Loading...
1988 PlanningCITY OFNEWHOPE 4401 XYIDNAVENUENORTH HENNEPIN~, MINNESOEA55428 Jarxklry5, 1988 ~JBLIC HEARING PC88-1 CIIP FORHC~E OCOJPATION 3425 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope w-as held on Tuesday, January 5, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall. The meeting ~ called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Absent: Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, C~a Anderson (arrived at 7:32 p.m.) Mr. and Mrs. Howard Warsett were present. Mrs. Warsett stated she was requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow her to to conduct a home electrolysis business from her home. She stated that she was a registered nurse and worked as a nurse two full days a week. She wants to conduct the business on evenings and weekends to supplement the family income. In response to questions from Chairman Cameron, Mrs. Warsett stated that she would probably have no n~re than three to five customers a week. The business would be conducted by appointment only, and an appointment could last from 15 minutes to one hour. She added that she did not intend to advertise, except perhaps for a one time add in the ~ which would give only a telephone number and not the address. This type of business depended upon word of mouth. Coi~issioner Lutts confirmed that the customers would come by appointment only and that there would be no exterior changes to the dwelling, and no exterior signs. Commissioner Anderson asked about the availability of parking on the site. Mrs. Warsett stated they had a double garage for their cars, had a long double driveway, and felt there was adequate space for extra cars. She added that she had no ~ts from the neighbors objecting to her proposed business. PC88-2 SIDEYARDVARIANCEAT 4884 ERICKSONE~IVE -2- Cu~t~f,~ssioner Anderson confirmed that the business would be conducted in the basement of the home. He expressed concern about windows and whether there would be adequate exit in the event of an emergency. Mrs. Warsett said the window in the office area w-as large enough to climb through if necessary, and the examining table she used in her work was waist high and could be used to reach the window. She added that she did carry insurance for the business. Cu~L,Ldssioner Sonsin asked about the petitioner's long term plans for the business? Mrs. Warsett stated she wants to keep the business small. She has no intention of giving up nursing but simply wants to spend more time at home with the baby and still supplement her income. In her opinion there would never be a need for additional parking space because of the business. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mrs. Warsett did not intend to ever have any employees on site helping with the business. Ms. Dunn stated that city staff had checked with both tb~-~ Depa/-~_nt of Co~m-~rce and the State Health Departme~ regarding this occupation and had been informed that this tim~j there is no license requiredment at this time. Mrs. Warsett noted that she had taken an electrolysis course and did have a Certificate for the work. Motion by Commissioner Lutts granting approval of the ~tiai'~l Use Permit for a ~ electrolysis business at 3425 Hillsboro Avenue North, su~ect to an a.l'~,ml revi~ by staff ar~ Fire Marshal approval of the ~-~gency exit. Second by Cottm-,~ ssioner Gundershaug. Voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None Mr. Rick Digatano stated he w-us the developer of the Plufka Development on 49th Avenue just east of County Road #18. He stated he was requesting a one foot variance from the sideyard required setback of 35 feet on the north side of the lot. He 'has a buyer for a particular plan for that lot, and feels it would be better to position the garage toward 49th Avenue than toward the south lot line. ~ Planning Commission Minutes January 1, 1988 -3- 5he house will be 1240 square feet and will be an expensive home. The proposed home could be positioned with the garage toward the south, but in his opinion there were several advantages to the garage being toward the north. These include providing a buffer for the home from the industrial properties on the north side of 49th Avenue, giving the occupants more privacy from 49th Avenue, and allowing more sunshine toward the front of the home. The buyer had requested this particular plan for the house. Commissioner Sonsin asked why the proposed home would fit on the lot without a variance if the garage were to the south, and would not fit with the garage to the north? Mr. Digatano replied that city code required a five foot sideyard setback frc~ the lot line on the garage side of the house, but a ten foot setback for the house itself. He added that an additional concern was that with the garage to the south of the lot, the driveway would lead right into the catch basin in the street. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed that granting this variance would not set a precedent for the city. Staff noted that there were varying degrees of setbacks along 49th Avenue. Most of them were between 30' and 33' from the roadway. Commissioner Edw-dldS noted that the variance and placement of the dwelling made sense to him for this site. Mrs. Margery Ostrom, 4885 Flag Avenue North, stated her main concern was the .type of dwelling that would be built on the site and whether it would obstruct their view. Chairman Cameron stated that w-us not the issue at this public hearing. He felt that the developer would be happy to show her the plans as proposed. Mr. Digatano stated he would be glad to show Mrs. Ostrom the plans. He added that the house would not be a two story dwelling and that he felt it would add to the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the proposed location of the home would not affect the rearyard setbacks. Co~umissioner Sonsin made a motion recommending approval of the one yard variance in sideyard setback as requested in Case 88-2 at 4884 Erickson Drive. Cu~issioner Anderson second. Planning (k~m~.~ion Minutes January 5, 1988 -4- Voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts, Cameron,~ Gundershaug, Oja None Edwards PC 88-3 O3P TO AT,If~; SERVICF~ AT COOPER HIGH SCHOOL 8230 47th AV~qUE NO. Staff informed the Coim~,~ssioners that an error had appeared in their prepared notes. In Section 3 they should have stated exits could be used except the gymnasium exit, not the auditorium exit. Pastors Tim Inndberg and David Johnson represented the Church of the Open Door. They stated they were requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to continue holding Sunday church services at Cooper High School. They have been meeting at the school for about a year and had just recently been informed that they should have requested a Conditional Use Permit for this activity. Their church is located at 45th and Florida, but they have outgrown the space for Sunday services. They are in the process of locating a new place for their church which would allow them to sell their present churc3~. building, and also move their Sunday services out of Cooper. In response to questions f¥om Col~,~,~ssioner Lutts, it was noted that there are two services every Sunday. One from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m, and a second from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. They are in the building for about five hours including the time required to set up and take down their equipment. Co~t=~,~ssioner Lutts noted that the neighbors had complained about the parking on the street. Pastor Lundberg stated they had felt this was the problem. He noted that there is ample parking space in the Cooper lot for the services. They Pave been making announcen~nts at their services informing the congregation they could not park on the street, and even requesting that they leave the service and move their cars if they were parked on the street. They have also hired an off duty policeman to supervise the parking situation on Sunday mornings. They felt that in the last two weeJes the parking restrictions had been pretty much complied with, but will continue to monitor the problem. They do not wish to step on the toes of the neighborhood. Col~,~ssioner Lutts confirmed that the church uses the Cooper facility only on Sundays. ~ Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1988 -5- It was noted that their other meetings and any mid-week services were always at the church site on 45th/Florida Avenues. In response to questions fl~, C~mmissioner Sonsin regarding the length of time they anticipated using Cooper, the petitioners said it w-as difficult to say at this time. They are searching for a new location and trying to lease space of 47,000 s~are feet but nothing has been finalized at this point. They would hope that they would be in their new facility by mid summer. They are highly motivated to move into their own facility, but need space for classrooms as well as worship services. Motion by Commissioner Lutts to approve the CO~iitic~m] Use Pexmit to hold chnrnh servi~ at COoper High School, as an off duty polic~mn or ~ ~,]t to supervise the Sumd~y Commissioner Gundershaug sec~. PC 88-4 OJP TO AT.I~ ~ STORAGE AT 9301 SCIENCE CENTER ~RIVE Voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts, Can~ron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oj a None Mr. Peter Hilger and Mr. Michael Hoeg represented Rosewood Corporation. Mr. Hilger stated that their tenant MacDermid, Inc. needed exterior parking for trucks for overnight. MacDermid, Inc. was a specialty chemical company operating out from a home base in Connecticutt. They use two smaller trucks for daily deliveries and there is one semi that goes between Connecticutt and Minnesota. Only the trailer will be parked overnight, the driver would drive the cab to the motel. He distributed pictures to the Commissioners of the two types of trucks that would be on the site. In response to questions from the Chairman, it was noted that there would be two box trucks and one semi truck would park by the dock area. There are four loading docks and the area is paved. Parking would be overnight and on weekends. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed that the maximum number of trucks on a "given" night would be three, that they would not be left running, and that there would be no product stored in them. Co~u~,~ssioner Sonsin noted that the screening on the site is not 'in conformance with City Code. Staff noted that Section 9.111 of the City Code required that screening be provided around dumpsters. The previous planning Planning Commission Minutes Jan,,mry 5, 1988 -6- planning case had been approved without this condition being imposed. The Col~m,~ssion now had the opportunity to request that the site be brought into conformance with code. Ms. Dunn added that staff has suggested that the entrance be screened into the docking area, rather than screening the individual dumpsters. The reason for this suggestion is that with the change in occupants of a mnlti tenant building, it would be necessary to frequently remove and install the fencing. C~m~,~ssioner Anderson confirmed that there would be no storage of chemical products in the vehicles when they were parked over night. He further expressed his concerns about possibility volatility of the chemicals and whether or not they might be hazardous. It ~as noted that the trucks were completely empty when stored. They are loaded and unloaded completely in the morning and at night. The chemicals involved are caustic and ascidic but not volatile. The petitioner noted that they had met with Mr. Sandstad of the city staff, who had discussed the proposed storage with tb~-~ Fire Marshal specifically on this issue and there had been r concerns about the proposed storage. Mr. Hilger further noted that MacDermid, Inc. was fully responsible for adhering to State Standards and the required statutory reporting regarding the chemicals involved. Discussion then centered on the draio~ge problems at the rear of the site and whether there w~s any d_~_nger of contamination from the chemicals. Mr. Hilger noted that the chemicals are required to be stored in closed containers, and within a certain configuration with curbing. There is one floor drain inside the building in the area of the required shower stall. This is also a contained Co~m¥~ssioner Lutts asked about the amount of floor space the business would use? The petitioner noted that there was a six inch curb around all areas where chemicals were stored and they were all in closed 'containers. This is controlled by pollution control regulations. MacDermid personnel have been specially trained in the handling of the chemicals. The company operates unde~ the regulations of the State EPA, the State Building Code and Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1988 -7- Federal re~i~ts for the handling of chemicals. Tnis was all part of the statutory reporting process. In response to a question, it was noted that the adjacent tenant of the building was a tool and die manufacturer. Comissioner Oja confirmed that the trucks would not be running when parked overnight, and that only the trailer portion of the semi would be parked on the site. Motion by C~t~issioner Sonsin recc~~ approval of Case 88- 4, (kmxiitional Use Permit for exterior stcx-uge at 9301 Scienoe Oenter Drive, subject to: 1) there be no ch~m~cs]~ stored in the ~ while parked; 2) screenir~ be reviewed with st~ff annual review by staff. Commissioner Lutts secor~. Voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. Codes and Standardsheld one meeting. Discussion thenwasheld on the proposed ordinance 87-13, which amend the Zoning and Sign Code of the City too provide for exclusive tenant parking in shopping centers. Coim-aissioner Anderson noted that this issue had been referred to the Codes and Standards Committee. Following review and discussion, this Committee did not recommend adoption of this amendment to the Zoning Code. He referred to the summary report preparedbyAllanBrixius of city's planning firm. Com,t,~ssioner Anderson stated that when a shopping center is proposed for construction, particularly under a H/D, the developers are given a break based on shared parking in the center. Joint use of parking space allows them to build more square footage. This fact was one of the primary concerns of the Codes and Standards Co~u~,~ttee. Another reason was that they did not feel that the Planning Commission or city should get into the issue of private parking for business. It was felt that if there were additional parking spaces available, over and above the parking spaces required by code for the shopping center, then designated parking spaces would be OK. If the developer wished to place "time" restrictions on parking Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1988 spaces, that could be permitted. However, the city could ther,~~ get into the issue of enforcing the parking. It was C~L~ssioner Anderson's opinion that the Planning Co~ssion had an obligation to preserve the required parking ratio in Chairman Cameron asked staff if there were developments in re~ard to this change in the code. any new The City Manager stated that there were no new developments, but that staff had :rec~,.~J.L~LLLenclec] a ten percent cap on designated parking spaces in an attempt to solve the present conflicts. The Manager stated that he agreed with Co~m¥,~ssioner Anderson's statements reqarding the bonus that developers received when they developed under a I~ID, based on the "shared parking" concept and that no one should have exclusive parking. However, he felt there were some practical business considerations that to a certain degree are valid. Certain anchor tenants of the shopping centers are concerned about their spaces being occupied and prohibiting their clients from fast in and out business. It was the Manager's opinion that the entire exclusive parking issue should be on the shoulders of the shopping center owners, and not on the city~ Unfortunately it did not appear that the problem was going ~ go away. Discussion followed, with concern being expressed by the Co~Hssioners as to how enforcement would be handled, even if there were designated spaces. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the existing city ordinance prohibited exclusive parking spaces. He added that it was his personal feeling that the center owners and the tenants should fight this out. It should not be the city's business. Co~mt~issioner Gundershaug asked how the city got into the middle of this controversy? The Manager stated that the owners of the center gave Blockbuster Video exclusive parking spaces. Applebee's then came to the city asking why they could not have exclusive parking, and requesting that the ordinance be enforced. Further discussion followed regarding who would enforce the parking restrictions even if the city adopted the proposed amendment which would allow ten percent designated parking? It w-ds noted that the city could enforce the ordinance against the owner, but not the tenants. /R Planning Commission Minutes Jar~ary 5, 1988 -9- C~missioner Gundershaug questioned why the city w~s not going against owner now, and requiring that they remove the signs C~ssioner Anderson re-stated his opinion that the owner was violating the terms of the original ~ agreement, and his feeling that the problem should be between the owner and the tenants. He did not feel changing the ordinance would do anything but defer the issue. Co,~,~ssioner Anderson noted that Council had directed staff to prepare the ordinance amendment and sent it back to the Planning Commission. He questioned whether the Commission could just ignore this amendment. Discussion followed reqarding procedure and whether the proposed amendment could be sent back to staff for revision, or whether it should be acted upon by the Cum,mission and sent forward to the Council or whether the proposed amendment could be tabled and sent back to staff for revision. Concern w-as expressed that if the present proposal was sent on to Council it would be adopted immediately. Cha~ Cameron noted that he felt the Commission had to take some action on this proposal. Following discussion regardir~ the number of parking spaces provided in the city's shopping centers and whether or not they had .an excess of spaces,over the code required number, Com~issioner Anderson made motion directin~ staff to prepare another or~.ance amendment allowir~ a shopping center owner to designate t~mse parkin~ sp~s in em~ss of city code requirements for specific bus~. Discussion continued regarding the number of surplus parking spaces in each of the city's shopping centers, problems of enforcement with this amendment, the possiblity of this amendment being defendable in court, the dangers of having rows and rows of designated parking spaces in a lot, the problems that these special signs were creating in the asphalt and the problems they would create for snow plowing, the possibility of tabling further discussion of the proposed amendment, and the possible problems for the city if the existing ordinance was tampered with at this time. Cormmissioner Sonsin second. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1988 -10- NEW BUSINESS voting in favor: voting against: ~Ycim failed. Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron Friedrich, Lutts, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Coxmt,~ssioner Gundershaug made a motion r~_.:,,m~nding to the City Oouncil that the u~.lir~noe be left as it is. Co~-tm-dssioner Voting in favor: Voting against: Friedrich, Lutts, Cameron, Edwards, C~a Anderson, Sonsin Ms. Dunn noted that a hearing notice on this proposed ~t been published in the POST. The public hearing is scheduled for January 25, 1988. C~mt,~ssioner Anderson asked whether it would be appropriate for a representative of the Planning Coxt,,tHssion to attend the City Council Meeting to speak to this amendment when it appeared on their agenda. Concensus was that this would not be done. The Planning Conuuission Minutes of E~=mher 1, 1987 ~ as printS_. The City Council Minutes of November 9, and 23, 1987 and ~ 14, 1987 were reviewed. The HRA Minutes of October 26, 1987 and November 9, 1987 were reviewed. The meeting was ad~curmed by unanimous oc~sent at 9:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORI~ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Regular Meeting Fe~2, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING PC 88-5 ~QUEST 7701-09 42 AVE~rtTE NO. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 2, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Absent: AnderSOn, Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Fzbrazds, Oja None Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant for the City, addressed the Commission. She stated that the petitioner in Case 88-5 was requesting an extension of a Conditional Use Permit granted in March of 1987 which allowed outdoor storage and leasing of vehicles at the property located at 7701-09 42nd Avenue North. The petitioner is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales on the site. She added that at this point the Planning Commission could not recu~m~nd approval of this request because City Code prohibits open sales lots. If the Planning Commission is in agreement with the request a text amendment to the Code would be necessary. Chairman Cameron inquired why the Commissioners had been given two options. Which one did the petitioner desire? Mr. Boettcher stated they were presenting two concepts in response to a request from city staff to present their long term plans for the site/building. He added that Universal Color Lab, the tenant in the front of the building is also looking into acquiring their own building. Autohaus occupies only the rear portion of the building, which has already been extensively remodeled. They also have been working to bring the site up to code. This included completely re-blacktopping the rear area and repairing the fence and cleaning up the site. He added that the paint on the exterior is a ~rary measure, when they are occupying the entire building they hope to remodel the front also. The first concept is basically to leave the site as it now~ exists. The second concept would involve the possible acquisition ~ the Pet Hospital property. Dr. Randall Herman, owner of ti '~ Pet Hospital had contacted Mr. Boettcher as to their possibl. interest in the property when he moves to a new location. Autohaus felt such an acquisition would enhance their property and allow them to increase landscaping and provide future expansion room. He added that when 42nd Avenue w~s widened, this site would be difficult to develop. He would not use it for parking or building space. The pet hospital building is of no use to them. He stated these were the two concepts for the business as he had been requested to provide. Chairman Cameron asked how the Autohaus business had changed since the last. time Mr. Boettcher had appeared before the Co, remission. Mr. Boettcher said the business had not really changed that tach. They are still doing the high end body work, they have improved the building itself, and are trying to get the site up to code. They have a large wholesale following, and the leasing portion of the business is way ahead of their original projections. He noted that they had had a good reception in the area and had better sales than they had anticipated. Chairman Cameron requested that Mr. Boettcher address the sales portion of the business. ~'~ Mr. Boettcher stated that in reviewing the minutes of previous meetings, he had mentioned the sales portion of the business. It was primarily referrals, and spin off trades from new car contracts. He noted that part of the parking of vehicles problem had been a result of his original blacktopping contractor going bankrupt before the job was completed and he had to park cars in front of the building. This had not been their intention when they had appeared before the C~,~ssion. They did not wish to do anything that was not "up front". However, there are some sales involved with the business. (2~a~ Cameron stated that it had been his impression originally that such sales would be temporary and not often. He noted that there are at times between 30-50 vehicles parked on the back lot. It had been his impression that such car parking would be temporary. There are often older model cars and trucks, vans, etc. parked in that lot. Mr. Boettcher agreed that there are some older vehicles on the lot. He stated that there was nothing on the lot longer than 60 days, unless it happened to be a car that was waiting for an insurance settlement. ~ Planning CommissionMinutes -2- February 2, 1988 Chairman Cameron noted that to him, 60 days was a long time. time. His original impression had been that the cars would be parked on site, for only a few days. Mr. Boettcher said the he personally did not see how anyone could even see how many cars were on the back lot, unless they drove back into the property. He added that some of the cars are parked there while waiting for service, some are cars they are wholesaling to dealers, or trade-ins. There might be a couple of cars that were re-possessions. There were probably 25 ~ cars parked in the lot. It had not been his intention to misrepresent anything to the Co~,,L,~ssion. He said some days there would be six cars cc~ing in for service. He added that after 8:00 p.m. you could not see a single car f¥oi¥~ the street. Commissioner Anderson stated that he thought Mr. Boettcher ran a pretty good business. However, he felt it was as issue that the Planning Commission had to deal with -- whether or not they/the city wanted a used car lot on that site. He asked Mr. Boettcher to tell the Co~t~dssion specifically what he was Mr. Boettcher stated he would like to purchase the pet hospital property. He also wishes to make his building one of the nicest along 42nd Avenue, when the road work is completed. Co~,,LHssioner Anderson asked what variances would be required? Referring to the site plan, Ms. Duma stated that the plans do show a significant amount of activity at the north end of the building. She noted that there were some inaccuracies on the plans such as the width of the drive aisle (22' rather than 24') on the east property line. