. Vice-Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioners to come forward. Scott and Diana Ellingson of the Wedding Chapel came to the podium. Commissioner Cassen questioned the reason that trees were not included along Nevada Avenue on the landscaping plan. Mr. Ellingson pointed out that there is a large tree by the curb cut on Nevada and also on the corner of Bass Lake Road and Nevada Avenue. There are also two large pines on the west side of the building by the trash enclosure. There are two flower beds near the tree on the corner of Bass Lake Road and Nevada, a flower bed by the light pole, which is mid-way between the northwest corner of the property and the Bass Lake Road entrance, a flower bed under the sign by the entrance on Bass Lake Road, a flower bed on the northeast corner of the property, and flower beds around the perimeter of the building. There is a gardener in the family who takes care of the flowers, grass and watering, etc. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the landscaping between the northwest corner of the property and the curb cut on Nevada and was informed that this area is grass. Commissioner Stulberg reminded the Commission that there is no curb along the Maryland Avenue property line. Commissioner Cassen complimented the petitioners on the attractiveness of the property and stated the City is glad to have the Wedding Chapel in New Hope. Commissioner Cassen inquired if there is any way that additional pine trees could be added along the boulevard around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Ellingson replied that they have found that the salt spray off Bass Lake Road tends to kill any plantings in the boulevard. Some of the existing plants will need to be replaced next year because of damage from the salt' last winter. Commissioner Cassen instructed the petitioners to at least think about adding some landscaping along Bass Lake Road in the boulevard. Mr. Ellingson remarked that they could possibly plant a few more Yews on either side of the light pole on Bass Lake Road since the pole is set farther back in the boulevard. Commissioner Cassen noted that all issues discussed at Design & Review were incorporated into the revised plans. Regarding the issue of the loading area and truck deliveries, a decision will need to be made on which alternate is feasible. Mrs. Ellingson interjected that a semi-truck did pass through their property last week, entering from the Nevada Avenue access and proceeded through the parking lot and exited out onto Bass Lake Road without any problem with the islands in the parking lot. Mr. Ellingson maintained that their deliveries, now and in the future, are made by vans and straight body trucks. He understands the Commission's concern for New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - December 5, 1995 the future and if the building is sold. Mrs. Ellingson noted that part of the front flower bed would be lost and also the large tree at the Nevada Avenue entrance would be lost by having to reduce the size of the islands in order to comply with the truck maneuvering radius. Mr. Ellingson expressed concern over the issue of reducing the size of the islands and curbs at the present time, since they demonstrated that the property would accommodate a semi-truck. Mrs. Ellingson stated that they would rather wait until such time as they would sell the property to correct the island/curb issue. Vice-Chairman Sonsin stated that the records would show this. Commissioner Cassen questioned if a request for curbing has been sent to the City of Crystal. Mr. Ellingson stated their architect, Hal Pierce, did write to Crystal and has not heard from them yet. He added that this Alternate would be the most advantageous, however expressed some concern as to how soon Crystal will proceed on this issue. Due to the fact that this section of Maryland Avenue has no curb, the installation of an access point would be fairly cost effective. Commissioner Cassen questioned if there were any cars parked in the lot when the semi came through. Mrs. EIlingson stated that there were employee cars parked along Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Underdahl inquired about the security on the south side of the building. Mr. Ellingson replied that all doors are monitored by Wright- Hennepin Security and every door has a detector. There are motion detectors inside the store. Security will be installed on any new doors or windows included in the addition. One concern was to have a window that opens, however if an opening window has a sensor on it, the system cannot be set with the window open. The window has to be locked in order for the system to work. Mrs. Ellingson interjected that their system has glass breakage also. Commissioner Stulberg questioned staff if the Planning Commission is required to enforce the loading area for semi-truck maneuvering since the size of the building with the addition would exceed 5,000 square feet. Mr. McDonald responded that staff cannot recommend that the Commission eliminate the requirement because the Zoning Code requires a loading area for a building exceeding 5,000 square feet, therefore the request should be approved with one of the two alternates recommended in the staff report. This requirement could be waived by the City Council if the Council so desires. The reason that the requirement should not be waived is that this business is a permitted use in a B-2 District and in the event this building would be sold to another business that is a permitted use, they would not need to come before the Planning Commission for any approvals and the City would have a 7,000 square foot building without any loading capability. Mr. EIlingson interjected that the most logical option would be Alternate B and working with the City of Crystal and to obtain a curb cut on Maryland Avenue, however the time frame for this is uncertain. Commissioner Stulberg stated that it is not the intent of the Planning Commission to keep the project from moving forward over this item. Mr. Ellingson indicated they would comply with Alternate A in the event Alternate B does not work out with Crystal. Vice-Chairman Sonsin stated that the City Council would hear this planning case on December 11th, assuming the Planning Commission approves the request at this meeting, and the Council could waive the requirement or table the case pending some resolution with Crystal. New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - December 5, 1995 MOTION Item 3.1 Commissioner Underdahl questioned if the security system addresses the police concerns and this was confirmed. Mr. Ellingson maintained that currently cars park behind the building late at night and this will not be happening when the addition is built and should make the area safer. Commissioner Underdahl complimented the petitioners on the nice job they area doing. Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve Planning Case 95-30, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for a Building Addition, 7201 Bass Lake Road, The Wedding Chapel, Petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. Either Alternate A or Alternate B be implemented for truck access/maneuvering capability. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Underdahl, Sonsin, Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani None Landy, Gundershaug,-Damiani This Planning Case will be heard by the City Council on December 11, 1995 and Vice-Chairman Sonsin reminded the petitioners that the City Council may want a definite answer on which Alternate will be implemented. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT There was no discussion regarding the miscellaneous issues. The Planning Commission minutes were approved as written except for two corrections. City Council minutes and EDA minutes were reviewed. Vice-Chairman Sonsin noted that the next meeting is January 2, 1996. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if additional commissioners will be sought to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Chairman Gundershaug. Mr. McDonald replied that a notice will be in the next City Report that applications for planning commissioners are being accepted. The time frame to fill the vacancy will be two to three months. Vice-Chairman Sonsin added that Council will need to determine if just the one spot will be filled or if they will want to fill the number of spots Code allows, which is ten. Commissioner Oelkers questioned if Council should change the Code to allow for an odd number of commissioners, such as nine. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - December 5, 1995