1999 Planning CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 5, 1999
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Sonsin, Cameron, Hemken, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer,
Anderson
Landy
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING
PC98-28
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a
Variance to the Noise Ordinance, 8201 54th Avenue North, CNH
Architects, Petitioner.
Mr. Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioners were
requesting a variance to the noise ordinance for property located at 8201
54th Avenue North. This property is directly south of Begin Park. The
property owner, Northern Mutual Life Insurance, was pursuing this noise
variance, in conjunction with the variance to the fence height requirement
which was approved in October 1998, with the intent of expanding the
usability of the existing industrial building. The site was zoned I-1 Limited
Industrial and the use was consistent with the I-1 zoning. The issues
pertaining to the site include building orientation and the loading dock
location, which is across from a residential neighborhood. Upon approval
of the variances, building and site improvements would be completed.
Brixius stated that the noise ordinance variance was not part of the zoning
code, however, public comment through the public hearing process was
desired, as well as comment from the Planning Commission.
Brixius explained that a noise wall would be constructed along the full
length of the building where the loading docks were located and along the
northwestern boundary. The wall would be constructed at a nine decibel
design with the intent of reducing the noise levels during the day and
evening to allow for 24-hour operation of the facility. A noise study was
conducted and it was determined that a nine decibel wall would be
necessary for the noise reduction efforts, and a variance from the noise
ordinance would be required for nighttime use of the building. The
petitioners desire that the daytime noise levels be applied on a 24-hour
basis with the anticipation that there may be occasional, short periods of
time that the nighttime levels would be exceeded. Without the possibility
of 24-hour use of the building, the petitioner had stated that it would be
financially impractical to construct the noise wall. The building would then
be limited to daytime use, which meets the noise ordinance. Without
construction of the wall, staff believes that the noise levels would remain
a nuisance for the adjacent residential neighborhood, there would be a
lack of visual screening along the loading areas, and the operation of the
building would be restricted to daytime use, thereby reducing its
Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 5, 1999
marketability.
Brixius commented that the hardship for a variance would be somewhat
different than for zoning criteria. A determination would need to be made
regarding the impact to adjoining neighbors. The applicant conducted
three neighborhood meetings to share information on wall design and the
impact on the adjoining neighborhood. Brixius noted that the building had
been constructed in the early 1960s. The building orientation toward 54th
Avenue created a complication and attempts to redesign the building
proved to be cost prohibitive. The noise wall should mitigate a number of
issues including land use compatibility. The applicant had indicated that
they would incorporate additional mitigation efforts such as electrical
outlets to allow the semis to plug into to keep warm rather than idling the
engine, posting of "no idling" signs in the loading areas, and lease
language to be provided in leases for tenants regarding the no idling of
trucks in loading dock area. Brixius stated that staff was recommending
approval of the variance pending public comment and the conditions
outlined in the planning report.
Mr. Jim Walston, attorney for the applicant, came forward to address the
Commission. Walston stated that the applicant was in agreement with the
terms and conditions as laid out in the planning report.
Commissioner Kramer asked for a comparison of what 65 decibels
sounded like. Mr. Richard Van Doeren, acoustic consultant with Midwest
Acoustics and Electronics, Inc., replied saying that as a person was
walking on the sidewalk along a street, a typical car passing by at 30
miles per hour would be approximately 65-70 decibels. Kramer questioned
what part of the noise ordinance was being violated at night, i.e. the
length of time the engines were running, number of trucks, etc. Walston
responded that the decibel level was measured in increments of a tenth of
an hour (six minutes) or one-half hour. Without the variance, the six-
minute increment would be violated when trucks would be over the 55
decibel level at night. The number of trucks per night depended on the
nature of the distribution at the facility and the materials trucked in and
out. There are 44 docking areas.
Kramer asked for clarification on the durability of the material covering the
wall. Walston showed the Commissioners a sample of the material that
would cover the wall and stated that this material was being utilized in an
area of the country with similar weather as Minnesota and had no
problems with the product. This material would go on the southerly side
of the wall facing the building. Kramer wondered whether the noise would
go over the top of the adjacent homes due to the fact that the wall would
be 10 feet in height. Walston explained that they met with one nearby
resident who lives in a two-story home and addressed their concerns
regarding the noise levels. Walston added that three neighborhood
meetings had been held to address concerns of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Svendsen reminded the petitioner that the tenants of the
building needed to be educated and the information posted reminding the
employees and truckers to eliminate unnecessary nighttime noise. Walston
stated that the building owner would develop rules and regulations for
tenants and truckers. "No Idling" signs would be installed and electrical
outlets would be installed so trucks could plug into them to keep engines
warm rather than idling the engines. Svendsen questioned whether there
would be any regulating of the hours of operation with the tenants.
Planning Commission Meeting 2 January 5, 1999
MOTION
Item 4.1
Walston responded that specific hours could not be enforced if a tenant
desired to utilize the building 24 hours per day. He stated that it was
difficult to lease the building if hours were restricted to daytime use on~y.
Commissioner Cameron initiated discussion on monitoring the noise levels
both before and after the wall would be constructed. Walston stated that
the testing had not been completed with the Building Official yet, but
would be scheduled soon. Monitoring would take place upon completion
of the wall per the Building Official's specifications. Mr. Van Doeren
would be available to work with the Building Official on the testing of the
noise levels. Kramer added that a log should be kept up regarding the
noise of the trucks, as well as, nearby trains and air traffic passing over
the building.
Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commission that the fence height variance
had been approved in October and asked for a motion on the noise
variance request.
Walston stated that since the fence height variance had been passed, the
construction of the wall had been changed. Brixius reminded the
Commission that the variance related to the height of the fence had not
changed. However, a condition should be included with the noise variance
request to state that the wall construction would be at a nine decibel
rating.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to approve Planning Case 98-28, Request for Variance to the Noise
Ordinance, 8201 54th Avenue North, CNH Architects, Petitioner, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The City Council approves the accompanying variance, which allows
the height of the sound barrier fence to exceed the established eight
feet.
2. The proposed 9 decibel sound barrier fence shall be constructed of
brown treated wood materials with barriers on the front of the noise
barrier side, to protect the sound reduction material from truck
damage.
3. Submit technical data from manufacturer on the acoustical blanket
to confirm an exterior use in a northern climate.
4. Submit a revised "SC-I" site plan with corrected scale: 1"= 30'.
5. Submit signed plan or letter signed by a MN Engineer certifying
structural design of the wall, at the time of application for a
(soundwall) building permit, at least seven days before construction.
6. The applicant implement a loading area noise management plan,
which includes provisions of an electrical outlet to heat trucks
without idling, posting "No Idling" signs in loading area along sound
barrier fence and loading bay doors, and language in the lease that
enforces the aforementioned provisions.
7. The applicant shall submit a written schedule for 1999 driveway
closing and all components of wall construction, grading, and
landscaping to the City.
8. The applicant provide 24-hour monitoring both before and after
construction of the sound barrier fence to determine actual sound
barrier performance, per stated agreement in December 24, 1998,
Quinn Hutson letter, and daily log.
9. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 January 5, 1999
10. No outdoor storage is included.
11. Development agreement be executed with the City and performance
bond be provided for improvements and noise monitoring tests and
analysis (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building
Official).
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Sonsin, Cameron, Hemken,
Kramer, Anderson
None
Landy
Oelkers, Svendsen,
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this application at its
January 11 meeting and that the petitioner should be in attendance at the
meeting.
PC98-24
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Planned
Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Restaurant at
Midland Shopping Center, a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through
Window and Outdoor Dining, and a Variance to the Sign Code to Allow a
Pylon Sign, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited
Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners were requesting a Planned Unit
Development/Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant at Midland
Shopping Center, a CUP for a drive-through window and outdoor dining,
and a variance to the Sign Code for a pylon sign. Last October Border
Foods, franchisee for Taco Bell, submitted plans for the proposed
construction of a new building at the northeast corner of the shopping
center, which included the removal of the old vacant bank building and
constructing a new free-standing restaurant in that location. The
petitioner had requested that the request be tabled so that revised plans
could be developed due to the fact that Hennepin County had not
approved the proposed curb cut change on Winnetka Avenue. Residents
adjacent to the shopping center had voiced concerns about the plan.
The request had been tabled at the November and December Planning
Commission meetings per the petitioner's request. The petitioner had
submitted revised plans which utilize the existing building. The proposed
redevelopment of the existing building met the criteria of both the
landlord and the tenant. Staff also felt that the revised plan responded
to some of the concerns identified by residents on the previous plan.
McDonald stated that the parcel contained approximately 7.5 acres and
the building contained approximately 69,000 square feet. The shopping
center is located in a B-4 Community Business Zoning District and was
surrounded by an R-O office across Winnetka Avenue to the east, the
muffler shop, Medicine Lake Road and Golden Valley to the south, R-O
nursing home and R~3 apartments to the west, and an R-O/PUD dentist
office and R-2 duplexes to the north. The property was located in
Planning District #18 of the new Comprehensive Plan which sites
concerns about the viability of Midland Shopping Center due to the
vacancy rates. The basic principal of the plan was to encourage private
investment, maintenance, and upgrading of all commercial properties.
McDonald reported that a redesign of the northern parking lot to utilize
the existing drive-through land eliminates any change to the curb cut on
Winnetka. Trucking would continue around the north side of the
Planning Commission Meeting 4 January 5, 1999
building. The topography of the site is flat, except the northwest corner
of the lot which has a steep bank rising to the existing residential land
to the north. With the new plan, some green areas would be increased
along the north lot line and adjacent to the front (south) of the proposed
restaurant. Property owners within 350 feet of the request were
renotified about the revised plans. A neighborhood meeting was held on
January 4 where several neighbors expressed concerns about the plans.
Staff received several calls from businesses in the area that supported'
the plan.
McDonald explained that the site was zoned B-4 and a CUP/PUD was
required to alter the site plan of the shopping center. The restaurant
was a permitted use in the B-4 District, however, the outdoor dining and
drive-through window would require a conditional use permit. The
purpose of a CUP is to provide a reasonable and legally permissible
degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses
upon the general welfare, public health and safety. In determining
whether or not a certain use would be allowed, the City needed to
consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether a similar use
was already in existence, and the effect upon traffic. Other general
criteria to be considered with the proposed plan would be: consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with adjacent land uses,
conformance with performance standards, and no depreciation in the
adjacent area. Special business district criteria include: no traffic
hazards or congestion, no adverse affect because of noise, glare or
other nuisances, no adverse affect on existing businesses.
McDonald explained that the zoning code allows drive-through service
windows for convenience food establishments by CUP with the
satisfaction of certain criteria including: not less than 180 feet for a
stacking lane; stacking lane and its access must be designed to control
traffic; no part of the public street may be used for stacking; stacking
lane, order board and window placement be designed to minimize effect
on adjacent neighborhood; and hours of operation limited as necessary
to eliminate nuisance factors like traffic, noise and glare. McDonald
added that the petitioner was requesting 10:00 a.m. to midnight,
Sunday - Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
McDonald stated that the Zoning Code allowed outdoor dining with a
CUP. The Design & Review Committee suggested that some green area
be provided in front of the restaurant as well as parking up to the curb
adjacent to the restaurant. Plans for outdoor dining were insufficient and
revised plans that address all conditions in the code would need to be
submitted and approved before any outdoor dining use could be utilized.
McDonald reported that revised plans were submitted after meeting with
the Design & Review Committee. The restaurant parking could be
shared with the shopping center. The center currently contains 474
parking stalls and the revised plans show a total of 455 stalls, which
would meet the required number of 454 stalls. Two ADA stalls would be
provided. The proposed vehicular circulation would provide the best
flow possible. The drive aisles were compliant with 24-30 feet of width
along with the painted directional arrows. The site plan showed 180
feet of stacking lane for the service window. The service window menu
boards are oriented away from adjoining residential properties. Curbing
surrounds the parking and drive area. A loading zone was shown to be
on the north side of the building and would be marked with white
Planning Commission Meeting 5 January 5, 1999
diagonal striping. The refuse enclosure was proposed for the west side
of the shopping center at the rear of the building approximately 100 feet
from the rear door. McDonald stated that was not a practical location
for a restaurant and staff would like to see it relocated. The building
material would be new EIFS exterior with new awnings. A six-foot board
on board fence was proposed along the north property line, with
additional landscaping around the fence. No exterior wall lights were
shown on the plan, therefore, a lighting plan should be submitted. Two
poles with mounted lights are proposed on the north property line to
match exterior flood lights around the shopping center. Extensive
landscaping, including eight trees and 126 shrubs, was proposed along
the north property line and along the drive-through lane. The petitioner
had proposed to plant several trees on the adjacent dentist office
property, and staff recommended that the applicant have a ,signed
agreement with the adjacent property owner granting permission to
plant the trees and specify who would be responsible for the
maintenance of the plantings. Staff suggested that if an agreement
could not be reached, the applicant should submit plans showing
additional landscaping totally located on the shopping center property.
Sod would be provided on the south side of the restaurant. McDonald
stated that the Fire Department was requesting that fire sprinklers be
installed within 12 months because the Fire Lane would be removed.
The applicant proposed a ground sign 30 feet in height and 93 square
feet in size be placed on the northeast corner of the property. The
original plan consisted of a free-standing building and a separate pylon
sign would be allowed under the Sign Code. The revised plan showed
the restaurant as part of the shopping center building, therefore, an
individual tenant sign is not allowed under the Sign Code. A variance
would be required for separate signage. The applicant was also
proposing two wall signs, which were compliant with the code.
McDonald stated that the City Engineer recommended that a grading
and drainage plan be submitted, sanitary sewer and water services
should be reviewed by Public Works, revisions to curb details, project
site limits should be modified, and the construction area protected. The
delivery of food supplies would be made by Ameriserve approximately
three times per week. The CO2 for the drink system would be delivered
every two weeks. All deliveries would be. made between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. McDonald stated that the petitioner indicated
they would utilize a visual order confirmation board which would allow
the customer to visually check their order thus reducing the need for
extended communication on the outside speaker. The food preparation
system would require minimal on-site cooking, thereby eliminating any
cooking odors. The restaurant would follow the recommended security
procedures of Taco Bell Corporation, including a video camera security
system. A snow storage plan would need to be submitted. McDonald
stated that the petitioners had indicated they would respond to any
concerns of the City and local residents.
Mr. Doug Sinclair, president of Tenant Services, Inc. a consulting firm
that works with developers of fast food restaurants throughout the
United States came forward. He stated that they were working with
Border Foods, Inc., the franchise operator for Taco Bell restaurants in
Minnesota. He stated that also in attendance was Ms. Barbara
Schneider, Director of Development for Border Foods, Ms. Meleah
Acosta, of AIliant Engineering who prepared the design work on the
site, Mr. Hans Okerstrom, of Kraus-Anderson Realty, and Ms. Carol
Planning Commission Meeting 6 January 5, 1999
Williams, head of operations for Taco Bell in the Twin Cities area.
Sinclair commented that, with the revised plans, they tried to
accomplish moving most of the business activity away from the
residential areas to the south side of the building. He stated they
intentionally extended the drive-through to the south so that it would
divert traffic away from the neighborhood. At the neighborhood
meeting, one major concern of the neighbors the possibility of
congestion that could occur at the entrance to the restaurant and cars
exiting from the drive-through. He felt that initially congestion would be
a possibility until repeat customers came to know the traffic pattern on
the site or would utilize the second shopping center entrance.
Sinclair stated they were proposing a considerable amount of shrubbery
and trees on the north property line. Some of these plantings were
proposed to be on the adjacent resident's property, if an agreement
could be reached with the property owner. If not, an alternative
landscaping plan would be submitted. Three parking spaces by the
northern drive aisle would be eliminated to enhance the drive area,
especially for deliveries. This area could potentially be utilized for
landscaping in the event an agreement would not be reached with the
adjacent neighbor. Sinclair explained that they had looked at alternative
sites for the trash enclosure, but did not desire to infringe on the drive
aisle or any other tenant's trash areas. The l O0-foot distance was a
concern with getting the trash to the receptacles easily, neatly, and
safely. One alternative would be to put a trash enclosure in the bermed
area across from the back door of the restaurant. However, this area
would be adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Sinclair stated that
an alternative being looked at by the shopping center was to consolidate
several tenants trash receptacles into one area on the north side of the
building, thereby reducing a receptacle by each tenant's back door and
reducing the number of stops with the garbage truck.
Sinclair maintained that the restaurant would not stay open until 2:00
a.m. if there weren't customers looking for their products and services.
He stated that the company's history of late hours throughout the Twin
Cities area had not created an increase of police calls or nuisances as a
result of the late hours. Sinclair responded to an earlier comment
regarding area businesses inquiring of the City whether there were any
restaurants that could accommodate second and third shift employees,
and Taco Bell would be able to handle that demand. The dining room
would close between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. for security purposes. The
drive-through would be a secure environment: well lit and the order-
taker would be sitting on the street side of the building in order to be
seen by passing traffic. Sinclair reiterated that if business did not
demand late hours, they would not stay open past hours justified by the
local trade.
Sinclair questioned whether the annuaJ review, which would be a
condition attached to the conditional use permit, could instead be an
18~month review in an effort to get the business established and after a
period of time, eliminate that condition altogether if everything would be
in accordance with the CUP. He also asked that if there would be a
review process, that it be as specific as possible, such as legitimate
police calls related to the restaurant and not just calls to the area. If
there would be policing or nuisance problems, a more frequent review
could be established.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 January 5, 1999
Commissioner Svendsen asked for clarification on the hours of operation
and the hours were confirmed to be Sunday through Thursday 10:00
a.m. - midnight, and Friday and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m.
Svendsen questioned whether or not the petitioners had come to an
agreement with the dentist's office on the landscaping issue and it was
noted that there was no agreement. He pointed out that the landscaping
plan had shown the size of the white pines incorrectly and asked that
this be corrected.
Svendsen asked that the petitioner explain the food preparation system.
Ms. Barbara Schneider, Director of Development for Border Foods, came
forward to answer. Schneider explained that their food products come
to each site already cooked. The items arrive in a sealed bag and are
reheated at each restaurant. There would be no actual cooking taking
place on the site, which was when food odors originate. Taco Bell
reheats the food to a temperature to prevent a food-borne i~lness and
assembles menu items at the restaurant. An exhaust system would also
be used during the reheating process to insure that very little odor emits
from the restaurant.
Svendsen asked that the petitioners explain the order board system to
be utilized for order taking. Schneider explained that when the order
taker inside enters the order, it also key-strokes onto an outside board
so the customer can visually see the order.
Svendsen asked the petitioners to modify the radius at the northeast
corner of the property by the entrance off of Winnetka Avenue.
Schneider pointed out that whatever radius the City recommended could
be incorporated into the plan. Svendsen asked for clarification on the
location of the requested pylon sign. Schneider stated that it would be
in the northeast corner of the property. Svendsen stated he had a
concern regarding the trash enclosure. Mr. Hans Okerstrom, of Kraus-
Anderson, came forward to explain the existing trash enclosure site.
There was some discussion regarding the addition of the old bank
building to the shopping center and whether that addition could be
construed as a satellite to the shopping center. Mr. Brixius, Planning
Consultant, stated that the area was attached to the shopping center
and could not be viewed as a satellite.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned the amount of green space gained
with the elimination of the three parking stalls and whether that would
be enough area for buffering in the event the petitioners could not come
to terms with the adjacent property owner. Brixius explained that the
width of the stalls plus the five-foot setback would provide enough area
for the landscaping, Discussion ensued regarding making the north drive
lane all truck traffic and the possibility of modifying the radius near the
entrance from Winnetka. These modifications would enable the
petitioners to accomplish all plantings on the shopping center property
so there would be no need for plantings on the property of the adjacent
land owner. Sinclair responded by saying that they wanted to be a good
neighbor and address the issues of the adjacent neighbor.
Oelkers questioned the purpose of the fence on the north property line.
