Loading...
1986 PlanningApproved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MN 55428 Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning was held on Tuesday, January 7, Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. January 7, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Commission of the City of New Hope 1986 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon The meeeting was called to order at 7:47 by Acting Chairman Robert Gundershaug. Roll Call Roll Call Was Taken: Planning Case 85-33 Construction Approval Request, 8401 Bass Lake Road Item 3 Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Lutts, Bartos (excused), Cameron (excused) The petitioner was not in attendance. The City Manager stated that he and staff had met with Mr. Stuhr, in an attempt to clarify his proposal and to assist him in coming up with an acceptable construction proposal. Following discussion, it was the concensus of the Commissioners present that this case should be tabled one more month, with the petitioner so informed. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 85-33 until the meeting of February 4, 1986. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-3~ Mr. Jim Phillipi represented the petitioners. Referring to comments Conditional Use Permit and concerns expressed at the meeting in December, Mr. Phillipi stated Request, 9400 49th that they had made changes in their original plan. They propose to Avenue North rotate the position of the service bays and the office area 90 Item 4 degrees. This will allow the cars from the service area to exit to the north side of the building. This will also eliminate the necessity for a drive-through on the west side. They will also increase the landscaping on that side. The building has been shifted a couple of feet to the west so it now meets the code setback requirements. There will be three parking spaces adjacent to the waiting room of the service area. The parking will be essentially in the same configuration as originally proposed, but a little to the south. They propose a 24 foot wide driveway on the east, and will increase the landscaped area adjacent to the building where the service area is. There will be 4-6 foot berms surrounding each of the parking areas. On the north side there will be five evergreens on top of the berms, to screen the parking from the service road. The total landscaping has been increased about 25 percent. He noted that the highway right-of-way was not available for landscaping. They feel that the new proposal will clean up the lines of the building and provide a better delineation of the service portion of the building and the bays. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the requesting any variances. petitioners were not The City Manager said no variances, that the parking proposed was slightly more than code required but that they were requesting the three Conditional Use Permits. Commissioner Edwards asked about the rocks on the site, which had formerly been proposed. Mr. Phillipi said they had been eliminated except for a couple of pockets to protect the entrance and at the base of the sign. There will be dogwoods and sod on the west property line. Mr. Edwards further confirmed that there will be continuous concrete curb and that the parking stalls will be striped. The parking space will be 9' x 20' and the drive aisle will be 24' in width. Discussion then covered the parking stalls proposed for the north side of the building. Concern was whether they were actually needed, if not now, in the future? In response to questions from Commissioner Edwards, it was noted that there will be perhaps one vehicle parked on site 24 hours a day. This would be a tow truck, but it would be pulled inside at night. The proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to midnight, with the service area open 24 hours a day. Commissioner Edwards stated that he liked the changes that had been made in the plan and in the landscaping. However, he would like to see more trees added. It was his opinion that 6-7 trees in a span of 300' was not sufficient. Discussion then covered the location of the trash container west side, and whether or not it would interfere with the coming in and out to service the station. on the trucks The petitioner felt it would not, but he would be willing to move it to the north side, to take it out of the traffic pattern of the carwash. Ail rooftop equipment will be screened with cedar fencing. Commissioner Edwards asked about the proposed light standards. The petitioner stated that there will be one at the north end of the parking area, one about midway in the parking area, one at each of the driveway entrances and one between them, and one back by the car wash. They expect that the canopy lights will provide sufficient lighting by the pumps. Commissioner Gundershaug asked when the gas transports would be scheduled to deliver. Mr. Phillipi said they would deliver between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. They anticipate removing excess snow from the site. They have asked the county if they could store snow on their property, but as yet have not received an answer from them. Discussion between Commissioner Gundershaug and the petitioner about the width of the driveway entrances. The petitioner wished to have the driveway entrance on the north 28 feet wide. It was determined that the Commission felt the driveway width should remain at 24 feet in width. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner was aware that the City of New Hope had a strict sign ordinance that they must comply with. Discussion then covered the trash container, the type of screening that would be around it (block enclosure with cedar doors) and the proposed extension of the dogwood around the enclosure. Commissioner Anderson expressed concerns about five feet being sufficient on the north side for a vehicle to back out. He suggested that the first stall north of the hook be eliminated and shift the other four spaces down a little. Commissioner Anderson stated he likes the area but' would like to see more green, as it is a very intense use of the site. He further recommended that both driveways be 26 feet in width. There was no one present in regard to this case. The petitioner stated he would be agreeable to the changes in the parking spaces, eliminating two of them and shifting the others. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that this could be done without the petitioner needing a variance. Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1986 Motion Planning Case 86-1 Preliminary Plat Approval at 8100 27th Avenue North Item 5 Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permits requested for a motor fuel station, a carwash and subordinate sale of household items and construction approval at 9400 49th Avenue North, Planning Case 85-35 contingent upon the removal of the parking spaces at the northwest, and the parking space at the north of the service bays being moved to the east five feet, and also making both driveways 26 feet in width. All present voted in favor. Carol Crozier, Administrator at Ambassador Nursing Home, addressed the Commission. She stated that they had been in that location for 21 years, and had used an area toward the back for parking during that time. They discovered that they owned only 2/3 of the parking lot instead of the entire lot. They approached Mr. Peschanker and began considering the exchange of property because they need the parking space for visitors and staff; it gives truck access for delivery of supplies; it would provide truck turn around space; and because they hope to build an addition on to Ambassador Care Center and would need the space for parking. Referring to the additional five feet that the city would like included in the one lot, she noted that it was not marked on the plan but that they would be willing to give this back to Mr. Peschanker. This would then put both lots in compliance with city code. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that Lot Two would then be conforming, with the addition of the five feet. The City Manager stated that the Commission could waive the requirement for this change on the preliminary plat, as long as the final plat was correct as far as lot widths. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that a second concern was the two curb cuts from 27th Avenue, with only 15 feet between them. He stated that the city has a concern about that condition, and would like to see the eastern driveway closed. Mr. Peschanker said he did have some plans for in the future making only one driveway into the site, he would like a 36 foot wide driveway in the middle of the two existing driveways. The City Manager stated that the maximum width allowed by code was 24 feet. He confirmed that the city staff was recommending that there be only one driveway. He also noted that County improvements to Medicine Lake Road were pending. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt that the proposed single curb cut, and its width, should be shown on the plat. The City Manager stated that the road was supposed to be worked on in the spring. Commissioner Anderson said he would like to see a layout of the parking and curb cuts as proposed, as well as the upgraded plat. The City Manager said that the petitioners had up to one year to file the final plat. Commissioner Edwards agreed that he would like to see where the parking stalls would be located and how they would relate to the driveway as proposed. He would also like to know how much green area there would be, if any. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Phil Erickson, Ambassador Attorney, said that a delay of action on this request would delay the scheduled closing on the land sale. Discussion continued regarding the location of the single driveway, and the desire of the commissioners to review a plat/site plan showing the new driveway, as well as the location of the parking stalls. The City Manager stated that staff recommended that the driveway be moved closer toward the west. Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1986 Page 3 Motion Design and Review Item 6 Land Use Committee Item 7 Codes and Standards Item 8 Approval of Minutes December 3, 1985 Item 9 Review of Council Minutes December 9, and December 23, 1985 Iteml0 Redevelopment Proposal Item 11 Commissioner Anderson said he would like to have a chance to react to a proposal that showed all dimensions of parking, driveways, etc. tied down, before this case went forward to the City Council. The Commission has oow seen two different drawings. Motion by Commissioner Anderson to table Planning Case 86-1 until February 4, 1986. Mr. Peschanker said he felt he needed a maximum of ten parking spaces for his business. He did not see any reason for a delay. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, he stated that he was no longer planning to put on an addition to his business. Commissioner Edwards agreed as he had similar concerns. He also was concerned that there was virtually no landscaping proposed for the site. He also was concerned about what would happen to the area where the two driveways are now located, when they were removed. Second by Commissioner Edwards, to table Planning Case 86-1 until February 4, 1986. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that the petitioners redraw the plat showing the proper driveway widths, indicate exactly where the driveway would be located, and where the parking stalls would be and the size of the parking stalls. They should also indicate what will be placed where the existing driveways are located and have some suggestions for landscaping of the site. Commissioner Edwards reconfirmed that the commission would like to see exactly what was proposed for the new plat. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that the petitioner consult with city staff to get a better idea of exactly what the city/commission was looking for. Ail present voted in favor. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The Planning Commission Minutes were accepted as corrected. Commissioner Edwards noted that in Planning Case 85-33 he had been recorded as having both made and seconded the motion. Commissioner Gundershaug had second the motion. The Council Minutes of December 9, 1985 and December 23, 1985, were reviewed by the City Manager. The City Manager referred to previous discussion about a joint meeting between Council and Planning Commission to discuss and review the proposed redevelopment district. The date suggested was January 16, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. Concensus of the Commission was that this date was satisfactory. Discussion then held regarding the Planning Commission role in the redevelopment proposal. The City Manager said this would depend upon development. When a development proposal was actually made, then of course the Planning Commission would again be involved. The City Manager also stated that the city was having a study done regarding remaining vacant land in the city, both industrial and residential. This study could have some impact on the Comprehensive Plan, and any changes of this type would also involve the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug requested that staff send out notices in regard to the January 16, 1986 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1986 Commissioner Edwards asked how much vacant land there was still left in the city. The City Manager stated that there was 60+ acres of industrial land, and 10-12 acres of residential land. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J~oyce Boeddeker Secretary Planning Commision Minutes January 7, 1986 Page 5 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting Call to Order Roll Call Planning Case 85-33 Construction Approval for Apartment Building Item 3 February 4, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 4, 1986 at the New Hope City Hall 4401 Xylon Avenue North. ' The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Robert Cameron. The City Ci~rk, Carol Carlson, administered the Oath of Office, to Kenneth Anderson and Terry Lutts, who had been reappointed to three year terms by the City Council. Roll Call was taken: Present: Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards. Absent: Friedrich, Bartos The Chairman noted that this was the third meeting that the petitioner had failed to appear. Motion Planning Case 86-1 Preliminary Plat Approval Item 4 Mr. Doug Sandstad, Building Official, stated that Mr. Stuhr had decided to re-think his proposal and would perhaps be back before the Commission at a later time. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending denial of Planning Case 85-33. All present voted in favor. Carol Crozier of Good Neighbor Corporation represente~ the petitioners. She reviewed the case, stating that Good Neighbor wishes to purchase some land from Mr. Peschanker to allow the nursing home to have additional parking spaces and perhaps room to expand. The exchange will allow both properties to meet all code requirements. Mr. Peschanker stated they will eliminate one entrance and plant a-boulevard tree that is 2 1/2 inches in diameter per the city's request. This was shown on the submitted layout. Chairman Cameron ~onfirmed that this was all the landscaping that Mr. Peschanker proposes for the site. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the petitioner planned to stripe the lot, and have continuous curbing around-the parking area. Mr. Peschanker said he would stripe but did not plan to install curbing at this time. The ~rash enclosure would be left in the same place and would be totally screened and enclosed. Commissi.oner Edwards refer~ed to the landscaping as suggeste~ at the last meeting for the site. He noted that he was personally - disappointed at the lack of landscaping, and felt one tree.~ was not sufficient. Mr. Peschanker said that one tree was the only code requirement, one boulevard tree. Chairman Cameron stated that city staff was concerned about a bond being p~ovided ' to insure that the work would be completed as required. Mr. Sandstad stated that a bond of $2470 would have to be posted by Mr. Peschanker as part of the platting requirements of the city. Page Motion Planning Case 86-2 Conditional Use Permit Pick Up Window and Construction Item 5 Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Anderson, recommending approval of Planning Case 86-1, Request for Preliminary Plat, 8016 and 8100 27th Avenue North, with the stipulation that the petitioner post a bond in the amount of $2,47~ as security for the completion of the required boulevard/landscaping work. All present voted in favor. Mr. Rosengren presented a rendering of the proposed changes to the Sunshine Factory. Mr. Sandstad noted that there was also a text change involved, if this case were to be approved. Mr. Rosengren stated they propose to add to the structure toward the north, relocating the kitchen to allow them to increase food sales. The kitchen is now in the west portion of the building. They also propose a veranda/garden type room in an attempt to open up the building and provide more light. He added that after ten years of operation the interior decor was dated and worn. To become current in the industry, it was necessary to make changes. The trend of the restaurant is changing, from a 52% food, 48% liquor, to 65% food, 30% liquor. They see this trend continuing. Because of the present kitchen location it is difficult and inefficient to service the increased food service. There will also now be a small meeting room, which they feel there is a need for. Chairman Cameron asked about the Drive Up Window and traffic this might cause. Mr. Rosengren stated that drive up service is making its way into the better dining areas, as well as fast food restaurants. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this window would be strictly for the picking up of phone orders. Mr. Rosengren said that they were not equipped to handle any orders, except those phoned in. Their type of food is not geared to fast turn around, as in a fast food establishment. They want the window as a convenience factor, so that the customer does not have to park their car, and come into the restaurant to pick up their food order. There will be no orders taken at the window, and there will only be a window at that location, no door. He added that they intended to expand their menu, but that their entire menu would not be available for take out. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there wo~td be any signs. Mr. Rosengren replied that as a means of assuring the customers that their order was ready, they are considering issuing a number fo~ the order. They have not decided whether or not this would be necessary or even a benefit as yet. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the stacking space by the drive up window. Mr. Rosengren presented a layout of the kitchen, stating that he had considered the suggestion to relocate the window, but did not feel it would work~. They felt that the new kitchen had been designed to speak to the key elements of sanitation, sto~ge, efficient, etc. The kitchen had been designed with the existing kitchen in mind, with deliveries, employee parking and refuse at the northwest corner.