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the proposals before the Cc~mission were only concept proposals. Ccammissioner Anderson stated that there were a lot of areas in the plan that fail to meet the city code. It appeared to him that a lot of variances would be required. However, he felt the real issue was whether the city wanted a sales operation on that site. He added that it had been his original impression that there would be vehicles parked on the rear lot, that the business had the potential to take over the entire building, but that the site would not be turned into a used car lot. It appeared to him that this was the direction the business was going, and he had some real problems with this. Mr. Boettcher said this was not his intention. He had been in Planning CommissionMinutes -3- February 2, 1988 business for 15 years. They were willing to develop a "comfo~ level" in the area of the sales. ~ Coimmissioner Anderson asked whether they could not structure their operation so that the sales would be inside the building, with storage in the rear? Mr. Boettcher said yes, there was this potential. If they were to remodel the front of the building, one suggestion had been to build a patio under a mansard roof to display a few leasing vehicles. It would be sc~ething to catch the eye of people driving by. He noted that once the street was widened, he did not feel there would even be enough room for drive-through Chairman Cameron stated t_hat if this request were t~_bled, he felt the petitioner should be given some direction from the co~tmH ssion. Mr. Boettcher asked whether the Planning Commission was interested in his acquiring the pet hospital property? (~airman Cameron stated that the O~tu~,~ssion could not get involved with the possible purchase of the building.d Ms. Dunn stated that the combination of the Pet Hospital property and the Autohaus site would present an opportunity ~'~ eliminate non-conforming conditions. Cc~t~-aissioner Gundersb~ug asked whether the petitioner had been doing any advertising fOr the business? Mr. Boettcher said that basically only in the local papers. It was largely a referral business. The rear area is now all service at the present time. In response to a question regarding the percentage of sales in the business, Mr. Boettcher stated that in the past month, there had been 5 cars leased, 40 sold, and 10 re-sales. Commissioner Gundershaug stated this was his concern, that the business will become primarily a used car lot in the front of the building. His preference was that there be no cars in the front of the building. C~m-missioner Friedrich asked whether there was any possibility that the petitioner would convert the inside front of the building into an area for the car sales? Mr. Boettcher said this was one plan, he felt the they could accommodate 15-20 cars inside. He also was considering a Planning Comission Minutes -4- Febl~ary 2, 1988 mansard roof with a patio underneath for parking a few cars to give them some exposure. They would have to have some exposure to the street to justify purchasing the additional property. He added that he did not intend to have the type of operation that would include flags and banners or writing on the cars. At the most he might apply for a permit to advertise twice a year. The service work, and the body work is all geared toward C~L,,L,~ssioner Sonsin stated that while he had been in support of the original concept for the business, he did not want the property to turn into a used car lot. He felt he did not feel the business as exists is consistent with what the Commission thought they were endorsing last spring. Mr. Boettcher responded that while he did run specials on the sign in front of the building, he did not think that the marquee w~s distracting. He had originally parked the cars in front of the building because of the problems he had with the blacktopping of the rear lot. He re-stated that some sales had always been a portion of the business. He stated he had received no complaints from customers. C~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin stated he recalled hearing mention of only limited sales, when the original CUP was granted. Mr. Boettcher said that leasing sales were also involved, some cars that are sold are never on the lot. The actual sales are a limited part of the business. He added that if he were able to acquire the additional property, and when the remodeling and landscaping was completed, he did not think that anyone in the city would be unhappy. He wants to make the building the nicest one on the street. He hoped that he would be able to reach a coit~rcmise with the city when the street work is completed. Mr. Boettcher stated he was also considering a change in the shared driveway with Country Kitchen. They had considered putting a divider in the drive. Ms. Dunn stated that this curb out was 36' wide. One of the problems is that based on a recent land survey, the entire driveway is on Mr. Boettcher's property. Chairman Cameron asked whether the property was entitled to two curb outs? Ms. Dunn stated that one of the goals of the 42nd Avenue Street Project is to eliminate some of the curb outs. Planning CommissionMinutes -5- February2, 1988 Commissioner Edwards stated he had mixed feelings abo~. allowing any selling of new or used cars in the city. He w~ totally opposed to allowing any cars parked in the front of th~ building. ~ne Code did not presently allow this. C~,~ssioner Oja agreed. Even if the petitioner remodeled and installed a pad in front of the building, there should be no cars parked in front of the building. Referring to the statistics Mr. Boettcher bad given the Conmdssion earlier, Commissioner Lutts asked whether he thought these statistics would change in the future. Mr. Boettcher said yes, he felt that the leasing portion of the busines would become bigger. Imasing could become a 50% part of the building. However, he felt the c~m~unity would not notice any increased traffic on the site even if volume increased. A lot of the leased cars do not even come on to the site, sales also involve fleet cars which do not come on to the site. He noted that in his opinion, this business probably generated the least traffic you could have on this site, less than other types of businesses could generate. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the petitioner had any plans to acquire franchise vehicles. Mr. Boettcher said no, he did not want this type of business. Ou~a~,~ssioner Sonsin asked why Mr. Boettcher had moved to New Hope? Mr. Boettcher said he w~nted to own his own building. He had been renting space in St. Louis Park. He did not anticipate 'that he would outgrow the present space, once he was using the entire building for his business, particularly if he did acquire the property to the east. Chairman Cameron asked what Mr. Boettcher would do if in the worst scenario, the street widening stcok 20 feet of space and he was not allowed to store vehicles in front. Mr. Boettcher said it would hurt the business. They needed something to attract people. If the city refused their requests, they would have to find a way to work around the problem. Chairman Cameron cul~_nted that he felt Mr. Boettcher was very sincere, but he had to realize that the Coim¥,~ssion w~s very opposed to a used car lot in downtown New Hope. The city would like him to remain a neighbor and be allowed to expand. He noted that with the street widening there would be tough problem with traffic flow on the site. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 2, 1988 Mr. Boettcher noted that the problems with the site were there before he purchased the property. He felt that by changing the driveway and curb cuts and remodeling the building the site will be definitely improved. ~here was not a lot they could do with the site unless they purchased the site next door. Cha~ Cameron asked if there was anything else the Commission could do for him? Mr. Boettcher said, just keep an open m/nd. Cu~L,,L,~ssioner Anderson asked whether there was a time frame for the possible vacation of Universal Color Lab from the building? Mr. Boettcher said that the owner was investigating purchasing his own building, however, he did have a couple of years left on his lease. Discussion continued on the action that should be taken now by the Commission, the time frame for the 42nd Avenue Project, and when the city anticipated receiving a report from the Commissioner Anderson noted that the petitioner should continue to work with staff and to determine exactly what variances might be needed on the site. Discussion continued about sales on the property, and whether they were conducted in the front of hack of the site. Mention ~as made of the sign indicating on the front indicating a "sales office". Also discussed w~s the possible extension of the existing Conditional Use Permit, the time frame for such an extension, and the areas that would be permitted for temporary parking of vehicles. Chairman Cameron stated that he did not feel the petitioner would find anyone on the C~L.~ission that would support sales in the front of the building, no one wants the site to turn into a used car lot. He urged the petitioner to keep this in mind. He also noted that when the petitioner returned to the Cuq,,u~ssion, he should come with a definite development plan in mind, for the Commission to react to. He added that while the city staff could help him in his planning, they could not ~L.L,~t to what the Planning CO,P,L,~ssion Would do. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that a future appearance before the Omm-L~ission would also involve a Design and Review meeting. Mr. Mike Maloney, Manager of Kuppenheimer's which is located across the street from Autohaus, noted that he had found Mr. Boettcher to be an honest businessman and a good neighbor. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 2, 1988 They had been overjoyed when he had taken over the site a~ started to improve the lot. He would lik~ to see them contin~ as a neighbor. Mr. Oestrich, an employee of Autohaus, stated he had recently been employed but had observed the operation previously. He cu~L,,L~nted that the building had been cleaned up, and that the petitioner ran a clean operation, with modern equipment and a upscale clientele. He did not see it becoming a used car lot. The operation is put together well. There w~s a need however, to let people know they were there. C~LuLdssioner Sonsin stated he w-us in favor of extending the Conditional Use Permit to June 30. He emphasized however that the Comntission was not suR0t~rtir~ any used car operation on the lot. Mr. Boettcher asked if this included leasing in front? Om-m¥,~ssioner Anderson made a motion recommending app¥o-v-al of the Comd~tic~]l Use Pemmit until 1 July 1988 subject to there being no sales or leasing of vehicles in the front of the linch]ding, or any ve~_icles parked_ in front of the C~,,L,~ssioner Friedrich second. voting in favor: voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts,. Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja ~ None Ccmm~issioner Anderson made a motion ~mhling the request for a Oonditi~] Use Permit to allow ou~nor sales (C~se 88-5) until the June 7, 1988 meeting. O~m¥,~ssioner Sonsin second. Voting in favor: voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None There w-as no report from the Design and Review Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Co~mittee. NEW ~USINESS Ms. Dunn stated that Ordinance 88-5 as included on the agenda for consideration by the Planning Co~u~,~ssion w-us housekeeping item. It involves a change in wording of the ordinance clarifying pass through fees. Motion by Co~m,,~ssioner Gundershaug r~ approval of the am~d~m~ts to to the text of the City Code as stated in Ordinance 88-5. O~t~issioner Edwards second. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 2, 1988 Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja. Voting against: None The Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 1988 were The CouncilMinutesofDecember 28, 1988 were reviewed. The HRA Minutes of November 23, and December 23, 1987 were reviewed. Ms. Dunn stated that there would be a public hearing on the 42nd Avenue Street Improvement Project on February 8, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. The area involved is 42nd Avenue between Winnetka and Louisianaand includesthe realig~.~ent of Nevada Avenueand the traffic signal. The meetingwas ad~ournedbyunaD~as~at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Minutes -9- February2, 1988 CITY OFNEWHOPE 4401XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPINOOUNTY, MINNESOTA55428 March l, 1988 PC 88-6 ~ FOR ~HREE PERCENT VARIANCE IN GRk~"N SPACE 7301 36th AV~qUE N. PC 88-8 ]~:vS~TOYEE PAPJ.~]],~_~ ~ 5520 (IN3NTY ROAD ~18 A regular meeting of the Planning C~,,~,~ssion of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, March 1, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. Rile meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Oja Absent: Sonsin, Lutts, Gundershaug Chairman Cameron announced, forthebenefit of the citizens in attendance, that Plannir~Case 88-7 had beenwithdrawn bythe petitioner. The petitioner was not in attendance. Moti~ to table PC 88-6 until the e~d of the meeting was made by Commissioner ~. Commissioner Anderson secc~. Voting in favor: Voting against: F~ticm carried. Anderson, Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Oja Mr. Gary Bebeau, Vice President of Operations, for the for the petitioners, stated that the company wished to construct a 30,000 square foot addition to their warehouse. The addition would be located at the north side of the site, where a parking lot is now located. They wish to construct the addition on that side of the building because it will allow the addition to dovetail into the existing warehouse space. %his location would be more efficient than adding on to the east side of the building. Their shipping and receiving operations are located on the south side of the building. They would prefer not to disrupt these operations. There are also docks in place at that location. Rluis area also contains the worst soil on the site. The variance is needed to allow employee parking in the front of the building. They also wish to add parking on the southwest side of the building. Chairman Cameron asked whether this planning case had been reviewed by the Design and Review Board? It was noted that it had. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the required number of parking spaces for the site was 180. Mr. Bebeau said they were proposing 182 spaces. All parking and driving aisles will be blacktopped, and there will be continuous concrete curbing installed. The parking lots will also be completely re-striped. The area on the west side will be redone. The curb cut at the north will be eliminated. In response to questions, Mr. Bebeau stated that the blacktop on the east would be removed, but they would like the doorway to remain. There is a concrete pad in front of the door. They will sod the area where the blacktop is removed. They also plan to leave the railroad spur in place, although they will be vacating the current railroad spur Mr. Bebeau inquired about procedure for this vacation. The City Manager indicated that this was a private easement. Cumm,~ssioner Edwards noted_ that the ocmpany's legal department would handle that. Mr. Bebeau 'said that there would be 20-30 trucks a day on the site. Commissioner Edwards confirmed with staff that the proposed turning radius for trucks was accepteble. He then questioned the hours that trucks would be operating fk-~-~ the site. Mr. Bebeau said the u~a] hours were 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Most were scheduled early in the day. He added that on an extremely busy day, the trucks could be stacked up on the frontage road. With the proposed changes they would have an area for the stacking that would not interfere with the traffic flow. It would be possible for a truck to drive to the southeast corner of the site to wait. The employees could also park there. At the present time the company is renting additional warehouse space and the trucks now on site will probably be gone in a week or two. Plann/ngCommissionMinutes March l, 1988 Discussion then centered on the trash enclosure. It was noted that it is currently located in front of the dock doors and that they have an inside trash compactor. The plan is to change the method of handling trash. Edwards confirmed that the petitioner was aware that city code required that all trash areas be completely enclosed, including agate. Mr. Bebeau confirmed that the addition would match the lines of the existing building; be of the same materials and color, and that all rooftop equipment would be painted to match the Mr. Bebeau added that the one story office portion will be exactly the same as the existing building. The warehouse addition will have stacked panels with a surface that will be similar to the raked block design on the north elevation. There will be terrazo strips between the window cuts. Discussion then covered the exterior lighting on the building Mr. Bebeau stated that the existing build/rig had perimeter lighting. They plan to add more lights than are currently on the plan. The parking areas will also have a number of free standing light poles throughout. Col~m~issioner Edwards confirmed that the police depal-hL~nt had reviewed the plans and had no problems with what was proposed. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the petitioners had considered any other location for the addition? Mr. Bebeau answered that the docks were on the south side of the building and that another location had bad soil. During the original construction, they had had to remove up to 12 feet of bad soil before they could begin. The soil is better on the east side but would create a longer building which would be less efficient in regard to flow of goods. By adding to the north, they will be able to continue the existing pattern and the building will have a better appearance. In response to questions about future expansion, Mr. Debeau said he hoped the business would be that successful but at this time there were no definite plans. C~L,,~nting on the landscaping that had been increased following Planning CommissionMinutes March 1, 1988 -4- the Design and Review Ccmm~ttee meeting, C~t,,~issioner Edwards stated he personally would like to see more pine or spruce trees added on the west side of the building. He suggested 12- 18 more trees to help provide additional screening. Chairman Cameron asked why the employees could not park on the east side of the building? Mr. Bebeau stated that most of the employees are women in the office. These employees have expressed reservations about having to park so far from the entrance, especially in the dark. It is impossible for them to walk th~ the warehouse area for security reasons, so an additional door would not be practical. C~m~Hssioner Anderson stated he was happy to see the additional landscaping on the site. He requested that the petitioner explore lighting fixtures that would cut down on glare in the street. There was no one present in re~ard to this request. Commissioner Edwards made a motion re~a~,,~_nding approval of the ~ in ~ki~, as ~ in PL~t.