Sinclair stated that the fence was designed to be an additional buffer for
light and noise from cars traveling through the drive-through.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 January 5, 1999
Commissioner Kramer wondered whether a noise survey had been
completed due to the fact that a number of cars would be idling in the
stacking lane and whether the noise level would be above nighttime
levels allowed by the noise ordinance. Sinclair agreed that might be a
condition to include with the CUP. He stated the petitioners were doing
all they could to mitigate noise before it would reach the property line
and adjacent properties. Kramer questioned what the volume of traffic
might be at night. Sinclair replied that there may be times one or two
cars would be in line or a rush of four or five cars. There would probably
not be an ongoing steady line of traffic during the late night hours.
Kramer reiterated to staff that during the review process he would
suggest that noise levels also be checked. Kramer asked whether there
was a corporate policy on closing times or if it was site specific. Sinclair
stated that it was site specific. He reiterated that Taco Bell would not
remain open if there was no business demand for the later hours. It was
pointed out that the Bass Lake Road Taco Bell, which is dine-in only,
was open until 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturdays during the summer
and 1:00 a,m. during the winter. Responding to a security concern
question, Sinclair stated that the Bass Lake Road site had provided off-
duty police officers for security purposes, however, due to the fact that
there had been no problems, the service had been discontinued. The
service would be reinstated if it would prove necessary.
Commissioner Cameron asked who would clean up a multiple-user trash
area if it became messy and Sinclair responded that it would be the
responsibility of the property manager. Cameron asked why the adjacent
property owner would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of
plantings put on their property by Taco Bell. Sinclair responded that they
would not have any legal rights to enter the property for maintenance of
the plantings.
Commissioner Hemken wondered what would happen to the business if
they would be required to close at 11:00 p.m. as opposed to 2:00 a.m.
Sinclair stated he could not put a dollar volume on those specific hours,
which is why they were asking for additional hours in the beginning to
see whether the later closing time was warranted. Hemken asked
whether, as part of the review process, Taco Bell would be agreeable to
a review based on the number of calls rather than a specific time frame.
Sinclair responded that it would depend on the number of related calls
to Taco Bell and not calls to the shopping center in general or along
Winnetka Avenue. Hemken questioned whether the pylon sign would be
less obtrusive for the neighbors if the sign would be moved to the south
side of the entrance or utilize part of the existing shopping center sign.
Sinclair pointed out that the existing shopping center sign was fully
utilized and there was no more available space on that sign. Discussion
ensued regarding the location of a second pylon sign. Okerstrom pointed
out that Taco Bell should have its own identification sign rather than be
a part of the existing sign,
Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, pointed out that the CUP review process
was not subject to negotiation. The City could review the CUP and
whether the conditions were being violated on a daily basis if it was
deemed necessary. The Zoning Code established a performance
standard in language dealing with traffic, noise and glare. If the use
violated any of the standards, the City could enforce it as often as
necessary. City staff reviews the CUP annually through an
Planning Commission Meeting 9 January 5, 1999
administrative procedure. If there would be a problem, the property
owner would be required to eliminate the problem or the City could take
action to enforce the code or potentially revoke the CUP. Generally, an
annual review process is utilized.
Chairman Sonsin asked for comments from the audience. He asked that
members first discuss items other than hours of operation.
An issue brought forward by Mark Ellison, 8000 28th Avenue North, was
signage and the necessity for a separate pylon sign. Schneider was
agreeable to a lower monument type sign. It was noted that the sign
would be illuminated and the lights would go out when the restaurant
closed.
Issues of concern for Matt Edwards, 2775 Winnetka Avenue, of the
dentist's office, included: signage, lights, trash, snow storage, fence,
exterior lighting, noise and odors from outside dining, loitering, security,
and the generation of additional traffic on 28th Avenue. Edwards stated
he felt there were too many unresolved issues to approve the request.
Lori Wallace, 7924 28th Avenue, indicated she felt that the home she
recently purchased would depreciate in value with the addition of the
Taco Bell, noise would be especially noticeable in summer when
resident's windows were open, safety concerns with the additional
traffic on 28th Avenue between Boone and Winnetka Avenues, signage,
and congestion on Winnetka by the entrance to Taco Bell. She pointed
out she also felt there were too many outstanding issues to approve the
request.
Chairman Sonsin asked for input from the audience regarding hours of
operation.
Members of the audience addressing the Commission against the
proposed 2:00 a.m. closing time were Mark Ellison and Matt Edwards.
Sonsin stated it was his opinion that 2:00 a.m. was too late for this
community. He pointed out that the nearby McDonalds would be closing
at 10:30 p.m., presumably because there was not enough traffic to
maintain even an 11:00 p.m. closing time. He stated he was concerned
with the proposed pylon sign. Another concern of his was the trash
enclosure and the long distance from the back door of the restaurant.
Sonsin stated that the Commission could table the issue until more of
the issues were resolved or could approve with several conditions
attached to the request. Sonsin also stated that with respect to the
neighbors, they had to realize that they were living next to a shopping
center and not strictly a residential neighborhood. The Commission's job
was to interpret the zoning code to ensure a viable business be allowed
to open and to have that business succeed.
Oelkers stated that he was in favor of the Taco Bell at this site,
however, was concerned with the signage, screening issues should be
addressed more clearly, the wood fence, and the trash issue. He
wondered whether there would be enough space for indoor storage at
the restaurant site. Okerstrom responded that there may be room for
indoor storage.
Svendsen stated he was not comfortable with all of the issues related to
Planning Commission Meeting 10 January 5, 1999
the request. He wondered whether issues could be split up for voting
purposes. The outdoor dining issue discussed at Design & Review
should be a separate issue as well as the signage.
Cameron wondered why there had only been one neighborhood meeting
held the night before the Planning Commission meeting. He felt there
should have been more communication between the petitioners and
residents.
Sonsin suggested that the issue be tabled for another month, the
petitioners meet again with the Design & Review Committee, and hold
another neighborhood meeting to resolve some of the issues.
Sinclair stated that Taco Bell has some contractual relationships with
Kraus-Anderson that included performance deadlines. They were nearing
the end of the deadline, and if the request was tabled for another
month, the deadline could be jeopardized. Sinclair agreed that the trash
enclosure could be incorporated into the floor plan of the restaurant and
a new plan would be submitted before the Council meeting. Sinclair
stated they were amenable to a sign four feet off the ground and no
higher than 14-15 feet and relocating the sign south of the entrance.
The petitioners agreed to abide by the decision of the City Council
regarding hours of operation. Sinclair added that none of the comments
really related to specific design concepts other than the congestion at
the entrance. He asked that the Commission vote on the request at this
meeting.
Sonsin stated that the signage issue could be voted on separately,
however, he felt the petitioner might not want to proceed not knowing
whether the signage could be worked out later. He reminded the
petitioner that the outdoor dining was not a part of the current request.
Sonsin maintained he was quite concerned about some of the major
issues still outstanding so he would not be comfortable voting for it or
approving the request with so many conditions. Sonsin stated he felt it
was the job of the Planning Commission to move a project forward to
the City Council with as few conditions as possible.
Svendsen asked about the 120-day limit. Brixius pointed out that this
was considered a new application and the revised deadline was April
10, 1999.
Kramer stated he felt that he would be ready to vote on the request as
presented.
Svendsen agreed he would be ready to vote on the request with
conditions and revised plans would need to be submitted before it was
presented to the Council. He stated he felt that it would ultimately be
the Council's decision on the hours of operation.
Hemken wondered whether Taco Bell could have revised plans ready
before the Council meeting, including signage, trash enclosure, floor
plan, and landscaping plan. McDonald interjected that revised plans
would need to be submitted by Thursday afternoon. The petitioners
indicated that they would be able to submit revised plans prior to the
meeting.
Brixius stated that due to the fact that the sign variance request was
Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 5, 1999
MOTION
Item 4.2
published, action should be taken on that issue. Conditions could be
added to the variance regarding the size, height, location, etc.
otherwise, the petitioner would be restricted to the free-standing sign
requested.
Brixius suggested changes to the conditions as prepared by city staff
include rewording #3 that submission of a revised landscaping plan to
show screening entirely on the shopping center property to adequately
address screening of the drive-through facility; #6 submit revised plans
with new trash enclosure located inside the restaurant; eliminate #7
regarding the outdoor dining; #9 should include specific hours of
operation and subject to annual review; and #10 spell out signage
requirements and location.
Sondrall pointed out the City should not include work on an adjacent
property as a condition of approval for any type of request.
Mr. Sinclair approached the podium to address several of the
outstanding issues. The petitioners agreed to the sign location in the
green space off of Winnetka Avenue across from the entrance to the
drive-through area. The snow storage areas would be basically the same
as the current snow storage plan for the shopping center. The interior
trash enclosure was agreeable to the petitioners.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers,
to approve Planning Case 98-24, Request for Planned Unit
Development/Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Restaurant at Midland
Shopping Center, a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Window,
and a Variance to the Sign Code for a Monument Sign, 2703-2769
Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson
Realty/Taco Bell, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. An exterior lighting plan must be submitted.
2. The landscape plan should be revised to state that the white pine
trees will range from 12-14 feet in height.
3. Submission of a revised landscape plan to show screening entirely
on the shopping center property to adequately address screening of
the drive-through facility.
4. Submit letter stating that fire sprinklers for the north wing of the
shopping center will be installed within 12 months of building
permit because the Fire Lane will be removed.
5. A snow storage plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping
Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed
and/or stored.
6. Submit revised plans with new trash enclosure located inside
restaurant.
7. Submit grading/drainage plan and address all recommendations of
City Engineer, including curb details, storm sewer extension, and
parking spaces.
8. Hours of operation for the drive-through window to be Sunday
through Thursday, 10:00 a.m. - midnight, and Friday and Saturday,
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m.
9. A Taco Bell ground sign to be of a monument construction limited
to 12-14 feet in height and located in the green space off of
Winnetka Avenue across from the entrance to the drive-through
area.
Planning Commission Meeting 12 January 5, 1999
10. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement outlining
the standard and time frame of development and providing an
appropriate financial security (amount to be determined by City
Engineer and Building Official).
11. Annual review by city staff.
12. Outdoor dining to be a separate application at a later date.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Hemken, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer, Anderson
Sonsin, Cameron
Landy
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this application at its
January 11 meeting and that the petitioner should be in attendance at the
meeting.
PC98-16
Item 4.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Consideration of An
Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by
Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope,
Petitioner.
Mr. Brixius reported that this code amendment was initiated when the
City purchased a property on Wisconsin Avenue for redevelopment
purposes. At that time the City viewed the site as a potential
redevelopment site for a twinhome, but discovered that the R-2 zoning
standards resulted in the lot area being too small. City staff reviewed
performance standards and made a determination as to appropriateness of
the lot area requirements within the code. Currently, the code requires
7,000 square feet per unit for a twinhome or a base lot of 14,000 square
feet. The ordinance stipulates that the minimum lot width be 75 feet.
These standards are prohibitive as far as a scattered site redevelopment
tool, however, city staff desired to be sensitive to the character of the
single family neighborhoods. Provisions studied were in Section 4.035 (1),
(2) and (8). Owner occupancy of twinhome units is encouraged.
Brixius stated that a comparison of standards from other communities had
been made. The comparison showed that New Hope's code required more
square footage than most surrounding communities. As a redevelopment
tool, the City should consider some flexibility and modification to the lot
area. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue at several
meetings. Discussion took place regarding lot width to better facilitate a
more compatible relationship between twinhomes and single family homes
in the same area. It was recommended that 6,000 square feet be provided
for with modifications to change the lot width to 90 feet. The City
Attorney revised the code to read that the R-2 lot width for twinhomes be
90 feet and the R-3 zone would also be 90 feet. The recommendation for
lot area would be to reduce the area to 6,000 per unit.
Brixius noted that in the older areas of the community where
redevelopment often occurs, the minimum lot width averages 90-95 feet
and have a lot area that would not satisfy the 14,000 square foot
requirement, but would fall within the 12,000 square foot proposed
change. Therefore, the proposed amendment would allow more flexibility
and expand the twinhome as a scattered site redevelopment tool. The R-2
Zoning District is currently limited in its use. For most scattered site
redevelopment projects, rezoning to R-2 would be required, neighbors
Planning Commission Meeting 13 January 5, 1999
notified, and a public hearing held. That zoning protection, as well as the
increased lot width, would provide for more alternative housing, a greater
integration of these units within a single family setting, and protection for
the neighborhoods.
Oelkers confirmed that a twinhome was a side-by-side unit. An over/under
unit would be considered a duplex or two-family unit. Either of these units
would be allowed in an R-2 and R-3 District. The twinhome would be
accomplished with a zero lot line arrangement, possibly with separate
owners. Oelkers wanted to know what would happen to existing lots that
do not conform to the new regulations. Brixius answered that the existing
lots would be grandfathered in as legal non-conforming lots. There was
some discussion regarding lot width and whether 75, 80 or 90 feet was
appropriate. Brixius stated that staff had taken into consideration the
appearance of the unit from the street and how much it filled up the lot. It
was the opinion of some that the appearance of twinhomes on a 75 or
80-foot minimum ~ot width was too tight. The 90-foot width opens up the
site. Oelkers interjected that the newer construction of twinhomes was
generally 24-26 feet wide, and with the reduction of the setbacks, this
seemed like a lot of open space on each side of the property. Brixius
commented that as a scattered site redevelopment tool, the twinhomes
are being constructed in single family neighborhoods and that was the
reason for the 90-foot frontage. Oelkers maintained that the 90-foot
frontage may be overly restrictive for some of the lots in the City.
Sondrall added that there may be a problem with legal non-conforming
lots in the event that the existing building would need to be replaced.
Discussion ensued regarding the lot width. Brixius stated that this
amendment was intended to convert a single family unit into a twinhome,
which would double the density on what was previously a single family
lot. Kramer added that a developer could construct the largest twinhome
possible on the lot and still not max out the site. He felt that some
structure to land area requirements should be established. Another
concern was how the front garage side of the twinhome would look. A
wider lot would allow greater flexibility in how the garages are placed on
the property, how the entrances are treated, and allow more green space
in front of the unit.
MOTION
Item 4.3
Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Cameron,
to approve Planning Case 98-16, Consideration of An Ordinance
Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot
Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Sonsin, Cameron,
Anderson
Voting against: Oelkers
Absent: Landy
Motion carried.
Hemken, Svendsen, Kramer,
PC97-26
Item 4.4
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Consideration of An
Ordinance Amending Chapter Six of the New Hope City Code by
Establishing Regulations for Courtesy Benches on Public Rights-of-Way,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that a private vendor came to the City in March of
1997 to inquire about installing new benches in the City. The City
currently has no established regulations for courtesy benches in the City.
Planning Commission Meeting 14 January 5, 1999
Many cities have ordinances to regulate the placement and maintenance
of courtesy benches in public rights-of-way. The proposed ordinance
would allow for the establishment of privately owned courtesy benches at
public transit stops within New Hope through a permit process. Public
Works and the Community Development Department have been working
together with consultants to draft an ordinance.
McDonald reported that the two companies that deal with benches are
National Courtesy Bench, the company that had applied, and U.S. Bench
Corporation, currently has benches in New Hope. Both companies
reviewed the draft ordinance, provided comments, and staff met with
representatives of both companies to discuss their comments. The major
issue of contention was the proposed initial/annual fee to be charged.
There may be some other minor issues that the representatives desire to
discuss with the Commission. Sonsin added that the fee would be a
Council policy decision.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that he felt the ordinance was good, but
also felt the fee was excessive.
Bill Keegan, of National Courtesy Bench, came forward to address the
Commission and stated that one of his concerns was the fee, which he
understood would be addressed at the Council meeting. The other
concern was the requirement to install an extended 36-inch pad for ADA
access under each bench. He felt that the extended pads were not
necessary by each bench initially. He recommended that the bus company
be contacted to see if they recommended any specific sites for the
extended pads or knew of specific resident requests. Keegan stated there
would be added costs for the company to install the extended pads and
maintain them. There would also be a larger visual impact with the larger
concrete pad if they would not be utilized. Keegan stated that National
Courtesy Bench currently does not have any benches in New Hope, but
has applied for them. They would do all the maintenance, shovel the
snow, remove graffiti, pick up litter, and mow grass in summer. They
mow weekly in summer and shovel as necessary.
Commissioner Kramer stated that he felt 9100 was quite inexpensive for
advertising. He stated that just because there is no need today at a
specific site for ADA access, an individual's health can change and it
would be a good idea to provide the extended pad for that reason. Keegan
replied that they were not opposed to installing the pads if the City would
require them. Sonsin interjected that this ordinance would apply to all
bench companies, now and in the future. Some companies that apply in
the future for benches may not be as amenable as his company.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether Hennepin County's "clear
zone" was three feet or five feet. Hennepin County does not allow
anything to be placed in this zone. Keegan responded that the setback in
all the other ordinances was three feet, but he would check with the
County.
Commissioner Anderson asked what the City would do with offensive
advertising material. Mr. Sondrall responded that offensive advertising
was such a vague concept that it would not be enforceable. The code
deals with the type of advertising that would not be permitted, such as
obscene or indecent.
Planning Commission Meeting 15 January 5, 1999
MOTION
Item 4.4
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 5.1
Codes & Standards
Item 5.2
Comprehensive Plan
Update
Item 5.3
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ELECTION OF
OFFICERS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Scott Danielson, of U.S. Bench Corporation, came to the podium and
stated that they have had courtesy benches in New Hope since 1968. He
stated that he felt the ordinance addressed all necessary issues. The two
concerns of U.S. Bench were the fees and the concrete pads. He stated
that they would install pads, if requested. Danielson stressed that they
would not allow controversial advertising material.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to approve Planning Case 97-26, Consideration of An Ordinance
Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Regulations for
Courtesy Benches on Public Rights-of-Way, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Sonsin, Cameron,
Kramer, Anderson
Voting against: None
Absent: Landy
Motion carried.
Hemken, Oelkers,
Svendsen,
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee
met with the applicants on the noise variance and reviewed the revised
Taco Bell plans. McDonald added that the application deadline for the
February meeting was at the end of this week and that at this time no
new applications were anticipated for February.
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in December to
finalize the R-2 lot size ordinance and the courtesy bench ordinance. The
January meeting was canceled.
McDonald reported that a letter had been received from the Metropolitan
Council requesting that additional data be submitted for New Hope's
Comprehensive Plan. Brixius added that the Met Council was asking for
additional information on land use calculations and transportation figures.
He stated he would respond to the issues.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 1,
1998. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. It was noted that the Council
request regarding re-appointment of Commissioners showed the term of
office for Planning Commissioners was four years. It was noted that a
correction would be made to state a three-year term of office for the two
re-appointed Commissioners.
Chairman Sonsin opened the floor for nominations for Planning
Commission officers for the coming year. Commissioner Hemken
nominated Sonsin for Chairman, Landy for Vice Chairman, and Svendsen
for Third Officer, seconded by Kramer, and the motion was unanimously
approved by acclamation.
There were no other announcements.
Planning Commission Meeting 16 January 5, 1999
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:28
p.m.
.~R~s_p_ ectfully submitted,
amela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 17 January 5, 1999
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 1, 1999
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Cameron, Green, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin,
Svendsen
Hemken, Kramer
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Phil Kern, Administrative Assistant, Pamela Sylvester,
Recording Secretary
OATH OF OFFICE
Mr. McDonald administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed
Commissioner Green and welcomed her to the Planning Commission.
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-01
Item 5.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a
Variance to the Requirement Pertaining to Maximum Size and Number of
Wall Signs and to Allow a Larger Size and Number of Wall Signs Than
Permitted by the Sign Code, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, Kmart/All Brite
Sign, Inc./Master LP Associates Limited Partnership, Petitioners
Mr. Brixius stated that the petitioner was requesting an enlargement of
the Kmart sign from the current large K to adding the word BIG with a
swoop underneath the BIG. The increase in the front sign size would
expand the existing logo from 126 square feet to a 300 square foot sign.