~ The location of the window seemed best in relation to th~ delivery area, refrigeration area, and cooking area. He d~d not want to build in future problems and had cgntinued some research into the operations of the restaurant. He stated that the restaurant averaged 210 lunches and 230 dinners per Bay. A~suming a two minute turnover, they served 180 entrees during lunch, and 300 during dinner. In doing a financial forecast for the drive up bushiness they anticipated 46 entrees for lunch and 41 for dinner. This was based on their present guest check average. New Hope Planning Commission February ~, 1986 Page 2 On Saturday, January 26, 1985, they had served 388 dinners. He had run a stop watch on service between 7-9 p.m. He had noted four occurences where there had been parking difficulties for from 15-45 seconds. He felt that they had that many cars stacked at the front door at times, with people picking up and dropping off customers. Based on this information he did not feel it would be necessary to move the window further to the west. Commissioner Gundershaug asked when the most take out occurred, with the present business. Mr. Rosengren said it was mostly at lunch. However, he felt that the hours of take out would generally conform to the general service hours. They will be open for lunch, and continue through dinner. There will be a scaled down menu, which will be expanded again at night. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about a one way drive by the window and the possibility of diagnol parking spaces. Mr. Rosengren said he had absolutely no objections to that, he was all for it. In answer to further questions, Mr. Rosengren stated that the lights shown on the plans are existing, and that they do a good job. Any lighting would be of a down type. The trash area will be screened and completely self contained, would be a new unit, painted to match the exterior of the building. Rooftop equipment will also be painted to match. He said deliveries usually would be 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. He does not anticipate any deliveries during the peak hours of operation. The only signs will be to indicate the one way traffic, of a directional type and an identification sign for the take out window. In response to a question about landscaping, Mr. Rosengren presented a revised site plan. He stated they were increasing landscaping along 42nd Avenue and Quebec, as well as adding Scotch Pines at the Northwest Corner. The parking lot will be re-striped. Any excess snow will be hauled from the site. It will not be left in parking spaces. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if there was any possibility of the Factory sharing parking spaces. Mr. Rosengren said that as yet he has been unable to contact the owner of the adjacent property, as he was in Chicago. There was not a parking problem as yet, but he will pursue this. In answer to a question from Commission Anderson about other business' that had drive up windows, Mr. Rosengren said that other than Shakey's in this area he knew of none. However, many re§taurants, such as Rudolph's had take out service, but customers had to park, and come into -~he establishment. Rudolph's had up to 29% take out, but it was still handled the conventional way because of lack of space for a drive up window. commissioner Anderson expressed concern over the cars blocking the aisle. Mr. Rosengren said he had- surveyed traffic at the front of the restaurant, and frequently there were cars that had to wait, but it was only for a minute or two. He said he had looked at moving the row of cars over, but did not think it would prove successful. He,added' that there seems to be an increasing amount of business .~for take out, i.e. people wanting to remain anonymous, not get dressed up, etc. Commissioner. Anderson stated he was concerned about a line of cars backing out into the street. Commissioner _LUtts confirmed that there was more than one entrance to the building--two now, and they will be adding a fire exit on the west and a fourth at the northwest corner. February 4, ~986 New Hope Planning Commission Page 3 Motion Motion Planning Case 86-3 Conditional Use Permit Tailor Shop Item 6 Chairman Cameron asked how they intended to promote the drive up window. Mr. Rosengren said it would be heavily advertised--they wished to call attention to it. Chairman Cameron suggested that if the city did approve this request, that there be a condition for staff review regarding the traffic on site. He was sure that the Sunshine Factory did not want traffic problems any more than the city did. Mr. Rosengren noted that he felt he had a record of working with the city in the past, and he would work with them in the future regarding any problems that might occur. Commissioner Edwards asked about the present moratorium on development in this area and how that affected this proposal. Mr. Sandstad stated that the remodeling proposed was consistent with the recommendations of the 42nd Avenue Study. There was no one present in regard to this case. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission must amend the ordinance to allow for the drive up window. He added that this was not an unusual request since occassionally ordinance language has had to be changed. Staff had prepared language changing the ordinance to allow a drive up window for pickup of telephoned food orders. The change stipulated that only phone in orders would be allowed, that there will be 90 feet of stacking lane, and that no public street would be used for stacking and noise would.be controlled. This would be a Conditional Use in a B-3 zone. Commissioner Edwards stated he felt it was a fine ordinance . change. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the text change to allow a phone order pick up window as a Conditional Use in a B-3 zone. All present voted in favor. Further discussion the pdBsibility of "short term parking". covered the one way drive by the window and designating the closest parking spaces as Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second-' by Commissioner Anderson, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Pick Up Window and Construction Approval at 7600 42nd Avenue North, Planning Case 86-2, subject to: 1) drive up lane being one way; 2) parking to be designated as "short term" in that ar~a; 3)diagnol pa~king in that area; 4) snow being removed from site; and an annual review by the city staff in regard to the drive-up window. All present voted in favor. Jacob Mirman represented the petitioner. He stated that he had been advised by city staff to ·apply for the Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation. He added that he was speaking for his mother because~-her English was not too good. He stated- that they did not understand why they were being required to have a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation. Quoting from 4.038 of. the city code, he said they thought i't was a permitted use.