~ ~ ~-7, a~' g~ o=~=%~ic~ ap~, subject to: the petitionE indicating on the plans where the trash enclosure will be located, and what materials will be used for the enclosure; where the additional trees will be placed; and where the blacktop will be removed. ~hese i~ ~a~st be ~ the plar~ prior to presentatic~ to the City Ccu~=~]. Commission Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Oja None Sonsin, Lutts, Gundershaug Motic~ by Commissioner Anderson, secor~ by C~,,,~ssioner ~ ~ Plannir~ C~se 88-6 f~u~a the table. voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, None Thepetitionerwas still not in attendance. MOTION F~ic~ by Commissioner Edwards, secor~ by Ohm~ssioner Oja, ~ah]~n~ Plannir~ C~se 88-6 until the Planning meetir~of~5, 1988. Planning CcmmdssionMinutes March 1, 1988 -5- Voting in favor; Voting against: Absent: Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Anderson The Planning Com, L,~ssion minutes of FebI%k~ry 2, 1988 were accepted as printed. The City Council Minutes of Jan,,m~y 11, January 25, and February 8, were reviewed. The HRA minutes of January 11, January 25, and Feb~m~y 8, were reviewed. Discussion followed between the c~LR~,~ssioners and the City Manager ~ the 42nd Avenue Development Plans. Omirman c~meron requ~-ted that the Plannir~ (l~mdssic~ be give~ a presentatio~ c~ these plans at their ~ o~ April 5, 1988. Staff agreed to this. Also discussed was the' status of the Sinclair site. It w-as noted that soil tests are being conducted. A report should be The meeting was adjourned by unanimous ~ at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning CommissionMinutes March 1, 1988 CITY OFNEWHOPE 4401XYLON AVENUE NORIIq HENNEPINCOUNTY, MINNESOTA55428 April 5, 1988 HEARING PC 88-6 AREA VARIANCE AT 7301 36th AVt~UE N. A regularmeeting of the Plann/ngCommission of the City of New Hope %fas held on Tuesday, April 5, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. Re meeting was called to o~er ~ (hairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Absent: Lutts, Friedrich Mr. Richard Curry stated he was requesting a variance of the green area requirement on the property at 7301 36th Avenue He referred to a letter he had written to Doug Sandstad the the city's Building Official regarding the problem. He noted that it was his understanding that variances were not granted for economic reasons. He added that the petitioners had acquired 2 1/2 acres by Right of Purchase Agreement and had appeared before the City Council and received unofficial indication that expansion of that particular self storage unit would be approved. Subsequently a moratorium had been established. This expansion would have made this property part of a cu~,~on driveway. When the moratorium was lifted, a new ordinance was created prohibiting the construction of any other self storage units in the city. He had a building full of tenants on either side and it would be almost impossible, in his opinion, to return that building to its original condition. He stated he would be willing to add to the landscaping on the site, if necessary. He felt that they had created a site that did not look like typical mini- storage units. Co~mHssioner Sonsin stated he felt that it appeared to him that there had been some "cross over" in procedure. He was concerned about whether construction approval had been given by the city. He felt that the changes made in the building had led directly to the current problem. The city had not been notified that the building plans had been changed. Mr. Curry stated that all of the buildings had been designed to be "clear span" which would allow the adjusting of size of unit, according to demand. C~m,~ssioner Sonsin noted that had Mr. Curry checked with tk city staff before proceeding with changes, the present problem might have been avoided. Mr. Curry noted that one could not always predict the market. C~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin replied that it was this deviation, however, t_hat had led to the violation of the green space requirement. He asked the petitioner whether he had given any consideration to acquiring additional property to the south? Mr. Curry stated that the property to the south now belonged to VIDO0. ~ In response to a question from Cu~m~dssioner Sonsin, Ms. Dunn stated that it was the policy of the city that each individual piece of property had to stand on its own in regard to green space, and two separate properties could not be combined to create a total green space that met code requirements. C~,,~,4ssioner Sonsin asked how the petitioner might increase the landscaping on the site? Mr. Curry said he could perhaps add some trees or shrubs along Nevada Avenue. He felt that was where they would do the ~ good. Co~,,~,~ ssioner Gundershaug confirmed with staff that the petitioner had not been req~Hred to obtain a building permit for interior modifying. He noted that staff had requested an up to date survey of the site which would show accurately where the blacktop was and exactly how much green space did exist. He asked whether this had been received? Ms. Dunn stated that the survey presently on file with the city did not show the modifications. It was the original survey, submitted when original approval had been given. Mr. Cllrry stated he had an "as built" survey. Co~a~,'issioner Gundershaug asked exactly how much green space the site w-us short? Mr. Curry replied that he had blacktopped 2500 square feet. Otherwise it was built pretty much according to the original plans. Ms. Dunn stated that staff had modified the survey to illustrate the changes and the blacktop as installed. These modifications reduce the provided green space by 3%. ~. Planning Co~.~Hssion Minutes April 5, 1988 C~t,~ssioner Gundershaug inquired what w~s on that side of the Mr. Curry said there were narrow stalls, and that originally there had been a walkvray, 50 feet fi-om each end. Those were shorter units. The building is 30 feet deep. When the tenants di~ve through there, they were putting one wheel on the wa]Jcway. They had also ended up with a demand for smaller C~t~missioner Gundershaug noted they could put up a fence to keep tenants from driving on the wmlk~ay. Commissioner Anderson confirmed with Mr. Brixius, of the Consulting firm, that the doors on this unit did not need to be screened. He then inquired as to whether permits were not required for the blacktopping? Mr. Brixius stated any change to the site required a building permit. The changes on this site had been made without the knowledge of city staff. In response to a question from Cul~,~ssioner Anderson regarding any other units on site t_hat could be modified in a similar manner, Mr. Curry stated the other units were already smaller units and were all double-sided. Commissioner Anderson stated he would be more comfortable with this site, if more green space could be created between the two properties. He was not inclined to go along with what the petitioner had already done. He did not feel that the Planning Coi~ission, or the city, were obligated to support this. He asked whether the petitioner could get an easement for the neighboring property? Mr. Curry stated he would prefer to look at any alternatives. Discussion held regarding the requirements for pulling aa building permit. Ms. Dunn stated that the city had adopted the Uniform Building Code. She noted that she would have the Building Official prepare a summary of when building permits were required for the Co~ission. Col~,~dssioner Edwards stated he wished to defer consideration of Planning Co~mnission Minutes April 5, 1988 PC 88-9 ~ F-UR CUP TO CLINIC AT 3709 W/lqNETKA NO. -4- this case for one month. In his opinion the addition of the doors on the south side of the units, constituted a major structural change and should have recruited a building permit. Mr. Curry said they didn't do anything but add doors, did not change the structure. C~L,,~,4ssioner Gundershaug stated he was bothered by the green space and felt that it should be returned to 35%. He wanted to know exactly how much green there was on site before acting on this request. He was not in favor of granting a variance for the green space. There was no one present in regard to this case. Mr. Curry asked whether the landscaping could be intensified toward the street? Chairman Cameron stated that the requirement for 35% green space was an almost inviolate rule in the city of New Hope. The city had really tried to stick to this rule, and wished to treat all citizens the same. He personally could not recall the Planning Co~L~,~ssion ever granting a green space variance such as was being requested. He also felt that such a variar~ would create a future precedent. He questioned whether anyc. on the Co~,,~,~ssion would vote in favor of such a variance. was willing to give the petitioner an extension to explore other options. Motion by Co~,~ssioner Anderson to table Plannir~ Case 88-6 un~-~ ~ the meeting of May 3, 1988. Commissioner Sonsin second. Voting in favor:~ Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwa~s, OOa voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Lutts Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner had requested that consideration of this request be tabled until the Planning Co~mdssion meeting in May. Motion by Co~=~dssioner Edwards to table Case 88-9 ~til the meetin~ of May 3, 1988. Co~l-,~ssioner Sonsin secomd. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1988 ~ 88-10 Rt~2X3t~ F0R VARIANCE ~ PA!qI<]]~IG SPACE 7181 42r~ AVt~UE NO. Planning Cua~tH ssion -5- Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Moti~a carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, none Friedrich, Lutts Ms. Dunn distributed copies of three letters that had been received by city staff relative to this request. All of the letters had indicated no objection to the variance request. The letters were from the following persons: Apa~ C~plex behind Grobe's Cafe 41st ar~ Nevada John Meyer Total l~:s'{:roleum Store Wickers) 7231 42r~ Avenue Rick Bruecker T~n ~mb Store 7141 42nd Avenue Motion by Co~[u~,~ssioner Gundershaug to aocept these letters into the official record. Coi~'~ssioner Edwards seoond. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: F~ic~carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Edwards, C~a None Friedrich, Lutts Cameron, Gundershaug, Mr. Ixarry Sandberg, operator of Grobe's Cafe, stated he was requesting a parking variance to allow them to comply with the city Code or else change the code to allow them to continue to operate as they are. They are leasing the space at this time. 'He noted that the property owner had signed the application allowing him to speak to this request. He stated that for the past 14 years, the building they occupy has had the same square footage. After they had taken over the cafe, they had done some fixing up of the interior which caused the Building Official to inspect the site. The Building Official had come up with the fact that they were short some parking spaces. He noted that he had provided city staff with letters from his adjoining neighbors stating that they do not antancipate any future parking problems. There is on-street parking available that some of their customers use at this time. He was willing to April 5, 1986 put up some signage directing customers to the on-street parking. He requested that the Planning Ommnission consider his request favorably. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Sandberg said they had been at the location for three years. Commissioner Anderson noted that when the petitioner had requested the Conditional Use Permit when he took over, it had been granted only for the cafe. At that time the present dining room space had another use. The petitioner had also requested an amendment to the hours of operation of the cafe. C~,,~issioner Anderson recalled that even three years ago there had been a problem with parking on the site. The problem had been tentatively resolved because the restaurant and the video store were to share parking, and would have different hours of operation. Commissioner Anderson asked why the petitioner had not gone through the standard process with the city, when remodeling the Mr. Sandberg stated that the owner had talked about purchmmj~' additional space, but had not done this. He added that he ~ been told by an employee that this dining r~xmn area had been a dining room back in the 60's. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioner had not received a building permit for the remodeling. Ms. Dunn stated the petitioner had applied for one, after the the work was completed, but that because a zoning violation exists, a building permit could not be issued. Co~muissioner And~n stated that because the petitioner had increased the seating in the restaurant, he had also increased the parking need. He added that originally the number of parking spaces had been inadequate. He asked whether the petitioner had considered any other options to solve this problem? Mr. Sandberg said that from their standpoint it was not practical for them to atteaupt to buy more space for parking and that the owner w-as not willing to negotiate on this either. There is a parking lot behind Vickers, and perhaps some kind of arl-ang~t could be worked out with them, he had talked to them about that. H~wever, he had no other alternatives. Planning Co~m~dssion Minutes April 6, 1988 -7- C~L,~Hssioner Anderson stated that the city was not going to re- write the parking ordinance to acco~m~udate this request and he was not in favor of granting a variance for the parking. He added that he had a hard time accepting what the petitioner had done without city approval. He noted that the petitioner did have the option of returning the space back into a storeroom. He re-stated his unwillingness to approve a parking variance because he felt this would create not only a problem on the lot, but on 42nd Avenue as well. It would also set a precedent for future development. Discussion followed about the hours of operation when the video store was on the site. It w-us noted that at that time the video store opened up after the restaurant closed and that this Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the amerced hours of operation? Mr. Sandberg stated that they now stay open until 8 p.m. The barber shop which is in the space formerly occupied by the video store closes at 6 p.m. Co~,~missioner Gundershaug stated he could not go along with approving a variance for parking, and then having customers told to park on a public street. This was simply over utilization of the property. Mr. Sandberg stated that the building w-as there, and should be utilized in some fashion. Cu~,~Hssioner Gundershaug noted that the city did not have to complicate the problem more than it already is. Mr. Sandberg replied that he had a problem with seeing that a problem does exist since all three occupants have agreed that there is no problem and there have been no complaints. Chairman Cameron noted that the city had received at least one complaint, from the inspector. Commissioner Sonsin co~m~nted that it was one thing for the petitioner to take the building as it was, but the issue that brought the problem to the forefront was that he had remodeled had created an even bigger violation. The issue was not what he had inherited, but how the changes were made relative to city code requirements. Planning CommissionMinutes April 5, 1988 Mr. Sandberg said he had questions about how many spaces we~ actually were on site since Mr. Sandstad had indicated there were 19 spaces. Co~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin questioned whether if there were 19 spaces on site, were they all usable, noting that the trash is presently in the middle of what should be three parking spaces. Chairman Cameron asked about the striping of the lot? C~,~,~ssioner Sonsin said he had a problem with granting this variance in light of the way the situation had developed. Ms Dunn stated that the Building official had inspected the lot because of the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Project. city staff had done preliminary sketches of the site and that staff had estimated that the maximum parking the site could provide w~s 19. To provide that many spaces the parking lot would have to be re-striped, and the pylon sign removed. In response to a question from Mr. Sandberg, Mr. Brixius stated that a strictly retail operation would require 14 spaces for 2400 sc~mre feet. However, the dining room required more Co~L~,~ssioner Edwards asked staff where this property fit in ~ the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Project? Mr. Brixius said that the site had been looked at along with all properties, but that it had not been one of the eight fir~]ly selected for redevelopment. This is a sub-standard site and because of this had not been considered for inclusion of the redevelopment. It w-as felt it would be cost prohibitive to include it. (~airnmn Cameron stated his understanding was that the plan was to take the little pieces of property and redevelop them. Mr. Brixius said t~t the cafe and Vickers had been looked at but it had been felt they were sub-standard for re-development and the uses were already there. They had attempted to solve the problem by creating a joint parking arrangement. Conmtissioner~ confirmed thatthe site wolLld not lose any of the existing parking spaces, because of the 42nd Avenue redevelopment. Co~ssioner Anderson asked whether the driveway Cafe could not be shared withtheTomThumb. for Grobe' s Planning Co~ssionMinutes April 5, 1988 -9- It was noted that the driveway is entirely on the Grobe Cafe property at this time. Co~,~ssioner Anderson stated he had counted only 18 parking spots on the site, including those for employee parking. This was offset by the fact t_hat the petitioner opened up the dining room in the back, which required more parkir~ spots. In his opinion the variance being requested was more than the Planning C~,~ssion could grant. Commissioner Anderson stated that if the petitioner wished another month to try and solve the parking space problem, he would be willing to t~_ble the request. He felt that they basically needed 36 parking spaces for the business. Ms. Dunn confirmed that the number of parking spaces recovered is determined by the square footage of the building and the usage of the space. C~ssioner Sonsin noted that the barber shop also needed three spaces for customer parking. Mrs. Joan Sar~ stated that originally, when the cafe w-as "Sully's" the dining room had been in operation, according to what they had been told. She questioned why they could not now operate the dining room, and whether the city ordinance had b~n d~nged? C~airman Cameron-stated that they were in violation of the city ordinance. Commissioner Anderson re-stated that the Conditional Use Permit had been granted for the cafe only, not the dining room. Mrs. Sandberg said it seemed so unfair, that they did not really feel they were doing anything wrong, the space had been a dining room once before. Co~,~ssioner Anderson replied that many things have changed over the years and have added to the traffic problems on 42nd. He felt the cafe was an asset to the community, but that the Coi'~ission could not create more problems for the city. Mr. Sandberg stated that if they were forced to close the dining room, he could not see staying on the site. It would then be entirely possible for the building to remain vacant and subsequently decay. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1988 -10- Motion by Co~,4ssioner Anderson to ~ble Plannir~ Case 88-_ until the meetir~ of May 3, 1988. Coa~issioner Sonsin second. Cha~ Cameron cautioned the petitioner that any shared parking arrang~t he might be able to work out, bad to be dome leq~lly, it could not be simply word of mouth agreement. Commissioner Edwards stated it would have to be by deed or lease, with the city receiving a copy of the agreement. In response to a question from Mrs. Sandberg about the possibility of using space next to Tom Thumb for parking, the Chairman said the petitioners would have to explore this option with city staff. Design and Review ~L~L,~t~ held one meeting. Codes and Standards C~mL,~ttee held one meeting. CooL,missioner Anderson reviewed the proposed ord/nance change relating to curb cuts, as included in the Planning Cu~mL,~ssion packet. It was the unanimous reco~,,~ndation of the Commission that this ordinance be sent forward to the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Anderson recrzm~r~ng approval forw~ to the City Council. Co~missioner Sonsin secor~. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Edwards, C~a None Friedrich, Lutts Mark Hanson, the City Engineer, reviewed the proposed 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Plan for the Planning Commission. The Plannir~ O~i-~ic~ minutes of Mard/ 1, 1988 w~re accepted as printed. The City Council Minutes of February 22, and March 14, 1988 were reviewed. The HRA Minutes of February 22, 1988 were reviewed. The meeting w~s adjourned by unamim~us consent at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 May 3, 1988 ~JBI~C HEARINGS PC 88-6 REQUE$~ FOR 3% G~k~W AREA VARIANCE AT 7301 36th AV~0E N. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, May 3, 1988 at the New Hope City Hal 1, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug,~ C~a Lutts, Edwards Cha~ Cameron noted that this case had been before the Planning C~m~,~ssion in April and had been tabled. Full dis- discussion had taken place at that meeting. He asked what what options Mr. Curry now proposed. Mr. Curry stated that he had discovered that the property directly to the south of his property was presently at 35% green and the owners could not sell him property. He has explored leasing some land from the railroad to satisfy the green area requirement. He could also tartan turf the . driveway and turn'it back into green area. He could also increase the landscaping on site. In his opinion, he could not go back to the original plan. He noted that even if he · did restore the green, tenants would still drive on the Chairman Cameron coim~nted that as the owner he felt he could certainly prohibit cars f~-~ being on the green area, even if it involved sinking some posts into the ground. Mr. Curry said that economically he could not restore that area to green. Taxes had already increased on the property. Commissioner Sonsin clarified with staff that the City of New Hope had never approved the leasing of additional property to satisfy a green area requirement. It was noted that the property would have to be purchased outright. He questioned whether there was not some other solution. Mr. Curry said he could perhaps re-measure the property. He added that he was also forced to store water on site. If he measured the slopes on the site perhaps there would be enough ~ 88~ V~TER~Y~./NICAT 3709W/lqNETKAN: -2- Ms. Dunn stated that the calculations had to be made by me~a~uring on the flat ground on the site. Mr. Curry suggested tartan turf over the driveway or perhaps plugs in the asphalt. C~.L,~ssioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioner knew exactly how much green area he had on site? Ms. Dunn said that what had been submitted to city staff was a lot survey that did not designate the actual areas of green, blacktop, or development. The city would prefer to have an as-built survey submitted. C~airman Cameron suggested that the petitioner provide a reliable and accurate set of figures to the city indicating the percentages of usage on the site before the next Commission meeting. Cc~missio~ Sonsin made a motion ~hling Case 88-6 until the meeting of J~ 7, 1988. Coim~issioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja None Dr. Randall Herman stated he was requesting the OJP to allow him to construct a veterinary clinic at 3709 Winnetka North. The zoning on the site is R-O. Using a model of the proposed building he explained the layout to the Commission. The building will face Winnetka Avenue. There will be parking to the south and a walkout at the rear. The upper level will be 340 s~,are feet. There will be a waiting room/reception area, four examining rooms, a treatment area, and an office and conference area. There will also be an area for .surgery and radiation therapy. He will have a small area for animals who must be hospitalized. His present plans for the basement area are to use it for kennels and a grooming room. %here will be no outside kennels. Dr. Herman distributed photographs of a building in another area with a similar exterior to what he was proposing. The exterior materials will be break off block and a wood shake roof. The windows in the animal areas will not open and there should be no noise pollution. The building will be completely air conditioned. Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1988 In response to questions fi-~ii Com,~,~ssioner ~a, Dr. Herman indicated that the parking areas would be blacktopped, striped and have continuous curbing. The plans had indicated bituminous curbing, but he had been advised that concrete curbing was better, though more expensive. Discussion followed. The (]qa~ stated that with the CW3P he would have to state for the record what type of curb he would install. There will be 48 parking spaces on site. The city has requested that there be sufficient room for trucks to turn around at the rear of the site. There will be no rooftop equipment and the air conditioning unit will be located at the rear of the site. It will be enclosed with a privacy type fence of wood. This area will also be used for w~lking animals, one at a time, and the enclosure will protect the residents f-,-<~-~ noise. The animals will always be with an attendant when walked and will not be left alone in the enclosure. Lighting on site will be as required by code, and will be of a down-lighting type to avoid shining into residential windows. There will also be a light in front of the building. Cu~,,missioner Oja confirmed that the windows would not be open at any time in animal areas. Discussion continued on the areas where animals would be walked. There will be a small area to the north to be used for animals that are at the clinic for treatment. The kenneled animals will be walked at the rear. They will always be acco~i~anied by an attendant and walked one animal at a time. In response to questions from C~m,~ssioner Ga, Dr. Herman said that the maximum number of animals he could handle in the hospital would be 20 at one time but this many was highly unlikely. At this time he does not know how many boarding kennels he might provide. Dr. Herman stated that the exterior areas where animals are walked will be cleaned as n~ed. He is very concerned about the possibility of spreading disease, and will not allow any situation that would offend neighbors because of smell, etc. It is their policy to clean continuously as needed. Dr. Herman stated that since he will not be using the lower Planning CommissionMinutes May 3, 1988 level immediately, the delivery trucks will probably be in the front. The largest truck will be the one delivering dog food, perhaps once a week. The large area in the rear is The trash area will be at the rear and will be completely fenced. The building will be sprinklered. In regard to signage, Dr. Herman indicated they would meet the city Code restrictions. Cuam,~ssioner Anderson expressed concern that the lower level could be converted to another use, creating a problem of overuse of the property. He questioned whether the CUP could restrict such a use. Dr. Herman said he had no such plans. His future plans include using that area for the kennel area and the grooming area, plus storage rooms. Ms. Dunn stated that if the proposed use met the (I3P conditions as estsblished by Code, the petitioner would not have to return to the Commission for approval of another use. C~m,~ssioner Anderson questioned whether the south side of the site might not be a better place to walk the dogs. Dr. Herman noted that would involve moving the parking area and he felt that would be more annoying to residents than the dogs being walked. The dogs will not be left alone to bark. Noting that he felt that the deliveries should be made at the rear of the site, Commissioner Gundershaug then confirmed that the sodded areas would be sprinklered, and that the dog walking areas would have a typ~ of hard surface that could be easily cleaned. Chairman Cameron expressed concern about the south side of the site, and suggested the petitioner add spruce trees in that area. The architect expressed doubt as to whether trees in that location would survive, since it was between two parking lots. Dr. Herman wondered what the code requirements were regarding the size of trees that would be required in that location. It was noted they should be 3 or 4 feet in height. Dr. Herman indicated that if it would make everyone happy, he would add the trees. Planning CommissionMinutes May 3, 1988 Mr. Dan Henry, 8108 38th Avenue North, confirmed that Dr. Herman had purchased the property and was requesting permission for the clinic. He expressed concern that in a few years, outside kennels might be installed. Ms. Dunn stated that City Code allowed a coxpletely enclosed veterinary clinic in the R-O zone with a Conditional Use Permit. That is what the petitioner is requesting. Mr. Henry questioned how far the property went. It was noted that it went back 350' from the road. He then stated that he felt a small business, like Century 21 Realty, would be better on that property. He liked the wild life in the area and seeing the pheasants. All that open space b~ been a nesting ground. Chairman Cameron said he appreciated that thought. However, most of the land in the area was once a place for wild life. Commissioner Oja confirmed that Dr. Herman did not plan to develop the property into the wetland. Ms. Dunn stated that there will still be 160' from the rear of the building to the wetland. Mr. DeRidder, 7917 37th Avenue North, stated his was the property was the most affected by this proposed development. In his opinion this w~s poor planning and would create a nuisance as they will lose their view. The property was originally reserved for the tower. He stated nobody contacted him about this development but that he had received a notice of the public hearing. Mrs. Slavick, 8009 37th Avenue North, asked about the rear Dr. Herman replied that this area would probably not be used for parking. The extra space was to allow trucks room to turn around on the site. The .clinic will operate by appointment and there are usually not many cars on site at one time. C~,,L,~ssioner Anderson confirmed that the staff concerns as expressed at the Design and Review Committee meeting had been addressed. He further confirmed that the windows will not be open at any time, and there will not be noise pollution. Planning CommissionMinutes May 3, 1988 -6- Conu~dssioner Anderson requested that staff research the legality of allowing only one business in an R-O zone. Ms. Dunn indicated that she would do this before the case went to the City Council. Chairman Cameron confirmed that city staff was satisfied with the plans as presented. C~t~¥dssioner Oja made a motion ap~ the (kx~i~ Use l%~-mlt for a veterir~ clinic in the R-O z~e at 3709 Winnetk~ Aven~ North, and ap~ovin~ c~c~ of the of six spruoe tree c~ the south side of the pr~, and the ~tic~al Use ~mit ~ limited to ~ business. Commissioner Gundershaug secor~. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja None Lutts, Edwards PC 88-10 Pd~UEST FOR VARIANCE OF 17 PARKING SPACFR AT 7181 42ND AVE. N. Cha~ Cameron noted that his case had also been t~bled from the April meeting. A full discussion had taken place on the petitioner's request at that time. Mr. Sandberg said he had talked to the property owner behind his site. They are agreeable to install a parking lot that would hold 15-18 cars, that the restaurant would be able to use. It was his understanding that the Building Official had given verbal approval for this action. Chairman Cameron stated that the petitioner must present the city with legal documents which would allow them to share parking space on someone else's property. Ms. Dunn stated that such an action would require that this petitioner file for a Conditional Use Permit for sharing parking off-site. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether this could be considered as part of Case 88-10 to eliminate extra expense for the petitioner? The City Manager stated that it was possible that the basic fee could be waived, but any expenses incurred by the city in regarding to publication of the notice, and notifying residents of this change would have to be absorbed by the petitioner. The city would not pay these costs. Planning Co]t,t,~ssion Minutes May 3, 1988 PC 88-11 VAR/ANCE IN SIE~%~RD SETBACK AT 5908 BOONE AV~qUE N. -7- Chairman Cameron stated that there would also have to be legal steps taken between the two property owners and the city. Mr. Sandberg said that the owner had also indicated he might just purchase some extra property, but this has not been estm_blished as yet. The idea was that they could then put the parking lot on that property. The cost of constructing such a parking lot was the major problem at this time. Chairman Cameron asked how long this process would take? Mr. Sandberg said he hoped to have construction cost estimates within a week. The Chairman noted that this could be a solution to the problem. Cu~t.~issioner Anderson stated that in general such a proposal seemed to be something the Commission could support. However, there would have to be a legal contract between the parties and the city. Coau~issioner Anderson made a motion to ~mhle Case 88-10 until the meet/r~ of June 7, 1988. Cu~ut,~ssioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja None Lutts, ~ Mr. Jim Larson stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to construct an addition to his single car garage. He said they were a three car family. Ms. Dunn distributed a letter to the ccmmHssioners (attached to official minutes) that had been received from Mr. Delbert Dieter, 5904 Boone Avenue North. This letter withdrew the verbal objections Mr. Dieter had earlier made earlier. Motion by C~m¥,~ssioner Friedrich at accept this 1~ as part of the official record. Commissioner Oja secor~. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Moti~ carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oja None Lutts, Edwards Friedrich, Cameron, Planning CommissionMinutes May 3, 1988 Con,,t,~ssioner Anderson confirmed that the exterior of the new addition would match the existing house as far as materials and color are concerned. Mr. ]'ar?~on indicated he planned to replace the siding with vinyl siding. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the overhang on the proposed addition would come to within two feet of the lot line, and that the petitioner was proposing a double garage with a 21 1/2 foot wide door. He questioned whether the petitioner had considered making the garage a little narrower? Mr. Iarson said he had discussed this with his builder. He wants as much room as possible, to allow him to park two cars inside, as well as have room for storage. The third car would continue to be parked on the driveway. C~t,,t,~ssioner Anderson noted t_hat the staff report indicated that the request did not meet the city's variance criteria. he added that the petitioner could reduce the size of the garage and meet all of the city's code requirements. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Iarson said they had lived in the house for 12 years and did not plan to move since he could not afford a new house t_hat would fit his size needs. Commissioner Gundershaug said that he could not vote in favor of a variance this size. However, if the petitioner were to agree to reduce the width to 20 feet, he felt it would be viable. Commissioner Oja said she was also in favor of the petitioner reducing the size. She confirmed that the garage addition would be next to the neighbor's garage, not living space. Discussion then centered on the two garages, with overhangs almost meeting at the property line, and the difficulty this would create if a need arose to get between the garages. Mr. Delbert Dieter stated he had discussed the ordinance restrictions with the Building Official. He had been told that it would be possible for him also to put a double garage into his hack yard if he stayed within the 9 1/2 feet available without a permit. If he were to do this they garages would be eight feet apart. He again indicated that he was withdrawing his objections to the proposed addition. Planning CommissionMinutes May 3, 1988 PC 88-11 R~QUEST ~R ~ OF SIGN PIAN AT 8801-21 SC/FNCE PC88-13 OF 12 FEET INFI~0NT OF NON-(3C~FC~M~G 3243 FLAG AV~F~E Commissioner Anderson confirmed that each party could construct a garage to within five feet of the property line without needing to obtain a variance. He then asked whether or not Mr. Iarson would be willing to reduce his variance request to one foot? Mr. Iarson said he was. Cu,~,,~,~ssioner Anderson made a motion reo,,.,~ndi~ approval of a c~e foot side~ variance at 5908 Boc~e Averse North, Case 88-11, to allc~ c=~truct~c~ of a garage additic~ to a point within four feet of the south side px~_rty lir~, because of the mture lar~ir~ to screen the area. Commissioner Oja second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, None Lutts, Edwards Friedrich, Cameron, The petitioner was not in attendance. Cum, aissioner Gundershaug moved to table Case 88-11 until the meet/rig of June 7, 1988. Commissioner Oja second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja None Cameron Mr. Daniel Nordberg stated he would like to add another stall to his garage. It will be a 12 foot wide flat roofed addi- tion and will be located 24 feet from the front property line. There will be no visibility of the addition from the house next door because the trees would screen the area. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the addition would not exceed the size limits for garages according to City Code. The garage addition will be as high as the present deck is and will replace the deck. The third stall is needed Planning CommissionMinutes May 3, 1988 -6- according to the petitioner because they need additional storage. Mr. Nordberg said he had not realized until recently that there was a problem with the front designation for his house. He did not want to expand to the rear because he felt it would detract f¥cm-~ the appearance of the house. Coim,,~ssioner Anderson stated that the front of the garage would be only 18 feet frc~ the curb line. This is barely the length of the average car. He noted he personally would have an easier time accepting the expansion to the rear of the site o CulLmdssioner Anderson confirmed that the front of the addition will be concrete block with a single garage door; that the deck will extend all the way to the garage; that the view from the street will be that of a slightly pitched flat roof; and that the petitioner will install a railing around the entire deck area. Mr. Nordberg stated he had received lots lots of sLtpport for the addition from the neighbors. Commissioner Oja confirmed with the petitioner that the addition would be built into the dirt and that the yard extended all the way to the wall and that the garage addition will be almost totally undergro~ and that the deck will be replaced when the addition is built. Commissioner Anderson stated he had a difficult time supporting the petitioner's request. There w~s no one present in re~ard to this case. CxamL,~ssioner Gundershaug made a motion rec_~.' .... ~ approval the vax4a~ce to expand a non-conform~ structure, ar~ the 12 foot ~-ar4m~ce to the re~red 30 foot setback at 3243 Flag Avenue North, as requested in ~ 88-13. Cxam~dssioner Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Sonsin, Friedrich, None Anderson Lutts, Edwards Cameron, Gundershaug, Planning Co]m~ssion Minutes May 3, 1988 -11- PC 88-15 ~ ~0 AT~'~ I~ ~ I-1 ~ /~ 9000 ~ C~ Mr. Tim Lu~ represented the petitioner, The Church of The Open Door. He stated that the church is outgrowing the space they are presently occupying on Sundays at Cooper High High School. They have investigated building their own church building but it is financially impractical. The church would like to purchase the building at 9000 Science Center Drive and use it for all of the activities. It is large enough for their purposes and is also within their financial reach. It is their feeling that the greatest impact to the area would be on Sunday, when there could be as many as 400 cars in the area. There is little other traffic in the area on Sunday. They would like to stay in the New Hope neighborhood because they feel the church and its programs have a positive impact on the neighborhood. As well as its Sunday services (two at the present time) they have a food ministry, offer emergency financial help, have a counseling service, and have a singles ministry involving approximately 400 people. Mr. Lundberg noted that he did not know where they could find a facility large enough to support their operation in a residential zone. Mr. Fred Peterson, spoke in support of the church's impact on the c~m~nity, and the need that he felt they filled in the neighborhood. He noted that a recent study had indicated that the New Hope and surrounding area had been second only to Minneapolis, in terms of n~ for the services offered by the church. The average age of their congreqation is 25-35 years of age. He repeated his hopes that they would be allowed to remain in New Hope. In response to questions fr~m Chairman Cameron Mr. Lu~ stated that the building has 58,000 square feet of warehouse space with approximately 15,000 square feet of office space. They feel they could begin using it immediately with interior remodeling completed in the future. There are already bathrooms and conference rocks but they would b~ve to partition off a worship area. Cha~ Cameron confirmed that it is a "stand open" Mr. Lundberg stated that there are presently 150 parking spaces on the site, but that there is additional paved area that could be converted to parking if necessary. There is also 78,000 square feet of green area at the rear of the site. ' Planning CcmmissionMinutes May 3, 1988 Chairman Cameron stated that at the present time City Code does not have any rules governing this type of use in this zone. He added that the c~,,~ission and city had to decide the issue in a larger context and could not play favorites. Any ruling on text change would have to apply to everybody. He confirmed that the building would probably be used 24 hours a day and would be the churc//'s main headquarters. Mr. Lundberg said that during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. there would most likely not be more t/man 20 cars on the site. If the church were to leave the building, the city would once again have an industrial site available. He did not feel the city would be setting a precedent by allowing them to locate in the warehouse, since churches do not usually "nest" in an area. He repeated that he felt that for a church the size of theirs, he did not think it was practical for them to move into a residential area. They presently have between 1700 and 1800 members and are still growing. In his opinion their impact would be less at the proposed location than in a strictly residential area, particularly with traffic. Co~issioner Anderson stated that the city also had to be concerned about removing the property from the tax rolls. The city cannot change the text to accommodate one use in one building. Any change in text would effect all similar zones. In response to a question regarding the length of time the church might stay at the proposed site, Mr. Lu~ answered that they would stay there as long as it met their needs- they have a five year plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson regarding the possibility of the church being given ~rary approval to locate in the warehouse, Ms. Dunn stated that the Code could not permit this for one church and not another. She stated that the city does have a current list of properties available for development, but that the church requires a large piece of property which is zoned residential. City Code does not permit religious uses in an industrial zone. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the church presently has two services on Sundays at the Cooper High School location. In response to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Lundberg stated they have been leasing Cooper High School for $60,000 a year for five hours a week. They use the auditorium and Planning CommissionMinutes May 3, 1988 several classrooms. ~neir offices are located at 45th/Florida in Crystal. Cooper is anxious for them to vacate the site and there have been traffic and parking problems there. Co~L~issioner Gundershaug asked_ whether the city could not issue a Conditional Use Permit for this property? Ms. Dunn stated that it was the City Planner's opinion that this would affect all I-1 zoning district. Commissioner Gundershaug indicated he saw some merit in issuing a ConditioDml Use Permit for this use, rather than making a text change. Chairman Cameron questioned whether was not some way to help the petitioner so that he would not have to move. Commissioner Friedrich asked whether staff could check with other cities to research how they had handled similar situations. Chairman Cameron stated he felt this case would have to be t~_bled. A month would give additional time to explore other avenues. In his opinion a text change was asking too much of the city but he would like to know if there were any other options to solve this problem. He added that the city did not change ordinances lightly. C~t,,~ission Anderson made a motion tablir~ C~se 88-15 until the Jur~ 7, 1988 Plannin~ O .... ~-~ic~ Meeting. Ccmm~issioner Sonsin sec~. The Design and Review CulL,,~,~ttee held one meeting this month. Codes and Standard Committee did not meet in April Following discussion, the concensus of the Commission w~s that the Codes and Standards C~L,,t,~ttee should meet in the near future to review the issues in Case 88-15. The meeting will be scheduled. The Planning Cul~m,~ssion Minutes of April 5, 1988 were accepted as printed. Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1988 The Council Minutes of March 28, 1988 were reviewed. Chairman Cameron asked for clarification of one item. The Council Minutes of April 11, 1988 were reviewed. Ms. Dunn distributed a memo to the Planning C~m~Hssioners that had been prepared by the Building Official regarding ·ne Commission requested that Ms. Dunn extend their thanks to him for the report The meeting was a~ourned by una~m~3s consent at 9:35 p.m. ~//~ol/ce Boeddeker, Secretary Planning CUmmissionMinutes May 3, 1988 ~ENNEPIN OOUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 June 7, 1988 PC 88-6 AREA VARIANCE AT 7301 36th AV~FdE N. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, June 7, 1988 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, C~a Lutts Chairman Cameron noted that this w~s the third time that the petitioner had appeared before the Planning Commi~ion with this request. He asked whether the petitioner had new information to in regard to this request? Mr. Curry referred to the letter fz-cm~ Probe Engineering which had been sent in response to his request. This letter agreed with the Land Surveyors as-built dated June 18, 1986. The report indicated that at the present time there were 62,192 square feet of green area provided on the site. ~nis footage, combined with the additional 945 square feet, would provide 34.6% green area on the site, which would round off to the required 35% green area. Mr. Curry proposed to reduce the paved area by three feet along the driveway to provide the 945 square feet of green area. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Curry was stating that in his opinnion, reducing the paved area by 945 square feet, would provide the code required 35% green area on the site. Ms. Dunn stated city staff would like the opportunity to verify the statements in the letter f~-~ Probe Engineering. Mr. Curry had not as yet provided an as-built survey of the property. Mr. Curry disagreed with Ms. Dunn's statement. Ms. Dunn replied that city' staff was still provision of a current as-built survey. asking for the -2- Mr. Curry said he would nOt have a survey made. If the city staff wanted to spend the money for a survey, they should. He had spent enough. ~he engineering firm confirmed the 1986 survey. (~airman Cameron asked whether there w-as any reason that the city should not accept the report from the engineering firm? Mr. Brixius stated that the present meeting, was the first time he had seen the 1986 as-built. It was difficult to make such a determination of the green area based on this report and the 1986 as-built. Ms. Dunn stated that one of the problems with the 1986 as-built was that it did not indicate the areas where blacktop had been added to the original plan, and therefore, staff could not compare the approved site plan with existing conditions. Mr. Brixius stated that approval of the original site plan was based on the mini-w-arehouse as proposed at that time. Any deviation from that plan, changed the as-built. Mr. Curry stated that if the C~,,L,~ssion was not going to approve his request, then they should deny it and send it on to Counc?