2000 Planning CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 2000
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
CONSENT BUSINESS
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers
(arrived 7:10 p.m.) Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Marry
Malecha, Assistant City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning
Consultant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-21B
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Concept
Stage Planned Unit Development Approval, Rezone from R-1 Single Family to
PUD, and Preliminary Plat Approval of 9 Lots by L & A Homes, 7849 and 7829
49th Avenue North, Lloyd and Alice Vagle, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners presented concept/development stage
plans for a PUD 12-unit townhome proposal at the November Planning
Commission meeting and the Commission recommended approval subject to
several conditions, including direction from the City Council on the density of
the project. The Council did not approve the 12-unit proposal and subsequently
the request was denied. The petitioner then submitted a revised concept plan
for eight units, which the City Council reviewed at its work session. The Council
was generally supportive of eight units and laid out specific conditions as
reported in the work session minutes, i.e., maximum of eight units with a
homeowners association, limit of four single-stow twinhomes, maximum
retention of mature trees, address snow storage issues, and address setback
impacts to abutting property owners. The Council requested that the developer
return with new plans and go back to the Planning Commission. The developer
then met with city staff and consultants with a revised eight-unit proposal
incorporating a majority of the items requested by the City Council. The
developer was proposing only concept approval at this time and would proceed
with development/final stage plans if the concept would be approved. The
focus of the discussion at this meeting would be whether or not the concept
was appropriate for this site. McDonald mentioned that some details would be
presented now and the specific detailed plans would follow at a subsequent
meeting.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the application consisted of a
PUD, which is a district that allows for a full range of land uses with some
flexibility. In considering a rezoning, certain considerations need to be made
regarding whether the current zoning was due to a past zoning mistake. Due to
the fact that a great portion of the surrounding properties are zoned R-1 single
family, the current zoning was not a mistake. Another consideration was
whether or not the area had changed to warrant a zoning change. The western
half of the property was a vacant lot. Several land studies have been completed
in the City in the last several years, i.e., New Hope Vacant Land Study of 1989
showing a change from Iow density single family to a medium density land use,
1997 Life Cycle Housing Study identifying a need for Iow maintenance,
independent housing for the empty nester population, and the 1999 update of
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifying the site for development
opportunities for Iow/medium density residential. All of these studies point to
the fact that conditions have changed that warrant consideration of a zoning
change. The 1999 Comprehensive Plan emphases a need to provide a variety
of housing infill developments, promote private redevelopment, promote empty
nester alternatives to single family, provide for and maintain the character of
individual neighborhoods, prevent over-intensification of land use, and examine
remedies for compatibility issues, and provide proper transitions between
distinctly different land use types. The land use would seem appropriate due to
the site's proximity to the surrounding high and Iow density land uses. With the
present land use, compatibility issues would include fencing, screening, site
design, and single story home design. The site should be properly serviced so
as not to overburden the existing public utilities or surrounding streets.
Brixius explained that a Planned Unit Development included three different
stages: 1) concept stage where consideration is given to the proposed land use
and density and identifies certain criteria, 2) development stage where more
specific development and construction plans are submitted, and 3) final stage
which is a summary of the entire completed plan. The developer was
requesting concept stage only to obtain some agreement between the Planning
Commission and City Council prior to expending funds on development stage
plans.
Brixius continued saying that per the direction of the City Council, the developer
had proposed a variety of twinhomes. The twinhomes would be single story,
with some variety in the footprints and elevations. The exterior treatments of
the buildings would be consistent from site to site. The overall design includes
eight unit lots, one common lot, and four outlots. The four outlots on the east
property line would allow for future development in the event the property
owner to the east would choose to sell. The site contains 66,396 square feet,
with approximately 12,678 square feet designated as public street right-of-way,
leaving a net buildable area of 53,718 square feet or 1.24 acres. This would
result in a lot area of 6,714 square feet per unit. Typically the lot area required
for twinhomes would be 7,000 square feet per unit. The increased density may
be permitted as part of the PUD. The required setbacks are met on the north,
south, and west property lines. The east property line setback requirement
would be 15.5 feet and the proposed setback would be 14 feet. Staff
recommends that this setback be brought into conformance. There are some
deficiencies in the setbacks between buildings. If these setbacks cannot be
minimized, a variance would be required.
Brixius stated that staff had made several recommendations on the landscape
plan including asking for quantities to be shown on the plan, greater
landscaping in the southwest and northwest corners of the site, replace the
three Colorado spruce along Winnetka Avenue with six over-story trees,
replace the ash trees along the south property line with oak trees, provide more
variation in plantings around the building's foundation, and provide detail of
plantings to be placed in the cul-de-sac island. The applicant should also post
"no parking" signs throughout the development. Steps should be taken to
preserve as many trees as possible and a tree preservation plan should be
submitted. The proposed perimeter wood fencing along the south and east
property lines would be six feet in height. A maintenance free fence would be
installed along Winnetka Avenue. Additional details on materials utilized should
be provided, as well as details to interrupt the fence in some fashion to soften
the visual impact due to its length. A pedestrian sidewalk would be required
from Winnetka to the development's entrance. The proposed lighting fixture
should be shown on the site plan. The Homeowners Association must address
equal and undivided interest in Lot 9, and insure that each unit would maintain
a vested interest in the common area. The Homeowners Association could
own the outlots. The Homeowners Association should outline the restrictions
Planning Commission Meeting 2 January 4, 2000
on the outside storage and that these rules would not change without City
approval.
Brixius continued saying that the preliminary plat involved combining two
existing lots and dividing into eight lots, one common lot, four outlots, and
public street right-of-way. The City Attorney indicated that the legal description
extended the property west into Winnetka Avenue and north into 49th Avenue
and these two portions should be identified as street dedication. The cul-de-sac
should be shown as an outlot on the plat. Title evidence should be provided
prior to final plat approval. The City Engineer pointed out that drainage and
utility easement along 49th Avenue be described as drainage, utility and
walkway easement to allow for the sidewalk location. The extension of utilities
would extended into the property on the west side of the cul-de-sac and an
easement should be shown on the plat for the proposed utilities.
Brixius explained that the density had been reduced, site modifications comply
with City Council directives, and the over-all design proceeded through staff
review and Design & Review. Staff recommended concept approval.
Mr. Mike Vagle, representing Lloyd and Alice Vagle, came forward to answer
questions of the Commission, and stated that they had tried to accommodate
all the concerns of the Council and staff in the revised concept plans.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether or not the buildings on the east
side could be shifted slightly to the west and north to increase the eastern
boundary setback to the required 15.5 feet. Vagle responded that they needed
to maintain separation between buildings and preserve as many existing trees
as possible. Vagle stated that 14 feet was provided and inquired why more
space was needed when the setback for single family homes was only 10 feet.
Brixius replied that in a PUD the setback for the periphery was to be equal to
the height of the building. Brixius stated that the internal separation between
buildings could be a little smaller in order to increase the eastern boundary
setback to the required 15.5 feet. Vagle reiterated that he felt that, from a
homeowner's perspective, the eastern boundary setback would be less crucial
than the distance between the buildings. Svendsen stated that the City was
trying to provide an adequate buffer between the development and the single
family home to the east. Vagle questioned whether there would be any leeway
given due to the fact that the house was closer to 49th Avenue and the rear of
the lot was vacant land. Vagle stated that he would rather not sacrifice the
distance between the buildings if at all possible, but would try to comply if
required to do so.
Svendsen stated that he did appreciate that the developer incorporated the
suggestions from Design & Review regarding the island and preserving many
of the existing mature trees. The island would provide a place for snow storage.
Discussion ensued regarding lot size and the fact that code required 7,000
square feet and the proposal would be for approximately 6,400 square feet per
lot.
Commissioner Kramer initiated discussion on the setback requirements.
Brixius added that the PUD allowed for a more intense land use and a greater
setback was required at the periphery, specifically from an R-1 District.
Commissioner Landy questioned the easement on Winnetka Avenue and
McDonald responded that as long as the easement was changed to include
"trail" the County approved.
Commissioner Hemken questioned why a fence was being required along
Winnetka Avenue. Brixius replied that a fence was being required to screen the
backyards of the twinhomes from the traffic on Winnetka and to provide some
Planning Commission Meeting 3 January 4, 2000
privacy for the occupants. Some type of treatment was being required to break
up the long expanse of fencing by placing a jog in the fence or some type of
vines or plantings. Hemken questioned who would maintain the outlots and
islands, and Vagle answered that the Association would hire someone to tend
those areas. It was confirmed that plantings in the islands would be replaced as
necessary. Public Works had recommended the islands, which would reduce
the amount of area that would need to be plowed and would provide a place for
snow storage.
Mr. Leo Eiden, 7803 49th Avenue, came forward to address the Commission.
He stated that possibly the first proposal with 12 units was a better use of the
property. He felt the fence could be higher than six feet, and the setback was
not a high priority.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that he supported the redevelopment of the
property and this was a wonderful opportunity to provide housing in New Hope.
He also felt that the 12-unit proposal was a better use of the land. The
Comprehensive Plan suggested development of this particular property and
from his perspective the Council had chastised the Planning Commission for
accepting the 12-unit proposal. He stated he would be abstaining from voting
on this project to let the City Council know they made an error in judgment by
not accepting the 12-unit proposal.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 99-21B, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development Approval, Rezone from R-1 Single Family to PUD, and
Preliminary Plat Approval of 9 Lots by L & A Homes, 7849 and 7829 49th
Avenue North, Lloyd and Alice Vagle, Petitioners, subject to the following
conditions:
Submit revised preliminary plat, final plat, and development/final
stage plans that incorporate the recommendations included in the
Planner's report and in the correspondence from the City Engineer
and City Attorney, as outlined in this report and included in the
attachments.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Abstain:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
None
Oelkers
Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioners that the City Council would review
the request at the January 10 meeting and asked the petitioners to attend the
meeting.
ZONING CODE
UPDATE
Mr. Brixius stated that the Zoning Code Committee was in the process of
reviewing the Zoning Code and portions of the Code would be presented with
the Planning Commission as it was completed by the Committee. He reviewed
the Zoning Code with the Commission as follows:
4.01 - Title and Application - The only change in this section was the inclusion
of a statement repealing the existing ordinance as being proposed.
4.02 - Definitions - This section would be completed at the end to provide a
comprehensive list.
4.03- General Provisions - Non-Conforming - The objective was to make the
Planning Commission Meeting 4 January 4, 2000
Code more user friendly, make administration easier for the applicant and the
City, and to promote redevelopment and private reinvestment. The first major
area of change was §4.032 and 4.033 dealing with expansion of non-
conforming uses. Expansions of non-conforming single-family or two-family
homes would be allowed by administrative permit rather than going through a
variance or conditional use permit provided that the building would not be
increasing the degree of non-conformity and would only be non-conforming by
reason of height, setback, or lot area. The same would be allowed for industrial
buildings if the non-conformity would be by reason of building height or
setback. The Planning Commission and City Council would still review the
building expansion through the site plan review process, which does not require
public hearing notice, notification to surrounding property owners, and the
public hearing process. §4.032(1)(a) includes language that recreational
vehicles may be used for temporary living quarters on private property for
periods not to exceed one week. §4.032(2)(a) deals with minimum "habitable"
floor area for one and two family dwellings and townhouses. The area was
reduced to 1,000 square feet which excludes the garage area currently
included. Building width, heights and exceptions were grouped together.
Specific language was included in §4.032(5)(c) regarding rooftop mechanical
equipment and §4.032(5)(d) deals with aviation obstructions per the
recommendation of Met Council. §4.032(6)(c) reduced the permitted side yard
for garages/accessory buildings abutting a street to three feet.
§4.032(6)(g) dealing with air conditioners was discussed extensively. The
proposed verbiage stated that all side yard air conditioners may be allowed.
The Zoning Code Committee felt that if a side yard air conditioning unit was
approved for one resident, the neighboring property owner should be allowed
the same courtesy. Sonsin expressed concern over this change; members of
the Design & Review Committee felt the change was for the best. A
recommendation was made to conduct additional research on this item. Brixius
pointed out that the Zoning Code Committee desired to make the Code more
user friendly, more equitable in its treatment, and to reduce the number of
development applications. Due to the number of past applications and the
granting of approval, it would show that there may be a need for an ordinance
revision. McDonald interjected that the Codes & Standards Committee had
previously recommended this change, the Planning Commission had
recommended change, and the City Council had rejected the recommendation
to change the ordinance regarding air conditioners in the side yard. Sonsin
stated that he understood this would be a rewrite of the Code and not major
changes to the Code. McDonald added that many major changes would be
recommended including consolidating or eliminating some zoning districts, and
expanding the uses in certain zoning districts. Sonsin reiterated that he did not
support the change for air conditioners. Oelkers commented that he supported
this change due to the fact that air conditioning units are much quieter now
than when this version of the Code was written. Svendsen agreed with this and
added that units are required to be screened and replacing or installing air
conditioning units was an improvement to the properties; Kramer concurred
with these comments. McDonald interjected that there would be issues that
everyone may not agree with, and that sometime in the spring the Zoning Code
Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council would all meet to discuss
these issues.
There was clarification to language regarding antenna heights and setbacks in
§4.032(6)(h)(i) and (iv).
Each of the Zoning Districts would be compartmentalized so as to list uses, lot
area, and setback requirements so in the event someone would want
information about a particular district, all of that information could be obtained
without paging through several areas of the code for the correct information.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 January 4, 2000
In §4.033(3)(b) Svendsen recommended that the City require a Certificate of
Survey rather than accepting a scale drawing that may or may not contain the
correct information. This issue was discussed previously and the
recommendation to the Council was to require a Certificate of Survey. The
Council at that time did not wish to increase the cost for the resident. It was
noted that most adjacent cities do require a Certificate of Survey for any
expansion project.
§4.033(3)(d) dealing with existing smaller lots was moved to the non-
conforming section. §4.033(3)(0 regarding double frontage lots was deleted.
§4.033(4) dealing with open space was changed to help make more land. A
single family home would now be allowed up to 65 percent of the property to be
used, with 35 percent designated as open space. The recreation space in
§4.033(4)(b) was clarified. Open space was established for multiple family
dwellings, as well as elderly/disabled housing.
Some setbacks were eliminated that were overly restrictive or inappropriate to
manufacture land to be utilized for development. The setback from community
collector streets was recently amended and the setbacks by railroads was
deleted. McDonald added that one of the recommendations was to consolidate
the two industrial districts into one district, due to the fact that the majority of the
land in the City was zoned I-1. There are very few I-2 properties and most of
these are light industrial businesses. The green area requirement would remain
the same for the combined district. There currently is a significant setback
requirement between the I-2 general industrial district and residential districts.
The recommended setback would probably be reduced to approximately 25
feet. Many times a building would be a better buffer between the two districts
than if a parking lot would abut the residential district. The commercial and
industrial buildings would be subject to full Planning Commission and Council
approval. A question was raised as to how many buildings would become non-
conforming by combining the districts. If combining the districts would create
many non-conforming units, the districts could remain as they currently exist.
§4.033(6)(d) was added dealing with the sight triangle setback to insure there
are vision lines along the street for pedestrian and automobile traffic. It was
noted that that "site triangle" should read "sight triangle." This section was
previously located under landscaping.
§4.033(7) renames a double bungalow to twinhome. The lot area for
twinhomes has been recommended to be changed to 6,000 square feet,
however, further research would be completed at the time the individual
districts are reviewed. Oelkers commented that it was his opinion that the
definition of a townhome would be a unit that was governed by an association
and a twinhome would be on its own with no association governing it. He stated
that in the real estate community the two units were completely different.
Brixius stated that in a single and two-family district it should be treated as a
twinhome with a little larger lot area per unit, and in the medium density district
that allows for townhomes, the twinhome and townhome could be treated with
the same lot size. Oelkers reiterated that a distinction should be made between
twinhomes and townhomes and those governed by an association.
§4.034(3) deals with fencing and screening and under the general provisions,
the verbiage states that a property owner would not be prohibited from
installing a fence, however, if the fence would be installed in an easement area
and needed to be removed, it was the responsibility of the homeowner. It was
noted that most properties in the City do have an easement along the rear
and/or side yard property lines. A spelling correction was made to the word
"easement."
Kramer questioned whether or not there was any provision in the Code for
Planning Commission Meeting 6 January 4, 2000
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 6.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 6.2
Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee
Item 6.3
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 6.4
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
changing the natural drainage process and suggested it be added.
In §4.03(4) landscaping, several adjustment have been made. This section
was amended several years ago with regard to suggested trees, etc. It was
noted that on the Minimum Plant Size chart, clarification should be given to the
"balled/burlapped" column with regard to caliper and height. Clarification should
also be given as to where the measurement should be taken for the diameter
of the trees. A suggestion was made to not recommend oak trees due to the
fact that they are not as hardy as other species and grow more slowly.
§4.034(4)(b)(iv)(cc) changed the slope to three to one; (ee) required
landscaping to be irrigated or have access to an exterior water spigot; (gg)
deals with landscape maintenance and plants being replaced if they die.
§4.034(5) deals with glare from lighting and adjusts the requirement to one foot
candle instead of four foot candles as the code currently reads.
§4.034(10) regarding open sales lots has been deleted in this section and
would be moved to the specific district.
Brixius noted that another issue being discussed at the Committee level was
recreational vehicles.
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
December with the petitioners. McDonald stated that the February deadline
would be on Friday, and no new applications were anticipated. McDonald
inquired as to whether the Planning Commission would want to meet only to
review the Zoning Code or if they would prefer to hold off until the March
meeting. The Commission agreed that if there were no applications that they
would wait until the March meeting to meet.
Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards had not been meeting due
to the Zoning Code update.
Commissioner Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee did not
meet, however, the Planner had reviewed Maple Grove's Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and the City had responded to Maple Grove identifying a concern
over the significant commercial growth in the southwest corner of the Maple
Grove as it related to commercial development in New Hope and the impact of
traffic on the surrounding transportation systems.
Landy reported that the second meeting of the Zoning Code Update
Committee would be held on January 20.
In the event that the February Planning Commission meeting would be
canceled, Svendsen mentioned that it would be helpful to receive the Zoning
Code information a few days prior to the regular March Planning packet in
order to review it thoroughly.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 7,
1999. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 January 4, 2000
ELECTIONS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Sonsin opened the floor for nominations for officers for the year
2000. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by
Commissioner Green, to nominate Bill Sonsin for Chairman, Roger Landy for
Vice-Chairman, and Steve Svendsen for Third Officer. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
The Commission questioned what development/redevelopment proposals may
be on the agenda in 2000. McDonald stated that Navarre may be applying for
expansion in the next several months. Staff would be applying for a Brownfield
grant for cleanup of the property at 42nd/Quebec Avenues and would need to
submit a development proposal with that grant. ID Services was working with
staff on a potential development at 9200 49th Avenue. Other potential
applications could include Keelor Steel, CareBreak, and St. Therese.
McDonald stated that Walgreens was proceeding with demolition of the three
buildings with construction to begin in spring, and Kmart would be completing
improvements in spring.
The Commissioners commented positively regarding the article in the January
issue of Twin Cities Business Monthly on New Hope and Robbinsdale.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ame a ~yves er
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 8 January 4, 2000
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 6, 2000
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 Chair Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers
Sonsin, Svendsen
Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Susan Henry, Community
Development Specialist, Phil Kern, Administrative Assistant,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC99-21B
Item 4.1
Vice Chair Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for
Development/Final Stage Planned Unit Development Approval, Rezone from
R-1 Single Family to PUD, Side Yard Setback Variance, and Final Plat
Approval of Nine Lots by L & A Homes, 7849 and 7829 49th Avenue North,
Lloyd and Alice Vagle, Petitioners.
Mr. Brixius explained that the request was for development and final stage
PUD and final plat approval. The concept plan and preliminary plat was
approved on January 10 at the City Council meeting. The request
encompasses eight townhome units and one common lot. The PUD would be
allowed for condominium ownership and to allow flexibility in design standards.
The concept stage conditions of approval were incorporated into the
development stage plans. The Design & Review Committee reviewed the plans
in February and recommended a number of conditions, such as revising the
association documents, improving tree preservation details, and consideration
of storm sewer layout through the middle of the tree preservation area.
Brixius stated that the plat showed a 10-foot wide utility easement around the
entire property, a five-foot walkway/trail should be shown along Winnetka
Avenue. The plat was now platted to the centerline of Winnetka Avenue as
previously requested. The storm water pipe should be shown in an easement.
Staff recommended approval of the final plat.
Brixius noted that the overall plan was consistent with the concept plans
showing the lot arrangements and cul-de-sac. The density would be
approximately 6,700 square feet per unit. The setbacks conform to code
except along the east property line, which is one foot shy of the 15-foot
requirement. One setback between buildings was also one-foot shy of the
requirement. At the concept level, staff recommended approval of the
variances with the condition that the petitioner look at shifting the buildings to
lessen the variance needed. After analyzing the tree preservation measures
and maintaining the proper building and draining setback from the trees, staff
felt the one-foot variance from the eastern property line was justified. The
landscape plan was modified to include a revised plant schedule that
conformed with species and size. Additional landscaping had been provided in
the southwest corner to fill in the area between the end of the fence and the
south property line. Plant breaks have been provided along the Winnetka fence
line to provide some landscape amenity for the Winnetka streetscape. Staff
recommended that the plantings be taller, such as Techny Arvorbitae. Over-
story deciduous trees have been planted behind the fence to provide a canopy
MOTION
Item 4.1
planting extending toward the street and provide shade for the rear yards. Pin
oaks have been provided along the south property line. Tree preservation was
discussed by the Design & Review Committee, who asked for the tree
preservation areas to be enlarged. The City Engineer had made specific
suggestions as to the location of the storm water drainage pond and that the
sidewalk to be shifted closer to 49th Avenue. The fencing proposed along
Winnetka would be a six-foot high cedar fence to provide screening and
security for residents. The lighting standards proposed was consistent with the
recommendation from staff and would be downlit to prevent glare.
The Homeowners Association was reviewed and one area of concern was that
the unit lots would own Lot 9 and Outlot A in equal and undivided interest. This
ownership pattern would insure that there would be a vested interest in the
common area. The applicant's attorney indicated that this may raise issue with
insuring the common lot. This element should be resolved prior to the City
Council meeting. The balance of the association issues have been adequately
addressed and agreed upon by the applicant's attorney and city staff.
Brixius reported that the grading plan showed the location of the storm sewer
and sidewalk to preserve trees in the lower area adjacent to 49th Avenue. The
storm water pipe running along the east property line must be included in the
utility easement. The City Attorney had reviewed the Declaration and provided
comments that were included in the Planning Report.
Brixius stated that staff recommended approval of the plat and plans subject to
several conditions listed in the report.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether one of the units could be utilized
for a model prior to the completion of street, curb and gutter, due to the fact
that a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued until final inspection of all work.
Brixius pointed out that it was not the City's intention to prevent the use of one
unit to be utilized as a model prior to the completion of the project.
Mr. Mike Vagle, representing his parents Lloyd and Alice Vagle, came forward
to address the Commission. Oelkers questioned whether the petitioners had
met with the Engineer regarding the pipe on the north side of the property.
Brixius interjected that the latest plan showed the drainage pipe placed closer
to the street and away from the trees.
Mrs. Barbara Quigley, 7860 48th Avenue, came forward and asked about the
fence on the south property line. Brixius pointed out that the petitioner would
connect to the Quigley's existing fence and extend the fence to the property
line.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that he felt this was a wonderful project and
added that he felt staff had placed unnecessary requests on the petitioners.
Oelkers also stated he felt land was being wasted and that there should have
been 12 units rather than the approved eight units. In order to be a
development-friendly community, the City should be more reasonable in what it
requests of developers.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
approve Planning Case 99-2'1B, Request for Development/Final Stage
Planned Unit Development Approval, Rezone from R-1 Single Family to
PUD, Side Yard Setback Variance, and Preliminary Plat Approval of 9 Lots
by L & A Homes, 7849 and 7829 49th Avenue North, Lloyd and Alice Vagle,
Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 6, 2000
Final Plat
1. Revise final plat to show "Drainage, Utility and Walkway easement"
along west side of Lot 9.