Additional signage on the site included a Pharmacy sign, Garden Shop
sign, and Penske Auto Service sign, which were previously approved by
variance. The number of signs and the size requirements exceed what is
allowed in the Sign Code. The request was to retain all existing signs and
add the swoop and BIG to the front side of the building along Xylon
Avenue. The area is zoned B-4. The total allowable wall sign area for a
multiple occupancy structure, per the Sign Code, should not exceed 15
percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls abutting streets. Individual
tenant signs should not exceed 100 square feet. Past approvals of
variances have validated the existing sign locations and sizes.
Brixius reported that after reviewing the proposed variance, consultants
and staff found the request must prove that conditions involved were
unique to the site, that the variance would not increase the value or
income potential of the business, that the cause for hardship was not
caused or created by the business in the property, that the variance would
not be detrimental to the welfare to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood, that there would be no impairment to light and air to
adjacent property, and that there would be no impairment or interference
with the function of the police and fire departments in the City. Brixius
maintained that there were not unique conditions that justified an increase
in signage. Conditions had not changed with regard to building
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1999
orientation, lot size, topography, vegetation, or traffic patterns. The
purpose of the variance was an upgrade and change of image for Kmart
and was merely a marketing strategy from the corporate office. No
argument had been presented demonstrating hardship by the applicant as
far as overall need for the variance. Approving the variance outside of a
major renovation may be detrimental on the basis of ongoing conditions.
Approval of this sign variance without demonstrated hardship would raise
issue as far as precedent in the application of the Sign Code. No
conditions or hardship were related police or fire functions.
Brixius stated that a letter had been submitted from EBL&S Property
Management indicating that additional improvements were anticipated to
be undertaken in the amount of 8100,000 for parking lot improvements
and fascia. However, the City had not received any specific plans or
development applications related to those improvements. Brixius
maintained that city staff did not find a hardship that warranted an
expansion of the sign. Two options are available for the Planning
Commission to consider. First, denial on the basis that hardship is not
present; second, table for one month to give the petitioner opportunity to
provide additional information regarding hardship and providing additional
information relating to the proposed exterior improvements.
Dennis Reinhardt, New Hope store manager, came forward to answer
questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Svendsen asked Reinhardt which of the two options
presented was agreeable to Kmart. Reinhardt stated that he was a
representative of the store, but could not make any decisions for the
corporation. Reinhardt stated that it was his opinion that tabling the
planning case would be the best option so that the corporation could
present the additional information the City desired. The only official word
regarding improvements Reinhardt was aware of was what was outlined
in the correspondence from EBL&S Property Management.
Svendsen reiterated information from the Design & Review Committee
meeting by saying that the initial change would be to remove the striping
on the mansard and add the word BIG and a swoop. Reinhardt interjected
that the entire mansard would be repainted. The pylon sign at the
entrance off of 42"d Avenue would be upgraded to show the new logo.
Svendsen confirmed that improvements to the inside of the store included
the expansion of pantry/grocery merchandise, realigning the rest of the
store, and upgrading the fixtures/painting/signage for a brighter, cleaner
look. Reinhardt added that the interior construction was nearly complete.
Kmart had a lO-year lease for the entire building and would sublet the
vacant Old America space.
Svendsen proposed a question to the City Attorney whether the exterior
upgrade could be attached as a condition of the variance. Sondrall replied
that there should be an establishment of a nexus between the variance
and the requested improvements. For example, plans should show that
the exterior improvements would soften the aesthetics of the signage to
allow the whole thing to blend together as an overall plan rather than just
a signage plan.
Svendsen asked for clarification that the existing pharmacy, garden shop,
and Penske Auto signs would remain, and this was confirmed. Svendsen
added that another sign would need to be installed when the vacant Old
Planning Commission Meeting 2 June 1, 1999
America space was sublet.
Commissioner Cameron asked what tabling action for one month would
do to Kmart's schedule. Reinhardt stated that the grand re-opening was
scheduled for June 11 so unless the request was approved by the
Planning Commission at this meeting the word BIG and swoop would not
be installed before the grand re-opening. It was noted that the City
Council meeting would not be held until June 14. Cameron questioned
what improvements would be made with the $100,000 quoted in the
correspondence from EBL&S Property Managers. Reinhardt replied that he
did not know what improvements would be made, other than what was
stated in the correspondence, nor did he have any time frame for the
improvements.
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that promises had been made in past years
for improvements to the property and no significant improvements had
ever been made. Sonsin stated he supported tabling the request until a
firm plan was submitted to the City for exterior improvements. He
emphasized that a corporate representative should be at the next meeting
who has the authority to answer questions from the Commission. Sonsin
maintained that the City would be looking for not only resurfacing and
restriping the parking lot, but some other redevelopment of an under-
utilized site.
The City Attorney reminded the Commission that Kmart needed to
address the issues mentioned in the Planner's report concerning the
conditions and objectives for a variance. The site improvements alone
were not a condition of the variance. The Planning Commission and City
Council could deny the request if the conditions for a variance were not
met, which would be justified by findings.
Svendsen pointed out that a third option would be to do nothing and let
the existing variances stand. Brixius responded that Kmart would then
need to comply with the existing variances as previously approved. The
new sign would need to be downsized to stay within the previous
variance, Another option may be to amend Kmart's comprehensive sign
plan by eliminating the pharmacy or garden shop sign and incorporating
that square footage into the BIG and swoop portion of the sign. Brixius
emphasized that if this application would-be tabled that additional
correspondence should include indication that Kmart would stay within
the approved variance for the vacant Old America space. It would be
difficult to approach the Commission at a later date with the need for
additional signage when that space was sublet. Included in future
correspondence should be Kmart's opinion as to what justifies the
hardship, why a larger sign was warranted, and a basis for granting
approval of the request,
Commissioner Anderson wondered whether there would be any other
options for the sign. Reinhardt responded that corporate would need to
explore that option, but no other plan had been presented at this time.
Sonsin pointed out that the current variances are for square footage and
not content related. The BIG and swoop could be installed utilizing the
existing variance, therefore, no other variance would be required.
MOTION
Item 5.1
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
table for two months until August 3, 1999, Planning Case 99-01, Request
for a Variance to the Requirement Pertaining to Maximum Size and
Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 1, 1999
PC98-16
Item 5.2
MOTION
Item 5.2
PC99-04
Item 5.3
Number of Wall Signs and to Allow a Larger Size and Number of Wall
Signs Than Permitted by the Sign Code, 4300 Xylon Avenue North,
Kmart/All Brite Sign, Inc./Master LP Associates Limited Partnership,
Petitioners.
Discussion ensued regarding the 120-day time limitation. Sondrall
requested that a letter from Kmart's corporate department should be
submitted waiving the 120-day limitation.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Cameron,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Hemken, Kramer
Green, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin pointed out that revised plans would need to be submitted to the
City and the applicant must meet with the Design & Review Committee
prior to the July or August Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Consideration of An
Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the
Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope,
Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that staff was recommending that this ordinance
be referred to the new Zoning Code Update Committee, Sonsin added
that the City Council reviewed the ordinance amendment and felt there
were too many non-conforming lots in the City and referred the issue
back to the Codes & Standards Committee, The Committee discussed
the issue at its last meeting and was recommending that the new
Zoning Code Update Committee review the matter,
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
refer to the Zoning Code Update Committee Planning Case 98-16,
Request for Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City
Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two
Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Cameron,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Hemken, Kramer
Green, Landy, Oelkers,
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Consideration of An
Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Increasing Area
Limitation for Signage Fronting on Freeways, City of New Hope,
Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald reported that at the time the Sign Code was updated in
1998 there was one omission. The old Sign Code allowed 200 square feet
of signage for business along Highway 169. This portion of the code was
overlooked with the new Sign Code and stated that signage should be
100 square feet. This amendment increases the area for signage along
Highway 169 to 200 square feet so that it is consistent with the previous
code.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 1, 1999
MOTION
Item 5.3
Motion by Commissioner Landy seconded by Commissioner Svendsen to
approve Planning Case 98-16, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending
the New Hope sign Code by Increasing Area Limitation for Signage
Fronting on Freeways, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Cameron,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Hemken, Kramer
Green, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this ordinance
amendment at its June 14 meeting.
PC97-26
Item 5.4
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Consideration of An
Ordinance Amending Chapter Six of the New Hope City Code by
Regulating Courtesy Bus Benches, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kern, Administrative Assistant, stated that the ordinance that was
passed in January 1999 by the Planning Commission and City Council
regulating courtesy bus benches dealt primarily with bus benches in the
public right-of-way. At the time staff began administering the ordinance, a
few problems arose. The ordinance stated that courtesy benches must be
placed at least three feet away from the back of the curb facing the
adjacent street. The ordinance was designed for instances where there
was sufficient green space between the sidewalk and the curb. When
companies began submitting applications and site plans for courtesy
bench permits, the majority of the applications in the City were for
locations where there was not enough green space between the sidewalk
and curb for a courtesy bench and still abide by the three-foot restriction.
Courtesy bench companies were then forced to put the bench behind the
sidewalk, which falls on private property. The Sign Code does not allow
advertising signs on private property and the courtesy bench ordinance
only allows benches on public right-of-way. Kern stated that Codes &
Standards was recommending those two changes with this ordinance
amendment. Another change deals with courtesy benches located on
sidewalks. One bench company was requesting retaining an existing
bench located on a nine-foot sidewalk with a retaining wall behind it. The
ordinance does not allow benches on sidewalks, with the reason being
that courtesy benches were seen as an obstruction for any pedestrian or
bicycle traffic on sidewalks, as well as snow removal equipment from
Public Works which required six feet of clearance. At the time the
ordinance was written, it was not foreseen that there were sidewalks in
excess of five or six feet. The sidewalk at Boone Avenue and Bass Lake
Road is nine feet wide and placement of a bench at this location would
meet all requirements. The ordinance amendment has three main
purposes: 1) allow courtesy benches to be placed within three feet of the
public right-of-way on private property with property owner consent; 2)
allow courtesy benches to be placed on sidewalks that are not less than
nine feet wide; and 3) a change to the Sign Code to allow signs not
exceeding twelve square feet to be placed on private property,
conditionally based on the courtesy bench ordinance. Kern stated that
Codes & Standards discussed this issue in May and was recommending
approval.
Sonsin questioned whether there would be any liability with the benches
on private property, Sondrall stated that it may be possible that a property
Planning Commission Meeting 5 June 1, 1999
owner could be liable in a limited circumstance if he allowed a defective
condition or nuisance situation to exist on the property and did nothing
about it. Cameron wondered who would keep track of the consent forms
signed by the property owners. Sondrall replied that the City would not be
involved with that as it would be a decision by the property owner to
allow a bench on private property. Property insurance would probably
cover any liability issues. Kern added that of the existing 27 benches 16
are on private property, with the majority of these benches on commercial
property. Sondrall pointed out that the bench company would be primarily
liable. Cameron wondered whether the City was becoming too involved
with regulating the benches. Sondrall responded that the City would be
taking affirmative notice that the benches were there. The property
owners can agree or not agree to allow the bench on his property.
There was some discussion on whether or not the City was enforcing the
new ordinance. McDonald reported that the ordinance had been adopted
earlier in the year. Applications were solicited, which resulted in the
controversy over how the ordinance would be administered, whether the
existing company would get all of its existing sites, and how any new
bench companies would receive locations in the City. After that issue was
resolved, applications were received. It was then discovered that some
locations were on private property, which resulted in this amendment.
MOTION
Item 5.4
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 97-26, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending
the New Hope City Code by Regulating Courtesy Bus Benches, City of
New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Cameron,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken, Kramer
Motion carried.
Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin,
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this ordinance
amendment at its June 14 meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 6.1
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee
met in April with Rodger Finke regarding two warehouses on Quebec
Avenue (which was put on hold per the petitioner's request) and were to
meet with the representatives of Kmart, who did not attend the meeting.
Kmart was rescheduled for the May meeting. McDonald added that the
application deadline for the July meeting would be June 11. At this time
there is a pre-application meeting scheduled for a daycare center on
Winnetka Avenue, a variance for a house addition on Northwood
Parkway, possibly an expansion on the Valspar building (Creamettes) on
Winpark Drive, and potentially SuperAmerica.
Codes & Standards
Item 6.2
Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met in May to discuss
revisions to the courtesy bench ordinance, possible rezoning for a
SuperAmerica at Hillsboro and Medicine Lake Road, and the establishment
of a committee to update the Zoning Code. The next meeting was
scheduled for June 24.
Comprehensive Plan
Update
Landy announced that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee would
be meeting in June to review Crystal's Comprehensive Plan Update, an
Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 1, 1999
Item 6.3
amendment for Golden Valley, and to review the progress of New Hope's
plan.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by
Commissioner Landy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of
January 5, 1999. Eight Commissioners voted in favor, and Green
abstained due to the fact that she was not present at the January
meeting. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
COMMITTEE
ASSIGNMENTS
Chairman Sonsin stated that a new committee would be established to
update the Zoning Code. Brixius pointed out that the format would be
revised to make it more user friendly and easier to reference. The roll over
uses would be eliminated. Revisions would be established to allow
redevelopment to occur in the City per the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
Another issue to be discussed would be restrictions on hours of operation
for commercial uses. A policy would need to be established so new
businesses can locate in New Hope and so the City does not have to
compete with other communities for these businesses. Brixius asked that
the Commissioners let committee members know of any issues they feel
need to be addressed.
Sonsin stated that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee members
would serve on the Zoning Code Update Committee: Commissioners
Landy, Kramer, Hemken, and newly appointed Commissioner Green, who
would also serve on the Committee to become familiar with the City's
zoning regulations. The Codes & Standards Committee members would
include: Commissioners Landy, Cameron, and Chairman Sonsin. The
Design & Review Committee members would include: Commissioners
Svendsen, Oelkers, and Anderson. McDonald added that there were two
representatives from the Citizen Advisory Commission on the
Comprehensive Plan Update Committee and he stated that he would like
to ask that they be included in the Zoning Code Update Committee as
well. The meetings would probably begin in July and meet once per
month for approximately six to eight months.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no other announcements.
There was some discussion on the 42nd Avenue project.
McDonald reported that upcoming applications would include the new
Cooper gyms. He briefly discussed other city projects including the Golf
Course clubhouse replacement in 2000, and the Fire Station roof
replacement.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:59
p.m.
~~%,~r ~..h~,Z~/~.~t f U "y submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 7 June 1, 1999
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 6, 1999
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Vice Chairman Landy called the meeting to
order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Aisc Present:
Anderson, Green, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen
Cameron, Kramer, Oelkers, Sonsin
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-13
Item 4.1
Vice Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a
Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of
a Second Story and an Addition to the Front of the Garage, 8948
Northwood Parkway, Robert and Janet White, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners home is on Northwood Parkway
and the back yard abuts Northwood Pond. The petitioners are requesting
a six-foot variance to the front yard setback requirement so they can
extend the garage toward the front yard and add a second story
expansion onto the existing house. McDonald reported that there was a
10-foot wide utility easement in the back of the property with a power
pole in it. There was a steep slope from the front of the home to the back
of the walkout rambler. The Comprehensive Plan stresses the importance
of re-investment in the single family homes.
McDonald continued explaining that the home was built in 1967. The
previous owner, in 1994, obtained a building permit for a major addition,
however, did not proceed due to soil problems at the rear of the home.
The core sample site was shown on the site plan submitted by the
petitioners.
McDonald stated that the petitioners submitted correspondence detailing
the pros and cons of two options. Option I included building out to the
rear of the existing home, which the Whites felt was not reasonable due
to bad soil conditions, easement limitation, difficult back yard access,
mature tree loss, and new deck loss. Option 2 involved adding a second
story and extending the garage and front entry. This option was feasible
because of a better dollar value, no loss of trees, backyard space or deck,
increased square footage of home, and more functional garage and entry
space.
Adjacent property owners were notified and the City received no
comments on the request.
McDonald pointed out that the purpose of a variance is to permit relief
from the strict application of the Zoning Code where hardships prevent
reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the
property, such as shallowness or shape of the property, and exceptional
Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 6, 1999
topographic conditions. Additional criteria to be considered are diminished
light and air to adjacent property, unreasonable increase in traffic on the
public street, increase in the danger of fire, unreasonably diminish or
impair property values.
McDonald explained that city staff reviewed the plans and commented
favorably toward the improvements to the home. The Design & Review
Committee met with the petitioners and were in favor of the
improvements to be made. The Committee requested that the building
materials on the addition match the existing and were informed that the
entire home would be re-sided and the front windows would be replaced.
A revised site plan was submitted subsequent to the Design & Review
meeting to correct one dimension for the front yard and the fireplace in
the side yard was also added on the site plan. The chimney is a permitted
encroachment.
McDonald stated that the Planning Consultant recommended approval
because improvements to single family housing stock in the City coincided
with the Comprehensive Plan, the soil limitations prevented expansion to
the rear of the property, the easement limitation in the rear yard was an
important factor with regard to expansion to the front, access to the back
yard would be hampered with narrow side yards, and mature tree and
deck loss would occur with any rear yard expansion. The Zoning Code
would be updated in the next several months and would probably include
some variations from the existing setback standards to allow for a greater
variety of home elevations, design and curb appeal, including front wall
setbacks. McDonald pointed out that New Hope participated with 15
other suburban communities in publishing a Remodeling Planbook, which
promotes this type of reinvestment in existing homes.
McDonald maintained that city staff was recommending approval of the
variance to allow a 24-foot front yard setback.
Robert and Janet White, 8948 Northwood Parkway, came forward to
answer questions. Commissioner Svendsen reiterated that the petitioners
had provided all the information requested regarding the addition,
including the new siding and windows that would be utilized during
construction. Svendsen commented that this was a great use of the
property.
Landy questioned whether the petitioners had spoken to neighbors
regarding the addition and was informed that their neighbors were in favor
of the addition.
Hemken asked for confirmation on the extension into the front yard and
was told the addition would extend six feet into the front yard. The
petitioners stated that construction would begin in late fall. The addition
would include bedrooms on the upper level and a remodeled first floor.
There was some discussion on the fireplace footings that had been
installed previously.
Vice Chairman Landy called for a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Svendsen proposed a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Hemken, to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Hemken,
to approve Planning Case 99-13, Request for a Variance to the Front Yard
Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 6, 1999
Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Second Story and an
Addition to the Front of the Garage, 8948 Northwood Parkway, Robert
and Janet White, Petitioners.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Green, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen
None
Cameron, Kramer, Oelkers, Sonsin
Vice Chairman Landy pointed out that the petitioners should attend the
City Council meeting on July 26.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee
met in June with the Whites. Upcoming applicants include Cooper High
School gyms proposal, CUP for Johnson Van & Storage, and meeting with
Kmart representatives.
McDonald reported that the City encouraged Cooper to present one over-
all site plan for the gyms and anything extra that they would desire so it
could be approved as one CUP. One issue was the electronic scoreboard
for the baseball field at 49thJirginia, which would be incorporated into
this plan. There may be one other small outdoor storage accessory
building incorporated into the plans. McDonald explained Cooper's request
for TIF funds to be utilized for the project and that this would be a joint
venture with the City. With the utilization of TIF funds, the gyms would
be operated and maintained by the School District and used during the
school day by the school. On weekends, evenings and during the summer,
the facilities would be utilized by New Hope residents.
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Vice Chairman Landy reported that Codes & Standards did not meet in
June, and McDonald stated the July meeting would be canceled. The
Committee would be informed as to an August meeting date, if necessary.
Comprehensive Plan/
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 5.3
Landy announced that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee met in
June to review Crystal's Comprehensive Plan Update and forwarded
several minor recommendations to Crystal. Golden Valley's Land Use Plan
was also reviewed with no additional comments. New Hope was informed
by Met Council that they had accepted the City's plan on June 6 and
would approve the plan within 60 days.
Landy informed the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan Update
Committee would stay intact to become the Zoning Code Update
Committee and would study the Zoning Code and make recommendations
for change.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by
Commissioner Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of
June 1, 1999. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
McDonald reported that the City was in the process of acquiring the Ardel
Engineering property on 42nd Avenue. After water/soil contamination
Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 6, 1999
ADJOURNMENT
cleanup, the existing building would be demolished, a grant request would
be submitted, the City would work with the MPCA to accelerate the
ground water clean-up, the property would then be rezoned to
commercial, and marketed for commercial redevelopment.