~. Chairman Cameron asked how the city could obtain the curr~lc figures? Mr. Brixius said this was what had been requested by staff, a new as-built. He felt that was the only way to determine accurately what the percentages of development and green were on the site. Mr. Curry said he would not pay for another survey. Co~,,,,~ssioner Sonsin made a moti~ _reo_ -,.,~n~ng denial of the 3% area variance at 7301 36th Ave~_- North, as requested in Case 88- 6. Commissioner Friedrich second. voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oj a None Lutts Mr. Curry said he wished his request to be pulled off the Council ~&~enda. The city could pay for a survey to prove him wrong. He would not pay for another survey. Planning Cum,,~dssion Minutes June 7, 1988 -3- PC 88-10 /N PARK/NG SPACES 7181 42 AV~qUE N. PC 88-12 R~3EST F-UR SIGN PIAN APPRDVAL AT 8801-11 ScF~NC~ ~ ERIVE Chairman Cameron stated that this was the third time this case had been reviewed by the C~m~ission. Mr. Sandberg said he had the property surveyed a week ago and he he expected to receive the report in a week. He was also working with the owner of the property where he wishes to develop the parking lot on the legal issues for leasing the space. He requested that the Planning Com, Ldssion grant him a t~_ble for one more month. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioner was short 17 C~m~ssioner Edwards made a motic~ to ~mhle Case 88-10 %-,;-{] the meetir~ of July 5, 1988. Cc~nissioner C~a second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Moti~ carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oj a None Lutts Cameront Terry Harris represented Attracta Sign Company. She stated that F~elor Steel wished to install a sign on the northeast corner of their property. The sign will be free standing, three feet by ten feet, on two poles. It will not be illuminated. The colors of the sign will be deep orange and black, on a white background. The sign will be a maximum of six feet from the top to the ground. In response to a question from C~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin, Ms. Harris said that the cabinet will be of sheet metal with an acrylic face. The metal will be painted bronze. The sign should last ten years, although it ba~ been their experience that most people changed the signs sooner than that. The face of the sign will be very easy to repair in the event of damage by high winds or hail. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the location of the sign will be at the northeast quadrant of the property and that the sign will not block any sight lines. Ms. Harris said that when the sign was installed it will conform to the city code setbacks. There was no one present in reqard to this case. Planning Co~ission Minutes June 7, 1988 PC 88-15 AM~KP~T ~D AT;I'~T I~I~I'.TGICK~ ~ IN I-1 Z(~E AT 9000 SCI~K~ ~ ~ O~m~,~ssioner Friedrich made a motic~ re~_~z~nd{ng ap~ of the sign plan as r~=~t_~ in C~se 88-12 at 9000 Science C~nter Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, 0ja None P - Lutts _ Mr. Rick Wenell represented the Church of the Open Door. He noted that this request had been t~_bled at the May Planning C~.~,~ssion meeting to allow the church to explore other options, and to allow city staff to research whether such a text change would be possible to allow them to purchase the property on Science Center Drive for their church. Chairman Cameron confirmed that such a use in an I-1 zone was illegal at this time and that the petition was to change the text or the ordinance to allow such a use. Ms. Dunn stated that city staff had provided the church with a list of all vacant land in the city that might aco~L.~date the church. She added that most of the vacant land availabl~ zoned industrial, would require rezoning if the church were make a purchase. Codes and Standards C~.L,~ttee had also met ~o discuss this issue. Cxa~,,~ssioner Anderson stated that the o~.~,~ttee had also irm'estigated how and if other communities had dealt with this problem,. as well what potential problems the city could create by making such a text change in the code. The concensus of the cum,L,~ttee had been that it was not something that the city could do and it was their recommendation to the O~m~,~ssion that the code not be modified to acco~date churches in an industrial zone. They had also discussed the issue with the City Planner and city staff. Mr. Wenell stated that the church had been interested in whether or not it would be possible to change the text to allow them to purchase the property. They will now continue to look for property in the New Hope area. He thanked the Commission for their help and patience. CoamHssioner Anderson made a motion ~K~,~,,~nd~g deb{m1 of the re~fw~-t for a t~=t ~ .in C~se 88-15. Ccmm~issioner Sonsin secor~. Planning Co~m~Hssion Minutes June 7, 1988 PC 88-16 R~QUEST ~-~ PR~.IMI- NARY PIAT APPROVAL 8115-21 62 AV~FOE N. voting in favor: Ca/Beront Mr. Swartwood stated that he was requesting the variance in the width of the sideyard setback to allow them to divide the property into two lots, so that he could build a home on the second lot. ~ne property is owned by his mother. He currently helps her with maintenance and yard work. The problem is that the existing lot line goes through the existing house. ~his is the reason for the variance request. Co~L.~ssioner Anderson asked about the age of the home and the condition. He was concerned about the future use of the lot if the home were to deteriorate. Mr. Swartwood said it was in pretty good shape and that his mother wished to remain in the home as long as possible. Com,~dssioner Anderson asked how this could be handled legally? Ms. Dunn said that it would not be possible to issue a building permit for Lot 2 if the property line were not redefined. Cuxm~,~ssioner Gundershaug noted that he did not have a problem with issuing the variance, and felt another home would be a good addition to the property. Mr. Brixius said that he would prefer that the C~a~dssion grant a three and a half foot variance on Lot 1, instead of a variance on Lot2. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, Ms. Dunn stated that since this was preliminary plat, and if the petitioner agreed to this proposed change, the lot line could be moved as a condition for approval of the final plat. Com~,~ssioner Edwards noted that moving the lot line to the west three and a half feet would allow both lots to qualify, and Lot 1 would still be a a large lot. ~nis would allow the existing house to be legal and the proposed house could still be built as proposed. There would stll. 'be the same distance between the houses. Planning CommissionMinutes -6- June 7, 1988 I~ 88-17 ~-0 9401 ~ Discussion followed about the variances, and the technicalities of future remodeling or destruction and rebuilding of the house on Lot 1, as well as the need for conformity to city code both now and at the time of a future building. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether this was necessary since at the time of a future rebuilding on Lot 1, the existing city codes would have to be met regardless: Chairman Cameron cuw,t~_nted that._by placing a condition on the granting of the variance, it would identify the reason for the variance. There was no one present in regard to this request. C~v,tdssioner Anderson made a moti~ r~ .... ~-d{r~3 approval of the prel~m~nz~¥ plat as re~~ in C~se 88-16,at 811~-21 62r~ Avem~ N~rth, subject to: Lot 2 being 75 feet wide, that Imt 1 be granted a 3 1/2 foot ~-ar~a~oe which %~uld expire if the existing home were d~molished or burned substar~-~a] ]y. Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Lutts The petitioner W-dS not in attendance, but had indicated he would be at the meeting. Motic~ by C~t.v~ssioner Anderson to ~mhle C~se 88-17 %,full the end of the meeting. Coll~t~ssioner Edwards seoc~d. A1 ] in favor. Design and Review Cc~mitt~ met once during May. Codes and Standards met to discuss the text amendment to allow churches in industrial zoning districts and also the issue of outdoor car sales. Also discussed by the Cu,~ittee was the city's C~m~nity Guide Plan and whether or not it should be reviewed since it is now ten Planning~ssionMinutes June 8, 1988 -7- ~ 88-17 9401 SCFFAK]E years old. It was the concensus of the C~.mittee that it should be reviewed. Ms. Dunn distributed copies of the Guide Plan to the C~m~,~ ssioners. f~airman Cameron asked for examples-of areas in the city that might require review and possible amendment to the recom,~ndations. It was noted that two examples were the 42nd Avenue corridor and the Mir~leg-~sc~ site. Cha~ Cameron requested that city staff have a rec~.~_ndation for the Co~,,~Jssion at the July meeting as to how to proceed on such a review. Mr. Brixius stated that he did not feel since the city was almost completely developed, it would require a review of the entire plan. The Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 1988 were approved as The Council Minutes of April 25, and May 9, 1988 were reviewed. The HRA minutes of April 25, 1988 were reviewed. Mr. Gary Ially represented Hoyt Development Company. He stated they were interested in developing the property on Science Science Center Drive and County Road #18. The building would be 75,000 square feet, on 6.2 acres and would provide 35.2% green space. It would be a speculative industrial building with office/warehouse facilities. They plan to use two types of decorative block for the construction. The lower portion of the building would corduroy block, and the upper would be break off block. be of Ms. Dunn distributed updated plans to the Co~.~,~ssioners. The petitioner is requesting the variance at the rear of the site, adjacent to the Soo T,in~.tracks. They are requesting a five foot setback variance. PlanningCommissionMinutes June 7, 1988 -8- Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the parking lot would ~ blacktopped and striped, and there would be continuous concrete curb around the perimeter of the parking lot area. The petitioner stated that any rooftop equipment needed by tenants would be either screened or painted to match the building. The trash areas will be interior with the exception of one area which will be enclosed with a-door. Truck traffic will be d/rected frum the County Road #18 frontage road with signs indicating direction or "one way". Commissioner Gundershaug noted that there should also be signage indicating that trucks should not be backed in. He confirmed that there was adequate turning room for a 55 foot vehicle if another vehicle were parked. Con,missioner Gundershaug confirmed that the green areas will be sodded, and sprinklered. He noted that Design and Review had requested that additional trees be provided on the east property line. The petitioner indicated that the addition of ten trees would not be a problem. Following discussion it was the concensus that the additional ~ spruce trees should be planted between the two buildings ~ provide more screening. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that tenants would be informed about the trash enclosures and that additional enclosures could not be installed. Chairman Cameron asked why they r~ed the variance. ~be petitioner said that it was a tough lot to develop, and that they also wished to provide an additiomal drainage area. Discussion then was held regarding the five stalls at the of the site. It was the concensus of the C~,,L,~ssion that it would be preferable for the petitioner to mark this space as "future parking" rather than blacktop it now. It could be changed if a need developed. Co~,t~ssioner Edwards expressed concern that that particular area could lead to future tenants using the space for all night parking, if it were blacktoppgd'. There was no one present in reqard to this case. Planning CommissionMinutes June7, 1988 -9- C~,,t,~ssioner Gundershaug made a mot/c~ ~reo_ .... ~n~3 approval of the five foot ~az4a~ requested in Case 88-17, for 9401 Science the additic~ of 10 spruce trees alor~ the east property line, ~ the ~,~ld~ngs. C~t,,~dssioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Sonsin, Friedrich, Edw~, Oja None Anderson Cameron~ The meeting was a~ourned by unaD~m~us consent at 8:37 p.m. CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North Hennepin County, Minnesota 55428 July 5, 1988 ~0~./C HEAPJ~GS PC 88-10 llM~3EST FOIl PARK//~G VARIANCE OF 17 SPAC~ AT 7181 42ND ~ PC 88-14 TO AT,~W EXPANSION OF ~ AT 3342 FIAG AV~E NC~ A regular meeting of the Planning Co~L.~ssion of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, July 5, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Gundershaug at 7:30 p.m. Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Absent: Sonsin, Cameron, Lutts Ms. Dunn stated that city staff had met with Mr. Sandberg, the petitioner in this case, Mr. Fung Kong, the property owner, and Mr. Scott Cooper, owner of the adjacent apartment complex and reviewed plans for the proposed parking lot. Staff had found the plan had a number of deficiencies and in addition, the petitioner will have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Sandberg has requested that this planning case be tm_bled until the meeting of August 2, 1988. F~tion by C~{~sioner ~dw-ards, second by Ox,,,,{~ioner Oja to table Plannir~ Case 88-10 m~ting of August 2, 1988. Voting Ln favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja None Sonsins, Cameron, Lutts Ms. Dunn stated that following Planning Commission review of similar request earlier, staff had reviewed the problems of expansions on corner lots, and the number of variances that that had been requested and/or granted. It is staff recommendation that there be some ordinance amendments to to accommodate the problems of these corner lots. She stated that the petitioner is requesting a variance to allow expansion of a non conforming structure. Mr. Young stated he wishes to construct an addition that would house a family room, and perhaps a recreation room c~n -2- on the basement level. The addition would be no larger than 16 feet by 20 feet. He did not have final figures at this time. An addition this size would extend to 16 feet frc~ the property line. The rear of his lot is on a cul-du-sac. The neighbor b~ not expressed any objections to his plans. Cu~,,~,~ssioner Anderson inquired how close the rear of the neighbor's house would be from the addition? Mr. Young said he would estimate 30 feet. The neighbor's property b~s the same setbacks as his property. In response to questions from C~,,~,~ssioner Anderson, Mr. Young stated that the addition would have footings, and would consist of a room on each level. There will be a patio door on the basement level. He also plans to construct an open deck on the upper level. There will be access frc~ the exterior to both rooms of the addition. C~mL,~ssioner Anderson confirmed that Mr. Young had no plans to convert the lower level room into a cc~uercial or business use. He further confirmed that the addition exterior would match the existing home. Mr. Young noted that he intended to install new gutters and soffits, and at some future time would lik~ to install brick veneer on the house. The addition will match the existing house regardless of what exterior finish he uses. He proposes a gable roof for the addition, and the new roof will match. It is possible that he will completely re-roof the entire ~ouse. In response to questions, Ms. Dunn noted that city code allowed a two foot overhang into the setback. There was no one present in regard to this request. O=..~.~sie~er Ar~lers~n made a motic~ re~,~,,~{ng appzuw-al of the wax~r~e to expand a non c~nfo~m~ng structure at 3341 Flag A~ North, as requested in Case 88-14. O Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja. None Sonsin, Cameron, Lutts Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1988 -3- There was no report from the Design and Review Co,~,~ttee. There was was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned why the proposed addition to the City garage had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted that other city building additions or expansions had been presented to the Co, remission. Cca~u~ssioners Oja and ~ agreed with C~t~issioner Gundershaug's concerns about Planning Commission review of city projects. Concensus was that city plans should be reviewed in the same manner as citizen proposals. The Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 1988 were accepted as pr/nted. The Council Minutes of May 23, and June 13, were reviewed. The HRA Minutes of May 23, and June 1, 1988 were reviewed. Ms. Dunn informed the Commissioners that the work on 42nd Avenue was scheduled to start of Monday, July 11, 1988. Commissioner Edwards announced his resignation from the Planning Commission effective at this meeting. He is moving out of the city. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North Hennepin County, Minnesota 55428 aL~3%k~t2, 1988 Ptm~.TC HFAPJ~S PC 88-~9 P~i~m~T FOR TEar ~ TO AT$~ A~3LT E~Y CARE AT 5500 BOONE AV. NO. A regular meeting of the Planning C~,~ission of t~e City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, August 2, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order ~ Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Cameron, C~a None f~airman Cameron intredduced Planning Case 88-19. Mr. (~rles Thompson of North Ridge Care Center explained that there is a demand for adult day care facilities. They wish to convert 20 apartments to 28 board and care rooms for an adult day care program. He stated that the program is a step between apartment living and nursing home care, with the same services but not the Same atmosphere as a nursing home. They will furnish van service to pick up most of the people and the van will use a new entry at the front of the apartment building in order to separate a~t residents and day care people. He added that they do not expect to employ more than 6 additional people and the conversion will take half of the first floor. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant, explained that if the plan requires external changes to the building and exceeds $10,000 in construction value, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed that a text amendment was all that was needed and that this amendment would apply to all R-5 Zoning Districts. Mary Jane Thompson on North Ridge Care Center stated that there are advantages of using adult day care facilities to keep people out of nursing homes longer. Adult day care provides respite for family care givers who are mentally and physically exhausted. Spouses can come to adult day care when feeling depressed and needing respite from seven days a Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1988 -2- week care giving. The program offers time to socialize and provides nutritious meals. It is for senior citizens only, and encompasses some handicapped, such as caused by strokes, and maybe some alzheimer patients. At this time it does not include mentally retarded persons. Coa.~,~ssioner Sonsin questioned what is offered by the service and what transportation is available. Ms. Thompson explained they have a variety of planned activities. Most people are brought there by the North Ridge van, but some families bring people on their way to work. Commissioner Sonsin asked if the program was available to residents of the North Ridge apartments or if the majority come from outside. Ms. Thc~pson said they may be recommending the program to some of the residents, but it would be a small percentage. She stated that the program is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but tb~t the hours may be expanded since their C~ild Care program runs from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. C~m¥,~ssioner Sonsin questioned if there were other adult day care programs around. Ms. Thompson stated that there is one in Excelsior and one in Minneapolis. Commissioner Cameron confirmed that the amendment applies to just the R-5 Zoning District. Commissioner Sonsin asked what would happen if senior housing facilities in R-4 zoning districts wished to develop adult day care facilities. Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, replied that R-4 is nursing homes only and R-5 is exclusively for senior citizen housing. He suggested that R-5 zoning districts should be maintained for facilities which offer services for the elderly. Commissioner Anderson asked if a covered shelter over the entrance existed and if not, should the Commission consider a requirement for the conditional use permit. Alan Brixius explained that a canopy or structure over could be required so there would be protection for people. Chairman Cameron called for further conm~nts. Planning Com,LHssion Minutes August 2, 1988 in PlannLng Case 88-19.: with an mdd~tion of incl~ a Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: F~kicm carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, C~a Nor~e None Cameron, PC 88-20 Cha~ Cameron excused himself from Planning Case 88-20 ~ FOR (IRNDITIONAL since he is employed by District #281. He appointed IISE PERMIT TO AT.TC~W Commissioner Gundershaug as temporary chairman. TANK AT 4/24 WINNETKA Acting Commissioner Gundershaug introduced Planning Case 88- AV~FOE NOR~{ 20. John Ander~n, Minn~ota Valley Propane, stated he is owner of the propane business and questioned the need for having to appear in regards to the replacement as he has not had to do this in other commuzities. He added tb~t he had talked to the Fire Marshall and his recommendations were followed in updating a 1,000 gallon tank to a 2,500 gallon tank which is 4 feet longer and 2-1/2 more in diameter. He explained that School District #281 is converting buses to propane and need more storage on site. He stated he felt it was a safe and clean installation and they have never had a problem on refueling and have complied with all codes and have state approval. Ms. Dunn explained that severalI years ago a conditional use permit for outdoor storage was not required. The City utilizes the outdoor storage criteria for propane tanks, but staff is concerned about other issues such as lighting, setbacks and issues of health, safety, and general welfare. She stated that the Co~mYdssion has the option of approving the request, denying the request, or tm_bling it for further Co~muissioner Sonsin questioned if open storage should be screened and fenced the same as trash. He also wondered if signage criteria should be addressed. Mr. Anderson coumented that the screening issue was covered on the installation of the first tank and it is an accepted practice not to screen for safety reasons. Planning CommissionMinutes August 2, 1988 Commissioner Sonsin qu~'"tioned if holding up the conditioD~l use permit for a month t~ study would harm their timet_~ble. Mr. Anderson replied that the School District was anxious to get the conversion completed so the busses would be ready before the school year ~tarted. Gary Dechaine, Transportation Director for District #281, stated that they could not do any further conversions until there is some storage capacity. Mr. Anderson co, um=_nted that he felt they were being held C~,~ssioner Sonsin wondered if a 6-month conditional use permit could be recommended. Acting Chairman Gundershaug asked who owns the tank and what would happen if it were moved to another side of the property. Mr. Dechaine explained that they prefer it to be directly visible from the building so if there is anything going on, such as kids playing around it, they can stop it right away. He added that there is no room for it on the south side as it would take away some parking area. Mr. Anderson explained that state and federal laws dictate that the bus gas tanks have to be filled on the right hand side so the location of the tank has to accommodate this requirement. C~t.t,~ssioner Anderson stated that there is a 50' front yard setback and he does not think the tank is attractive in the front yard and he also feels it is hazardous outdoor storage, screened or not. Motion by C~,~,,i.