2. Provide one set of mylar, full scale, revised plans and two blueline
sets, and three sets of 11" x 17" reductions.
3. Comply with City Attorney recommendations.
Plans
1. Comply with City Engineer recommendations on grading, drainage,
sidewalk, and tree preservation.
2. Comply with City Attorney recommendations on Declaration.
3. Make minor modification on landscape plan near fence break.
4. Execute PUD Development Agreement and provide financial
security (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building
Official) before application for any building permit.
Do not allow use of any structure until final inspection and receipt
of Certificates of Occupancy. City to allow one unit be to utilized as
a model after final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy issued,
while balance of units are completed.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers
None
Sonsin, Svendsen
Vice Chair Landy informed the petitioners that the City Council would review
the request at the March 13 meeting and asked the petitioners to attend the
meeting.
PC99-27
Item 4.2
Vice Chair Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Concept
Stage Planned Unit Development for a Third Building on an Existing Lot and a
Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use for the Mosaic Youth
Center, 7601 42nd Avenue North, YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis and
Robbinsdale Area Redesign, Petitioners.
Mr. Brixius stated the youth center would contain a combination of services that
would be centralized on one site and which would benefit the community. The
request for the Mosaic Youth Center is borne out of the Robbinsdale Area
Redesign to provide services for teens within the area. It was developed along
with the students in the school district as a place to allow teens to congregate,
to provide fun, exercise and services that are needed for this segment of the
population. The youth center would be located at the southernmost end of the
YMCA property located at 42nd and Quebec Avenues. There are two buildings
on site: the YMCA and a gazebo at the front of the property near 42nd Avenue.
A planned unit development application is required anytime there are multiple
buildings on a single parcel, and the addition of the youth center would be a
third building on the site. The PUD application allows several opportunities to
review plans for the proposed building.
Brixius continued by saying that the proposed land uses would include
commercial recreation for a multi-story building. The basement level would
include the teen center with recreational opportunities, coffee bar, and offices.
The main floor would contain an educational component, such as a library,
computer lab, art studio and conference rooms. The second floor would house
the Annex Teen Clinic, including exam rooms, offices, counseling rooms, and a
lab. The third floor would be split between Fairview Recovery Services, which
would include counseling and meeting rooms and which are allowed as a
permitted professional office use in the B-4 District, and the YMCA Point
Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 6, 2000
Northwest Shelter, which would utilize approximately 2,700 square feet and
would include some overnight stay facilities. An overnight stay facility type use
is not specifically permitted within the B-4 District. That use would be included
in the B-3 District which does allow motels, and was not rolled over into the B-4
District. Brixius stated that as part of the development stage approval, the City
would need to publish a text amendment to accommodate overnight care
facilities within the B-4 District. The B-4 District allows for a full array of
commercial services and staff felt that a hotel setting or the proposed overnight
stay facility would be an acceptable use within the B-4 District.
Brixius explained that the building would be located on the southern portion of
the lot and be encumbered by a DNR protected wetland, which divides the two
buildings on the property. The building layout complies with all the required
setbacks. The design of the building includes four stories, which includes the
basement: 6,200 square feet per floor, and 24,800 square feet for the entire
building. There may be some issue with the DNR protected wetland and
potential impacts on the Shingle Creek watershed. The City Engineer had
pointed out in correspondence that Shingle Creek may look at the entire site as
far as the wetland mitigation and water treatment, and any design plans would
need to meet the Watershed's approval. The proposed building would require
88 parking stalls and four ADA stalls. The site plan complies with minimum
standards. Staff suggested changes related to the loading area and the ADA
stalls that may result in a reduction of parking. Overflow parking would be
available at the YMCA center. The loading area at the west end of the building
was designed to accommodate small van delivery only. Staff indicated that due
to food services related to the coffee bar or the teen center there may be
additional deliveries, such as bottle trucks, that would need to be serviced and
the loading area should be reviewed in more detail.
Brixius noted that there was a bus stop at 42"d and Quebec Avenues that
served the YMCA and provided commuter access throughout the city. Staff had
previously recommended that the applicant provide a sidewalk straight north
from the facility to 42"d Avenue. After examination, staff found that the
boulevard along Quebec was treed and very narrow so any provision of a
sidewalk at that location would eliminate the tree line. The YMCA responded by
providing a connection that would extend from the youth center and connected
to the existing YMCA sidewalk system that ran parallel to the building and
connects with 42nd Avenue. Snow storage on the site would be provided along
the north parking area. This would need to be reviewed along with any future
grading and drainage plan as far as impact on the adjoining wetland. Lights
and signage have not been developed and would be part of the development
stage. The City Engineer had specific issues regarding the impact on the
adjoining wetland and the site's compliance with the New Hope Surface Water
Management Plan. The site may have issues as to suitable soils and soil
borings would be required prior to approving development stage plans. Brixius
noted that the Police Chief had reviewed the plans and offered comments in
support of both the use and the facility. Specific issues related to the site had
not been addressed at the concept level.
Brixius explained that generally a teen center would not be placed in an area
that may disturb adjacent propedies by noise or trespass. This site is centrally
located in the City and had commuter access. It was adjoined with the YMCA
with a history of providing similar types of services and would be a good
location for the facility in the community.
Mr. Tom McKinney, Director of YMCA at 7601 42"d Avenue, and Melodie
Hanson, Coordinator of Robbinsdale Area Redesign, 5624 Nevada Avenue,
Crystal, came to the podium to answer questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Hemken questioned who would be paying for the project and
Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 6, 2000
was informed that the YMCA, Robbinsdale Area Redesign, Teen Annex, and
Fairview Health Services would be fund-raising for the project. Hemken
questioned if the project would infringe on the playground and McKinney replied
that the playground would stay as is. The question was raised regarding who
would be utilizing the sleeping area proposed for the building. McKinney
responded that Point Northwest was a program through the YMCA that worked
with runaway youth between the ages of 12 and 17 and would be a temporary
shelter for kids that the police picked up or for families who asked for the
children to be taken out of the home or sometime kids call to be picked up and
taken to a safe place. There would be adult supervision at all times.
Commissioner Green questioned accessibility for the kids who don't drive and
was informed that there was a bus stop at 42r~ and Quebec Avenues with a
walkway all the way to the Youth Center.
Hemken questioned whether there would be any safety concerns for the
children utilizing the day care facilities at the YMCA. McKinney stated that the
day care was locked at all times. During outside playtimes the children were
with the teachers and at drop-off and pick-up times they were with their
parents. At the time the teen center would become most active, the day care
would be closed.
Commissioner Anderson questioned whether the project would be taxable and
was told that the project, as well as the YMCA, was non-taxable.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Discussion ensued on whether the building considerations were part of the
planning stage. Brixius stated that the PUD required those elements be tied
into the flexibility of the PUD, as well as the soil borings.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
approve Planning Case 99-27, Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development for a Third Building on an Existing Lot and a Conditional
Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use for the Mosaic Youth
Center, 7601 42nd Avenue North YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis and
Robbinsdale Area Redesign, Petitioners, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Platting of the property as one lot.
2. Approval of a grading plan by the Shingle Creek Watershed District,
3. A zoning amendment to allow overnight stay facilities in the B-4
District.
4. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a reduced loading area.
5. Submittal of detailed plans for Development/Final Stage PUD.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers
None
Sonsin, Svendsen
Vice Chair Landy informed the petitioners that the City Council would review
the request at the March 13 meeting and asked the petitioners to attend the
meeting.
PC00-02
Item 4.3
Vice Chair Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Site and
Building Plan Review Approval and Rear Yard Setback Variance, 3440
Winpark Drive, WinPark Associates LLC, Petitioners.
Landy disclosed that one member of WinPark Associates LLC was his son-in-
Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 6, 2000
law. He stated he did not have a financial interest in the project and according
to the City Attorney he could vote on the project unless the Commissioners felt
he should not. The consensus was that he could vote on the project.
Mr. Brixius began by saying that the projects the Commission had reviewed in
the last several months were consistent with redevelopment opportunities as
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Brixius stated the site on Winpark Drive was basically underutilized and
WinPark Associates was proposing a three-phase, in-place expansion of the
existing building that would occur over a 24-month period. The first phase
consisted of renovation of the existing footprint, by adding doors, redoing the
grading on the south property line to accommodate large truck traffic, ADA
enhancements within the building, cleaning up the entire site, outdoor storage,
landscaping, and drainage issues on the southeast corner of the property. The
second phase proposed an expansion on the west side of the building, which
would include 24,200 square feet. Parking improvements on the south and
west side of the building were included as well as a ponding area at the
northwest corner of the facility. The proposed expansion would include office
and warehouse space to accommodate a food distribution center,
simondelivers.com. This would be the nationwide headquarters for an Internet
home food delivery service. The third phase would be anticipated to occur
toward the later part of the 24-month period and would include a 75,000 square
foot expansion on the north side of the building. At this time, the City does not
have sufficient plans pertaining to grading, utility or other elements to give
approval. As a means of giving the applicant incentive to move forward with the
other phases of the project, staff would recommend that the Planning
Commission approve a setback variance along the east property line for the
proposed building addition. The existing building encroaches by one inch on
the CP Rail property. WinPark Associates had a written easement in its favor
from CP Rail for this encroachment. The future addition would be constructed
one inch to the west of the existing facility east wall to insure that there would
not be further encroachment on the CP Rail property. Similar variances have
been approved in the past.
Brixius noted that the site plan showed sufficient parking for the site. Some of
the Phase I disability parking near the front entrance had been relocated,
however, the balance of the disability parking was located in the northwest
corner of the site. A concern was raised with parking at that location due to the
fact that the configuration of the stalls does not allow for access or moving
around the corner of the building. The parking near the access point from
Winpark Drive at the northwest corner of the parking lot would require traffic
movement into the traffic lane. Staff would suggest that as Phase II progresses
that some of the parking would be moved to the front entrance of the building
for Phase II. If the north driveway was shifted closer to the pond, the parking
tier could be extended so the turning movement would not be in the traffic lane.
Suggestions were made on the landscape plan to extend the landscaping
further to the south along the west side of the building. An additional 12
plantings, such as conifer trees, staggered 15 feet apart should be added at the
southwestern corner of the site to better screen the truck loading and trash
compactor near Winpark Drive.
Brixius explained that the current building elevation was 906 and the proposed
addition would be 906. The elevations for the northern side of the property fall
dramatically. There is a three-story apartment building adjacent to the north
property line, and additional screening should be added to this side of the
property. The concern with raising the parking lot in this area would be with
headlights and glare onto the apartment property. Without detailed plans, staff
cannot be sure how this item would be addressed. The applicant was
proposing a monument sign on the property and staff would suggest
Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 6, 2000
consideration in relocating the sign further north on the property to align parallel
to Winpark Drive for better visibility. Brixius reported that the applicant had
indicated employee counts in their correspondence and the increase in jobs
would be a benefit to the community. Snow storage would occur in the over
supply of parking. At such time that there would be no over supply of parking,
snow would be removed from the site.
Brixius stated that the grading and drainage plan would be subject to approval
by Bassett Creek Watershed, the New Hope Surface Water Management
Plan, and the City Engineer. A pond maintenance agreement would be
required to insure that the pond is properly maintained by the property owner.
The water connections in Winpark would be sufficient to supply the needs of
the expansion. Additional hydrant requirements would be identified by the New
Hope Fire Department at a later time.
Brixius added that the site plan was consistent with recommendations from
staff and approval was recommended for Phase I and Phase II expansions,
subject to the recommendations in the staff report.
Mr. Robert Zakheim, WinPark Associates LLC, 2445 Nevada Avenue North,
Golden Valley, came forward to answer questions of the Commission.
Oelkers questioned the location of the east wall of the Phase III addition.
Zakheim reiterated that the encroachment was one inch onto the CP Rail
property and they had an existing easement in their favor from CP Rail. It was
their intention in constructing the Phase III addition to move the east wall of the
building to the west one inch so as not to further encroach on the CP Rail
property.
Zakheim stated that the tenant desired to have the maximum amount of
parking available. Zakheim stated he was comfortable with the
recommendation regarding the space on the southwest property area,
however, they had a concern about the two handicap stalls next to the pond.
There was an issue regarding the impact on the utilities in the area. Mr. Bob
Mikulak, general contractor, stated they had studied moving the driveway,
however, there are storm sewer, catch basin and telephone utility pole in that
area which would make it difficult to move the driveway to the north the
recommended 20 feet. They would agree to move the driveway as far north as
possible. A question was raised as to whether moving the driveway would
provide adequate depth for the parking stalls. The standard stall is 20 feet in
depth, therefore, by moving the driveway, two stalls would be added. Mikulak
responded that moving the driveway that far north did not work with regard to
the utilities in the area. The catch basin may then be located in the driveway
itself. The applicant indicated they would work with staff and move the driveway
to the north as far as possible. Staff's primary issue was that parking would
interrupt the direct access point. Realigning the driveway, moving the ADA
stalls to another location, and having the stalls run east/west would provide the
required area. Oelkers questioned why the ADA stalls were located by the pond
and the response was that the stalls were as close to the Phase II entrance as
if they would be located at the side of the building.
Oelkers questioned the applicant on the landscaping for the north side of the
property. Zakheim stated that there was approximately four acres of
undeveloped land to the north and west of the existing building. They desired to
fully develop the site as well as be sensitive to the residential property to the
north. Photographs were presented that showed current landscaping/
screening. They would add plantings to the satisfaction of staff. Brixius added
that the grading plan did not address the northern portion of the parking area.
By elevating the Phase III addition to 906, attention would need to be given to
screening on the north to eliminate headlight glare and lighting on the north
Planning Commission Meeting
7
March 6, 2000
side of the building. Brixius suggested that the Planning Commission act on
Phase II now and Phase Ill would be discussed when detailed plans were
submitted.
Zakheim stated that they had met with Simon recently and said their plans
were progressing faster than anticipated. Simon was requesting to expand the
entire facility as soon as possible. Zakheim questioned whether they could
proceed with the entire project at this time. Discussion ensued on whether
plans could be completed prior to the March 13 Council meeting. Brixius
questioned whether the Planning Commission would be comfortable with
approving Phase III subject to compliance with staff recommendations on
landscaping, grading, etc. without reviewing the plans again. Oelkers
suggested that the applicant have more detailed plans to present to the City
Council. Brixius stated, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the
petitioner should plan on final stage plans being presented to the Planning
Commission in April. There was further discussion on trying to expedite the
construction process. The petitioners were reminded that several people as
well as the Watershed would need to review the plans. The applicant should
inform their tenant that the project could not be rushed through the planning
process on such short notice. Zakheim stated that they had hoped to break
ground sometime in March with completion slated for late July or early August.
There was further discussion on building construction and the possibility of
utilizing pre-cast. Zakheim added that they had been constructing the column
structures, wall shells and the roof with pre-cast on other buildings. It was a
better value, more energy efficient, stronger and could hold more weight on the
roof. They would try to match the existing building with structural steel and
structural roof decking and potentially utilize support columns and roof of
structural pre-cast.
With approval of Phase I and Phase II, building permits could be applied for as
soon as possible after the Council meeting. Zakheim questioned whether a
grading permit could be obtained prior to Council approval of the northern
addition. Brixius responded that grading may be possible with City Engineer
and Watershed approval prior to the April meetings.
Kramer stated he was sympathetic to the applicant's time table, however,
would suggest that they look at longer construction days, etc. rather than put
the burden on the City to speed up the construction schedule.
MOTION
Item 4.3
Brixius reiterated that Phase I and Phase II would be approved as well as the
variance for Phase III. The Planning Commission could recommend to the
Council to allow a grading permit prior to final site plan and building approval.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
approve Planning Case 00-02, Request for Site and Building Plan Review
Approval and Rear Yard Setback Variance, 3440 Winpark Drive, WinPark
Associates LLC, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit Engineered plan for Phase I southeast slope grading
changes within seven days of Planning Commission meeting.
2. Relocate three of the disability parking stalls located adjacent to
the northern curb cut along Winpark Drive so they are adjacent to
the entrance for Phase I1.
3. Change direction of parking stalls directly adjacent to the northern
curb cut along Winpark Drive.
4. Eliminate the parking stall directly adjacent to the southwestern
corner of Phase I1.
5. Extend the planting pattern shown along the west side of the Phase
Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 6, 2000
ZONING CODE
UPDATE
II to the southern end of the building.
6. Increase the number of plantings from six to twelve in the
southwestern corner of the site and arrange them in a staggered
pattern with 15-foot spacing.
7. Compliance with all recommendations from the City Engineer.
8. Enter into Development Agreement and provide financial security
(amount to be determined by the City Engineer and Building
Official) before application for building permit.
9. Allow issuance of a grading permit as approved by City Engineer
and Bassett Creek Watershed Commission prior to approval of site
plan and building permit for Phase II1.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers
None
Sonsin, Svendsen
Vice Chair Landy informed the petitioners that the City Council would review
the request at the March 13 meeting and asked the petitioners to attend the
meeting.
Mr. Brixius stated that the second portion of the General Provisions had been
reviewed by the Committee and were recommended for approval and gave a
brief overview of the recommended changes to the Planning Commission.
4.035(10) - Number of Spaces Required - One of the objectives throughout the
zoning ordinance review was to try to conserve land and provide opportunities
for new development. Some of the obsolete parking requirements have been
eliminated for uses that have not occurred in the community. Parking
requirements have been reduced for retail and industrial uses because many of
the shopping center parking lots are underutilized and could offer opportunity
for satellite operations. Some of the parking requirements have been reduced
for manufacturing and warehousing to offer opportunities for in-place
expansion. By eliminating a number of categories, the category "Other Uses"
would now allow the City to consider an individual land use on its own merit and
utilize the national parking standards for similar types of uses, size of building,
type of use, number of employees, customer traffic, etc. for these uses. Some
of the changes made would simplify the parking standards and give the City
more precise parking requirements.
4.035(13) - Deferment of Required Parking - This was one element that was
incorporated in the past several years to allow for the preservation of more
green space on site and to reduce construction costs for an applicant if they did
not have a parking demand for additional stalls.
4.036 - Off-Street Loading - The distance from residential uses had been
eliminated and this matter would be reliant on the City and advisory committees
to insure that adequate protection was provided through building orientation
and screening. The current wording complicates site design for industrial
development. Front and side yard locations would be an administrative
decision, and the reduction of loading berth size or waiving the provision would
be through administrative permit and easier to approve.
4.037 - Home Occupations - This was not changed.
4.038 - Temporary Uses - This includes the outdoor sales of seasonal farm
produce which was recently amended.
Planning Commission Meeting 9 March 6, 2000
The entire existing section for site and building plan review was moved to the
administrative section.
4.039A - Drainage Plan was combined in the same section as §4.039B -
Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. This consolidated like
performance standards. No significant changes were made. Language was
added concerning release of water to adjoining properties to give the City some
control over those situations.
4.039C - Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses and Adult Uses - This
section was adopted in 1992 and no changes were made. Through the
regulations, there would be approximately three percent of the community
where these uses would be allowed. A community cannot prohibit these types
of uses in a community, due to the fact that it is constitutionally protected. A
community can limit where the use would be located and regulate land use. A
study completed by the City identified negative secondary impacts on adjoining
properties. The use would be allowed in a commercial district, but a 300-foot
buffer area would eliminate most of the existing commercial areas. The use
would be allowed in industrial areas, and would then be located further away
from the more sensitive areas of the community. There is also a detailed
licensing standard that regulates these uses.
4.039D - Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers - This amendment
was adopted in 1997. Personal wireless service antennas are allowed in almost
every district on existing support structures, but the placement of towers would
be limited to industrial areas.
Brixius stated that was the end of the second portion of the General Provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Brauch wondered what the timetable was for the review of the Zoning
Ordinance. Brixius replied that the individual zoning districts would be reviewed
at the next meeting and then the administrative section. Providing that the
Committee and Planning Commission would be comfortable with the
ordinance, a workshop would then be scheduled, hopefully in May, with the City
Council. The public hearing would be held after the workshop with the Council.
Commissioner Anderson raised a question on §4.035(10)(m) dealing with retail
sales and service business with 50 percent or more of gross floor area devoted
to storage, warehouse, and why industry was lined out. Brixius responded that
for industry the parking demand would be less. Anderson wondered whether
his business, Universal Color, fit into that requirement.
Oelkers stated he had changed his mind regarding requiring a survey for every
property. He also stated he felt clarification should be given on the difference
between a twinhome in an association setting and a twinhome in a non-
association. He felt strongly that these two housing settings were different.
Brixius explained that there would not be a difference as far as land use
description, but the lot area per unit would be lowered for a twinhome. In the R-
3 District the unit area would be 6,000 square feet and in the R-4 District the
unit area would be 5,000 square feet, so they would be treated the same as a
townhome.
Motion by Kramer, seconded by Oelkers, approving the General Provisions
as presented. All in favor. Motion carried.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review Commissioner Oelkers reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
February with the petitioners. Brixius stated that SuperAmerica would probably
Planning Commission Meeting 10 March 6, 2000
Committee
Item 6.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 6.2
Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee
Item 6.3
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 6.4
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
be filing for the April meeting. The application deadline would be this Friday.
Vice Chair Landy reported that Codes & Standards had not been meeting due
to the Zoning Code update.
Vice Chair Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee had not
met. Brixius added that Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan had been received by
the City.
Landy reported that the next meeting of the Zoning Code Update Committee
would be held on March 16 and the Committee would be reviewing the
Administrative Section of the Zoning Code.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
Kramer, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 4, 2000.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
There were no announcements.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 6, 2000
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 4, 2000
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, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin,
Svendsen
Hemken
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Valerie Leone, City Clerk, Acting Recording Secretary (left at
8:00 p.m.)
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC00-04
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Portion of the School Building to be Used as a Church by
Church of the Open Door, a Conditional Use Permit for Off-Site Parking, and a
Variance for the Proximity of the Off-Site Parking, 5530 Zealand Avenue North,
Independent School District 281 and Church of the Open Door, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit
to utilize the Hosterman Middle School on the weekends as a church for
Church of the Open Door, a conditional use permit for off-site parking, and a
variance for the proximity of the off-site parking. A church is allowed in the R-1
Zoning District by conditional use permit. The City code requires that any use
provide its own on-site parking, and if the use needs off-site parking, another
conditional use permit would be required. The Code states that if a CUP is
granted for off-site parking that it should be located within 300 feet of the use.
In this case, the distance is farther than 300 feet. The parking requirements for
a church is established by taking the total seating and dividing by three.
McDonald stated that Hosterman Middle School is located in an R-1 single
family residential zoning district at the northeast quadrant of 55th and Zealand
Avenues. Adjacent land uses include R-1 single family residential and Begin
Park to the south, R-4 apartments to the west and northwest, R-1 single family
to the north, R~3 apartments, B-2 retail business and B-3 auto-oriented to the
north and northeast, Winnetka Elementary is adjacent to Hosterman and R-1
single family to the east across Winnetka. The existing school site is just under
21 acres in size. The existing building contains 160,000 square feet. There
were no specific comments in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan update regarding
this site because the City did not anticipate any school closings during the
update process.
McDonald explained that this proposal would be for the Church to utilize the
Hosterman gymnasium, which seats 864, for church services. The bleachers
would not be used. Chairs would be placed on the gym floor only. Using the 3:1
equation, 288 parking spaces would be required. The applicant submitted a
site plan for the Hosterman site, which shows approximately 146 spaces
available. No disability spaces are shown on the site plan, and by incorporating
some spaces as disability, the number would be reduced slightly to
approximately 142. An additional 146 spaces would be required off-site, and
the petitioners are requesting a CUP for off-site parking at Winnetka
Elementary. The off-site parking spaces are required to be within 300 feet of
the main entrance and the Winnetka Elementary parking would be
approximately 1,300 feet from the main entry of Hosterman, which is why the
variance was requested. Hosterman was built in 1961 and is surrounded by a
local street system.