The August Planning Commission meeting date was changed to
Wednesday, August 4, due to the fact that National Night Out was
scheduled for Tuesday, August 3, the regular meeting night.
The new planning case report format was discussed and the consensus
was that the Commission liked the new format.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:25
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 6, 1999
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 4, 1999
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin,
Svendsen
None
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation, Phil Kern,
Administrative Analyst, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-14
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Conditional
Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage and/or Rental of Vehicles, 4904
Winnetka Avenue North, Johnson Van & StorageNernell Gillespie, MINCO
Northwest Corporation, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner, Johnson Van & Storage, was
requesting a conditional use permit to allow the activity of a U-haul truck rental
and trailer service from its facility. The primary use of the site involves the
loading and unloading of trucks for shipping while the U-haul rental portion
would be an accessory service. The site is located at 4904 Winnetka Avenue
and lies within the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District. The ordinance permits
outdoor storage as a permitted accessory use, but requires a conditional use
permit for any accessory outdoor sales and services. McDonald stated that the
Zoning Code has three requirements in allowing outdoor sales as an accessory
use including: 1) area limit of 30 percent of the floor area of the principal use, 2)
screened from residential property, and 3) outside sales area is grassed or
surfaced to control dust.
McDonald continued saying the property is located east of Winnetka between
49th and 50th Avenues. There are industrial uses to the north and east, multi-
family residential to the south, and single family residential across Winnetka to
the west. The size of the parcel is 7.3 acres and the building size is 120,000
square feet. The property is located in Planning District 5 of the
Comprehensive Plan. The primary goal was to promote and enhance the
industrial land uses in a manner that compatibly relates to the surrounding
residential areas. This site was identified as a potential redevelopment site for
the future.
McDonald explained that there are two buildings on the site and the buildings
meet all setback requirements. There is a rail spur on the north side of the
building and a drainage easement on the northwest corner of the property. This
was an after-the-fact application, which was discovered by the Fire Inspector.
The Building Official was contacted, who then contacted the business to inform
them that the U-haul use was not permitted without a conditional use permit.
McDonald pointed out that the lot and building was depressed about eight feet
Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 4, 1999
below the elevation of Winnetka Avenue. The two buildings located on the site
are approximately four feet above grade, with truck doors along the south side
of the building, and small offices for the tenants in the buildings.
McDonald stated that the petitioner requested that the application be granted in
order to operate his business in New Hope, which was relocated from Brooklyn
Park. The petitioner had been in the moving business for over 50 years. The
hours of operation for Johnson Van & Storage are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, most Saturdays and occasional Sundays. The U-haul
rental hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
Saturdays by appointment.
Property owners were notified and one negative comment was received from a
homeowner directly across Winnetka Avenue. The resident submitted
correspondence regarding the visibility of U-haul trucks parking at the front of
the parking lot adjacent to Winnetka Avenue. They also submitted photographs
of the site. The letter also addressed late night noise, i.e., parking lot sweeping,
etc. The noise ordinance prohibits excessive noise between the hours of 10
p.m. and 7 a.m.
McDonald stated that the purpose of a CUP is to provide the City with a
reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining
suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health,
and safety. The City should also consider the nature of adjoining land or
buildings, whether or not a similar use was already in existence and located on
the same premises. Zoning Code criteria to be considered for a CUP include
whether the proposed action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is
compatible with adjacent land uses, conforms with all performance standards
in the code, no depreciation in value, as well as whether or not the use would
have an adverse effect upon existing or future development in the area, and
whether the use would provide an economic return to the community.
McDonald stated that revised plans were submitted subsequent to the Design
& Review Committee meeting. The plans show a 60-foot long arborvitae
screening of 16 lilacs on the west property line, U-haul storage area, parking
spaces including visitor and disability spaces, and ADA ramp. Trash storage
should be shown on the plan. The building is fire sprinklered throughout.
Drainage and access improvements are not proposed at this time, but should
be addressed in the future.
McDonald stated that staff was supportive of the request provided that
sufficient screening be provided on the west side of the property, subject to
several conditions. The petitioner needs to address several issues for the
Planning Commission on trash storage, snow storage, commitment to striping
and parking lot signage installation.
Chairman Sonsin clarified that the purpose of the CUP request was for the
accessory use of the U-haul rental business.
Mr. Vernell Gillespie, President of Johnson Van & Storage, 8609 Green Haven
Drive, Brooklyn Park, came forward to answer questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Anderson commented that the major concern of the Design &
Review Committee was the screening along Winnetka Avenue, signage, refuse
and snow storage, lot striping, and plantings. Gillespie replied that the property
owner would be responsible for the plantings. Svendsen asked for clarification
on whether the trash storage would be inside or outside the building. Gillespie
responded that the trash would be outside and enclosed.
Commissioner Hemken expressed concern that the screening would not be
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1999
adequate for the residential properties across Winnetka Avenue and asked
whether the screening could be extended further north. Oelkers interjected that
the U-haul trucks would be parked along the south side of the property and
would be adequately screened from Winnetka. Gillespie was agreeable to
extending the landscaping to the north if that would be the recommendation.
Commissioner Kramer questioned whether the drainage problem affected only
the subject property and did not extend out onto Winnetka Avenue and this
was confirmed by staff.
Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt that the landscape plantings should be a
type that would be a fast growing arborvitae of a minimum size, because lilacs
are slow growing shrubs. Brixius added that the type and height of plantings
could be spelled out in the conditions, as well as the location of plantings.
Global arborvitae was suggested for a fuller look. it was noted that the parking
lot was approximately six feet below the street.
Mr. and Mrs. James Pearsall, 4941 Winnetka Avenue, came forward to
address the Commission. Mrs. Pearsall stated that they have visible access to
vehicles parked along Winnetka Avenue. She questioned the number of
vehicles that would be allowed to park in the lot. Brixius stated that what is
proposed and being approved is a geographic area described on the site plan,
which cannot exceed 30 percent of the building area. Gillespie responded that
when they moved from Brooklyn Park into the building in New Hope all of the
U-haul vehicles from both locations were parked on the site for a short time.
Normally, there would be about five or six vehicles parked at this location in the
designated area. When the U~hauls are returned, the main office directs the
customers to the closest site, and for this reason, Gillespie stated he did not
always know when vehicles would be returned. Brixius pointed out that if there
was an aggressive screening plan in place, that would be more effective than
taking a vehicle count. By extending the screening further north along
Winnetka and requiring specific sized arborvitae or coniferous plantings, the
entire parking lot would be screened and provide a better solution than a count
of vehicles. Mrs. Pearsall suggested that the plantings extend north to south
corner of the building. Oelkers commented that the moving trucks would be
taller than the U-haul trucks, so the plantings may not be tall enough to hide the
those trucks entirely, but would soften the effect of the trucks. There would be
Wheaton trucks parked on the site as well, which is a permitted use.
Mr. Pearsall questioned the past practices of snow removal from east to west
and questioned where snow would be stored now with parking on this side of
the lot. Gillespie responded that snow storage would need to be utilized at the
east end of the parking lot.
Mrs. Pearsall stated that they did not want to prevent the operation of the
business, however, were concerned with specific issues. She pointed out that
there would now be additional traffic into and out of this site as well. Svendsen
questioned if they had ever filed a noise complaint and was told no. He
reminded the petitioners that there was a noise ordinance to prevent excessive
noise after 10 p.m. Gillespie pointed out that he does not have truck movement
at that time of the night.
Anderson questioned whether staff could put a size requirement on the
plantings and stated that there could be a cost issue if the planting size was
determined to be 10 or 12 feet in height. Brixius stated that the type, size and
length of the plantings/screening could be identified in the conditions to give
direction to the landlord and applicant. Sonsin pointed out that the screening
needed to be adequate, not a solid row of plantings.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
Planning Commission Meeting 3 August 4, 1999
Item 4.1
approve Planning Case 99-14, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow Outdoor Storage and/or Rental of Vehicles, 4904 Winnetka Avenue
North, Johnson Van & Storage/Vernell Gillespie/MINCO Northwest
Corporation, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
Clarification was requested on whether the height of the plantings were to hide
the U-haul vehicles or the Wheaton vehicles, and it was determined that the
tallest vehicles should be hidden. Oelkers suggested that arborvitae should be
planted at a height to screen the U-haul trucks, and with growth in a couple of
years, the plantings would screen the other vehicles as well.
1. All signage to be reviewed and approved by staff.
2. Refuse storage to be identified. If outdoors, screening details to be
submitted.
3. Screening on west property line to extend from driveway entrance
to south edge of building; to consist of coniferous plantings with
minimum of four feet in height; plan to be approved by staff.
4. Snow storage to be identified.
5. Lot striping (in white) to be completed within 60 days, including
installation of "visitor" and "disability access" signs, per the plan.
PC99-01
Item 4.2
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
None
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the petitioners should attend the City Council
meeting on August 9.
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for a Variance to
the Requirement Pertaining to Maximum Size and Number of Wall Signs and
to Allow a Larger Size and Number of Wall Signs than Permitted by the Sign
Code, Kmart/All Brite Sign, Inc./Master LB Associates Ltd. Partnership,
Petitioners.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioners were
requesting a variance to allow additional wall signage on the Kmart facade and
a replacement pylon sign along 42"~ Avenue. The Planning Commission heard
the request at its June 1 meeting, and was tabled to allow the applicant time to
provide additional information pertaining to the purpose and need for the
variance as well background information on overall site improvements. Brixius
pointed out that the building could be considered a multiple occupancy building
because there is room for more than one tenant. A multiple tenant building can
utilize up to 15 percent of the wall facade for signage, but no individual tenant
may have more than 100 square feet of wall signage. Within the same district,
a freestanding sign of 100 square feet is allowed. The existing signage includes
the original Kmart logo sign of 126 square feet, a pharmacy sign of 57 square
feet, a garden shop sign of 72 square feet, a Penske Auto of 152 square feet,
and past approval granted for the vacant tenant bay of 152 square feet. These
signs were approved by variance in the early 1990s. The current proposal is for
a change to the front facade sign. The Kmart sign would remain, and added to
that would be the word BIG and a swoop. The new sign total area, by city
definition, would be 365 square feet, which is twice the size of the existing sign.
The total signage for the building would then be 646 square feet. A proposed
freestanding sign along Xylon Avenue of 100 square feet would be compliant
with Code.
Planning Commission Meeting
4
August 4, 1999
Brixius stated that at staff meetings and at the Design & Review Committee
meeting, it was pointed out to the petitioners that additional improvements
would be required for the overall Kmart site. In consideration of any variance,
the City would need some improvements to soften the appearance of a larger
sign. The site is one of the largest commercial sites in the City, at 12.7 acres in
size. The building contains 116,000 square feet in area. The site consists of 12
percent green area, 21 percent building area, and 67 percent other areas
including parking, loading, and the bank facility. The site is in Planning District
11 of the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies this area as the commercial
focal point of the City. The Kmart lot was identified as a potential
redevelopment site.
Brixius continued by saying that in 1991 approval was granted for a small "deli"
within the Kmart facility. At that time, there was discussion regarding site
improvements, which never took place. Recently, over $250,000 was spent on
internal remodeling to the Kmart store. Prior to granting approval for the current
variance request, the City desired to discuss exterior improvements.
Brixius reported that as a result of meetings of city staff and the Design &
Review Committee, revised plans were submitted. A new arched front entry
treatment was proposed to soften the large sign. A new ground sign for 42'~
Avenue would be installed. A landscape plan and redesign of the parking area
has been provided. There would be two landscaped corridors leading to the
front of the building off of Xylon Avenue. Additional landscape islands would be
added in the parking lot. A sidewalk connection would be provided from Xylon
to the front of the building. Total parking exceeds code requirements and
satellite facilities have been encouraged. Proposed landscape elements would
add 23 new trees total: 6 ornamental crabapples along 42"d Avenue, 10 ash on
the landscaped islands, and 7 maple in the smaller islands near the front of the
building. Brixius noted that this plan does match the 42~ Avenue improvement
plan, however, necessary easements have not been secured with the New
Hope Center and the site plan may be subject to change if the present curb
cuts are retained. The overall parking lot would be repaired, seal coated, and
restriped. New lighting fixtures were proposed that would reduce light spillage
to the north.
Brixius stated that in considering the variance request, approval should be
based on particular findings. 1) Conditions unique to the site, which would be
appropriate due to the configuration, depth and width of the building allowing
orientation towards Xylon Avenue rather than 42~ Avenue. This orientation
limits visibility from the predominant thoroughfare. Kmart is the largest single
retailer in the community, and is larger than most shopping centers in the City.
A shopping center is entitled to 15 percent of the wal~ surfaces, and each
tenant is allowed 100 square feet of signage. The total proposed wall signage
of 646 square feet represents only five percent of the 13,000 square foot
facade. For shopping centers with more than four tenants and abutting two
streets, two freestanding signs would be allowed containing 200 square feet
each or one sign with 300 square feet. Kmart, however, would be allowed a
100 square foot sign, and was proposing 125 square feet. 2) The applicant
desires to renovate its store in an effort to update its image. 3) A hardship has
been created by the fact that the facility is a large distance from Xylon Avenue
and the screening of the storefront along 42nd and Xylon Avenues caused by
the maturation of trees reduces visibility. The additional proposed plantings will
further screen the storefront.
Brixius pointed out that the City Engineer raised the issue of the curb cuts
along 42~ Avenue and Xylon Avenue. The 42n~ Avenue curb cut relocation was
included in the 42"d Avenue project. The Xylon Avenue curb cuts were included
in the Xylon/45th Avenue project which would be completed in the future. At this
point, no driveway easement agreement has been reached between Kmart and
Planning Commission Meeting 5 August 4, 1999
the New Hope Center. Some modification to the site plan may take place if no
agreement can be reached with the two property owners. The two curb cuts on
Xylon Avenue are both offset in the opposite direction for left turns with the City
Hall and Fire Station driveways. The City Engineer points out in
correspondence that the two driveways align with each other.
Brixius reported that with the overall site improvements that are being proposed
and a commitment to these exterior improvements by Kmart, staff
recommends approval of the variance subject to several conditions.
Sonsin questioned any discussion with Kmart regarding satellite facilities in the
parking lot. McDonald pointed out that Kmart would need to address that issue.
Svendsen wondered whether the bank had voiced an opinion on the reduced
access to its facility and was told the bank was aware of the access change,
but had not voiced an opinion. The easement issue was discussed and
Sondrall pointed out that Kmart and New Hope Center had not yet come to an
agreement on the relocation for the easement.
Kramer questioned whether the ordinance specifically stated that the
measurement for sign area was calculated in a geometrically enclosed area
and this was confirmed.
Richard Moore, development manager for Kmart, came to the podium. Moore
pointed out that Scott Duffner, who deals with sign issues nationwide, and
Frank Schuster, project architect, were in attendance. Moore reiterated that the
request was for a variance to the storefront signage. Kmart was making a
national effort to upgrade the image of Kmart. They have completed inside
improvements and are now completing outside renovations. The new sign was
part of a national effort in upgrading the facilities. Moore thanked staff for
helping them through the process and informing them of failed past promises
for improvements. He stated that Kmart would like to expedite plans to
complete improvements within six to eight weeks. As far as the 42"d Avenue
driveway, the property owner would need to deal with that issue as they were
only a tenant in the building. They would make a revision to the site plan if the
proposed curb cut could not be agreed upon. They were in agreement with the
conditions as set out in the Planning Report.
Commissioner Svendsen complemented the petitioners on the details
incorporated into the site plan. Irrigation was discussed for the new landscaped
areas. Moore stated that he inspected several other sites in the area and none
of the other sites provided irrigation, therefore, he felt that irrigation would not
be required. Sonsin pointed out that this past spring had a large rainfall total,
which could be the reason for the overly green landscaped areas. Moore stated
that the exterior improvements are being funded by Kmart, with only a small
portion being funded by the landlord.
Landy questioned what was happening with the Old America space and was
told that Kmart and the landlord are currently trying to find tenants. Kmart was
also assisting in finding satellite facilities. Sonsin questioned whether the bank
was going to relocate or rebuild and was told that Kmart representatives did not
know the answer. Moore stated that Kmart was adding landscape islands to
the parking lot and, if additional satellite businesses were constructed in the
future, more landscaping would be added around those facilities. Sonsin
reiterated that he felt the site was prime property and was under developed.
Moore agreed, but reminded the Commission that Kmart did not own the
property, nor control the outlots.
Kramer pointed out that since Kmart representatives had not proposed
installing any irrigation, that they consider xeris scaping, which are plants that
do not need much water or maintenance. The Commission suggested that they
Planning Commission Meeting 6 August 4, 1999
utilize the services of the City Forester.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for a conditional use permit for the
seasonal, outdoor sales for the year 2000. McDonald pointed out that written
notice would be given stating that seasonal sales would not be permitted again
without obtaining a conditional use permit. Kramer stressed the fact that Kmart
obtain the CUP in the next 60 days, and Landy agreed.
Mr. Tom Schmidt, Citizen Advisory Commission member, 4401 Decatur
Avenue, came to the podium to address the Commission. He questioned
whether the construction would take place this fall and this was confirmed. He
complemented Kmart on the improved plan.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
approve Planning Case 99-01, Request for a Variance to the Requirement
Pertaining to Maximum Size and Number of Wall Signs and to Allow a
Larger Size and Number of Wall signs than Permitted by the Sign Code,
Kmart/All Brite Sign, Inc./Master LB Associates Ltd. Partnership,
Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building, landscaping and parking lot/lighting improvements be
completed to balance the usual effect of an oversized sign.
Petitioner to coordinate with staff on type of plantings, due to the
fact that irrigation is not proposed to be installed.
2. Petitioner to enter into Development Agreement with City and post a
financial guarantee (amount to be determined by City Engineer and
Building Official) to insure all improvements are completed.
3. Submit final parking lot repair plan to City for review/approval.
4. Coordinate with City on final location of curb cuts. If the 42"d
Avenue project does not shift the driveway location, staff
recommends a modest landscape are on the east side of the
existing driveway and several ash trees, as illustrated on the
Building Official's exhibit.
5. Application by Kmart in the next 60 days for a conditional use
permit to allow seasonal plant sales, so that an approved CUP is in
place for spring/summer 2000.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
None
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the petitioners should attend the City Council
meeting on August 9.
PC99-08
Item 4.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for a Conditional
use Permit to Allow for School Expansion and Outdoor Recreational Facilities
and Site/Building Plan Review Approval, 8230 47~ Avenue North, Independent
School District #281 and City of New Hope, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit
to allow for school expansion and outdoor recreational facilities an site/building
plan review approval. This was a joint project between the City and the School
District. McDonald introduced the following people in the audience: Shari
French, Director of Parks and Recreation, Tom Walerius, business manager
from District 281, Greg Dahler, architect, and Dave Brom, principal at Cooper
High School. The City and School District are working on a building expansion
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1999
and site modifications at Cooper High School. The expansion would include
two gymnasiums, restrooms, a storage and concession room, additional tennis
courts, baseball scoreboard, 21 additional parking spaces, and new
landscaping. The school is located in a single family residential zoning district,
which permits public, educational, and religious buildings under conditional use
permits. Any school expansion requires CUP approval.
McDonald reported that in July 1998 the City Council and EDA considered an
amendment to the tax increment financing districts to allow TIF funds to be
expended on Cooper High School property. The City of Plymouth approved TIF
funds for the Armstrong High School facility expansion. In 1998 the Council did
not approve the TIF amendment; however, after city staff worked with the
School District and developed more formal plans, the amendment was
approved in April 1999. Council supported Option 2, which allowed for two full-
size basketball courts, two regulation volleyball courts striped over the
basketball courts and two fixed bleachers. Storage areas and access to
existing restrooms in the school were included with Option 2. The gyms would
be located on the north side of the building and would be accessible to the
public through a corridor between the existing building and the new gyms. The
plan also called for the replacement of the five existing tennis courts on the
east side of the building with seven new courts. The City would fund the
development cost and the School District would own and maintain the property.
