The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 Planning CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting February 18, 1987 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order Roll Call A special meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, February 18, 1987. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Absent: Sonsin, Friedrich The City manager requested permission to speak to the cases before the Commission. He stated that the petitioners in Planning Case 87-2 were requesting a change in the footprint that had originally been approved for U.S. Swim and Fitness. What the Commissioners will be asked to do is amend the PUD previously approved for the shopping center. It is a minor footprint change. He added that they were also being requested by staff to review the plans and make a determination that the proposal is or is not consistent with the overall City Plan, and therefore exempt from the existing moratorium. Staff was also requesting that the commission add back some of the amenities previously lost when the shopping center plans were amended. He added that even though Applebees was requesting a construction addition of a greenhouse, all parking regulations were met. Planning Case 86-1,~ Request for Compre- hensive Sign Plan Approval Item 3 The City Manager stated he was acting in the dual role of City Manager and Redevelopment Director. As Redevelopment Director he has been in the forefront of promoting the redevelopment of the shopping center. He stated that the public hearing on the liquor license for Applebees, was set for March 2, 1987. This is not an issue for the Planning Commission, but is germain to the Commission's approval. Applebees will proceed with their construction plans even if the request for a liquor license is denied. Chairman Cameron confirmed that if the Planning Commission approved this footprint, and Applebees did not come into the center, the developers would have to appear before the Commission again. The City Manager stated that at this meeting the shopping center in Planning Case 86-13 was asking for approval of the comprehensive sign plan for the center. Chairman Cameron stated that Planning Case 86-13 would be considered first. ~ Mr. Paul Nielson, of Fowler, Handley Architechts represented the shopping center. New blueprints were distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Nielson stated that the square footages for the signage as proposed met the allowed square footages. U.S. Swim and Fitness would like to expand their canopy sign over their entrance. Chairman Cameron noted that individual tenants could not request a change in the approved sign plan. Any request would have to include owner approval, and be considered as an amendment to'the entire sign plan of the shopping center. New Hope Planning Commission February 18, 1987 Page 1 Motion The signs will be a canopy style framework, with the sign stripe, lighted from behind, with the letters painted on. As tenants change in the center, their section of the canopy would be removed and repainted for the new owner. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the sign and how the painted letters would weather, and if a new tenant's sign would be of a brighter color, than the original lettering. He wondered if there was way to prevent fading. The architect stated that with proper maintenance on the canopy, and the fact that the canopy will be treated with an ultra violet prohibitor~ he did not think that this would be much of an issue. There was a five year guarantee from fading. The signs could always be repainted. Commissioner Anderson asked about the pylon-sign. The architect said there was $6,000 allowed in the center budget for future upgrading of the pylon sign. No major changes were presently being proposed. He said that the idea was to install a new face on the sign that would not exceed the maximum allowable footage, and clean up the lower oortion of the sign. The pylon sign is not included in the overall sign plan for the center at this meeting. There was no one present in regard to this case. The City Manager noted that in March, there will be a proposal before the Commission amending this comprehensive sign plan. The shopping center developers were somewhat ahead of the game and have already installed some of the new signs on the canopy. The main issue is the 4' x 20' sign for the east wall. The developers wish this to be approved so that they can proceed with ordering the sfgn. If this sign plan is approved, it can be amended in March to include the Applebee sign. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that U.S. Swim and Fitness is proposing a 4' x 20' wall sign, which will be illuminated, but will be separate from the canopy. Commissioner Cameron confirmed that the free-standing pylon sign is also not included in this comprehensive sign plan. Commissioner Anderson stated he had no problems with the wall sign but still had concerns about the durability of the canopy signs. Chairman Cameron noted that the canopy sign treatment had already been approved by the City Council, the Commission has nothing further to do with this. Discussion followed regarding other treatments for the canopy signs, i.e. sewn vinyl. It was noted that the signs already installed are painted vinyl. Also discussed was the possibility of splitting the motion for approval. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the 4' x 20' wall sign for U.S. Swim and Fitness as proposed in Planning Case 86-13. Voting in favor: Anderson Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Voting against: Edwards Absent: $onsin, Friedrich Motion carried. Discussion continued regarding the pylon sign in front of the center. It was staff's opinion that the pylon sign was no~·$~rt. of the total sign plan. Commissioner Edwards had the opinion that it had to be included as part of the entire shopping center sign plan. New Hope Planning Commission February 18, 1987 Paqe 2 Mo'tion Planning Case 87-2 Request for Construc- tion Approval Item 4 Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, tabling further consideration of the sign plan until the meeting of March 3, 1987. All present voted in favor. William Rust, of Rust Architects represented Applebees in Planning Case 87-2. He was accompanied by Donald Strang, Director of Operations for Applebees. Chairman Cameron stated that the Planning Commission concerned with any exterior changes of the building. was Mr. Rust stated that the building is now basically brick, with an awning along the east side. The brick runs up the wall approximately 8 feet, above which is concrete block. They propose to replace the existing canopy with Applebee's "trademark" awning. They also intend to add the greenhouse, which has become another Applebees trademark. This will be installed on the south side of the building, toward 42nd Avenud North. They will also install the green exterior lights which have also become a part of the Applebees look. They feel that the greenhouse will relieve the long brick wall.. The west side of the building is now concrete block. They propose to stucco part of that wall, install a canopy and also more lighting and a fence to conceal the loading area. They also plan to add landscaping to the site. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this request had been reviewed by Design and Review. Commissioner Edwards asked how tall the proposed fence at rear of the site would be. Mr. Rust said it would be in the eight foot height range, however, would . be open to discussion with city staff. addition will be'4' x 40' the this The Commissioner Edwards said he would like to know exactly what the petitioner was proposing for fencing material. He questioned whether they would fence the entire area if they decided to include an outside dining area. Referring to the proposed wooden retaining wall, he asked how high that might be. Mr. Rust said this could be six or eight inches above the road surface. He added that they were not as yet sure whether or not they would extend the fencing unless they had an outdoor eating area. They might simply add landscaping to that area. It will be three feet from the solarium to the concrete curb. He added that the door on the west wall is strictly an emergency door, it will not be used by customers. The landscaped area to the west has been trimmed to 30 feet to provide a delivery area. Trash will be taken to the central location of the center. Any additional equipment would be painted to match existing equipment. Discussion continued about proposed wooden curbing. Commissioner Edwards stated that New Hope requires that curbs be of concrete, however, there could be wood, or railroad ties on top of the concrete curb. He stated he would also like to eventually see a detailed illustration of the fence and landscaping, as proposed. Referring to the proposed Applebee awning, Commissioner Edwards noted that it was not consistent with the canopy on the rest of the center. He asked whether the petitioner had thought any more about installing a canopy similar to the existing. Mr. Strang stated that Applebees had strong feelings about using their own design. The awning and solarium are internal "trademarks" and they were trying to establish an identity so that people would immediately recognize their restaurants. He felt it was important to the success of the restaurant. He added that Applebee's intended to be in that location for a long time. New Hope Planning Commission February 18, 1987 Page 3 Mr. Strang asked if there was some way they could address the concerns of the city about the different awning in their agreement with the mall. Could something be worked out stating that either "they" or "we" would return the awning to the original design should Applebees move out of the center, could this be an alternative. The City Manager stated that the PUD Agreement called for a continuous awning. He thought that they could get assurances from the owners in March, when they returned to amend the sign plan, that the awning would be returned to the original form. Should occupancy change, the original PUD agreement would revert. In response to a question from the Chairman, it was noted that the awning was of vinyl, on a frame, with a scalloped edge. It will stick out about four feet. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how long a lease the petitioner had for the mall site. Mr. Strang said he was not sure, but he thought it was for ten years, with an option to renew. Discussion then held regarding the lack of definition of the landscaping. Commission members were concerned about the lack of specifics, regarding types of trees or bushes, and the number that were being proposed. The City Manager stated that more complete plans would be provided. The action needed at this meeting for approval. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioners would provide some type of cover for the vacant areas as indicated on the site plan. Commissioner Gundershaug voiced concern over the width of the drive aisles. It was noted that the green area will be 12 feet wide, and the drive area 24 feet wide. The City Manager stated that these dimensions did meet city code. Commissioner Oja asked about the central trash area for the mall. She questioned how this petitioner would get their trash down to that area, since there is no inside corridor. She expressed surprise that the city had already agreed to a central trash location, and that they would wish this tenant to transport refuse that far. The City Manager noted that many tenants would have to find a way to transport trash to the central location. Mr. Strang said that originally they had proposed a fenCed in trash area, that a truck could back up to. He understood that this had been tabled by the city. He questioned whether it would be desirable to have trash so close to an eating area. Ms. Dunn stated that the plans included in the Commissioner's packets had described the trash area as proposed ~t the Design and Review meeting. It was the Planner's recommendation that there be a central location for trash storage. The City Manager suggested that perhaps staff should go back and think further about the trash issue. He noted that the awning and the amended sign plan would be considered by the Commission at their March meeting. Commissioner Edwards wondered why they didn't table the entire request. The next meeting would be in two weeks. Chairman Cameron asked the petitioner what a two week delay would do to their plans. New Hope Planning Commission Page 4 February 18, 1987 Motion Design and Review Item 5 Codes and Standards Item 6 Approval of December 2, 1986 Minutes Item 8 City Council Minutes Reviewed Item 9 Comments Item 10 Adjournment Mr. Strang said it would put them behind the two weeks. They wished to get started as quickly as possible. He wondered if there was any way they could start construction and receive further approval at a later %ime. Mr. Rust stated that there is no fencing required on the west side of the building, or any landscaping, as far as city code was concerned. Discussion continued regarding the trash area, and landscaping at the rear of the site as well as the type of fencing that might be installed. Commissioner Anderson indicaterd that the petitioner should be aware that this area was a very public area, with a lot of traffic. He hoped that the trash area, if provided, would be screened for sight and sound. The City Manager read a resolution "RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE NEW HOPE MALL AND EXEMPTION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 86-6", which he wished the Planning Commission to adopt (attached). He requested that the resolution be passed separately from the motion, and include the finding that the proposal met the guidelines that would eliminate adherence to the moratorium. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Co~missioner Anderson, recommending approval of the resolution as presented by the City Manager in regard to Planning Case 87-2, with the following stipulations: 1. There would be concrete curbs. 2. The Commission/City would be provided with detailed plans for the fence, including materials to be used. 3. Definition of the trash area or enclosure as proposed. 4. A detailed landscaping plan. All present voted in favor. Design and Review had held one meeting in February. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The Planning Commission minutes were approved as printed. The City Manager reviewed the recent Council meetings and gave the Commission an update on the proposed 42nd Avenue plans. Commissioner Anderson suggested the Commission hold another meeting with the Planner and consider a study on under-utilized land in the city. Chairman Cameron said this meeting could be scheduled in March. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, New Hope Planning Commission February 18, 1987 Page 5 RESOLUTION 87-1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE NEW HOPE MALL AND EXEMPTION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 86-6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of New Hope has enacted a construction and development moratorium pursuant to the New Hope Code Section 1.52 adopted under the authority of Minnesota Statutes SectiOn 462.355 banning any new development or ~ons~ruction in the New Hope Mall (Lot 1, Block 1, New Hope Mall) until September 21, 1987, and, WHEREAS, the New Hope Mall development is subject to an agreement between New Hope/U. S. Swim Partnership and the City of New Hope titled Planned Unit Development Conditional Use ~ Permit for proposed New Hope Mall; and, WHEREAS, New Hope/U. S. Swim Partnership, and T. J. Applebees, Inc. have made an application to the City, designated as Planning Case 87-2, to request construction approval to develop a restaurant facility within the New Hope Mall; and, WHEREAS, Planning Case 87-2 proposes a 4' x 40' greenhouse expansion along the south building wall and a shift in the southern driveway and parking stalls to four feet south; and, WHEREAS, the City Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, and the City Building Official have reviewed the plans sub- mitted by the petitioners for the proposed development and the City Planner has submitted a report dated February 12, 1987 setting forth the recommendation for approval regarding the Petitioner's proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Development of the New Hope Mall as proposed by Planning Case 87-2 is consistent with the 1985 42nd Avenue City Center Market Study and Summary. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit to allow construc- tion of a 4' x 40' greenhouse expansion along the south building wall, and a shift in the southern driveway and parking stalls to four feet south. 2. That the Planning Commission finds that the development is consistent with the recommendations for the development in the New Hope Mall made by the City Planner in its 1985 42nd Avenue City Center Market Study and Summary. 3. That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council incorporate plans titled "Applebee's New Hope" dated February 8, 1987 and certified by.Will~i~m'Rust, Registered Architect, Rust Architects, into the Planned Unit Development agreement for the New Hope Mall. o That the Planning Commission recommend that.the City Council approve the request for construction approval as petitioned by New Hope/U. S. Swim and T. J. Apple- bee's, Inc. in Planning Case 87-2. Be That the Planning Commission recommends that~t~he City Council exempt Planning Case 87-2 from the construction moratorium in effect until Sewptember 21, 1.987. Dated the 18th of February, 1987. , R6bert ~me~oni:'~ch~i~~ . Attest: Daniel J. 'Don~hue, ~it~ ~anager New Hope Planning Commission Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 March 3, 1987 7:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, March 3, 1987. The meeting was called to order 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Absent: Friedrich, Lutts PLANNING CASE 86-12 The City Manager stated that the petitioners in Planning Case COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 86-12 had been delayed and requested that consideration of this APPROVAL - ITEM 3 case be tabled until the end of the meeting. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 86-12 until the end of the meeting. All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE 87-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ITEM 4 In Planning Case 87-1, Mark Zeman stated he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow his wife to operate a beauty shop in the basement of their home. She would be working only part time now, with the possibility of working full-time in a few years. Commissioner Anderson asked how the customers would get into the shop. Mr. Zeman said that there was a door from the garage that would open directly into the basement area and into the shop. Customers would enter from the driveway. They plan to make exterior modifications except for the fire egress window and a large picture window. In response to questions regarding signage, Mr. Zeman said at the present time they planned no signs. Perhaps in the future they might put a plaque by the door. The customers will come to the shop by appointment only. Commissioner Anderson asked what kind of customer load the petitioner anticipated for the future. Mr. Zeman said there would be no more than two at a time, occassionally a lap-over as one customer left and another arrived. His wife would be only working part-time. Customers would come mostly during the day, and on Saturday. Chairman Cameron inquired about the hours of operation. Mr. Zeman said they would probably be between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. during the week, and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. He re-stated that the customers would come only by appointment. Commissioner Anderson asked about the parking space. Mr. Zeman said parking would be in the driveway, there was room for five or six cars. It would definitely be off-the street. The family cars would normally be placed in the garage but even if they were not, there would be sufficient room in the driveway to hold the cars. Commissioner Anderson expressed his concerns that no cars attempt to back out on to Bass Lake Road. Mr. Zeman said there was sufficient room for cars to turn around. They discouraged even visitors to their home from backing out into the roadway. Commissioner Anderson asked whether they had discussed their request with the neighbors. New Hope Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 1 MOTION PLANNING CASE 87-2 APPLEBEE'S - Item 5 MOTION PLANNING CASE 87-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Item 6 Mr. Zeman said "no", they were surrounded by apartment buildings. The City Manager stated that notices had been sent to a 350' radius and there had been no response to the city. In response to a question from the Chairman, the petitioner said he anticipated no deliveries of supplies to the house. His wife usually picked up supplies herself. The Chairman asked what the petitioners would do if the business outgrew the present quarters. Mr. Zeman said he thought at that point, his wife would have to turn down business, if she got too busy. There was no intention to ever have any employees working in the shop. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 8431 Bass Lake Road, as requested in Planning Case 87-1, subject to their being no employees other than Mrs. Zeman, no exterior signing except a wall plaque near the door, and subject to an annual review by staff to determine that there was adequate space for parking. All present voted in favor. The petitioners in Planning Case 87-2 were not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table consideration of Planning Case 87-2 until the end of the meeting. All presentlvoted in favor. Mr. Tom Boettcher represented Autohaus. He stated he was requesting a Condtional Use Permit to allow him to conduct a leasing business at 7701-7709 42nd Avenue North, and to permit outside storage of some of the vehicles. He also would do repairs and service on the site for the cars that he leases. He presented an illustration of what he hopes to do to the building. There will be some storage of vehicles inside. Parking would be at the rear of the building, there are usually not more than three or four cars a day. Chairman Cameron asked about the repair service and whether this would involve only the leased cars. Mr. Boettcher said the work they do is mostly for their own customers. It is custom work. He has been in business for 14 years. The City Manager noted that his was a specialty type of business, it is much more than a "body shop" type of business. Mr. Boettcher stated he dealt with high line cars - mostly in the $15,000 to $25,000 range, mostly brand new cars. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Universal Color Lab would continue to utilize their present space. Mr. Boettcher said they would re-lease their space. He is now the owner of the building. Commissioner Anderson asked about possible sales. Mr. Boettcher said that most ~f the inventory would be inside the building. He catered to the custom leasing customer. He also had about 3/4 of an acre, fenced, at the rear of the site. There were trees around this area. He has no intention of selling cars in front of the lot. Commissioner Anderson said he was concerned that there not be a new and used car lot in front of the building. New Hope Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 2 He then questioned what Mr. Boettcher was going to do about the curb cuts and driveways. Mr. Boettcher stated it was his understanding the intention was to widen 42nd Avenue. They intend to sealcoat the area in front but will not install any additional signage until after they see what happens with the road. They have already contacted Nordquist Sign Company, and any signs would comply with city code as far as size and placement. In response to questions regarding the driveway, Mr. Boettcher said they were already sharing the driveway with Country Kitchen and this seems to work fine. The City Manager said that the present proposal called for them to continue sharing the driveway. Chairman Cameron noted that the City Planner had recommended a lot of upgrading for the site. He questioned why the city should hold off on requiring this upgrade at the present time. The City Manager said that what was being proposed was no different from the situation as it has existed for some time. Nothing had been required previously and nothing had changed with the new owner at this time. From that point of view the city is not recommending there be any major remodeling at this time, since the owner is planning to do this in the future. The Chairman noted that in the past, when a property changed hands, this was when the city required that a property be brought up to code. The Manager stated that there were no changes planned for right now. Commissioner Edwards commented that historically, the city has required the upgrading of a property when a Conditional Use was requested, or any other changes. The Chairman said he had to be convinced that the city should not insist on all of the upgrading at this time. Jeannine Dunn, the Administrative Assistant, stated that a lot of the changes hinged on how much land would be taken from the property for the roadway. It was felt it was difficult for the petitioner to improve the property until he knew where the roadway was going to be. Mr. Boettcher said that for right now he intended to paint the exterior, upgrade the building, resurface the blacktop where needed. He also would like to do something with the landscaping between his property and the Country Kitchen. The gas tanks at the rear of the property have already been removed, and he plans to re-do the fence. His plan is to eventually clean and bring everything up to code; he wants to improve the outside appearance of the property. He did not feel he could operate out of a building in its present condition. Chairman Cameron said that part .of his concern is about barriers between the two businesses. He was concerned about the traffic patterns. He questioned whether curbing would be installed when the area was re-surfaced. M~. Boettcher said the front area would be seal coated, and the entire rear area would have to be re-black 'topped, and the drainage problem corrected. He did not want his cars standing in water. Chairman Cameron said it was a hug~ lot, and he was concerned about the fact that the city was not requiring improvements at this time. The City Manager stated that there could be a time limit placed on the Conditional Use Permit. New Hope Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 3 The Chairman said he was concerned that the city would lose all control of the site, and the needed improvements. The Manager said there could either be a time limit on the Conditional Use Permit, or a bond could be required to guarantee that the improvements would be made. He said personally he would prefer to have the city work with the petitioner over the next six months until the plans were finalized. Commissioner Sonsin stated that he concurred with Chairman Cameron, he shared his concerns with the future of the site. He felt the property had some problem that needed to be addressed, i.e. the shared driveway, outside storage and the delay in construction until later in the year. He had concerns about the quality and condition of the property. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioner had seen the items that the City Planner ~ecommended for changes on the site. Mr. Boettcher said that he felt that he and the city had the same goals. However, he did not feel he should be held accountable for all of the past sins of the property and past owners. He felt if the city wanted to issue a six month Conditional Use Permit, he would be able to have everything done. The Chairman noted that he just wanted to be sure that the petitioner was aware of all of the city code requirements. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the city would know the County's final plans for the roadway in six months. He personally did not have any problems with giving the petitioner one year. Commissioner Sonsin said he personally would not want to wait that long. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that he would like to see all of the improvements to the front of the property completed in six months. Considerable discussion followed between the commissioners regarding the six month or one year restriction on the Conditional Use Permit, the correction of the drainage problem on the site, the re-paving of the rear of the lot, and the proposed landscaping for the site. Mr. Boettcher asked whether it was necessary to install curbing around the entire blacktopped area. A swale needs to be cut to correct the drainage problems. Chairman Cameron said that they should work with staff regarding the city code requirements. Commissioner Anderson asked how a one month delay in approving the request would affect the petitioner's plans. Mr. Boettcher said it would cost him about $10,000. He had submitted a rendering of his proppsals to the city staff. He did not know that the.blacktop needed replacing at that time. Chairman Cameron noted that the city staff should have informed him of the rules, and the restrictions of the city codes, and the need for the City Engineer to look at the proposed drainage. He felt the Commission could not give approval untll they were sure that the city's ordinances would be met. He added that the Commission could either table the request for one month, or give Mr. Boettcher a Conditional Use Permit for six months. Mr. Boettcher said he could live with the six months. He could come back and show the Commission what he had done, and what they plan to do. New Hope Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 4 Commissioners Sonsin and Anderson expressed concern about the petitioner's discovering in six months that the costs would be more; that he would be the one taking the risk. Mr. Boettcher said he would be willing to take a chance, he had already invested in excess of $400,000. The City Manager said that he was primarily responsible for encouraging the petitioner to take over this property. Based on the petitioner's other business, he felt he will do ten times better for the site than anything that had been there in the past. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission's questions were not a reflection of the petitioner's operation, but he felt out of fairness to other people who had appeared before the city they had to be concerned. Commissioner Edwards said that the Commission had yet to address the issue of rooftop equipment, trash and lighting. These need to be addressed and put within the time frame. Ms. Dunn said that the !petitioner had been provided with the Design and Review criteria. MOTION M~tion~ by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 7701-7709 42nd Avenue North, as requested in Planning Case 87-3, for a six month period, subject to there being no outside parking of vehicles for sale, and further subject to Mr. Boettcher appearing before the Planning Commission again to address the normal review items. All present voted in favor. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to remove Planning Case 86-12 from the table. All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE 86-12 Mr. Peter Obernessor and Mr. Paul COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN petitioner in Planning Case 86-12. APPROVAL - Item 3 Nietson represented the It was noted that they had met with Mr. Donahue, Ms. Dunn and Mr. Sandstad. They were requesting at this time that the case be tabled until the April Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Obernessor stated he felt there had not been sufficient communication with the city that there should have been. They will come before the Commission in April and request approval of their total sign plan, including the pylon sign as well as request for a variance for the Applebee's sign. In reference to the concerns expressed by the Commission regarding the canopy and the fact that Applebee's canopy was different from the main canopy. It was noted that it was their intention to conform to the style of the building. They don't have a formal agreement as yet, but should the tenant leave, it would be their intention to go back to the original canopy as planned. Mr. Nielson then addressed the concerns of the Commission regarding the durability of the vinyl canopy. He stated that the canopy was of the heaviest vinyl they could purchase. It is stitched consisting of individual pieces, and it would be a relatively simple procedure to repair it if necessary, on SiHe,~ sections could be removed for replacement if this should prove necessary. He stated he ~ad contacted the supplier of the canopy, J.W. Holm, and he had submitted a recommended maintenance schedule to insure a longer life for the canopy. The material is a dense vinyl, that will not crack or fade. In addition the material had been treated with an ultra violet inhibitor which would also increase the life of the fabric. Chairman Cameron stated that the city was concerned about the appearance of the canopy and -its durability for a ten year period. He wanted reassurance that it would not become tacky looking. New Hope Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Pa~e 5 MOTION PLANNING CASE 87-2 T.J. APPLEBEES Item 5 Mr. Obernessor stated that the most they could get was a five year warranty, but the canopy should last 8-10 years. They had no intention of letting the center drift back into the look it had before they took over. If they experienced difficulties with the canopy they will go.back to the manufacturer. It is their intention to keep it looking as good as it is today. It is the best vinyl they could purchase. The Chairman said he would accept that. Commissioner Anderson said his concern was that the paint would fade and the original canopy,would not match a replaced area. He confirmed that it was the petitioner's intention to replace the Applebee's canopy to match the original, should they leave. Mr. Obernessor said their concern was also to have their canopy be a type of signature for the center. They have built some strong language into the agreement with the tenant. He confirmed that the wall sign had already received approval from the Commission in February. He stated that the plans for the pylon sign had been submitted to staff and will be requested in April. The~entire sign plan will be presented at that time. Chairman Cameron asked whether they felt the vinyl could stand up to mischievous kids. Mr. Nielson said it could be cut, if they were determined, but it could also be sewn. It is the same as a metal sign that could be dented. If it were damaged too heavily, the section could be removed and replaced. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to recommend t ?~ing Planning Case 86-12 until the meeting in April. All pre~ent voted in favor. Mr. Rust represented Applebee's in Planning Case 87-2 Chairman Cameron said that it was not necessary for him to go back to "ground zero" on this case, but only to address the issues of concer~ from the meeting in February. They were the trash enclosure, the fence, the landscaping and the need for concrete curbs. Mr. Rust said that he believed they had addressed all of these issues. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there will now be concrete curbing around the entire south and west sides; that the fence has been eliminated due to the decision to not have outside dining; that the trash enclosure will be of concrete block, with a stucco finish, with a 16" wooden band that would match the door to the enclosure; and that a landscape plan had been submitted that conformed to the guidelines of the city. He further confirmed that the trash enclosure would back a distance from the building. Discussion then covered the type Of landscaping that will be provided. The owner had decided not to have outside dinning, and t~e door at the west side will be only for emergency use. The landscaping would be visible from the west end of the greenhouse. In response to a question about the possibility of sprinklering the landscaped area, Mr. Rust said that this had not proven to be necessary in their other locations. The plant materials seem to be doing well. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the city requirgd a bond to guarantee the landscaping. It was noted that the city did require a one year bond. Discussion continued regarding the advisability of spinklering the green area. New Hope Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 6 MOTION DESIGN AND REVIEW Item 7 CODES AND STANDARDS Item 8 APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT. ES Item 9 REVIEWAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES - Item 10 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the possibility of a truck blocking the trash area interfering with the delivery area drive. He also asked what time of day deliveries were received. Mr. Rust said they were usually in the morning. Commissioner Gundershaug wondered if they could limit the pick-up times of the trash. The City Manager said that residential hours are restricted, but that in the commercial areas there were no city restrictions. Commissioner Gundershaug said his concern was that trash pickup not occur at the same time as food deliveries were being made. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the police or fire had expressed any concerns about getting into the site. The City Manager said they had not. Discussion then held about the access between the two centers and whether there will still be access between the two. The City Manager stated that an agreement 'has recently been finalized between the owners of the two centers. He added that the area behind the U.S. Swim and Fitness complex has been designed to provide one way traffic around the site. In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the match of the two canopies, it was noted that they will be the same height from the ground; although the height will differ. There will also be a three foot break between the two canopies. Commissioner Anderson stated that he was pleased with what Applebees had presented to the Commission. Commissioner Sonsin questioned whether the other merchants will be affected by the trash area for Applebee's and whether their deliveries will be hindered. Mr. Rust stated that is a loading area all along the entire rest of the west side of the building. The City Manager stated that this was not a unique situation. A 40' truck could block off deliveries; it is everybody's problem. Mr. Rust stated that their delivery trucks were not typically as large as a 40' truck. Motion by -commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of Planning Case 87-2, including the installation of concrete curbs, complete plans for the trash enclosure, the landscape plan as presented March 3, 1987, and approving the elimination of the fence as originally proposed. All present voted in favor. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The Planning Commission minutes were accepted as corrected. The Council Minutes were reviewed. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commis'sion March 3, 1987 Page 7 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting April 7, 1987 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 7, 1987, at the City Hall, 44~1 Xylon Avenue North. Roll Call Planning Case 87-12 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Oja Absent: Lutts, Gundershaug Chairman Cameron informed the citizens present that Planning Case 87-12 had been temporarily withdrawn from consideration. He stated that when this case is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission, the citizens will receive another notice of public hearing. Planning Case 87-4 Mr. Dean Stanton represented the petitioner in Planning Case Request for Preliminary 87-4. He stated they were requesting approval of a preliminary Plat Approval plat, to allow them to have zero lot line properties. This would Item 3 allow each lot to be sold individually. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, he stated that his father was the owner of one lot, and he owned the other. Commissioner Anderson noted that the concerns of this lot split would be the utility and drainage easements on the north, and the utility easements on the east, south and west sides of the property. Ms. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant, stated that these easements currently exist on the property. The surveyor had made an error in not indicating them on the plan. They must be shown on the final plat. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that it was not the petitioner's intent to remove the easements from the property. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, 'recommending approval of the preliminary plat at 9201-92G5 30th Avenue North, as requested in Planning Case 87-4, subject to the easements being noted on the final plat prior to consideration by the City Council. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 87-5 Comprehensive Sign Plan Request Item 4 Mr. Jay volker stated he was representing the petitioner Steven Hendrickson, in Planning Case 87-5. They were requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan for the property at 5600-5604 Winnetka Avenue North. There are two separate businesses at that site. The signs are not unusual, and conform to the city code. The plan had been reviewed with the Building Official. The previous sign has been removed. There will be one pylon sign and a wall sign for each business. The pylon sign will be basically where the former sign had been located, but farther back from the corner so that it will not interfere with the sight line on the corner. The Sparks Tune-up sign will be internally lit and the Midas sign will be externally lit. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that the proposed lighting of the signs was permitted by code. It was further noted that there would be exterior lights on the building, but what type had not as yet been determined. They will not blink or flash. There was no one present in regard to this case. Page 1 Motion Planning Case 87-7 Preliminary Plat Approval Item 4 Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to recommend approval of the comprehensive sign plan as p~oposed for 5600-5604 Winnetka, in Planning Case 87-5. All present voted in favor. Mrs. Oftelie, the petitioner in Planning Case 87-7, stated they were requesting approval of the preliminary plat to allow them to remove the existing house on the property, and divide the lot into two parcels. Two new dwellings will then be built on the site. She added that she had been consulting with the Building Official and there was sufficient space to create two lots on the property. It is buildable from the city's point of view. Ms. Dunn stated that the request for the Planning Commission to waive approval of the final plat was a typical request. It was normal procedure for the final plat to go straight to the Council for approval. Commissioner Oja asked whether there might be a chance that after the petitioner built their home, they might decide not to build on the other lot. Mrs. Oftelie said no, it was a definite plan, they needed to sell the lot. The whole proposal went together, they could not build a new house, unless they sold the lot. Mr. Wavenak, 4632 Gettysburg, raised the question of what this division would do to the lot, and to the neighborhood. It was his opinion that the grade of the lot was too steep to allow two lots on the site and that the lots would not be buildable. He thought perhaps the City Engineer should take a look at this proposal. The grade rose 9 feet in about 11 feet. He also expressed concern about the trees having to be removed from the property. He was concerned with the steep grade on the north end of the lot. Roger Rubin, 4624 Gettysburg, stated that his concern was what the time frame for the construction was. He had recently received notice that the street would be resurfaced, and he did not want to pay for street improvements, only to have it destroyed by new construction on that site. Mr. Wavenak asked whether there was adequate sewer and water available to both lots. Chairman Cameron replied that there was. Lloyd Wasnick said he lived across the street from the lot in question. He had no objections to this proposal, and thought the lot was large enough for two lots. He was interested in what they planned to do with the site, where the structures would be located, etc. Chairman Cameron noted that the Planning Commission's concern was only with the platting of the property, not the actual construction. Mr. Wavenak asked who was the head of the planning staff. Chairman Cameron stated he could speak to Jeannine Dunn or Doug Sandstad. Commissioner Sonsin confirmed that the existing structure would be torn down. Ms. Dunn stated it would be demolished before the final plat was approved. It is located on both of the proposed new lots. Discussion followed regarding the lot, the trees on the lot, and when the petitioner intended to begin construction. Mrs. Oftelie said that the present plan is for the builder to construct both dwellings at approximately the same time. She noted that they would probably be changing some of the elevation, to make it more uniform. New Hope Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1987 Motion Planning Case 87-8 Comprehensive Sign Approval Motion Planning Case 87-9 Construction Approval Request Item 8 Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Oja, recommending approval of the preliminary plat at 4511 Gettysburg Avenue North, as requested in Planning Case 87-7, and waiving the need for Planning Commission to approve the final plat. All present voted in favor. It was noted that the petitioner was not yet in attendance in Planning Case 87-8. Ms. Dunn stated that cases 87-8 and 87-6 should be considered togther. The Chairman asked why they had not been combined as they were for the same property. It was noted that the Applebee's application had been submitted prior to 87-8. Motion by Comissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, to table Planning Cases 87-8 and 87-6 until the end of the meeting. All present voted in favor. Dan Ilten represented the petitioner Bruce Paddock in Planning Case 87-9. He stated they were requesting construction approval for an addition to the rear of the existing building. He noted that the site is bordered on three sides by industrial development. The front faces single family development. The addition will be basically warehousing, and will improve production conditions on the inside. The addition will be approximately 8800 square feet. Chairman Cameron asked whether they planned to change any of the landscaping. The answer was "no" they felt the landscaping was pretty much maximized at the present time. The green area wraps around the building, and this will remain. The existing landscaping will remain. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that they were requesting no variances. Mr. Ilten said they were requesting that they not provide all of the proposed parking at this time, but keep it in reserve, should the city determine that it is needed. Any rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building, and there will be no change in the width of the driving aisles, the primary entrance will be moved to get the major trucks out of the general traffic and parking area. The driving aisles will be 24 feet in width. Discussion followed regarding the type of curb. It will be continuous curbing, with rip-rap on the far west side to provide drainage. The parking stalls will be striped, and there will be two additional lights on the exterior of the addition. Outside storage will be screened and have doors. Lengthy discussion held between the Commissioners and Mr. Paddock concerning the landscaping. Concensus of the Comissioners was that there needed to be more building, Mr. Paddock agreed to provide six more evergreen trees at the northeast corner of the building. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that snow would be stored in the surplus parking area, and if this space was required for additional parking, that the snow would be removed from the site. It was also confirmed that the doors of the trash enclosure would close. Discussion then covered outside storage, and whether empty chemical drums were stored outside the building. New Hope Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1987 Page 3 Motion Mr. Paddock said that since shortly after they moved into the building, when the city Fire Marshal had expressed concerns, they had been storing the empty drums inside the building until such time as they could be hauled from the site. Chairman.Cameron confirmed that before this proposal went before the City Council, the additional six trees would be added to the site plan. There was no one present in regard to this case. It was noted that complete plans for the trash enclosure should also be provided before this proposal went to City Council. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the construction at 3101 Lousianna, as requested in Planning Case 87-9, contingent upon the addition of six Spruce trees at the northeast corner being added to the plan, and detailed plans for the trash enclosure provided, prior to presentation to the City Council. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 87-10 Mr. Jon Monson represented the petitioner in Planning Case Concept and Development 87-10. He stated they were requesting concept and development Stage ~pproval stage approval for an I-1 PUD. They were also requesting a text Item 9 amendment of 4.144(11) (a-l) of the City Code which deals with fire protection requirements. Narratives of their request were distributed to the Planning Commission. He stated that they were requesting approval for a multi-structure plan on a single parcel of land. In this development they wish to use the flexibility of the PUD. They are also requesting a text amendment to the city code which would allow them to protect the property from fire in a manner other than that which is required by city code. The site is an oddly shaped parcel, with an unresolved storm water problem adjacent to the railroad tracks. They would provide a low rise development, which would be intensely landscaped. It is a relatively passive development. Their business name is Minikada Mini-Storage. They are requesting a variance to allow only 20% green space on the site. The development will be a combination of office/warehousing and mini storage. They propose a typical mini storage sytem, but also an incubator facility. This facility would accommodate the small business that does not need a lot of space. This use would be at the north end of the site. Parking and access points rim the property. They will provide an office/residence for the mini storage and there will be someone on site at all times. John Johnson, Consulting Engineer with Merrila and Associates next addressed the Commission. Referring to the staff report, he addressed the issues. In regard to the 20% green space he noted that they plan intense landscaping where it would be most visible. He believed that the plan presented offers a very minor compromise to the easements required by city code. There will be covered driveways which will partially solve the snow removal problem. Typically, snow will be removed from the site. Parking stalls will be 9' x 20' and the driveways will meet the code requirements. They have taken the standard fire truck turning radius in providing the 30 foot turning radius. The building has four fronts with loading docks screened from all sides. There will be 8' x 10' overhead garage doors, and there is also provision for larger vehicles. Fire hydrant placing meets city requirements. In regard to the caretaker's apartment, if necessary they could move the building over if the city does not believe the easement is adequate. They have met with Hennepin County in attempting to solve the drainage problem. They believe that 4 cubic feet/second provides an adequate solution to the drainage from the site. There will be trash enclosures for each building in the area next to the loading docks where a standard 3' x 6' dumpster could be installed and enclosed. New Hope Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 7, 1987 They request~ that the Planning Commission assist them with moving this ~m~lan forward by recommending~approval with any contingencies~eded. It was confirm~d that there were both a text amendment to be approved, and c~nsideration of the PUD proposal. Chairman Came~q~n stated that a PUD is supposed to be a trade off between the d~loper and the city. A PUD does provide for total development a~'~ for some tradeoffs. The developer could not just ask the city ~s~ignore the ordinances of the city. Chairman Cameq~o!n then asked whether the City Engineer was satisfied wit~he drainage plan. Ms. Dunn state,hat the Engineer had not been satisfied with the information l~had received and did not feel that the drainage plan was suff~ent to accomodate a five year storm. Mr. Monson r~rt.ed that he had spoken to Mr. Hanson on the telephone on ~sday. It is true they had not been able to substantiate s~heir position but he felt following their verbal communication~a~r. Hanson was comfortable with it. Chairman Came~f~n stated that speaking only for himself, there were so many ~esolved issues in this plan that there was no way he would give h~Dncept approval at this time. There were just too many questions~a~'~ Lengthy: discusT~?ion followed between the Commissioners and the petitioners r~3~rding the 20% proposed green space and whether the intense la~fdscaping could make up for the smaller percentage; the possibilit~¥ of building only one building, but of a multi-level d~a/gn; whether the city would prefer a multi-level facility to ~ low impact development with less landscaping, but of an intens~mount around the perimeter; and the need for access to thin,mini-storage buildings both for vehicles and emergency vehia~les. David Licht, D~he city's Planning Consultant noted if the Commission approves the concept and development plan for the proposed PUD, ?kt~ would not come before them again. He added that building desig~3standards were things the city felt very strongly about. In te~b~ of a tradeoff for the lesser green space, he did not feel ther~as any. It was the Planner's position that there were enough ~:~sues of concern that the proposal should not proceed at th'~s~ime. In regard to t~re text amendment, it was felt this should be reviewed by th~ire Marshal and the public safety people prior to any offici~ action being taken on the change. Basically staff and th~t~ applicant would have to get together before this proposa~ coul~e considered. Chairmah Came~3fn~ expressed concern about the traffic patterns and truck manueve~t~hility. Commissioner ~4~ards stated he had real concerns about the need for 35%~ gre~frD~pace, the parking in front of the building, the proposa~ · to ]p~t' the tenants work out any parking difficulties, the turning radius for trucks and emergency vehicles, as well as questions, abo~the building itself. He stated that he admired the creative d~ign of the building, but felt it would become immediately o~s~?~ete. Mr. MonSon st~tre~ they were talking about a different type of market, that iTs~s yet untapped that would like to see this type of building i~n incubator area. Comission~r EdTW~rds said it was not the site, but the functional obsolescence, ,?~sthetics not withstanding, that concerned him. He asked whe~er a full sized moving van could manuever in the driving aisles~J! Mr. Johnson s~ that standard truck templates were used in the design. 'e'~ ~ew Hope ~Planni~g Commission Minutes April 7, 1987 Motion Motion Discussion continued regarding the concerns of the Commission regarding the proposal and the feeling that they were requesting too much development for that site. Commissioner Oja said she would like to see a plan that met the city ordinances. Commissioner Friedrich stated he felt they must provide the 35% green space, and that he was also concerned about the truck traffic and felt the site would be over-built. Commissioner Sonsin said he agreed and felt that the exchange between petitioners had been more of an There are issues to be resolved. with the previous statements the Commissioners and the argument than a "listening". Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the dock area, especially in regard to what the property would have in ten years. Another issue of concern is the general movement of traffic and the need for emergency vehicles to gain access to the area. Discussion was then held about the proposed text change, and the petitioner's desire to provide a fire alarm system, instead of a sprinkler system. The proposed alarm system which would be keyed into the security system. They feel the system proposed would avoid a greater problem, which is water damage, when a conventional sprinkler system is installed. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Monson said that only multi-level facilities in their other locations are sprinklered. Discussion continued about the text change, the amount of time involved in a text change, as well as the number of people who must review such a code change. It was noted by the petitioner that it had been suggested by city staff that they request a text amendment. Chairman Cameron noted that the petitioners had met with the Design and Review on March 25, but that staff/commission had still not seen any revised plans. Mr. Monson said they had been advised by staff to approach the Commission with their proposal. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission could either act on the proposal at the present meeting or table consideration. Mr. Monson stated they had a contingent purchase agreement which requires that they close by May 1. It was their hope that we could have some answer before that date. They must make a decision. It was their desire to come up with the best plan. If its the Commission's desire to table, they would hope they could be before them again before the 1st of May. Chairman Cameron said that would be impossible. Ms. Dunn said that a special meeting could be requested. Commissioner Anderson noted that they could meet with Design and Review again. Discussion continued about the possibility of the petitioner receiving an extension of his purchase agreement, and whether or not the petitioner wished the Commission to deny the proposal and pass it on to Council. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich, tabling Planning Case 87-1~ until the meeting in May. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Oja, to remove Planning Cases 87-8 and 87-6 from the table. All present voted in favor. New Hope Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1987 Planning Case 87-8 Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval Item 6 Motion Planning Case 87-6 Variance in number of Signs Allowed Item 7 Mr. Peter Obernesser represented the U.S. Swim and Fitness Partnership, the petitioner in Planning Case 87-8. He stated they were requesting approval of an amendment to the sign plan previously approved, including the pylon sign. The basic space is 20' x 20'. They were requesting three signs for U.S. Swim and Fitness, six for Blockbuster Video including two neon signs for the video store. Leasing of the video space is dependent upon their ability to use neon signs. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the Commission was being asked to consider two amendments to the total comprehensive sign plan--the extra signs for the video store and U.S. Swim and Fitness and the variance for Applebee's second sign. The pylon sign will be basically the same, with cosmetic changes and the elimination of the individual names on the sign. The wood on the sign will also be eliminated. U.S. Swim and Fitness is asking for one additional sign and the addition of some lettering on the canopy space. The wall sign was previously approved. The video store is requesting six signs, two of which would be exterior neon signs. Discussion regarding interpretation of the ordinance and the concern of prospective lessees that limiting their signage would create the image that the space was unoccupied. Commissioner Sonsin questioned why Blockbuster Video needs six signs, when U.S. Swim and Fitness, a much larger tenant, requested three signs and Applebee's, another large tenant needs only two. He added that he felt six signs was overkill, and questioned whether this much signage might not intimidate the smaller tenants. Mr. Obernesser stated that almost everyone that has approached him regarding renting space wants their own signs, and preferably neon signs. He did not think it would look as bad as it looks on paper. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Sonsin, recommending approval of the amendment to the comprehensive sign plan for U.S. Swim and Fitness to include two signs for U.S. Swim and Fitness and two signs for Blockbuster Video, specifically denying the request for two additional neon signs for Blockbuster Video. All present voted in favor. Ms. Dunn noted that staff would like a recommendation from the Commission that the city review the sign ordinance particularily as it applies to the use of neon. The Chairman said he thought this would be a good charge for the Codes and Standards Committee. Mr. Dan Strange represented Applebee's in Planning Case 87-6. He stated that he was present to discuss the last portion of the comprehensive sign plan for the center. They are requesting a second sign on the west side of the space. It would be identical to the sign on the front. They are requesting the sign because they have also upgraded the sign on the front. They will install stucco and awnings on the west side also. The sign on the front of the building had been reviewed before. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the two signs are the standard type for their business. He noted that the different canopy and the break in the canopy had been previously approved by the Commission. Note was made that there is an agreement with the center requiring the tenant to replace the oriqina~ awning in the event that Applebees moves out of the center. Ms. Dunn said this is included in the PUD agreement, and requires the owner to restore to the original. New Hope Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1987 Page 7 Motion Design and Review Item 10 Codes and Standards Item 11 Ordinance 87-2, Request for Approval Item 12 Motion Minor Variance Ord. Approval Request Item 13 Minutes from Past Meeting Reviewed Items 14 - 17 Comments Adjournment Discussion followed about the type of signs and whether they are neon or not. Mr. Jack Lawrence of Signcrafters stated that the signs proposed are of a gaseious tube, and are permitted by city code for the exterior of the building. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the amendment to the sign plan to allow two signs for Applebee's as requested in Planning Case 87-6. All present voted in favor. Design and Review held one meeting in March. There was no report from Codes and Standards. The Commission then reviewed the definition of a restaurant as drawn up by the City Attorney. Mr. Licht stated that the intention was to clarify what businesses could qualify for a wine, liquor or beer license. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending "restaurant" as presented in favor. Anderson, second by Commissioner approval of the definition of to the Commission. All present voted Discussion then covered the need for a definition of minor variance. It had been suggested in 1985 that there be a separate definition. The proposal would then be that a minor variance would not have to appear before the Planning Commission but could proceed straight to the City Council. Mr. Licht stated that this had been thoroughly reviewed by the Commission in 1985 and at the Commission's recommendation, there had been specific reference made to sideyard variances. For some reason parts of the recommendation were included in the ordinance and parts were omitted. This action is intended to re-insert the material into the ordinance. Chairman Cameron referred this issue to the Codes and Standards Committee for review. Ms. Dunn reviewed the minutes of past meetings for the Commission. Chairman Cameron appointed Commissioner 0ja Review Committee and Commissioner Sonsin Standards Committee. to the Design and to the Codes and Discussion then held on a work session for the Commission and perhaps the Council. The meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. on April 28. The City Council will be invited if they wish to attend. Mr. Licht stated that he would send out an agenda for the session. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~o¥~e Boeddeker, Secretary ~4ew Hope Planning Commission ~inutes April 7, 1987 Page 9 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Comission Minutes Special Session April 28, 1987 Call to Order A Special Session of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 28, 1987. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Anderson, Cameron, Edwards, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Lutts, Oja, Sonsin Underutilized Parcels Commissioner Anderson introduced the first item on the agenda, a and Vacant Land Study discussion of the vacant land study and underutilized parcels. He Item 1 stated that the vacant land study was near completion, and pending revisions it will be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. David Licht, Northwest Associated Consultants, discussed the City's existing land use plan and indicated that the implementa- tion of the vacant land study could result in changes to the Com- prehensive Plan which was adopted in 1979. Mr. Licht stated that an extension of the vacant land study is an evaluation or study of underutilized parcels. Chairman Cameron questioned the definition of an underutilized parcel. Mr. Licht responded that criteria for an underutilized parcel study could involve comparison of assessed market value, consider- ation of blighted property, conformance with the City Code, and a comparison of the assessed land value in relationship to the assessed building value. Commissioner Anderson indicated that he is interested in target- ing this study to the West Broadway area, the Bass Lake Road area, and commercial properties with a B-3 ."Auto-oriented Business District" use. Commissioner Edwards indicated that the Medicine Lake Road area should also be considered. The Commission requested that a letter to the City Council be drafted defining the parameters and purpose of the study. Sign Ordinance Review The Administrative Assistant introduced the second item on the Item 2 agenda - Sign Ordinance Review. Ms. Dunn indicated that the Planning Commission had directed staff to study the neon sign portion of the ordinance. Staff is also studying temporary sign- age, comprehensive sign plans, and variances to the existing code. Mr. Allan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, explained that planners were in the process of formlulating options to the existing sign code. Those options will first be presented to the' Codes and Standards Committee, and will be before the full Commis- sion in June 1987. 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Update Item 3 The Administrative Assistant presented an update on the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment update. Ms. Dunn informed the Commission that since the adoption of the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) had established an implementation plan which is consistent with the recommendations of the study. Ms. Dunn informed the Commission that the HRA had approved a pur- chase agreement of the Sinclair Site. The HRA had reviewed pro- posals from McDonalds, Pizza Hut, and OAM Partnership to develop the site. New Hope Planning Commission April 28, 1987 Minnegasco Site Analysis Item 4 Adjournment Commissioner Anderson questioned if the HRA had selected a developer. Ms. Dunn responded that the HRA had not selected a developer and would consider several criteria in determining the proper re- developoment of the site. Those criteria are site impact, feasibility of the acquisition, tax increment generation, and compatibilitY with surrounding uses. Ms. Dunn informed the Commission that the HRA had initiated the acquisition of parcels between Quebec and Nevada for the road re- construction project. She indicated the current focus of the acquisition and redevelopment is the properties on the north side of 42nd Avenue. Allan Brixius was recognized and presented information on the re- development of the Minnegasco property. Mr. Brixius informed the Commission that the property is currently zoned I-1 and I-2. Mr. Brixius presented two possible redevelopment options. One option is to maintain the current zoning and to coordinate the development of the site with the property located at 3920 Winnetka Avenue North. The second option was to rezone the property for multi-family residential. The Commission expressed concern about the compatible land use of multi-family residential. Mr. Brixius informed the Commission that he will make revisions the two options for incorporation into the Vacant Land Study. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, New Hope Planning Commission ADrit2~, !987 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting May 5, 1987 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 5, 1987, at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Absent: Lutts Planning Case 87-10 In regard to Planning Case 87-10, Ms. Dunn stated that the Concept and Development petitioners had requested that the case be tabled until the June Planning Stage Approval Commission meeting. At that time they may request that Planning Case Item 3 87-10 be withdrawn, and may submit a new request. Motion Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards to table Planning Case 87-10 until the meeting of June. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 87-11 In Planning Case 87-11, Ms. Dunn stated that staff had received a Request for Setback request from Mr. and Mrs. Kollin requesting that this case be tabled Variance until the June meeting. She added that there had been a number of Item 4 telephone calls from citizens expressing concerns about this case. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 87-11 until the June Planning Commission meeting. All present voted in favor. Design and Review Item 5 Codes and Standards Item 6 Underutilized Property Study Item 7 Motion Approval of Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 HRA and City Council Minutes Reviewed Item 10 Comments Item 11 Adjournment Design and Review held one meeting in April. Ms. Dunn noted that the Building official had met with representatives of Northridge Care Center in regard to expanding their parking lot. It had been suggested that more trees and landscaping be added to the site. This will hopefully diminish the street parking problem in that area. Technically, this change, does not require an appearance before the Planning Commission as this expansion had been approved originally, if the need arose. Codes and Standards held one meeting, the work session in April. 'Con- census was it was a very worthwhile meeting. Commissioner Anderson noted that there was another meeti6g of this Committee yet to be scheduled. Discussion then was held regarding the underutilized property study study that had been distributed by Ms. Dunn. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Sonsin, to recommend acceptance of this report and forward it to the City Council for action in July. All present voted in favor. The Planning Commission minutes of April 7, and April 28, were approved as printed. The minutes of the HRA and the City Council were reviewed. Commissioner Anderson complimented Ms. Dunn on the improved Commis- sioner packets. Ms. Dunn presented a site plan of the proposed Crystal project at 36th and Winnetka for the Commissioner's information. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker, Secretary CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Comission Minutes Special Session April 28, 1987 Call to Order Roll Call A Special Session of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 28, 1987. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 p.m. Present: Anderson, Cameron, Edwards, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Lutts, Oja, Sonsin Underutilized Parcels Commissioner Anderson introduced the first item on the agenda, a and Vacant Land Study discussion of the vacant land study and underutilized parcels. He Item 1 stated that the vacant land study was near completion, and pending revisions it will be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. David Licht, Northwest Associated Consultants, discussed the City's existing land use plan and indicated that the implementa- tion of the vacant land study could result in changes to the Com- prehensive Plan which was adopted in 1979. Mr. Licht stated that an extension of the vacant land study is an evaluation or study of underutilized parcels. Chairman Cameron questioned the definition of an underutilized parcel. Mr. Licht responded that criteria for an underutilized parcel study could involve comparison of assessed market value, consider- ation of blighted property, conformance with the City Code, and a comparison of the assessed land value in relationship to the assessed building value. Commissioner Anderson indicated'that he is interested in target- ing this study to the West Broadway area, the Bass Lake Road area, and commercial properties with a B-3 ."Auto-oriented Business District" use. Commissioner Edwards indicated that the Medicine Lake Road area should also be considered. The Commission requested that a letter to the City Council be drafted defining the parameters and purpose of the study. Sign Ordinance Review The Administrative Assistant introduced the second item on the Item 2 agenda - Sign Ordinance Review. Ms. Dunn indicated that the Planning Commission had directed staff to study the neon sign portion of the ordinance. Staff is also studying temporary sign- age, comprehensive sign plans, and variances to the existing code. Mr. Allan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, explained that planners were in the process of formlulating options to the existing sign code. Those options will first be presented to the Codes and Standards Committee, and will be before the full Commis- sion in June 1987. 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Update Item 3 The Administrative Assistant presented an update on the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment update. Ms. Dunn informed the Commission that since the adoption of the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) had established an implementation plan which is consistent with the recommendations of the study. Ms. Dunn informed the Commission that the HRA had approved a pur- chase agreement of the Sinclair Site. The HRA had reviewed pro- posals from McDonalds, Pizza Hut, and OAM Partnership to develop the site. New Hope Planning Commission April 28, 1987 Minnegasco Site Analysis Item 4 Adjournment Commissioner Anderson questioned if the HRA had selected a developer. Ms. Dunn responded that the HRA had not selected a developer and would consider several criteria in determining the proper re- developoment of the site. Those criteria are site impact, feasibility of the acquisition, tax increment generation, and compatibilitY with surrounding uses. Ms. Dunn informed the Commission that the HRA had initiated the acquisition of parcels between Quebec and Nevada for the road re- construction project. She indicated the current focus of the acquisition and redevelopment is the properties on the north side of 42nd Avenue. Allan Brixius was recognized and presented information on the re- development of the Minnegasco property. Mr. Brixius informed the Commission that the property is currently zoned I-1 and I-2. Mr. Brixius presented two possible redevelopment options. One option is to maintain the current zoning and to coordinate the development of the site with the property located at 3920 Winnetka Avenue North. The second option was to rezone the property for multi-family residential. The Commission expressed concern about the compatible land use of multi-family residential. Mr. Brixius informed the Commission that he will make revisions the two options for incorporation into the Vacant Land Study. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, M Jeannine Dunn New Hope Planning CommiSsion Aoril2~, ~987 CiTY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CO~4ISSION MINUTES June 2, 1987 Call To Order Roll Call Planning Case 87-11 Planning Case 87-13 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, June 2, 1987 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call was Taken: Present: Anderson, Lutts(arrived at 7:33 Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja(arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Absent: None p.m.), Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant,stated that the petitioners in Case 87-11 had requested that the case be tabled until the meeting of July 7, 1987. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug to table Planning Case 87-11 until the meeting of July 7, 1987. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich,Cameron, Edwards None Lutts, Oja Lonnie Grabham, represented the petitioner in Case 87-13. She stated that she was accompanied by Mr. Harry Lebow, owner of the building. They were requesting renewal of their existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a parent-child center in Apartment %3 at 8421 58th Avenue North. She noted that the center was sponsored by District %281. Co~missioner Lutts asked about the striping of the parking lot, which had been a condition of the approval for the center in 1986-877 Ms. Grabham stated that the target date for that re-striping had been changed to October 1, 1987 at the Council meeting. She added that she did wish the issue discussed at the present meeting, because if there were going to be a problem with the parking lot, she wanted to know this prior to signing a new lease for the 1987-88 school year. Con~nissioner Lutts said one problem had been the parking up close to the building and the need for curbs to prevent cars from being too close to the building, and creating a hazard with exhaust fumes. Ms. Grabham said she felt the commission/city should talk to Mr. Lebow about this problem. Chairman Cameron stated that the problem was not with the program, or the tenant, but with the owner of the building. He requested that Mr. Lebow come to the front and speak with the Commission. Mr. Lebow said he had been told last May to re-stripe the lot, but was then told to keep it the same way. He has had some of the blacktop sealed, and has just completed some landscaping and is now ready to do the re-striping. To his knowledge the striping will be done the same way as it now exists. Mr. Lebow said he was all set to do the re-striping in one week and there will be enough parking space for all of the buildings. Chairman Cameron asked about the curbing? Mr. Lebow asked why they needed curb? The cars park t~ long way, not toward the buildings. Last spring it had been talked about to move the curb and put the parking away from the buildings. He questioned how the snowplow would get near the building to remove the snow if there were curbs -- no one drives up to the buildings. Chairman Cameron asked what prevented cars from driving right up to the buildings? Mr. Lebow said they only parked five or ten minutes if they did that. If people park close to the buildings, they leave them a note. Chairman Cameron confirmed that at the present time the asphalt ran right building -- so cars could conceivably park right next to the buildings. Mr. Lebow said they did not allow this. up to the Chairman Cameron noted that they did not have 24 hour observance of the site. Mr. Lebow stated this had been talked about for three years -- if people parked by th~ buildings, the managers either left th~n a note or called the police. Chairman Cameron asked what the city's position on this curb issue was? Ms. Dunn stated that staff now felt that curbs should be installed -- cars observed by city inspectors parking next to the building. Chairman Cameron asked whether Mr. Lebowwas planning to install the curbs? Mr. Lebow said no. have been There was no one present in regard to this case. Con~issioner Lutts asked Ms. Grabham is the parent-child center had been going well? She said yes, felt it had been a real benefit for the families and as they worked as a referral agency. They are coxmitted to keeping the apartment program going. They would like to stay in this location. Mr. Lebow said he could not see the benefit of putting in curbing. He was also concerned about other construction no longer being "grandfathered in" if he made these changes. Ms. Dunn stated that the apartment is legally non conforming, and that if there were major changes made to the building, the owner would be required to bring the entire complex into full compliance with the Code. Mr. Lebow questioned how the snow plow could get up to the building if there were curbs installed. Coranissioner Gundershaug asked why they needed to get that close to the buildings? He could not see how installing curbs could ever be a problem to snow plowing. He as~'~ why the owner could not use four foot curbs, placed 15 feet away from the building they then could plow behind the curbing? Mr. Lebow asked about the other buildings, where the parking is parallel? Cor~issioner Gundershaug asked whether Mr. Lebow would have any objections to installing the four foot concrete curbs. Mr. Lebow said he could at the two buildings where the cars face the building. The cars are parked parallel on 58th Avenue. Cor~nissioner Gundershaug confirmed that Mr. Lebow was agreeing to install the four foot concrete bumpers. Mr. Lebow asked how the cars were supposed to get into the parking area, if the curbs were blocking the entrances? Cormmissioner Gundershaug said that the Cor~nission/City was concerned about cars being able to park too close to the buildings. Con~nissioner Edwards asked whether the petitioner could provide a detailed plan of the parking lot, showing the proposed striping, as well as the placement of the curbing, prior to the Council meeting? Ms. Dunn noted that the illustration in the Co~nission packets was a sketch that had been amended by city staff. City staff has not seen or reviewed the plan for re-striping that Mr. Lebow was now proposing. Discussion continued between Mr. Lebow and the Cormmissioners regarding the proposed striping layout, and where the curbs could be located. In response to a question from the corm~issioners, Ms. Grabham said that the parent-child center was located on the lower level, at their request, and that usually there were no more than six adults with accompanying children there at any one ti~, She added that she would be concerned if there were snow piled up four feet by windows during the winter. Discussion continued about the possibility of tabling this case for a month. Cormnissioner Anderson said it was his opinion that if the city were to allow the situation with the parking, and no curbing, to continue, it would be hazardous to the children. He could not support this Conditional Use Pemit. Planning Cor~nission, June 2, 1987, page two Motion Amendment to Motion Planning Case 87-14 Discussion continued regarding the deadline for re-signing a lease, and the need for the parking/curbing situation to be resolved. Chairman Cameron said one way would be to pass the case forward to Council with the provision that Mr. Lebow provide the city staff with a detailed plan, showing the exact striping layout, and where he will install the four foot curb bumpers, prior to the Council meeting. Mr. Lebow asked if the curbs had to be continuous or the barrier type? He felt it would be feasible to install curbs by two of the buildings. He asked whether he could put the curbs right up to the buildings? Chairman Cameron said that wherever he had the stripes (15 feet from the building) that is where the curbs would have to be, to stop the cars from getting too close to the building. Co~missioner Sonsin said that if the parking issue was not resolved prior to the case going to the City Council he could not support the CUP. He would want there to be a firm plan approved by the city staff before the case proceeded to Council. Coramissioner Lutts made a motion recor~nending approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 87-13, contingent upon the striping layout being approved by city staff, and also a plan showing where the concrete bumpers would be installed, prior to consideration by the City Council. Corm~issioner Gundershaug second. Co~nlissioner Oja asked if the Co~nission did not want to include a time deadline for the completion of the striping and curb installation? She felt the work should be done by a specific time. Con~nissioner Anderson said he would prefer that the case be held over until the July meeting. Co~r~issioner Oja amended the motion, stipulating that the parking lot striping and installation and placing of the curbing be completed in 30 days, with the petitioner submitting a detailed plan for the striping and curbs to the city staff prior to the Council meeting. Co~nissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Lutts, Sonsin, Frierich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Anderson Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: Lutts, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Voting against: Anderson Motion carried. Mrs. Sally Kolian, the petitioner in Case 87-14, stated that she was requesting a variance to allow her to install an air conditioner in her sideyard. This location is preferable because of the location of the furnace, and the fact that it would allow wiring to be run through an existing close, and not have to be on the exterior of the house. Commissioner Lutts asked why the unit could not ~ installed in the rearyard? Ms. Kolian said there were two rear entrances to the home, one from the family room and one from an area that was once an apartment but is now bedrooms for her children. She would also like to make the most use of her back yard. The location of the house on the lot would make it difficult to install the air conditioner in the rearyard. The air conditioner would not be visible from the road and could also be concealed by bushes or shrubs. She did not feel she wanted it to be fenced. '~ Chairman Cameron asked how close the neighbor's house would be to the air conditioning unit? Mrs. Kolian said she could only estimate. Her house is 15 feet from the lot line, then there is the neighbor's garage and a driveway and fence. She thought the rooms of the neighbor's house would be at least 20 feet from the lot line. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the neighbors had expressed no problem with the placement of the air conditioner. Planning Commission, June 2, 1987, page three Motion Planning Case 87-15 Motion Planning Case 87-16 There was no one present in regard to this case. Con~issioner Friedrich made a motion recc~mnending approval of the sideyard variance at 3231 Flag Court, as requested in Case 87-14. Con~nissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Lutts, Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Edwards Ms. Dunn distributed illustrations of what the petitioners in Case 87-15 proposed fo the front of their house. Mr. Larson stated that the reason for the variance request is that originally the measurements were off, when the house was constructed. Because of this, the front entrance goes right into the living room. There is just the single door. He also felt the addition would help for energy saving. He also felt it would dress up the front of the house. C~a~nissioner Sonsin asked what type of landscape plans the petitioner had, if had. C°m~issioner Sonsin noted that landscaping currently existed where the proposed addition would be located. Mr. Larson said he would have to move one of the arabovitae bushes, but he planned to keep the hedge. There would be a three foot door. Mr. Sonsin conm~ented that there Was also an extension in the front of the neighboring house. Ms. Dunn said she did not know if a variance had been granted for that extension. There have not been many frontyard variances granted in the City of New Hope. Comnissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the addition would match the existing house as far as material texture and color. Mr. Larson said he intended to re-side the entire house with vinyl siding so it will a. match, as well as the roof materials. Coranissioner Anderson noted that normally he didn't support this type of variance request, but he felt that in this particular case, given the curb aligr~nent of jthe roadway, he did not feel the addition would be a blight on the neighborhood. Chairman Cameron agreed with these cormnents. Con~nissioner Anderson made a motion recoranending approval of the frontyard variance at 5833 Meadow Lake Road, as requested in Case 87-15, contingent upon the exterior siding and roof materials match the house as far as texture and color. Cormnissioner Gundershaug second. ~' Voting in favor: Anderson, Voting against: None Motion carried. Lutts, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Ms. Dunn distributed site plans to the Co~nissi~ners for Case 87-16. Mr. John Monson represented the petitioner. He was accompanied by Mr. Steve Thatcher of Merilla and Associates. Mr. Monson stated they were requesting approval of a preliminary plat at 9401 Science Center Drive. It was a straight forward, plat, subdividing the property into three lots. Two of the lots are the same size, With the third lot being larger. The larger lot fronts on the County Road %18 service road. He stated he wished to address the concerns expressed in the staff report regarding this request. In regard to Item ~1, he said at the present'time all he could say was that the proposed use would fall within the industrial zoning ordinance criteria of the city. He anticipated it would all be in compliance, but there were no specific development plans at this time. Item #2, the storm sewer drainage issues had been addressed by the engineer. Thatcher could speak to this. Item %3, There would be no problem stubbing in water and sewer to the site, Planning Cor~nission, June 2, 1987, Page Four Motion Mr. Thatcher stated he had spoken to the city's engineer, Mark Hanson. The runoff from Lots 1, 2, and 3 will discharge in the County ~18 storm sewer. There will be on-site retention to accommodate the uses that will be on the site. The storm water at the southeast would run to the west. The properties will not drain on to theRosewood property. All of the water generated from these three parcels will be directed and drainage maintained, into the County system to the west. There is access proposed for the west and south to each of the parcels. Chairman Cameron questioned how they had arrived at the lot configurations? Mr. Momson stated they had looked at the entire parcel and had considered a number of different options. They felt this configuration would be the most marketable. Chairman Cameron asked whether they intended to market the lots themselves? He expressed concern about the small size of two of the lots. Mr. Monson stated that based on their market research, there was a demand for lots the sizes of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Chairman Cameron said that his concern was that once the plat was finalized, there could be problems. He was not convinced that the city needed any more small lots in the industrial zone. He questioned what could be developed on Lot 3 (800' x 80') other than a mini warehouse, which New Hope already had plenty of? Mt. Thatcher noted that there were several developments on long, low lots such as this proposed one, in the twin city area. Cor~aissioner Edwards said he had similar concerns. He added that there were alrealdy a number of lots in New Hope that did not seem to be marketable. He was concerned about this plat's viability. Chairman Cameron asked who owned the property, and whether they would be marketed immediately? Mr. Monson said the property was owned by GRR Investments. The Chairman then confirmed with staff that the requested waiver of final plat approval by the Planning Commission was a normal procedure. Ms. Dunn stated that in regard to the easements and drainage on this site, the City Engineer had recormnended that an easement be provided and maintained between the GRR property and the International Multifoods property. Cormnissioner Anderson confirmed that the Multifoods property did drain into the proposed plat. Mr. Monson said there was perimeter drainage. The petitioners have a private agreement with Multifoods which will facilitate the tying together of the drainage systems. Staff requested that this agreement document be submitted to staff for review. The City Manager stated that a private document was not as binding as a utility easement. He felt that this shared easement should be indicated on the plat map. Mr. Jim Thompson of Multifoods stated that he fglt the document Mr. Monson referred to was an agreement they had regarding drainage. There was a footing type of drain around the building. This water drains toward proposed Lot 3. They will move the drain to feed into the County storm sewer. The drain is already piped and there is a piece of paper agreeing to this. Ms. Dunn said that the City Engineer's concern had been that the area on Lot 3 and the general drainage be connected, but he had not been aware of an existing agreement regarding the drainage. ~' Chairman Cameron noted that this agreement should be a legal part of the propjerty. Ms. Dunn said this stipulation could be part of the final plat approval. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion reco~r~ending approval of the preliminary plat at 9401 Science Center Drive, as requested in Case 87-16, subject to the submission to the city of the easement agreement between GRR Investments and International Multifoods regarding the drainage from Lot 3, and reco~nending approval of the waiver of final plat approval by the Planning Co~nission. Con~nissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Abstain: Motion carried. Lutts, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Anderson Planning Cormlission, June 2,1987, Page Five Mr. Crandall stated he was requesting a rearyard variance to allow him to add a room addition to this property at 9120 61 1/2 Circle. The propOsed addition wil~ 14' x 22'. They have been residents since 1965 and wish to increase the size of the home in anticipation of the time when elderly parents will need to live with the family. He expected that the addition would cost around $15,000. On April 10, he had co~ to the city hall to request a variance for this addition. He had been told that a variance was not necessary as the plan seemed to be OK. On May 4, his contractor had come to the city hall to get the building permit and the permit had been denied because there had been an error in the original platting of the property. The lot had been drawn at 30 scale and the house at 40 scale. Unfortunately the company who had made this error was now out of business. Therefore, the lot is non conforming. The dwelling should not have been positioned on the lot as it had been. There are five homes on the circle. He, however, still wants the room addition. After the permit had been denied, he started the variance process. He had met with Doug Sandstad and had received both warnings and advice from him regarding the possibility of his receiving the requested variance. Chairman Cameron noted that he might have said "never". Mr. Crandall stated that he had stopped at the city offices on June 2, to drop off another document, and had been informed that the staff recorm~endation on this request had been for denial. However, he still wants the addition. Mr. Crandall then distributed pictures of his rearyard and house for the Co~missioners' review. Mr. Crandall stated that his neighbor to the north, Mr. Johnson, has stated he had no objections to the proposed addition. He did not see that there would be any problems to the east either. The nearest building would be 130' away from his addition. The property to the rear is really not utilized. He felt the addition as proposed would fit in perfectly, all exterior materials wc match the existing and the roof lines would be the same. The addition would not rea~. interfere with any of the other homeowners. He had staked out the proposed addition~ and asked his neighbors to look at it. None of them have any problems with the plan. If he were to build next to the long access, he would have to remove trees and it would cover the window, which he feels is necessary. He felt the addition would increase the marketability of the home in the future. In his opinion the 35' rearyard requirement worked a real hardship on him. Co~missoner Sonsin confirmed that Mr. Crandall was the original owner of the home, and that the house now is only 28' from the rear lot line. He felt the addition would bring them very close to the easement. Commissioner Sonsin asked whether he had looked at any options, Mr. Crandall said "no", the hip roof did not lend itself to other locations. He did not feel the house would be improved if he added on vertically. In response to questions regarding what he would do if the request were denied, Mr. Crandall stated he did not have an alternate plan. They wanted an addition that was open and airy. To build on to the home the long way would darken all the other rooms. ?- Discussion followed as to whether this addition would really increase the marketability of the home. Cor~issioner Edwards when asked directly, said the project was not something ~e would professionally recon%mend as improving marketability. He felt the addition would not return the dollars to the Crandalls they were going to invest. It will increase the value of the house, but probably not as much as they hope. He was concerned that the existing dining area would become just a hallway. He personally would be more in favor of another option. Discussion followed, with suggestions made to convert the garage into another room, as well as decreasing the size of the proposed addition. Mr. Crandall said he was against converting the garage because he did not feel this ty of remodeling ever looked like it should -- it always looked like a converted garag He would then have to get a variance for the driveway and build another garage. Planning Commission, June 2, 1987, Page Six Motion Design and Review Codes and Standards Minor Variances Motion Sign Ordinance Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the proposed addition would have a foundation, but no basement, only crawl space and that the materials would match the existing exterior. He asked whether the petitioner would consider shortening up the addition? Mr. Crandall said he could perhaps cut two or four feet from it, but he wanted it as large as possible -- he needed the space. Commissioner Anderson said that speaking only for himself, he might react more favorably to a smaller variance request. Mr. Crandall said to relocate the addition farther to the east, behind the garage would cover up the kitchen window, and they needed the light. Chairman Cameron said he was really bothered by this proosal, he would like to help the petitioner but felt it was too much. He asked whether the petitioner had considered purchasing some of his neighbor's lot. Mr. Crandall said this would make the project unfeasible. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how soon the petitioner wished completed, and whether a table would disrupt his plans? Mr. Crandall said his wife wanted the work done by July 1. Co~nissioner Edwards stated he would really like to have the other options and come back to the Commission. Mr. Crandall agreed to return to the July 7, meeting. to have the addition petitioner explore some Motion by Comnissioner Friedrich. second by Commissioner Gundershaug to table Case 87-17 until the meeting of July 7, 1987. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Anderson, Lutts, Sonsin,Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None There was no report from the Design and Review Con~ittee. Discussion was then held regarding the suggested change to the City Code as it refers to variances. As recommended, minor variances would by pass the Planning Commission and be considered only by the City Council. Applicants for minor variances would hae to submit applications accompanied by detailed written and graphic materials explaining the proposed change. The process would be directed by the City Manager, and a report and recomnendation would be presented to Council prior to the meeting. The Council and city staff would have the option of requesting additional information as needed. The Manager's report would be included as part of the permanent written record of the City Council. The applicant, or the applicant's representative would appear before the Council. Failure to appear, could result in rejection of the request. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Sonsin that the City Code be amended to include the provisions for the handling of minor variances. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Anderson, Lutts, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None The next issue under discussion was the sign ordinance and whether or not it should be revised to accommodate neon signs, include a "special events" section and the possibility of allowing an "administrative permit" to be issued by staff. Items of concern included the length of time that should be allowed for "special event prmotions", whether special consideration should be given to businesses that were involved in "national" promotions, and the need fdr guidelines to be followed by applicants and staff, and the need for a fee structure that would include a deposit to be held in escrow to give the city options in the event the "event" needed to be closed up. Also discussed was how long a "grand opening" celebration could be. Concensus of the Commission was that there needed to be written criteria for special events, grand opening, which would specify the amount of time the event could last, the number of times a year a given business could have a special event, and establishing a fee schedule. Applicants that did not meet the established criteria would have to appear before the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Planning Co~nission, June 2, 1987, Page Seven Satellite Dishes Parking Space Size Planning Commission HRA Minutes Council Minutes Adjournment The subject of allowing neon signs for businesses was the next discussion topic. Th~ have been requests from business people to neon signs in windows. Presently, t~ ordinance allows the neon type sign for purposes of identification on the exterior of a building. Concensus of the Co~mission seemed to be that neon could be allowed providing the neon signs were included as part of the overall allowed signage and where only for identification purposes, not for advertising. Such signs would also have to comply with the window sign portion of the code. Commissioner Edwards stated that he felt that the city needed to go back to strong enforcement of the sign ordinance. He did not think the city should increase the amount of allowable signage. He felt staff should more vigorously enforce the sign ordinance even before it were changed. Concensus of the Co~a~ission was that even though sign trends appeared to be changing, this did not necessarily m~an New Hope had to accor~aodate the trends, that the present sign ordinance had already been considerably "loosened up", and that there was a need for the treatment of '~lessage boards" to be reviewed, as well as the number of unauthorized message boards that were in the city. The issue of neon signs and the proposed Ordinance 87-5, was sent back to Cedes and Standards with a request for them to bring back specific recommendations to the Co~ission. It was noted that the present New Hope ordinance did not comply with Federal Law regarding satellite dishes and needed to be updated. This was sent back to Codes and Standards. Chairman Cameron stated that because of the late hour, the discussion of the parking stall size would be held at the meeting of July 7. Ms.Dunn stated that one reason for the item being on the agenda at this meeting was that staff had received a request from the New Hope Mall to review the potential for reduci, p.g the size of the parking stalls, to provide additional spaces at the mall. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of reducing the required width of parking stalls, whether or not it was an advisable alternative, the possibility that this issue could also affect the 42nd Avenue realignment because of the land that would be lost when the street was realigned, and whether or not New Hope's ordinance was n~re restrictive than surrounding communities. Concensus of the Con~ission was that space widths could be reduced by three inches, providing the driving aisle width remained the same. This issue was also referred back to Cedes and Standards. Planning Co~ission minutes were accepted as printed. The HRA minutes were reviewed. Council Minutes were reviewed. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent 'Et 10:12 p.m. Respectfully su~itted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary Planning Co~nission, June 2, 1987, Page Eight CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting July 7, 1987 7:30 P.M. City Hall CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 7, 1987 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Robert Gundershaug. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken. Present: Oja Absent: Anderson, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts, Cameron, Sons±n PLANNING CASE 87-11 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE The petitioner in Planning Case 87-11 was not in attendance. Ms. Dunn stated that the city had received a written request from~ the petitioners, Steven and Leslee Kollins, to withdraw the case from the agenda. MOTION Motion by Edwards, seconded by Oja to withdraw Planning Case 87-11 from the agenda. Voting in favor: all; absent: Lutts, Cameron, Sonsin. PLANNING CASE 87-17 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE The petitioner in Planning Case 87-17 was not in attendance. Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioners, James and Barbara Crandall, had requested that consideration of this request be tabled until the August Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Motion by Edwards~ seconded by Oja to table Planning Case 87-17 until the August 4, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: all; absent: Lutts, Cameron, Sonsin. PLANNING CASE 87-18 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE The petitioner in Planning Case 87-18 was not in attendance. MOTION Motion by Friedrich, seconded by Oja to table this case until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: New Hope Planning Commission Page 1 July 7, 1987 all; absent: Lutts, Cameron, So~ in. PLANNING CASE Mr. Scott Larkin represented the petitioners in 87-19 - REQUEST Planning Case 87-19. He stated they were seeking FOR CONSTRUCTION construction approval to build an office/warehouse APPROVAL on the property located at 5300 Boone Avenue North. Ms. Dunn distributed site plans to the commission. Mr. Larkin stated he was project manager for Opus Corporation. He stated that Opus Corporation is seeking approval for development totaling 70,000 square feet. There will be 52,000 feet of warehouse facility, and the other 18,000 feet will be production area with about 3600 feet of office space. The office will occupy the lower portion of the proposed building at the front of the site. The materials to be used will be insulated pre-cast concrete, with a raked finish. The office space will be at the west side of the site, facing Boone Avenue. They are proposing a light grey color for the building with burgundy accents and graphic. treatment around the windows. The windows will be grey tinted. Mr. Larkin continued on by saying that building's occupant, National Packaging, Inc., predicts a total occupancy of 35-70 people, including staff and visitors. They operate one shift, from 6:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The product is basically paper goods. There will be approximately six trucks on the site per day, two of which will be over-the-road trailers. In response to questions from Commissioner Oja, Mr. Larkin stated that the exterior lighting will consist of fixtures over the doors, such as visitor and employee parking, dock doors, emergency doors. Lighting in the parking area will consist of a pole mounted light in the middle, with a two-sided configuration. Commissioner Oja then asked about the fire hydrant locations. Mr. Larkin pointed out the proposed hydrant locations. Discussion followed about the increased landscaping as proposed since the Design and Review Committee meeting. Mr. Larkin stated they were proposing to increase the number of cranberry and juniper plantings around the office area, with some ~ New Hope Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 2 additional plantings along the 54th Street boulevard. They have added a few trees, and extended the evergreens. The plans also call for sod along the boulevard ratherthanthe originally proposed seed. All of the sodded areas will be irrigated. Commissioner Oja asked about the parking lot striping and the number of spaces that would be provided. Referring to PA-1 of the site plan, Mr. Larkin noted that there will be a maximum of 70 stalls provided in phase one. They have provided proof of parking space for a total of 139 stalls for possible expansion, if this is needed in the future. He re-stated that there are 35 employees of the company now, and the maximum expansion would perhaps be 70 in the future. The parking spaces are 9' x 19' for the employees, and 10' x 20' in the executive lot. In response to questions from Commissioner Oja, Mr. Larkin stated that they propose to use the berm and plantings to screen the trash area. It was noted by the Commissioners that City Code requires all exterior trash areas to be completely screened with fencing and a gate. Mr. Larkin added that there will be a compactor inside the building, which will feed directly to the dumpster. There should be no chance of trash escaping the proposed area, as the compactor containers have tops. Mr. Larkin confirmed that the trash area had to be completely fenced with a door. Commissioner required to specific area. Edwards noted confine the that this was also waste materials to a Commissioner Oja confirmed that rooftop equipment will be painted grey to match the building color. Commissioner Edwards asked variances being requested. if there were any Mr. Larkin said he was not applying for a variance, since he had been advised by staff that as long as New Hope Planning Commission Page 3 July 7, 1987 he provided future parking necessary at this time. space, it was not?-~ Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner was committing to the city that if a parking problem develops, they will provide additional parking in the area designated as proof of parking. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that all drive aisles would be blacktopped and surrounded with a continuous concrete curb. Commissioner Edwards continued on by emphasizing to the petitioner that the City has a very strict sign ordinance and he should be aware of its restrictions before any signs were installed. Commssioner Edwards stated that he felt the petitioners had done a nice job on the landscaping as proposed, but that he was still a little concerned with the amount of landscaping proposed for 54th Avenue, since it is facing a residential area. The Commissioner said he would like to see a few more trees on that side of the site. He asked whether the petitioners would be willing to add a few more trees on the north side of the building. He felt that 16 trees in 400+ feet was not very many/~ trees. Mr. Larkin said they were proposing nine evergreens, seven deciduous trees and some additinal lower growing bushes around the building to break up the building expanse. He did not think it would be possible to hide the fact that it was an office/warehouse building. Discussion continued between Mr. Larkin and the commissioners regarding the number of trees that might be desirable at the northeast corner of the site, toward the residential area. Mr. Larkin stated that if additional trees were one of the requirements of the commission's approval he would go back and put in more trees. Commissioner Edwards asked if a dozen additional trees was satisfactory. Mr. Larkin answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Edwards then noted that code required a minimum of 100 lineal feet of sodded area back from the street and that the petitioner was providing New Hope Planning Commission Page 4 July 7, 1987 only 75'. irrigated. This 100 feet of sod should also be Commissioner Anderson stated that it was opinion that a variance was needed for the parking. He added that he felt it was a variance that the Commission should approve. He added that he was very pleased with the petitioner's plans for the site, and felt the development was going to be an asset to the city. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the parking lot would be completely surfaced and surrounded by concrete curbing. There was no one present in regard to this case. MOTION Commissioner Oja made a motion recommending approval of Planning Case 87-19 with the stipulation that the exterior trash area be enclosed on all four sides, that there be 100 lineal feet of sod back from the lot lines, that there be an additional 12 trees installed toward the residential area on 54th Avenue, and a variance from required number of parking stalls. Commissioner Edwards seconded. Voting in favor: all; absent: Lutts, Cameron, Sonsin. Ms. Dunn requested that the petitioner provide a site plan to staff with these additions, prior to the Council Meeting on the 27th of July. PLANNING CASE 87-20 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The next case considered was Planning Case 87-20, Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation. Mr. Bredahl stated he had received a letter from the city regarding an extra business vehicle that had been parked at his home. He explained that this extra vehicle was there because an employee had retired. This job has now been filled and the vehicle will no longer be parked on his property. Mr. Bredahl said he had taken a petition around to his immediate neighbors, and no one from the 26 people he had spoken to had objected to his operating his business from his home. He submitted the petition that had been distributed to his neighbors to the Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how long Mr. Bredahl intended to operate out of his home. Mr. Bredahl said a maximum of six months, as he and New Hope Planning Commission Page 5 July 7, 1987 a partner have purchased land and were planning on~-~. building a facility on it for the business. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that Mr. Bredahl's immediate neighbors had not objected to his continuing to operate the business from his home. Mr. Bredahl, in response to questions, said that his employees did not leave their personal cars at his home during the day when they were working. There were no retail sales from his home. There was no one present to speak to this request. MOTION Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending the approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Planning Case 87-20 for a period not to exceed one year. The Conditional Use Permit will be non- renewable. Commissioner Friedrich seconded. Voting in favor: all; absent: Sonsin, Lutts, Cameron. Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 87-21 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. James Casey, the petitioner in Planning Case 87-21, stated that two and a half years ago he had installed an air conditioning unit on the side of his home. He had not been aware of the City Code against this at the time. He he hired a contractor to do the work. Unfortunately, this contractor is no longer in business. He was requesting the variance to allow him to keep the air conditioner where it is located. He stated that they have a walk-out rambler, with a finished room at the rear, where the unit would have to be installed if it were moved. The side where the air conditioning unit is located is against the neighbor's garage. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the air conditioning unit had been installed 2 1/2 years ago by a licensed plumber, who at the time had been working for Golden Valley Heating and Plumbing Company. Mr. Casey noted that the plumber had done the work on the weekend. Commissioner Anderson noted that this was the first case of this type to come before the Commission. He asked whether Mr. Casey had discussed this air conditioning unit and its location with the immediate neighbors. New Hope Planning Commission Page 6 July 7, 1987 MOTION Mr. Casey responded yes, they had accompanied them to the present meeting. He stated, in answer to questions, that he had not explored the possibility of moving the unit to another location at the rear of the dwelling. He felt it looked better where it was as it was screened from view by shrubs. Commissioner Anderson noted that it still was visible from the street, and questioned whether or not the petitioner could increase the screening of the unit. Commissioner Friedrich asked about the location of the family room and whether relocating the air conditioning unit would interfere with this. Commissioner Edwards stated that he was really bothered by the fact that this kept happening in the city and the Commission was being asked to approve "after the fact". Mr. John Schoen, the Casey's neighbor, stated that the location of the air conditioning unit did not bother them, either the sight of the unit or the noise from the unit. Commissioner Anderson asked how this matter had come to the attention of the city. Mr. Casey said it had been in conversation that he discovered that it was illegally placed. Ms. Dunn said that one of the city inspectors had discovered the illegal location. Mr. Casey repeated that the unit had been installed during the winter of 1984. Commissioner Anderson asked whether Mr. Casey would be willing to add additional shrubbery toward the neighbor's home and also toward the front of the site. Mr. Casey said that he would look at the costs, because it might cost more to install shrubbery than to move the unit. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending denial of the variance requested in Planning Case 87-21 at 4617 Nevada North. Commissioner Edwards seconded. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, New Hope Planning Commission Page 7 July 7, 1987 Edwards, Oja; voting against: Lutts, Sonsin, Cameron. Gundershaug; absent:~. It was noted that this case would be considered by the City Council on July 27, 1987. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich to remove Planning Case 87- 18 from the table. Voting in favor: all; absent: Sonsin, Lutts, Cameron. Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 87-18 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. Bill Asplund, the petitioner in Case 87-18, stated that he was requesting a frontyard setback variance to allow him to build an 8' x 14' finished porch in the front of his house. He is in the process of completing a remodeling of his kitchen. The kitchen now extends over the foundation of the house. He further wishes to completely enclose the front step. There will be a gable type roof, coming off the existing flat roof. He felt this addition would improve the line of the rambler. He also plans to install a patio door and take the picture window presently in the living room and install it on the west side of the porch addition. He said he had submitted plans and drawings to city staff. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the siding and,~ roofing proposed would match the existing house. He asked about the peaked roof toward the street. Mr. Asplund said that this would extend out from the wall about one to one and one-half feet. Commissioner Anderson noted that the petitioner was asking for quite a variance. He questioned whether he had considered building something smaller than this. Mr. Asplund said he had thought it would not serve any purpose as they need additional space. If he had to cut it down to six feet, 'he did not feel he would want to install heat in the addition, only have crawl space. Commissioner Adnerson asked whether there was any other place on the house to put the addition. Mr. Asplund said he did not feel it would be practical to try and locate the porch in any other place, especially on the back of the house. Commissioner Edwards said he liked the concept of ~_~ New Hope Planning Commission Page 8 July 7, 1987 the addition, but was concerned about the proposed proximity to the street. He commented that he would have a hard time supporting this proposal as it was too much of a variance. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what the petitioner's time table was, and whether a delay would be detrimental to the plans. Mr. Asplund said that work on the kitchen and patio door was scheduled to start the following week. Commissioner Gundershaug asked the petitioner if he would consider a table of the request until the next month to reconsider his plans. He added that the Commission could, at this meeting, table, pass, or deny the request. Mr. Asplund said he could accept a table and discuss the plans further with his contractor. Commissioner Anderson noted that he could accept some type of variance for the frontyard, but not seven feet. MOTION Commissioner Adnerson made a motion to table Planning Case 87-18 until the meeting of August 4, 1987. Voting in favor: all; absent: Lutts, Sonsin, Cameron. Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS The Design and Review Committee met once during July and briefly reported on their activities. ORDINANCE 87-5 The Codes and Standards Committee also had a meeting and breifly reported on their activities. Commissioner Anderson noted that Ordinance 87-5, An Ordinance Amending Section 3.43 of the New Hope Sign Code By Including Permit and Regulations Exceptions to the Code, was before the Commission for approval. MOTION Codes and Standards recommended approval. Motion by Commissioner Anderson recommending approval of Ordinance 87-5, second by Commissioner Edwards. Voting in favor: all; absent: Lutts, Sonsin, Cameron. Motion carried. SATELLITE DISHES AND SIGN CHECK LIST Commissioner Anderson noted that Codes and Standards had also discussed the issues of satellite dishes and requested wording revision, and the sign ordinance check list. New Hope Planning Commission Page 9 July 7, 1987 Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the Design and Review Committee had not had any problem with the comprehensive plan sign check list. ORDINANCE 87-6 Discussion then centered on proposed Ordinance 87-6, An Ordinance Amending Section 4.036 of the New Hope Code Downsizing Parking Stall and Bay Requirements. Commissioner Anderson stated that the City Attorney had drafted language on the size of the stalls based on Codes and Standards recommendatins. The proposal is for stalls to be 8'9" x 19' and also allows an 18' length where snow was scheduled to be removed from the site. He added that he was not totally comfortable with the language. He commented that the table in Section II was based on double loaded aisles, but does not address either 18' stalls or asingle loaded aisle. He would like the Codes and Standards Committee to look at this one more time. Commissioner Edwards concurred that it should be looked at a little longer and then a recommendation made. He commented he personally had a hard time with the decision to downsize parking stalls. Commissioner Anderson noted that they wished to~ avoid the possibility of people overbuilding a site by trying to diminish stall size to accommodate the space available. The City Manager stated that as Executive Director of the HRA in the City, he had hoped that the Planning Commission would act on this proposed ordinance at the present meeting, and not table it. He would like to present this to the City Council on July 27th for approval or denial. Commissioner Anderson noted that the basic dimensions were okay, he had a problem with the wording of the proposed ordinance. He added that he would also be very uncomfortable sending this ordinance forward without seeing a specific proposal for the striping layout at the New Hope City Center. He added that they would not get less than an 8'6" width stall. Commissioner Edwards stated he felt 8'6" was an absolute minimum but he felt the Commission had expressed very strong feelings that 8'9" was the desirable stall size. He asked why the HRA was so interested in this issue. New Hope Planning Commission Page 10 July 7, 1987 MINUTES The City Manager said it was because of the proposed redevelopment of the 4201 Winnetka site and that with the re-alignment of 42nd Avenue, the City would probably be taking parking from other properties along 42nd Avenue. With 20'-22' driving aisle, they could probably replace all the lost parking stalls. The City Manager continued on by saying that staff is trying to circumvent potential problems by bringing New Hope's standards in line with surrounding cities, as well as allow the best use of the City Center property and other 42nd Avenue properties. Commissioner Anderson said he felt that Codes and Standards needed to review this more. They had no problem with the dimensions, but the City was talking about going to a new standard size, and also talking about allowing sub-standard stalls in some instances. The Commission was not all comfortable with these dimensions. He did not think the city would solve the parking problem by simply changing the standards. He felt the developer should, pay someone to come up with a concrete proposal for a parking layout at the City Center Mall. The Commisssion had to have something to react to, not change the documents. Discussion continued between the City Manager and the Commisssioners regarding the proposed size changes, the industry standards regarding parking stall standards and related matters. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that this would be on the agenda at the August meeting. Discussion followed about scheduling the next Codes and Standards meeting. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 2, 1987 were accepted as printed. The minutes of the HRA meeting of May 26, 1987 and the Council Minutes of May 26, and June 8, 1987 were reviewed. Discussion followed regarding the City's planned acquistion of the small parcel near the K-Mart site and how these negotiations were proceeding. New Hope Planning Commission Page 11 July 7, 1987 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission Page 12 July 7, 1987 CITY OFNEWF32~E 4401XYLON AVENUE NORI~ HENNEPINCOUNTY, MINNESOEA55428 Approved Planning C~m~Hssion Minutes Regular Meeting August 4, 1987 7:30 P.M. city~l A rec3ular meeting of the New Hope Planning C~mLHssion was held on Tuesday, August 4, 1987 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meetingwas called toorderat 7:30 p.m. by ChairmanCameron. Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Oja, Absent: Gundershaug, Lutts C~m~ssioner Sonsin arrived at 7:34 p.m. PUBLIC HEARIN~ PIANNING CASE Ms. Jeannine Dunn, ~ministrative Assistant, noted that the 87-17 - REQUEST petitioners in Planning Case 87-17 had requested this case be VARIANCE withdrawn frc~ consideration. James and Barbara Crandall, Petitioner PLANNING CASE 18 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE William and Alta Asplund, Petitioner Ms. Dunn noted that the petitioners in Planning Case 87-18 had 87- requested that this case be tabled until the Se~ 1, 1987 FOR Planning C~m~ission meeting. Motion by Friedrich, second byAnderson to table Planning Case 87-18 until the meeting of September 1, 1987. Voting in favor: all; Absent: Gundershaug, Lutts. PLANNING CASE 87-23 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION Englund Graphics~ Ao Englund, Petitioner Mr. Edward Englund, the petitioner in Planning Case 87-23, stated that he was requesting approval of a 6,000 square foot addition to his existing facility. The addition will be used for manufacturing and storage. It will be on two levels, with 3,000 square feet on each level. The addition will be located on the northwest corner of the existing building. C~mYHssioner Oja inquired about the construction materials of the addition. Mr. Englund stated the addition will match the existing building. He confirmed that all air conditioning units and any other rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building. Commissioner Ga confirmed that the parking area will have continous New Hope Planning Ccm~ission Page 1 August 4, 1987 concrete curb throughout and will be surfaced. In response to questions, Mr. Englund said he felt it probably best to retain the existing blacktop and parking arrangement even though a suggestion had been made by the Design and Review C~L,,,,~ttee to remove two of the existing spaces. He stated that it would be necessary to remove four spaces if he made such a change. The petitioner stated that because the existing parking arrangment had worked well in the last two and one-half years, he saw no reason to alter it. C~m~,~ssion Ga asked about the potential truck traffic on the site. Mr. Englund stated that they had large delivery trucks on the site. They will retain only one load/rig dock but there is sufficient room for the trucks to maneuver on the site. He added that the on-site fire hydrant will be located as indicated on the submitted plans and that there was another fire hydrant located to the west immediately off the site. There will be no new trash facilities. The trash containers are presently located /nside the facility and this seems to be work/rig well. Mr. Englund stated he was planning to add a second shift and that this shift would operate until 10 p.m. Their present intention is to operate the two shifts beck to back. He stated that 66 spaces in C~m¥,~ssioner Ga noted that the plan indicated the intention to adk shrubs on the side, and asked whether the petitioner intended to increase the landscaping on the front. Mr. Englund said he intended to add two blue spruce trees in the front of the development. They have also added three 4" diameter ash trees to the site. One will be located in the front, one on the side, and one by the parking area. The remainder of the green area will be sodded and an /rrigation system installed. He noted that the green area was presently sprinkled, except for the back where the addition will be located. Mr. Englund added that at the present time they are not planning to add new signs. If they do at some future time, they will be small. Chairman Cameron stated that any future signs would have to be added to the original sign plan for the site, and would have to be according to city ordinance. In response to questions from Cc~m¥,~ssioner Ga, Mr. Englund stated they would add one exterior light at the extreme north side of the new addition. It will be a 75 watt mercury vapor light. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the petitioner required no variances for this addition. He asked why the petitioner was New Hope Plann/ng C~m-~-dssion Page 2 August 4, 1987 PLANNING CASE 87-24 - VARIANCE IN FENCING Joan B. Johnson, Petitioner providing 66 spaces whe_~ he appeared to need only 36 spaces. Mr. Englund said he wanted to have adequate parki~ to allow him to operate the two shifts back to back. He anticipates a total of 31 employees in the future. C~L,,t,~ssioner Edwards asked whether the petitioner saw the need for future expansion. Mr. Englund said he did not 'know whether he could expand any further on the site. The area to the west of the site is intended to be used for a picnic area. He noted that even with the addition there will be over 50% green space. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that there will be eight Colorado Blue Spruce added to the site. Motion by C~L,,~issioner Oja, second by C~t.,,~ssioner Edwards, reco~er~gg approval of the construction for an addition at 9100 49th Avenue North, as requested in Plannir~ Case 87-23. Omm~Hssioner Sonsin asked whether the proposed addition had to be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. Ms. Dunn stated that the plan is in the review process with the Shingle Creek Watershed C~.~,~ssion. She further stated that the City Engineer had reviewed the plans and that the Department of Natural Resources had been contacted but requested no formal review. Voting in favor: all; Absent: Gundershaug, Lutts; Motion carried. Joan B. Johnson stated that she had an unusaul situation in that she literally doesn't have a front yard. Her house is located on a cul- du-sac that abuts a professional building. Ms. Johnson stated that she ba~ observed between 30-50 people a day using her front yard as a walkway, and the main thoroughfare to get to Independence Avenue. Ms. Johnson distributed pictures to the commissioners of her front yard and indicated where the pathway appeared to be. She stated that the people are walking within five feet of her front entrance. Ms. Johnson proposes to construct a fence up to the professional building owned by Mr. Paul Noyes. Mr. Noyes will have his attorney draft papers allowing her to connect her fence to his fence, which is located four feet inside his property line. She added that she is also concerned that there might be a serious accident with people crossing 36th Avenue and Independence. C~issioner Sonsin confirmed that the variance the height of the fence, not the fence itself. three foot front yard fence. requested w-as for City code allows a Ms. Johnson said she had a 60" fence around the rear of her property. She had observed girls trying to scale that fence. She New Hope Planning C~mYdssion Page 3 August 4, 1987 felt that a three foot fence would not be any deterrent to people-' jumping over to take the "shortcut". Ms. Johnson indicated that the problem will worsen when the schools at Plymouth and Armstror~ open. C~m¢,~ssioner Sonsin asked whether she had_ considered any other options other than a fence, such as additional sh~3bbery. Ms. Johnson stated that Mr. Noyes had some small bushes on his property. However, she wanted to be able to landscape her own front yard. She would like to construct a fence from the corner of her property and connect it to Mr. Noyes fence. C~m¥,~ssioner Sonsin asked whether the petitioner felt it would be necessary to have both a fence of five feet along 36th and the south side of the property. Ms. Johnson maintained that the people will still continue to climb over a three foot fence. In her opinion once a five foot fence was in, the traffic would stop. She has lived in the house one month, and had no idea t_hat these problems existed when she purcba~ the house. C~Lm,'issioner Edwards asked staff about past discussions that had been held in regard to providing a hard roadbed in that area for the use of emergency vehicles. The City Manager said that this idea had been discussed but n~, easements were obtained when the property was platted. Chairman Cameron expressed concern about where the children would choose to walk, if they were stopped in this location. Fencing along #18 and 36th Avenue would force them to Jordan. The Chaiman wondered if this proposed fencing would create problems for other neighbors. Ms. Johnson stated that Mr. Noyes had also had trouble with his fence boards being kicked out by the children as they pass through the area. Co~',-,~[ssioner Oja questioned why the city could not create an easement walkway along the north side. Chairman Cameron stated his concern w~s t_hat the city did not create a problem for other property owners. He asked whether the city had ever established a walkway on private property. ~he City Manager stated that the city has put in a path on the east and south sides of Northwood Park. He indicated that these sidewalks are not used extensively. He added that the city, to his knowledge, had never purchased property for this purpose. Discussion continued between the c~m~,~ssioners and staff about the New Hope Planning C~L.~Jssion August 4, 1987 Page 4 possible liability exposure of the city should it establish such a path; whether they would be creating an attractive nuisance with a path so close to the fences; and the possibility of someone being hurt trying to cross 36th Avenue from such a path. C~m~Hssioner Anderson stated he felt the variance for the five foot fence should be granted. There was no one present in regard to this case. Cc~m,~issioner Anderson made a motion rec~,,L~nding approval of the variance for a five foot fence along 36th Avenue, and also adjacent to the driveway, at 3581 Independence Avenue North as requested in Planning Case 87-24. C~m-dssioner Friedrich second. Chairman Cameron noted that over the years he had been opposed to fences in the front yards, and asked that the petitioner landscape along 36th Avenue. Voting in favor: all; Absent: Gundershaug, Lutts; Motion c~rried. PLANNING CASE Mr. Ray Schleck, Construction Engineer for the Mx~Donald's 87-25 - REQUEST Corporation, represented the petitioner in Planning Case 87-25. He FOR PUD, CUP stated that they were requesting permission to locate a McDonald's AND VARIANCE facility at 42nd/Winnetka Avenue. McDonald ' s Corporation, He stated that he was further requesting that the issue of signage Petitioner on the site be discussed at a future time. Chairman Cameron stated t_hat because this was a PUD, the record should show that the discussion at this meeting did not include any discussion on signage. Mr. Schleck stated that following the Design and Review Committee meeting they had shifted the building eight feet to the west to accommodate a larger drive aisle space and to eliminate some of the original stacking lane problems. The freezer/cooler structure on the north side of the build/rig will encroach about eight feet into the rear yard setback. This structure is about nine feet tall, and will be a solid brick building with an all weather top. It will give the appearance of being all one building. C~airman Cameron confirmed that this was a free-standing building, but will have a roof. Referring to issues brought up at the meeting with staff, Mr. Schleck stated they have created a green space in the front and removed the walkway because of the entrance on the west side of the building. Ail green areas will be sprinkled. C~L.~,~ssioner Friedrich confirmed that there will be no sidewalk directly in front of the building. New Hope Planning C~,,~,~ssion Page 5 August 4, 1987 Mr. Schleck stated that another issue had been the ten foot gree~-~ space around the perimeter of the site. Their intention is to provide this ten foot green space along 42nd Avenue and Winnetka Avenue. Commissioner Edwards asked what this change would do to the parking lot situation. Mr. Schleck said that it would only make about a one to two foot difference in space because they had shifted the building eight feet. Ms. Dunn noted t/hat on the revised plans before the Commissioners there is a provision for a 180 foot stacking area. This stacking lane meets code so there is now no variance required. The original plans required a variance in stack/rig lane. C~a~,~ssioner Edwards oonfirraed that all parking drive and drive aisles will be cc~pletely black~, and the parking areas will be surrounded by continuous concrete curb and gutters. He asked what type of materials will be used on the exterior of the building. Mr. Schleck stated there will be brick that will match or blend with the existing shopping center. There will be an asphalt shingled roof. The mansard roof will continue around all sides of the building. This should screen all rooftop equipment, which will be Mr. Schleck continued on by stating that the trash area will be completely enclosed, with an opening for personnel to walk in to dump tr~h. There will be a gate or door that will close or lock to comply with City Code. Discussion between Mr. Schleck and Cx~m~-,~ssioner Edwards about the gate. Mr. Schleck said they had planned to use a board on board type of gate. C~mtHssioner ~ said it should be as solid as possible. Chairman Cameron noted that the gate should be kept completely closed at all times. C~tmHssioner Edwards confirmed that all exterior lighting will be directed downward. Discussion followed about the width of the driving aisles as posposed. C~m~issioner Edwards noted that the city code required that drive aisles be 24' in width. He said he would prefer that the entrance driveway be 24' to help slow down the traffic. Discussion then continued about the boulevard landscaping, and whether the proposed plantings were trees or bushes, and whether New Hope Planning Co~mt-dssion August 4, 1987 Page 6 they would create any sight hazards for the entrances. C~.L.~ssioner Edwards noted that he wanted the petitioner to provide sc~e type of continuous landscaping along the east side of the site, that would help neutralize the sea of blacktop. He added that he felt more trees on the south and e~_st sides of the site would help the appearance. Discussion then centered on the number of parking stalls to be provided on site. There are to be 40 spaces on the site and 30 spaces provided off-site. C~t=~issioner Edwards confirmed that snow will be removed from the site, and that all deliveries willbe made either before or after hours of operation, perferably 5:00 a.m. or 5:30 a.m. Mr. Schleck noted that this facility would be open from 6 a.m. until midnight. They anticipate 15-20 e~ployees at a peak time of operation. He felt that inasmuch as this is an urban location they would not need as much employee parking space as in ~e other locations because everyone would not have to drive to work. He felt there would be about 5 to 10 cars on the site at one time. C~L..~,~ssioner Edwards confirmed that the facility will have a sprinkler system. He asked whether McDonalds had worked out the agreements with the land owners around the site for parking and easement and c~m~on drive aisles. Mr. Schleck had not seen the agreements but had been told by Becky Steppe, Real Estate Representative for McDonalds, that the agreements had been received. C~,~ssioner Edwards confirmed that in return for the use of the easement space, and c~.,~on drive aisles, they will be responsible for the maintenance. He then questioned whether the petitioners had given any thought to building a slightly smaller building. Mr. Schleck stated that McDonald's market studies indicate that the proposed building is the size that is needed at this location. They feel it will serve the need better than a smaller building. C~m¥.~ssioner Edwards asked whether the petitioner could foresee that the facility might ever be open 24 hours a day. Mr. Scb_leck said he did not see that happening because of the required equipment cleaning schedule. Commissioner Edwards then asked about the exterior of the building, and whether there had been any change in the original plan to use logo panels. Mr. Schleck said they had revised the original plans and would not be using the logo panels, but would be using bay atrium windows. This was an oversight on the plans. There will be no logo panel New Hope Planning C~m~.~ssion Page 7 August 4, 1987 Chairman Cameron expressed concern about the intersection and the potential traffic. He asked the City Manager if it was possible that the city request that the County install center islands on Winnetka back f~-~-~-~ the stop light and on 42nd Avenue to prevent people f~-c~ attempting to turn left into the site. The City Manager said that staff would be meeting with the County Engineer on the 42nd Avenue design and this will be discussed at that time. It was the concensus of the c~,,L~ssioners that provid/ng islands, and prohibiting left hand turns would be desirable. Discussion continued regard/ng the fact that Winnetka Avenue was a bus route and that there might be a need for provision of a sidewalk for pedestrians to reach the site from the corner. Mr. Schleck noted that he thought this was an excellent suggestion. C~m~,~ssioner Anderson asked whether the parking stalls and drive aisles would be compatible with those at the shopping center. C~mL,~ssioner Anderson confirmed that all easements would be reviewed and satisfactory to the City Attorney, and also confirmed that snow would be removed from the site as a requirement of the t~JD. ~ C~m¥,~ssioner Anderson then expressed concerns about the parking situation. Imngthy discussion followed regarding the percentage of parking that would be in use during specific hoursof the day. Mr. Schleck said that he would provide the ccmm,~ssion a copy of a study which had been prepared by Becky Steppe. He added that a volume of 120 cars during one hour would required about 40 spaces, plus the ten that were required for employees. They are providing 70 spaces, including the 30 spaces provided by the ~ a~t. It was noted that the peak time for U.S.Swim and Finess was between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. U.S. Swim and Fitness exceeds code requirements by about 32 spaces. Discussion continued about the amount of stacking space needed to acc~m-odate 180 cars in one hour. Mr. Schleck stated that the worst possible scenario would be if a grill order was holding up the stacking lane, the longest amount of time for a car to spend, would be at the cashier window, waiting for change. C~m~issioner Anderson asked what the petitioners would do if the stacking lane proved to have problems. New Hope Planning C~m~,~ssion August 4, 1987 Page 8 Mr. Schleck said they would probably make the drive an "exit only" if that should happen. C~L.~,~ssioner Anderson said he felt that McDonalds was overbuild/rig the site. He suggested that included in the ~ agreement would be a statement that staff would monitor the stacking lane and traffic patterns on Winnetka and restrict them if it became necessary. C~.~,~ssioner Sonsin expressed concerns about pedestrian traffic walk/rig through the drive aisle. He questioned whether there was some way that pedestrian traffic could be not exposed to traffic. Mr. Schleck said the only entrance would be on the west side, at the southwest corner of the building. A solution might be a pedestrian walkway, or a sign cautioning drivers that there were pedestrians in C~-~m~issioner Ga asked_ whether the city would restrict the hours of t.his type of facility. The City Manager said that 42nd Avenue was a county road. The only restrictions the city had ~ truck traffic were that garbage haulers could not operate prior to 6 a.m. in residential area. There are no restrictions in c~m~rcial areas. There was no one present in regard to this request. C~L.~,~ssioner Edwards made a motion rec~Lm~ approval of the concept and development stage of the Planned Unit Development and the conditional use perml't to allow a convenience food store with a drive-through window at 4201 Winnetka Avenue North, as requested in Case 87-25, subject to the following conditions: (1) that plans be modified to provide drive aisles and entrance drives of 24 feet in width; (2) that a sidewalk be added on the southeast corner to provide access across the parking area from the city sidewalk; (3) that a walkway be included, with appropriate markings and signage, from the southwest corner leading to the City Center parking area; (4) that the trash areas be screened with solid gates; (5) that the logo panels be removed from the plan and that the exterior brick be compatible with the adjacent shopping center; (6) that deliveries and trash collection be made before or after hours of operation; (7) that snow storage be off-site; (8) that McDonald's provide the execution of a cross easement agrement for review by the City Attorney; and (9) that annual staff review of the traffic operations at the entrance roadway, with the stipulation that there be restrictions on the north entrance should such traffic problems occur. It was noted that the sign plan for the facility will be reviewed at a future date. C~m~,~ssioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: all; Voting against: none; Absent: Gundershaug, Lutts; Motion carried. New Hope Plar~ Commission Page 9 August 4, 1987 DESIGN AND REVIEW CODES AND STANDARDS OLD BUSINESS ORDINANCE 87-6 D~izing Parking Stall and Bay ~- quires_nfs ORDII',IANCE 87-7 New Hope Sign Code The City Manager requested that an additional motion be regarding the existing moratorium on development of that area. C~mtL[ssion Anderson made the motion indicating the C~t,,v~ssion found that the proposed plan was consistent with the marketing study and development plan of the City for this area, and rec~[m~ to the City Council that an exception be made to the development moratorium now in effect. C~,,v~ssioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: all. Design and Review C~[,~ittee held one meeting. Codes and Standards also held one meeting during July. The next issue under consideration was the proposed downsizing of parking stalls and parking bays as provided in the city code. There was no public ccmm~nt on this issue. C~m-~-,~ssioner Anderson asked Ms. Dunn to review the changes in the ordinance. Ms. Dunn stated that the changes were only in the t~_ble included ~ the ordinance. She said that Codes and Standards had suggest~ additional criteria which will be reccmended to the City Council as policy for granting a variance request in parking stall size. C~-m¥,~ssioner Anderson made a motion to reco~u~"zl approval of Proposed Ord~ce 87-6. C~-m-~issioner Sonsin second. Voting in favor: all; Voting against: none: Absent; Gundershaug, Lutts. Motion carried. C~[~[Hssioner Anderson introduced' Ordinance 87-7. He indicated that the city Attorney had some concerns with the proposed language. The Chairman said he did not feel this issue could be decided at the present meeting. He referred the issue back to Codes and Standards for luther clarification of the language in co~-~gliance with the suggestions of the City Attorney and his concerns. The Planning C~[,',t,~ssion Minutes of July 7, 1987 were accepted as printed. The HRA Minutes of June 22, 1987 were reviewed. The Council minutes of June 22, 1987 were reviewed. New Hope Planning C~m[Hssion Page 10 August 4, 1987 NEW BUSINESS RECYC~ ,lNG STUDY AGENDA FORMAT The Chairman expressed concern about the proposed recycling study. He stated that he felt that if at some point the Planning C~m~,~ssion was going to become involved in such a change, perhaps the Planning C~,,~,4ssion should be kept informed with the discussions and decisions being made by other c~,~,~-,~ttees. The City Manager stated that there would be a public hearing on the issue on August 24, 1987, but that this meeting was primarily to gain input from the citizens. Following this meeting there would be a 90 day period before the next action was taken. Chairman Cameron c~m~nted that he felt perhaps it would be helpful if a handout were prepared, to be given along with the ager~___a at the Planning C~m~,~ssion meetings. This would assist visitors and petitioners who are new to the process. He felt this would be helpful to participants, especially those that had never attended a meeting previously. The meeting w~s adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:20 p.m. Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning C~,~,~ssion Page 11 August 4, 1987 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting September 1, 1987 City Hall 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 1, 1987 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Cameron. ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Edwards, Oja, Gundershaug Cameron, Absent: Lutts PUBLIC HEARING PC 87-18 Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant, stated that FRONT YARD VARIANCE staff had prepared a diagram of the site and 4948 WISCONSIN AVE distributed it to the Commission. She noted that the petitioner is requesting a four foot at variance, to the required 30 foot front yard setback. Ms. Dunn further noted that the current overhang increased three feet into required 30 feet setback. Mrs. Asplund stated that originally they had wanted.to build an addition on the front of their home. They would like some protection over the steps. They are now requesting permission to extend the roof line over the front entrance steps. The extension would be supported by wrought iron. The extension would extend four feet into the required setback and be over a front porch. Chairman Cameron asked why the petitioner wished this extension. Mrs. Asplund said that she had fallen on the icy steps last winter. She felt that the overhang would be more protection from the weather and help keep her from falling again. New Hope Planning Commission Page 1 September 1, 1987 MOTION Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the ro~ extension would match the existing roof and that t. trim would also match the house. He further confirmeu that the petitioner had discussed this with immediate neighbors on either side of the home, and that there had been no objections from them. Mrs. Asplund stated that none of the neighbors had objected to their original plans for an enclosed room. Commissioner Anderson asked about landscaping in the front yard. Mrs. Asplund said there was a row of evergreens on the north side of the house, and that they could not see the neighbor to the north because of the trees. On the south there is no landscaping. The petitioner added that the house is higher than the road. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the steps would come straight out to the front of the house. Mrs. Asplund noted that there woUld be steps toward the front and to the side. The extended roof will cover the entire step area. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the shingl~-~ will match those on the existing house. ~ Commissioner Oja asked for wrought iron supports. clarification of the The petitioner said that there will be supports holding the roof extension, and a wrought iron railing on the steps and a railing right down the middle of the steps. She was not sure how far apart the support posts would be. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval of the four foot variance as requested in Planning Case 87-18, because of extenuating circumstances and the curvature of the street, the existing landscaping, and the elevation of the house relevant to the street. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Voting Against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Edwards Lutts New Hope Planning Commission Page 2 September 1, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING PC 87-24 VARIANCE TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT FENCE IN FRONT YARD AT 3581 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE NORTH The chairman announced the next case on the agenda and recognized Ms. Dunn. Ms. Dunn distributed a site A plan. She stated that the petitioner is requesting a two foot variance to the three foot height restriction for fences placed in the front yard. Ms. Dunn noted that at the August Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner had requested that she be allowed to place the fence along the north and south property lines. Ms. Dunn noted that staff had met with the petitioner and Mr. Paul Noyes, a representative of the adjacent professional building. Staff is concerned that granting this variance will create a walkway on the property located at 9403 36th Avenue North. There is currently fence along the north and south sides. What is being proposed is an extension of the wooden fence Joan B. Johnson, from the professional building to meet the proposed Petitioner fence. Also proposed is a locked gate to avoid this gap becoming a walkway. Chairman Cameron confirmed that even with the fence there would still be a gap between the properties. Ms. Dunn stated that Mr. Noyes is proposing to join the two fences. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there was a definite commitment to join the fences within 30 days. Mrs. Johnson was recognized and stated that she wanted to fence the east line of her property. Chairman Cameron confirmed with Mrs. Johnson that the first two fences requested on the north and south had already been installed. Commissioner Sonsin asked why the petitioner felt she needed to install another fence. Mrs. Johnson responded that she didn't imagine that the owners of the professional building wanted her dogs on their property, and she didn't think that the City wanted her dogs running all around town. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the Commission was being asked to approve the east chain link fence. Mr. Robert Noyes was present. He stated he had a drawing regarding the traffic in the area. The drawing was discussed with the commissioners. New Hope Planning Commission Page 3 September 1, 1987 MOTION PUBLIC HEARING ~PC 87-26 VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED LOT AREA PER UNIT AT 7406 60TH AVENUE NORTH Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommendi~ approval of the variance requested in Planning Ca~ 87-24, for a five foot fence on the east property line.~ Commissioner Edwards second. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt that the Commission was creating a problem, instead of creating one fenced yard, they were creating three. Commissioner Edwards asked for clarification of who would retain ownership of the gap between Mrs. Johnson's property at 3581 Independence Avenue North, and the professional building at 9405 36th Avenue North. Mrs. Johnson said it belonged to Meridian Construction Company. Commissioner Anderson said he had a concern because he felt it creates a small yard that will be a maintenance problem. He felt that with a little more study, the property owners could solve this problem. Commissioner Oja confirmed that what was requested was a five foot fence. being Voting in favor: Voting Against: Absent: Motion carried. Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Oja Anderson, Sonsin Lutts Gundershau~-~ Mr. Robb Gass the petitioner was recognized and stated that he was requesting the variance to allow him to build a twin home on the property. City code requires 7000 square foot of lot per unit. The lot is only 12,805 square feet, which is almost 600 square feet per unit short. The zoning of the ~ property is R-4. It was his opinion that the unit would fit well on'the site. One of the reasons for Petitioner t h e variance was the location of the alley access and the high expense of the water hookup from West Broadway. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the petitioner was aware of the restrictions when he acquired the lot. New Hope Planning Commission Page 4 September 1, 1987 Mr. Gass stated that as a builder, you were always optimistic about receiving approval for plans because of the surrounding land use. He said that in his opinion the double unit will fit on the site. Discussion followed about the proposed plans, the R-4 zoning, and the general feeling of the Commission that the proposed development would be too much development for the site. Mr. Gass said he was proposing two three bedroom units, with tuck under double garages. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the "alley" was in effect a private street. He questioned who was responsible for the maintenance at this time. Ms. Dunn stated that~it was not a public roadway and said that to the best of her knowledge, the responsibility of maintenance is with the petitioner. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that during the winter it was never plowed very well. Ms. Dunn stated that the permanent easement was part of Mr. Gass's property. Commissioner Edwards said he felt they were working with two issues, the lot size is substandard and also there was the concern of the density. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the lot dimensions included the road easement. He noted that removal of the roadway from the property size, reduced it to about 10,000 square feet for development. Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioner intended to live in one of the units. Mr. Gass said he did not .know. As a builder he usually moved every other year. He planned to keep it as rental, but it will be built as a zero lot line building. Commissioner Oja said she had a concern with this structure being built on an alley and whether police and fire vehicles could gain access to the site. Mr. Gass noted that the fire vehicles had made it through when they burned the original building. New Hope Planning Commission Page 5 September 1, 1987 Mr. Bill McGonigal, 6015 West Broadway, stated he wA happy to hear from Commission say that the easement for the single family homes. He noted that the City had told him to plow the alley. Chairman Cameron asked staff to confirm that maintenance of this easement belonged to Mr. Gass, as the property owner. Commissioner Edwards stated he felt the Commission should first determine what the original easement was and to whom it was granted. Mr. McGonigal said that the association was concerned with the narrowness of the street, they have to patch the street if new construction destroys it, and they would have to bear the costs. Howard Heck, 6013 West Broadway, stated that at the present time there was a chain link fence between the properties with aluminum slats in the fence. The slats have become unsightly. He asked whether with the double bungalow construction, the slats could at least be removed or the fence taken down. He believed that the fence had been installed when the apartment was built in about 1960. Richard Dupay stated his concern was the three bedro units. He was concerned about traffic on the narrow easement. He personally wished the street could be widened and turned into a city street. Clint Novak, 7416 Shirley Place, stated he did not see where the developer was going to put this. The people will be backing into his fence. He could foresee a lot of problems with this proposal. He didn't think there was that much room for a single family unit. The Chairman noted that the garages did meet the City setback requirements and that there could be a sight problem in backing out of the driveways. Commissioner Edwards said he was concerned about the proposal because it appeared that the Commission was being asked to approve a 22 percent variance in lot size. Mr. Gass asked whether staff could research the property. He felt with an R-4 zoning he could build a four unit complex and not exceed the height restriction. New Hope Planning Commission Page 6 September 1, 1987 Ms. Dunn informed the Commission that this lot does not conform to City code. It is a lot of record. The City code specifically allows a lot of record to be developed as a single family residence and does not allow a greater use. MOTION Commissioner Anderson, noting that there was no justification for the variance, made a motion recommending that the variance requested in Planning Case 87-26 be denied. Commissioner Sonsin second. Voting in favor: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Lutts PC 87-27 The Chairman introduced the case and recognized the VARIANCE TO PERMIT petitioner, Mr. Bruce Pinney. He stated he was DRIVEWAY ACCESS AT requesting a variance for a single car driveway on the 5436 RHODE ISLAND side of his property facing 55th Avenue North. Two of AVENUE NORTH his neighbors directly across Rhode Island had double driveways in the front and side yards. There were also houses on 55th and Quebec with a double driveway, one in front and one on the side. He would like this single driveway on the side because he needs it for extra parking. He also has a back entrance to the house on that side of the house. Chairman Cameron asked whether the driveway would lead anywhere. Mr. Pinney said the driveway would go only to the back door of the house. Commissioner Anderson asked about the drive and how far it would extend into the property. He was concerned as to whether there was enough room on that side for a car to park without being on the City boulevard. He also questioned what would happen to the existing trees. Mr. Pinney said the driveway could go between the trees, he would have to trim one of them back a little, but the other tree would not be affected. He also proposed to blacktop or concrete, whichever the City wishes. Commissioner Anderson asked whether he had discussed this with the neighbors. New Hope Planning Commission Page 7 September 1, 1987 MOTION Mr. Pinney said he had talked with several of th~ neighbors and there hadn't been any objections that he knew of. Commissioner Gundershaug then asked what they intended to park on the driveway. Mr. Pinney said he would park a car there now, and perhaps a boat some day. Commissioner Gundershaug said he did not feel there was enough area on the site to park anything without encroaching into the boulevard. He asked what the City ordinance said regarding second driveways. Ms. Dunn responded that City code specifically allows one driveway access per single family lot. Commissioner Friedrich asked whether these exceptions were Crystal or New Hope. Commissioner Gundershaug said he would prefer to table action on this case, to allow staff time to look into the issue of double driveways. Ms. Dunn said that staff did do a very brief surv and found only one driveway variance in the last t~. years. Chairman Cameron requested that staff research the issue of double driveways in the City and determine how many there were at this time. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the width of the proposed driveway would be 10'-12' at the very most. He noted that he would like to see some exact dimensions of what is being proposed. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to table Planning Case 87-27 until the meeting of October 6. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None Lutts New Hope Planning Commission Page 8 September 1, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING PC 87-28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SIDEYARD SET-BACK VARIANCE CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7300 36TH AVENUE NORTH Commissioner Anderson excused himself from the discussion regarding this request. The Chairman introduced the next case and recognized the petitioner, Mr. Don Litterer, who represented the the Creamette. Mr. Litterer stated that they were requesting approval of a conditional use permit, a side yard setback variance, and construction approval for an addition to their existing building. He added that they had appeared before the Design and Review Committee and the presentation at this meeting addressed their recommended changes. Ms. Dunn presented revised plans to the Commissioners. She stated that the plans had been revised following the Design and Review meeting. Mr. Litterer stated they had also presented the City with a traffic study. He added that they were proposing the addition to the front of the existing building. This would provide a more continuous flow of production of product. The production starts at the north end of the building and would flow south. The existing warehouse has a warehouse stack frame system that does not allow them to pre-stage their truck loading. Mr. Litterer continued on by saying that the first area of the proposed addition would allow 30,000 square feet for storage of product. The second area is an area that is 14 feet lower than the first area, which will allow for staging of loading. All trucks will be loaded by appointment. The six dock doors facing 36th Avenue are on a saw tooth angle. They would anticipate 22-34 trucks per day, with a 16-hour day. The existing dock doors are on the east side, facing the residential area. The plant operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. At the present time it takes approximately four hours to load a truck. With the new operation they hope to be able to load the trucks in one to one and half hours from the new doors on the south side of the site, with the pre-staged loading. The new loading docks would shift the impact of the loading from the east side to the south. They have also been incurring problems on the east, as trucks get longer, it difficult to maneuver. A 55- foot trailer has difficulty loading on the east side. New Hope Planning Commission Page 9 September 1, 1987 Mr. Litterer stated that they have widened the driveway on the west going both directions and provided a lane for the trucks to stop in. At the top of the hill there will be a traffic coordinator to direct the trucks are on time. If the trucks are not on time, the drivers will be directed to a truck holding area. Creamette is trying to eliminate the stacking of trucks on 36th Avenue. The relocated docks will also remove some of the noise from the east side of the site, as well as make their operations more efficient. Creamette will provide landscaping and a berm which will hopefully screen the docks from 36th Avenue. In regard to the exterior appearance he stated that the existing building has a 28 foot ceiling. The first section of the addition will have a 16 foot ceiling and the second section will have a 14 foot ceiling, to give a staggered effect and to conform to the slope of the property. The exterior walls will match the existing exterior, and split fact block will be used in the construction. The existing building is a combination of break panels and smooth panels. Creamette will try to maintain the basic look of the existing building. ~ Mr. Dave Ericksome, of Swedenberg Construction, accompanied Mr. Litterer. Mr. Litterer presented an artist's drawing of the exterior of the proposed addition for the Commissioners' review. He stated that there will be sodium type lights under the canopies by the loading docks. The signage on the existing building may be moved from the building to the addition. Commissioner' Gundershaug confirmed that construction will basically match the building. the new existing In response to questions regarding hours of operation, Mr. Litterer said that the hours of operation are 24 hours a day, and that the dock traffic will be as it presently exists. He also confirmed that there will be no truck traffic during the night, and re-stated that city ordinance prohibits truck traffic during certain hours. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how may trucks per day were anticipated on site. Mr. Litterer responded that New Hope Planning Commission Page 10 September 1, 1987 there would be 34 a day during the peak season . Mr. Litterer stated he anticipated fewer hours of loading of trucks with the addition, reducing the 16 hour day to perhaps 12 hours a day. In answer to a question of how they would control stacking, Mr. Litterer said the addition would allow them to load trucks in one to one and one half hours, instead of four, and that the trucks would all be given specific times for their loading. All trucks come in by appointment. The truck drivers are scheduled and if they are off schedule they are referred to the holding area. He stated it was rare that the trucks were off schedule. The intention is to load the greater majority of trucks on the south side, but there will be times when trucks with special loads will be loaded on the east side. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the dispatch office is at the top of the hill. .There can be four trucks in the driveway, stopping at the dispatch office. Asking about additional parking Commissioner Gundershaug noted that he thought the original intention was to show the potential parking area, but not add it all at this time. Ms. Dunn stated that in the parking calculations, staff noted a shortage of four spaces on the site plan. The petitioner is proposing proof of parking for 28 spaces. Confirming that the parking lot would be striped, Commissioner Gundershaug noted that concrete curbing is required by city code in the entire parking area. He asked whether they would designate a specific area for truck stacking. Mr. Litterer answered that Creamettes would designate a truck stacking area. Mr. Litterer noted that there were only 36 employees on the day shift. Ms. Dunn stated that staff had evaluated the ability for emergency vehicles to maneuver on site. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that rooftop equipment, if any, would either be screened or painted to match the building. It was noted that all refuse would continue to be handled internally. There will be directional signs in the front for the truck traffic directing them to the west driveway. New Hope Planning Commission Page 11 September 1, 1987 Discussion then was proposed. held on the landscaping as Mr. Litterer stated they had added 21 trees. There will be sod, with a mulch, that is sprinkled. When they build the new berm, they will maintain some trees and shrubs on each end. They have added trees and plantings to the plan since the Design and Review meeting. There are also trees on the west side now. Chairman Cameron noted that the proposed trees were not tall growing trees. The response was that the driveway was up four feet from the street, and that from that elevation you would go up another four feet; the Petitioner felt the trees would screen sufficiently. Chairman Cameron added that the petitioner had to clarify the intent, and wanted to know exactly how high the berm would be. Commissioner Edwards stated he would like to see how the berm would appear from both the north and south directions. ~ Chairman Cameron said he was really unhappy with th= number of trees proposed, and it was his opinion that the petitioner should go back to the drawing board and present the Commission/City with a complete plan. The petitioner asked if the Commission wanted some evergreens. Commissioner Edwards asked about the proposed storage of trucks on the west side of the building. He questioned how many would be routinely parked there and how long a typical stay on site would be. The answer was 20-40 trucks at a given time, and they might be on site for a couple of days. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the Commission needed to address the issue of outside storage at this time. It was his impression that outside storage required a separate conditional use permit. He noted that the outside truck parking area was not even a dust free or paved surface. He then asked whether there had been any questions on the part of the Inspections Department, or any citizen complaints. New Hope Planning Commission September 1, 1987 Page 12 Ms. Dunn said she was not aware of any complaints regarding outside storage. Commissioner Edwards said he would like this issue looked into. He then questioned whether there had been complaints about night truck traffic. Ms. Dunn said not that she was aware of recent complaints, that had resulted in citations adding that the noise ordinance relative to industrial properties has a 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. time limit on truck traffic. The petitioner noted that after the addition is constructed, the truck docks on the east would be used only occasionally, perhaps 7 or 8 trucks per week. Commissioner Oja commented that there was the potential for using the east side docks more extensively, if they were allowed to remain. She asked how may trucks would be on site, after the new addition. The petitioner noted that there would be 4-5 on the west side, as there are four dock doors on the west side. Commissioner Edwards asked whether there would be enough room for trucks to maneuver and still avoid the stacking area. Mr. Litterer said they are using that area now, and there has been enough room and no problem. Mr. Jim Schuller, 3733 Maryland, stated he had some concerns about the proposed addition. He noted that the sod had already been removed and they have to look at a dirt pile. He urged the commissioners to look at the history of complaints on this site for both sound and smell. The property is zoned for light industrial and he felt the current use was heavy industrial. He felt Creamette had outgrown the facility and he was concerned about that. He noted that there were two fences between his property and Creamette and he had to call them and ask them to cut their lawn. When the variance was granted for the east loading docks, plantings were promised. He invited the Commission to go and look at this area, as there were no plantings there now. Harvey Baldwin, 3700 Maryland, shared the same New Hope Planning Commission Page 13 September 1, 1987 concerns. He felt that the number of trucks on tb~ site were a lot of competition for his car. T. addition would double the traffic on 36th Avenue. Re noted that there was also multiple dwellings being built on 36th Avenue which would increase the traffic on 36th Avenue. Chairman Cameron noted that he thought this would probably be the last expansion for Creamette, as he could not imagine their coming out any further in the front of the building. It was his opinion that they were at the maximum use of this property. Chairman Cameron added that the request was well within reason for the company to use their property in this way. He added that the Commission's concern has to be to make sure that whatever the company intends to do, it try to protect the environment for the people of New Hope. This largely involves how the petitioner was going to make it work. Chairman Cameron noted that moving the major truck loading area from the east to the south, would be an improvement for the neighbors. He added that all they could really control was the looks of this operation, and that pretty much gets down to the landscaping. He requested that the petitioner redesign the landscapi~ and put in some viable plantings, that were as high they could be. Commissioner Edwards said he was of the opinion that we have not totally explored all of the options for the site. While even with the addition there was still 55% green area, he was concerned about the truck traffic in the area. If truck traffic is being added to the front, then something should be taken away somewhere else. He was concerned with the good faith of the company since a good number of original plantings have not been replaced. He added that there should be more landscaping to the ~east, the outside refuse should be totally enclosed, and the issue of the storage of vehicles and empty 'barrels on the site should be reviewed. It-is necessary that there be continuous concrete curbs on all of the drive aisles. He personally wanted this planning case tabled for one month. Commissioner Gundershaug shared Mr. Edwards concerns. He did not think there was enough landscaping provided. Another thing that concerned him was the missing landscaping. He felt the Commission could require the petitioner to come back before the Design New Hope Planning Commission September 1, 1987 Page 14 and Review Committee and the Commission with an improved landscaping. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would be willing to consider some tradeoffs, but he thought the city was losing on this proposal. He would like to see these concerns addressed. MOTION Commissioner Edwards made a motion tabling Case 87-28 until the meeting of October 6. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Abstain: Absent: Motion carried. Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Oja Gundershaug Anderson Lutts PUBLIC HEARING PC 87-29 The Chairman introduced Planning Case 87-29 and VARIANCE IN SIGN recognized the petitioners, Mr. Ray Schleck and Becky AREA AND HEIGHT AT Steppe, representing McDonald's Corporation. They 4201 WINNETKA AVE requested a variance of the height and size of the ground sign at the McDonald's Restaurant proposed at 4201 Winnetka Avenue North. Ms. Dunn clarified that the only variances required were for the height and size of the ground size. The remaining signs proposed comply with the City code. The petitioners stated that they felt they needed the larger sign to give them more visibility at the intersection. The larger sign would make it possible for drivers to make their decision to turn into the site, prior to reaching the corner. The sign will be approximately 13 feet from intersection. The petitioner stated that with the proposed landscaping it would be difficult to see the sign. It was felt that a great deal of their business was impulse business. Chairman Cameron noted that with the stop lights at the intersection, ~he could not imagine very many cars "flying" through the intersection. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Commission needed reasons for granting this variance. It was his opinion that the petitioner was asking for quite a bit. He personally did not see any reason to support New Hope Planning Commission Page 15 September 1, 1987 this variance. He requested that the petitioner~ explain why it should be granted. He would pref~ that the petitioner adhere to the City's ordinance. Mr. Schleck noted that the proposed height of the sign was felt to be the minimum height they should have a sign to alleviate the possibility of vandalism at the bottom of the sign. The bottom of the sign would be 14 feet in height. Commissioner Anderson said he was primarily concerned with the size of the sign. Mr. Schleck stated that the height and size of the sign increased the visibility of the sign. It will help people make their decision sooner. Commissioner Anderson noted that the petitioner was asking for a sign that was twice the size allowed by City code. Ms. Steppe noted that there was a great amount of air space in the sign because of the arches. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether this was t~. only size sign that McDonalds had. Mr. Schleck said no, they did have signs that would comply with city code. MOTION Stating that he felt no justification for the variance as had been presented, Commissioner Anderson recommended denial of the variance requested in Planning Case 87-29. Commissioner Gundershaug seconded. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, G~ndershaug, Edwards, Oja None Lutts PUBLIC HEARING PC 87-30 The Chairman introduced the case and recognized Ms. VARIANCE IN PARKING Dunn. Ms. Dunn stated that the request has been AT 4203 WINNETKA withdrawn from consideration at this time. AVENUE NORTH New Hope Planning Commission Page 16 September 1, 1987 COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Committee held one meeting. Codes and Standards Committee held one meeting. OLD BUSINESS ORDINANCE 87-6 Ms. Dunn reported that proposed Ordinance 87-6 addressing issue of downsizing parking stall and bay requirements had been adopted by the City Council at their meeting on August 28, 1987. PROPOSED ORDINANCE The Chairman recognized Mr. Allan Brixius, Northwest 87-7, SIGN CODE Associated Consultants. Mr. Brixius reviewed the AMENDMENT proposed Ordinance 87-7, addressing changes to the sign code as it deals with temporary signs, neon signs, residential "for sale" signs and comprehensive sign plans. Commissioner Anderson noted that there was another portion proposed for amendment to the sign ordinance, dealing with anchor tenants in malls. He felt that it would be preferable to bring this before the Commission so that all sign code amendments could be recommended for approval by the City Council at one time. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission minutes of August 4, 1987 were accepted as printed. ANNOUNCEMENTS The City Council minutes of June 10, July 27, and August 10, 1987, were reviewed. The City Manager requested permission to address the Commission. He requested that they reconsider the table of Planning Case 87-28 and that they hold a special meeting, prior to the Council meeting on the September 14th. He stated that Creamette is prepared to meet all of the concerns expressed by the Commission prior to that meeting. Chairman Cameron questioned why they had not come in earlier with these requests. Commissioner Friedrich asked whether the neighbors would again be notified of the special meeting. The City Manager noted that they would be. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the City Manager was talking about a separate Design and Review or a meeting of the entire Commission. Commissioner Edwards questioned what difference a month, as opposed to two weeks, would make. New Hope Planning Commission Page 17 September 1, 1987 The Manager stated that more than two weeks wou' cause them to miss their deadline. He felt the company had a big stake in the city, it is a major facility, paying large taxes. He felt the Commission should consider the impact of the denial. Commissioner Edwards noted that this had been discussed at Design and Review and he had also been concerned with this. He added that all Design and Review had asked was that there be some modifications on their part, but very little had been presented to the Commission at this meeting. Chairman Cameron stated that staff had spent a good deal of time with the petitioner on this issue. Following discussion, the general consensus of the Commission was that a special meeting would be held. This meeting will be September 9, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that they would have final revised plans at that meeting. Commissioner Edwards noted that it seemed to him that there was a significant number of issues that needed. to be addressed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:05 p.m. Respect fully submitted, J6yce Boeddeker, S~Cretary New Hope Planning Commission Page 18 September 1, 1987 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting September 9, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, September 9, 1987 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Anderson, Lutts, Friedrich, Edwards, Gundershaug, Oja Sonsin Cameron, PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE Commissioner Anderson excused himself from the table 87-28 - CONDITIONAL stating that he had worked with the petitioner in USE PERMIT, SIDE- preparation of this case and would be abstaining YARD SETBACK Planning Commission's deliberations. VARIANCE, CON- STRUCTION APPROVAL, The Chairman recognized Jeannine Dunn, Administrative 7300 36th Av. N. Assistant. Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow loading berths in the front yard; a variance to allow a 5-foot encroachment into the required 20 foot sideyard setback along the east property line; and construction approval. Ms. Dunn continued on and informed the Commission that Section 4.037 of the New Hope Code established the criteria for approving a conditional use permit of this sort. Ms. Dunn stated that the criteria are as follows: distance from residential land use, interference with pedestrian traffic, obstruction of visibility on a public thoroughfare and traffic interference. Mr. Don Litterer, Plant Engineer for the Creamette Company, was recognized and thanked the Planning Commission for having a special meeting on this case and stating that the plans presented were revised based on the Planning Commission meeting of September 1st. He pointed out a note on the plans showing curb line changes, and additional curbing and screening on east side of property, and additional landscaping. New Hope Planning Commission Page 1 September 9, 1987 Mr. Litterer stated that the prints show propos~%. landscaping and screening according the City code a~ ordinances. He pointed to existing plantings on the east and west side of the two drives which they are retaining. He called upon Mr. Lumry, Arteka, Inc. to explain. Mr. Lumry noted that there is a berm which rises from the street from the loading dock The petitioner is proposing to place large conifers on top of the berm which will grow to approximately 30-40 feet in height and 15 feet in diameter. He stated that they had added other trees along the drive to help screen. The coniferous trees will be staggered to assist in screening. Mr. Litterer explained what trees would be planted and what trees have been changed. He stated that trees would be planted 14 feet on center and shrubs are 4 feet on center, compared to 3 feet required by code. He referred to a vinyl edging along with decorative type rock. The green area will be sprinkled. Mr. Litterer went on to discuss the parking issue. He stated that staff had calculated a shortage of four spaces in the proposed parking area. This parking area has been moved to the north portion of the e~~ parking lot. Mr. Litterer noted that the entire perimeter is curbed. Mr. Litterer went on to explain the traffic routing of vehicles on the site by the traffic coordinator. In answer to question by Chairman Cameron regarding if Creamettes had refrigerated trucks which might stand running all night, Mr. Litterer replied that their products are all dry~ goods and require no ~refrigeration or heat. He further stated that the stacking land is over 250 feet feet so that they could accommodate more than 4 trucks at a time. They hope all trucks come on an appointment basis, but feel that they can accommodate trucks without having interference or stacking on 36th Avenue. Commissioner Edwards questioned the overnight storage of trailers. He asked if a conditional use permit should be required. Mr. Litterer responded that the storage that occurs now will not be necessary with the New Hope Planning Commission Page 2 September 9, 198. addition and the' efficient~ loading system. Commissioner Friedrich clarified that it was Creamettes intention to not have any trucks overnight. Mr. Litterer responded that they did not intend to store trailers, however, they could not guarantee that there would never be trailers stored outside for less than 24 hours. Mr. Litterer continued on by saying that the compactor on the east side of the building was screened with a privacy fence that was put up with the addition in 1975. It is not a trash container, but a compactor, self enclosed and screened from all public view. Commissioner Gundershaug asked for confirmation on curbing. All existing curbs and the truck holding area will be continuous concrete curb. Existing blacktop areas will have bituminous curbing. The parking lot will be striped to meet City code requirements. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the petitioner as to why there were 44 trailers at the site when he did his inspection on September 9, 1987. Mr. Litterer responded that the storage of those trailers will not take place after the expansion is complete. He continued on by saying that the east side docks will remain as is, however loading from those docks will be reduced by 80 percent. The east docks will be used infrequently for special orders of products. Commissioner Gundershaug then questioned petitioner about the landscaping plan. the Mr. Lumry responded to questions from the Commission regarding height, type, and screening ability of the proposed plantings. Commissioner Oja asked what the petitioner was doing to alleviate the problem of dust during excavation. Mr. Litterer responded that there had been a water truck at the site earlier that day. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the screening along the east property line. He noted that some of the plantings had died and he did not feel that what existed provided a good buffer for the adjacent New Hope Planning Commission Page 3 September 9, 1987 residential property. He also stated that the priva~ fence was in disrepair. He asked if the petition~ was proposing any additional landscaping along the existing building. Mr. Litterer responded that they were not. Commissioner Edwards concurred that the plantings on the east property line are extremely sparse and requested that the privacy fence along the east line be repaired as there appears to be some damages areas. Chairman Cameron asked for comments and questions from the public. Mr. Jim Scheller, 3733 Maryland, questioned why this case was supposedly tabled for a month and then was changed after interested parties left the meeting. Chairman replied that the Commission reconsidered this later in the meeting and motion was made to remove case from table and reschedule for one week later. He stated that the City did send out notices to all the neighbors in the required area advising them of the change, even though they are not required to do so. Mr. Scheller expressed thanks to the Commissioners f~-~ their interest and visits to the site. He al questioned why an outside traffic engineer was no~ used in this case. He continued to express concerns of the neighborhood stating nothing was mentioned about sound and odors and wondered if all of the changes were actually being monitored to be sure they were done properly. Mr. Scheller continued on by saying that he no longer felt that Creamettes was a light industrial property, that is should be located in a heavy industrial zone. In addition, Mr. Scheller stated that the commitments that had been made by the Creamette Company when the expansion was completed in 1975 had not been fulfilled. Mr. Litterer asked to be recognized -to clarify Mr. Scheller's concerns. He stated that the Creamette Company had held meetings with the residents. He went on to say that part of the criteria for submitting this application to the City was the preparation of a traffic study. The Creamette Company retained the services of Mr. Ken Anderson to prepare the study. For the purposes of this case Mr. Anderson has abstained from Planning Commission deliberations New Hope Planning Commission Page 4 September 9, 198, regarding this 'case. Mr. Litterer stated that regarding the zoning, their property and all the property along the tracks was zoned heavy industrial back in 1973 when the original building was built. It was zoned to lesser industrial use later. Mr. Litterer continued by stating that the excavation that was taking place was at Creamette's own risk. There has been no commitments by the City staff, Planning Commission or by the City Council that this request would be approved. Larry Radtke, 3701 Maryland Avenue, expressed his concern that the property values for residential homes around the Creamette Company had declined over the past years. He felt that it was attributed to the existence of that company. He also stated that he felt that the property was being used as heavy industry rather than light industry. As a response to residents, Ms. Dunn stated that the property was zoned light industry. Mr. Donahue distributed sections of the City code describing acceptable uses of property zoned both light and heavy industry. Mr. Ken Anderson was recognized and addressed the level of truck traffic on 36th Avenue North. He stated that in his opinion the volume of traffic on 36th Avenue is well below capacity. In response to questions from the residents regarding noise complaints, Ms. Dunn explained that the City had a noise ordinance. She went on to say that there have been noise tests completed by the Building Official. Mr. Radtke stated that he had called City, Hall to complain about~a truck~that was running for four hours one evening and there was no response. Commissioner Oja asked the neighbors if they were concerned about the noise and odor was from trucks or from the general operation of the facility. It was the consensus that they were concerned about both. Mr. Litterer responded that the new addition would result in 80 percent of the truck loading and unloading that is currently happening on the east side to be moved to the proposed front loading area. Commissioner Oja questioned number of loading docks New Hope Planning Commission Page 5 September 9, 1987 to be used on the east side. Mr. Litterer stated that trailers would not be loaded on the east side at night. He explained that packaging materials are unloaded on the east side during the day. He continued on by saying that all dock doors are 100 feet off the side yard property line and are well within the setback of the side yard. Commissioner Oja questioned if the Creamette Company could close up some of the dock doors on the east side if they are given more docks on the front. She also stated that because of the dust, she would prefer that the site be sodded rather than seeded. Mr. Lumry described the form of seeding and mulch that would be used and explained that it would assist in controlling the dust. In response to a question from Commissioner Oja, Mr. Litterer stated that the barrels that had been previously stored on site had been returned to the appropriate companies. Chairman Cameron asked about the increased production of the facility over the years. Mr. Litterer explained that production and efficien has been increased 100 percent over the past few years. He also stated that for the last 12 years they have been operating on a 24-hour, 7 day a week basis. While the facility could be physically expanded, the company has no plans to do so for the next 5 years. Chairman Cameron questioned the number of employees. Mr. Litterer stated that the current number was about 145 or 150 full time complement. Chairman Cameron questioned what would happen if the City denied their request. Mr. Litterer stated that he could not answer on behalf of the Company. Chairman Cameron wondered if this expansion does not increase production, and increases the ability to ship goods, that if the request was denied the petitioner would just continue to ship all products out of the east loading area. Mr. Litterer stated that the facility was a large investment for the company and that he did not thin,,k New Hope Planning Commission Page 6 September 9, 198, that Borden would clOse the factory as a result of the denial of this request. Commissioner Gundershaug went back to the landscaping on the east side of the building. He stated that he would like to see the landscaping increased to provide a noise and visual barrier for the adjacent residential properties. Mr. Lumry addressed this matter and concluded that the fence provides year around screening. He continued with the statement that solid wood fencing screens sound better than trees. Commissioner Edwards commented that neighbors were just asking for some recognition that the company was concerned about their complaints such as noise and screening, etc. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this expansion would increase efficiency for the movement of products out of the plant and would not result in manufacturing of additional products. Commissioner Lutts asked for clarification on signs and relocation of such if necessary. Mr. Litterer confirmed the sign would not be moved at present, but if it were in the future it would come under City codes. MOTION Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lutts, to recommend approval of Planning Case 87-28, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Front Loading, with a Variance to allow a 5-foot encroachment in the side yard, and Construction Approval at 7300 36th Avenue subject to the following: That one additional evergreen be planted on the east side of the building between the existing evergreens along the new addition, that one additional evergreen be planted from the existing building to the rear of the building on the east side every 15 feet, that the privacy fence be repaired and that all missing plantings from previously approved plans be replaced. The conditional use permit is subject to an annual review by City staff for adherence to traffic levels, noise levels, and air pollution levels. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that the New Hope Planning Commission Page 7 September 9, 1987 ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT arrangement sounded like it was for the be~ because it moved the truck docks away from t~ residential property. Commissioner Edwards commented that he supported the motion but was dismayed that future use of the building may be rather limited. He also stated that he felt the zoning of the site was appropriate. Voting in favor: Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron. Voting against: none Absent: Sonsin, Anderson. None. Meeting was adjourned at 9:04 by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker-"*~"~ New Hope Planning Commission Page 8 September 9, 198; CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH t{ENNEPIN OOUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Planning C~m~,~ssion Minutes Regular Meeting October 6, 1987 City Hall, 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, October 6, 1987, at the New Hope City Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Edwards, Oja Absent: None Cameron, Gundershaug, PC 87-27 VARIANCE ERIVENAY ACCESS The Chairman introduced Case 87-27, Request for Variance to Permitted Driveway Access. The petitioner was not in attendance. MUrION Motion by Co~u~dssioner Edwards, second Commissioner Anderson to ~mble Case 87-27 until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Lutts,Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None PC 87-31 ODNDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ~ F. PHONE SERVICE TOWER Chairman Cameron noted that the petitioner in this case had requested that the case be tabled until the November 3, Planning C~m~H ssion Meeting. MOTION Motion by Com,missioner Edwards,second by Commissioner Anderson to ~m~ble Case 87-31 until the next meeting. Voting in favor: Voting against: Mmtion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja. None PC 87-32 Mr. Baltz stated he was requesting permission to install a radio tower that would be 55 feet in height. The tower would be for his ham radio. He added, in response to a question regarding lights on the tower, that the FCC required lights only if a tower were over 200 feet in height, or near an airport. His tower would not require New Hope Planning Commission page 1 October 6, 1987 Cc~missioner Anderson confirmed that the tower would be located in the rearyard of the property, and that the backyard w~s fenced in with a chain link fence. PC 87-32 The petitioner noted that he also had a dog which would discourage people frc~ climbing the fence. He stated that the tower would not interfere with his neighbor's TV reception but that-if it did, he would be required to correct the situation. He also w-as required to be licensed by the Federal C~m~unications Co~mYHssion (FCC). He stated he had not discussed this with his neighbors. In response to a question frc~ the Chairman, Mr.. Baltz said he had lived at this location since 1983. He intended to be there long- term. If they left the area, the antenna would be taken down. It would not be a permanent structure. Cc~m~Hssioner Sonsin inquired what the petitioner had done for an antenna previously? Mr. Baltz said there were different types of antennas. He desired the tower to give him an increased signal. Most of his activity involved listening, rather than transmitt~. Another advantage of this type of tower was that it could be pointed in any direction th allow transmission from greater distances. The tower would be made of galvanized aluminum tubing and will be a self supporting system. He indicated he had data about the tower if the Co~m~Hssion wished to review it. In response to a question from Commissioner Sonsin, Mr. Baltz stated he and some friends would construct the tower. The tower will be slightly higher than the existing Spruce trees on the site. He did not anticipate ever needing a higher antenna in the future. Commissioner Sonsin referred to the staff recommendation that the tower be enclosed in an eight foot high fence, and asked Mr. Baltz if he had any problems with this restriction. Ms. Dunn stated that the staff request was for safety reasons. The existing three foot fence could easily be climbed. Mr. Baltz said he had no problem with this requirement. C~L,,~,4ssioner Gundershaug asked whether the tower would be on a permanent base? Mr. Baltz said that the base would be concrete. Ms. Dunn stated that complete plans would need to be submitted fo~'~, New Hope Planning C~ission page 2 Oc~o~ 6, 1987 staff review prior to any installation. MOTION C~m~,~ssioner Anderson made a motion rec~,,~nding approval of the 55' tower as requested in Case 87-32, subject to: 1) plans being submitted to staff for review, prior to the City Council meeting; 2) that an eight foot fence be installed around the tower; 3) that the Conditional Use Permit be terminated upon the petitioner's vacation of the property; 4) that the petitioner submit proof to the city of FCC approval of the tower. C~mmissioner Lutts second. Voting in favor: voting against: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Ed~n~, Oja None Friedrich, Gundershaug, Discussion followed regarding the possibility of the city imposing insul-ance requirements on the petitioner. Following discussion with the consultant, it was determined that this could make the city liable for damages in the event of an accident. 87-33 ~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE Mr. Karl David stated that he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow him to have exterior storage at the site of a building he was constructing at 3531 Nevada Avenue North. Chairman Cameron asked whether this case had been reviewed by Design and Review? Co~tmdssioner Oja replied it had, and then asked the petitioner about the fencing materials that would be used around the storage area. Mr. David stated there will be a chain link fence with screening, with plastic inserts woven through. The petitioner said he was proposing an eight foot high fence with barbed top to insure security. There will be crushed rock as the base of the enclosure. He added that there is some problem with soil conditions on the site, and he would like to use the c~mhed rock at least through the winter to determine what the ground will do. Ccmmissioner Oja asked what would be stored? Mr. David said it was for the storage of work trailers, construction equipment, scaffolding, etc. There will be one or two vehicles in the enclosure, and will be primarily for storage of the construction equipment. There will be a 20 foot gate. The remainder of the area in the rear is scheduled to be seeded. The parking area is completely curbed. Cc~missio~ Gundershaug stated that the city would require that in a year's time, the temporary surface in the enclosure be removed and a hard surface installed. New Hope Planning Con,,~Hssion page 3 October 6, 1987 The petitioner noted that he would like to move the front enclosur~ slightly from the location on the plans, so that he could avoid going into the city's easement. The dimensions would remain the same. C~u,,~ssioner Sonsin confirmed that there would be no hazardous materials stored on this site. Mr. David said only mterials and vehicles related to his concrete masonry business would be stored on the site. There was no one present in regard to this request. MOTION Cua,,~,~ssioner C~a made a motion reco~m~nding approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 87-33, at 3531 Nevada Avenue North, with the following conditions: 1) that an eight foot solid fence be installed; 2) that suitable surface be installed within the enclosure in one year; and 3) that the conditional use permit be subject to annual review by staff. Co~m¥,~ssioner Gundershaug second. C~mt,~ssioner Anderson clarified that there was already a curb cut on the property, that drainage will be off the lot into the easement, primarily tcw-ard the west,and that the size of the enclosure will be 70 feet frc~ east to west. ~ Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, ~, Oja. Voting against: None Motion carried. PC 87-34 CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL Daryl Hampton represented Tool Products Company. He stated that they were requesting construction approval for an 80' x 130' addition to the main part of their building, and a 40' x 30' addition to the front office portion. They were requesting no variances. C~m¥,~ssioner Edwards asked how many parking stalls there would be and what the building addition materials would be? The petitioner responded they planned to provide 286 stalls, and that 283 were required by code. The additions will match the existing buildings as far as exterior materials are concerned. Co~m~,~ssioner Edwards then confirmed that any rooftop equipment would be painted to match the building. Mr. Hampton stated that they would be adding security lighting, but the plans for this were not complete. Discussion continued regarding the need for additional securi~'~, New Hope Planning Com,~Hssion page 4 October 6, 1987 lights following the additions, near the walkways. Mr. Hampton continued by saying that the parking areas will have continuous concrete curbing, and all tk3rking areas will be blacktopped. There are future stalls indicated on the plans that will not be surfaced at the present time. These future spaces have not been included in the 286 total. All parking stalls will be rip . Com,,~ssioner ~ asked how the waste and trash will be handled? The petitioner stated that they were considering installing a trash c~pactor. If this is done, the dumpster will no longer be needed. Cu~,~ssioner Edwards confirmed that whichever method is used for the trash, a compactor or the dumpster, it would be completely enclosed In response to a question f;-~¥~ the C~mt,~ssion, Mr. Hampton stated that there will be no signage installed, unless they find a need for some directional signs. Discussion then centered on the landscaping as proposed. It was noted that a cc~plete list of the plantings w~s on sheet L-2 of the site plans. The bulk of the plantings will be Norway Spruce trees. Cu,mmissioner Edwards asked whether there was any possibility that the petitioners would screen the propane tank on the rear of the site? The petitioner stated that he was not sure if it would be possible to screen the tank because it stored propane; he thought there was a n~ for ventilation. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city had received any complaints about this operation from the neighbors? Ms. Dunn stated that complaints had been received about the adjacent property. However, that business had moved. The city had not received any complaints regarding this property. Ccmmissio~ Edwards noted that in driving around the site, he had noticed quite a bit of material just sitting loose on the site. The petitioner noted that this was waste material, not materials being stored. This waste material will be disposed of shortly. C~mnissioner Edwards stated the petitioner should be aware that outside storage was allowed in the City of New Hope only through a Conditional Use Permit. New Hope Planning Com,~,~ssion page 5 October 6, 1987 87-34 C~L,,L,~ssioner Gundershaug asked about the docks on the site? The petitioner noted that one dock door will be removed. Most of the loading will be done on the south side of the building. He further explained the use of each dock door. In response to questions from C~L,,~dssioner Gundershaug, the petitioner stated he did not know how many trucks were on site during one day, but could find out if the Com,~dssion wished. However, there will not be a change in the number of trucks, from what is presently occurring. The outside storage area will remain in the same location and is fenced. C~t,,~,~ssioner Anderson asked about the shifts. It w-as noted that they operate three shifts, seven days a week. C~.~dssioner Anderson expressed concern for the need for additional security lighting in the main parking lot on the hill, at least by the walkway. Co~,~,~ssioner Anderson then stated that the petitioner should review the turning radius provided for 70 foot trucks exiting a dock. He stated that the petitioner should be sure that trucks did not block the access. Ms. Dunn stated that staff would like the petitioner to remove the parking spaces designated as "future parking" on the site plan, because it was not needed to meet tk3rking code requirements, an~ that it encroached on the required green area. Cu,~u~gssioner Edwards made a motion rec~tu~nding approv~ of the construction requested in Case 87-34, at 5100 Boone North, subject to the following: 1) lighting be added to the east parking lot and along the sidewalk and wmlkw~ys; 2) that any missing or damaged landscaping on site be replaced; 3) that the parking spaces designated as "future parking" be deleted from the plan. Co~L,~,~ssioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, ~, Oja None MOTION Motion by C~,,~Hssioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner to remove Case 87-27 from the table. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron Gundershaug, ~, Oja None PC 87-27 VARIANCE Mr. Bruce Pinney stated that he was requesting a second driveway. He has a corner lot, and his-rear door is around the building from the driveway. He presented six letters from neighbors to th/'~ New Hope Planning Cum,~ssion page 6 October 6, 1987 Co~u~,~ssion, indicating no objections to his plan. Rmferring to the cu~,,~nts from the meeting in October, Mr. Pinney said he had taken a drive through the city, and listed the other properties he had observed that had more than one driveway. He had found at least seven properties with two driveways, and one that had three, as well as the people with circle driveways, that involved two curb cuts. He submitted this list of properties to the Commission. Mr. Pinney added that there was a proble~ with parking even when they had a family gathering, as both he and his wife came fi-cm~ large families. He added that when he had originally requested the driveway he wanted it only to park his trailer on. Since that time his brother in law has requested he be allowed to live with him and he would like the driveway for his car, and when he left, it would be used for the trailer. Chairman Cameron noted that the city staff had been asked to come up with an explanation for the double driveways that presently exist in close proximity to the petitioner's home. Ms. Dunn noted that in the Commissioner's packets three properties were listed as having double driveways in Mr. Pinney's area. Two of these were existing as illegal non conforming driveways. This was as a result of garages being removed but not the driveways. One other double driveway was a legal non conforming driveway. This driveway is legal because it was in place, before the code was change prohibiting such driveways. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the city staff would follow through to guarantee removal of these non conforming illegal driveways. f~airman Cameron asked what the legal rationale was for this code restriction? Alan Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants stated this code restriction was basically to limit the number of access points into the street. They also wished to limit the amount of parking allowed at single family dwellings. It is basically a safety concern, as well as the desire for uniformity of neighborhoods. Ms. Dunn stated that also of concern was the possible over use of single family properties. Chairman Cameron expressed concern about the temporary renting out of the Pinney's basement, and that it could become a permanent thing. He suggested that Mr. Pinney check with city staff regarding any city restrictions in renting of rooms. Mr. Pinney stated that there was no place on his lot to park extm~ vehicles -- one side was on a hill, and on the other side there was a ¥ow of huge trees. New Hope Planning Ccm~,~ssion page 7 October 6, 1987 Co,~uL,~ssioner C~a inquired as to how many vehicles the Pinneys had, and the size of his garage. · Mr. Pinney stated he had a double garage, a double driveway and four vehicles and a trailer. C~,,,,~ssioner C~a noted that there probably would be room to park one additional car in the driveway. Mr. Pinney stated he lived in a very iow traffic area, and he wanted just one little drive~ay. In response to a question from the Chairman, he stated he would like to have a curb cut also. C~,,t,~ssioner Anderson stated that it was to Mr. Pinney's advantage to. check with city staff regarding the dual occupancy issue. He strongly reco~m,~nded he find out what his rights were in this Co~m~,~ssioner Anderson noted that there would be nothing wrong with Mr. Pinney est~_blishing a hard surface somewhere in his back~ to store his trailer on. He asked what the distance was from the property line to the end of the driveway? Mr. Pinney distributed another illustration of the site. He said the total length of the paved area would be 29 feet, and about feet in width. Approximately 14 1/2 feet would be on his propert5 The trailer is 12 feet long, and he didn't know how long his v~ Commissioner Anderson noted that the current parking lot dimensions had a length of 19 feet. He asked staff if there was a legal way that Mr. Pinney could install a hard surface in his yard to store the trailer on. Mr. Brixius stated that storage in a residential area should be in the rearyard or inside. Commissioner Edwards asked whether Mr. Pinney had explored any other possibilities, such as installing a rear door in the garage to allow him to drive or pull the trailer into the rearyard? Mr. Pinney stated he was trying to get a more convenient way to handle the vehicles, other than having to move two, three, or four vehicles each day. He said he used all the vehicles every week. Chairman Cameron noted that he felt many people in the city had to move vehicles on a regular basis. Mr. John Westpba]l, 5437 Quebec, stated he felt Mr. Pinney had been very forthright, and that he didn't know where he w-as going to put his cars. He personally saw nothing wrong with the second driveway~ New Hope Planning C~,,,,~ssion page 8 October 6, 1987 MOTION He said he had not signed a letter for Mr. Pinney because he wanted to cc~e before the Commission personally to plead Mr. Pinney's case. He supported Mr. Pinney completely. Cu~,,LHssioner Anderson made a motion reco~L~~ denial of the variance requested at 5436 Rhode Island, Case 87-27. He stated he was primarily opposed because he felt granting the variance would encourage parking on the public right-of-way. Commissioner Sonsin Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None OLD BUSINESS MOTION Design and Review held one meeting in September. Codes and Standards held two meetings during September. Discussion then was held regarding Proposed Ordinance 87-9, which amends the New Hope Sign Code as it relates to ts~po~ signs, residential "for sale" signs and cc~pret%ensive sign plans. Discussion followed reqard~ the signage to be allowed on a corner location, and the definition of a corner location. Mr. Brixius said t_hat it was the intent of the discussions to identify the number of sites that would have exposure to two streets. The general rule would be if they are visible from two streets, but signage to be also limited by the area involved. Commissioner Anderson made a motion rec~mi~ approval of the revised sign ordinance and forw~rdir~ it to the City Council. Chairman Cameron questioned the increased size to be allowed in signs for apartmmnts and residential units (Section 3.461) stating he felt 75 square feet was too large a sign. Mr. Brixius stated that particular part of the ordinance related only to new development. Such signs were to be removed after one year after issuance of the building permit, or when rental levels reach a certain level. The suggested change is from 40 square feet to 75 square feet, to be consistent with ~ial properties. Any sign had to conform to the required setbacks, including location 130 feet from any existing residential dwelling. Chairman Cameron also requested that the sexist language be removed from the proposed amendment. Cu~m~,~ssioner Sonsin second. New Hope Planning Commission page 9 October 6, 1987 Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja None The Planning CU~L,,L,~ssion minutes of September 1 and 9, 1987 were accepted as printed. The Citizen A~visory Commission minutes of August 17, 1987 were reviewed. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of August 24, 1987 and September 14, 1987 were reviewed. The City Council minutes of August 24, 1987 and September 14, 1987 were reviewed. Brief discussion w-as held regarding the status of the signage at Archie's Standard station and the Conditional Use Permit for Auto The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:03 P.M. R~0ect~ly~t~, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission page 10 October 6, 1987 CiTY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYIDN AVENUE NOtKPH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 November 4, 1987 City ~3] 7:30 p.m. ~./C HEARING ~C 87-31 CIIP for TO~ER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Wednesday, November 4, 1987, the New Hope City Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chainman Came Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Absent: Lutts Mr. Olson, owner of Olson Concrete said he would speak for the petitioner. He noted they were requesting permission to put in a tower for the cellular system. There is already a tower on the site, which would be replaced by the new unit. The existing tower is located on the northwest side of the building and is made of The new tower will also be at the northwest corner of the building but will be constructed of angle iron. It will be a typical cellular tower, of open latice construction. Chairman Cameron asked whether any other buildings will be required on site? Mr. Olson said there would be a shelter building which would be on concrete pads. Max Thonpson, Cellular One arrived at the meeting. He stated that the two buildings were for the very sophisticated electronics involved in the cellular system. The shelter is specially designed, is a very sturdy building to provide a very controlled environment. It will be constructed of 4 inch thick concrete. The inside of the shelter is protected for safety purposes by halon gas. The building will house $250,000 worth of electronic equipment to provide protection in case NSP power went out. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there would be any benefit in the Commission looking at a variance in case the use of the site would be changed at a future time? He was concerned with the 30% Ms. Dunn stated that under a PUD, the development agreement would be with a specific owner and restrictions could be included in the agreement that if/when the use changed, the city could require that the site be brought into code compliance in regard to the gre~'~ area. He added that originally 35% green had been proposed for th~ site, and now 30% is proposed. He asked whether there was any possibility that additional green area could be provided? Mr. Olson noted that they were trying to eliminate excess storage areas. He added that the green areas will be seeded, new shrubs will be added, and with the fence in back they felt the visibility for the neighborhood would be satisfactory. Co~Hssioner Gundershaug suggested that the petitioner check with the ordinance, because all exterior storage had to be on a hard surface o Mr. Olson said that there was concrete and blacktop in most of the areas now, that they could provide more, but would prefer not to have the entire property of hard surface materials. He added that they could submit a paving plan to the city if required. Cu~mL,~ssioner Gundershaug said he was concerned about the setbacks and the existing shed. Mr. Olson said that the shed was for flammable storage, materials that could not be stored inside the main building. C~m,~ssioner Gundershaug stated that the shelter was now located ~1~ the easement, and should be moved back five feet from the lot line. Mr. Olson said that five feet did not seem to him to be a problem. Discussion followed between Coim-~Hssioner Gundershaug and Mr. Olson regarding the possibility of the petitioner providing more green Mr. Tho~-~son stated that something that should be considered was that some of the land had been given up for required easements. It was noted that the existing fence had slats, and that the amount of equipment that would need to be moved to provide more green area would adversely affect the business. This was why they were requesting 30% green area. C~m~,~ssioner Gundershaug noted that the property was donated to the city for pending easements several years ago, and the original agreement said there would be 35% green area provided. c~irman Cameron asked who the Cu~tuLdssion/City was dealing with in regard to this request? Mr. Olson said they would continue to own the property, and that Cellular One were renters. The city had to deal with the owners. Cu~L,,~,~ssioner Friedrich asked for clarification of the type surface that the equipment w~s stored on? ~87-35 l:{3D,~ ~.~.t~ Mr. Olson said that right now it w-us on a gravel surface, but that the only items stored at the present time were sscaffold plans and leftover lumber. He said that if it were required to provide blacktop they would do so, however, he would like to clarify what "storage" was. He said currently there were flatbed trailers also, and wondered if this was considered storage or parking? He added he would hate to have to pave the entire lrard. Colmmissioner Friedrich stated he looked at storage as any type of vehicle that was being stored on the property for a length of time. Mr. Olson said that if it was a job trailer then it was not being stored, but was parked between jobs. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the tower would affect television reception in the area? Mr. Thompson said no, because the FCC mandated that it would not interfere. There was no one present in re~ard to this request. O~m~Hssioner Anderson confirmed that all of the parking and driving areas would be of hard surface materials. He asked what would be underneath the tower? It was noted this area would be seeded, but that there would be no activity under the tower. Co~.t,~ssioner Gundershaug made a motion recc~endi~g approval of the ~ requested ~ Case 87-31, subject to: all open storage being on a hard s~trfaoe, that the existing shed be moved out of the ~-~m~=nt, ar~ that the pro~ be ~ to the 35% green area re~,~nt if the t~si,~ or use of the property char~ed, ar~ that a perform~no=_ bond be provided. Co~t~issioner Friedrich second. Co~.missioner Edwards expressed concern about the precedent being set in allowing the 30% green area. Commissioner Anderson said he did support the motion because it is an existing site, and there is a way to bring it closer to conformance. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, C~a Lutts Ms. Dunn distributed site plans to the Com~,~ssioners. Mr. Richard Asp, of Asp Construction, Fargo, North Dakota stated they were requesting concept approval for a 206 unit apartment project on the old Minnec/asco propane transfer site. He noted that his firm was presently constructing a 211 unit co~t01ex in Eagan. The c~Lglex will consist of two buildings and a recreation area in the center. It will be a wood frame building with underground parking and elevators. The present zoning is industrial and they were requesting a rezoning into multiple dwelling and a t~JD. The area around the site is mostly residential with single family to the west and east and to the south is the cemetary. They felt the development would provide a buffer to the residential areas. He added that as developers they shared the city/citizens' concerns about noise and vehicles. They have attempted to minimize these by placing the buildings to the south as far as possible. They feel this location and the space between the buildings and the lot line will help to minimize the noise. They propose screening and landscaping along the north and will also maintain the landscaping along Winnetka. They have attempted to minimize the impact of the traffic on the site. They have also been in contact with Henrtepin County. They plan to provide access for emergency vehicles to the south as well increased turning radius. They are concerned with providing amenities for the future residents of Brighton Place such as tennis courts, green areas, a pool and a recreation building, as well as provide a park like atmosphere. They hope to attract both young professional people, as well as empty nestors and people who work in New Hope but presentl~v-~ live elsewhere. Chairman Cameron stated he wanted to emphasize for the Commission and the audience that this discussion was about concept approval only. The petitioner wished to gain their impressions regarding the proposal. Any actual construction, would come before the commission at a later time. For this reason he wished to split the request in three parts. He noted that the CoAmL, ission would review the requested rezoning first. He stated that historically there were only two reasons to justify a rezoning in the City of New Hope. They were because a mistake had been made in the original zoning, and that significant changes had occurred in the area to justify the rew. oning o The f~airman added that he found this proposal very close to spot zoning, and he was afraid that the cox~lex would turn into a residential island in the middle of industrial zoning. Commissioner Gundershaug agreed that this would be spot zoning, and that if this property were rezoned, the residents would become prisoners of the site. Winnetka is one of the bugiest streets in New Hope, and adding 206 apartment units would increase the traffic. He personally would prefer to see the property remain industrial. Co~t,,t, lssioner Edwards concurred with previous statements. He did not think it would be an appropriate zone, because of the problems o~-~, the access, the traffic on Winnetka, and he felt it would be bettek left as J3xlustrial. Co~.L,~ssioner Anderson confirmed that the existing tracks would be removed from the site. It was noted that this w~s a spur line, presently disconnected, that would be removed at time of development. The existing chain link fence would also be repaired. They also intended to berm the area next to the r~ilroad tracks. C~L,,dssioner Anderson confirmed that the only access in and out of the site is from Winnetka -- t_hat there will be no access to the rear of the proposed buildings. It was further noted that there was no sidewalk on the east side of Winnetka Avenue. C~m~,~ssioner Anderson asked whether there was an alternate plan if this proposal was not approved. The petitioner said no. It had been his understanding that the property had been on the market for some time, and had not sold as an industrial site. If this proposal was not approved, they would drop the project. Mr. Asp noted that the Minnegasco ~as anxious to sell the site, and that they were interested in purchas~ it for an apartment complex. In his opinion the previous use as a propane transfer station was more d~ngerous than increasing traffic on the streets. He felt apartment development would be an improvement in land usasge. Co~,,~Hssioner Anderson noted that a rezoning was a very serious matter. He personally could not vote for rezoning unless he was sure that it would be developed in the proposed manner. The petitioner was also, in his opinion, requesting a very dense residential use. He asked whether the petitioner had any target rents for. the complex? Mr. Asp responded that they propose 48 three bedroom units at $766/month; 96 two bedroom units at $690/month; and 60 one bedroom units at $577/month. There would also be two studio apartments for guest use. Com,~Hssioner Anderson asked whether the petitioner had any plans for creating something of a less intensive development? Mr. Asp said he would be willing to consider a scaled down project. Chairman Cameron then asked for comments from the citizens. Robert Brost, 7900 37th Avenue North, disagreed with the idea of the development creating a buffer. He stated that he had known it was industrial when he bought his home. Th_is apartment complex would add 300 vehicles,and he didn't think the frontage was that big. He disagreed with the statement that the property had been on the market for as long as was stated. Also, the trackage was for light industrial, thought there would be a lot of uses for this It w-us noted that the track had already been disconnected. Mr. Brost said there were quite a few people that disagreed with the rezoning. He presented a petition with 78 signatures of of people that were against the project. Chairman Cameron accepted the petition for the record. The City Manager noted for the record that the property was not zoned only limited industrial. There was a portion that was limited industrial, but also a portion that was zoned general industrial. Richard Hoeg, stated that he felt most of the residents liked the way the neighborhood was now. Minnegasco had been a very good neighbor. He felt that Winnetka was an extremely dangerous area. He was concerned with the proposed development and liked it as it w~s. He noted that he was a member of the District #281 School Board and was also concerned about the impact the addition of the children from the proposed complex would have on the district. Robert Moe, 3901 Winnetka, stated he often spent from two to seven minutes trying to get out of his driveway on to Winnetka in the morning. This development would only make it worse. ..-~ Duane Schroeder, 8216 38th Avenue North, stated he was in extrem~ disfavor of this project. He also had a hard time getting on to Winnetka frc~ his driveway. It would also put a burden on the school district and be a detriment to the neighbors Mr. slavick, 8009 37th Avenue North, said he agreed with the comments about the traffic. He took the bus for many years and trying to get across Winnetka was very tricky and difficult. He also questioned the need for another large apartment complex in New Hope o Deena Wilberhauser, 3867 Winnetka North, stated she had 109 signatures on a petitioner against the proposed rezoning. The property w~s zoned light industrial and this was just fine with her. The traffic problems on Winnetka are severe and putting 206 people on this site, including children would be dangerous. She stated she took the bus and when leaving the bus at dusk it w-as very hard to walk along Winnetka. She felt this project w~s inviting problems. She further requested that the Commissioners consider the noise and pollution factors, as well as the risks of a higher crime rate if more people moved in. She questioned whether the city did not need to do an environmental study before a rezoning? She also questioned the motives of having a large complex in New Hope. She had worked for the city offices for a while, and sbz'~ wondered if the motives behind this project were not greed? Cha~ Cameron re-stated, for the record and for the citizen's information, that only part of the property was zoned limited industrial. Another portion of the site was zoned general industrial. Grant Merritt, 8124 40th Avenue, stated that he felt the cemetary ~as a good buffer zone. He had checked with the Metropolitan Council in regard to the apartment vacancy rate generally and in New Hope. His information was that this rate was increasing yearly. He questioned whether New Hope needed another apartment complex. His concerns were with the traffic, and the additional congestion that would be added. He had a very nice neighborhood. They heard a fair amount of noise f~-om County Road #18 and 42nd Avenue and he felt this proposal would reduce the attr~ctiv~s of the Hopewood Hills Ccmmissio~ Anderson left the meeting. Daniel Hunt, of Coldwell Banker, requested permission to speak. He stated they had listed the property, and had contacted the petitioner. ~x~dressing the proposal,he said he felt it would make a big difference to the city. He did not think it was a good site for anything, but that residential was the best use in his opinion. R~gardless 'of the future use, Minnegasco would be out and the site would change. There have not been many apartment buildings built since 1962, and this complex would be the first opportunity for many people to live in a new ccm-~lex. The buildings would offer an alternative to people living in New Hope -- single family homes are not for everyone. He felt the complex would offer something to the whole community. Commissioner ~ ~aade a motion r~'-.-.~ng denial of the rezoning a~ ~ in C~se 87-35 at 3900 W~ Ave~- North. Co~mmissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: F~fcioncarried. Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, None Chairman Cameron stated that he did not feel the Commission needed to spend a lot of time on the issue of construction, it would be discussed at this time. He co~tu~nted that his personal feeling was that PUtting 200+ families on this site with only one roadway out of the site was too much development. Co~tu~,~ssioner Gundershaug agreed it was too dense a proposal for the site since the access was horrendous, and it would be difficult to maintain the interior road during the winter. He confirmed that the proposal included a break away gate at the emergexms; access point. Commissioner Edvmrds stated his concern with the density and the PC87--36 VARIANCE compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding area Mr. Ernie Gregoire, of Asp Construction, cou~nted on the proceedings, the interest and concern of the citizens and the concerns expressed by the Commissioners. He thanked the Cc~mission for allowing them to present their proposal. Cold, missioner Gundershaug made a motion reo,~-~ denial of the ~ a~x~-ul, I~JD, ar~] rezc~r~, as r~Wued in Case 87-35. 0 ..... ~ ~.~icmer ~lwazds seoor~. Voting in favor: Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, voting against: None Mot/c~ for denial carried. The City Manager stated that because this property was a metes and bounds legal description, the C~m~,~ssion should also vote on the prelimiD~ry plat as requested. Motion by Cu~tm~ssioner Gundershaug denyir~ the rec~=~t for the pre/{m{~ary plat at 3900 Winnetk~ Av-er~ae North. Commissioner Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: F~t/on Carried. Sonsin, Friedrich, Ca~_ron, Gundershaug, Edwarads, None Lutts, Anderson Mr. Schwichterberg stated that he presently had two garages on his property. He was requesting permission to turn the attached garage into a car port. However, it would not be used as a car port, but only as a drive through to get to the garage at the rear of the property. They would like the car port because they felt it gave a better appearance to the home. It was their feeling that removing the attached garage completely would destroy the look of the front of the house. He presented drawings for the Commissioners to review. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the Schwichtenbergs would have to drive through this area to get to the new garage. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that the original plan had been to remove the attached garage. Mr. Schwichtenberg stated that after talking to st~ff, he had not thought that the car port would be considered as a second garage. The new garage is already completely built. The exterior wall created by the car port would be redone -- another wall would be constructed on top of the existing interior wall There was also a fireplace that extended two feet into the garag. area. There will be three or four posts installed to support the roof when the garage is removed. The width of the area created will be 11 feet, after allowing for the two feet of fireplace extension. Discussion about the posts to be installed to support the roof when the garage is removed. Mr. Dooley, 5401 Winnetka Avenue North, stated he was a resident of the neighborhood for six years, and he had no problem with the proposed car port, he felt it would look just fine. C~m~issioner Gundershaug questioned the 19 foot setback at the rear of the lot. The City Manager said this was an allowable setback. Discussion followed between Commissioners C~a, Sonsin, and the Schwichtenbergs regarding the reasons for the car port and where the Winnebago would be parked. Commissioner Edwards asked for confirmation of the distance between the existing driveway and the side lot line. He felt it was too close. The City Manager said the driveway could be three feet from the lot line. It was noted that the existing driveway was within one foot of the side yard. Discussion followed, with C~Lu~issioner Edwards again expressing his concerns about the driveway's closeness to the property line. Mr. Schwichtenberg noted that back in the "old days" there were no inspections in regard to placement of driveways, etc. C~m~Hssioner Gundershaug made a motion r~, .... ~nd~ approval of the car p~rt at 5406 Utah Ave~e North, as requested in Case 87-36. Cu~L~,~ssioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Sonsin, Friedrich, Oja None Lutts, Anderson Cameron, Gundershaug, Edw-drdSI One meeting of the Design and Review Co~L~ittee had been held. Codes and Standards Committee had not met. OLD ~3SINESS Discussion held with the city Manager regarding the status of th~, 42nd Avenue development, the soil conditions at the propo~ McDonald's site and the reco~t.t~ndations as to land usage for the old Minnegasco site. The Planning C~u,,~ssion Minutes of October 6, 1987 were accepted as printed. The HRA Minutes of September 14, and 28, 1987 were reviewed. The Council Minutes of September 28, and October 12, 1987 were reviewed. meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by unanimous ccr~ent. J Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORad HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 ~ 1, 1987 City Hall 7:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Planning Cu~u~ission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, December 1, 1987 at the New Hope City Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. by C~irman Cameron. Present: Anderson, Lutts, Cameron,Gundershaug, Oja. Absent: Sonsin, Friedrich Edwards! ~J~LIC ~ PC 87-35 3900 ~ Staff noted that the petitioner in Case 87-35 had requested that the case be tabled. Motic~ by Omma~ssic~er Edwards, secor~ by O .... i-~ic~er C~a to ~ble C~se 87-35 urfcil the meetin~ of J~ 5, 1988. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: F~tic~carried. Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Edwards, C~a None Sonsin, Friedrich PC 87-37 ~3P ~3TSI~E S~--~%GE, OFF SITE PARK/NG, ERIVINS LANE 5101 BOC~E Mr. Mike Hahr represented the petitioner, Keelor Steel and Aluminum. He stated they were requesting the Conditional Use permit, to allow off-site storage and a driving lane for incoming truck traffic. The off-site storage would be for scrap containers and skid storage. Commissioner Lutts inquired about the type of screen they proposed for the exterior storage area. Mr. Hahr stated he believed it would be some type of insert in the cyclone fence. CoYm~Hssioner Lutts stated that the type of insert, and/or type of screening fence had to be established before this case went to the City Council. In response to further questions, Mr. Hart stated that the parking was scheduled to be surfaced in June of 1988. The roadway will be sealcoated during the summer and surfaced during the fall of 1988. As the containers become full, they will be hauled away and dumped. The number of containers and wooden pallets on site at a given time New Hope Planning Co,~u~ission Page 1 December l, 1987 would vary. It depended on when they were returned by the custome~ for the company to re-use. Cu~L,,~,~ssioner Lutts noted that a lease would be required between the petitioner and the Soo T.~ne Railroad, to be approved by city staff, allowing the exterior storage. Ms. Dunn stated that the city had already received a copy of the lease. ~m~dssioner Oja confirmed that the parking lot would be paved, and that the city did require that parking areas be curbed. The petitioner stated he did not know what type of curbing would be installed, and that the entire driving area would be surfaced. Cc~tut,~ssioner Edwards noted that the city required continuous curbs around the entire parking area. Cu, m~issioner Oja then asked about the propane tanks on site and whether the section of land to the north w~s also going to be blacktopped? She questioned what would be on that portion of land. The petitioner stated he did not know what might go on that land, perhaps nothing. C~t~l~ssioner C~a noted that if the company did not plan to blacktop that area, they would have to install some type of ground cover. In response to questions about snow removal on site, the petitioner noted tb~t it had not been a problem previously. Commissioner Anderson inquired about the fresh fill at the rear of the site, toward the wetlands and across the easement. It was noted that this w-as clean fill and had been put in to clean up that particular area.. Ms. Dunn stated that staff was aware of the fill on the site and had worked with Keelor Steel because of the sensitivity of the wetland. There was no one present in regard to this case. Ckmmdssi~ Lut[~ made a motic~ re~s,e~ approval of ~ ~~ ~ ~t, ~f~i~ ~, ~ ~iv~ ta~,~ ~ at 5101 ~ A~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ 87-37, ~t ~ ~ ~ ~iv~ ~ ~ ~~ on ~ ~ ~e p~ ~ ~ ~~, ~t ~ ~ a 1~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~or ~ ~ f~e ~ ~ ci~, ~t ~ ci~, ~ve a ~ ~ ~ of ~t ~ ~ ~1~ of ~ New Hope Planning Co]m~ission Page 2 ~ 1, 1987 Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, C~a None I:C 87-38 3930 BOONE Ms. Dunn introduced this planning case. She corrected an error that had been included in the staff report to the Cum, J,~ssioners. Item #1 of the analysis section had indicated that the proposal would not encroach into the sideyard easement. ~he correct statement ~as that it d~ encroach as the re~ed s~ easement is 10 feet. She further stated that a letter had been received on November 30, 1987 (distributed to the C~m¥,~ssioners) that objected to the proposed addition. Mr. Ronald Potter stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to add a family room to his home. He introduced his architect, David Darrell to address the C~L,,~,~ssion. Using illustrations, Mr. Darrell stated they had looked for the most logical way to extend the house. The addition as proposed would be 5 1/2 feet from the property line. The neighbor's home is also 5 1/2 feet from the property line. The extension is into the side!rard, not the front yard. He also presented a sketch of the lot which showed the location of the house and proposed addition on the property. He stated that even with the addition, the house would still not take up more than 25% of the lot area. He did not feel the site would be over-built. Mr. Potter said he had driven up and down 40th Avenue, and there were a number of h~nes where the two hc~es were as close as his would be with the proposed addition. He said he had talked to some of his neighbors, who had not objected to his plans. The architect noted that the addition would match the existing home. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, he stated that the house is a two story dwelling, and that the addition would be a one story addition. It will match the existing house and will have a gable roof. He further stated that there is no overhang on the side of the addition toward the easement. All exterior materials will match the existing home. There will be a heated crawl space underneath the addition. It will be a full room, not just a three season porch. Cum,~Hssioner Anderson noted that in his opinion 5 1/2 feet encroachment ~as a lot. The architect noted that he felt they could work this out. It would be possible to reduce the one dimension by the 5 1/2 feet and expand New Hope Planning Co]~u~,~ssion Page 3 December 1, 1987 in the other dimension. C~airman Cameron confirmed that if the petitioner/architect changed the plan,~ there would be no encroachment into the sideyard easement. Ms. Dunn stated that the dwelling on the adjacent property was also five feet fr~m the property line. City Code required a ten foot sideyard setback, except on the garage side, where it was five feet. Discussion continued. It was noted that Mr. Potter did not need a sideyard variance if he did not extend into the required easement. The variance is for an addition to a non-conforming structure. Col~.L,~ssioner Oja asked about the proposed deck and its size. The architect stated that the deck would also be ten feet from the property line. Noting that the property also contained a pool, C~L,,~,~ssioner Oja expressed concern that the property would have little green area. Mr. Potter stated that at the present time there is grass planted around the pool. The architect noted that even after the addition, the entire lot would have approximately 50% of green area. ~ C~airman Cameron noted that the petitioner would have to present ~*~ up-to-date survey of the property, before the Building Official could issued a building permit. Kathy Korvinak addressed the Coim¥,~ssion. She stated that their concerns were that any addition cc~ply with the regulations of the city. They were opposed to the addition because it would cut off light to their yard, and would infringe on their property. She read a letter in opposition into the record (attached). There was no one else in attendance regarding this request. ~-~ic~ler Azmlex~ma ~ a motion ~re~ .... ~wt~ approval of the re~t f~r a variance to ex~ a rmml-cc~f~{~ structure at 3930 Boc~e A¥~e North, Case 87-38, su~ect to the ~td~tion not ~chir~ into the ~r{'r'ed ~ foot sideyard setback. C~Lm,~ssioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja None Sonsin, Friedrich Edwards, New Hope Planning CulLut,~ssion Page 4 December 1, 1987 CASE 87-39 SIGN PIAN 5651-5671 INT'L PKW~f. CASE 87-40 STORAGE AND TF~/NG Mr. Arnold Hillukka stated they were requesting approval of a a comprehensive sign plan. This sign would be free standing, 4' 15' in size, with a time and temperature on the bottom. The time and temperaturewouldbedigitallyoperated. x Chairman Cameron asked whether the city could approve this type of sign? Ms. Dunn said the proposed sign could not "flash". The petitioner stated that as to the location, as long as the sign did not exceed 20'in height, it could be located anywhere allowed by the city, that was ten feet fr~T~ the property line.' C~mmissioner Anderson confirmed that it would be a double-faced sign, and would be internally illumiDmted and that all parts would There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Anderson made a motion approving thecompreh~nsive sign plan for 5651-71 International Parkway, as requestedinCase87-38. CcmmtissionerGundershaugsecond. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, C~a None Sonsin, Friedrich Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner had requested that this planning case be tabled until the meeting of February 2, 1988. Motion by Commissioner Edwards to ~ahle Case 87-40 until the meeting of Febnmary 2, 1988. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Imngthy discussion followed between the Commissioners and staff regarding any problems that the city had experienced with the operation at 7701 42nd Avenue North. Ms. Dunn stated that there were concerns about the number of cars parked on the site, and the fact that some of them were also being offered for sale. The plans as presented to staff were incomplete, and the petitioner was making revisions. Mr. Boettcher was unable to attend the January meeting, and therefore requested the table until the Feb~n~ry n~eting. New Hope Planning Commission Page 5 December l, 1987 voting in favor: voting against: Absent: Motic~ carried. Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Oja None Sonsin, Friedrich There was no report from the Design and Review Ccm~ittee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards C~atm,~ttee. OLD ~gS/~m~S Discussion held ~ Case 87-35. The Cl~airman questioned why City Council had sent it hack to the Planning Commission since they had already reviewed the request. Ms. Dunn noted that the petitioner in Case 87-35 had held a neighborhood meeting and would revised plans. To date staff had not received these revised plans. The proposal was revised at the neighborhood meeting held on November 24, 1987 and had been scaled down to only 126 units. Discussion continued rega~ the Minnegasco site and how it had been designated for future development in the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion held about the issue of exclusive parking at shopp'.~_~ centers and whether certain owners should be allowed to designaC~ spaces for their excusive use. Ms. Dunn stated that some owners had placed exclusive parking signs by their businesses. The proposed ordinance, would put the burden of determining exclusive parking on the owners of the shopping centers. Council had reco~m¥~nded that up to 10% of the parking be allowed to be designated. C~m,~ssioner Anderson noted that the shopping center concept was that the parking was shared equally. In response to a question from the Chairman, Ms. Dunn said that she felt the C~,,~,~ssion should refer further discussion and review of the proposed ordinance to the Codes and Standards Committee. ~ ~ron officially ref~ the ~-~ue of exclusive parkir~ at sh~ppir~ ~ to the ~ and ~ ~ ..... ~ttee for r~view. The Planning CuimtHssion Minutes of November 4, 1987 were approved as printed. The Council Minutes of October 26, 1987 were reviewed. ~ meetir~ was adjourned by unaD~mnus consent at 8:31 p.m. New Hope Planning O~,,~ssion Page 6 December 1, 1987 Respectfully submitted, New Hope Planning Commission Page 7 December l, 1987