~ioner Sc~sin, secor~ by Cu~,,i.~sioner ~, to ~mhle th~ matter for ~ne mnnth for study ar~ to Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja. Cameron None None PlanningCoamzissionMinutes August 2, 1988 -5- PC 88-21 Chairman Cameron resumed the chair for the next case and ~ FOR CONDITIONAL introduced Planning Case 88-21. USE PE~flT TO AT;~ OFF-SITE PARK/I~G AND VARIANCE TO R~m~D PARKING AT 7181 42ND AVenUE ~ larry Sandberg from Grobe's Cafe stated that they had withdrawn their variance application requested in Planning Case 88-10 and were asking for a conditional use permit for for off-site parking. He explained that they would have 33 parking spots, with 2 possible in the existing parking lot which have been left open for a loading zone. Commissioner Anderson questioned if Mr. Sandberg owned the lot and if not, did he know the owner and does he have a lease from the property owner. He further stated that the lease should be filed with the conditional use permit and should be kept current with the City so that if the lease expires, the conditional use permit expires also. He also questioned who is responsible for the curbing, Mr. Sandberg or the owner. Mr. Sandberg explained that he knows the owner and the owner has agreed to the arrangement and will put in bituminous curb. Commissioner Anderson commented that concrete curb is required around parking lots. He added that the trash receptacle should be screened and the area should be cleaned up. Ms. Dunn commented that staff b~ suggested an additional space be striped in the existing parking lot thereby reducing the non-conformity of the parking lot. Commissioner Anderson called attention to parking spaces #16 and #25 as being difficult to maneuver in and out of. Mr. Sandberg replied that they had changed them, but they were not shown on that plan. Ms. Dunn indicated that staff suggest a four-foot surfaced area which will allow for back-up. She stated that this is illustrated in the staff sketch. CoimtHssioner Anderson asked about getting in through the rear entrance and if signage would be place directing patrons there. Mr. Sandberg said that signage would be changed and there would be lights on top of the building. Planning CommissionMinutes August 2, 1988 c~,a~,~ssioner Oja~ expressed confusion about the back property line seeming to run tk~uough the building and wondered what would be done with the L:space between the property line and the entrance. She sugg~ted that it could be improved with shrubs rather than wlth.i grass alone and asked if it would be maintained with sprinklers. She further questioned if the signage would conform w~th City Code. Ms. Dunn confirmed that it would have to conform with City Code and that a sign permit must be obtained by the petitioner. ~at cu~crete culbing be irst~lled alo~j the pa4~-ter of the parking lot. ~hat the ~ ar~ ne~ parking lots be striped for parking ar~ loading areas in accordmnoe with the staff sketch ar~ to aocc~modate 33 parking stalls. o ~at the rear of the b,ilding be sodded ~ lar~, and d~bris r~ved. 4o 0 0 ~hat signage ~hich meets the Sign Ordinance be placed to designate the rear entrance ar~ that the rear entrance is opened for ~' use. ~at staff meview the lightir~ plan for ~ ar~ safety. ~hat a copy of the l~-~e agre~_ nt between the petitioner ar~ the owner of the prope~ which w433 be utilized as a parkir~ lot be filed with the City. f~il_~ to m~ntain the lease for the property or file the appropriate documents with staff. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Oj a None None Friedrich, Cameron, Mr. Sandbe/g asked if movable concrete curbs would be accePtable. PlanningCommissionMinutes August 2, 1988 Ms. Dunn advised~that continuous curbing is required. Design and Review C~,t'~,ttil::/~ did not meet. Codes and Standards C~.~t,,tHttee met once. The issue w-us referred back to staff. corner lot The Planning Col~t,~ssion Minutes of July 5, 1988 accepted as p~o The Council Minutes of March 7, June 21, and June 17, were reviewed. The HRA Minutes of June 27, 1988 were reviewed. were 1988 The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Acting Secretary Planning CommissionMinutes August 2, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North Hennepin County, Minnesota 55428 September6, 1988 C~T,T, ~00RD]~ Z~TIZf_~C ~ PC 88-20 (3.1) RE~ FOR (/JP TO AT,TCJW LP srI'OI~::;E AT 4124 WINNETKA ~ PC CASE 88-22 (3.2) RE~3~ FOR FIVE FOOT SETBACK AT 3551 W/SCONSIN NO~ A regular meeting of the Planning Co~L~L~ssion of the City of New Hope w-us held on Tuesday, /September 6, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron p.m. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja Absent: Gundershaug at7:30 Chairman Cameron noted thatthis case involved two issues. One issue waswhethertoallowadditional storage area for propane storage onthe site at 4124 Winnetka Avenue North. The second issue was whether the city should amend the Code to create standards for outdoor storage of LPG tanks. He recommended that the Co~L~ission deal with the School District's request first. Consensus of Commissioners was to to proceed in this manner. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second Commissioner Oja to table Case 88-20 until the P]a~ni.r~ (1J,..i~sion meeting of October4, 1988. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, None Gundershaug Cameron, Oja Cha~Cameron stated thatthe issue of the text change would be considered by the Commission later in the meeting during Coim~-~tteeReports. The text change if approved, would impact on Case 88-20. Mr. Eline stated that he wished to construct a 14' x 16' screened porch at the rear of his home. There is presently 46' from the rear of his house to the rear lot line. The porch would be off the sliding glass door in the living room. The house is an "L" rambler, and he felt this was the best location for the porch. He c~nted that he had been shocked to read the Building Official's recommendation t_hat this request be denied. He had provided all the information he could to the Building Official prior to this meeting. He questioned the statement that "an 11' x 20' addition could be built on the site without a variance". It was his opinion that building the porch only 11' out and 20'across the back of his house would not work because it would cover up his living room window. He had talked to his immediate neighbors about his plans and they had no objections. ; Chairman Cameron stated that the Planning C~ssion and the City did not easily allow people to ignore setback restrictions. The City did not take its Codes lightly. He added that he had to be convinced of a serious need or hardship before he would vote to violate city code. Com~t,~ssioner Anderson stated that it w-as Mr. Sandstad' s obligation to inform the petitioner what the procedures were for requesting a variance from code. He also was obligated to give his opinion. He does not say "aye" or "nay", that is the function of the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to questions, Mr. Kline stated that the porch would be constructed on 4' x 4' aluminized posts, open at the bottom. The roof would be pe~__ked, shingled and stained to match the house. There will be clear stain inside, and the exterior would be stained with Olympic grey to match the hou~ exterior. C~t.t,~ssioner Anderson confirmed that the petitioner was requesting a five foot variance in rear setback. He questioned whether or not the petitioner could reduce the size of the porch to allow him to stay within the required setback? He further confirmed that the remainder of the back yard was usable space. In response to a question from Co~L,,~,~ssioner Friedrich, Mr. Kline noted that if he were to use the 14' width, it would come within 8 inches of the window and would better line up with the side of the house. Commissioner Anderson stated it was his feeling that the encroachment was too dramatic. However, the petitioner did have a fairly large lot. He personally had a hard time finding any hardship involved, that would cause him to vote for this Mrs. Oja confirmed that the house was at least five feet from the lot line to the south. Ms. Dunn noted that the plans indicated there was 11' between the house and the south lot line. ~ Planning CommissionMinutes September 6, 1988 ~C 88--23 (3.3) R~ FOR TE~ AM~ TO AT,TCJW I-1 ~ I-2 ~ 7709 42~ ~ -3- Mr. Kline stated that the neighbor's kitchen window faced the west and north. There was no one present in regard to this case. Co~,,L,~ssioner Anderson asked the petitioner whether he wished to proceed and have the request sent forvramd to Council or whether he would prefer a table for one month? Mr. Kline said he w~nted the 14' x 16' addition because of the large expenditure that was involved he would prefer the larger size. Stating that he felt there was no justification for this variance, Commissioner Anderson made_ a motion rec~m~ng denial of the variance requested for 3551 wisconsin Avenue North, Case 88-22. Commissioner C~a secou~. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja None Gundershaug Tom Oestrich represented the petitioner Auto Haus. He stated there was a need for Auto Haus to grow and they needed display space. They have done a lot of work in the area and felt that they were providing a good facility. The site would not be a typical used car lot. The site will be landscaped. Chairman Cameron asked exactly what the petitioner was requesting? Ms. Dunn stated that staff had received revised plans for the site late on Friday. Review had started on Tuesday, but was not complete. Chairman Cameron stated the Commission could not possibly review or recommend action on this case at this meeting since they had not seen the revised plans. Ms. Dunn stated that staff was requesting that the Commission consider and discuss only the text amendment at this meeting. Chairman Cameron noted that the ordinance would have to be changed before the Commission could act on the CUP. It will be at least a month before the Commission could get to reviewing the plans. Planning CoImnissionMinutes September 6, 1988 Alan Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants then reviewed a memoI-armh/m dated August 31, 1988. He stated they had been asked_ to investigate whether or not such a use should be allowed in New Hope. Such a use .is currently prohibited by City Code. There is also some degree of conflict in the ordinance as written. ~ Mr. Brixius continued that/the real issue is whether this was an appropriate use for New Hope and on 42nd Avenue. They had prepared three options for consideration: 1) The City must make the decision whether the proposed use is compatible with land use on 42nd Avenue North. 2) They could repeal Section 4.033(10) to permit outdoor sales in New Hope and adopt Exhibit A as attached. 3) Rezone the site to B-3 and adopt Exhibit B which would an~_nd the existing ordinance. In preparing their report they had tried to design performance standards that would avoid an entire blacktopped surface, fl~hing lights, etc. and have suggested that there be no outdoor sales permitted in the front of the site. It was his~ understanding that there was some conflict between tF petitioner and city staff over this. They also recormner~ increasing the setback to ten feet, requiring striping of the lot, with concrete curbs. Discussion followed on these options as presented. Chairnmn Cameron expressed concern that crowded conditions would result if such sales were allowed. Mr. Brixius stated that they were attempting to avoid this by restricting the sales area to 30 percent of the building size and striping the parking lot. Chairman Cameron noted that whatever the Commission and City decided on this issue would be with the city for 50 years and he felt that any possibility of tacky, overcrowded sites should be avoided. Mr. Brixius stated that the city could control the size of the sales area, and that landscaping and screening would be r Ured. Chairman Cameron stated he wished there were even more controls on such a use. Planning CommissionMinutes September 6, 1988 C~u~Hssioner Anderson felt the two issues should be separated since there were two ordinance proposals before the commission. Mr. Brixius stated that one option would be to establish outdoor sales in the I-1 zone. The other option would be to rezone the property to B-3. ~ I~y discussion followedj regarding the number of industrial sites in the city that could then be eligible for such uses. Also discussed was the rezoning issue, to be combined with a Conditional Use Permit in the com,t~rcial district, and how many B-3 sites there were in the city that would be affected. Chairman Cameron asked whether they were recommending a minimum lot size for such a use. Mr. ~ixius said they were allowing a maximum sales area size of 30 percent of the building size. ~ would eliminate small sites, and potential "donut shop" conversions into sales lots. Also recommended is that any such use would be permitted only as an accessory use to an existing business. Discussion continued about the options as presented and what direction the Co,~,,t,~ssion recommended the city take. Commissioner Sonsin expressed concerns about the safety factors involved with a sales lot on 42nd Avenue in that location. He was also concerned with a potential for cluttered site and aesthetics. He was also concerned with too much blacktop on the site. He felt the main issue w-as whether New Hope wanted outdoor auto sales as a business? Following additional discussion, the consensus of the c~mmission was that rezoning the property to B-3 was preferable, with the restrictions as suggested on lot size. Commissioner Sonsin noted that whatever was done on this site would affect every other B-3 site. Chairman Cameron stated that the ordinance restrictions would control the development of the other lots as well. Ms. Dunn stated that staff would like to take a look at impact on the B-3 Districts in the city; and talk with the city attorney, the planner and the engineer regarding the impact that rezoning of this property would have during the easement acquisition process for the street improvement. Staff would like to bring back the recol~u~ndations to the Plar~ Commission at the October meeting. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1988 'It was Chairman Cameron's opinion that this ~ proposal was a major step for New Hope, and he did not feel the decision should be hurried. Consensus was that decision should be t_~bled to allow staff to come back with rec~m~JK~ations next month. Commissioner Anderson requested that staff prepare reports indicating the potentials for both options, including industrial and B-3 zoned properties. Chairman Cameron stated he felt that this report should also indicate possible consequences of each option for the city, Co~m~issioner Anderson made a motion to table Case 88-23 until the meetir~ of October 4, 1988 to allow staff to present specific information re~arding Exhibits A and B, along with a review of other similarly zoned sites in the city. Cu~m~issioner Oja second. CASE 88-24 (3.4) AT 9000 42ND AV~qUE Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: F~ti~ carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja None Gundershaug Mr. Duane Roman stated he w~s requesting approval of a preliminary plat to include five lots at 9000 42nd Avenue OF North. The existing house would remain but the garage would be would be removed as it is located over a proposed lot line. He plans to live in the existing home himself. The lot sizes vary from 12,578 square feet to 15,777 sc~mre feet. There will be grading necessary and excavation on the side of the plat towald Flag Avenue as there is a severe drop to Flag Avenue. The proposed houses would be in the $130,000 to $140,000 range and would be typical of the area. It ~as noted that the smallest lot of those proposed would still be 30 percent larger than city requirements in lot size. Chairman ~n indicated that staff had been concerned with the steep grade for some of the driveways. Mr. Roman stated that they expect the excavation to reduce the grade and slope. In regard to the existing home, the original garage, presently connected to the home with a breezeway, will be reconverted to garage use. In response to questions from Chairman Ca~_ron, Mr. Roman said that excess dirt would be removed from the site. He added tha~ Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1988 -7- that Hennepin County was also concerned about the portion of the land that fronted on 42nd Avenue. Mr. Roman noted he %ranted the site to look as nice as possible. He was also going to live in the existing home. Chairman Cameron noted that the petitioner would be required to present a specific plan for dirt removal before receiving approval of the final plat. Mr. Wayne Robinson, 4222 Flag Avenue North, stated he hoped the Commission would look at the site before they made any decision. He would prefer that the natural beauty be left as it is. It is used as a play area and he would like it preserved. He would prefer it to be converted into a small park. He added that there were 20-30 children on the cul-de- sac that think of the street as an extension of their driveways. He was concerned about their safety when playing on the street. He w-us also concerned that nothing in the plan indicated q~,~ranteed that the houses would be comparable in value to the existing homes. larry Rich, 4225 Flag Avenue North, asked whether all of the trees on the site would be removed, right up to his lot line? Mr. Roq~an stated they wished to save as many of the trees as possible. However, a lot of the area was scrub brush and trees and needed to be removed. Mr. Newman, 4216 Flag Avenue North, asked about the frontage measurements of the proposed lots. He was also concerned about the safety of the children on the street. Chairman Cameron stated that all of the proposed lots meet the city minimum frontage requirements for cul-de-sacs. In response to a question regarding f. the need for a variance because of the grade, Mr. Roman indicated that no variance was necessary. Carol Sable, 4308 Flag Avenue North, stated her main concern was for the safety of the children on the street. The children use the street and the woods as a playground. She was also concerned about the grade of the street, stating that a heavy rain pools at the bottom of the cul-de-sac. Her third concern is traffic. It is a dead end street and has a lot of traffic now. She felt five more houses would add too much traffic in the area, it is crowded now. She felt the co, t,L~lssion should go down and look at the street. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1988 Bob Herling, 4400 Flag Avenue North, asked about the proposed frontage measurements for the new lots. Ms. Dunn stated that frontages were as follows: 4216 Flag (Lot 11) 4208 Flag (Lot 12) 4200 Flag (LOt 13) -- 107.00 feet -- 69.85 feet -- 43.9 feet City Code requires a minimum frontage of 40 feet on a cul-de- sac. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the lots all met city code requirements as to frontage and size. Scott Cooper, 4317 Flag Avenue North, indicated his concern was with water run off. The water collects after every heavy rain at the bottom of the cul-de-sac. Reducing the grade on the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac will create an even heavier runoff. He felt the runoff and drainage in the entire area should be looked at by city staff. Chairman Cameron asked staff if there was any reason to believe that when Flag w~s put in, drainage was inadequate? Ms. Dunn stated that this entire area is included in the 198o Street Improvement Project. In the engineer's report review of this plat, he did not address the issue of storm sewer. Stating t_hat he was the original developer on the cul-de-sac, Mr. Cooper stated he did not th_ink the city had taken into account the addition of five lots at the end of the street. Water from all of these lots will also drain down Flag Avenue. Marilyn Rich, 4225 Flag Avenue North, asked about setback requirements. She was informed that code required five feet on the garage side and 10 feet on the living area side. She noted that when they moved in last November they were told that there had not been any development on the proposed site for ten years. What changed this now? Chairman Cameron said this was the free enterprise system. This wasprivate property. Lots in New Hope are now wortha lot of money. It is apparently now worthwhile to plat and develop these lots. He added that the city cannot control the value of a house as built, if it meets code requirem~_nts. The developer decideshowmuch it wouldbe. Kent Astin, 4208 Flag Avenue North, asked about proposed~. landscapingalong42ndAvenue. Planning Conmtission September 6, 1988 -9- It was noted that there would probably be a little bit of berming and perhaps a decorative fence installed. Mr. Roger Landy, 4417 Flag Avenue North, noted that this street was scheduled for repair in 1989, even though it was only 12 years old. He felt that something w~s not done right originally. He would like.the city engineer to take a better look at this street and its/drainage problems. Mr. Robinson noted he still had not heard that the proposed houses would be of comparable value to the existing homes. Chairman Cameron stated the co, m~,~ssion was not here to anSWer that question. That is not the city's business. The houses built 12 years ago have increased in value from their original cost. The builder is not restricted as long as he meets city ordinance. Co~t~tHssioner Anderson stated that the cc~mission was being asked to act on a preliminary plat request. He asked Mr. Roman if he had considered a slightly smaller development Mr. Roman stated that from a financial standpoint, they must have five lots. Since they originally proposed the plat, the land formerly owned by the city ba~ been added to the site. it would not work with less than five lots in the plat. Conmissioner Anderson suggested that the city engineer report back to the Commission on the water and drainage problems on the street. Chairman Cameron noted that every time there is a new development proposed for vacant land, people want it to stay the way it is. If the neighbors want there to be a park, they should have purchs~d the property for the park. It is private property and will have to be developed some day. He added that there ~as nothing in the staff analysis that would cause him to not approve this proposed plat. There is always the chance that someone else could propose much less in future years. He noted that the drainage would be reviewed before approval of the final plat. Consensus of the Commission was that they would like to review the final plat, before it went forward to the city Council. Com~L,~ssioner C~a made a motic~ recumm~r~ appmuYal of the preliminary plat at 9000 42r~ Avenue North, Case 88-24, subject to the following: Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1988 C~9~UfEE REPC~S 4.1 4.2 ~at the driveway ~ do not exceed 10% ~. ~at ~11 excess mte!