- It does not involve any structuraZ changes, the space to be used does not exceed 20%, and there will be no direct sales on the premises. They felt there will at.most be 2-3 c6'stomers a day, never two at once because the customers would call for appointments. There will be no inventory, because she doesn't sell--anything but service. All she would be doing is alteration, repair, and occasional sewing from material brought to her by the-customer. ~ New Hope Planning Commission February 4, 1986 Page 4 They thought it was a permitted occupation. They do not want to antagonize the neighbors. He was aware that there had been complaints, one of which dealt with the car being parked illegally. This has now been moved off the boulevard. Another complaint involved garbage as they are new to the city and did not understand how it was handled. There had also~ been a complaint regarding two families living there. This is not true, there is only one family - four adults. There is a possibility that an elderly grandmother will come to live with them. Mrs. Coone, the City Inspector, had visited their home regarding · the two family complaint, and had found nothing wrong. He said that he thought that most of the complaints were a result of their not knowing the city rules. They wish to cooperate with the city. In answer to a question from the chairman, Mr. Mirman stated that a tailoring machine was just a larger sewing machine. It operates on 120V, and was not an unusual machine. Commissioner Anderson asked why the petitioner was requesting the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Mirman said he had been advised by city staff to apply for it. Mr. Sandstad said the city was informed through complaints that there was a business being operated from the home. He handed letters of complaint to the Chairman for inclusion in the record. He said the tailoring machine was a small item, but that the concerns about traffic and excess cars was more important. Mr. Mirman said his mother has three sewing machines: a straight stitch machine, a hemming machine, and a small machine that prepares the edges of the material. He felt there would be two, or at the maximum, three cars a day because of the business. Customers would come only by appointment. Referring to 4.022 he thought· sales meant "sales of goods", his mother is only selling services. There would be no inventory, she performs a service and is paid for it. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson, he stated that customerS'would park on the ~treet for from 5-20 minutes at a time. Mrs. Mirman did not sell any fabric, she only worked on it. She has not done any business yet this year. Commissioner ~hderson asked whether the family had discussed the business with any of the neighbors. Mr. Mirman said they would like to, but did not know who the people were who were objecting to it. He added that there had been no changes made to the house to accommodate the business. Before they moved in there had been a kitchenette, and__ they had been told that there was a separate apartment. This is not there now. There is a chance that an elderly grandmother might stay in the basement room in the future. In the event of the family moving from the home, the space used for the business would become just another room. His mother does not want a large business, she is a homemaker who wants to supplement the family income wi%h the tailoring. It is a part-time occupation only. They would like to have one small sign to direct customers to t.he side door rather than the front door.~' He has made a sign, but it has not been installed. In regard to trash, he thought it might add 1/8 Of a pound a day to the families normal trash. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, it was noted that Mrse Mirman had had a shop in Wayzata for a year. She was forced to move from that location because the shopping center was beind remodeled. They then moved~into their home in St. Louis Park for about one year. They had moved to New Hope because Highway 100 was scheduled to be routed through their home. Planning Commission Minutes . February 4, 1986 Page 5 Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether Mrs. Mirman had any contracts with business establishments to do their tailor work. Mr. Mirman said when they were in St. Louis Park she had worked for a store in Miracle Mile, but would always go to the store to pick up the work. In response to further questions on traffic, he said that they would anticipate at most two or three cars a day. They did not expect a lot of business. Discussion then centered on the hours of operation. Mr. Mirman said they would probably be 9 a.m. to 6 or 7 p.m. but only by appointment. Chairman Cameron asked what the petitioner would do if the city turned down this request. Mr. Mirman said he would like to know why it would be turned down. They would have to think about their next step. He did not think that should be the case, why should it be denied. Discussion followed between the Chairman and the petitioner regarding the CUP process. Mr. Mirman said there were four adults in the house, and a grandmother might be moving in. At the present time there are six family cars. They are attempting to sell one or two of them. They will be kept in the garage or driveway. These are all family cars. The entrance to the business would not be at the front door. There is a side entrance which would be more convenient to the business and also for the grandmother's use, should she move in. Frank Fay, 3518 Yukon Avenue North, said he had been in the neighborhood for 23 years and had not purchased his house so businesses could move into the neighborhood. He referred to baby sitting already in the neighborhood with its traffic and said beauty shops and auto repair would probably be next. Tom Liesch, 3506 Yukon Avenue North, stated they had always liked New Hope because it was family oriented. He did not like to see signs across the street. The family had already added a sidewalk and lights and a railing. He wHnted the neighborhood to remain residential. Chairman Cameron read the letters received regarding this request into the recordS- (.letters attached) These letters were received from: Harold Maine, 3507 Yukon Avenue North James W. Brown, 3524 Yukon Avenue North Franklin Fay, 3518 Yukon Avenue North Ruth Kezele, 3519 Yukon Avenue North Tom Liesch, 3506 