McDonald reported that School District 281 had decided to close two of its
middle schools and consolidate the student bodies in Robbinsdale High
School. Hosterman was one of the schools scheduled to be closed, and the
School District was proposing to lease the building to Independent School
District 287 and Church of the Open Door. IDS 287 submitted several site
plans showing its use of the building, which would be a permitted use. The use
of the building, gymnasium and south office portion, on a temporary basis by
the Church is the issue for consideration. The Church, which is currently
leasing space at Robbinsdale High School, is in need of a short-term location
during construction of a new building in Maple Grove. The change of use from
a school to a church is the issue to be discussed.
McDonald stated that the petitioner submitted information detailing the history
of the church. There currently are three services: 5 p.m. Saturday and 9 and 11
a.m. on Sunday. Total average attendance at these three services is 2,700.
The Sunday School program serves about 600 children during the Sunday
services. The weekday evening programs would be held at another facility in
Crystal. The Church had purchased 40 acres of land in Maple Grove and the
Maple Grove City Council had approved plans for the new facility. Construction
is scheduled to begin this summer with occupancy in the fall of 2001. The
Church stated in its correspondence that it would need a minimum of 12
months with a potential six-month extension to accommodate the building and
fund-raising timeline at the new site. The Church was requesting a temporary
use of the site, however, according to the Planning Consultant and City
Attorney, if a CUP would be granted for a church use at this site, it could
remain as a conditionally permitted permanent use at the site.
McDonald reiterated that the Hosterman parking lot would accommodate 50
percent of the traffic and the School District was proposing that Winnetka
Elementary would accommodate the balance. The applicant's indicated they
would be amenable to developing a shuttle service that would provide overflow
parking at Cooper High School. They also indicated that they would discuss
traffic management issues with City staff. At the Design & Review Committee
meeting, a traffic management plan was requested so the City would get an
understanding of how everything would operate with regard to traffic. A plan
was submitted that was similar to the Cooper stadium site. The plan states that
there would be no parking on residential streets near either school during the
Saturday evening or Sunday morning service times. The no parking area would
include all residential streets bordering the school sites north and south of
Hosterman, including Zealand, Yukon, Xylon, Wisconsin, Virginia and Utah
Avenues. The applicants were proposing to cover signs that would otherwise
allow weekend parking on the streets one hour prior to the start of services and
remove the covers after the services. Appointed attendees of the church would
be directing the flow of traffic at the site and on the residential streets. If the
Police Chief would request, they would install barricades at the entrance to the
neighborhood streets one hour prior to the start of services and remove them
after services. "No parking" and "local traffic only" signs would be placed on the
barricades. Enforcement would include ticketing and towing. Off-duty police
could be utilized, if needed. The traffic management plan could be reviewed by
City staff, the Church and consultants after several events to determine
whether any change was warranted. The Design & Review Committee
discussed with the applicant a more sophisticated traffic plan that would be
prepared by an engineer. The applicant indicated that if this proceeds forward,
they would provide a more detailed traffic analysis.
Planning Commission Meeting 2 April 4, 2000
McDonald indicated that several people came to City Hall to review the plans.
The Zoning Code criteria was listed in the planning report. The purpose of a
conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally
permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated
uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. Consideration of
adjoining land or buildings and whether a similar use is already in existence
and located on the same premises or on lands close by, the effect upon traffic
should be reviewed. Other general criteria to be considered would be whether it
would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and adjacent land uses,
and no depreciation in property values in the area. Specific criteria for a
residential district would be traffic, screening from adjacent land, and
compatible appearance so as not to have an adverse effect on adjacent
properties. Criteria to be considered for a church use in a residential district
include the side yard setback and adequate off-street parking.
McDonald maintained that off-site parking was a critical issue related to the
whole function of the church and its compatibility with the adjoining residential
neighborhood. The Planner stated in his report that the with regard to proximity
of off-street parking, the Commission should determine whether hardship was
involved, in which case a variance could be granted. The purpose of a variance
was to permit relief from strict application of the Zpning Code where undue
hardships prevent reasonable use of the property and where circumstances
are unique to the property. The hardship cannot be created by the property
owner, and if the variance would be granted, it should not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood or diminish property values. The Planner stated
in his report that there was not a physical hardship related to the size or
configuration of the parcel that would prevent compliance with city standards.
There would probably be room on the site to construct additional parking. The
circumstance was related to the sole use of the site. The Commission should
determine whether the variance would alter the character of the locality through
on-street parking and traffic. Economic hardship alone should not constitute an
undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the
Zoning Code. McDonald added that in support of the off-site parking CUP and
variance request, the applicant had furnished a traffic management plan
completed at the time of the Cooper High School stadium application to try to
reduce on-street parking and traffic impact on adjoining properties. The church
use would differ from the Cooper stadium use by the number of events
involved, therefore, a separate traffic analysis should be completed if this case
would move forward. Hosterman is not served by a collector street like Cooper
High School. The Assistant City Engineer is present if the Commission has
questions on traffic related issues. McDonald added that the Police Chief had
submitted correspondence on his observance of parking issues at the current
Robbinsdale High School site.
McDonald stated that in addition to the traffic concerns, another major c(~ncern
was the building code issues. There are building code and fire protection
upgrades that are needed if the church would move into the school. The
School District had submitted a letter to the Building Official stating that they
were willing to install a fire protection sprinkler system in the main gymnasium
and storage area. The parking lot must be striped including the ADA spaces, if
this case would be approved. The City Engineer submitted correspondence
stating what he felt would be feasible for the church to control parking and
traffic, but impacts would be felt by adjacent properties and that peak traffic
periods would result in traffic queuing. It was estimated that the church use
would cultivate over 300 additional trips on those weekend days. Existing traffic
flow would be affected regardless of what traffic control measures were taken.
Barricades would affect local traffic flow and North Ridge traffic.
Planning Commission Meeting
3
April 4, 2000
McDonald stated that the Church and School District were seeking a short-term
solution to the displacement of the church from Robbinsdale High School.
From a land use perspective, the Commission should determine whether the
church use would be an over-utilization of the site and what impact it might
have on parking and traffic. If the School District and Church can show
compliance with the Building Code for the change of the building occupancy
and provide a more sophisticated traffic management plan prepared by a traffic
engineer, it would be possible that the use would work on a temporary basis.
Mr. Tom Walerius, District 281 Business Manager, and Mr. Greg Dehler,
architect, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Maurice
Gavin of Church of the Open Door also came forward.
Commissioner Oelkers pointed out that the traffic flow shown on the traffic
management plan was in error and that 55th Avenue was not a through street to
Boone Avenue and the plan should be adjusted. It was noted that the parking
lot at North Ridge was full on Sundays. Gavin stated that the services are at 5
p.m. on Saturday and two Sunday morning services with people at the site from
about 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 or 12:30 p.m. There is very little spill-over between
services. Oelkers questioned whether or not service times could be altered so
that people and cars were not arriving and leaving at the same time. Gavin
stated that they would make whatever changes were needed, within reason.
Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether it would be possible to offer a
fourth service and possible times were discussed. It was noted that the service
length was approximately one hour. Commissioner Brauch questioned whether
the School District could add additional parking space for the church use.
Walerius stated that the School District was reluctant to put a great deal of
money into the site, due to the fact that this was a temporary situation. Brauch
reiterated that the Church was agreeable to providing shuttle service from
Cooper High School and that the cost of providing this service for that length of
time would be substantial as well, and that maybe the Church and School
District could work out some type of arrangement that would benefit both
parties. Walerius stated that the School District would be receptive to that if the
Church would help defray the cost. Gavin responded that keeping the parking
close to the Hosterman site would be worth exploring. Brauch added that this
approach may be the best, since other measures would be more disruptive and
put a strain on the neighborhood.
Svendsen asked about the procedure the School District used for plowing
snow in the Hosterman parking lot. Walerius replied that the company the
District hired to plow pushed the snow to the outer limits of the parking lot and
upon request from the District removed the snow from the lot. The School
District would continue to keep the parking lot plowed.
Svendsen wondered whether the School District would stripe the parking lot in
an effort to maximize all available space and it was confirmed the parking lot
would be striped.
Chairman Sonsin asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Larry Wickstrom, 5436 Yukon Avenue, came forward. Wickstrom stated he
felt the church use was okay, however, the parking and additional traffic should
be addressed. There would be noise from car doors closing, etc. but it would
be a temporary situation.
Ms. Alida Bradley, 2701 Hillsboro Avenue, apartment 205, came forward and
stated she attended Open Door and would be open to a fourth service.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 4, 2000
Discussion ensued on the surfacing of a temporary parking lot and it was noted
that the lot would need a bituminous surface with curb and gutter or a variance
would need to be requested. The Assistant City Engineer interjected that dust
control and erosion control measures would need to be taken.
Motion by Commission Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer to close
the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion approved.
Kramer commented that he preferred a paved parking lot to eliminate some of
the problems associated with a gravel lot, as well as controlling the traffic. If
those two issues were not addressed, he would not support the request.
Oelkers questioned the School District as to whether or not the expense of
installing a paved parking lot would be feasible. Gavin stated that the church
board would need to make the decision if they would spend the money for the
parking lot. Discussion ensued on the topography of the site and the location of
the proposed parking lot. Walerius added that he was under the impression
that the Winnetka Elementary lot could be utilized and there was some flat
space between the two schools. Dehler stated that the same curb cut could be
used and parking area could be installed to the east of the driveway. That area
was currently used for outdoor recreation activities, which would need to be
eliminated. The Assistant City Engineer pointed out that drainage issues would
also need to be addressed for the temporary lot and removed after the short-
term use.
Landy expressed concern over what types of recreation would be lost with the
installation of a parking lot in the open space.
Sonsin reiterated several points of contention if this request was to be seriously
explored, including the parking, drainage, paving, Parks & Recreation usage.
He stated he felt this request was not ready to proceed to the City Council and
suggested tabling for one month to allow the petitioner time to address these
issues. The parking at Winnetka Elementary would be a long distance for
parishioners to walk in inclement weather. The use may not fit with this site and
Sonsin stated he was not prepared to vote on this request at this time.
Oelkers questioned the duration of a conditional use permit. The City Attorney
stated that a CUP runs with the land. By statute the City would be required to
record any CUP granted to a property. After Church of the Open Door vacates
the premises, similar uses could utilize the building forever. Granting a CUP for
this request could, in effect, set precedent for similar uses.
Gavin added that the proposed starting date for the church would be in July.
Svendsen stated he was in favor of tabling the request for one month for the
petitioner to address the issues discussed. This tabling should still allow
enough time for a July start date if the City Council granted approval in May.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
table for one month Planning Case 00-04, Request for Conditional Use
Permit to Allow a Portion of the School Building to be Used as a Church
by Church of the Open Door, a Conditional Use Permit for Off-Site
Parking, and a Variance for the Proximity of the Off-Site Parking, 5530
Zealand Avenue North, Independent School District 281 and Church of
the Open Door, Petitioners.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Planning Commission Meeting 5 April 4, 2000
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Chairman Sonsin suggested the petitioners work with staff to provide all the
necessary information. The Design & Review Committee would meet with the
petitioners again to review the parking issues.
Bdxius notified the applicant that the City was extending the review period from
60 days to 120 days.
PC00-05
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Rezoning
from R-O, Residential-Office, to B-3, Auto-Oriented Business, and Conditional
Use Permits to Allow a Convenience Store with Gasoline, Shared Drive
Access, Outdoor Sales, and a Reduction in Loading Berth Size, 9398 Medicine
Lake Road, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC/Dan Billmark, Petitioners.
Mr. Brixius stated that SuperAmedca had requested several applications for
9398 Medicine Lake Road, at the corner of Hillsboro and Medicine Lake Road.
The applications included: rezoning from R-O, Residential-Office, to B-3, Auto-
Oriented Business District to allow a convenience store with gasoline sales; site
plan review: conditional use permit to allow the construction of a convenience
store with gas sales in a B-3 District; conditional use permit for a shared access
point off Medicine Lake Road; conditional use permit for outdoor display of sale
goods; and a conditional use permit for an undersized loading area. The site
area is approximately .8 acres and contains a house, which would be
demolished. The proposed building would include approximately 3,900 square
feet of floor space. The site is located in Planning District 16 of the
Comprehensive Plan, which identified this site and the adjoining site to the east
for commercial land use redevelopment.
The criteria for considering rezoning are two-fold: whether a mistake had been
made in the original zoning and changing conditions of the area. The site
contains a single family land use which was not consistent with the surrounding
multiple family and commercial land uses. The Comprehensive Plan identified
this site and the property to the east for commercial redevelopment, which
would make a commercial zoning appropriate. The City received a number of
letters from surrounding property owners concerning automobile traffic,
pedestrian traffic, hours of operation, and noise. In 1991, a similar project was
proposed for 62nd Avenue and West Broadway and area residents had many of
the same concerns. That development has been an asset to the neighborhood.
The conditional use permit outlined criteria for approval, such as consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with adjacent land uses,
compliance with performance standards, and no depreciation in value. The
zoning district criteria include non-residential traffic being channeled onto
thoroughfares, screening, and compatible appearance.
Brixius stated that if gasoline sales would be appropriate for the site, B-3
zoning would be needed. A convenience store and auto sales would be allowed
as uses in the B-3 District. Gas sales are allowed as a conditional use. City
Code requires 20,000 square feet for gas sales and this site would comply with
that requirement. The applicant was requesting exterior sales, which would be
a separate conditional use. City code restricts hours of operation from 6 a.m. to
12 p.m. The applicant was requesting 24-hour service, and the Planning
Commission and City Council would need to make a determination on this
issue. Auto facilities must demonstrate that there was adequate room for truck
maneuvering. The proposed canopy location was shown on the site plan, and
the applicant must demonstrate that there would be proper clearance and
facade height to meet code requirements. The proposed building would be of
masonry construction with rock face brick and a tile accent band. The roof
Planning Commission Meeting 6 April 4, 2000
would be a shingle material. Staff requested that a sidewalk connection be
provided between the facility and Hillsboro Avenue. Outdoor sales are allowed
by conditional use permit and the applicant had proposed sales at the front of
the building to extend across the five-foot sidewalk. Pedestrian access would
be eliminated if there would be any automobile overhang across the sidewalk.
Brixius stated that if there would be outdoor sales that it should be limited to a
corner site or widen the sidewalk to provide adequate pedestrian passage
along the front of the building. Lighting would be hooded and directed down.
The lighting plan included recessed canisters within the canopy, and the
canopy would include a skirting to limit the glare to surrounding properties and
public right of ways.
The Development Review Team reviewed the site plan and felt that the issues
needing further attention included adequate maneuvering space for gas tanker
access and exiting the site, clear definition of outdoor sales and display areas,
improved landscaping on the north, and elimination of any sign variance. The
proposed lot area is approximately 36,000 square feet, which complies with the
standard lot size for an auto convenience store. Lot width/depth and building
height are all in compliance with code. All building setbacks are in compliance
with code. The only issue staff had with regard to setbacks was on the east
property line where the canopy setback should be 15 feet and the proposed
setback was 10 feet, which should be adjusted to meet code. The proposed
convenience store would require 24 parking spaces and the site plan
demonstrates compliance. A snow removal plan must be submitted. A truck
circulation plan was submitted, however, there are tight turning angles near the
pumps and store and staff suggested that the petitioner give more attention to
these details. The loading area was proposed on the east side of the store.
SuperAmerica was requesting that this loading area be reduced due to the fact
that semi-trailer truck deliveries would not occur at that location. There would
be adequate maneuvering for 30-foot trucks, and deliveries would be accepted
during off-peak hours.
Brixius explained that joint access was proposed between the SuperAmerica
lot and the properly to the east. A written agreement had been received from
the adjacent property owner agreeing to this shared access. The shared
access easement must be submitted with signatures prior to final action. The
County must approve any access permit on Medicine Lake Road.
A photometric lighting plan was submitted that showed standards along the
north property line with a .4 foot candle so there would be no glare to the area.
The proposed lighting on the south would be at a .1 foot candle and on the east
a .7 foot candle. The west side abutting a residential area would be a .2 foot
candle. The applicant would be compliant with the City's lighting standards. The
Police Department commented that landscaping on the north side of the
building should be moved away from the building for security purposes.
A landscape plan was submitted. The building would be recessed into the
slope of the property. The back of the property was shielded by taller maple
trees 15-17 feet in height, which would grow and screen the property from the
condominiums to the north. The building would also be screened by multiple
conifer trees to screen the back of the building. Amur maples were proposed
for the south side of the property. Junipers and daylilies would be installed at
the west, east, and south sides of the building. There were some discrepancies
between the plant schedule and the plans, which should be corrected.
SuperAmerica was requesting several signs which were reviewed by Design &
Review and staff. A recommendation was made that no sign variance be
granted for the property. The Comprehensive Sign Plan should be compliant
with city code.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 4, 2000
Brixius explained that the grading and drainage plan submitted showed the
building being recessed into the site with the front elevation slightly lower than
the rear elevation. All grading would drain to the south. A catch basin was
located on Medicine Lake Road. The City Engineer had indicated in
correspondence that consideration should be given to water quality and water
retention, especially if the property to the east would be redeveloped in the
same fashion. Brixius added that the Police Department recommended that, if
a 24-hour operation was approved, there be two employees on staff during the
night shift, a quality security system with good cameras and tape replacement
schedule with restricted access be provided, lighting at the north exist door,
and to shift trees to maintain a four-foot clear area for security at the back wall.
Brixius concluded by saying that the Comprehensive Plan had identified this
site for commercial operation. Many issues were raised by neighboring
property owners with regard to traffic and other issues related to land use
compatibility. Based on the land use of the Comprehensive Plan, the first
determination should be whether or not this would be an appropriate zoning for
this site. It was noted that the request was for single lot rezoning. The City of
New Hope has multiple commercial zoning districts of various intensities. A
determination would need to be made as to what the appropriate zoning for the
area would be. The applicant had responded to various issues which should be
considered during contemplation of the zoning. If the B-3 zoning would be
approved, staff would recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in
the staff report. If the Planning Commission would like to see the conditions
addressed, it would have the option of tabling the request, or approving with the
conditions listed.
Chairman Sonsin requested clarification of the lighting plan. Brixius explained
that where a commercial property abuts a residential property, the standard
would be a .4 foot candle. A candle would be equivalent to the light given off
standing one foot away. The lights would be recessed up into the canopy so
the lights would not be seen. The lights would be focused downward. The lights
and glare would be muted to the north and along Hillsboro and Medicine Lake
Road and most intense toward the property to the east. Sonsin wondered what
the hours of operation were for the other two gas stations in this area.
Svendsen questioned the setback measurements for the east side yard and
front yard. Brixius responded that there were setback standards for both the
building and canopy, and there was only one deficiency which was the distance
of the canopy from the east property line.
Mr. Michael Cronin, 8809 West Bush Lake Road, Bloomington, Minnesota,
representing SuperAmerica, came forward to address the Commission. Mr.
Dan Billmark; project manager dealing with the store's construction, and Mr.
Jim Bassler, regional manager for several of the stores in the area, were also
present at the meeting. Cronin pointed out that Mr. Billmark could answer any
construction type questions and Mr. Bassler could answer questions
concerning the operation of the store itself. He stated that there were always
two staff in the store, whether during the day or at night. State of the art video
equipment would be installed in the store, however, there would be no bullet-
proof glass.
Sonsin asked that the petitioner describe the lighting. Cronin explained the
lighting plan, where the light source would be and how it related to light at
ground level. The foot candles measure how much light there is when standing
on the site and how much glare. For example, approximately five foot candles
would provide enough light to read a book. At the site, there would be more
light under the canopy and around the paved area, but once a person reached
the grassed area, the light level would be less than that needed to read.
Directly under the canopy, there would be a high level of light so customers can
Planning Commission Meeting 8 April 4, 2000
see the pumps and for safety reasons. There would be no light at the back of
the store to keep this area as dark as possible.
Sonsin questioned the petitioner about the hours of operation of the
neighboring gas stations. The Sinclair station was not a 24-hour operation. The
Citgo station closed at 11 p.m. Sonsin stated the Citgo station had been there a
long time and if it was not open 24 hours it would be because the area did not
generate enough business to stay open later. McDonalds also closed about
10:30 or 11:00 p.m. Cronin maintained that SuperAmerica offered more
services than Citgo and have found success in other areas with the 24-hour
operation.
Svendsen asked for clarification on the landscaping plan. Cronin stated that 15-
17-foot maples would be planted along the northern property line. The Scotch
pines would be 6-8 feet tall when planted, and Amur maples would fill in open
areas. Several drawings of the proposed landscaping around the store and
property were shown to the Commissioners. Svendsen pointed out two
significant gaps in landscaping and wondered whether at least two more trees
could be planted. An air photo of plantings were shown. Cronin stated that they
were not trying to plant a wall of trees, but rather clumps, which was a more
aesthetically pleasing way to plant. If the Commission desired, more trees
could be planted to fill in that area. Svendsen expressed concern that the
bedrooms of the condominiums would be abutting the gas station property and
there should be full shielding toward the north. The petitioner confirmed that
they would add more trees on the north property line. It was confirmed that the
petitioner would move the plantings at the back of the building out four feet to
provide visibility for police. Cronin added that wiring would be provided at the
back of the building for lighting, however, fixtures would not be installed at this
time. The cutout on the roof line at the back of the building was discussed and
the petitioner stated that an opaque screen would be installed. Access to the
roof would be from the inside of the building.
Svendsen initiated discussion regarding the outdoor sales proposed for the
sidewalk at the front of the building and wondered whether the sidewalk could
be widened or sales kept to the outside corners of the building where there
would be more room. The petitioner stated it may be possible to extend the
sidewalk at the front of the building and install bollards to prevent vehicles
pulling too far forward.
The lighting was discussed and it was pointed out that the lighting at the
proposed station would be more restrictive than the lighting at the 36t~ and
Winnetka location. Mr. Bassler, regional manager for Speedway
SuperAmerica, came forward and stated that there was one store in Burnsville
that had the same type of lighting.
Svendsen questioned whether the proposed signage would comply with city
code or whether a variance would be requested, and Cronin responded that all
signage would comply with code and an amended sign plan would be
submitted.
It was noted that at the station at 36th and Winnetka in Crystal a wrought-iron
fence had been installed along the sidewalk due to the way in which the
property was structured and that no fence would be provided at this site since
there would be a large green space between the curb and sidewalk.
Commissioner Anderson expressed concern over the music that would be
played over the outside speakers. Bassler stated that a statement would be
provided stating the decibel level of the speakers. The speakers are mounted
inside the dispensers and the volume would be controlled.
Planning Commission Meeting 9 April 4, 2000
Oelkers questioned whether citizens had the opportunity to read the
Comprehensive Plan to see that this site was proposed to be a commercial site
and it was confirmed that there had been a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan prior to approval.
Chairman Sonsin questioned what would happen with the property to the east.
Cronin stated that Mr. Horgan was not going to do any redevelopment at this
time, however, was willing to share the driveway access.
Sonsin explained that the job of the Planning Commission was not to make a
determination on how many of the same type of businesses were in an area as
this would be up to the individual business owners, however, there remained a
practical concern of how many of the same type of business could succeed in
close proximity. Cronin stated there are niches in the market and
SuperAmerica felt it was in a different market with the convenience facilities
and self-serve gas. The station that pumps gas and provides car service was a
different market. Kramer added that in different areas he has lived, the
SuperAmerica stores have done well. He added that it was not the authority of
the Planning Commission to decide what business went where as long as it
conformed to the Zoning Ordinance. Cronin pointed out that there are no
vacant gas stations around now. The end of 1999 was the deadline to upgrade
all underground tanks and safety and monitoring equipment. Many of the
stations chose not to make that investment.