~l i~ r~mved from the site. ~lat the e)d.~uir~ ~ into ~ Road #9 ~e ~moved. ;%11 work m Oounty right-of-way-be appz~oved. ~at the e~ir~ garage be z~m~ved ~ the site. Co~,ut,~ssioner Friedrich seco~t. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: lVDtic~ c~_~-£ied. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, None Gundershaug Cameron, C~a Design and Review C~m~ittee held one meeting. Codes and Standards had met on the propane tank issue. Mr. Brixius reviewed the report as prepared by the Consultants and the ordinance as proposed. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Codes and Standards Committee reco~m~nded approval of this ordinance and felt it should go forward to the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Anderson recn~e~ approval of the proposed ~inance and foIm~r~ it to city Council for action, co~Lu,,~ssioner oja seco~l. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: F~ion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich,, Cameron, None Gundershaug Oja Ms. Dunn distributed a memo to the Commission that had been prepared in response to questions regarding the need for updating the city's Comprehensive Plan. She noted that in the past the city had been able to use Coim~dnity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for such projects. This was no longer an eligible activity to use CDBG funds for. The only funds available at this time are from the General Fund, or by taking out a no interest loan through the Metropolitan Council and pay back in 3 years. Ms. Dunn stated there were some documents that should be implemented into the Cc~prehensive Plan and that it bad been 12 years since it had been updated. The approximate cost of such an update would be $20,000. ~ Planning CommissionMinutes September 6, 1988 -11- Chairman Cameron stated he felt staff would have to make a rec~,,~dation to the Cu~,~,~ssion including how badly the review was needed, how quickly it needed to be accomplished, and whether any updating should wait until the under utilized land survey was completed. It was C~,,~ssioner And~n's opinion that the Commission should ask the Council to allocate the funds in the 1989 Budget. Chairman Cameron felt this issue needed further review and should be tabled until perhaps November. He wanted to have a strong recommendation from city staff that this update %fas necessary at this time. Co~m~issioner Sonsin agreed with Chairman Cameron. Ms. Dunn suggested a work shop in October to look at the Vacant Iand Implementation Study. She noted that the budget process w~s underway and would be cc~pleted in October. Discussion continued regarding passing this recommendation on to Council, versus the need for a strong staff recommendation and willingness to support the revision as far as work and time involved and money needed. Motic~ by Commissioner Anderson to forward th~-~ issue to t_he City Council with the rec~m~dati~ that fur~s be hzk3eted in the 1989 Bud~fc for the r~w/si~, but r~t allocated, with no further action taken until there is a firm staff rec~mm~atic~. Commissioner Friedrich seoond. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, None Gundershaug Ca~eront Oja ~heworksessic~was scheduled for TuesdayOctoberl8, 1988. The meetingwas adjourned byunanimous consent at 9:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary Planning CommissionMinutes September6, 1988 CITY OFNEWHOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North HennepinCounty, Minnesota 55428 October4, 1988 PC 88-20 (3.1) -1~ PERMIT TO AT.TFJW LPG STORAGE AT 4124 ~ AVENUE NC~I~ PC 88-23 (3.2) -R~ FOR TEXT ~ TO AT.T~ O[/IIX]OR SAT]q~:: OF AUTCIVDBTT~ IN AN I-1 ~ I-2 DISTRICT AT 7709 42ND AVE.NO. A regular meeting of the Planning Cxz~mission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, October 4, 1988 att he New HopeCity Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Chairman Cameron stated that the petitioner had requested that this case be tabled until the November Planning Com,~,~ssion Motic~byCommissionerGundershaug, second byCorm,~ssionerOja to table Plannir~Case88-20untilthemeetir~of November l, 3~88o Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Sonsin, None Ca~_ron, Gundershaug, C~a Alan Brixius, of Northwest Associated Consultants stated he that staff direction on this case was that action should not be taken on the request until there had been a firm purchase agreement for the property adjacent to the site in question and plans submitted for improvement. His firm had prepared an analysis of the impact on the area and the city for the Co~,,L,4 ssion' s review. Chairman Cameron stated that this review should be undertaken following review of the remaining planning, cases. He entertained a motion for table. Mot/on by Commissioner Gundershaug, secor~ by Commissioner Oja to t~hle d~-qcussion of the i ~mp~ct of the text ~t until later in the meeting. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja None Anderson, Friedrich PC 88-24 (3.3) -R~ ~R APPRDVAL OF FI~ PIAT AT 9000 42ND NO. Mr. Duane Roman repres~ted the petitioners. Chai~ Cameron indicated that some of the changes requested by staff did not appear on this plat. He emph~ized to Mr. Roman for the record, that approval of this final plat did not ~rantee that the city would approve development unless the petition~ mot all of the code ~trictio~, and ~trictio~ imposed in the approval motion. Mr. Roman stated that the garage, which is pr~tly t~ clo~ to a proposed lot line, will be completely removed from the site. There ~ no further comment frc~ the Commission, and no one in attend~ to speak to this request. Alan BrJocius confirmed that approval of the final plat included all conditio~ ~ previ~ly outlined by the Planning Co==~dssion. F~ion by Co~m~issioner So, in, seo~xt by C~,,~,~ssioner Oja to reo~d approval of th~ Fir~] Plat at 9000 42~ Avermle North, 88-24, subject to the followir~ CODd~ti~: 1. ~at driv~y grad~ do not ex~med acceptable sta~ Official. 3. ~hat ~ ~ withi~ Co~a,tlf right-of-way be through the necessary permit p~. 4. ~at the existir~ 24 m x 32m garage %~_ich wo~ld ~e on the property l ~ of pro~ Lots 3 and 4 be r~m~ved aft~ approv-~l of the final plat ar~ prior to c~strt~M~ion on lot 4. 5. ~hat u~l~ti~ provided ~ placed ~x]~~ ar~ that plans f~r sanitary sem~r ar~ D~~~ ~ ~ City of ~ ~ope. 7. ~hat fiji grading ar~ drainage pl~ be su~ect to 8. ~hat final grading pl~ be ~ to incl~ the su~eyor's certificate on mil plat docents. 9. ~at th~ d~elop~ pzov~ a ~ or lett~ of credit for the public {~-~nts in the amount of $27,525. Planning Commi~sion ~ October 4, 1988 -3- PC 88-25 (3.4)-~ YARD VARIANCE AT 4417 DECATUR AV~qUE ~ Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: M~cion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja None Anderson, Friedrich Mr. Joly stated he w-as requesting the four foot variance to allow him to convert the existing garage to a family room and construct a new garage in front of the existing garage. Mr. Joly said he would like to stick to the 22 foot ~ion to allow him to get his vehicles and his boat inside the garage. Chairman Cameron stated that the Co-~m-~H ssion/City was hardpressed to grant frontyard variances. Mr. Joly would have to provide very good reasons for this variance. Mr. Joly stated that any other solution would double the cost of the addition. It would necessitate tearing down the existing 9-drage and re-building. The front w-all of the garage is a bearing wall and is needed to support the roof. He had no way to get his boat into the backyard since one neighbor has a fence, and the other neighbor's yard slopes. Confirming that the new construction would be the garage, and that the existing garage would be converted into a family room, C~L,,,,~ssioner Gundershaug asked whether Mr. Joly could not make the family room four feet smaller to eliminate the need for a variance? Mr. Joly replied that the bearing wall had to remain where it %sas. He added that he had to maintain basically the garage door opening that exists. It didn't seem practical to him as it would be too expensive to build in any other way. C~m-~Hssioner Gundershaug stated he would like the petitioner to try and find a solution that would not require a frontyard variance. He confirmed that the proposed addition, if approved, would match the existing house as far as materials used, roof, color, and brick. Mr. Joly said the addition would blend in with the house. Co-~m¥,~ssioner Gundershaug expressed concern about the drivewa~ size and whether with a frontyard addition, there would be sufficient room to park a vehicle without encroaching on the easement? Planning Co~-~ion ~ October 4, 1988 -4- Mr. Brixius stated that the petitioner had 26 street. Nineteen feet is the required length stall. feet fr~ the of a parking In response to questions from Co~m~Hssioner Gundershaug, Mr. Joly stated he would like to complete this addition this fall if possible. C~.~dssioner Gundershaug said he had a hard time finding reason for the four foot frontyard variance. He would be willing to table this case for one month, to allow the petitioner time to come up with an option, if he so desired. Cum~,,~ssioner Sonsin questioned why the petitioner could not reduce the size of the family room by four feet to accommodate the desired garage size? Mr. Joly w~s concerned about the bearing w-ull and the roof, and whether he would be able to get the boat in the garage if he did this. Builders he had spoken to stated that it was not practical and that the expense would be prohibitive. In response to questions fr~¥~ Commissioner Sonsin, Mr. Jol~ said he had consulted three or four builders. He did not ~ what he would do if the requested variance were denied. Cu~.~Hssioner Sonsin asked whether Mr. Joly had talked to his neighbors? Mr. Joly said he had spoken to the neighbors on either side and had received no objections. It was his understanding that the other neighbors had received notice from the city. Chairman Cameron questioned whether the the house might not appear "funny" if the proposed garage were constructed? He felt a house w~s such a major investment that might this not affect re-sale possiblities? Mr. Joly said it did not strike him as "funny". another house not far ~ay that had a similar garage. There is In response to questions from Commissioner Sonsin, Mr. Joly said he did not feel this four foot encroa~t would affect the appearance of the front yard. Chairman Cameron asked why they did not just build the family room behind the house? Mr. Joly said it would be too expensive. Planning C~-~sion Minutes --5-- He still needed October 4, 1988 -5- bearing wall at the back of the garage. Mrs. Joly said putting the family room to the back would not give them a flow from the existing house into the family room. It would be less desirable. Noting that the Planning C~L,,~,~ssion ~as usually more willing to grant reaz%razd setback variance, Commissioner Gundershaug again asked whether the Jolys would like a table to the November m~ting? Mr. Don Callahan of Barthel Construction Company stated that in his opinion it would not work to put the family room at the back of the garage into the backyazxl. There would be no w~y to get to the family room from the house, and would interfere with trees in the ba~. It would be difficult, as well as expensive, to go in any ot/ler direction. There is no way to get more living space without a lot of major remodeling and expenses. Motion by CozL,,,,~ssoner Gundershaug, secor~ by C~Lu,,~ssioner to recommend denial of the ~ v~riance as requested in Case 88-25, at 4417 Decatur Averm~ North. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,Oja None Anderson, Friedrich Motion by Co~,,,,~ssioner Sonsin, second by Conmdssioner Gundershaug to -,-emove Planning Case 88-23 frum the table. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Mot/on carried. Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, C~a None Anderson, Friedrich Alan Brixius reviewed the report prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants regarding the possible impact of a text change to the city code which would allow outdoor auto sales in specific zones. This report had been requested at the · September Planning Cu~=mission meeting. The review criteria included the following: permitted use; same lot; location; setbacks, sales area size; parking to be required; and performance standards. Report is attached. The review of the I-1 and I-2 sites revealed that most of the eligible occupied sites did not have an automobile related Plannir~Ouam~issionMinutes October4, 1988 principal use, that would permit a sales lot. They identified 10 sites that might be eligible for auto sales. The site sizes ranged fro~-~-~ one acre to twenty acres. Map A identifies the remaining industrial sites that may have auto sales. Table A provides an inventory of these sites. The city must consider the impact this use would have at the various site locations. Site inspections of possible B-3 zoned property revealed that the majority of these sites had inherent restrictions due to site size. The potential of other sites was reduced due to the existence of vital businesses on the sites. Map B illustrates the location of all sites surveyed. Table B provides an inventory of each site. Based on the business type, vitality, lot size, and site layout the following sites have the greatest potential for an auto 2C - Sinclair Gas Station - Bass Take Road/Winnetka 9C - Paro's Pub Site - 42nd/Nevada 13 - Sinclair Gas Station - 27th/Highway #18 If the intent of the city is to allow small automobile sale~ lots in suit~_ble retail areas, it appears to be more appropriate to amend the B-3 District. The B-3 alternataive offers the city the greatest control. Mr. Brixius noted that it was staff reco~=~ndation that no formal action be taken on either the Study or the Automobile Ord/nance, until there has been a firm request made by Auto ~ Cameron stated his concern with the city waiting for a specific case, before acting on this proposed text change, either for or against the change. It was his opinion t_hat this would appear that the city was making special accommodations to a specific petitioner. Mr. Brixius noted this issue could go back to staff, and also be referred to Codes and Standards for review with the Commission's comments. This would put the issue on the back burner for a time. Co~t~f,~ssioner Gundershaug confirmed that the property in question was presently zoned I-2. He expressed concerned about spot zoning in this area. Planning Cxx,,,,{.~sion Minutes Oc~r~_r 4, 1988 -7- Mr. Brixius stated that the entire corridor is com,~rcial. Under a B-3 zone, the only change in uses would be auto sales and professional offices. These would not be use intensive. Co~,~,~ssioner Gundershaug confirmed that the school district building was not zoned I-1 but could be changed to B-3. He wondered how the change would impact on v~lues? Mr. Brixius said values had not been reviewed in relation to the use of buildings for the properties. However, in his opinion in New Hope cuA~_rcial zoning would be equal if not more in value to industrial zoning in this area. It was noted that the school district bus garage site was a separate property from the school district office building. It was Mr. Brixius' opinion that the 42nd Avenue corridor with con~ercial uses will be consistent from Winnetka to the railroad tr~cks. The land uses will be consistent with the 42nd Avenue Plan, and performance standards would be the same. Considerable discussion followed between the Coim~ssioners regarding the possibility of allowing car sales, whether or not the City of New Hope '%ranted" car sales in the city, and how much protection the proposed ordinance gave the city in regard to future development. Also reviewed were accessory uses, and how they were controlled. Chairman Cameron stated he wished the study and proposed ordinance to be reviewed again, and sent forward to Codes and Standards. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug to ~hle Case 88-23 ~ review of the Study ~ proposed ordimance. Cu~L,,~dssioner C~a second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: ~tion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja None Anderson, Friedrich There w~s no report from the Design and Review Com,~,~ttee. There was no report from the Codes and StaDdm~ds Committee. Planning (k~m~.~sion Minutes October 4, 1988 The Planning Co~m,~ssion Minutes of September 6, 1988 were accepted as printed. The City Council Minutes of August 22, and September 12, were reviewed. Chairman Cameron announced that the Work Sessic~ ~as sc~w~a~ed for October 18, 1988. The Vacant Iand Study will be reviewed at that time. Chairman Cameron requested that staff call the Co~-mYHssioners and remind them of the date and time of the meeting. The meeting was a~~ by unaD~us consent at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning ~,,Hssion Minutes October4, 1988 CITY OF 1~ HOPE 4401 Xkq/]N AV~/~3E ~ mm.epin county, ~ 55428 November l, 1988 ~JBLIC ~ PC 88-20(3.1) P~ PERMIT TO AT.~W LPG STORAGE AT 4124 PC 88-23 (3.2) ~ TO AT.T~W OUTDOOR ~BT~ ~. SATFR IN AN I-1 ZONING D~CT PC 88-26 (3.3) PE~T FOR HC~E OO~JPATION AT 3564 FIAG AV~FUE ~ A regular meeting of the Planning.C~ai~ssion of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, November 1, 1988 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. ~he meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, C~a Absent: None Cameron, Gundershaug, Jeanine Dunn reported that staff had met with Gary Dech~ine .of School District #281. He requested that this case be withdrawn from the agenda. She added that the petitioner would like ~o add pumps to the existing LPG tank. They are in the process of phasing out the use of LP gas. Case 88-20 was witl'ldl~wn frc~ further consideration by the Plannir~ Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner had requested a t~_ble of this planning case until the February 7, 1989 Planning CO,~l,~Hssion meeting. Motion byCommissionerAnderson, secor~byCommissioner Sonsin to ~ahle Plannin~ Case 88-23 until the Feb~y 7, 1989 Planning(kmm~issionMeetir~. Voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oja None Cameron ~ Ms. Dunn stated that staff had received a note from Fir. Hugh Solberg, 3548 Flag Avenue North, a neighbor of the petitioner, indicating concerns about potential on-street parking and any exterior signage as a result of this ConditioD~l Use Permit. He feared the home occupation would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. -2- Mr Kvam stated that they were requesting the Conditional Use Permit so that his wife could operate a home beauty salon in the basement of their home. Mrs. Kvam is a licensed operator and would like a one station shop in the basement. There would be no signage, and they would rely on word-of-mouth business. He added that the driveway could easily hold four cars. Mrs. Kvam will be the only. operator in the shop. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioner had talked with city staff about the code restrictions of New Hope in regard to hc~e occupations. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed that Mrs. Kvam would be the only operator in the salon and that the petitioners did not foresee any need for expansion of the shop in the future. He stated he would prefer that the shop have only one customer at a time with perhaps one customer waiting. He asked about possible hours the shop would operate. Mrs. Kvam stated she planned to work only when the children would be in school. She would like to operate one evening and sc~e Saturdays when her husband was home from work to supervise the children. She wants the business to be only a part-time occupation. This would allow her time to schedule~-~ around dinner time, and when the children were home from school. In response to a question from Ccmm%issioner Sonsin she stated she did not see any problem with customers stacking up, as she would control the scheduling. She has been in this business for some time and knew how to book customers. Commissioner Sonsin asked about the location of the shop. Mrs. Kvam stated the shop would be in the walkout basement. Customers will park in the driveway and enter by the front door. The entry is a split entry and there will be a sign inside directing the customers to the basement. She did not wish to have any exterior signage. The family has two cars which could be parked in the garage. In response to Commissioner Sonsin's concerns about on-street parking, Mrs. Kvam stated she would inform customers that they could not park on the street. The basement will be remc~eled only to comply with State Licensing Requirements. A sink and chair will be installed and the State Board wishes the existing carpet to be replaced with linoleum. There is also a family room in the basement. Planning CommissionMinutes November 1, 1988 Mrs. Kvam stated that she did not anticipate ever having beauty supplies delivered by truck. There is a beauty supply business on Louisiana Avenue and she would be able to pick up her own supplies. She would not need the volume required for a truck delivery. Co~m¥,~ssioner Gundershaug asked about the hours of operation of the shop and how Mrs. Kvam would seek customers. Mrs. Kvam said she had former customers who would come to her in the home shop and she would depend on word of mouth. She did not anticipate advertising in the Post or other newspapers. She repeated that she did not wish to have signage on the exterior of the house, and there will be no exterior changes to the house. In response to questions from O~,,~dssioner Anderson Mr. Kvam said there would need to be some wiring changes and plumbing changes in the basement level to accommodate the beauty salon. He said the only neighbor he had spoken to about their plans was next door and he had expressed no concerns. They are new in the neighborhood and do not know many people. Co~m~Hssioner Anderson noted t_hat a Conditional Use Permit was subject to review by city staff and could be withdrawn or the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit changed if problems with traffic or negative impact on the neighborhood resulted. He indicated that it was his feeling that all cars must be parked off the street, and t_hat there be established hours of operation. Cc~m~Hssioner Sonsin said he was also concerned about hours of operation and the fact that there were small children w~lking in the area on their way to and from school. He felt the shop should not operate after 3:30 p.m. C~airnk3n Cameron confirmed that ever the years the Co~m~ission had observed tb~t conditions imposed by a Conditional Use Permit sometimes changed. He wished the petitioners to be aware that the Ccmmtission would include specific conditions for the Permit and that there would be staff review to see that the conditions were met. Discussion followed about hours of operation between the Coa~issioners and Mrs. Kvam. There was no one present in regard to this case. Planning Commission Minutes November 1,1988 -4- Oummissioner Sonsin made a motion reoc~ approval of the ~ti~l Use P~-m~t for ~ Occupation at 3564 Flag Avenue Ncxth, as requested in Case 88-26, with the following * Hours of Operation to be 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. F~y thr~ Saturday ar~ c~e evenir~ a week. * All parkir~ of ~ will be in the drive~ay of the home. * ~ w4] ] be no truck delivery of beauty salon * No exterior signage or exterior changes to the home. * Autnm~tic expiration of the (2xz]itio~al Use Pemmit if * Annual review by city staff. Commissioner Oja second. voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oj a None ~C 88-27 (3.4) OF~SIVE SIGN PLANAT7716- 7724W/]qPARKE~-VE The petitioner was not in attendance. by Commissioner Sonsin to t~ble Case 88-27 until the of December 6, 1988. Commissioner Gundershaug Voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja None 4.1 There was no report from the Design and Review C~m¥,~ttee. 4.2 Co~m¥,~ssioner Anderson stated tb~t the Codes and Standards Co~mYHttee had met and reviewed three issues. These were: * The corner lot problem and the number of cases the Com,m~ssion has reviewed regarding the frontyard/sidey~ designation. * The zoning for handicapped housing. * Automobile sales in an I-1 zone. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1988 -5- The Committee took the following actions: Recommended that a proposed ordinance to allow expansion of a non-conforming corner lot as a Conditional Use Permit be forwarded to the Co, remission. 2. Rec~t~ded that a proposed ordinance to allow handicapped housing developments in an R-5 zoning district go before the Commission in December 1988. This ordinance will be reviewed by a person who specializes in bx~]~licapped accessibility issues, before the ordinance goes to the Planning Commission and City Council. R~coit~nnded that the proposed ordinance to allow automobile sales in B-3 zoning districts be tabled until February 7, 1989. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, secor~ by Sonsin, recc~d/z~ the ~adc{fcio~ of a proposed ordinance which would allc~ the expansion of a non-ccaIfo~m~ng corner lot by CUr~i~l Use Permit. Voting in favor: Voting against: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Oj a None Cameron, In regard to the second issue, Ms. Dunn stated that the City of New Hope ban acquired and cleared the property along 42nd Avenue North, east of the railroad tracks to be developed to answer a need for handicapped housing in the city. They have secured funding through a non-profit organization, the Community Development corporation of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Criteria are now being developed to allow h~3ndicapped housing in a R-5 zoning district. She anticipates that the developer will address the Commission in December on this proposed development. It is possible that specific plans will be before the Cu~,,,,~ssion in January. commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the property will remain on the tax rolls? Mrs. Dunn responded yes. In regardtothe third issue, outdoor automobile sales, there is no action by the c~muission necessary at this time. Codes and Standardshas reccmmended somerezoning in theareaalong Planning CommissionMinutes November5, 1988 -6- OLD ~3S/NESS 42nd Avenue. However there does not seem to be any urgency in acting on the issue. It seems to be more logical to rezone property, at the same t/me that criteria is established. Ms. Dunn stated that the city .is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Vacant Land Study Phases I and II. She is rec~,~/z~ng a public hearing before the Planning C~m~,~ssion on December 6, 1988 with the City Council reviewing the Colm¥,~ssion's rec~,~ndation on February 13, 1989. Adoption of the amendment to the Plan requires a 2/3 vote by the City Council. In response to questions from the Chairman, it was noted that a public hearing on Phase I of the Vacant Land Study had been held two years ago. 6.2 6.3 The Planning Con~[ssion Minutes of October 4, 1988 were accepted as printed. The City Council minutes of September 26, and October 10, 1988 were reviewed. The Chairman expressed thanks for the timely distribution of City Council minutes. The HRA Minutes of August 22, 1988 and September 26, 1988 were reviewed. ~emeetin~wasad~otun~edbyunaD~nusconsentat 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker, Secretary CITY OF 4401 ~ AV~F~E ~ fiXiTY, MI~ESUEA 55428 I~6, 1988 The City Clerk, Carol Carlson, administered the Oath of Office to the two new cu~m~,~ssioners, Douglas Watschke and Sharon Cassen. A regular meeting of the Planning C~ssion of the City of New Hope, Minnesota washeldonTuesday, December 6, 1988 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was call~ to o~er by Chairman Cameron at 7:35 p.m. Watschke, Anderson, Sonsin, Oja, Cassen. Gundershaug ~iedri~,Cameron, ~J~ ./C ~EAR/~GS PC 88-27 (3.1) OF (IX~P~Z~SIVE SI6~ PLAN AT 7716-7724 PC 88-28 (3.2) OF~~qSIVESI6~q PIANAT510000t~{ ~D#18. Mr. Keith Wagner, Inside Sales Supervisor for Detail, represented Thyssen Specialty Steels. They were requesting approval of a sign on their building. In response to questions from Chairman Cameron Mr. Wagner noted that the sign proposed would meet to city codes and ordinances. In response to questions from Co~m~issioner Anderson, it was noted that the sign would be of plexiglas, and not internally illuminated. Ms. Dunn stated that staff had rec~,,~_nded approval of the plan as proposed. Cu, t,t,~Ssioner Anderson made a motion recu~mt~ app~ of the cc~ive sign plan at 7716-24 Winpark Drive, as re~~ in PC 88-27. C~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin second. voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: F~i~carried. Watschke, Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Cassen None Gundershaug The petitioner was not in attend_~_nce. PC 88-29 (3.3) AT 9117 34~{ AV~JE Motion by Ccm~issioner Sonsin, second by C~Hssioner Friedrich to ~mhle Case 88-28 unt_~] the er~ of the planning c~se~. Voting in favor: Watschke, Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, C~a, Cassen ,~ None Gundershaug. voting against: Absent: Mary Lee Rich stated she was requesting a variance to allow her to construct a three person porch where her deck is now located. She would then like to extend a deck off the porch into the backyard. In response to questions regarding the lot dimensions, Ms. Dunn stated that staff would recoim¥~nd that the petitioner provide a current lot survey before construction begins. Ms. Rich stated tb~t the roof line of the porch will match the existing roof lines, and that all exterior materials will be co~¥~atible. She noted she had spoken to her neighbors and they had expressed no objections to her plan. Commenting that the plans as proposed would not leave much left in the backyard, C~m~issioner Sonsin asked whether MS. Rich had considered any other options for the location of the deck, such as along the rear of the house, or reducing the size of the porch and deck? MS. Rich stated she felt if the size were much smaller it would not be a useable room. The porch was designed to go along with the roof line and will take up only the space now occupied by the deck. She will not have to remove any trees fr~m the yard. She did not think the porch would change the looks of the yard. Cu~,,~,~ssioner Sonsin confirmed that the proposed porch would occupy only the area now used for the deck. Discussion followed regarding the distance between the proposed porch and deck and dwellings located on neighboring lots. Ms. Dunn noted that when the house was originally constructed it was positioned 36 feet frc~ the front lot line, instead of 30 feet. This diminished the rear yard and resulted in having no build_able area in the rearyard. Pi~ C~ic~ M_~ December 6, 1988 C~,tdssioner Anderson asked whether there will be crawl space or basement under the porch and deck? Ms. Rich said "no" as there were windows in that location now and she did not wish to cover them up. She plans to put rock under the porch. She added that she planning to keep the existing doorway. Chairman Cameron noted that this was one of the largest rearyard setback variances that the C~t~t-,~ssion had been asked to grant. He felt the distance between dwellings on neighboring properties and the proposed porch w~s a factor, but he felt the deck extended too far into the rearyard. C~m¥,~ssioner Oja asked exactly where the new deck would be located? Ms. Rich said that it would be off at an angle toward the middle of the yard. In response to questions from Commissioner Sonsin, she said she could position the new deck next to the house. Co~mt~ssioner Sonsin stated he would be more comfortable with the variance if the deck were located next to the house. Ms. Rich said she could do that. The deck had been proposed to go into the yard and on an angle because it was thought it would be more attractive. She confirmed that the deck and porch could be raised, with rock underneath, so that the windows would not be covered up. OmtmHssioner Cassen requested a plat map so the co~m¥,~ssioners could get a feeling for distance of the proposed addition in relation to neighboring dwellings. Chairman Cameron noted the new deck as proposed would take up a large part of the rearyard. Ms. Rich said she planned to landscape the area as an oriental garden. Following review of the plat map, it was the concensus of the Cul~,,~,~ssion t_hat it would be preferable for the deck to be realigned along the house. Commissioner Oja said it W-dS her personal feeling that the deck should not extend into the rearyard. Plannir~ Cl~,.,,~-~ic~l Minutes December 6, 1988 -4- Ms. Rich said she would need a stairway into the yard. She confirmed that the Cu~m~,~ssion would like to see a new plan showing the deck positioned along the house. In response to questions f-~-c~i-~ Chairman Cameron, Ms. Dunn said that staff would require a new survey before construction C~m~,/ssioner Sonsin made a motion ~o ~ahle PC 88-29 until the Plannir~ Ouumdssion meeting of Jar~]ary 3, 1989. C~m~,/ssioner voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Watschke, 'Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Ga,. Cassen. None Gundershaug PC 88-30 (3.4) POR I~~ ~ AT 5500 BOONE NORIH Mr. Ken Schenk of Pope Associates, represented the Northridge Care Center. He stated they were requesting apProval of their plans for a four story adult day care entrance and elevator lobby at 5500 Boone Avenue North. It was noted that approval h~d already been granted for a remodeling project of the one wing. The new proposals will address the canopy at the end of the cul-du-sac on 55th Avenue and the addition for the four story elevator lobby. They plan to allow only one way traffic around and under the canopy. The canopy will be located five feet back f-,-om the lot line. The elevator/lobby addition will have lounges on each floor, and will connect to the corridor sections. The exterior materials will coordinate with the brick and stucco of the existing building. There will be brick columns and a strip window effect. The island in front of the addition will be landscaped. The entrance will be fully accessible for the handicapped. C~m~,/ssioner Oja confirmed that the addition will match the building to the north, and that the building to the south is only a one story facility. She then asked about rooftop Mr. Schenk said that all rooftop equipment would be screened and that the drive way by the canopy would be marked "one way". There will be concrete curbs and gutters, and the blacktop will be striped. They are adding five parking spaces to the existing parking. Planning Om~mn~ion ~ __Dec~h~,' 6, 1988 Discussion centered on the parking situation on the site, and it was noted that the assisted living people did not normally require as much parking availability as the congregate living people. In response to questions from CcmmHssioner C~a, it was noted that the island was to be landscaped with Japanese dwarf pine, maple and aarabovitae shrubs. Co~,.L,~ssioner C~a indicated she felt the site could~use more landscaping near the entryway and next to the building. Mr. Schenk noted that there was some grassy area that could handle excess snow. There will be lights under the canopy but no additional lights on the front of the addition. In response to questions, Mr. Thompson stated that the daycare hours were 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. He stated that of the 25 participants in the adult day care program, only 10 or 12 of them were delivered and picked up car. The remainder arrived in the Northridge vans. Chairman Cameron indicated that the C~m¥,~ssion/City loved trees, and in his opinion the four story addition could stand to have some tall trees to soften the exterior. Mr. Schenk stated that they could follow through with more Co~L.~,~ssioner Friedrich expressed concern about the height of the canopy and whether an emergency vehicle could get under it. It was noted that the canopy was ten feet higher than the bituminous and could accommodate an rescue vehicle. A fire truck would be able to park close enough without being under the canopy. In response to questions regarding the on-street parking in the Northridge area, Ms. Dunn stated there was still some parking on streets near the complex, but not because there w~s not room in the lots. Northridge provides 361 parking spaces on site and the code re~t is only 310. Mr. Thc~pson noted that the parking usually was a problem at shift change time, and when there were activities scheduled that drew visitors to the care center. Ms. Dur~ stated that city staff is presently exploring the possibility of a cooperative parking plan in the area which Plannir~~ic~M/nutes ~6, 1988 would utilize some presently vacant land and assist the petitioner and surrounding industrial properties. In answer to questions from Cu~L,,~,issioner Oja, Mr. Schenk stated that the sewer and water main ,located under the proposed addition will be relocated. Discussion continued between C~,,~,issioner Anderson and Mr. Schenk about the possible need'for reserved spaces for dropping daycare people off; the number of participants in the daycare program; the existing catch basins, the design of the canopy and addition; and the reason for the wider driveway. It was noted that the land was pretty restrictive and that there w-us not much dimension between the building and the property line. Responding to Omtm, issioner Anderson's opinion that the radius should be reduced, the architect noted t_hat this was not a heavy traffic area. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Oja made a motion ~ app~-~ of the proposed cc~on at Northridge Care Oentm~ at 5500 Boone Ave~- North, as requested in PC 88-30, subject to the provision of r-~rlitio~al landsc~ ar~ that the water main be relocated. Commissioner Sonsin second. Voting in favor: Watschke, Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Cassen Voting Against: None Absent: Gundershaug F~tion by O-,i,;i.~mio~er Ar~erson, seco~ by Friedrich to r~ove PC 88-28 from the table. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Watsckke, Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Cassen None Gundershaug PC 88-28 (3.2) The petitionerwas still not in attendance. Planni~ (k~m~i.~ion ~ ~ 6, 1988 -7- C~T~EE REPOm~ 4.1 4.2 OLD ~JS/lqESS 5.1 Moti~ by O ..... i.~ic~er Artlerson, secc~xl by Friedrich to ~mble PC 88-38 urf~_11 the Plannin~ ~ of January 3, 1989. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Moti~carried. Watschke, Anderson, Sonsin, friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Cassen. None Gundershaug Design and Review C~mYdttee held one meeting in November. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Coitm-dttee. Alan Brixius, of Northwest Associated Consultants, gave a brief synopsis of the Vacant Land Study Pbm~e I which had been prepared in July of 1986. This study listed six criteria which should be considered in determining prospective use of properties. They are: 1. Lot Classification 2. Availability of Sewer and Water 3. Size and Configuration of the Lot 4. Development Standards as Outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance 5. Envirionmental Concerns 6. Market Conditions He stated that since 1986 14 of the designated properties had been developed. Phase II is the implementation plan and outlines strategies to be used to promote the development of the vacant land. ~nis addressed administrative concerns, promotion and marketing of the parcels, updating and adapting the Comprehensive Plan, the need to consider public assistance in the consideration of any development, and finally priorities were estm_blished. Mr. Brixius then stated that one of the sites of concern was the Minnegasco site on Winnetka Avenue. At the last meeting, two options were offered. One was to make the property a totally industrial development. Planni~ C~.,.,,i-~ic~ M_~ Deoember 6. 1988 -8- ~nis option had been deemed by the Planning Commission as an acceptable alternative. There have been some modifications since the original submission of the option, including a full intersection at 40th Avenue. ~ This creates some unequally shaped lots. It is however a concept idea,, and is not etched in stone. The second option discussed would be for multiple family development. The Planning Commission felt this was an inappropriate use and staff would not rec~mt~nd this option. Mr. Brixius stated that if Option I was what the Planning C~uL,~ssion was looking for it could be included in the Study as Site MM. Chairman Cameron stated that he didn't think the Commission ever wanted people to be living on that property, but there might be a circumstance where the city might want it zoned as residential. Mr. Brixius stated that if the city wanted only certain uses on this site, it was in the best interests of the city to so designate, but no rezone the property at this time. Then, if a developer or property owner interested, he could request~'~ the rezoning at that time. The rezoning could then be approved if it was the opinion of the city/co]m¥,~ssion that it was consistent with the zoning policies of the city. Ccm~issioner Anderson stated he felt that the city also needed to have something on that site that would create a decent tax base for the city. He felt that the uses designated should provide some flexibility. He personally did not like Option II and would like it removed from the report. The commission/city could say "no" to the density at the time of an actual proposal. The concensus of the Co, remission was to agree with Co~L~t,~ ssioner Anderson. Discussion between the Coim~Hssioners regarding uses for this property, including a church which is allowed in a residential zone, or some combination of uses. It was felt that the burden should be on a developer to convince the Planning C~L,,~,~ssion to accept a particular use. Mr. Brixius stated that Site MM would be included in the Guide Plan, with a statement that the city would like to Plannin~ (~,,,H.~sic~ Mitaztes Deoember 6, 1988 -9- retain the site as industrial, but would be open to consideration of a mixed development providing it could co- exist with the surround/ng area's development. Mr. Brixius re-stated the priorities in Phase II of the plan. They are: 1. City Center/42nd Avenue Corridor 2. 49th and Winnetka Avenue Area 3. science and Industrial Park 4. Quebec, Winnetka and Nevada Industrial Areas In response to a question fr~m Co~mt,~ssioner Anderson, Mr. Brixius stated that the text of the amendment updated the Guide Plan. Mr. Henderson of Mir/le~ stated that Minnegasco would like to proceed with the zoning remaining industrial. There is the possibility of their closing on a sale early in 1989. They would like to see it developed. Mr. Dick Curry stated he was accompanied by two representatives from Holy Nativity Church. He had a proposal that would involve both the existing Holy Nativity site and the Minnegasco site. This proposal would rezone the Holy Nativity site to industrial, and build a new church and 80 tcwnhouse units on the Minnegasco site (ten units per acre). They would be working with the neighborhood in developing the plans. Mr. Curry added that there were some problems with the soil on parts of the Holy Nativity site. Mr. Broden, representing Holy Nativity, stated that the church had been on five acres for ever 25 years. They have decided that this was too much land. They have been attempt~ to sell the eastern portion for several months. In the meantime they have been considering whether or not the church should relocate. Mr. Curry had approached the church regarding moving to the Minnegasco site. They would have an interest in that site because it would allow them to stay in the same area, where a large number of the congregation resides. However, such a move would require approval of the congregation and also the (/~airman Cameron confirmed that the church did not have a specific time table for their plans. Planning O ..... {-~i~ M~ Dgc~mher 6, 1988 Mr. Broden reviewed the process the church had gone through to this time, including a fund drive and attempt~ to obtain approval from the EL~A and congregation for a change of location. Ms. Dunn stated that the church property is presently zoned R-O. ~sioner Anderson stated tha~ the Planning Commission would not look at this proposal as a combined package. They would look at each individual proposal separately. Chairman Cameron concurred with this statement. Commissioner Anderson made a motion re~,,.,~nd~ng approval ~ ad~ptic~ of l~a.~e II of the Vacant T m~d Study ar~ inclusion in the city's C~~ive Plan, ~ forward~r~j to City Ckamcil. C~L,,L,~ssioner C~a second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Abstain: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Cassen None Watschk~ Gundershaug 5.2 Mr. Brixius noted that the proposed handicapped housing plan had previously been reviewed. A draft ordinance had been prepared in July 1988. This ordinance att~ts to address the issues involved in handicapped housing facilities in a similar fashion to elderly housing. Such a use would become a Conditional Use Permit within the existing R-5 zone. The ordinance provides a definition of handicapped housing and criteria for their development. Any development proposal nust conform to HUD requirements if HUD funding is to be obtained. There is a slight problem in this type of development since staff felt garages should be provided, but HUD would not finance a project that included underground garages. Ms. Dunn stated that after the Planning Commission approved the recommended ordinance, the City Attorney would review it and put it into final form. Discussion followed about the rec~a~nded apartment sizes incuded in the ordinance. It was noted that these sizes were the maximum that HUD would approve. Planning O-,..~ion Mirg/tes December 6, 1988 7.0 Ms. Dunn noted that the architect and builder for the project had experience with developing handicapped units. CO~L,,L,~ssioner Anderson made a motic~ r~-~,~",~n~{r~3 acce~ a~ reo .... ~n~ adoptic~ of the ~~rged Or~{nar~e as presented ar~ fo~aniirg to the city C~mcil for inclusi~ in the city's Gomp~ive Plan. C~m~,~ssioner Sonsin seoc~. Voting in favor: Waschtke, Anders°n, Friedrich, Cameron, Oja, Cassen Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug ~e pls~ _O~.m~ ~qic~ Minutes approved as printed. Sonosin, of November 1, 1988 w~re city Council N/nutes of October 24, November 9, a~ November l4, wRrereviewed. ~ }H~A M_~ of Octnber 10, ar~] November 14, 1988 were reivewed. Chairman Cameron read a letter of resignation fro~¥~ Co~m~Hssioner Anderson. It was accepted with regret. ~hemeet~wasadjcurnedbyunanimousconsentat 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~oyce Boedde~er, Secretary