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