Cronin asked to further address the Commission on three points: compatibility,
rezoning and conditions. The compatibility issue deals with site conditions and
performance standards of the City. When SuperAmerica looked at the site,
they felt confident that they could operate compatibly on the site. SuperAmerica
met with the owners of the condominiums to the north. SuperAmerica felt the
store would be compatible because there would be 170 feet between the store
and the nearest condo. The orientation of the condominiums are angled
southwest to northeast and there would be no direct view from anyone's
window. Vehicles would access the property from the driveway on Medicine
Lake Road. The site was shifted south as far as possible keeping the light and
activity away from the condominiums. Quality building materials would be
utilized. There would be a significant landscaping program to buffer the site
from all sides. There would be 120 feet between the store and the apartments
to the west and landscaping would be provided to buffer the view. There is a
small strip center to the south as well as some housing in Golden Valley, and
Cronin added that possibly some type of fence could be installed on the south
property line to prevent headlight glare directed at this housing development.
According to the staff report, all performance standards have been met. Cronin
stated that they would work with staff with regard to the tanker circulation on
the site. There was an intangible quality that would be hard to measure and
that was the reputation of the operator. SuperAmerica's store at 62nd and West
Broadway was a good operation and a good neighbor. Cronin asked the
Planning Commission to accept the recommendation of city staff to approve
the site plan and the conditional use permits requested as an appropriate,
compatible use of the site. He stated he felt that a 24-hour operation would be
compatible due to compliance with the performance standards. Cronin
reiterated that the staff report confirmed that there was evidence to support the
rezoning, which was based on a recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan
to redevelop this area as well as the City's performance standards.
SuperAmerica understood the conditions as outlined in the planning report and
felt it could comply with all of the conditions.
Svendsen questioned whether the roadway would support the added traffic.
The Assistant City Engineer with Bonestroo & Associates, Vince VanderTop,
came forward to address the traffic issue. He stated Medicine Lake Road, as
defined in the City's transportation plan, was a minor arterial street. Typical
Planning Commission Meeting 10 April 4, 2000
traffic volumes on Medicine Lake Road were approximately 10,000 to 12,000
vehicles per day. It is a four-lane roadway, and this type of use would be
compatible. The access onto Hillsboro, a residential street, would need
consideration. There was a signal at the Hillsboro/Medicine Lake Road
intersection, therefore, vehicles would move through a controlled intersection,
which would be preferred. There would be increased traffic from the driveway
on Hillsboro to the intersection. Svendsen asked whether Medicine Lake Road
would provide the proper flow of traffic through the year 2020, and this was
confirmed. Hennepin County projected city traffic volumes of 20,000 vehicles
per day into the year 2020, which would be the approximate current volume on
42nd Avenue. If the time came that the traffic increased to that level, there
would probably be other improvements to Medicine Lake Road, such as
medians, restricted movements, etc. VanderTop indicated that increased traffic
would more likely be due to a regional nature than specific properties adjacent
to Medicine Lake Road.
Kramer mentioned that the length of the light at the signalized intersection was
quite long and wondered whether that would change. VanderTop stated that
the petitioner had conversations with the County regarding the shared access
and the signal could also be discussed with the County. The Hillsboro/Medicine
Lake Road signal was coordinated with the signal for the on ramps to Highway
169.
Discussion ensued regarding parking on Hillsboro. There would be no parking
on Hillsboro between the driveway and the intersection.
Kramer asked the petitioner to explain the type of patrons at other locations
and crime. Bassler stated that they have not had a problem. The crime rate
may relate more to the area in which the store was located. He stated at one
location downtown there was a problem with gangs loitering by the pay phones
and once the phones were removed the loitering stopped. He assured the
Commission that SuperAmerica does all it can to operate a safe business for
customers and neighbors. Bassler indicated that this would be a neighborhood
service rather than drawing business from Highway 169, due to the fact that the
store would not be visible from the highway.
Sonsin asked for members of the audience to briefly address the Commission.
The following people spoke in opposition to the proposed SuperAmerica, due
to safety concerns, traffic congestion at the intersection, traffic into and out of
site, increase in semi-truck traffic, rezoning, crime, noise, gas odor, lights, 24-
hour operation, additional landscaping or buffering, and the fact that there were
already two gas stations in close proximity as well as a mini mart:
Ms. Alida Bradley, 2701 Hillsboro Avenue
Mr. Tom Brown, 2800 Hillsboro
Ms. Eileen Nelson, 2800 Hillsboro
Mr. LaVerne Anderson, 2801 Flag Avenue
Ms. Valerie Johnson, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue
Mr. Dan Goldman, owner of Presidential Estates townhomes, 9200-9214
Medicine Lake Road and 2701-2707 Flag Avenue
Mr. Brian Kelley, Hillsboro Court LLC, Property Manager at Hillsboro Court
Apartments
Mr. Jim Taylor, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue
Mr. Don Keefe, Sunny Hollow Center
Ms. Sherrie Fischer, 3001 Gettysburg Avenue
Mr. Bruce Hagen, 2801 Flag Avenue
The following people wrote letters to City Hall opposing the proposed
SuperAmerica with many of the same concerns as mentioned at this meeting:
Ms. LaVerne Anderson, 2801 Flag Avenue
Planning Commission Meeting 1 1 April 4, 2000
MOTION
Item 4.2
Ms. Eva Liebert, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue
Mr. Bill Loge, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue
Ms. Jeannette Bockwitz, 2801 Flag Avenue
Mr. Gary Hanson, 2801 Flag Avenue
Ms. Carol Whaley, 2801 Flag Avenue
Ms. Valerie Jefferson, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue
Ms. Fran Kartak, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue
Ms. Jean Kartak, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue
Ms. Ardell Thorstad, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue
Mr. Don Keefe, Jr., Sunny Hollow Ventures LLC
The City received two petitions from residents at 2800 Hillsboro Avenue and
2801 Flag Avenue opposing the proposed SuperAmerica.
The following wrote in favor of the proposed SuperAmerica:
Mr. James Horgan, Horgan Insurance, 9390 Medicine Lake Road
Discussion was brought back to the Commission as there were no additional
audience members desiring to address the Commission.
Discussion ensued regarding closing off the Hillsboro access point and adding
additional screening in that area. Oelkers questioned whether there would be a
fire concern with closing that access and it was confirmed there would be no
hazard with the access on Medicine Lake Road. Oelkers stated he favored
tabling this issue and to have the petitioner meet again with the Design &
Review Committee, as many good points and issues had been raised.
Cronin stated that SuperAmerica would do everything they could to address the
traffic issues, however, two access points were desirable for the site. They
could add more landscaping to the west.
Sonsin reiterated that the issues identified were the west access and the
impact the additional traffic would have on Hillsboro Avenue, three gas stations
in close proximity and not wanting to see either of the other two stations
closing, and the 24-hour operation. He addressed the residents by saying that
even if this project did not move forward the Comprehensive Plan had identified
this area for commercial redevelopment and another project would eventually
be proposed for the site. He stated that the Commission could vote on the
project at this meeting or table the project and have the petitioner rework the
plans and hold another neighborhood meeting.
Kramer stated he appreciated the comments from the property owners and that
their comments helped to put their concerns with regard to Hilisboro Avenue
into perspective. He also stated that Medicine Lake Road was a major street
and there would be more traffic. The City had to consider the pros and cons of
every request and determine whether it would be good for the City.
Cronin stated that SuperAmerica would welcome tabling the matter to allow
them to work out the areas of concern.
Sonsin mentioned that he had received two letters by mail from Carol Whaley,
2801 Flag Avenue, and Jane Wydo, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
table Planning Case 00-05, Request for Rezoning from R-O, Residential-
Office, to B-3, Auto-Oriented Business, and Conditional Use Permits to
Planning Commission Meeting 12 April 4, 2000
Allow a Convenience Store with Gasoline, Shared Drive Access, Outdoor
Sales, and a Reduction in Loading Berth Size, 9398 Medicine Lake Road,
Speedway SuperAmerica LLC/Dan Billmark, Petitioners.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Hemken
ZONING CODE
UPDATE
Brixius notified the applicant that the City was extending the review period from
60 days to 120 days.
Sonsin stated that due to the late hour the Zoning Code update could be
reviewed at the next meeting. The consensus of the Commission was to move
forward with the update, that there were some minor areas of disagreement,
but in general they were supportive of the majority of the changes being
recommended.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 6.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 6.2
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
March with the petitioners. McDonald added that two City projects, the Golf
Course Clubhouse and the Public Works addition, as well as an addition to
Liberty Diversified Industries would be ready for the next meeting. The
Committee would meet with SuperAmerica and the School District/Church of
the Open Door at a special time established by City staff.
Commissioner Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards had not been meeting
due to the Zoning Code update.
Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee
Item 6.3
Commissioner Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee had
not met. McDonald noted that Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan was being
reviewed by City staff, the Planning Consultant, and City Engineer.
Zoning Code Update
Committee
Item 6.4
Landy reported that the next meeting of the Zoning Code Update Committee
would be held on May 5.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Green, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 6, 2000. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
ectfully submitted, _ .....
Recording Secretary
13 April 4, 2000
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 2, 2000
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, Landy, Sonsin,
Svendsen
Oelkers
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, Pamela Sylvester,
Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC00-04
Item 4.1
MOTION
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Portion of the School Building to be Used as a Church by
Church of the Open Door, a Conditional Use Permit for Off-Site Parking, and a
Variance for the Proximity of the Off-Site Parking, 5530 Zealand Avenue North,
Independent School District 281 and Church of the Open Door, Petitioners.
Sonsin stated that the petitioner had sent correspondence withdrawing their
request and asked for a motion to accept the withdrawal.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
accept the petitioner's withdrawal of Planning Case 00-04, Request for
Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Portion of the School Building to be
Used as a Church by Church of the Open Door, a Conditional Use Permit
for Off-Site Parking, and a Variance for the Proximity of the Off-Site
Parking, 5530 Zealand Avenue North, Independent School District 281
and Church of the Open Door, Petitioners.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch,
Sonsin, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers
Motion carried.
Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
PC00-05
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Rezoning
from R-O, Residential-Office, to B-3, Auto-Oriented Business, and Conditional
Use Permits to Allow a Convenience Store with Gasoline, Outdoor Sales, and a
Special Size Loading Berth Size, 9398 Medicine Lake Road, Speedway
SuperAmerica LLC/Dan Billmark, Petitioners.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to open
the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. McDonald stated that the Commission had tabled this request at the April
meeting. The request was for rezoning the property from R-O, Residential-
Office, to B-3, Auto-Oriented Business, to allow a convenience store with
gasoline as a conditional use in the B-3 District, conditional use permits to allow
the construction of a convenience store with gasoline, shared access driveway,
outdoor display of products for sale, special size loading area, and site/building
plan approval. The petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee to
discuss the revisions and, therefore, revised plans were submitted that
addressed the issues discussed at that meeting.
McDonald stated that the petitioners had submitted a written statement that
music would not be played over the exterior speakers and would agree to
speaker volume limits during the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and
would keep the volume sound to a maximum of 50 decibels at the property
lines. The noise from the individual speakers under the canopy would be
controlled by the installation of a speaker call button in each dispenser. This
would put the directional speaker close to the customer allowing for reduced
volume and the speaker would be activated only if the customer needed help
from someone inside the building. No music or other message would be
broadcast on the outside speakers.
Regarding the outdoor sales request, staff had requested that the petitioner
submit a detailed plan illustrating the outdoor sale/display areas that would be
limited to recessed triangular areas on the southeast/southwest corners of the
building or increasing the sidewalk width to eight feet and limiting the display
areas to four-foot depth. The petitioner submitted a written statement indicating
that outdoor sale of seasonal items, such as windshield washer fluid, pop/
beverages, charcoal, firewood, depository machines, and a freezer for ice,
would be located in one of the four 2' x 8' areas at the front of the store or at
the corners of the building. The area at the front of the store would be defined
by bollards. No products for sale would be placed under the canopy. The
sidewalk in front of the building was expanded to eight feet and the sales areas
have been identified on the site plan.
McDonald stated that the Design & Review Committee requested that a snow
removal plan be provided. The petitioner submitted a letter stating that there
would be no on-site snow storage. Snow would be plowed on an as needed
basis for snowfalls of over two inches. All snow would be removed from the
site. Store managers would be able to call for snow removal service in the
event there was excess accumulation, drifting, ice, or other safety
considerations.
A tanker access/service plan was submitted that demonstrated the site could
accommodate large truck traffic and that no trucks would exit the site traveling
northbound on Hillsboro Avenue. The petitioners submitted revised plans which
showed that the building had shifted to the north, the canopy had been
relocated five feet to the west, and that a 50-foot turning radius could be
accommodated. Fuel deliveries would be made utilizing Medicine Lake Road.
SuperAmerica stated that they would be sure the fuel delivery drivers would not
use Hillsboro Avenue.
The petitioners indicated in correspondence that the Hillsboro drive access
could not be eliminated. The width had been reduced from 35 feet to 32 feet.
McDonald stated that one of the conditions was that no large trucks could enter
the site from northbound Hillsboro Avenue. The City Engineer had requested
that the Hillsboro access be maintained by the petitioner and not eliminated.
The existing signal at Hillsboro Avenue provides protected left tum movements
to and from Medicine Lake Road. The City Engineer indicated that the there
would be adequate stacking distance at the signal on Hillsboro. No parking
would be allowed on Hillsboro Avenue between SuperAmerica and the signal.
Hennepin County had submitted correspondence stating that the shared
driveway with SuperAmerica and the insurance office was acceptable.
McDonald stated that the City Engineer recommended that the petitioner
submit plans to the Bassett Creek Watershed for approval and reported that
Planning Commission Meeting 2 May 2, 2000
the petitioner had discussed the grading and drainage with the Watershed. It is
likely that some type of water quality requirements would be required. One of
the conditions of approval would be that SuperAmerica meets all of the
Watershed District's requirements.
McDonald reported that it would be desirable if the sidewalk boulevard was
maintained along Hillsboro Avenue, and the sidewalk along Hillsboro had been
relocated to the north to the extent possible.
The petitioner submitted a comprehensive sign plan which met the sign code
requirements. Additional landscaping on the north and west sides of the
building had been requested and the petitioner responded with additional
plantings to better screen the apartments to the west from headlight glare. The
applicant complied with the recommendations of the Design & Review
Committee by adding conifers and over-story trees at the north property line
and along Hillsboro Avenue utilizing a variety of plants and trees to screen the
building and the parking area from the surrounding uses. Plantings were
shifted away from the building on the north for security purposes, per the Police
Department. All landscaping complied with city code. The petitioner proposed
additional landscaping on the Hillsboro Court property and had posted a $5,000
escrow with the City for the proposed Hillsboro Court Apartments landscaping
to screen the apartments from headlight glare at the west drive access. The
applicant would need to receive written approval from the owners of the
Hillsboro Court Apartments before the installation of any plantings.
McDonald stated that the petitioner had submitted revised plans with consistent
information regarding the size and dimension of the proposed building.
McDonald mentioned that the City had received several items of
correspondence subsequent to the April Planning Commission meeting that
was included in the planning report.
McDonald reminded the Commission that the single major issue with this
request was the rezoning. First, the Commission would need to decide if it
would be appropriate to rezone the site. If rezoning would be appropriate, the
site plan needed to be considered. Currently, the site is zoned for Residential-
Office and it was identified in the Comprehensive Plan for future commercial
redevelopment. The extent of the commercial redevelopment would be up to
the Commission. This site and the property to the east were both identified for
commercial rezoning. This site is located on a four-lane county road at a
signalized intersection in a high density residential area. The example of 62"d
and West Broadway was mentioned with regard to the opposition prior to
construction and the fact that the site proved beneficial to the neighborhood.
McDonald stated that staff felt there was evidence to rezone the site, however,
the preference would be to have both lots rezoned at one time with a
development for both properties. The insurance office was not ready to make
any changes at this time, therefore, this proposal was for a one-lot rezoning.
SuperAmerica had discussions with Mr. Horgan of the insurance office and had
not been able to come to an agreement. The Planning Commission and City
Council need to determine whether the proposed B-3 use would accomplish
the goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. If the rezoning would be
supported, it should be determined what types of land uses would be
appropriate. Gas and convenience sales, office, and restaurants have all been
discussed in the past for this location. The most interest has been for the
traditional B-3 or B-4 uses. Most restaurants would need more property.
Traditionally what the market wants to build would be an indicator of what
project may be viable for a particular site. McDonald stated that the applicant
tried to respond to the concerns raised by city staff, items raised at the April
Planning Commission meeting, and the neighbors with improved landscaping,
lighting plans, and building location.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 May 2, 2000
Chairman Sonsin asked for clarification with regard to truck traffic exiting
southbound on Hillsboro and was told that trucks would not exit the west drive
onto Hillsboro. Signs would be installed directing trucks away from that exit.
SuperAmerica would need to discuss with drivers and salespeople on the
proper ingress/egress points for the trucks.
Sonsin asked what other type of projects could be appropriate for the site in the
event SuperAmerica's request was not approved. McDonald responded that a
B-4 District could include any type of commercial development, such as a
commercial strip center or restaurant. The B-4 areas of the City include the
shopping centers, most properties along 42nd Avenue, and would include uses
similar to those, including gas stations. If the area to the south of Medicine
Lake Road were in New Hope, the McDonalds and strip center would be
appropriate uses in the B-4 District. A small office building would be compatible
with the existing zoning.
Mr. Michael Cronin, 8809 West Bush Lake Road, Bloomington, came forward
as a representative of SuperAmerica. Mr. Dan Billmark and Mr. Jim Bassler
were also present to answer questions. Cronin extended his appreciation to the
Commission to allow them time to respond to the issues raised at the April
meeting. Cronin stated that SuperAmerica understood the importance of no
truck traffic at the Hillsboro Avenue drive and that it would be a continuing
educational process to inform truck drivers which access to use. There would
be signs installed directing truck traffic. This was an ongoing educational effort
at several of the other stores in the Twin Cities as well. A local landscape
architect was hired and made the changes recommended by staff and the
Design & Review Committee. Cronin stated that SuperAmerica met with the
property owners of Hillsboro Court Apartments. A survey of the property was
displayed that showed the western drive was directly across from the sidewalk
to the apartments. He explained that a four-foot landscape barrier would
provide good protection from headlight glare to the apartments. Also a 6-8'
barrier would be effective in protecting glare to the first floor windows. Cronin
added that SuperAmerica had met with the property manager for Hillsboro
Court and felt that they had an agreement whereby SuperAmerica could install
plantings on the Hillsboro Court property, and a determination would be made
later as to exactly what materials would be planted. Cronin reiterated that
SuperAmerica had worked hard to find a way to work with the insurance
company to the east, however, the property owner was not ready to sell or
redevelop the property. Cronin asked that the Planning Commission consider
rezoning this site to accommodate the construction of a new SuperAmerica.
Cronin reiterated that a SuperAmedca store was the right plan and proposal for
this site and would serve the neighborhood in a compatible way.
Commissioner Svendsen commended the petitioner for working with staff and
consultants and making the revisions as requested for the proposed project.
Svendsen recommended that with the narrowing of the west access drive to 32
feet that it be striped for two vehicles exiting and one vehicle entering the site.
The outdoor sales areas would be restricted to the four areas shown on the
plans and marked by the bollards. Svendsen questioned whether the sale
items would be left outdoors at night during the hours the station would be
closed. Mr. Bassler, regional manager for Speedway SuperAmerica,
responded that at a store with limited outdoor sales some items would be
brought in the building at night. For example, windshield washer fluid needed to
be ordered in very large quantities from the supplier and would probably stay
outside at night. Snow removal was discussed and it was noted that there were
no specific hours in the code for snow removal, the same as city plows. Bassler
remarked that there was a safety issue involved in that the snow needed to be
removed prior to the store opening and salt would need to be spread early to
prevent customers slipping on ice. Brixius explained that the City clears the
Planning Commission Meeting 4 May 2, 2000
streets 24 hours per day and seven days per week. SuperAmerica would be
under the same standards and there would be no violation of the noise
ordinance for removal of snow. Svendsen asked that the petitioners submit a
lighting plan showing lights in the rear and illumination.
Kramer questioned whether any resolution had occurred with regard to the
sequencing of the signalized light at Hillsboro and Medicine Lake Road. He
suggested that the west exit onto Hillsboro be curved to the left so vehicles
could not make a right-hand turn. Cronin stated that this was discussed at
Design & Review and SuperAmerica felt that many residents to the north of the
site would utilize the facility and it would be inconvenient for those customers.
Kramer stated he was concerned with customers using residential streets to
cut through to Boone Avenue so they did not have to wait for the light.
Commissioner Hemken questioned whether the station would be able to
operate on less than 24 hours per day. Cronin stated that SuperAmerica was
requesting 24 hours a day and were not prepared to withdraw that request.
Sonsin questioned how many potential customers may utilize the facility during
the hours of midnight to 6 a.m. and Cronin stated volume varies from store to
store. The consistency of the store hours was important and the fact that
customers could count on the store always being open rather than
remembering which day it closed at what time. There would always be two
clerks on the site and round-the-clock maintenance. A suggestion was made to
have only the store open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and have the pumps open 24
hours. Cronin stated that was being tested in a few sites in the Twin Cities
area, however, SuperAmerica desired to bring customers into the store.
Sonsin stated that comments would be taken from the audience, that
comments should be kept to the issues being discussed, and to keep the
comments brief.
Mrs. Lillnette Hiller, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue, was concerned with left hand tums
at the Hillsboro/Medicine Lake Road intersection and felt there should be
directional arrows on the signal.
Mr. Tom Brown, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue, opposed the rezoning of the site
because it would set a precedent. He felt the suggestion of the angled driveway
was good, otherwise, customers would exit the site to the north and proceed
through the residential streets rather than utilizing Medicine Lake Road. He
cited customer volumes at several of the stores were 1,000 cars per day, and
that several of the stores were closing because the volume was not high
enough. He stated the statistics were obtained from www.mapllc.com and
csnews on-line. Brown stated he felt this would be a good site for an office with
access only from Medicine Lake Road.
Mr. Brian Kelley, representing Hillsboro Court LLC, owners of Hillsboro Court
Apartments, stated that the apartment units would be affected due to the fact
that they were located directly across Hillsboro and the driveway to the site.
SuperAmerica met with Hillsboro Court representatives and had addressed the
screening issues to the west of the site. If the project was approved, they would
take issue with the 24 hour operation. Hillsboro Court also recognized that
SuperAmerica was a business and would probably service many of their
residents at Hillsboro Court and the Burgundy Apartments located further north
of the site. They were satisfied with the efforts made for the screening on the
west side of the site.
Ms. Valerie Jefferson, 2800 Hillsboro Avenue, was concerned with noise from
trucks picking up trash in the very early morning hours and with the
construction of the SuperAmerica and wondered if there would also be snow
removal during the nighttime hours. Sonsin questioned what hours were
Planning Commission Meeting 5 May 2, 2000
allowed for trash pickup and stated that snow removal would happen no matter
what type of business utilized the site. Cronin stated that trash pickup was
under their control and could be done during the daytime hours.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Svendsen commented that he was in favor of the SuperAmerica and felt it
would bring a good service to the area. This would be a viable location for this
business with many multiple family units in the area in New Hope and the new
residential development across Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley. With
regard to the traffic flow existing the site, Flag Avenue was the only through
street from 36th Avenue to Medicine Lake Road besides Boone and Highway
169. Svendsen stated he preferred to travel through a controlled intersection
rather than snake around the residential streets to get where he was going and
felt that most SuperAmedca customers would do the same. The City and
County could probably work together to try to sequence the timing on the signal
at the intersection, and discuss adding a left turn arrow at the intersection.
Svendsen stated even though he was in favor of the proposed SuperAmerica,
he was not in favor of a 24-hour operation.
Commissioner Brauch added that the City should stay consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and that the rezoning would be appropriate.
Chairman Sonsin informed the audience that the motion is always to approve,
and that regardless of how the Planning Commission voted, the request would
be considered by the City Council on May 8 and the Council had the final
authority to approve, deny, or change the conditions.