The City and School District would enter into an agreement for joint use of the
gym space, with the gyms being available for public use in the evenings,
weekends, and during the summer months. An agreement would also be
entered into for use of the tennis courts. Adjacent property owners were
notified and a number of residents came to City Hall to look at the plans. Most
comments received were positive.
McDonald stated that revised plans were submitted subsequent to the Design
& Review Committee meeting. All setback requirements have been met. The
proposed parking plan adds '19 parking stalls between the elementary and high
school sites for a total of 626 parking stalls. The existing five tennis courts
would be replaced with seven courts. There would be a concrete maintenance
strip around the perimeter, electrical service and a water fountain. Trees are
proposed to be planted along Virginia Avenue. The courts would not be lighted.
A suggestion made during the Development Review meeting was that
windscreening be added on the north side of the tennis courts. This issue
would need to be worked out between the City and School District. An eight-
foot wide bituminous path would be installed around the building expansion to
provide access to the ball fields and tennis courts from the building and the
new parking lot area, and would be ADA compliant. The gym addition would be
approximately 20,300 square feet on the north side of the building. The public
would access the building on the west side from the parking lot. Building
materials for the interior include concrete block with painted interior and wood
gym floor. Additional building materials need to be clarified between the City
and School District. The exterior building materials would be consistent with the
existing materials of brick, aluminum windows, prefinished metal coping and
two downwardly directed wall pack lights on each elevation.
McDonald continued by saying that the existing baseball field northeast of the
addition would be raised to improve drainage, the six-foot chain link fence
would be replaced, and two baseball backstops would be installed. Future
three-row bleachers are shown on the plan, as well as a batting cage and sand
volleyball court. A future mechanical room is shown on the plan, a wrestling
room, and a 1,250 square foot storage building. The storage building would
require approval because it exceeds the 900 square foot requirement. Staff
had encouraged the School District to construct a larger storage area to
eliminate several smaller buildings. Two baseball/softball scoreboards are
proposed for the athletic field, one located in the northeast corner which would
Planning Commission Meeting 8 August 4, 1999
be screened with trees and shrubs to minimize the effect on adjacent
properties. The second scoreboard would be located along the west fence line
and would have a minimal effect on adjacent properties. The Planning
Commission should discuss the landscaping around the scoreboard. The
landscaping plan shows 19 arborvitae along the east fence line of the tennis
courts, seven ash between the general parking lot and 47t~ Avenue, and
plantings by the scoreboard at the corner of 49th and Virginia Avenues. The
rooftop equipment would consist of exhaust fans. Security for the addition
would include the installation of magnetic locks and proximity keys, as well as
video cameras, installed at the main entries to the building. This system would
allow the City to use the facility without needing access to the entire building.
McDonald explained that the Comprehensive Plan identified the school sites for
public and semi-public land uses, and was consistent with the City's long-range
plan. Some of the policy statements in the plan support this expansion and
meet the City's objectives. A number of special interest groups in the City are
expressing a need for more diversified recreational facilities. The use was
compatible with adjacent land uses and would be of minimal impact to the
surrounding properties. The proposed use conforms with all performance
standards in the code. The use would not depreciate value in the area and
would add attractiveness to the site. Non-residential traffic would be channeled
onto thoroughfares and not onto residential streets.
McDonald explained that the City Engineer commented that the plan would
require approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed District. A variance was
granted in 1995 for the stadium addition and this project may also be tied to
that variance. In the future when Virginia Avenue is reconstructed, the City
Engineer recommended that a parking lane be added to accommodate the
tennis courts.
McDonald reported that this expansion would be tied to the installation of fire
sprinklers in 100 percent of the building. The building would be completely
sprinkled by the year 2003. The initial phase would be installed during the
summer of 2000.
McDonald added that the City Attorney had been meeting with city staff and the
School District to prepare a Development Agreement, which would outline
which entity pays for what part of the project, and a Facilities Usage
Agreement, which would outline the terms and conditions of the use of the
facility for each entity.
McDonald stated that staff supports the expansion and recommends approval,
subject to several conditions.
Mr. Greg Dahler, Wold Architects and Engineers, came to the podium to
answer questions. He stated that Wold has been the architect for the School
District for the past several years and has worked with the City during the past
year.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether the scoreboard was allowed inside
the setback and was told that the scoreboard would be considered an
accessory structure and did not need to meet the principle setback. Oelkers
stated he felt strongly that 1,250 square feet for a storage building was not
large enough and suggested a building size up to 2,500 square feet, Dahler
commented that all the smaller storage areas would eventually be eliminated.
Oelkers questioned why the grounds were not kept up this year and dandelions
were allowed to grow. Tom Walerius, business manager, came forward to
answer the question and stated that the District had received several calls
about that same issue. The District intended to spray the area this August and
Planning Commission Meeting
9
August 4, 1999
again next spring. The spraying needed to be completed when there are no
students or residents utilizing the grass after the chemical application.
Oelkers next discussed with the petitioner any irrigation plans for the site.
Dahler stated that there was not funding available for irrigation. Dahler stressed
the fact that raising the ballfield would be funded solely by the District.
Hemken questioned whether the ballfield or scoreboard would be lit and was
informed that there would be no lights. The scoreboard would be electric, but
here would be no overhead lights.
Kramer wondered whether the drainage change from raising the infield would
drain off-site or stay on-site. Dahler stated the District was working with the
Watershed and the goal was that the drainage would be controlled on-site,
either through the existing grid chambers or some other device. The flow that
exits on the site would be controlled as it is now. Kramer pointed out that water
from the drinking fountain would get stale in the pipes with limited usage of the
fountain. Dahler responded that the District would work with the City on the
exact location. They were concerned with vandalism and potential abuse of the
fountain. One option would be to attach it to the building.
Svendsen questioned the use of biffs on site and was told there would be a pad
installed by the ballfields and one biff would be stationed there.
Oelkers questioned whether the plantings by the scoreboard were sufficient to
screen it from the adjacent residential properties along Virginia Avenue. Mr.
Dave Brom, principal, stated that the board was eight feet tall and would be
raised to a height of 16 feet. The plantings by the scoreboard include a row of
barberry shrubs and the coniferous trees so there would be screening year-
round. The initial planting for the five spruce trees would be 10-12 feet tall. The
scoreboard on the football field was the same height. The back of the
scoreboard would be painted fiat black.
MOTION
Item 4.3
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 99-08, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow for School Expansion and Outdoor Recreational Facilities and
Site/Building Plan Review Approval, Independent School District #281
and City of New Hope, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. School District to enter into Development Agreement with City
outlining cost responsibilities of each entity.
2. School District to enter into Facilities Usage Agreement with City
outlining the terms an conditions of use of the facility for each
entity.
3. Approval of the plan by Shingle Creek Watershed District and
resolution of storm water/off-site ponding issues with City.
4. Two thousand five hundred square feet to be allowed for outside
storage building.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
None
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the petitioners should attend the City Council
meeting on August 9.
COMMITTEE
Planning Commission Meeting
10
August 4, 1999
REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee
Item 5.3
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 5.4
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
July with the petitioners. Upcoming applicants may include Walgreens
redevelopment at 42nd and Winnetka Avenues and a CUP for a gymnastics
school at 3941 Quebec Avenue.
Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards did not meet in July.
Landy announced that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee did not
meet because no additional plans were received from neighboring cities. New
Hope's plan was sent to Met Council on June 6 and they have 60 days to
accept or deny the plan, which would be August 6.
Landy announced that the Zoning Code Update Committee would probably
have a meeting scheduled in September.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 6, 1999.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald announced that there were two applications for the vacancy on the
Planning Commission, one from the business community.
Sonsin pointed out that one of the conditions for the variance granted for 9325
31st Avenue was that the building materials match. He stated that the color of
the house and garage match, but not the building materials. He asked that staff
look into this situation.
Phil Kern, Administrative Analyst, gave an update on the bus bench
applications. Discussion ensued whether the benches were to be placed on a
cement slab as several benches seem to be placed on stones.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
tfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
11
August 4, 1999
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 7, 1999
City Hail, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin, Svendsen
Anderson
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Phil Kern, Administrative Assistant,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-19
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Gymnastics School in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning
District, 3971 Quebec Avenue North, Samir Draoui/Northwest Gymnastics
School/Winnetka Properties, Petitioners.
Mr. Kern stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to
allow a gymnastics school to be located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning
District. The petitioner would be occupying the northern section of a multi-
tenant industrial building on the eastern portion of the property. The property is
located on Quebec Avenue on the east side of Winnetka. Adjacent land uses
include R-1 and R-2 single and two-family residential to the west across
Winnetka, industrial to the south and northwest, and B-4 Community Business
to the north. The site area contains approximately 6.7 acres, and the east
building contains 26,880 square feet. No lot area ratios would be changed with
this proposal. This area's primary land use objective of the Comprehensive
Plan was the retention and in-place expansion of industrial land uses.
Kern further explained that in 1994 the property owner addressed the Planning
Commission for a PUD to expand the westerly building size by 90 percent.
Ponding, loading, additional parking spaces and other improvements were
made. Versa Die Cast occupied the entire west building and the east building
contains several tenants.
Kern explained that the Zoning Code allowed specialty schools, such as
gymnastics instruction, which require special design features typically found in
industrial buildings, such as high roofs. Specialty schools are allowed by
conditional use permits in the I_1 District with several provisions: 1) hours of
operation from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, 2) special events to be scheduled during
weekend or holiday time to eliminate additional weekday parking demand, and
3) compliance with city and state safety codes. Property owners were notified
and no comments were received.
Kern reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and
requested additional information on the plans, as well as information on the
hazardous materials utilized by one of the tenants in the same building.
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. The proposed
location of the gymnastic school would be on the north end of the east building
Planning Commission Meeting I September 7, 1999
and would be approximately 3,600 square feet in area. Due to the limited
space, the school would only be used for gymnastic instruction and no
competition or meets would be held at this site. The hours of operation would
be Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. City
Code requires that specialty schools provide 1.5 parking spaces for every two
students. The petitioner had stated in correspondence that the maximum
number of students would be 30, therefore, 22 parking spaces are required.
Parking would be on the north and east sides of the building. One handicap
accessible space would be provided on the site. Kern explained that the site
plan showed wall pack lighting on the north and east sides of the building.
Refuse storage was shown on the west side of the building. The entrance to
the school would be on the east side of the building. A small "NGS"
identification sign was shown on the east elevation near the entrance door. The
floor plan shows a solid wall dividing the gymnastics area from the adjacent
building bay and the hazardous occupancy tenant was located 60 feet to the
south of the gym site. The floor plan also identified office area, restrooms,
gymnastics training area/equipment, and a mezzanine above the existing office
for employee use only.
Kern stated that concern had been expressed by both the Development
Review Team and the Design & Review Committee regarding the hazardous
occupancy in the building and the fact that children would be brought to the
site. City staff met with the property owner, as well as Fire Inspectors, to
inspect the acid operation. A letter was sent to the property owner listing
several violations. The property owner agreed to obtain a registered engineer
to investigate the visible corrosion damage to the steel roof system
components and submit the analysis to the City. Building sewers would also be
inspected. This acid operation was in compliance with I-1 uses.
Kern reported that staff was supportive of the gymnastics school, subject to
several conditions.
Mr. Samir Draoui, owner and coach of Northwest Gymnastics School, came
forward to answer questions of the Commission. Draoui stated that he was a
gymnast and had been a coach for 20 years. He stated he liked the location in
New Hope and wanted to start with a smaller space. He stated he agreed with
the conditions in the report: parking, lighting, solid wall separation, and annual
inspection. The property owner would take care of any acid operation repairs to
the building.
Commissioner Oelkers reported that the petitioner had addressed all the
issues discussed at Design & Review. The plans looked good. Discussion
ensued regarding the hazardous operation in the building, and it was noted that
there currently was a "for lease" sign on the property for that portion of the
building.
Commissioner Hemken questioned when the petitioner would begin classes.
Draoui replied that an open house would be held on October 2. The ages of the
children are from 12 months and up.
Kramer was concerned whether there would be air quality testing accomplished
and to check for any residual that m'ay be lingering in the building. Small
children would be utilizing the site and their tolerance to chemicals would not be
the same as an adult. Kramer stressed that even if the acid operation moved
out of the building that the air quality should be checked. Sonsin pointed out
that the property owner would be responsible for the air quality testing. That
was not a part of the CUP for the petitioner. Kramer added that many times the
ventilation in a building was all tied together from one bay to another.
Svendsen questioned whether or not the acid operation repairs should be tied
Planning Commission Meeting 2 September 7, 1999
to the CUP. The City Attorney replied that the repairs were a building issue with
the property owner and should not be tied to the CUP. Kramer added that staff
should continue to monitor the situation at the site.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 99-19, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow a Gymnastics School in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District,
3971 Quebec Avenue, Samir Draoui/Northwest Gymnastics School/
Winnetka Properties, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Twenty-two parking stalls are designated for school use.
2. Appropriate parking lot lighting is provided.
3. A solid wall separation is provided between the school
adjoining tenants.
4. Annual inspection by staff for the first two years only.
5. No meets.
and
Voting in favor: Green, Hemken,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Anderson
Motion carried.
Kramer, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin,
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the petitioners should attend the City Council
meeting on September 13.
PC99-18
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for
Concept/Development Stage Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use
Permit for Drive-Through Window, Variance to the Side Yard Setback
Requirement, Preliminary Plat Approval, and Comprehensive Sign Plan for the
Construction of a New Walgreens Store and a Freestanding Commercial
Building at 4200 and 4210 Winnetka Avenue, Semper Development Ltd./John
Kohler, Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was proposing a new Walgreens
development at the northeast corner of 42nd and Winnetka Avenues and the
request included several development applications. A preliminary plat in order
to combine three existing lots into two commercial parcels. The CUP/PUD are
the for the integrated site design, shared access, parking, and similar
architectural amenities. Through the PUD process, some flexibility could be
granted on the window design issue, parking, signage, etc. A variance was
requested for the north side of the property to allow a 16-foot setback,
therefore, a nine-foot variance would be necessary for Lot 2. A Comprehensive
Sign Plan was being requested for the two-building commercial retail site
because of the integration of the two buildings and the proposed signage for
the site.
McDonald stated that the property is zoned B-4 Community Business. The
three properties include the gas station, the former Hardees restaurant, and the
Chinese restaurant. The total parcel contains approximately 2.4 acres. The
existing buildings contain approximately 8,600 square feet and the two new
buildings would contain slightly more than 20,000 square feet. The B-4 District
does not have any green area requirements, however, the existing green area
is approximately five percent and the proposed area would be approximately
12.6 percent. The property is located in the City Center area and a goal of the
City was to enhance and revitalize the commercial corridor through
redevelopment and uniform streetscape design. There are several easements
noted on the existing parcels as well as some unusual driveway arrangements.
The petitioner was proceeding to vacate these easements, which would be a
Planning Commission Meeting 3 September 7, 1999
separate public hearing at the City Council level.
McDonald explained that Semper Development, representing Walgreens
Pharmacy, submitted plans for privately redeveloping the commercial
properties. Three properties would need to be acquired, the existing buildings
demolished, and construction of a 15,000 square foot Walgreens store and
another 5,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building. Through this proposal,
the City was provided the opportunity to introduce new commercial growth into
the City's commercial center area. The three parcels were developed 30 years
ago, and contained seven curb cuts. This was reduced to six curb cuts about
nine years ago, and the new development proposes to reduce this number to
two curb cuts. No ponding exists on the properties today, but a detention pond
would be added to the site through the redevelopment.
McDonald stated that the petitioner indicated that the buildings would be
constructed with the same finishes, face brick, and stucco. The landscape
would be increased. The petitioner's correspondence stated that they would be
looking for one to three tenants for the retail building. One new aspect of the
Walgreens building would be the drive-through pharmacy. There would be two
drive-through lanes to eliminate waiting in line while the pharmacist consults
with prescription user. A drive-through window provides a valuable service to
the elderly, the handicapped, and parents with sick children in the car.
McDonald indicated that staffs recommendation to Walgreens was to consider
moving the northerly building closer to 42nd Avenue. Walgreens sent
correspondence stating that they had discussed this, however, due to site
design and circulation patterns, it would not be possible to shift the building 10
feet closer to 42nd Avenue.
Property owners within 350 feet were notified and several neighboring property
owners came in to City Hall to look at the plans and offered favorable
comments.
McDonald reiterated that the preliminary plat would combine three existing
parcels into two lots, which would be known as Annabels Addition. Perimeter
drainage and utility easements and one central storm sewer easement were
proposed. Both lots offer sufficient land area to accommodate the proposed
buildings. The plat abuts two county roads and Hennepin County reviewed the
plat. The new curb cut locations exceed the City's requirements for setback
from the intersection. The proposed.plat would dedicate additional street right-
of-way along both Winnetka and 42® Avenues. The City Attorney reviewed the
plat and offered several suggestions related to listing owners names on the
plat, including easements, and the filing of the plat. The City Engineer's
comments dealt with curb cuts and right-of-way, and drainage/utility
easements. Hennepin County suggested dedicating an additional 15 feet of
right-of-way and suggested moving the Winnetka Avenue curb cut south to line
up with McDonalds' driveway across the street. McDonald added that the
petitioner had requested that the Planning Commission waive its review of the
final plat.
McDonald explained the four steps to the PUD process. The application
conference had been held with staff. The concept plan considered the overall
concept of the development and the development stage plan included detailed
plans for the entire project, which was being considered now. The final stage
plan would integrate all previous recommendations into one final set of plans,
as well as the final plat.
McDonald stated that the site was zoned B-4 Community Business and that
drug stores and other retail uses were permitted within that district. The only
reason for the CUP was for the drive-through window. Restrictions for drive-
Planning Commission Meeting 4 September 7, 1999
through windows include stacking of not less than 180 feet, traffic control, no
use of the public street, noise control, and limited hours of operation. The
petitioner was requesting PUD flexibility to allow two 90-foot drive-through
windows. A canopy would cover the inside service lane. The Planning
Consultant stated in his report that the design of the drive-through windows
was favorable to the site in that the windows are on the east side of the building
adjacent to the car wash. The basis for granting the request was that the
service windows do not have the user demand of other drive-through windows,
such as a bank or restaurant. McDonald added that staff supported the shorter
stacking lanes.
McDonald reported that the petitioner was requesting to locate the building 16
feet from the property line, requiring a nine-foot variance. The Planner indicated
in his report that due to the fact that there would be landscaping next to the
residential property and the City had architectural control, it was a reasonable
to leave the building at the proposed location rather than shifting it south.
Revised plans were submitted and McDonald highlighted the changes for the
Commission. The proposed parking shown on the plan included 71 stalls for
the Walgreens building and 25 stalls for the retail building. Employee parking
was identified at the northeast corner of the site. The applicant was requesting
flexibility from the parking requirements to allow one stall per 200 square feet of
floor area rather than one stall per 150 square feet of area for retail uses. Code
required 121 spaces and the petitioner was requesting 96. McDonald explained
that a reduction in parking spaces was being considered as part of the update
of the Zoning Code. McDonald stated that staff was comfortable with the
proposed parking of 96 stalls. The proposed disability stalls are adequate for
the site. Handicap bollards and signage would be provided with the parking
spaces.
McDonald reiterated that because the two access points would be shared, a
joint maintenance agreement and shared access agreement would be needed
and would be a part of the final PUD process. Striped pedestrian crosswalks
and sidewalks have been provided that connect the building entrances to 42nd
and Winnetka Avenues. Concrete sidewalks by both buildings are shown on
the plans. The loading area for the Walgreens store would be on the north side
of the building and should avoid conflicts with on-site parking. The north
building does not show any on-site loading area. The City code states that any
building in excess of 5,000 square feet should provide on-site loading. The
Planning Consultant indicated that on-site loading should be provided for the
retail building, however, the Building Official did not feel that it was necessary.
The necessity of on-site loading would depend upon the tenants in the building
and their deliveries. The trash storage was provided for on the north side of the
Walgreens site and on the east side of the retail building, and would match the
proposed buildings. Snow storage should be discussed and noted on the site
plan.
