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