Brixius mentioned that there was not a separate conditional use permit for
hours of operation and any exception would need to be approved by the City
Council.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 00-05, Request for Rezoning from R-O,
Residential-Office, to B-3, Auto-Oriented Business, 9398 Medicine Lake
Road, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC/Dan Billmark, Petitioners.
Voting in favor: Anderson,
Svendsen
Voting against: Hemken
Absent: Oelkers
Motion carried.
Brauch, Green, Kramer, Landy, Sonsin,
MOTION
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 00-05, Request for Conditional Use Permits to
Allow a Convenience Store with Gasoline, Outdoor Sales, and a Special
Size Loading Berth, 9398 Medicine Lake Road, Speedway SuperAmerica
LLC/Dan Billmark, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting
1. Clarify controls or signage to prevent all commercial trucks from
exiting the site going northbound on residential Hillsboro Avenue.
2. Submit letter of consent from apartment owner to west for a
specific landscaping proposal to help screen the driveway and/or
add plantings to public boulevard on west side of Hillsboro.
3. Submit an As-built survey prior to the final inspection of the
SuperAmerica store and Occupancy; survey to include new shared
driveway easement.
Compliance with all City Engineer recommendations including:
May 2, 2000
· Access permit from Hennepin County to allow access from
Medicine Lake Road.
· Plan to be submitted to Basset Creek Watershed for
grading/drainage approval.
· Easement for shared access to be approved by City Attorney.
· Coordination with New Hope Public Works on abandoning and
new utilities.
· All final grading and utility plans to be approved by City
Engineer.
5. The display area for outdoor sales shall be limited to the recessed
triangular areas located at the southwest and southeast corners of
the building and the three feet of sidewalk running the length of the
south side of the building. There shall be no other outdoor display
of products for sale on the site.
6. By ordinance, the operation of this site is limited to the hours
between six o'clock a.m. and 12 o'clock p.m. unless these hours are
extended by the City Council. The Planning Commission approved
the request subject to the hours of business being limited to 6 a.m.
to midnight. (The City Council should determine the
appropriateness of this request.)
7. All deliveries and garbage pick up to the site during hours of
operation.
8. Petitioner to execute Development Agreement with the City and
provide financial security (amount to be determined by City
Engineer and Building Official). Development Agreement to include
maintenance/replacement of landscaping.
Voting in favor: Anderson,
Svendsen
Voting against: Hemken
Absent: Oelkers
Motion carried.
Brauch, Green, Kramer, Landy, Sonsin,
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this request at its meeting
on May 8 and informed the petitioners that they should be in attendance at the
meeting.
PC00-06
Item 4.3
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Golf Course Clubhouse as a Recreational Use in an R-l,
Single Family Residential Zoning District, a Conditional Use Permit for a
Reduction in the Size of the Loading Area, and Site/Building Plan Approval for
the Construction of a New Public Golf Course, City of New HopeNillage Green
Golf Course, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the City was requesting a conditional use permit to
allow a golf course clubhouse as a recreational use in a single family residential
zoning district, a conditional use permit for a reduction in the size of the loading
area, and site/building plan approval for the construction of a new public golf
course clubhouse. Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation, and Mark
Severson, Manager at the golf course, as well as the architect and engineer,
were in the audience to answer questions of the Commission.
McDonald stated that the property was located on the north side of Bass Lake
Road between Boone and Winnetka Avenues. The adjacent land uses were
single family homes and Meadow Lake at the north and northwest, single and
two-family homes to the northeast, St. Therese to the east, and Continental
Apartments to the south and Bass Lake Road Apartments southwest. A variety
of multi-family residential uses were to the south across Bass Lake Road. The
Planning Commission Meeting 7 May 2, 2000
existing clubhouse contained 900 square feet. The City would demolish that
clubhouse and construct a new 2,600 square foot clubhouse. The
Comprehensive Plan identified the golf course clubhouse to be updated.
McDonald reported that the golf course was developed in the 1960s and the
City purchased it in 1971. The existing parking lot had 90 parking spaces and
the course was a short, 9-hole course. The City was working with Continental
Apartments on a potential easement for a 750 square foot comer of the
property to allow the City to elevate the clubhouse two feet to solve drainage
issues. The maintenance road would need to be shifted to the south to
accommodate the clubhouse construction. The new building would provide
disability access. The existing clubhouse would be removed by Labor Day. The
City was seeking contractors to move the building off the site, otherwise it
would be demolished. The new clubhouse was scheduled to open in spring
2001. A temporary trailer would be utilized after the building was demolished
when the golf course was open for play. The project would be constructed in
two phases. Phase I would be the demolition of the existing clubhouse,
construction of the new clubhouse, landscaping around the building, and the
construction of the drop-off area. Phase II would consist of the construction of
the parking lot, relocation of the curb cut, relocation of the trash enclosure,
construction of a maintenance road, and landscaping along the southern and
eastern sides of the parking area. The City Council had reviewed the budget
and schematic design in March.
McDonald explained that the plans for the new clubhouse included an inside
area for patrons that would seat 50 people. The area would include a fireplace
for off-season usage. The City hoped to be able to utilize the building for
meetings, etc. during the off season and/or winter activities. The building would
include a pro-shop, counter area for concession sales, storage, mechanical
room, a large office, and restrooms. The outside amenities would include a
picnic area on the east side of the building, with more of the golf activities at the
north and west sides of the building. The picnic area would have a concrete
slab for the base and a roof over the top. An accessible route would be
provided from the parking lot to the main entrance and around to the north side
of the building.
McDonald stated that property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified,
including the City of Crystal, and staff received no comments. The City
reviewed the plans with Continental Apartments. One issue discussed with the
apartment complex was the location of the trash enclosure and city staff had
agreed to relocate the enclosure.
The conditional use permit criteria were outlined in the planning report as well
as specific criteria for size of loading berths. For commercial buildings of 5,000
square feet or less, the size of the loading area may be reduced or the
requirement may be waived upon the approval of a CUP, providing certain
conditions were met, such as 1) it must be demonstrated that the site cannot
physically accommodate a full-size loading berth, and 2) it must be
demonstrated that semi-trailer deliveries will not occur at the site or deliveries
will occur at a time not to conflict with customer or employee access. The
space must be a minimum 40 feet in length and 10 feet in width, which was
shown on the plan. The plans were reviewed by the Development Review
Team and the Design & Review Committee and revised plans were submitted.
McDonald stated that all setbacks had been met, and if no easement
agreement could be reached with the apartments to the east, the building
would be shifted 20 feet to the west to comply with the setback requirements.
All the parking improvements would occur during Phase II, as well as relocating
the curb cut to the west to provide a safer means of entering and exiting the
site. There were no specific parking standards for golf courses in the city code,
Planning Commission Meeting 8 May 2, 2000
however, the Planning Consultant applied American Planning Association
standards and found that the proposed 90-93 spaces would be adequate. A
one-way painted arrow and one-way signs for traffic circulation would be
installed in the parking lot. Upon entering the parking lot, a patron would need
to make an immediate right hand turn and follow the one-way drive around the
lot. There had been some discussion whether this would be the best way to
move vehicles and trucks through the parking lot. The Facilities Manager
submitted correspondence detailing the deliveries to the site. Maintenance
supplies would be made to the maintenance building, food and beverage
deliveries are made once a week on varying days to the front of the clubhouse,
garbage and portable toilets are handled once a week and are taken care of in
the morning when the lot is not busy, resale merchandise is drop shipped by
UPS daily in February and March and approximately once a week in April and
May. Occasionally school buses are utilized to bring junior and senior high
students for practices and/or matches. The children utilize the course in the
early spring between 2:30 and 5:00 p.m. before summer leagues begin.
McDonald stated that the trash enclosure would be considered an accessory
structure and would be set back a minimum of five feet from the property line.
The current trash enclosure is located on the east property line and when the
parking lot is reconstructed would be located at the southeast corner of the
parking lot with heavy screening around it. The adjacent property owner had
objected to this location and the City would be agreeable to relocating the trash
enclosure.
The landscaping plan showed two exterior lights, one on each island, in the
parking area, and light contours had been provided. No new signage was
planned and the existing sign would be relocated during Phase II to the new
driveway location. The sign is a 5' x 6' (30 square feet) sign and is suspended
by chains from a crossbeam on posts. The sign reads New Hope Village Golf
Course. The structure would have a three-foot high rock-face concrete block
base with wood/cement composite siding, an asphalt shingle roof, and
aluminum windows. The snow storage was shown on the Phase I and Phase II
plans. Phase II plans should be revised to show snow storage in a different
location. The landscape plan for Phase I called for the removal of three trees
and the installation of several plants and trees around the proposed building.
The Phase II landscape plan was designed to screen the parking area and the
new trash enclosure. There would be irrigation around the perimeter of the
parking lot. The only recommendation on the landscaping would be that the six
feet of plantings be removed at the Fire Department connection to provide a
"clear zone."
Mr. Bert Haglund, TSP Architects and Engineers, came forward to answer
questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Kramer questioned why the trash enclosure was such a long
distance from the clubhouse. He asked for justification on allowing a conditional
use permit for the loading area. Conditions for approval include proof that the
site could not physically accommodate the loading area and Brixius stated that
although the golf course offered a large area there were physical constraints
with the existing parking lot and the location of the building. The configuration
of the new parking lot offers circulation issues related to the larger trucks, and it
was staff's opinion that the golf course could not accommodate a full size
loading dock area. The designation of a 10' x 40' loading area would work
within the site plan. Kramer questioned what other sites in the City received the
same consideration and he was informed that the smaller retail mall at the new
Walgreens development received reduction in loading berth size and an under-
sized loading area for the proposed SuperAmerica that had just been approved
at the Planning Commission level. It was confirmed that the gas piping for the
grills in the picnic area would be underground. Haglund explained that there
Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 2, 2000
would be seating for 50 people inside the building, as well as a separate
outdoor picnic area that could function independently of the use of the indoor
facility or the golf course and the activity on the west side. The separation of the
picnic area provided some protection from stray balls. It was confirmed that
there was currently beer sales at the clubhouse. Kramer stated that the Design
& Review Committee liked the layout and expansion of the clubhouse and was
supportive of the project.
Svendsen asked for clarification on the timeline between phases of
construction and whether Phase II was dependent on available funding.
Haglund stated that if funds would be available, Phase II would be constructed
concurrently with Phase I. The two phases were independent of each other if
Phase II would need to wait another year to be completed. There would be
some overlap of construction at the loading area if there would be a span of
time between the phases. A question was raised on whether the roof over the
picnic area would be constructed during Phase II. Haglund responded that the
roof was being bid as an alternate with Phase I construction.
Commissioner Anderson asked what the budget was for the project and where
the money would come from. McDonald stated that the budget for Phase I was
$600,000 and the City was working hard to stay on that budget which was why
some of the items were alternates. Phase II would be approximately $170,000.
Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation explained the revenue bond
process and that the bonds would be paid back from golf course revenue over
the next 20 years. There would be no tax dollars used.
Hemken questioned the impact to the neighborhood. Haglund replied that
Continental Apartments had been involved with the plans as far as the
easement and trash enclosure location. The new clubhouse and improvements
would aesthetically provide a better facility and it could be utilized for multi-
purpose activities, such as meetings, Neighborhood Watch Groups, etc.
Green questioned the purpose of moving the driveway when it appeared that
the new location was just as steep as the current driveway location. Mr. Vince
VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, came forward to answer the question.
VanderTop stated that the current driveway was steep and there was a plateau
at the top where cars stop on the sidewalk prior to pulling out into traffic. By
moving the driveway to the western limits of the site, the driveway would then
move further away from the curve and incline on Bass Lake Road so the cite
line from side to side would be improved. The new driveway would be at a
closer elevation to the existing road elevation. Currently there was
approximately a six-foot drop in grade from the road to the parking lot which
would be reduced to one to one and one-half feet with the new driveway. The
parking lot would be raised one to two feet, and by moving the driveway further
to the west, the grade of the parking lot would be closer to the existing
conditions on Bass Lake Road.
Mrs. Natalie Stuhr, 5641 Wisconsin Avenue, came forward to address the
Commission. Her concerns dealt with the high volume of traffic on Bass Lake
Road. VanderTop responded that the volume of traffic on Bass Lake Road
exceeded 20,000 vehicles per day. Relocating the driveway would improve cite
lines and would improve safety to and from the site. The City had worked with
the County by discussing future improvements to Bass Lake Road, which were
on the County's capital improvement list for improvements in the year 2003 or
2004. At that time access options would be reviewed. Svendsen questioned
whether the occupancy rate during peak times in summer would warrant some
type of traffic control. VanderTop stated that one concept discussed would be
to work with the apartments to the west so that the access could be aligned
with Xylon with some signalized traffic control. It was confirmed that the County
would require a signal justification report prior to any consideration. Sonsin
Planning Commission Meeting 10 May 2, 2000
MOTION
Item 4.3
reiterated that the golf course was at the maximum with the number of rounds
being played so there would be no increase in traffic from the golf course itself.
Mr. Robert Pederson, 7961 59th Avenue, came forward to address the
Commission. He questioned whether the clubhouse would be rented out to
special parties and what hours it would be open. Ms. French, answered by
saying that the intent was to make the building community friendly. The golf
course would utilize the building for eight months of the year and possibly three
or four months of the year would be for community meetings. The building
would be fairly small with room for only about 50 people. French welcomed
input from residents regarding off-season use of the building.
Mrs. Pederson, 7961 59th Avenue, questioned whether there would be any
lighting on the golf course and was told there would be no lights on the course.
Kramer initiated discussion on the possibility of alignment of streets on Bass
Lake Road and Xylon Avenue when the golf course driveway would be
relocated during Phase II of the project.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
approve Planning Case 00-06, Request for Conditional Use Permit to
Allow a Golf Course Clubhouse as a Recreational Use in an R-l, Single
Family Residential Zoning District, a Conditional Use Permit for a
Reduction in the Size of the Loading Area, and Site/Building Plan
Approval for the Construction of a New Public Golf Course, City of New
Hope/Village Green Golf Course, Petitioners, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Relocate trash enclosure away from south/east property line and
submit detailed plans that demonstrate it will be made of the same
materials as the principal building.
2. Indicate the location of the gas service line for the grills in the
clubhouse patio area.
3. Determine whether the on-site truck circulation issues can be handled
through operational conditions or if the parking area needs to be
redesigned, provide both directional signs and painted arrows to
direct traffic in the parking area, and relocate Phase II snow storage
area.
4. Shift accessible sidewalk to the east side of the loading area.
5. Revise landscape plan to show six-foot clear area around the fire
connection on the proposed clubhouse.
6. Submit a revised site plan that demonstrates that the proposed
monument sign can meet the required 10-foot setback.
7. Submit evidence of easement agreement with east property owner, or
in the absence of easement, show revised site plan.
8. Comply with City Engineer recommendations, if feasible.
9. Revised plans to be submitted prior to applying for building permit.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch,
Sonsin, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers
Motion carried.
Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Sonsin informed the petitioners that the City Council would consider this
planning case at its May 8 meeting and asked that the petitioners be in
attendance.
Planning Commission Meeting 1 1 May 2, 2000
PC00-07
Item 4.4
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Request for Variance to
the Front Yard Setback Requirement and Site/Building Plan Approval for a
Building Addition, 5500 International Parkway, City of New Hope/Public Works
Department, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the City of New Hope was planning a small
expansion at the Public Works facility and was requesting a variance to the
front yard setback requirement to allow an addition on the existing building and
site/building plan approval. The site is located west of Boone Avenue at the
intersection of East Research Center Road and International Parkway and is
surrounded by industrial uses. The site contains approximately five acres. The
existing building measures 37,100 square feet and the addition would be 2,160
square feet. Forty-five parking spaces are required and the site plan shows 50
spaces. There would be no additional employees added with the addition. The
last office expansion took place in 1996. This addition would be onto the
existing repair garage and the exterior building materials would match the
existing structure. This application is requesting a variance due to the fact that
the ordinance currently requires a 50-foot setback and the proposed setback
would be 35 feet.
McDonald pointed out that for a building addition of this size, less than 10
percent of the building area, the Planning Commission would generally not
need to review the plans except for the variance request. The Zoning Code
update is proposing no Planning Commission/City Council review of plans for
additions under a 25 percent increase in building area.
The addition would be onto the existing repair garage. Two repair bays would
be used for small to medium size vehicles and the third would be used for the
large trucks. The building would be constructed of 12-inch insulated concrete
block and would match the existing building. Some landscaping would be
relocated and some added to screen the service bays from the street. The
Public Works facility is Lot 1, Block 1, Science Industry 3rd Addition, and the
plat contains two lots. The second lot belongs to the City and was known as the
"CareBreak" property. The plan would be to install the storm water pond on the
northerly part of the CareBreak lot at this time to satisfy water quality issues for
the Public Works facility. The City would continue to work with representatives
of CareBreak to develop the property and at that time additional improvements
to the pond would take place.
Staff notified property owners within 350 feet of the site and received no
comments. McDonald stated the purpose of a variance was to permit relief
from strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent
reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the
property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or
shape of the property. The City felt the variance would be justified because the
shape of the lot is irregular and the property is located in the middle of an
industrial park and not in a sensitive residential area. The reduction in the
setback would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goal to promote
in-place expansion. This goal would allow redevelopment in the community
where there is little or no vacant land. This proposed addition would be in
conformance with what was being recommended for the Zoning Code rewrite.
In order to increase the buildable area, the building setbacks are being
proposed to decrease from 50 to 30 feet. The plan proceeded through the
normal development review process and revised plans were submitted.
McDonald reported that the landscaping plan showed new plantings and the
relocation of several existing trees/shrubs on the site. The building lighting was
shown on the south elevation and over the door on the west side of the addition
and would be shielded to limit the spill towards the public road. The green
space requirement was met. Trash storage was shown on the site plan. There
Planning Commission Meeting 12 May 2, 2000
is an existing six-foot high cyclone fence around the property. Snow storage
was identified on the plan on the south and east portions of the property. The
new addition would have a height of 25 feet and would be four feet taller than
the existing building. The additional height was required for the hoist in the
repair garage. That height would provide some screening for rooftop
equipment, which would be painted to match the structure.
Mr. Bert Haglund, TSP Architects and Engineers, came forward to answer
questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Svendsen confirmed that the building materials of the addition
would match the existing building. The site plan had been corrected to show
the gas pumps as requested at the Design & Review Committee meeting.
Kramer initiated discussion on the bulk storage and it was noted that there
would be double wall construction per code. The Fire Department had reviewed
and approved the plans.
Brauch initiated discussion on the storm water pond on the adjacent property
and the timing to complete the pond. VanderTop responded that when the
property was platted in 1994/95 and at the time the Public Works yard was
expanded to the south, it was always considered there would be a regional type
pond for the plat in northwestern corner of that property. Discussions have
been consistent with regard to installing the pond during the last few years.
Public Works had been waiting to do a joint project as the CareBreak property
developed. Due to the fact that there had been a lengthy delay in the
development of the property, the Council had requested that ponding be
constructed this summer with the Public Works expansion project. The project
would be feasible because the City owns both lots, otherwise an easement
would be required. VanderTop stated that from a maintenance standpoint and
from a City standpoint, it would be better to have one pond for multiple
properties rather than a pond on each property. The City would be responsible
for the maintenance of this specific pond.
Landy questioned where funding for this project came from. Mr. Guy Johnson,
Director of Public Works, stated that funding was proposed from the Central
Garage Fund, whereby all the equipment was leased back to other
departments in the City.
MOTION
Item 4.4
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 00-07, Request for Variance to the Front Yard
Setback Requirement and Site/Building Plan Approval for a Building
Addition, 5500 International Parkway, City of New Hope/Public Works
Department, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Lighting plan shall be submitted that provides fixtures incorporating
a shielded light source to prevent light from leaving the site.
2. Fire Department lock box shall be placed next to the new door on the
west side of the addition.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch,
Sonsin, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers
Motion carried.
Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Sonsin informed the petitioners that the City Council would consider this
planning case at its May 8 meeting and asked that the petitioners be in
attendance.
Planning Commission Meeting 1 3 May 2, 2000
PC00-08
Item 4.5
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.5, Request for Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Side Yard Loading Berth on a Corner Lot, Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Deferred Parking or "Proof-of-Parking" Designation,
Site/Building Plan Review, 5600 Highway 169, FLS Properties MN General
Partnerships/Safco Products, Petitioners.
Commissioner Brauch excused himself from discussion and voting on this
planning case due to the fact that he was employed by Liberty Diversified
Industries/Safco Products.
Mr. Brixius stated that this was a request from Liberty Diversified
Industries/Safco Products for an expansion of the existing property, which was
located at the corner of International Parkway and Research Center Road and
also abutted Highway 169 on the west. The property had three frontages. The
property was zoned Limited Industry. Two conditional use permits are being
requested for the expansion: 1) to allow front/side yard loading berth on a
corner lot and 2) deferred parking. Site/building plan approval was also being
requested. The current building was located on a 10 acre site and contained
approximately 164,000 square feet, The building addition would contain 46,853
square feet of floor space. With the expansion, approximately 21 percent of the
site would remain as green space. The Comprehensive Plan promotes in-place
expansion of industries in this planning district.
Brixius stated that the proposed building met all required setbacks and
complied with the I-1 green space ratio. The loading area proposed would face
International Parkway. Intense screening of the property was proposed and the
loading area was dimensioned to accommodate full-size truck maneuvering.
Staff requested additional information regarding trucking hours, volumes and
routing to the Industrial Park. The applicant would be required to provide 266
parking spaces for the size of the building. The applicant submitted information
stating that they have 185 employees working on the site currently, and this
would increase by four upon completion of the expansion. Based on employee
information, the applicant had requested a reduction in the required parking.
The proposed parking that would be constructed with the expansion would be
on the south side of the building in addition to the existing parking on the west
side of the building. The site plan shows a total of 205 parking stalls, which
would be less than required. The petitioner provided proof-of-parking for an
additional 64 stalls on the east side of the building. Brixius stated that staff felt
some of these parking stalls would interfere with the loading area, and the
petitioner stated that this was a unique shipping and loading activity and that
any reuse of the building would be at a lesser loading demand that its current
use. Staff suggested that if on-street parking would occur, that additional
parking area be constructed in the designated area.
Brixius explained that there would be an extensive assortment of plantings and
additional screening along the east and south property lines. The applicant had
enhanced the landscaping along the perimeter of the property. A reduction of
the driveway area and reconstruction of the south parking lot provided
additional area for landscaping along the south property line. All landscaping
had been designed to meet city standards with regard to species and size.
Storm water ponding was provided at the northeast corner of the property. A
rail spur was removed to make room for the pond and swale. The final ponding
locations and calculations would need to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek
Watershed District and the City Engineer.
Snow storage would take place at various locations on the site. The shrubs
along the west property line should be moved further to the west to avoid
damage when the area would be used for snow storage. The trash enclosure
would be located at the northwest corner of the building and would be screened
Planning Commission Meeting 14 May 2, 2000
with landscaping. Three free-standing signs were proposed for the property.
The Sign Code allows one free-standing sign per property not to exceed 100
square feet or 30 feet in height, with a 10-foot setback from the property line. A
sign cannot be placed within 20 feet of a corner. Staff recommended that the
petitioner comply with the requirements with regard to location and number of
signs. Lighting would be provided over each of the pedestrian doors on the
proposed addition. The existing building consisted of painted exterior block.
The addition would have textured concrete panels that would match the
remainder of the building. Rooftop equipment must be painted to match the
color of the building. The architect's signature should be provided on the site
plan and building elevations.
Brixius explained that the west fagade was proposed for a future upgrade.
Parking adjacent to the fac;ade was 25 feet in depth and staff would
recommend that with the fa~;ade improvement, that the length of the parking
stalls be reduced to 19 feet and add additional landscaping at the front of the
building.