McDonald pointed out that the landscaping plan showed 23 trees, 132 shrubs,
and 258 flowers/plants. Staff was satisfied with the proposed plan. The
petitioner responded to the suggestions of staff and the Design & Review
Committee. Attractive landscaped areas would be located near the intersection
and at the site entrances to the buildings. The Planning Consultant suggested
that the landscaped area at the northwest entrance extended into the street
right-of-way and should occur within the lot lines. Upper story trees should be
planted along the north side of the retail building. A suggestion was made to
include some coniferous shrubs with the roses at the north parking lot to
provide year round screening effect.
Both buildings would be constructed with a combination of face brick, EIFS
exterior walls with preflnished metal capping, and gutters and down spouts.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 7, 1999
Rooftop equipment should be screened or painted to match the building. A
detailed exterior lighting plan was provided and showed 14 new parking lot
lights around the perimeter of the site with shields. Fifteen wall pack lights
would surround the Walgreens building and two sides of the retail building.
McDonald explained that each lot was entitled to one freestanding sign having
100 square feet in area and 30 feet in height. Both freestanding signs meet
code requirements. The Walgreens sign would be located at the corner of
42nd/winnetka with a smaller sign located below the name, probably for reader
board purposes. A sign for the retail building shows area for three tenants to be
identified and would not exceed 100 square feet. McDonald requested
clarification on the site plan and architectural plan with regard to sizes. Two wall
signs per building are allowed in the B-4 District. The wall sign area should not
exceed 15 percent of the wall face or 250 square feet. The north building
meets the City's criteria. The signage for the Walgreens building was proposed
to be a total of 263 square feet. The Planning Consultant recommended that
flexibility could be granted through the PUD for the wall signage. Window
signage was proposed for the glass tower on the Walgreens building, which
could utilize up to 33 percent of the window area. The proposed signage would
cover only 15 percent of the window area.
Building and fire considerations were discussed with regard to roof hatches and
the fire sprinklers in both buildings. McDonald reported that the Police
Department was asking for some minor interior floor design change with regard
to the hallway to the bathroom. The petitioner's architect had indicated that this
suggested change would not be possible.
McDonald stated that the overall plan was very positive for the City, and
recommended approval subject to the conditions in the report.
Mr. Craig Christiansen, Semper Development, and Steve Johnston, Landform
Engineering, came to the podium. Christiansen stated they wished to address
several issues from the planning report. Regarding the recommendation from
the Police Department which stated the restroom corridor was concealed from
view, and it was felt that changing this design would have an adverse effect on
store security. Walgreens was generally a store where people came in for a
little while and left again, with not much public use of the restrooms. Discussion
ensued regarding the layout of the store. Christiansen stated they would work
with staff to alleviate the concerns of the Police Department. Steve Johnston
addressed the issue of Hennepin County's recommendation to move the west
access to the site to the south by 20 feet to line up with the entrance across
Winnetka. He stated that after some discussion this day with Hennepin County,
an agreement was reached that the curb cut would be widened so that it would
accommodate two exiting vehicles as well as one vehicle entering the property.
With that change, Hennepin County was agreeable to leaving the access point
where it was. The change would be made on the site plan prior to the Council
meeting. Johnston expressed concern regarding a recommendation from the
City Engineer dealing with two cfs outlet from the storm water pond. He stated
the pond had been designed to be as large as possible and still accomplish the
other site improvements they felt necessary. Currently there was about 12 cfs
for a 100-year rainfall event leaving the site. After the ponding improvements
were installed, the cfs would be cut to below 6. They did not feel it practical to
increase the storage volume without removing parking stalls. Commissioner
Svendsen questioned where the outflow goes from the pond. Johnston
responded that there was a storm sewer pipe within the easement on the
northeast corner of the site. Currently the catch basin was buried and the pipe
plugged with sand. This would drain to the east. They proposed to clean out the
catch basin and clean the lines to make it a functioning storm sewer.
Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that there was only one exit on the north
Planning Commission Meeting 6 September 7, 1999
retail building. He added that the Design & Review Committee discussed this
issue and inquired whether or not there could be an exit on the east side of that
building and whether it could be incorporated as a loading area. Johnston
responded that Walgreens received approximately one delivery truck per week.
Due to the fact that the Walgreens loading dock was directly across from the
retail building, the same loading dock could be utilized by the smaller retail
building. They did not envision the tenants in that building as anyone having
daily deliveries, and felt the shared loading area would be adequate for both
buildings. Johnston also pointed out that the layout of that building was very
conceptual at this time. Any access point on the east side of the building would
not be of any use to a tenant on the west side of the building. If a fire access
was necessary on the north side of the building, that would be its only use.
Svendsen stated he felt that the grade on the north side of the building was
higher and a wall would need to be added for any access point there. Johnston
responded that if a fire door was necessary, the grade would be adjusted.
Svendsen pointed out that if there would be some type of door on the north
side, lighting would need to be provided.
Svendsen stated he felt the proposed landscaping was adequate, and asked
whether or not it would be irrigated. This was confirmed by the petitioner.
Johnston stated that snow storage would occur on the northeast corner of the
property by the pond. Svendsen suggested that this be noted on the site plan.
He also stated in his opinion the interior layout for the bathroom corridor was
fine and that no change was necessary.
Commissioner Kramer stated he was concerned with the shared use of the
loading dock. He discussed the fact that there could be a change of ownership
of the buildings in the future, which could present a problem with shared docks.
Future tenants of the north building may also require a separate loading dock.
Kramer questioned whether the 2 cfs referred to in the report was during a 100-
year storm or any condition. He stated that if the size of the sewer was an
issue, it should be updated during this project.
Discussion ensued after clarification was requested on the easements in the
parking lot. Johnston stated that an easement was necessary due to the
transfer of water across the parking lot.
Commissioner Landy asked for clarification on the hours of operation.
Christiansen stated that typically the hours are approximately 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Some Walgreens stores are 24-hour operations and these stores are spaced
throughout the cities. The drive-through hours are the same as the store hours.
Landy questioned the status of the store at 36th/Winnetka. Christiansen stated
that it was his opinion that the store would be closed and the lease obligations
fulfilled. The staff would probably be moved to the new location. Landy asked
what type of tenants may be sought for the retail building. Christiansen
responded that they may try to lease to a video store, coffee shop, bagel store,
etc.
Commissioner Hemken clarified that this would be a one-story building. She
questioned whether the proposed parking would be adequate. Christiansen
stated that during the 12 years they have been developing sites for Walgreens,
they have found that the traffic flow remains steady throughout the day, with no
peak times.
Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioner to address what would be done for
cleanup of the gas station property in the event leakage had occurred.
Christiansen replied that a study was in process for the site, and if there would
have been any leakage, they would complete any cleanup necessary. Over the
years, Christiansen stated they dealt with contamination issues many times
and were aware that some cleanup work may need to be done. Kramer agreed
Planning Commission Meeting 7 September 7, 1999
MOTION
Item 4.2
that the regulations for cleanup have loosened up over the years.
Hemken asked who maintained the landscaping around the buildings.
Christiansen responded that the property would be leased to Walgreens, and
one condition of the lease was that they maintain the landscaping. Semper
Development would hire outside help for the retail building, the same as they
would do for snow plowing.
Svendsen questioned whether the other Commissioners were agreeable to
waiving review of the final plat and this was confirmed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 99-18, Request for Concept/Development Stage
Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Through
Window, Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement, Preliminary
Plat Approval, and Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Construction of a
New Walgreens Store and a Freestanding Commercial Building at 4200
and 4210 Winnetka Avenue, Semper Development Ltd./John Kohler,
Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
3.
4.
CUP/PUD
1. Developer to
Preliminary Plat
1. Incorporate recommendations of City Engineer (resolve 2 cfs issue),
City Attorney, and most recent from Hennepin County.
Process appropriate easement vacations.
Planning Commission waives review of final plat.
Submittal of final plat.
execute Development Agreement with City and
provide appropriate financial guarantee (amount to be determined
by City Engineer and Building Official).
2. Submission of Final Stage PUD plans.
3. Incorporate recommendations of City Engineer and Hennepin
County.
4. Applicant establish cross easement for establishing shared access
and shared parking between Lots 1 and 2.
5. Applicant provide maintenance agreement outlining maintenance
responsibilities for the shared access and parking area.
6. Applicant provide a description for Lot 2 building loading area.
7. Applicant comply with landscape recommendations outlined in the
planning report.
8. Freestanding signs be relocated to provide 10-foot setback from
property lines.
9. Indicate roof-top equipment to be screened.
10. Incorporate roof hatch changes.
11. Work with staff on recommendations from Police Department on
interior design recommendations.
12. City approve the flexibility of the requested site signage and on the
reduction of required parking as part of the PUD.
13. Indicate snow storage on site plan.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin,
Svendsen
None
Anderson
Discussion ensued on the hours of operation for this site and whether this store
Planning Commission Meeting 8 September 7, 1999
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee
Item 5.3
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 5.4
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
would be a 24-hour operation. Sonsin commented that the City Council would
determine the closing time. It was noted that the drive-threugh window would
be for prescriptions only.
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the petitioners should attend the City Council
meeting on September 13.
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
August with the petitioners. Upcoming applicants may include Kmart CUP for
outdoor sales, final plans for Walgreens, and a daycare at 3701 Winnetka,
49t~NVinnetka development. McDonald added that Jay Showalter purchased
the Champion Auto site on 42nd Avenue for an auto repair business. There has
also been some interest of a gas station on the Lasky property.
Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards did not meet due to the fact
that the entire Zoning Code was being updated.
Landy announced that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee did not
meet. New Hope received word from Met Council that the deadline for
reviewing the plan had been extended and that the plan would be considered
by the full council on September 8. At the end of August, staff forwarded to Met
Council the Life Cycle Housing Study and the Housing Policy Action Plan, per
its request.
Landy announced that the Zoning Code Update Committee would probably
schedule its first meeting in October. Staff had reviewed the Zoning Code and
the Planning Consultant was preparing information for the Committee to
review.
New sections of the Code had been distributed with the packets due to
reformatting completed by the City Attorney's office prior to the update.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 4,
1999. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald mentioned that a new commissioner had been appointed by the
Council on August 23 and he would be sworn in at the October meeting.
Sonsin asked about the status of 9325 31st Avenue and pointed out that one of
the conditions for granting the variance was that the building materials match.
He stated that color of the siding on the addition is the same as the house, but
that the siding itself was a different type. He asked that staff discuss this
situation with the homeowner.
Svendsen commented that Pipe Fabricators in Golden Valley had been evicted
and he wondered whether all the pipe that was being stored outside there had
been brought to the New Hope location. McDonald stated he would have staff
look into the situation.
Temporary signage at Winnetka Commons was briefly discussed.
Planning Commission Meeting 9 September 7, 1999
ADJOURNMENT
The issue of the Walgreens lease at Winnetka Commons was discussed and
the length of time remaining on the lease.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 10 September 7, 1999
t
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 5, 1999
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin,
Svendsen
Anderson
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney (arrived 7:35), Al Brixius, Planning
Consultant, Paul Coone, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
OATH OF OFFICE
The Oath of Office was administered to Larry Brauch, and he was welcomed to
the Planning Commission.
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-17
Item 5.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 5.1, Request to Discuss
Amendment to the City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan to Add Joint Water
Commission Plan Update as an Official Amendment to the City of New Hope
Comprehensive Plan, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
McDonald introduced Kathryn Force, representative of Howard R. Green
Company, consulting engineers, and stated that she helped prepare the 3-City
Joint Water Plan. Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal are all served by the
City of Minneapolis for water. One element that was missing from the
Comprehensive Plan was the water plan. McDonald stated that the appropriate
action would be to approve the Planning Commission Resolution which
recommends that the City Council adopt this Plan as an element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Force stated that she had worked with the Joint Water Commission over
the past year in preparing an update to the original Water Supply Plan from
1995/96. This would be the last component for the New Hope Comprehensive
Plan.
Force gave a brief overview of the summary of the Joint Water Commission
(JWC) Water Supply Plan. The JWC purchases water from the City of
Minneapolis. Minneapolis draws from the Mississippi River, which then goes
through softening and filtration processes and then is distributed to Minneapolis
and wholesale communities, like New Hope, Crystal and Golden Valley. There
are two metered interconnections between the Minneapolis system and the
JWC system. The amount of water that passes through those interconnections
each day is metered and tabulated by the JWC.
Force stated that the Plan was divided into four parts. Part 1 analyses water
demands. The historical water use data from each city and the JWC was taken
and trends and water use were analyzed, from 1988 through 1998. The three
communities are fully developed with stabilized populations and the JWC
expects that trend to continue over the next 20 years. Using the existing water
use trends, projections were compiled to estimate what the water use would be
over the next 20 years and to evaluate the existing facilities based on what
those trends would be. The result of the evaluation was that the storage and
pumping facilities were deemed adequate to supply all three communities over
the next 20 years with the amount of water required. Force stated that New
Hope consumes approximately one-third of the water purchased from the City
of Minneapolis. New Hope's population was approximately one-third of the
three-city total, and the number of service connections and water use all range
between 27-33 percent. Summer months increase water usage due to non-
essential water use, such as lawn sprinkling, car washing, and recreational
uses, which result in one and one-half times the day demand. The peak day
demands average about two and one-half times the day demand.
Part 2 of the plan outlines emergency procedures for the JWC. This was a
required component of the Plan. Several scenarios were studied in the event
that the current water supply would not be available. An Emergency Event
Evaluation Team had been established, representing each of the three cities
and Minneapolis. This team would meet and decide on a course of action in the
case of an emergency. Some of the emergency procedures include an
interconnection with the City of St. Louis Park, who utilizes well water to supply
the water system. The JWC was investigating this interconnection which would
provide an alternate source of water in case of an emergency. General Mills
also has water production wells, which could be available for use. At this time
there is no interconnection between General Mills and the JWC. With some
minor modifications and the construction of some infrastructure improvements,
this could be a possible source of water. An emergency generator was being
installed at the Golden Valley pump station which would provide pumping
power in the event of a power outage.
Part 3 outlines the water conservation plan for the JWC, which is another
required element of the Plan. Force mentioned that the JWC had a contract
with the City of Minneapolis for water use. That contract was due for
renegotiation. The existing contract was somewhat limiting in that it does not
allow the JWC or the member cities to establish conservation or water
reduction policies on their own. The JWC had expressed interest within the
renegotiation efforts to establish more freedom to make independent decisions
on water restriction measures. Once the contract renegotiating efforts with the
City of Minneapolis, decisions would be made on the conservation policies and
schedule. The JWC as a whole supports conservation efforts. Each of the
three member cities have expressed interest in establishing policies toward that
end. Information to customers about wise water use would be accomplished
through brochures sent with water bills, city web sites, and spots on the public
access channel. Each of the three cities had been involved with a meter
replacement program, where the individual water meters at the service
connections would be upgraded, in order to more accurately report water use.
The three cities indicated interest in establishing more freedom to develop and
implement water conservation policies. There would be consistency within the
three cities, but the cities would remain independent of Minneapolis.
Part 4 itemized plan elements required for Met Council, which are covered
within the first three elements.
Commissioner Svendsen expressed concern about unaccounted for water,
such as during a water main break. He questioned the procedure for reporting
this type of situation and whether 911 should be called. Paul Coone, New Hope
Utilities Maintenance Supervisor, stated that there are approximately two dozen
water main breaks per year in New Hope. Each water main break was unique
depending on the time of day and staffing levels. Night repair was not done
because of safety issues. The Public Works Department tried not to
inconvenience residents during the morning hours when people are getting
ready for work or school. Residents are notified when the water would be shut
off for repair work. Coone stated that the Public Works Department utilized a
Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 5, 1999
t
MOTION
Item 5.1
standard call report. Svendsen questioned whether the emergency form
introduced in the Plan would be utilized by New Hope staff. Force added that it
was suggested by the JWC that the emergency form be used by all three cities.
Svendsen wondered if the 911 staff utilized that form when someone reported
a water emergency. Coone replied that the Police Department referred calls
occurring after 3 p.m. weekdays or on the weekends to staff on stand-by for
any infrastructure problems. All staff have been trained on procedures to follow.
Svendsen was concerned with the amount of water that would be lost when the
problem was not remedied immediately. Coone responded that 680 hydrants
are flushed yearly and dead ends are flushed twice per year, which uses more
water than water main breaks, and all of that water goes unmetered. Force
added that any difference between the amount of water purchased and the
water billed out below 10 percent was considered normal. Meter inaccuracies
accounted for some of the water loss. Other unaccounted for water loss was
due to city facilities, irrigation at city parks, hockey rink flooding, fire calls, etc.
Kramer added that most meters are one to three percent off, due to the age of
meters. Kramer, who is Director of Water Works for Minneapolis, stated that
the interconnect issue would have to be addressed in the contract and New
Hope would not be able to supply water to anyone without the approval of
Minneapolis. Kramer was concerned that the cities felt there was language in
the contract prohibiting conservation efforts. He added that if Minneapolis
would go to conservation, so would the suburbs. The City of Minneapolis had
been discussing emergency connections with General Mills. Kramer added that
Minneapolis also lets water main break go until the appropriate time for repair.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 99-17, Request to Approve the Joint Water
Commission Water Supply Plan Update by the New Hope City Council
and Adopting Said Plan as an Element of the New Hope Comprehensive
Plan.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Anderson
PC99-20
Item 5.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 5.2, Request for a Conditional
Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Sales of General Home Improvements and
Garden Shop Related Merchandise, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, KmartJFancher
Development Services/Master LP Associates, Petitioners.
Mr. Brixius, planning consultant, stated that earlier this summer a sign variance
and site plan improvements were approved and as part of that approval the
City requested that Kmart apply for a conditional use permit for the outdoor
garden sales. The application showed the designated sales area to be on the
southeastern portion of its lot adjacent to the City's parking lot near Applebees.
The site is zoned B-4 and required a CUP for outdoor accessory sales. Several
conditions must be satisfied before a CUP can be granted including: area
limitations, screened from residential, lighting, parking, and scope of sales
activity. With regard to the area limitations, Brixius stated that outdoor sales
was limited to 30 percent of the floor area of the principle building. Kmart's total
building size was 94,500 square feet and the proposed sales area was 18,850
Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 5, 1999
square feet, which represented only 20 percent of the floor area. The outdoor
sales use should be screened from residential zoning districts. The only
residential use adjacent to the sales area would be Gethsemane Cemetery,
which was separated from the site by 42nd Avenue, a four-lane major
thoroughfare. Staff believed that the distance and on-site landscaping
adequately screens the use from the residential zoning district. The Design &
Review Committee suggested additional landscaping along the eastern
boundary of the sales area between the city's parking lot and Kmart's parking
lot, as well as along the north side of the sales area. The applicant had
questioned the need for additional landscaping along the northern area, which
would shield visibility of signage from 42nd Avenue. The idea of sight lines into
the outdoor sales area from the principle building for security purposes would
be appropriate. Kmart desired to keep all vegetation at that location to ground-
cover height. Landscaping would be completed along 42"d Avenue as well as
along the driveway leading into the site.
Brixius stated that discussion at Design & Review suggested eliminating two
parking stalls at the northeast corner of the sales area and installation of a curb
island. The applicant felt the curb island would restrict truck access into the
storage area as well as traffic circulation around the building. Staff concurred
and suggested that those stalls be striped to restrict parking. The CUP required
that the area be appropriately lighted. Brixius stated that there was a light
standard in the center of the sales area, which was reviewed in conjunction
with the shopping center site plan, and deemed acceptable. The entire area
would be surfaced and curbing would be provided around the entire sales area.
More parking had been provided for the entire site than required by code,
therefore, the 61 parking spaces to be utilized for the sales area would not be a
hindrance. One additional item raised by Design & Review was the scope of
sales activity. No semi-trailers would be permitted in the sales area and the
applicant was agreeable. The applicant had agreed that, over the course of the
summer, any empty tables or racks would be removed to keep the site
attractive.