The Fire Department reviewed the plans and made recommendations with
regard to the sprinkling of the building. A plan detailing the proposed ESFR
sprinkler system would need to be reviewed and approved by the Fire
Inspector.
Brixius stated that the proposed improvements were consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the I-1 District. The applicant made a number of
efforts to comply with the requirements. The major outstanding issue would be
the parking deferment. Brixius stated that staff felt there would be adequate
parking to accommodate the employee load and staff recommended approval
subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Mr. David Lenzen, Partner for FLS Properties - owner of the building - and
officer of Liberty Diversified Industries/Safco, came to the podium to answer
questions. Lenzen thanked staff for their help with the plans. Lenzen stated
they purchased the property in 1979 and had made a number of additions and
improvements to the building to make it more usable for Liberty Diversified
Industries/Safco. In the mid-80s they purchased the property to the north for
additional warehouse space and added a connecting way between the
buildings. Liberty Diversified Industries desired to stay in New Hope and,
therefore, elected to expand the building to the maximum amount possible.
This addition should meet Safco's needs for at least the next four to five years.
Lenzen stated that the sprinkler system would be upgraded in the building to
provide additional fire protection. Safco desired to begin construction by mid-
May and complete the addition by mid-October, due to the fact that October
was the start of their heaviest shipping season.
Mr. Greg Madsen, Senior Architect for Ryan Construction Company, came
forward to answer questions of the Commission. Madsen reported that since
the last submission, Safco was interested in adding some additional articulation
to the east fa~;ade of the building. A canopy was proposed to extend along the
entire east elevation of the building, which would add some color and depth,
and would afford the trucking operation some protection from the elements.
Safco reviewed the conditions in the staff report and felt they could abide by all
of the conditions. Madsen submitted a document reporting trucking hours. He
also pointed out that the turn radius at the northwest corner of the property
where several docks were located was sufficient and proposed a truth of
parking scenario. During the time that Safco would occupy the building, those
stalls would not be required. In the future if another user would occupy the
building, panel truck deliveries would very likely be the only deliveries at those
docks, therefore, Safco was comfortable with the turning radiuses that were
afforded on the site plan.
Planning Commission Meeting 1 5 May 2, 2000
Madsen stated that Safco desired to upgrade the existing front fa~;ade of the
building. Currently there are two stone elements on either side of the entrance
and preliminarily they would propose a curved glass front to the building. This
area would include a two-story atrium space that would house an elevator and
stairway. The building would be brought up to ADA standards and the fire
sprinkler systems would be improved. Madsen reiterated that Safco was
excited to update an existing facility on one of the most visible corridors in New
Hope and looked forward to working with the City.
Svendsen asked that the Fire Department connection at the east be shown on
the site plan and to move the plantings so there would be a clear area around
it. Mr. Frank Zelley, Senior Project Manager for Ryan Construction, responded
that they had met with the Fire Inspector and would provide clearance at that
fire connection. A new fire service would need to be brought into the new
addition with a Siamese connection, and the site plan would be revised.
Svendsen questioned whether there would be any traffic flow signs and was
told that trucks would enter the southernmost drive off International Parkway
and exit at the northernmost drive, which would be signed one-way through the
lot. Svendsen asked that the signage be shown on the site/signage plan.
Svendsen mentioned that a refuse compactor, located between the two
buildings and facing Highway 169, would handle all refuse. The compactor
would be completely enclosed and screened. Snow storage was identified on
the plans. One railroad spur had been removed to allow for the installation of a
pond. Svendsen stated that he was in agreement with the reduction in parking.
Svendsen pointed out that the new facade mentioned earlier was not related to
this planning case, and it was noted that due to the size of the fac.~,ade, it would
not need Planning Commission/City Council approval. Parking in the front of
the building was discussed with regard to the new front fa(;ade, and Madsen
stated that 12 parking stalls would be removed, however, those parking spaces
had been included in the overall counts that were submitted with this planning
case.
Brixius asked that fire lane striping be installed with the new water service and
Siamese connection, and it was confirmed this would be done.
Discussion ensued on the address of the property and whether or not the
addition would be on the rear of the building. It was noted that the front of the
lot was the narrowest portion of the lot abutting a right-of-way. Due to the
curving of the Highway 169 right-of-way, the west side was a larger frontage
than International Parkway.
Kramer initiated discussion on the second water service and the connection to
both buildings. Zelley responded that there are four risers in the building now
which served 40,000 square feet per system. A new service would be brought
into the building with two risers to service the area. Kramer questioned whether
additional parking would need to be installed if in the future the building would
be sold. Brixius stated that all the pavement would be in place. The CUP runs
with the land and anyone buying the building would need to operate under the
same condition. If parking demand exceeded what was striped, the new owner
would need to stripe the additional stalls.
MOTION
Item 4.5
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 00-08, Request for Conditional Use Permit to
Allow a Side Yard Loading Berth on a Corner Lot, Conditional Use Permit
to Allow a Deferred Parking or "Proof-of-Parking" Designation,
Site/Building Plan Review, 5600 Highway 169, FLS Properties MN General
Planning Commission Meeting 16 May 2, 2000
ZONING CODE
UPDATE
Item 5.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 6.1
partnerships/Safco Products, Petitioners, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with all state building code and fire code standards.
2. Approval of Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and compliance
with City Engineer recommendations.
3. Acceptance of a narrative explaining trucking hours, volumes, and
routing, and illustrate the outline of a truck and its turning radius on
the parking plan to show whether sufficient space remains within the
northwest corner of the site to maneuver trucks with the addition of
'12 parking stalls in this area of the site.
4. Shrubs on the west side of the west parking lot are located closer to
the west property line to avoid the potential of being crushed by
snow piles.
5. All rooftop equipment must be painted to match the color of the
building. Rooftop equipment and planned screening or painting
must be identified on plans.
6. Acceptance of a plan detailing the proposed ESFR sprinkler system,
subject to Fire Inspector review and approval.
7. A site plan and details must be submitted illustrating signage that
meets the City's Sign Ordinance requirements and site plan and
building elevations must be signed.
8. In the event that parking demand on the site exceeds the supply of
off-street parking space provided, resulting in on-street parking or
parking outside of designated on-site parking space, the applicant
shall provide additional parking in accordance with the proof of
parking plan. City Attorney to coordinate with property owner on
recording restrictive covenant against the title to the property.
9. Execute Development Agreement with City (to include landscape
maintenance/replacement), submit financial guarantee (amount to be
determined by City Engineer and Building Official), and submit
elevation of new west building elevation when plans are finalized.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Green, Hemken, Kramer,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Oelkers
Abstained: Brauch
Motion carried.
Landy, Sonsin,
Sonsin informed the petitioners that the City Council would consider this
planning case at its May 8 meeting and asked that the petitioners be in
attendance.
Landy asked the Commission if, due to the late hour, it would want to postpone
the review until the June meeting. McDonald stated that the Planning
Commission may wish to review the Zoning Code at the June meeting since
there would probably be only one other request to consider, and the consensus
was to review the Zoning Code in June.
Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in
April with the petitioners. McDonald stated that the June deadline was on May
12 and that Hope Alliance Chapel was scheduled to meet with staff at the pre-
application meeting. Sonsin reported that Hope Alliance placed signs out on
street corners each Saturday evening advertising the Sunday services.
Planning Commission Meeting 17 May 2, 2000
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 6.2
Comprehensive Plan
Committee
Item 6.3
Zoning Code
Committee
Item 6.4
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Sonsin reported that the Codes & Standard Committee had not met.
Commissioner Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee had
not met. The Plymouth Comprehensive Plan had been reviewed by city
consultants and comments had been sent to Plymouth. Brooklyn Park's plan
had not yet been received by the City.
Landy reported that the Zoning Code Committee would meet on May 4 and
finish all of the groundwork. The Committee would meet one more time for a
final review before presenting it to the Planning Commission. Then there would
be a joint Planning Commission/City Council review of the entire code prior to
City Council approval.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 4, 2000.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
A question was raised whether the new signs for Bridgemans/Embers were in
conformance with code and it was confirmed that the signs were in
compliance.
McDonald asked the Commission whether it wanted to change the Jul~ and
August meeting dates due to the fact that the July meeting was on the 4"' and
the August meeting would fall on National Night Out. The consensus was to
change the meetings to Tuesday, July 11, and Wednesday, August 2.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
..Restae~tfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 18 May 2, 2000
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 6, 2000
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Vice-Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Sonsin
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney (arrived 7:15 p.m.), Alan Brixius,
Planning Consultant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC00-10
Item 4.1
Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for
Conditional Use Permit to Allow a School Use in a Church Facility, 3351
Independence Avenue North, Hope Alliance Chapel/Medicine Lake Lutheran
Academy, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit
to allow a school use, Medicine Lake Lutheran Academy - grades 9-12, in a
religious facility, Hope Alliance Chapel, located at 3351 Independence Avenue.
The property is located in a fairly remote location an R-l, Single Family Zoning
District, and is surrounded by single family homes on the north, east, and south
sides, with Highway 169 on the west. The site area contains 3.3 acres, and the
building contains approximately 20,000 square feet. The property was first
developed in 1963 with a small church and parking lot served by a single
driveway off of County Road 18. In 1997, an addition was built on the north side
of the church with parking lot expansion. In 1982, a large sanctuary was built
on the south side along with another parking lot expansion. In 1994, a CUP
was approved for Beautiful Savior Church/District 287 for public school use,
however, the school never moved into the building and the CUP expired.
McDonald stated that Hope Alliance Chapel was requesting a CUP to allow the
operation of Medicine Lake Lutheran Academy within the existing building. The
Academy was intended to be a temporary use operating from three to five
years. Educational and religious uses are permitted in an R-1 District.
RSP Architects, representing Hope Alliance Chapel, submitted a narrative that
included the scope of the work for the facility. Minor changes would be made to
the educational wing of the building to accommodate grades 9-12 for Medicine
Lake Lutheran Academy. The proposed enrollment for the fall of 2000 would be
60-70 students and faculty with anticipated growth to 150 students and faculty.
Hope Alliance would continue to use the chapel and educational wing for
Sunday Services and Sunday School and maintain an office on the site during
weekday hours. Several building and site changes would include: moving
interior walls to accommodate classrooms, install a fire alarm system, ADA
improvements, upgraded hardware on interior hallway doors, replace windows
on multi-purpose room with gypsum board infill panels or wired glass, small
sign to be added to existing signage, right turn sign to be installed, wood fence
on site repaired and bus drop-off area. Medicine Lake Lutheran Academy
submitted a narrative stating its current church is located on Medicine Lake
Boulevard in Plymouth and grades K-11 are currently located at the Olivet
Baptist location at 34th and Louisiana Avenues in Crystal. Additional information
included: hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and no students would
be at the facility beyond 5:00 p.m.; student drop-off would be approximately
8:20 a.m. and pick-up by 3:40 p.m.; the school bus route would be south on
Hillsboro from 36th Avenue to 34th Avenue and into the north parking lot of the
church; no commercial vehicles would visit the site on a normal basis; hot
lunch would be provided three days per week via a van; the school would
operate between Labor Day and Memorial Day with breaks at Thanksgiving,
Christmas, and Easter, as well as a few additional three and four day
weekends; after school activities take place five to eight times per year from 7-
9 p.m.; a small staff would be present during the summer.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and the City received
one call from a property owner near 33~d and Hillsboro who had concerns about
increased traffic. The resident had no further concerns after it was explained
that the bus route would be directed to 34th Avenue.
McDonald explained that the purpose of a conditional use permit was 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 consider the nature of adjoining land
or building, whether or not a similar use was already in existence and located
on the same premises or close by. Additional criteria to be considered when
determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include:
whether the proposed action was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
compatibility with adjacent land uses; conformance with performance
standards; and no depreciation of value in the area. Criteria specific to a
residential district include traffic, screening, and compatible appearance.
Educational and religious facilities are allowed in an R-1 District provided that
side yards are double the size required for the district, adequate off street
parking and access to the site be provided, and provision for adequate off-
street loading and service entrances.
The Development Review Team and Design & Review Committee discussed
site and building lighting, parking, building code upgrades, landscaping, hours
of operation, bus access and loading zone, bus turning and exiting plans, right
turn only signage, clarification of where students/staff would park, loading zone
for truck or van deliveries, repair east fence, and snow storage. Revised plans
were submitted that addressed those issues. The applicant planed minor
interior improvements and landscaping, with no exterior building design
changes proposed. Initially there would be 60-70 students in grades 9-12 and
enrollment could grow to 150 students and staff. The school has an extensive
interview process for acceptance into the school, and sometimes students
were accepted on a probationary basis. The church would operate its-normal
hours on weekends, and the school would occupy the building on weekdays.
Students would not be allowed to congregate in the parking areas at any time,
nor are they allowed to leave the building without prior written approval. The
church site does not have recreation areas for physical education classes,
therefore, these classes would be held off-site. No extracurricular activities
would take place on the site.
McDonald stated that the building met all setback requirements. The church
was required to provide one off-street parking stall for every three seats of the
main assembly hall. There were 181 off-street parking stalls on the site. The
school use would be required to provide one off-street parking stall for every
seven students and one additional stall for every three classrooms. Based on
the maximum enrollment of 150 students and staff, the school would be
required to provide 25 stalls. According to the applicant, students and staff
would need approximately 45 off-street parking stalls. The plans show 25
parking stalls designated for staff in the northwest area of the parking lot and
Planning Commission Meeting 2 June 6, 2000
39 stalls designated for student parking on the west side of the parking lot.
Three stalls are designated as ADA. A total of 64 spaces are provided for
school parking. Students must receive a parking permit to park in the parking
lot. The school and church would not operate at the same time, therefore, the
two uses could share the existing off-street parking. Buses and cars would
arrive by traveling south on Hillsboro from 36th Avenue to 34th Avenue and into
the site at the north parking lot entrance. The site has adequate turning for
buses in the east parking lot. A right turn only sign would be placed at the
northeast driveway for exiting traffic.
McDonald continued by saying that a catered lunch from the Olivet Baptist
facility would be brought to the site three days per week by a van. There would
also be an occasional delivery of supplies. The designated loading zone would
be on the west side of the building utilizing one parking space. Churches and
schools are allowed two wall signs on the front wall totaling not more than 15
percent of the front wall or 250 square feet and two freestanding signs not to
exceed 75 square feet for properties fronting two streets. Hope Alliance Chapel
currently has two signs and the applicant proposed minor modifications to the
signs by refacing the painted wood monument signs and adding a small
wooden panel at the bottom of the signs with the school name. The site's
landscaping was in conformance with the property's original conditional use
permit. Staff recommended the applicant consider planting additional
ornamental landscaping at the north property line at the northwest corner of the
parking area to screen the adjacent single family home. The applicant had
agreed to plant five 3-4-foot shrubs to provide the screening. Snow
removal/storage areas are identified on the site plan on the west side of the
north parking lot and in the southeast corner of the property. Exterior lighting
was shown on the plan and included exterior security spotlights on the west
and east sides of the building, surface mounted security light on north side of
building over the door and over the door at the northeast building corner near
bus drop off area, and exterior recessed security downlights on the east and
southeast sides of the building. The interior improvements would include
emergency battery egress lights at exits, Fire Department lock box, smOke
detectors in corridors, horns and strobes in building, removal of several walls
between classroom walls to enlarge classroom space, and ADA upgrades. The
gate at the south parking lot entrance has been left open and it was staff's
opinion that traffic cutting through the lot had not been a problem. The Police
and Fire Departments recommended that the gate remain open in case of an
emergency, and staff concurred.
Mr. Ken Berg, Senior Pastor of Hope Alliance Chapel, came forward to answer
questions. Berg stated that Hope Alliance purchased the building from Beautiful
Savior about three years ago. The congregation size is approximately 140
parishioners. They felt it would be helpful for the church to rent space to
another organization for a few years, due to the fact that the building was not
heavily utilized and felt that Medicine Lake Lutheran Academy would make an
excellent tenant.
Commissioner Svendsen confirmed that the catering would be brought to the
facility by van from Olivet Baptist Church in Crystal. It was reported that the
fence on the east property line had been repaired. Svendsen stated that he had
a concern that no trash enclosure had been designated and questioned
whether the trash would be stored inside the garage located in the west parking
lot or if there would be another location, and pointed out that the week before
there were several trash bags left outside. Berg replied that he would have to
upgrade the trash service due to increased usage. It was confirmed that at the
other location dumpsters were utilized - one for trash and another for
recyclable products. The petitioners agreed to look into this matter. Jeff Fuller,
Head Trustee, was not at the meeting and Berg stated he would discuss this
with him. Svendsen stated he liked the changes to the parking area and the
Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 6, 2000
signage exiting the parking lot. He questioned the type of plantings to be
installed at the northwest corner of the parking lot and stated that a landscape
schedule should be provided. Ms. Bonnie Krause of RSK Architects stated that
the church was flexible on the type of plantings the City would require. A
suggestion was made that a coniferous type shrubbery 3-4 feet tall be planted.
Svendsen asked that the petitioners submit a landscape schedule, and a foot
candle display for the existing lighting and whether the lights were on a timer.
Krause stated that she thought most of the lights were on a timer, and added
that there was some overflow lighting from Highway 169.
Commissioner Brauch questioned how often the church utilized the facility
during the week for meetings and funerals, etc. Berg replied that there were a
few meetings during some weeks and maybe three or four funerals per year. It
was noted that the Hope Alliance was affiliated with the Association of Free
Lutherans and its seminary was at the Plymouth site.
Commissioner Kramer reiterated that the proposed use would be of a
temporary nature due to the fact that Medicine Lake Lutheran Academy did
own property at Vicksburg and Bass Lake Road in Maple Grove with the intent
to build.
Commissioner Green questioned how many buses could be expected during
the morning and afternoon. Mr. Ben Clifton, Secondary Administrator for the
Academy, answered that the school owns two buses and that would be the
maximum number used.
Vice-Chairman Landy asked for comments from the audience.
Mr. Mike Kosloske, 3248 Independence Avenue, spoke in opposition to the
proposed use and stated he felt there would be major traffic and safety issues
due to the increased vehicles on the residential streets. He stated that there
were elementary students walking home from school at the same time that the
Academy was dismissed.
Svendsen stated that the students would need to have parking permits so not
all of the students would be driving. The total number of student parking
spaces was 39. He suggested that if there was ever a problem with the high
school drivers from the Academy that residents should call the school.
Mr. Randy Isack, 3257 Hillsboro Avenue, stated that he was concerned with
the traffic on Hillsboro and Independence during the early morning and late
afternoon hours, due to the fact that there was already heavy traffic that
traveled faster than the posted speed limit. The corner at 33rd and
Independence was dangerous. The street was not well lit at night. Isack asked
the Commission vote "no" on the request.
Ms. Jean Pearson, 3256 Independence Avenue, stated that there was traffic
cutting through the parking lot at the church and through her yard now. She
stated she did not want to see an increase in traffic with no control.
Ms. Pam Olson, on Independence Avenue, questioned whether there would be
open lunches at the school where the students could leave during the day.
Clifton stated that the lunch break was only 25 minutes and the students were
not allowed to leave the premises. Olson asked whether there would be
summer school classes held at the site. Clifton stated that summer school was
not offered at this time. It may be possible to offer classes during the summer
within three to five years, however, the classes would probably be held at the
Crystal site. Clifton offered that prior to building and moving into the new facility
in Maple Grove, the student numbers had to be at a certain level, which may
only take three years. Olson reiterated that the personal vehicle traffic be
Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 6, 2000
MOTION
Item 4.1
required to use the same route as the buses.
Isack asked for clarification on the hours of operation. Clifton stated that the
school was in session from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and that there was some
overlapping time until 5:00 p.m. until the teachers left the building. Clifton stated
that if a parent was late picking up a student, the student waited in a holding
area with an adult supervisor.
Clifton stated that Olivet Baptist was also located in a residential neighborhood
and there had been no problems. Next year would be the first year for 12th
grade and the class would consist of 10-1'1 students. The 11th grade class
would consist of 9-10 students. There may be only 20 students that would be
able to drive, however, most of the students could not afford vehicles and do
not drive. This year there were eight students from the 10th and 11th grades that
drove to school. The maximum number of parking spaces for students would
be 39. All students, staff, parents, and buses are required to use the same
route. Students are required to pay for parking passes, and are required to
have insurance on their vehicles. The students are entrusted to represent their
school and faith respectfully in the community. Clifton stated for the record that
residents should call the school or the police if there was a problem with any
students at the school. He stated that there were 335 students at Olivet Baptist
and there have not been any traffic issues.
Hemken raised the issue of the gate at the south end of the parking lot and
whether it would be a problem to keep the gate closed. After hearing
comments from the audience, it seemed that there had been a problem with
cars cutting through the lot. Berg responded that the Police and Fire
Departments suggested that the gate be left open in case of emergencies.
Oelkers suggested that the gate be closed, but not locked, and sign it for
emergency use only.
Ms. Pearson added that she felt this was a local street issue that was not
addressed by the Police Department. She stated that if the gate was closed the
drivers would drive on the grass to go around the gate. There was some
discussion regarding potential solutions to the problem. Pearson stated that the
traffic was a problem at all hours of the day and night. Oelkers suggested that
additional spruce trees be planted near the gate to discourage the drivers going
around it. Berg responded that the gate had been left open for convenience
purposes. Kramer suggested that staff park at the front of the building so it
looked like the building was occupied.
Kosloske reported that years ago the church had lights on the power poles on
the east side of the parking lot that would shine toward the building and maybe
that type of lighting should be used again.
Motion by Oelkers, seconded by Svendsen, to close the public hearing. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Svendsen initiated discussion on the gate and whether it should be closed
and/or locked all the time. Brixius stated that this may not be just a church
issue and that, if the gate would be closed, there would still be a problem at
33rd and Independence Avenues.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
approve Planning Case 00-10, Request for Conditional Use Permit to
Allow a School Use in a Church Facility, 3351 Independence Avenue
North, Hope Alliance Chapel/Medicine Lake Lutheran Academy,
Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting 5 June 6, 2000
1. No outdoor extracurricular or physical education activities will be
allowed on the Hope Alliance site.
2. All 39 off-street parking spaces for students to be located in the
northwest parking lot and staff parking, as needed, to be in the
northeast parking lot of the church. All bus loading and unloading to
occur only within the designated area as shown on the site plan.
3. Ail traffic access and exit the site from 34th Avenue, Hillsboro, and
36th Avenue as shown on staff exhibit, and a "right turn only" sign is
placed at the northeast driveway as shown on the site plan.
4. Ail deliveries to the site occur within the designated area in the west
parking lot as shown on the site plan.
5. The property owner to install landscaping on the north side of the
northwest corner of the parking area to screen the parking area from
the adjacent residential properties as shown on the site plan, with
plant types to be of a coniferous type. Additional plantings on the
south property line by the gate to be of a size and nature to prevent
driving around the gate.
6. Maximum term of CUP is five years and maximum enrollment is 150
students and staff with application for CUP amendment necessary
thereafter.
7. Conditional use permit agreement to be executed between petitioner
and City that states conditions of approval and establishes
guidelines for ongoing operation of facility, including hours of
operation, age limit, limit on number of staff/students, etc. to be
drafted by City Attorney.
8. Trash enclosure to be provided and shown on site plan.
9. Close gate at south parking lot, does not need to be locked, Monday
through Saturday, excluding religious holidays.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Sonsin
Motion carried.
Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Landy informed the petitioners that the City Council would hear this case at its
meeting on June 12, and asked that the petitioners be in attendance.
Hemken suggested that every time the residents see a problem they should
call the Police Department, and a member of the audience stated that in the
past they had no response from the Police Department when they called.
Landy suggested that the residents attend the City Council meeting and bring
their concerns to the attention of the Council.
PC99-06
Item 4.2
Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Informal Review of
Zoning Code Update. After the informal review with the Planning Commission,
the update would be reviewed at a work session with the City Council. The
Planning Commission would then hold the formal public hearing on the Zoning
Code, which would then proceed to the City Council for adoption.
Brixius stated that a Committee had been working on updating the Zoning
Code for the eight or nine months and this was the final draft. The Planning
Commission could comment and make suggestions, the revisions would be
made, and then the Code would be reviewed by the City Council at a work
session. After the Council reviewed the Code, it would return to the Planning
Commission for the public hearing.
Brixius explained that the reason for updating the Zoning Ordinance was to
Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 6, 2000
bring it up to date with the Comprehensive Plan. The objectives to be achieved
were to make the Ordinance more user friendly for city staff, advisory
committees, City Council, and the local residents. The format had been
changed, and individual zoning districts compartmentalized to eliminate roll
over land uses and to address the lot area and setbacks within each zoning
district. Definitions were clarified and several obsolete or obscure performance
standards were eliminated. The administration of the Code was made simpler
and more efficient. A number of applications that were previously CUPs now
only need review by staff to be approved, such as home occupations, cellular
antennas attached to secondary buildings, etc. The zoning update attempted to
provide opportunities for redevelopment and private reinvestment through
changes to lot area, green space and setback requirements. Reductions in
setbacks were accomplished to increase buildable lots, increased densities as
incentives for redevelopment, and more diverse zoning districts.
Section 4.01, Title and Application
This section contains the rules and use of the code. A provision was included
that identified the comprehensive revision of this update and repealed the
existing Zoning Code.
Section 4.02, Rules and Definitions
Seldom used and obsolete definitions were eliminated, state statute references
were updated, definitions were grouped into topic areas, such as adult uses,
antennas, commercial uses, dwellings, etc. The commercial land uses were
combined into one area and the definitions for dwellings were expanded. The
definition of family now included "domestic partnerships" and the term "nursing
home" was changed to "long-term care facility". Senior citizen housing changed
the occupancy restriction from 60 years old to 55 years old to be consistent
with state statute.
Section 4.03, General Provisions
These provisions were applicable throughout the City and addressed all land
uses. These provisions were combined into like topics for ease of use.
Section 4.031, Non-Conforming Buildings, Structures and Uses
Allowance was made to expand the opportunity to alter non-conforming
structures. Expansion of a non-conforming single family dwelling would be
accomplished through an administrative permit rather than a CUP. A simple
home improvement could be done providing that the non-conformance would
not be increased. The CUP had been retained for the expansion of multiple
family dwellings and industrial/commercial buildings. Substandard or non-
conforming lots were also moved to this section.
Section 4.032, General Building Requirements
This area changed the most by taking out the requirements for setbacks, lot
area, and building height and moving them into the individual districts. A
minimum building width section was added. Rooftop equipment had been
incorporated as part of the text. A provision for building height and aviation
obstruction was included, which was a response to Met Council requirements.
Section 4.033, Lot and Yard Requirements
These requirements were moved into the individual zoning districts. The open
space standards were simplified. The existing ordinance had an open space
requirement on a per unit basis, which was changed to a percentage of the
total lot area. The setbacks were moved to the zoning districts. Setbacks from
railroads, intersections, etc. were modified recently and the obsolete setbacks
were removed. A site triangle setback was included under the exceptional
setbacks rather than listing it in several spots. The Code prohibited any
buildings being built over an easement of record. Fences were allowed in the
easement as long as it did not obstruct drainage. Language was incorporated
Planning Commission Meeting 7 June 6, 2000
into the Code that the homeowner would be responsible for replacing the fence
if the City or utility companies would need to do work in the easement. The
most significant change to the area for twinhomes, quadraminiums and
townhouses was increasing the density. A twinhome lot would be reduced from
7,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet per unit. The minimum lot width for a
standard split would be 37.5 feet. A quadraminium area would be retained,
however, the width would be reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. The townhouse
lot width would be increased to 24 feet from 20 feet. The reason for increasing
the width was so that the unit could accommodate a double car garage with a
front entrance on the side.
Section 4.034, Performance Standards
Fences would be allowed in the easement, but cannot obstruct the flow of
storm water. Double front lots on a residential street and an arterial street were
treated as front yards and only a 42-inch fence was allowed. These lots would
now be treated as rear yards thereby allowing a screening fence along an
arterial or collector street. Commercial fences were required to be five percent
open. In the table for minimum plant size, a suggestion was made to include
diameter or height under the balled/burlapped column to clarify the size. The
issue was raised on where the measurement was taken. It was suggested that
the measurement be taken 12 inches above grade. A new section to the Code
was "Landscape Maintenance" which stated that "all plants required as part of
an approved landscaping plan shall be maintained and kept alive. Dead plants
shall be replaced in accordance with the approved landscape plan." This was a
requirement that was brought to staff's attention by one of the Council-
members. There would be no time limit on this requirement and would apply to
all new developments. Existing landscaping included on the landscape plan
when connected to a CUP or variance would be enforceable to minimum
standards. The City could fall back on the general performance standards as
far as replacement of dead landscaping. A question was raised on whether
there were any water spigots on city properties for the parks. The code stated
that all landscaped areas be irrigated or have access to an exterior spigot. The
City was trying to promote irrigation to remote landscaped areas for large
commercial and industrial properties. Kramer mentioned that an exterior spigot
may be a problem in the event it would get damaged. He suggested
underground irrigation would be preferred.
Brixius stated that the Building Official had requested that the Committee
address junk cars and shortening the term of storage on junk cars from 30
days to seven days. This refers to cars that are not licensed and not operable.
The language drafted by the Committee allows for storage of recreational
vehicles to be stored in the front, side or rear yards. The front yard storage
must be of a surface that would be durable and weather resistant and which
controlled dust and drainage. A grassed area would not be appropriate. A
bituminous surface was not required, but the area would need to be of a rock
base. Storage of the recreational vehicles cannot extend onto the boulevard or
sidewalk, so site lines would be maintained. The current setback was 30 feet
and the Committee was recommending a reduction to 25 feet. A suggestion
was made to define storage and parking. Another suggestion was made that a
specific distance, such as 15 feet from the curb so enforcement would be
easier. Verbiage would also be added to state no parking over sidewalks.
Section 4.035, Off-Street Parking Requirements
The most significant changes in this section were in the amount of parking. A
number of obsolete standards were eliminated and a number of reductions for
parking were made, specifically retail and shopping center locations.
Reductions for warehousing and offices were adopted previously. The
deletions should not provide a problem, due to the fact that the City can require
parking from national standards. This should give the City greater flexibility in
addressing an applicants needs.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 June 6, 2000
Curb cut maximums for residential properties with respect to two and three car
garages and commercial properties were discussed at length and the
consensus was to rework that section, due to the fact that the Comprehensive
Plan was promoting redevelopment. A suggestion was made to designate up to
a 24-foot curb cut for a two-car garage and 28 feet for a three car garage. The
curb cut for commercial/industrial properties would stay the same.
Svendsen pointed out that in an informal survey he conducted with regard to
parking lot striping, 30 percent of the properties he checked did not have
"white" striping and suggested that a specific color be left out of the ordinance.
Section 4.036, Off-Street Loading
This section was made more user friendly with regard to conditional use
permits.
Section 4.037, Home Occupation
The only change was to include internet sales as a home occupation.
Section 4.038, Temporary Uses
The temporary uses were changed to an administrative permit rather than a
conditional use permit. Outdoor sales of seasonal produce were included in this
section.
Section 4.04, General District Provisions
Brixius stated that each individual district was compartmentalized to include all
the extensive uses, eliminated roll over references, included the lot area, width,
building height, and setback standards. In the residential districts, the densities
were graduated into the more intense districts. The land use descriptions of the
commercial districts were consolidated, and the standard provisions for
parking, loading, etc. were eliminated in the districts.
Section 4.05, Single Family Residential District
This section had not changed dramatically. A section was added for
administrative permits that included expansion of a non-conforming single or
two-family home, accessory buildings, antennas, permitted home occupations,
government and utility buildings, etc. There was discussion on the building
height due to the fact that many new houses now have nine-foot ceilings for the
first and second floors and the consensus was to change the building height
from 30 feet to 32 feet. Setbacks for the front yard on local streets was reduced
from 30 to 25 feet, front yard on arterial or collector streets was reduced from
35 to 30 feet, and side yard on arterial or collector streets was reduced from 30
to 25 feet. These changes would expand the lot sizes and offer opportunities
for expansion. Svendsen stressed the importance of having the applicant
provide a certificate of survey for all variances; this point would be addressed in
the administrative section.
Section 4.06, R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District
The uses are basically the same as the R-1 District with the exception that
twinhomes would be allowed in the R-2 District. The single family lot size was
reduced from 9,500 to 8,400 square feet and a reduced lot width to 70 feet.
With the intent to use the R-2 as a redevelopment tool, single family homes
could be on a smaller lot, the same as two-family dwellings. Twinhome base
lots were proposed to be 12,000 square feet and the unit area was reduced
from 7,000 to 6,000 square feet, which was consistent with a study completed
in 1999 related to R-2 developments. With these reductions, approximately 40
of the 80 non-conforming twinhomes become conforming. This would also offer
incentives for twinhome developments. With the lot width of 70 feet, a zero-lot
line would be at 37.5 feet.
Planning Commission Meeting 9 June 6, 2000
Section 4.07, R-3, Medium Density Residential District
The R-3 District allows twinhomes and multiple family structures. PUDs and
townhomes would be conditional uses in this district. In this district, the base lot
size was reduced to 10,000 square feet for a twinhome. Twinhomes and
townhomes would be treated the same in an R-3 District. The lot area per unit
for twinhomes, quads or townhomes would be 5,000 square feet per unit and
multiple family dwellings would be 3,000 square feet per unit. There was some
discussion on front yard setbacks on a local street and the consensus was to
reduce the setback for twinhomes, townhomes and quads from 30 feet to 25
feet.
There was lengthy discussion on exactly what type of governmental building
could be constructed and whether or not it could be a jail. The consensus was
to modify the verbiage in §4.084(5).
Section 4.08, R-4, High Density Residential District
The R-4 District allows for a broader use of multiple family dwellings. Verbiage
was changed for nursing homes to long-term care facility. A density bonus
would be allowed for apartments with ten or more units to pursue a reduction of
up to 20 percent of the lot area provided other features were furnished.
McDonald added that in the past the city code had given higher density to
apartments where a swimming pool was installed. Now that the apartments
were getting older, the apartment owners were requesting to remove the pool.
The City was trying to promote some other type of recreation for the residents
on site. Elevators were eliminated from the Code due to the fact that it was
mandatory with ADA requirements. The occupancy restriction had been
changed from 60 years old to 55 years old and the age certification was
deleted. Brixius pointed out that the lot area per unit was reduced for
twinhomes, etc. from 7,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet and for multiple
family dwellings from 3,000 square feet to 2,200 square feet. Senior housing
required 1,000 square feet per unit. The building height would be increased
from four stories to six stories to allow for an addition to an existing building. By
utilizing the density bonuses, a property owner could reduce the lot area by
another 20 percent. A provision in the setback requirements allowed for rear
and side yard setback requirements to increase by five feet for every additional
story over four stories. Front yard setbacks were reduced five feet.
Discussion ensued on §4.085(1) and (1)(a) and the fact that public, educational
and religious buildings had been deleted from the R-4 District, and the
consensus of the Commission was to leave that section in the Ordinance. The
intent for an R-4 District was for a higher density development. Currently, there
area no churches in an R-4 District.
Section 4.09, R-5, Senior and Physical Disability Residential
Senior and physical disability uses would be permitted uses in the district rather
than conditional uses. There was a provision for conditional accessory uses,
which would be commercial uses that could occur within a senior or disability
housing facility, such as personal services and clinics. The floor area of the
accessory use was increased from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. A restaurant
would not be considered a conditional accessory use due to the fact that these
facilities had congregate dining on site. The building height could be up to six
stories.
Section 4.10, R-B, Residential-Business District
This district would replace the R-O Residential-Office District. The uses of the
district have been expanded to allow for medium to high density residential, as
well as limited commercial as a permitted use. Within the R-B District drive-
through lanes and outdoor dining accessory to the use would be allowed by
administrative permit rather than a conditional use permit. After some
discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to add "wood deck" to
Planning Commission Meeting 10 June 6, 2000
§4.104(6)(g) dealing with outdoor dining areas and the material used for
construction.
Discussion ensued on the fact that single family homes would not be allowed in
the R-B District and what would happen to the two single family homes at
Medicine Lake Road and Hillsboro due to the fact that the area currently was
zoned R-O would be changed to R-B. Brixius stated that these homes would
continue as legal non-conforming uses. Within the R-B District, commercial
uses in excess of 4,000 square feet would be allowed provided they met
certain conditions. The density bonuses were included in this district and the lot
area requirements are basically the same as the R-4 District.
Section 4.15, LB Limited Business District
The B-1 and B-2 Districts were combined into the Limited Business District.
The range of uses were expanded to make it a more functional zoning district.
The conditional uses include commercial planned unit development, open and
outdoor storage, outdoor sale and display, and day care. The front yard
setbacks were reduced from 35 to 20 feet to bring the commercial buildings
closer to the street. Parking would be provided at the rear of the building in that
instance, although this reduced setback would not be mandatory. The building
height was increased from three to four stories.
Section 4.16, CB, Community Business District
This district combined the existing B-3 and B-4 Districts. The range of uses
was more extensive than the Limited Business District. An administrative
permit would provide for the sale of propane and LP gas, which would require
review by the Fire Department and Building Official. The conditions remain the
same as the existing code. Auto repair, both major and minor, and motor fuel
facilities would be allowed by a conditional use permit. The minimum lot size for
minor auto repair would be 22,500 square feet and major auto repair, such as
body shops, collision centers, etc., would be 30,000 square feet. Any motor fuel
facility must provide a building with floor area of at least 1,600 square feet, to
eliminate pump islands only on the site. The canopy section previously was
listed under accessory buildings and was moved to this section due to the fact
canopies only apply to auto gas sales. The hours of operation were deleted
under convenience store with gasoline, as well as all other sections. Building
height was increased from three to four stories and setbacks were reduced.
There was no minimum lot size in this district.
Section 4.20, I, Industrial District
The existing two industrial districts were combined into one district. By
combining the two districts, there would be only a few current I-2 properties that
would become legal non-conforming sites. Permitted accessory uses now
include eating establishments and open outdoor storage. Administrative
permits would include outdoor sales of seasonal produce, limited retail sales,
outdoor sales and display, and outdoor sales of propane. Conditional uses
would include restaurants, hotels/motels, PUD-industrial and commercial
recreational facilities. Special requirements for limited industrial uses was
deleted in this section due to the fact that the requirements were found in the
general provision section.
Discussion ensued on the building setback for the storage of LP tanks.
Section 4.24, PUD, Planned Unit Development District
This district would be available to provide for the integration and coordination of
land parcels, as well as the combination or mixture of varying types of
residential, commercial, and/or industrial land uses.
Section 4.25, SP, Shoreland Permit Overlay District
In this district several adjustments were made in building height requirements
Planning Commission Meeting 11 June 6, 2000
that were allowed in the base districts. This section would need to be referred
to the DNR Commissioner for variance approval, and it may be that the City
would need to work with existing approved building heights.
Section 4.26, FP, Floodplain District
This section did not change.
Section 4.27, W, Wetlands District
The Wetlands District section was deleted and placed in the general provision
standards, which establish wetland protection in accordance with the Wetland
Conservation Rules, which were provided by the City Engineer.
Section 4.30, Administration-General
The existing application procedures would be followed as well as the decision
process. Specific applications each have a separate section in the updated
ordinance. The cost recovery section was reworded to specify actual costs and
administrative costs. The zoning fee and deposit was broken down to specify
the types of costs.
Section 4.31, Administration - Administrative Permits and Approvals
This section had all new language and identified how the Zoning Administrator
would review and what criteria would be used to evaluate the administrative
permit. The informational requirements were the same as a site plan review.
The Council would be utilized for an appeal of a decision by the Zoning
Administrator.
Section 4.32, Administration - Amendments
The only change to this section was that the criteria would now be listed
separately.
Section 4.33, Administration - Conditional Use Permit
The burden of proof demonstrating compliance would be the responsibility of
the applicant. There would be provision for a CUP amendment in the event that
an approved CUP was altered and the character of the use changed. The City
Council could initiate an amendment to the original CUP. The City Council may
initiate a CUP revocation in the event the applicant was in violation of the
original conditions of the CUP.
Section 4.34, Administration - PUD, Planned Unit Development
This section was reformatted so that all requirements for each of the three
stages - concept, development, final stage - would be in one place.
Section 4.35, Administration - Site Plan Review
This section was previously in the general provisions and was now moved into
the administration section. The exceptions to the site plan review were
expanded to include expansion of parking lots and to exempt accepted
buildings from the site plan review requirements. Site plan review would need
to be accomplished for a building increase of 25 percent of more of the floor
area. Brixius initiated discussion on whether or not a certificate of survey
should be required, and the consensus was that for a site plan review for a
residential property, a scaled plan would be required. A survey would need to
be submitted for commercial and industrial projects.
Section 4.36, Administration - Variances
Under hardships, the criteria and additional criteria are listed separately. Brixius
stated he would add that for "a variance, informational requirements must
include a survey."
Brixius stated that with the change from R-O to R-B, the Prudential site at Bass
Lake Road and Highway 169 would be changed to R-B, which would allow
Planning Commission Meeting 1 2 June 6, 2000
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review
Item 6.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 6.2
Comprehensive Plan
Committee
Item 6.3
Zoning Code
Committee
Item 6.4
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
more intense land uses if ever the site would be redeveloped. The Zoning
Code Committee discussed zoning for this property at length and concluded
that it may be better to rezone that site as a multiple family type arrangement,
such as medium density. One reason would be that the access to the site was
from a residential street.
The City Attorney pointed out that with a rezoning, mailed notices would need
to be mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site and a notice would
need to be published.
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in May with the
petitioners. McDonald stated that June 9 was the July deadline and that Avtec
and Simple Simon had met with staff at the pre-application meeting.
Landy reported that the Codes & Standard Committee had not met.
Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee had not met.
Landy reported that the Zoning Code Committee concluded its review of the
Zoning Code on May 31.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 2, 2000.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald reminded the Commission that the next Planning Commission
meeting would be held on July 11, one week later than normal. The volunteer
appreciation picnic would be held on July 25 and invitations would be sent.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
~/ectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 13 June 6, 2000
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 11,2000
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, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin,
Svendsen
Kramer
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Alan Brixius,
Planning Consultant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC00-11
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Variance to
the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow a Building Addition and
Site/Building Plan Review, 9101 Science Center Drive, Avtec Finishing
Systems, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a variance to the side
yard setback requirement to allow a building addition and site/building plan
review. The site is located on the south side of Science Center Drive one-
quarter mile west of Boone Avenue and is surrounded by I-1 Limited Industrial
uses. The existing building contains 35,860 square feet, the proposed addition
would contain 18,048 square feet, for a total of 53,908 square feet. The lot area
ratios for the site include: green area 59 percent, building area 21 percent and
paved area 20 percent. The site is located in Planning District No. 3 and one of
the goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan was the preservation and
enhancement of the industrial land uses by encouraging business retention and
in-place expansion. McDonald continued by saying that the property was
irregularly shaped and was wrapped on the east side by a railroad spur.
Marginal/poor soils on portions of the lot dictated the placement of the original
building in 1981.
McDonald stated that Avtec Finishing Systems was requesting approval for an
18,048 square foot expansion to the existing industrial building. The new space
would be used for production, office, and storage uses. To accommodate the
proposed expansion, the applicant was also requesting a 10-foot side yard
setback variance from 20 to 10 feet. The building is a special purpose facility
that meets or exceeds all standards for its metal finishing business. The City
Council approved the west side yard setback variance in 1981 as a component
of a combined development with a partner building to the west that included
shared driveways and green space. The requested variance would match the
existing west setback with the addition at 10 feet from the property line. The
applicant is a long-time business owner and resident of New Hope.
McDonald explained that the petitioner submitted a narrative stating the
expansion would provide area necessary to meet increased customer work
pressure and meet changing emission standards and storage requirements by
the EPA, they employ 120 people over three shifts, expansion would add 5 -
25 additional employees, first shift was busiest (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.) and employs
60 workers, office space would be relocated, locker rooms and restrooms
would be updated, parking lot lights would be added for night shifts, a more
efficient production line would be added to replace the existing line, and
additional lines would be replaced at a later time. Property owners were notified
within 350 feet and no comments were received.
McDonald explained that the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from
strict application of the Zoning Code where undo hardships prevented
reasonable use of the property. A hardship may exist due to the shape of the
property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. Staff found
two reasons to support this variance request. First, the City recently approved a
similar variance for the Public Works expansion, and second, the
Comprehensive Plan set a goal of re-evaluating the land use requirements
placed upon industrial properties. The City was considering reducing the
required side yard setback in the I-1 District from 20 to 10 feet to promote in-
place expansion of existing industries. These two reasons create legitimate
support for the variance request, in addition to the shape of the property and
topographic conditions.
McDonald stated that revised plans were submitted after the Design & Review
meeting and included the following items. The site met the lot area, lot width,
and building height requirements. Setback requirements were met except for
the west side yard, whiCh was why the variance was being requested. The
office/warehouse was required to provide 100 off-street parking stalls. The site
had 89 stalls, but would lose 43 to the new expansion. The plans show 54
additional parking stalls to be constructed on the north and east of the existing
parking. The plans show four disability stalls at the northeast corner of the new
addition. One van accessible stall would be required in addition to the other
four disability stalls. The loading berths are located on the building's south side.
The initial plans illustrated an inadequate turning radius around the south side
of the building along with a nonconforming bituminous curb. The site plan was
revised to provide adequate turning radius and B6/12 concrete curbing. Snow
storage areas were shown north of the existing and new parking lot, east of the
new parking lot, and on the south side of the building. No signage changes
were proposed.
McDonald continued by saying that the site plan designated an area along the
south side of the building for the trash enclosure; however, no architectural
details were included. The applicant must provide these details. The plan
shows two new 20-foot light poles on the east and north sides of the new
parking lot expansion and the plans show two new shoebox style wall mounted
light fixtures on the front wall of the new addition. New plantings were proposed
around the addition as well as preserving the existing trees. The front of the
building would be accented with deciduous and coniferous trees. Staff had
recommended the installation of additional crab trees along the eastern two-
thirds of the proposed expansion. All grass and planting areas would have
underground irrigation. A total of 30 new trees and shrubs would be added to
the site. The proposed expansion would have a painted rock-face block
exterior. The western one-third of the facade would have a canopy over the
main entrance and be accented with two levels of windows. The eastern two-
thirds of the building's face would be plain, painted rock-face block with two
metal doors. All rooftop equipment would be painted to match the building. The
site would need very little grading to match the finished floor elevation of the
proposed addition. A pedestrian trail was proposed to pass through this site.
Staff recommended that the City consider negotiating on the acquisition of an
easement from the developer for a pedestrian trail.
McDonald stated that the City Engineer had commented in correspondence
that all site drainage from existing and proposed hard surfaces was directed to
the southeast portion of the property. It would be collected via storm sewers
and culverts and treated in a proposed storm water pond east of the railroad
spur. The proposed storm water collection and treatment prior to leaving the
Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 11,2000
MOTION
Item 4.1
site was consistent with Shingle Creek Watershed and City requirements.
B6/12 curb and gutter would be constructed along the east and south sides of
the property, which would improve storm water collection and control. The
existing 18-inch RCP storm pipe on the south side of the property would be
extended to the west lot line. The improvements account for drainage from
adjacent properties and could be extended to the west in the future. The
existing 12-inch culvert below the railroad spur would remain. A new drainage
easement was shown over the proposed pond. The north easement line should
be moved 15 feet further north. The easement must include all areas within the
HWL plus an additional buffer strip. A sketch of existing easements and
possible future improvements was provided in the planning report.