Brixius reported that the access points were a point of concern. With the
addition of the landscape island leading out to 42"d Avenue, staff asked that the
sidewalk be similar to the sidewalk from Xylon to the storefront. It was
suggested that crosswalks be marked to provide safe pedestrian passage
accessing the outdoor sales area at three locations: from garden center to
outdoor sales area, from the west parking lot and from the front sidewalk.
Kmart felt these crosswalks unnecessary, but would discuss the issue. Brixius
stated that Kmart believed that with the creation of the landscape islands no
additional fencing would be necessary, and staff concurs.
Brixius stated that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in
the Planning Report.
Commissioner Oelkers asked for confirmation on the suggested landscaping
on the north side of the sales area and it was confirmed that three trees be
planted in that area. Kmart's concern was visibility from the building into the
sales area and limited visibility of the signage on the building as the trees
mature. Oelkers stated that he agreed with Kmart that trees may not be the
best use of landscaping on the north side of the sales area, however, the
suggested landscaping on the east side should be accomplished.
Mr. Scott Duffner, Vice President of Fancher Development, came to the
podium. He thanked the Planning Commission and City Council for their
patience during the process. He stated that the crosswalks could be painted on
the pavement, however, he felt that many times pedestrians did not utilize the
crosswalks. Kmart would be willing to stripe the crosswalks if required to do so.
Due to the fact that a crosswalk would be provided from 42nd Avenue to the
Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 5, 1999
building, striped crosswalks should also be provided from the sales area to the
building. Duffner stated that Kmart was more concerned with the
visibility/landscape issues than the striped crosswalks. Oelkers added he felt
an annual inspection should be accomplished, and Duffner concurred.
Svendsen raised the issue of having the work completed by August of 2000, as
well as utilizing the sales area during the planting season next spring. Duffner
responded that they had hoped to have the work completed this fall, however,
due to the fact that the batch plant shut down for the season, they were not
able to complete the resurfacing of the lot. Kmart had posted a financial
guarantee to insure the work would be completed. Brixius added that initially
staff suggested that the CUP not be active until all the site improvements were
completed, however, staff felt that with the financial security there would be
enough incentive for Kmart to make all improvements. With the completion
date of August 1, 2000, and one year of use, if the work would not be
completed, the CUP could be revoked. Sonsin stated that he would rather see
the date moved up so that the work would be completed prior to the gardening
season. Brixius stated that moving the date up to March was not reasonable.
Svendsen wondered how work would be completed in the area if it would be
full of merchandise. Duffner stated that sales drops off right after July 4, and
this portion of the lot could be completed in July. The balance of the parking lot
would be completed before July. The contractor could complete the major
portion of the parking lot prior to that time.
Svendsen wondered how the island work would be completed with the outdoor
sales taking place at the same time. Duffner stated that the island work could
begin prior to the gardening season. The process would begin as soon as the
batch plant opens in the spring, which would be dependent on weather.
Svendsen confirmed that batch plants open about the same time as the
concrete could be poured. Duffner pointed out that the most important aspect
was to finish the work. Kmart may not be able to utilize the full outdoor sales
season and would close the area earlier to complete the work by August 1.
Oelkers stated that August 1 was a fair date in his opinion especially when the
work was dependent on weather and read weight limits.
Svendsen asked for confirmation that there would not be any additional
temporary signage for the sales area. Duffner replied that he was not aware of
any additional signage needs.
Svendsen reiterated that the landscaping discussed would be okay, however,
urged the Commission to require striped crosswalks in the parking lot.
Discussion ensued regarding where customers would park when picking up
merchandise and it was determined that customers could park along the north
side of the sales area. Svendsen questioned what measures would be taken to
ensure that customers did not walk through the planted area on the north side
of the sales area. Duffner responded that some type of hedge could be planted
to impede pedestrians. There was additional discussion regarding fencing in
the sales area and whether or not concrete could be poured the length of the
island on the north side of the sales area. Kramer interjected that a Iow-growing
hedge or some type of evergreen shrub could be planted in that area and be
Iow enough to not interfere with sight lines. It was agreed that shrubs could be
a maximum height of 18 to 24 inches. Duffner agreed with the Commission on
the shrubs. Kramer added that in his opinion crosswalks helped to slow down
vehicles traveling through the parking lot.
Duffner clarified that the block and timber fence would block off the three
driveways leading into the sales area. Svendsen stressed the point that no
additional fencing was required or desired other than the islands and curbing
shown on the site plan.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 October 5, 1999
Mr. Daniel Tate, 700 10~h Avenue SE, Minneapolis, came forward to address
the Commission. Tate questioned whether there would be concerns from
chemicals in the concrete leaking into underground water sources during
construction. Brixius responded that there would be no concerns due to the fact
that the entire site would be resurfaced and the only areas disturbed would be
where new concrete landscape islands would be created. There would be
adequate protection, and the amount of area opened up to new construction
would be limited in comparison to the entire site. Tate questioned what type of
garden project was involved. An explanation was given as to what the
application was for and how the sales area would be utilized. Tate also
questioned what type of water filtration system would be utilized, and he was
informed that the only water use would be for watering the plants prior to sale.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 5.2
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
approve Planning Case 99-20, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow Outdoor Sales of General Home Improvements and Garden Shop
Related Merchandise, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, KmartJFancher
Development Services/Master LP Associates, Petitioners, subject to the
following conditions:
1. All work to be completed byAugust 1, 2000.
2. Annual inspection by staff.
3. Professionally stripe-out the last parking stalls in the northeast
corner of the proposed sales area.
4. Removal of all tables, racks, pallets, and displays as they become
empty and no trailer use for outside sales or storage.
5. Installation of sidewalk from 42nd Avenue to the front of the
principal structure, per previous approval.
6. Installation of marked crosswalks in the following three locations:
from the sales area to the Garden Center, from the sales area to the
front of the Kmart building, and from the sales area to the parking
area west of the main access drive.
7. Installation of three additional trees on east side of sales
area/parking lot and 18" to 24" high evergreen-type shrubs on the
north side of sales area/parking lot.
8. Submit a final revised site plan of outdoor storage area showing
sidewalk from 42nd Avenue, and striping, crosswalks, and
landscaping.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Anderson
Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the petitioners should attend the City Council
meeting on October 11.
PC99-12
Item 5.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 5.3, Request for a Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Daycare Operation in an R-O Residential Office Zoning
District, 3701 Winnetka Avenue North, Cindy Kay Morey/Little Folks Daycare,
Petitioner.
Sonsin stated that correspondence had been received from the petitioner
requesting to withdrawn their application for a conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Meeting 6 October 5, 1999
Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt that the derogatory correspondence
received from the petitioner was unfounded and that the Design & Review
Committee provided as much help and advice as possible, and the balance of
the Commissioners and staff concurred. Kramer added that some of the points
of contention could not be compromised.
MOTION
Item 5.3
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
accept the withdrawal of Planning Case 99-20, Request for a Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Daycare Operation in an R-O Residential Office
Zoning District, 3701 Winnetka Avenue North, Cindy Kay Morey/Little
Folks Daycare, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Brauch, Green, Hemken,
Sonsin, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Anderson
Motion carried.
Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 6.1
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
September with the daycare representatives. Upcoming applications may
include a townhome development at 49thNVinnetka in November. Keelor Steel
may submit an application for expansion in December.
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 6.2
Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards had not been meeting due
to the fact that the entire Zoning Code was being updated.
Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee
Item 6.3
Commissioner Landy announced that the Comprehensive Plan Update
Committee did not meet. New Hope received word from Met Council that they
had approved New Hope's plan and no modifications were required. The City
was commended on the well-organized, thoughtful plan.
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 6.4
Landy announced that the Zoning Code Update Committee would probably
schedule its first meeting late in October after the Planning Consultant had
prepared information for the Committee to review.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Discussion ensued regarding the Langenbach garage variance issue. One
condition of approval was that the building materials on the addition match the
existing house. Staff had sent correspondence to the petitioner and received
his reply stating how and why the building materials had been chosen for the
addition. Oelkers stated that he felt Mr. Langenbach's statements were correct
in that the cedar siding on the market today does not match what he would
have purchased 30 years ago, and the statement regarding the way new and
old cedar takes paint was true. $onsin stated he would consider whether this
situation should be pursued further.
McDonald stated that Pipe Fabricators currently was utilizing more outdoor
storage than allowed, but the building owner was working with the tenant to find
a new location with adequate space.
McDonald informed the Commission that the U-haul CUP had been approved
by the City Council. The petitioner had agreed to install additional plantings,
which would be completed next spring.
McDonald stated that the Walgreens final plans would proceed directly to the
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5, 1999
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
City Council at the end of October. The developer would be demolishing the
buildings yet this fall.
Commissioner Hemken commended PPL and the City on the Bass Lake Court
Townhome project.
Discussion ensued on the 42r~ Avenue improvement project and the timeline
for completion. Sonsin wondered whether the roadway would be leveled out
prior to the winter season.
Sonsin pointed out several locations of illegal real estate signs for staff to check
out.
Hemken expressed concern over the two portable reader board signs at
Winnetka Commons. Staff pointed out that both businesses had temporary
permits for the signs.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 7,
1999. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald informed the Commission that the City had applied for two Livable
Communities grant applications for upcoming development projects in the City.
He informed the Commission that the property owner of 5412 and 5410
Winnetka had inquired if the City was interested in purchasing his property,
which was in the area identified for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan.
A planning study and market analysis would be completed to redevelop the
area from 5340 Winnetka north to Bass Lake Road and through the Bass Lake
Road extension area to St. Raphael's Church. The other application was for an
apartment project next to the New Hope Golf Course.
A question was raised concerning whether the November 2 meeting would be
held on its scheduled night due to School Board elections. It was decided that if
the meeting needed to be changed, the meeting would be held on Monday,
November 1.
McDonald reminded the Commission that the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast would
be held on Friday, October 29, if anyone was interested in attending.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 8 October 5, 1999
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 1999
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Vice Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Sonsin
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Al
Brixius, Planning Consultant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-21
Item 4.1
Vice Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for
Concept/Development Stage Planned Unit Development, Rezone From R-1
Single Family Residential to PUD, and Preliminary Plat Approval of 13 Lots by
L & A Homes, 7849 and 7829 49th Avenue North, Lloyd and Alice Vagle,
Petitioners.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioners were
requesting concept and development stage planned unit development,
rezoning from R-1 single family residential to PUD, and preliminary plat
approval to allow construction of 12 townhomes/twinhomes on the site. Brixius
explained that the PUD zoning allows flexibility in use, density and a private
drive. The applicant requested PUD zoning based on the constraints of the site.
Brixius stated that the site was zoned R-1 single family residential, and was
bordered by a major arterial street on the west and a collector street on the
north. Most of the properties surrounding the site are R-1 single family
residential except for R-4 high density residential to the north. The site had
always been a vacant land parcel in the community. Several development
proposals for the site had previously been reviewed, however, no construction
had occurred.
Brixius reported that the petitioners had indicated they would like to construct
12 twinhome/townhome units on the property. The four two-bedroom
twinhomes would contain 1297 square feet on one level, and the eight two-
bedroom townhomes would contain 1172 square feet on one level. All units
would have a patio, two-car garage and full basement. The site would consist
of 12 individual lots and one common lot. The exteriors would consist of vinyl
finishings with brick accents on the front. The homes would be oriented toward
a private street and all traffic internalized on the site.
Brixius pointed out that a change in zoning from R-1 to PUD would be a policy
decision for the Planning Commission and City Council. A determination would
need to be made regarding the appropriate land use density for the site. With
the surrounding neighborhood zoned R-l, the existing zoning was not a
mistake. Since the 1989 Vacant Land Study, this area was identified as an area
that could accommodate a variety of residential land use densities. The 1997
Life Cycle Housing Study identified a need for attached, single level
townhomes for the empty-nester population of the community. The 1999
Comprehensive Plan identified the site as a Iow to medium density residential
land use area. Therefore, staff felt some changes may have occurred to
warrant a density change. Another element to be considered would be
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. While the area may warrant a
density change, there are some concerns for the adjoining Iow density
properties including: maintaining the character and strength of the individual
neighborhood, preventing over-utilization of the property, and preserving
transitions between distinctively different neighborhoods. Brixius stated that
with the introduction of medium density zoning there are some concerns with
the adjacent single family areas. He stated the applicant indicated that the
buildings would be oriented toward the private street, would be single-story
townhomes at the suggestion of the Design & Review Committee, would have
architectural amenities consistent with single-family neighborhoods, and
fencing along the adjoining single-family property lines. The Planning
Commission would need to determine whether the requirements have been
met. The site would have utilities available through 49th Avenue. The traffic
generation would be within the capabilities of the adjoining streets.
Brixius stated that concept stage PUD considers the overall concept and plans,
includes a public hearing for input and suggestions for adjustments.
Development stage PUD would be intended for complete full-scale drawings
for the specific development. The Planning Commission should determine the
level of approval granted at this public hearing.
Brixius stated that the development density for a twinhome would be 7,000
square feet per unit and 5,000 square feet per unit for a standard townhome.
The applicant was proposing two twinhomes and two four-unit townhomes. As
a result, the applicant asked for flexibility by allowing 5,600 square feet per unit,
which is less than the requirement for a twinhome. Consideration should be
given to the level of density that would be acceptable and how to make the
development blend in with the neighborhood.
Brixius reported that the Design & Review Committee felt this type of land use
may be appropriate provided a number of elements could be satisfied, such as
the quality of the buildings, perimeter buffers, and addressing upgrades to
landscaping. The proposed plan meets PUD setback requirements along the
periphery and between buildings. The setback from the eastern property line
raised concern and several conditions have been stipulated to improve the
transition including a fence, additional landscaping, and treatment of the air
conditioning units. Recommendations to the building design included additional
landscaping at the rear of the buildings, noise mitigation efforts for the air
conditioning units, provide detail on the shared patio areas, and roofing
materials. Another suggestion was to enlarge the garage space to
accommodate indoor storage of trash containers, etc.
The landscaping included shrubs around the perimeter of the building and site.
Concerns were raised regarding the elimination of several mature trees from
the site. Tree preservation measures as indicated were not sufficient and did
not address drip lines of the trees. Some of the grading lines shown on the
plans come within a few feet of the tree trunks. An improved tree preservation
plan would be required. Brixius reported that a 225-foot fence was proposed
along Winnetka Avenue. A Iow-growing landscape accent should be provided
at the corner of 49th/Winnetka Avenues in keeping with the sight lines for the
intersection. The landscaped area at the south end of the site should reach the
fence. A streetscape amenity should be provided approximately at the half-way
point along the fence on Winnetka to break up the mass of fencing. Staff
suggested that the three-to-four foot spruce trees at the back of the property
should be replaced with six deciduous trees so that the over-story trees and
fence would provide an attractive landscape arrangement along Winnetka and
provide additional screening for the townhomes. The same suggestions for
Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 1, 1999
trees for the east property line were made to further enhance the landscaping.
A maintenance-free fence had been proposed for Winnetka Avenue, however,
specific type had not been identified on the plan. On the east property line, the
plan indicated a board-on-board cedar fence similar to existing fences in the
area. Lighting would be provided along the private drive and at the entrances.
Brixius stated that the applicant had agreed to lower the pole heights to reduce
some of the light spillover. Specifications and contours for the property would
need to be provided. The private street met city standards with the 25-foot
width. No parking signs would be posted along the street and a right-in only
sign would be posted at the Winnetka Avenue entrance. Hennepin County had
approved the curb cut on Winnetka. The County requested an additional
easement along Winnetka to provide for a future left turn lane and sidewalk.
The area between the shared driveways could be eliminated to provide for a
continuous driveway area to help with parking needs.
The Homeowners Association rules have been reviewed and the City
recommended that Lot 13 be owned equally among the 12 units to insure a
vested interest in the property. The Association restricts outdoor storage and a
condition of approval would include that no changes be made to the
Association rules without city approval.
Brixius reported that the City Engineer had suggested that Lots 1 and 2 be
eliminated to preserve the mature trees in the northwest corner. Some
modification to the grading plan would be desired, with regard to the swale in
the eastern rear yards and the City En~neer suggested taking the drainage
down to Winnetka Avenue rather than 49"' Avenue. It was recommended that a
high point be provided at Lots 9 and 10 for positive drainage.
Brixius explained that the Planning Commission needed to determine whether
the zoning was appropriate and whether the project was appropriate for the site
with regard to land use issues. The PUD zoning would be connected to the site
plan and adjustments would be made accordingly. Due to the fact that several
issues still needed to be worked through, staff recommended that only concept
approval could be granted if the zoning would be determined to be acceptable.
The preliminary plat had several issues that needed to be corrected. Brixius
stated that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions as outlined in
the planning report.
Commissioner Oelkers expressed concern on several of the items in the staff
report, including buffer areas between zoning districts, definition of townhomes
and twinhomes and how it relates to the PUD, quality construction and high
amenity site plan which allows flexibility through the PUD, air conditioning units,
fence and landscaping along Winnetka Avenue, and garage size. Oelkers
questioned the left turn lane proposed for Winnetka at the 49th Avenue
intersection. The City Engineer stated that the County may want to add a turn
lane at the intersection in an effort to eliminate the high number of accidents. A
new signal was proposed for the intersection in the summer of 2000, and if the
new more visible signal did not reduce the amount of accidents, a turn arrow
may be added, or the left turn lane constructed. Provision for easements for
this change would need to be provided for now and should be shown on the
plans. Discussion ensued on the drainage on the east/southeast side of the
property. A storm sewer may help the drainage issues on the site; and
consideration should also be given to saving as many trees as possible during
this process. The high point of the property would be found near Lots 9 and 10.
Proper drainage was discussed. Gutters on the buildings would help direct
drainage toward the proper location on the site. Oelkers questioned whether
the driveways could be side-by-side with no buffer area between them and this
was confirmed. Lot 13 includes all common areas as well as Virginia Avenue
and would be maintained under the Association bylaws.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 November 1, 1999
Mr. Lloyd Vagle, 8955 194th Lane, Elk River, project developer, and Mr. Mike
Vagle, builder, came forward to answer questions of the Commission.
Oelkers asked the petitioners whether they had any problems with the
suggestions for the correction of drainage issues and was told they would work
with staff on the drainage issues. Discussion took place with regard to the
mature trees at the northwest corner of the property. Vagle stated that it would
be difficult to save the trees and that they would prefer to plant new trees of a
significant size. A suggestion was made to plant additional trees, such as
Maple, between Lots 1 and 3 and Lots 4 and 5 on the Winnetka Avenue side of
the property. Mr. Mike Vagle added that the spruce trees grow fast and would
fill in the space. Some type of maintenance-free fence would be installed along
Winnetka, rather than a fence that would need regular maintenance. Vagle
pointed out that the construction materials of the fence on the east property line
would be a point of discussion. Increasing the size of the patios was discussed
with regard to providing a sufficient green area. Decks would not be provided.
Shingle type was discussed and whether or not a less expensive amhitectural
shingle could be utilized.
Svendsen questioned whether additional off-street parking could be added
between Lots 10 and 11. Lloyd Vagle stated that an earlier suggestion was to
remove those spaces, however, he stated that they would have no objection to
providing two additional spaces. The merits of additional parking and the
provision of green space was discussed.
Mike Vagle responded to earlier discussion on the garage size and stated that
the sizes ranged from 420 to 500 square feet. The jog shown on the elevation
for the garages on the twinhomes adds some aesthetic and curb appeal for the
neighborhood rather than having all units look the same. Vagle added that they
could add another two feet to the garages on the twinhomes if the property and
setbacks allowed it.
Commissioner Anderson wondered why the entrance from Winnetka Avenue
was important to the project, and it was noted that it was due to a fire issue and
the space for a fire truck to turn around.
Brixius added that some of the landscaping suggestions for replacing the
evergreens with deciduous trees in the backyards was due to the limited
amount of space available. More yard space would be needed as conifers
matured. The over-story trees were suggested because the flavor of the
neighborhood was for deciduous trees.
Commissioner Kramer questioned the water service for the units and the
location of a fire hydrant. The City Engineer stated that a private main would
come from 49th Avenue and a shut-off box would be installed at each unit. The
hydrant issue may need to be investigated further with the Fire Department.
Vice Chairman Landy asked for comment from the audience.
Mr. Dave Quigley, 7860 48th Avenue, addressed the Commission. Quigley
stated he had lived in his home for 32 years. The Winnetka Avenue entrance
would be adjacent to his back yard. He was concerned about the PUD zoning
and the large quantity of townhomes proposed for the site. Other concerns
included the high accident rate at the intersection of 49th and Winnetka, snow
storage, and the eventual devaluation of property values. He strongly opposed
the development.
Mr. Larry Luetmer, 4832 Utah Avenue, addressed the Commission. Luetmer
had lived in his home since 1962. He felt that the rezoning to a higher density
would be a detriment to the neighborhood. He felt the development would not
Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 1, 1999
be appealing.
Ms. Willie Truehart, 4841 Winnetka Avenue, came to the podium. Truehart had
purchased her home seven years ago with the understanding that the lots
across the street were zoned single family and the zoning should remain the
same. In the event that the zoning was changed, she felt that a lesser amount
of units should be constructed. Another concern was the traffic and high
number of accidents at the intersection. Truehart questioned how the decision
was made to construct 12 units rather than six, and whether any of these units
would be rental properties. Svendsen stated that the developer presented the
plans to the City with that number of units, due to economic feasibility. The
Association rules state that the units would be owner occupied. The prices of
the units would be approximately $165,000 to $180,000. Truehart reiterated
that 12 units would be too many for the site.
Svendsen explained the process for approval of a request such as this and
stated that the City Council would make the final determination. He asked that
anyone interested should attend the Council meeting on November 8 and voice
the same concerns to the City Council.
Mr. Leo Eiden, 7803 49th Avenue, came forward to address the Commission.
His property was located directly east of the site and he had lived there over 40
years. Traffic generation and the high density were his main concerns. Eiden
questioned why the proposal was being considered. Brixius responded that the
Comprehensive Plan identified a need for more maintenance-free type housing
in the City for the empty-nester population.
Quigley questioned what other options would be available for the property. He
pointed out that several years ago neighbors of a New Hope park had
purchased the property and donated it to the City. He added that a project
should not be allowed to go forward based on the taxes generated for the City.
Mr. Glen Waytashek, 4840 Utah Avenue, came forward and questioned the
setbacks for the PUD development. Brixius explained that the setbacks were
required to be larger with this type of zoning due to the fact that the density
would be greater. Waytashek reiterated that the proposed project and number
of townhomes would be too many for this site and the traffic generated would
add to the problems at this busy intersection.
Kramer mentioned that he had lived in single family and townhome situations.
The townhome that he lived in was surrounded by single family homes. He
added that many of the people living in townhomes are single individuals or
couples with no children.
Discussion ensued on over-flow parking. Mr. Waytashek raised the issue of
snow removal and/or storage on the property. Mike Vagle responded that there
would be four spaces for each townhome. It would not be reasonable to
provide additional parking at any site for the one or two times a year it may be
required.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Oelkers wondered whether there would be adequate stacking space for
vehicles westbound on 49th Avenue from the signal to where Virginia Avenue
met 49th and the City Engineer affirmed that space would be adequate.
The City Attomey interjected that the Planning Commission should give
consideration to the rezoning issue relative to the character of the area and
how it may have changed to warrant the rezoning consideration, which would
Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 1, 1999
be the determining factor as to whether a rezoning change would be
appropriate. Circumstances change through the years which may warrant a
zoning change. The Planning Commission should make recommendations to
the City Council on specific items that would support the zoning change.
Svendsen maintained that the Comprehensive Plan supports the fact that the
empty-nester population desires to stay in the area and New Hope should try to
provide this type of housing. He felt the project would be good for New Hope.
Hemken questioned the zoning and density issues. Discussion ensued
regarding the fact that PUD zoning was a unique classification. As part of a
PUD, the requested zoning would be part of the concept plan and the density
issue could be adjusted through this process.
Green was concerned about the significant amount of traffic utilizing the
Winnetka Avenue private driveway and wondered whether this driveway could
be moved further north between the buildings and farther away from the
neighbor's property. Green stressed the fact that too many units were proposed
for this site. The City Engineer responded that Hennepin County would need to
authorize any curb cut on Winnetka Avenue. The traffic count on 49th Avenue
was only 20-30 percent of the traffic count on Winnetka. Kramer added that fire
trucks would not be able to move around on the property if the driveway would
be shifted further to the north.
Discussion ensued whether the private driveway could be marked for
emergency vehicles only. The possibility of a gate/key entrance to the private
driveway was discussed. It was noted that the gate would be a visual detriment
to the site.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 99-21, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development, Rezone from R-1 Single Family Residential to PUD, and
Preliminary Plat Approval of 13 Lots by L & A Homes, 7849 and 7829 49t~
Avenue North, Lloyd and Alice Vagle, Petitioners, subject to the following
conditions:
Plat
1. Incorporate items from City Attorney's correspondence.
2. Add appropriate easements as requested by Hennepin County.
3. Consider Hennepin County's request for sidewalk easements.
4. Provide a separate utility connection for each unit.
5. Review private driveway on the south side of the property.
Site Plan
6. Revise grading plan to provide proper tree preservation measures.
7. Consider eliminating setbacks between driveways of adjoining garages.
8. Obtain appropriate permits from Hennepin County for approval of the
private street access to Winnetka Avenue.
9. Utility plan is subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer.
10. Incorporate the grading plan recommendations of the City Engineer.
11. Hammerhead turn-around area and the private drive must be signed no
parking.
12. One-way access from Winnetka must be properly signed to assure that
the access is not used for movements onto Winnetka Avenue.
Landscapin.q
13. Increased landscaping along the rear of the buildings to reduce building
mass and around air conditioning units.
14. Replace the three Colorado Spruce trees along Winnetka Avenue with
six over story deciduous trees.
15. Provide a landscape accent at the corner of 49th and Winnetka Avenues
Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 1, 1999
designed in accordance with the traffic visibility requirements.
16. Enlarge landscape area north of the private drive to extend to the south
end of the fence.
17. Add landscaping accents along Winnetka to break up the fence length.
18. Review type of fence or wall to separate patios on four-unit townhouses.
19. Review tree preservation efforts.
Fencing review
20. Interrupt or jog the fence at the midpoint along west and east property
lines.
21. Provide detail of the fence along Winnetka, including materials and
design.
Building
22. Consider eliminating staggered garage fronts to increase garage size by
adding two feet to the front of the twinhome garages, if the property area
allows.
23. Consider realigning patio with exterior doors.
24. Improve rear elevations and quality of roof coverings.
Li~htina
25. Provide lighting specifications and contours for site.
Homeowners Association
26. Clarification of common lot issues.
27. Common areas to be owned by the unit lots as an equal, undivided
interest.
28. City must approve of the Homeowners Association rules and any
subsequent changes to the rules.
29. Homeowners dedication shall be subject to review and comment of the
City Attorney.
Development Agreement and Performance Bond
30. Developer to execute a development agreement with the City of New
Hope and submit a financial guarantee as determined by the City
Engineer and Building Official.
Kramer questioned whether the motion included changing the density
because he was not in favor of 12 units on the site. Svendsen stated he was
not agreeable to changing the motion, nor was Oelkers.
Landy announced for the benefit of the audience that the motion was for
concept stage PUD, which would require the petitioner to return to the
Planning Commission for development stage and final plat approval.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Green, Brauch, Oeikers, Svendsen
Voting against: Hemken, Kramer, Landy
Absent: Sonsin
Motion carried on a 5:3 vote.
Vice Chairman Landy informed the petitioners that the City Council would
review these plans at the November 8 meeting and asked the petitioners to
attend the meeting. Landy encouraged the audience to attend the meeting and
voice their comments.
Commissioner Green questioned whether the density review was part of this
motion and was informed it was not. She stated she was not in favor of the high
density and desired to change her vote.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Green, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
recall the previous vote approving Planning Case 99-21.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy
Oelkers, Svendsen
Planning Commission Meeting 7 November 1, 1999
Absent: Sonsin
Motion carried on a 6:2 vote.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
reconsider the first motion to approve Planning Case 99-21, Request for
Concept Stage Planned Unit Development, Rezone from R-1 Single
Family Residential to PUD, and Preliminary Plat Approval of 13 Lots by L
& A Homes, 7849 and 7829 49th Avenue North, Lloyd and Alice Vagle,
Petitioners, subject to the same conditions previously approved.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy
Absent: Sonsin
Motion defeated with a 4:4 vote.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
amend the original motion by Commissioner Oelkers, subject to the
following additional condition:
31. City Council to give direction to the Planning Commission as to the density
desired for the site.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers, Svendsen
None
Sonsin
Vice Chairman Landy stated that the City Council would review this issue at the
meeting on November 8 and advise the Planning Commission on the density
issue. Landy urged the audience to attend the Council meeting and voice their
concerns.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
October with the petitioners. Upcoming applications may include SuperAmerica
and possibly a Keelor Steel (Ryerson Coil Processing) expansion, as well as L
and A Homes.
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Vice Chairman Landy reported that Codes & Standards had not been meeting
due to the fact that the entire Zoning Code was being updated.
Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee
Item 5.3
Commissioner Landy announced that the Comprehensive Plan Update
Committee did not meet.
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 5.4
Landy announced that the Zoning Code Update Committee had scheduled its
first meeting for December 2, 1999.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Oelkers questioned the outcome of the 9325 31~ Avenue garage issue.
McDonald stated that he had not responded pending direction from the
Planning Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
Planning Commission Meeting 8 November 1, 1999
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
accept the letter from Mr. Langenbach regarding the building materials
on the garage addition. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
There was some discussion regarding the pads installed for the bus benches.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 3,
1999. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Brauch questioned the frequency of a petitioner withdrawing
their request, such as Little Folks Daycare, and it was noted that this was a rare
occurrence.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Commissioner Oelkers asked for clarification on the plans for 5410/5412
Winnetka Avenue as was reported in the EDA minutes.
There were no announcements.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 9 November 1, 1999
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 7, 1999
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present;
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Sonsin,
Svendsen
Landy, Oelkers
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-24
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Conditional
Use Permit to Allow Limited Retail Sales in an Industrial Zoning District for
Products Manufactured or Processed on the Site, 4301 Quebec Avenue North,
Nielsen's Equipment & Design, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners were requesting a conditional use
permit to allow limited retail sales for products they manufacture on the site.
The specific standards for limited retail sales in an industrial district are: 1) all
sales are conducted in a clearly defined space, 2) the building location has
access to a collector street without utilizing residential streets, and 3) the hours
of operation are limited to 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. The property is located in an I-2
General Industrial District, with I-2 zoning to the north and east, B-4 Community
Business to the south and R-4 apartments to the west. The building contains
50,630 square feet and the green area ratio is 12 percent. The I-2 District does
not have a green area requirement. McDonald continued saying that the site
was developed in 1970 with the office/warehouse in its present size. The land
is fiat with four feet of slope from west to east at Quebec Avenue. The
landscaping consists of a 25-foot wide front yard and 10-foot rear yard behind a
cyclone fence. Oildyne had owned the building for the past ten years and
relocated to another site in New Hope.
McDonald reported that the petitioners were requesting the CUP to provide a
small retail sales floor which would be open to the public. Nielsen's Equipment
and Design provides equipment and supplies to all aspects of the foodservice
industry. The custom fabrication sheet metal shop also supplies manufactured
equipment to a variety of businesses, including forensic science, crime labs,
and medical testing facilities. They have been in business since 1970 at a
location in Brooklyn Park. The majority of the business is the design and
fabrication of custom stainless steel sinks, cabinets, tables and related items
used in the foodservice industry, as well as assembling and installing the
equipment. Nielsen's is a full-line dealer and purchases products from other
dealers, which would also be on the show room floor until installation by their
personnel. The show floor would occupy less than 10 percent of the total
building area, and would be open to the public, however, they do not anticipate
a large volume of traffic. The hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. An ADA restroom would be added near the
show floor.
McDonald stated that Nielsen's would have one 75 square feet sign located
near the street, which would be attached to the existing planter. The outside of
the building would be painted and a new "standing seam metal roof" would
replace the existing shake roof. Existing outside lighting was shown on the plan
and would not be changed. There would be four company vehicles which would
be parked in a designated area. Office and fabrication refuse would be stored
inside the building until the day of pickup. The petitioner stated on the
application that the request should be granted because the business would be
an asset to the community and there currently are no commercial food service
equipment retail outlets in the City.
McDonald reported that property owners within 350 feet of the property were
notified and staff hadn't received any comments.
The purpose of a CUP is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally
permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated
uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this
determination, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings,
whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same
premises or close by, and the effect on traffic. Other general criteria to consider
include: 1) whether the use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
2) whether the use is compatible with adjacent land uses, 3) whether the
proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards in the Code,
and 4) the proposed use would not depreciate the area. Criteria specific to the
I-2 Zoning District would include: 1) whether the business would create a
nuisance or have an adverse effect upon adjacent areas, and 2) whether the
use would provide an economic return to the community. The specific
standards for limited retail sales are met, with regard to floor area, access to
the site, and hours of operation.
McDonald mentioned that the Design & Review Committee met with the
petitioners and confirmed that the petitioner would be the sole tenant in the
building and there would be only one-shift of workers. The Committee
discussed items such as signage, building repairs, hazardous waste, truck
docks and parking, outdoor storage, lighting, and landscaping. Revised plans
were submitted. There were 86 parking stalls shown on the plan, including two
handicap stalls, and code required 64 stalls. The existing lot had no curbing.
The site plan showed that 25 feet of new chain link fence would be added at
the southwest corner of the site to prevent traffic "cut-throughs." Staff
requested that the lawn damage be repaired. No additional landscaping was
proposed, due to the fact that there are five existing shade trees on the east
boulevard. An existing underground sprinkler system was shown on the plan.
No additional outside lighting was proposed. There are existing lights on the
south, north, and east sides of the building, plus a soffit light at the east
entrance. Truck docks are shown on the north and south sides of the building
as well as a small truck area on the north side of the building on the eastern-
most side. A new 5' x 10' oval cabinet ground sign would be mounted on the
existing brick base planter near Quebec Avenue. Code requires a 10-foot
setback which may not be met and would be an existing condition. The sign
would be blue and white and would state "Nielsen's Equipment & Design, Inc.,
Food Service Equipment & Supplies, Custom Sheet Metal with phone number."
The floor plan indicates the showroom inside the front entrance on the north
side of the building. The building is equipped with auto fire sprinklers.
McDonald stated that there were several other sites in the City where limited
retail sales in industrial zones have been allowed if the product was
manufactured on the site, such as Lunds Bakery and Hostess. Staff
recommends approval of the CUP, subject to the conditions listed in the
planning report.
Mr. Len Groschen, Vice President of Nielsen's Equipment & Design, Inc. and
Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 1, 1999
owner the building, D & L Holdings LLC, came forward to answer questions
from the Commission.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Commissioner Svendsen reiterated a few items that the Design & Review
Committee discussed with the petitioner, namely that there would be no second
shift of workers, the shop would be air conditioned and the doors would be kept
closed so there would be no noise disturbance to the apartments to the west.
All rooftop units would need to be color clad or screened. It was noted that
there would be no hazardous materials used and the scrap metal would be
stored inside the building. It was confirmed that no additional lighting would be
needed by the door on the west side of the building. Company vehicles would
be parked outside in a designated parking area on the north side of the
building. The sign area meets code requirements. There was discussion
regarding the location of the monument for the sign as it may be less than 10
feet to the property line and it was noted that the monument would be accepted
as an existing condition.
Commissioner Brauch questioned whether there would be any welding done
on the site and if the fumes were vented into the atmosphere or filtered first.
Groschen responded that there was a new exhaust system in the building; but
it was not filtered. Brauch reiterated that he was concerned about odors due to
the fact that there was outdoor dining at the restaurant adjacent to the site.
Groschen maintained that there was no odor, however, if neighboring property
owners complained, they would install a filtering system. Brauch stated he
would like to see this added as a condition of approval. Svendsen questioned
whether or not the EPA or OSHA had any concerns and was told no. The City
Attorney pointed out that if there were no EPA or OSHA concerns, this could
not be a condition of approval.
Chairman Sonsin stated that at one time there was an agreement between
Oildyne and the Sunshine Factory to utilize the 4301 Quebec Avenue parking
lot for overflow parking and wondered whether this was still in effect. Groschen
stated he was not told about any agreement for parking. McDonald interjected
that the agreement may have expired and staff could check into this.
Svendsen questioned whether the CUP was given to the building or the
business and the City Attorney responded that the CUP was attached to the
land and not necessarily the business applying for the CUP. The business
could use the property as long as the conditions were met, and if another
business purchased the property, it could use the property for a like business
as long as the conditions were met. Groschen reiterated that he was the
property owner as well as the business owner.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
approve Planning Case 99-24, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow Limited Retail Sales in an Industrial Zoning District for Products
Manufactured or Processed on the Site, 4301 Quebec Avenue North,
Nielsen's Equipment & Design, Inc. and D & L Real Estate Holdings LLC,
Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Clarify sign setback from property line or accept as existing
condition.
2. General cleanup of any debris on property, extend fence at
southwest corner, and repair lawn damage.
3. Paint entire building exterior and upgrade office roof within nine
months.
4. Complete interior remodeling including accessible restrooms and
parking signs ("Customer" and "Disability"), before requesting a
final inspection.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 November 1, 1999
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee
Item 5.3
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 5.4
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Sonsin,
Svendsen
None
Landy, Oelkers
Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioners that the City Council would review
the request at the December 13 meeting and asked the petitioners to attend
the meeting.
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
November with the petitioners. McDonald added that L&A Homes would
probably be ready with a new proposal for January's Planning Commission
meeting.
Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards had not been meeting due
to the fact that the entire Zoning Code was being updated.
McDonald announced that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee did not
meet.
McDonald announced that the Zoning Code Update Committee held its first
meeting on December 2 to begin the process of reviewing the entire code,
which was prompted by the update of the Comprehensive Plan. After the
Committee reviews each section of the Code, it would be presented to the
Planning Commission for input. Upon completion of a preliminary draft, a joint
work session may be scheduled with the Committee, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council for review and discussion. The next meeting
was scheduled for January 20.
Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that consideration should be given to
extending the hours of operation for retail sales in an industrial district because,
from his experience, contractors prefer to arrive to pick up product by 7:00 or
7:30 a.m. so they can then get to their jobs on time. His operation runs two
shifts from 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Kramer, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 1,
1999. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Hemken questioned what had transpired with the L&A Homes proposal at the
November 8 Council meeting. McDonald reported that the Council did not
approve the proposal for 12 units on the property and recommended six units
to the petitioner. The petitioner contacted the City the following day and asked
whether or not it would agree to eight units. The Council discussed and agreed
to eight units at the November 15 work session. L&A Homes responded with a
proposal for eight units which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission
in January.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 1, 1999
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
It was noted that Commissioners Anderson, Hemken, and Kramer would be re-
appointed to the Planning Commission at the December 13 City Council
meeting.
McDonald reported that possible expansions for next year may include
Navarre, Ryerson Coil Processing (Keelor Steel), Chippewa Graphics, and
Liberty Diversified Industries. A new development has been discussed utilizing
the vacant property at 9200 49th Avenue for an existing New Hope company.
Additional development may include the A.C. Carlson property on Bass Lake
Road, SuperAmerica, and the 36thANinnetka vacant property. McDonald stated
that the Ardel Engineering building would be demolished before the end of the
month, the groundwater would be cleaned up, and the property marketed for
development. Commissioner Anderson mentioned he knew a developer that
may be interested in the property.
McDonald also stated that the Walgreens development was proceeding on
schedule and the buildings would be demolished in the near future.
Commissioner Kramer pointed out that he was concerned about the amount of
traffic on 42nd Avenue and the difficulty of entering and exiting the driveway at
Country Kitchen.
Discussion ensued regarding Hosterman Middle School.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 1, 1999