McDonald stated that the expansion request with side yard setback variance to
match the existing building wall was routine. Deferment of ponding may be
desired by the City so a regional pond could be considered. The request
includes major expansion of business, an aesthetic improvement, adequate
parking, improvement of site lighting and minor defects at the rear of the
building, potential for regional ponding and trail connection along a wetland.
Staff recommends approval of the site plan and 10-foot setback variance
request, subject to the conditions in the report.
Mr. Bob Timperley, representing Avtec Finishing Systems, came forward to
answer questions of the Commission. Timpedey stated that Avtec desired to
expand its production and comply with EPA standards. Avtec previously
received an award from the MPCA for its waste management efforts. They
were the only metal plating company in Minnesota to achieve a two-year audit
status. Timperley stated that they had received approval from the Watershed
for the easement, but would need an operations and maintenance plan that
would maintain the NURP basin. The plan would need to be in the form of a
recordable agreement that assured the designated operation and maintenance
procedures would be executed.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that all requests from the Design & Review
Committee had been addressed. Oelkers did question the type of materials to
be utilized for the trash enclosure. Mr. Dan Cayemberg, architect for the
project, answered that the trash enclosure would be located at the back
southeast corner of the building, and would consist of stained cedar, same
color as the building, and be six feet high. Discussion ensued on deferment of
the pond expansion for some time in the future and it was noted that Avtec
supported discussion with the City Council on that issue. A financial guarantee
could be held in escrow until the completion of the pond. Commissioners
Oelkers and Svendsen agreed with deferring expansion of the pond at this
time, so a regional pond addressing all drainage needs in the area could be
developed.
Oelkers questioned the cleanup of the ditch on the property. Timperley
responded that a pipe would replace the open ditch.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 00-11, Request for a Variance to the Side Yard
Setback Requirement to Allow a Building Addition and Site/Building Plan
Review, 9101 Science Center Drive, Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc.,
Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant submit a revised set of plans illustrating the
upgrading of the bituminous curb south and east of the building to
B6112 concrete curbing consistent with the site plan.
2. The applicant install one (1) additional van accessible disability
stall.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 11,2000
3. Submit plans detailing the type of exterior light to be used.
4. Submit plans on trash enclosure.
5. Compliance with State Building Code.
6. Compliance with all City Engineer recommendations, including
Watershed approval and possible deferment of pond improvements
with escrow submitted so City can consider regional pond/trail
issues.
7. Enter into Development Agreement with City, to include landscaping
maintenance, and provide financial guarantee (amount to be
determined by City Engineer and Building Official).
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch,
Sonsin, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Kramer
Motion carried.
Green, Hemken, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its July
24 meeting and asked that the petitioner attend that meeting.
PC00-12
Item 4.2
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Site/Building
Plan Review for North Building Expansion, 3440 Winpark Drive, WinPark
Associates, LLC/Robert Zakheim, Petitioner.
Landy disclosed that one member of WinPark Associates LLC was his son-in-
law. He stated he did not have a financial interest in the project and according
to the City Attorney he could vote on the project unless the Commissioners felt
he should not. The consensus was that he could vote on the project.
Mr. Brixius stated that the petitioners were requesting site and building plan
review to allow construction of a 77,000 square foot addition to the north side of
the existing building at 3440 Winpark Drive. In March, the petitioners requested
a building expansion of 23,700 square feet to the west side of the existing
building. The applicant desires to construct this addition in one phase, however,
in the event that could not be accomplished, they would construct the northwest
section first and then construct the northeast section. If the City preferred to
have the construction of the two sections reversed, they would comply with the
City's wishes.
Brixius explained that revised plans were submitted after recommendations by
the Design & Review Committee. All lot and building performance standards
and setbacks were met. In March, the City Council approved a variance to the
side yard setback requirement to allow this north expansion to be the same
distance from the side yard as the existing building. With the expansion, the
site would require 247 parking stalls, including seven disability stalls and one
van accessible stall. Six of the ADA spaces would be located on the west side
of the building and two would be located on the northwest corner of the
property near the pond and across from the main entrance. City Code requires
all open and off-street parking to have a continuous perimeter concrete curb, to
be located not closer than five feet from the property line. The curb of the back
out area would be only one foot from the eastern property line and staff
recommended that the applicant redesign the parking lot to meet this standard.
The curbing shown on the plan would be B6/12.
Brixius stated that snow storage was shown in two locations on the site: one at
the southeastern corner of the site next to the van loading dock and the other
at the eastern end of the new northern parking lot. The applicant had indicated
that if snow could not be stored in the two areas, it would be removed from the
site. Truck traffic volumes were provided and indicated that in August 2000
Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 11,2000
there would be 18 semi trailer trucks and 18 delivery vans to the site each day.
Within two years, there would be 34 semi trailer trucks and 26 delivery vans to
the site each day. A truck routing plan would be established for all drivers and
vendors to utilize Medicine Lake Road, Winnetka Avenue, and 42"a Avenue
only. Trucks could not use $6th Avenue to access Highway 169 or Highway
100. Simon vans may need to use other routes when making residential
deliveries in New Hope and Crystal. Once Simon would be operating at full
capacity, they could be processing over 4,000 orders per day. The applicant
provided information on the number of employees and the number of trucks in
and out of the site. By October 2000, the first shift would consist of 35 office
and 90 warehouse employees, second shift would have 52 warehouse
employees, and the third shift 36 warehouse employees. By August 2002,
there would be 60 office and 120 warehouse employees on the first shift,
second shift would have 4 office/79 warehouse, and third shift 4 office/59
warehouse employees. The heaviest times for truck/van traffic would be 9 a.m.
to noon and tapering slightly from noon to 6 p.m. The same would hold true
approaching the year 2002.
Rooftop equipment would be painted to match the building. The site plan
shows a single monument sign for the property to be located 10 feet from the
northwest corner of the site and adjacent to the northern entrance from
Winpark Drive. The sign totals 200 square feet and complies with the Sign
Code. If the applicant desired to install any wall signs in the future, a detailed
sign plan would need to be submitted to the City for review. The lighting plan
shows five downcast wall pack light fixtures on the north side of the building
and three on the west side of the building. The site plan illustrates a trash
compactor on railroad land adjacent to the southwest corner of the building.
The site plan indicates the building's doorways, walls, stairs, and landing also
encroach on the railroad property. The lease agreement with CP Rail that was
submitted does not appear to match the location of the subject property. The
land described in the lease agreement does not appear to include access to
the railroad doors on the east side of the building. An easement amendment
could be pursued to clarity the location. The applicant indicated that signage
would be displayed at the northwest parking lot entrance stating "no trucks."
The elevation change between the proposed expansion and the adjacent
apartment building, along with the exterior lighting had staff concerned about
screening. The Design & Review Committee recommended increased
plantings along the site's northern property line. The spruce trees at the north
boundary should be six feet tall at the time of planting, and should be clarified
on the landscape schedule. A cross section diagram was submitted by the
applicant depicting the landscaping between the industrial site and the
apartment complex.
Brixius stated that the northern building expansion would include a significant
architectural feature encompassing the building's main entrance, including a
few windows and a glass entryway under a green canopy. Staff and the Design
& Review Committee recommended the applicant consider redesigning the
entryway. The applicant had indicated in correspondence they felt they had
created an attractive industrial building and saw no need to change the design.
The Planning Commission should make a finding on the appropriateness of the
building's architectural appearance. A recommendation was made that the
applicant submit a ~" = 1' detailed front elevation of the 45 degree wall.
All drainage and grading must comply with the recommendations of the City
Engineer and the Bassett Creek Watershed District, including drainage
calculations to the pond, maintenance agreement for the storm water pond,
letter of credit be established for the proposed site improvements, any new
sewer/water services to the building must be shown on the plan.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 11,2000
Brixius reiterated that the applicant desired to construct the entire north addition
in one phase. If that could not be accomplished, they would try to construct the
northwest phase first and follow up with the northeast phase. If the northeast
section would be expanded first, the west facing wall would be of concrete
block to match that of the existing building. Several attractive shrub and tree
plantings would be planted along the west wall to soften the appearance.
Brixius stated that staff found the plan to be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval, subject to the conditions
outlined in the planning report.
Commissioner Svendsen stated that at the Design & Review meeting, it was
recommended that all of the spruce trees be six feet in height, and plans show
17 on the north property line and 12 on the west side.
Mr. Robert Zakheim, partner in WinPark Associates LLC, came forward to
answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Bruce Clark, Vice President of
Simon Delivers, was also in the audience.
Svendsen questioned why there was a two-hour gap between the first and
second shift warehouse employees. Clark replied that there was some down
time during the day and that a small group of employees do stay later and
some prep people arrive by 2 p.m. The automation in the new facility was
another reason for that gap.
Svendsen questioned the amount of parking stalls at the north lot that would be
utilized for snow storage. Zakheim responded that he felt there would be
adequate parking available, however, if space became a problem, the snow
would be removed from the site. Svendsen wondered whether the snow
storage on the south lot would hinder truck movement and was told that only
18-foot delivery vans use the south docks and there would be ample room.
Zakheim added that if larger trucks would be used in the future, the snow
would be removed from the site. Trash pick up was discussed and it was noted
that roll-off units would be utilized.
There was extensive discussion on the railroad lease language and Zakheim
responded that he would provide better clarification on that. The retaining wall
was discussed.
Svendsen initiated discussion on the construction timeline whether the addition
was built in one phase or in two phases. Zakheim stated that if the entire
addition would be constructed it would take approximately 12 - 16 months. If
either phase would be constructed first, the second phase would follow
approximately 12 months later. Svendsen recommended that the west wall
consist of broken face concrete block whether the addition was constructed in
one or two phases. He stated he preferred not to have plain concrete block on
the west wall of the northeast addition should that portion be constructed first.
After some discussion, Zakheim concurred.
Brixius pointed out that there was no storm sewer to the pond in the area of
snow storage at the northeast corner of the parking lot. A potentially hazardous
situation could occur as the snow thawed and refroze on the parking lot.
Zakheim responded that they would keep an eye on the situation and sand the
lot as necessary. It was pointed out that there was one catch basin shown on
the utility plan midway across the north parking lot. Zakheim stated they could
revisit that issue and try to minimize ice buildup.
Commissioner Brauch questioned exactly what the name of the tenant was.
Clark responded that the name of the company had originally been Simple
Simon and that the name had officially been changed to Simon Delivers.
Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 11,2000
Oelkers commented that he felt the architecture of the front entry looked good
and would support the project.
Svendsen initiated discussion on truck traffic and how the petitioner or the City
could prevent truck drivers from using 36th Avenue. He pointed out that there
was a great deal of truck traffic on 36t~ Avenue at the present time going to and
leaving other businesses and a great deal of noise was generated from the
trucks. A question was raised as to whether the street could be posted for no
truck traffic. McDonald stated he would check with the City Engineer on several
of the points raised in the discussion.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 00-12, Request for Site/Building Plan Review for
North Building Expansion, 3440 Winpark Drive, WinPark Associates/
Simon Delivers, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant to replace the four-foot tall spruce with six-foot tall
spruce trees and revise Landscape Schedule to indicate change.
2. Applicant to redesign the parking lot so that no curb barrier is
located closer than five (5) feet to any lot line.
3. Applicant to establish a truck routing plan that requires large trucks
(semi tractor trailers) to solely utilize minor arterials to access and
egress the site. Minor arterials serving the site may include:
Medicine Lake Road, Winnetka Avenue, and 42"d Avenue. Large
trucks will not utilize 36th Avenue (a community collector street) to
travel between the site and Highway 169 and Highway 100.
4. Applicant to provide evidence that they have legal access to all
applicable railroad land.
5. Compliance with all City Engineer recommendations, including, but
not limited to, storm water calculations, written agreements for
pond/structure maintenance, and Watershed approval, and review
snow storage areas.
6. Install erosion control fence and complete southeast retaining wall
promptly.
7. Design and operation of the site must comply with the terms and
conditions outlined in the applicant's graphics and narrative dated
June 28, 2000.
8. Detailed architectural plans and specifications to be submitted at
time of building permit application to illustrate compliance with
State Building Code and MN Disability Code.
9. Applicant to provide larger scale (112 inch = 1 foot) detailed front
elevation of 45 degree northwest wall.
10. Applicant to provide all front yard (west) improvements before
requesting final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy for the
23,000 square foot west addition.
11. Developer to execute Development Agreement with City and provide
performance bond (amount to be determined by City Engineer and
Building Official).
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Brauch,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Kramer
Green, Hemken,
Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its July
24 meeting and asked that the petitioners attend that meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 11,2000
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 6.2
Comprehensive Plan
Committee
Item 6.3
Zoning Code
Committee
Item 6.4
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Landy reported that the Codes & Standard Committee had not met.
Landy reported that the Comprehensive Plan Committee had not met.
Landy reported that the Zoning Code Committee had not met. The City Council
would conduct a work session on July 31 to review the Zoning Code Update as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Chair Sonsin pointed out that due to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code Committee's jobs were complete, it was time to make some
adjustments on committee assignments. Sonsin stated he would step down as
chair of the Codes & Standards Committee. He recommended that the Codes
& Standards Committee consist of members who served on the
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Committees: Commissioners Landy as
Chair, Kramer, Hemken, and Green. The Design & Review Committee would
consist of Commissioners Svendsen as Chair, Oelkers, Anderson, and Brauch.
This would bring the Commission back in line with two committees of four
members each. Sonsin mentioned that if any of the Commissioners wanted to
switch committees to let him know. He stated that commissioners with the
most tenure would have preference and requested that McDonald contact
Kramer to discuss committee assignments.
There was some discussion on when the new Walgreens would open, the CUP
for the U-haul business on Winnetka Avenue, L&A Townhome project, the
demolition of the Donut Shop on Winnetka/Bass Lake Road, and the new
laundromat at Midland Shopping Center.
McDonald informed the Commission that potential items for the September
agenda would be a lot split and the public hearing for the Zoning Code Update.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 6, 2000.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald reminded the Commissioners of the City's Volunteer Appreciation
Picnic on July 25.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
/~l:~tfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 11,2000
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 3, 2000
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, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
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
PC00-15
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Two-Foot
Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a
Two-Car Attached Garage Three Feet From the Property Line, 5307
Pennsylvania Avenue North, Timothy and Arnetta Glum, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a variance to the side
yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a two-car attached
garage three feet from the property line. The Zoning Code states that the side
yard setback requirement on the garage side of a single family dwelling in an
R-1 Zoning District shall be five feet, which is why a variance would be needed.
The property is located in a single family residential neighborhood, and the site
is 90 feet north of 53rd Avenue on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue. The
site is surrounded by single-family homes, and measures 75 feet by 135 feet
for a total of 10,125 square feet. There is an existing single detached garage
on the site measuring 330 square feet, which would be demolished, and the
proposed double attached garage would contain 585 square feet. The hard
surface area of the site would be reduced from 33 percent to 28 percent with
the reconstruction of the driveway size and location. The site is located in
Planning District No. 6, and the Comprehensive Plan states that the City would
aggressively promote private reinvestment in the existing single family housing
stock in this District.
McDonald explained that the lot slopes from the back yard to the east street
frontage and contains a five-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the
back lot line only. The applicant submitted a new "as-built" survey that identified
buildings and lot lines. The lot was first developed in the 1950s and the single
garage was constructed in 1963. The applicant added a large addition to the
rear of the home in 1992. The applicant now would like to remove the detached
single car garage, which has become dilapidated, and replace it with a new
19.5' x 30' attached garage along the south property line. The new garage
would comply with city standards for floor area and height; however, the garage
would not meet the five-foot side yard setback. Therefore, the applicant was
requesting a variance to place the garage three feet from the property line.
McDonald continued by saying that the petitioner submitted a narrative that
stated he planned to demolish the existing garage and slab, the concrete patio,
and existing driveway. The yard would be re-landscaped to divert water away
from the house to the south side of the yard and out to the street. A retaining
wall and drain tile would be installed. The exterior materials would match the
existing house.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and the City received
several calls. Several neighbors came in to look at the plans, and after
reviewing the plans, felt the variance was justified. The property owner most
impacted by the variance on the south side of the property had called City Hail
to express concern when the application was initially discussed, however, no
comment has been received since the legal notice was published.
McDonald stated that the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from strict
application of the Zoning Code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use
of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship
may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the property. The
hardship cannot be created by the property owner. If the variance would be
granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
unreasonably diminish or impair property values. Additional criteria would
include public safety issues, street connections, light and air, and property
values.
City staff and consultants met to review the plans and supported the concept.
The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and was supportive of
the variance. The Committee did not have an objection to the overhead door at
the rear of the garage and it was confirmed that no variance would be
necessary for the retaining wall proposed at the property line. The focus of the
discussion was on the drainage problems, and the Committee requested that
the applicant submit a more detailed drainage plan. There was some
discussion on narrowing the driveway slightly.
McDonald stated that the existing house was in compliance with the setback
requirements except for the northeast corner of the house which was set back
9.86 feet from the north lot line, as shown on the survey. The new garage
would contain 585 square feet. The existing garage, slab, patio, and driveway
would be demolished. The yard would be re-landscaped and regraded to
redirect drainage. A new retaining wall and drain tile would be installed along
the property line. The roof slope of the garage would match the house, but at a
higher elevation. There would be an eight-foot garage door at the rear, a
double garage door at the front, two service doors on the north elevation, three
windows on the south elevation, and a service door from the garage into the
house. The applicant proposed that all exterior materials would match the
existing house. On the drainage plan, the applicant showed grading behind the
house to swale around the south side of the new garage, next to the new
retaining wall toward the street. A four-inch drain tile would be installed
between the retaining wall and the garage.
McDonald reported that the Planning Consultant had reviewed the plans and
stated in correspondence that the property appeared to have unique
topography that caused water to drain from the neighboring southern property
into the area of the detached garage and into the northwest portion of the
house. The water also drained from the subject property into the adjacent
property to the north. The requested variance would allow an attached garage
to replace the existing detached garage, and the submitted grading and
drainage plans showed that a drain pipe would allow the water to drain along
the south lot line to the street, which would reduce the runoff into the house and
toward the property to the north. McDonald added that research on setback
variances had been included with the packet showing similar requests, and it
indicated the Planning Commission and City Council had granted a number of
minor setback variances in the City for the construction of attached garages.
McDonald indicated that there appeared to be no other location for a double
garage on the property. A narrower garage was not a feasible option. The
Planner also mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan contained policies to
Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 3, 2000
promote private reinvestment in the City's single-family housing stock and
allowing the setback variance for an attached garage would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan policies. The addition of a two-car garage would be a
reinvestment in the neighborhood, and the City has supported variances that
promote this type of investment.
McDonald reported that the City Engineer had reviewed the plans and he had
stated the drainage plans were fine. The City Engineer recommended that a
letter of credit be established, however, the City does not typically request a
letter of credit for single-family home construction. Those issues are handled
through the building permit process; therefore, staff is not recommending a
letter of credit.
McDonald reiterated that, pending input from the neighborhood, staff was
supportive of the request due to the fact that it was similar to a number of other
requests that had been approved in the past. There does not appear to be a
reasonable alternative. The owner would be making another significant
investment in the property, which would improve the property and the
neighborhood, and improve the drainage situation. Staff recommended
approval, subject to the conditions listed in the planning report.
Mr. Timothy Glum, 5307 Pennsylvania Avenue North, came forward to answer
questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Svendsen extended appreciation to the petitioner for including
the suggestions of the Design & Review Committee in the revised plans.
Svendsen reiterated that the existing garage and foundation would be
removed, a grading plan was submitted showing the drainage, the retaining
wall and drain tile plans demonstrate how the water would be directed toward
the street, a narrative was supplied stating that building materials would match
the existing house. The Design & Review Committee had discussed sloping at
the north side of the driveway to go around the oak tree in the front yard.
Svendsen asked for clarification on the elevation of the ground between the
retaining wall and the garage and whether or not the ground would be swaled
or left flat and rely on the drain tile to remove the water. Glum stated a small
swale would be utilized and the drain tile would be centered in the area and
covered with landscape rock. Glum confirmed that gutters would be installed
on the garage. Svendsen thanked the petitioner on providing a certificate of
survey with the application.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned what type of landscaping would be
accomplished between the garage and the retaining wall. Glum responded that
river rock would be used. Oelkers suggested that Glum work with the Building
Official on the installation of the drain tile. Glum stated that he planned to put
river rock around the drain tile, put netting over it, and then rock over the top of
that to the end of the retaining wall.
Commissioner Hemken asked whether there would be a firewall between the
house and garage and Glum confirmed there would be a 5/8" firewall installed.
Hemken questioned why a rear garage door would be installed. Glum replied
that with the reduced side yard he would need wider access to the back yard.
Additional landscaping would be completed where the old garage was, such as
sodding.
There was some discussion on reducing the width of the garage to avoid the
need for a variance; however, the consensus was that an 18-foot wide garage
would be too narrow for two vehicles.
Chairman Sonsin asked whether anyone in the audience wanted to address
the Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 3, 2000
Ms. Sue Alger, 5301 Pennsylvania Avenue North, came forward and stated
she was the property owner on the south. Alger asked for clarification on the
retaining wall location and the drainage concerns on the properties. Oelkers
responded that the location of the retaining wall would be entirely on Glum's
property and explained the problems with the drainage of the water on Glum's
property and the adjacent properties to the north and south. The retaining wall
would extend approximately 12 feet past the rear of the new garage. Algers
requested clarification on why a variance would be allowed and Chairman
Sonsin explained the purpose of setbacks on a property, situations where a
variance was appropriate, and the reinvestment principals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Kramer pointed out that if a retaining wall had not been proposed he would
have a concern with the rainwater coming off the roof of the garage onto the
neighboring property. The retaining wall should contain that runoff from being a
problem for the property to the south.
Hemken questioned whether there would be additional landscaping or
something else that the petitioner could do that would make her more
comfortable with the demolition of the old garage and the construction of a new
garage. Algers responded that she had not thought that through at this time.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 00-15, Request for a Two-Foot Variance to the
Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Two-Car
Attached Garage Three Feet From the Property Line, 5307 Pennsylvania
Avenue North, Timothy and Arnetta Glum, Petitioners, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The existing detached garage must be completely removed,
including the foundation.
2. Grading and drainage issues are subject to City Engineer review
and approval. No letter of credit required.
3. A gutter and downspout must be installed on the west side of the
proposed garage to direct water toward the street.
4. The attached garage exterior building materials must match those
of the existing house.
5. The driveway must taper beginning at a point 20 feet from the
garage and continuing to the street in order to reduce the driveway
pavement area and provide a green area on the south side of the
driveway for water infiltration.
6. If the height of the proposed retaining wall along the south property
line is four feet or greater in height, the design of the wall must be
approved by the City Engineer.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Green,
Oelkers, Sonsin, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its
October 9 meeting and asked that the petitioner attend that meeting.
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee had met with the
petitioner in September. McDonald noted that the application deadline was
October 13 for the November meeting and no pre-application meetings were
Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 3, 2000
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
scheduled at this time.
Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had not met. McDonald
reported that the City Council was continuing its review of the Zoning Code and
gave a short update on the progress.
Svendsen pointed out that there were a lot of cement trucks utilizing 36th
Avenue as a thoroughfare to Highway 169 for the Highway 100/36th Avenue
project in Crystal and wondered if that was an approved route. McDonald
stated he would check with the Director of Public Works on whether the
truckers had permission to utilize 36th Avenue through New Hope.
Kramer initiated discussion on the townhome project at 49th and Winnetka and
the fact that there were a lot of weeds and dirt piles that made the whole site
look junky. McDonald stated that he would contact the developer. Discussion
ensued on the quality of construction of the townhomes.
Oelkers commented on the proposed floor plan for the city-owned property on
Flag Avenue. He stated he felt an updated floor plan with a basement would
sell faster.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 11, 2000.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald reported that elections would be held on November 7, the next
regular meeting night, and a meeting could not be held. If a meeting would be
required for November, it was the consensus of the Commission to hold the
meeting on Wednesday, November 8.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
ectfully submitted,
ame a by yes er
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
5 October 3, 2000