Yukon Avenue North. Mr. Mirman restated that they were trying to have a small business in the home, because it was a small business. It could not be 'done in a shopping center b~oause it was too small. His mother was a homemaker who wished to make some money for the family. The sidewalk and lighting had been put in before they moved in. The side door di'd not look-good as it was and they thought they would improve the looks of the house. They also needed an easier way for the elderly grandmother to enter. Presently she only visits, but may move in with the family. He added that the charge that they were renting out a room was totally untrue. They are trying to reduce the number of cars on the site be selling at least one. There is a baby sitting business next door that is allowed to operate and he felt they should have the same right since they would have far less traffic than at the baby sitters. New Hope Planning Commission Page 6 February 41, 986 Motion Motion Planning Case 86-4 Preliminary Plat Approval Item 7 Further discussion regarding the number of people that might be expected to patronize the business during one day. In response to questions as to whether such a small number of customers was worth the effort, Mr. Mirman answered "yes", one customer could easily bring in $40-$50 for alteration fees. It was not intended that the business would grow out of the home, would stay small. Commissioner Gundershaug referred to the flyer that had been distributed and questioned how they would advertise. It was noted that the flyer did not specify "by appointment only". ~Commissioner Edwards stated that to him this CUP request was not as serious as others that the Commission had considered in the past and approved. Commissioner Anderson stated that he had not heard anything to this point that would prevent him from approving the request. There were no permanent changes to the house, there was a separate entrance, the only issue seems to be the on-street parking. He felt this should be resolved. Commissioner Edwards noted that the city already had regulations regarding the hours that cars could be parked on the street. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that this case should be subject to staff review every six months in regard to the CUP. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation at 3501 Yukon Avenue North, subject to a six month review by staff, and that the hours of operation be 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. because of traffic and the nuisance factor. Mr. Mirman said he would prefer that the hours of operation be extended to 9 p.m. Commissioner Anderson withdrew his motion. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation at 3501 Yukon Avenue North, subject to a staff review every six months, and restricting the hours of operation to 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Voting in favor: Lutts, Edwards Voting against:_ Anderson, Cameron, Gundershaug. Absent: 'Friedrich, Bartos Motion failed John Pope, of Pope Associate Architects, represented the petitioners. He stated that there had been some changes in the plan but not in the general configuration of the structure. One change is in -the site grading. They had discovered that while they had originally planned to connect to the storm sewer on West Broadway, the elevation w~uld not permit the water to drain that direction. They therefore are proposing changing the access (main entrance/garage) to underground, making the main entrance, on the the lower level. They propose 73 units, 18 two bedroom, 'and 55 one bedroom units. The proposal, meets all setback and parking requirements. Based on staff input they would include a catch basin in the cul-du-sac area, with a barrel pipe. The storm sewer would then connect to an existing 48" storm line to the south. They feel they could do thais by easement. Discussion then covered the plans before the Commissioners and the fact that they had not seen them before the present meeting for review. -Mr. Pope stated that the plans reflected the changes. February 4, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 Using illustrations, Mr. Pope indicated the changes in storm sewer treatment as proposed. The entire site will be sodded, and plant materials will be placed along West Broadway and on all of the boundaries of the site. There will be lower level parking, with entrance at the North. The main lobby, elevator, trash and maintenance rooms will be on this level. Mr. Pope then provided illustrations of the floor plans, site plans, elevations and landscaping as proposed, as well as an artist's rendering of the exterior of the building. Chairman Cameron asked why Design and Review had not had an opportunity to review these new plans. Mr. Sandstad said that the petitioners had been given permission to submit the documents later, by the City Manager. He added that the plans could be re-submitted to Design and Review. Commissioner Edwards stated he had similar concerns, dealing with the plans being different. He was not prepared to act at this meeeting, he was not sure what they were being asked to vote on. Mr. Pope said that the changes had been made per city recommendations. They were trying to keep pace with what had been happening. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission didn't operate that way. They expect to be presented with a final set of plans. They did not like to act on changes they had not reviewed. He felt the Commission was being put in a very touch spot. Commissioner Edwards agreed. Chairman Cameron stated he felt that the proposed changes opened up an opportunity for some real problems. Commissioner Edwards said he had strong concerns in this regard. He felt uneasy operating on the basis of promises. Mr. Bissonette of Lang Nelson re-stated they had acted on recommendation of staff originally to help alleviate existing bligh~ in the area. They faced a time table due to financial and time consideration. They had gone through a complete Design and Review meeting. The plan is substantially the same as submitted at that time. -Mr. Sandstad had said they did not need to go to Design and Review. The economics are such that because of bonding requirements, if they did not have some recommendation at this meeting, the project could be in jeopardy. He felt Mr. Donahue would back him up, as he knows the reality of the timing on this issue. He Was requesting some recommendation to the dity Council, based on the staff recommendation if you choose. He stated that Mr. Pope had made c~anges based on recommendations of staff. If Council cannot act on Monday night, the economic realities are very, very dismal. Mr. Sandstad slated ~hat the City Engineers had made recommendations that were · included on. the plan, including a slight increase in the ponding area. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what the time line was. Mr. Sandstad stated that finan'cial matters were critical. M~. Bissonnette stated it was at the point that they needed some type of approval by the City Council. He requested a recommendation with Conditions. He felt one more month would put them into another construction schedule. They hope to complete work in 8 months, reducing time to 7 months was not a reality._ On March 1, the City Engineer has scheduled that the four houses be demolished. On March 15, Beale Cabinets. is scheduled for destruction. They are facing a forfeiture of bonds. New Hope Planning Commission February 4, 1986 Page 8 Motion Lengthy discussion followed regarding the changes as proposed, the original plans, and construction deadlines, as well as the necessity of changing the grading. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the main entrance would be on drainage. He stated he had some concerns about that entrance as well as the proposed drainage direction and the berm that is planned to cover the drainage pipe. Mr. Pope stated that the combination of storm sewer location and the ground water creating the problem, as well as the attempt to keep the building at a reasonable altitude. Commissioner Anderson asked when the drainage problem came up. Mr. Bissonnette said was when they located the elevation of the storm sewer on Friday. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the engineer had recommended the catch basin with the underground pipe. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission could pass this case on the City Council with no recommendation, because of lack of time for proper review. Commissioner Edwards commented that the Commission wanted the project to "go". He was simply uncomfortable with reviewing this so quickly. He was not sure how the plans were going to look, was having trouble understanding the drainage, the elevations and the berm vs. retaining wall. Jerry Sunde, Civl Engineer, stated he works with the Pope firm. He confirmed that there was no way to hook into the pipe as in the original plan because it was surrounded by high ground. Discussion continued about the driveway coming into the lower level and whether this would create problems. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concerns about what the actual height of the building would be, and how different from the original plan. Mr. Sunde said it should be in the nature of a few tenths. The increased pond!ng area was upon ~commendation of the engineer. Commissioner Anderson stated he was unhappy with the situation and wondered whether it could be passed on to Council subject to another Design_~nd Review meeting which would include the City Engineer. .. Discussion then covered the access for truckS, the landscaping, traffic control in and out of the site, and trash treatment. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there were nb variances required. He also expressed concern about fire trucks gaining access to the building. It was noted that the building was completely sprinklered. Screening will be'provided to the north, there will be a two foot high retaining wall to mark the gra~ differential, there will be junipers and arborvitae on the north line. Following discussion Mr. Bissonnette agreed to fill in the spaces along the hedge, making it denser than a 8 foot on center ~lanting. Commissioner Gundershaug stated the plantings should be 1-2 ~feet on center to provide a solid screen for headlights, etc. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion .by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, passing Planning Case 86-4 on to the City Council, with no recommendation. Chairman Cameron noted that he was very uncomfortable with voting for approval at this time, but he was not willing to deny this case. New Hope Planning Commission Page .? February 4, 1986 Design & Review Committee Item 8 Land Use Committee Item 9 Codes and Standards Item 10 Approval of Minutes of January 7, 1986 ,Item 11 Reviewal of Council Minutes Item 12 Adjournment Item 13 Ail present voted in favor. The Design and Review Committee met once during January. There was no report from Land Use Committee. There was no report from Codes'and Standards Committee. The Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, as printed. The Council minutes were reviewed. 1986 were approved The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker Secretary New Hope Planning Commission February 4, 1986 Page 10 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting March 4, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 4, 1986 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 xylon Avenue North, New Hope Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Roll call was taken: Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Absent: Gundershaug (excused), Lutts Planning Case 86-5 Construction and Sign Approval Requests Item 3 The City Manager distributed new site plans for this case. Mr. Tom Kirster, of Krosonsky Architects represented the petitioner, Krause-Anderson. He stated that they are proposing to re-design the parking lot to promote safer, and better traffic flow and to close down some of the traffic aisles. The second item they propose is a comprehensive sign plan that will revise the existing sign plan that had been worked out with the city. They propose to add concrete islands along both sides of the site, defining the main parking area, and keeping traffic around the perimeter. There will be intermittent islands and the plan will eliminate some of the parking in front of the buildings. They plan to bring in some landscaping and install three concrete planters in front of the center. There are 474 existing parking spaces, which is a little over ordinance requirements. They propose 421 spaces (422 are required by code). The second phase, the comprehensive sign plan is designed to give the center a more unified look. They further propose to add a prefinished metal canopy, constructed over the existing flat canopy. All of the existing signs on the front roof would be removed. Each tenant will be worked into the comprehensive sign plan. There will be a white band, three feet high across the front of the center. There will be a back-lighted plexiglass panel for the sign board. Tenants would be allowed up to two foot high letters on the sign band. Letters would be vinyl, and applied to the' plexiglass. They plan to allow a variety of letter size and style for individual tenants. They feel the proposed signs will provide an ease of maintenance as well as ease of change-over if a tenant so wishes. The canopy will be of pre-finished metal With a long guaranteed life span. It was their opinion that their proposal would make an improvement in the continuity of the center and also provide more individual identification for the tenants. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there were no variances required. The City Manager noted that they were requesting only construction approval for the canopy and approval of the comprehensive sign plan. Commissioner Edwards said he was curious about the concrete island proposed throughout the parking area. It was noted that they were attempting to delineate the traffic patterns. Page 1 Commissioner Edwards wondered if they might be more of a nuisance and a maintenance problem in this climate. He felt they could become destroyed quickly. He indicated concern about the south end of the clumsy set of 8 spaces, as this was one of the major access points of the center. He further questioned whether the petitioners planned to add landscaping and curbing at the southwest corner. The petitioner indicated that they propose planting of an evergreen type, and plantings of a hardy type that would not be subceptible to snow piling, etc. This was indicated one page of the plan as presented. He added that tenants did not usually want heavy plantings that would cut down on visibility of their stores. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether the proposed plantings would create any problems with the sight triangle. The response was that they would install an upright tree, with a thin leaf canopy and did not anticipate any visibility problems. The difference in elevation between the street and the parking lot was Commissioner Edwards next concern. It was noted that the concrete curbing allowed the change in grade to be handled more smoothly. They did not anticipate changing any more than the area around the entry drive aisle where the width was 30 feet. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards, the City Manager said that while code required a 24 foot width for the aisle, staff found no problem with the 30 foot aisle as proposed. It was noted that the parking lot extended very close to Winnetka and it was not possible to provide a planting island there because more width was needed to protect plantings from snow plowing etc. There will be some grass planted at the rear of the site. It was noted that the parking lot would be re-striped and marked. Discussion followed about the light standards in the parking lot. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern that they seemed in some instances to be floating between parking spaces. He questioned whether any thought had been given to moving them. The answer was that they plan to shift the parking lot striping somewhat but that it was their opinion that the existing lighting was adequate. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that there would be 421 parking spaces and asked about the plans for storage and removal of snow. Sandy Camery of Krause Anderson stated that next year they would be putting as much of the snow as possible into the corner, beyond that they would be hauling snow off the site. Commissioner Friedrich questioned whether piling snow in that area of the rear of the site, would provide sufficient turning radius for trucks making deliveries to the center tenants. He felt that the piled snow might create a problem. He then asked about lighting as proposed for the rear of the site. It was noted that there was one pole with two lights and five poles with one light each in the rear. The problem seems to be around the Super Value. The existing light poles are provided by Norther States Power Company. They have spoken to NSP about lighting and have been told there should be no problem in changing the intensity of the lights. This process should take about 30 days. Chairman Cameron asked whether the police had any problems with the center. New Hope Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 2 The City Manager said that there had been no extraordinary problems. The Chairman inquired whether the petitioners had spoken to any of the residential neighbors. Ms. Camery said they had not heard from anyone in regard to their proposals. They occassionally hear when vandals tear down part of the fence. They fix this every time it happens. Chairman Cameron asked whether they had considered installing security lighting on the building. Ms. Camery said this had been considered, but it was not a 1986 Budget item. The architect noted that sometimes security lights on buildings prove to be more objectionable, as they do not always shine in the best way. There was no one present in regard to these requests. Commissioner Friedrich asked about trash storage. The answer was that each tenant had their own dumpster. It was noted that all trash areas in B-4 zone had to be enclosed. Chairman Cameron asked about the 14 floating spaces, and how this would work as far as managing and controlling traffic. He added that he did not understand these, and that he would certainly not park his car in one of these slots. The architect responded that he understood the concern but that they were a trade-off between what was practical and what would be functional. Chairman Cameron said he was concerned about the striping and the fact that people parking in these areas could result in fender benders. He asked whether the eight spaces could be squeezed in anywhere else. He added that trying to eliminate the eight stalls completely, really worried him. Ms. Camery stated that on behalf of Snyders, who was a major tenant, she felt that they would prefer that the spaces remain. They had expressed concern about whether there would be enough parking. She noted they plan to remove the concrete bumper. They are trying to compartmentalize the parking, and avoid criss cross traffic. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the parking could be pulled back, toward the north a little bit. Ms. Camery stated that another deed restriction was that a certain number of parking stalls had to be made available for Burger King. C6mmissioner Edwards asked how the new layout differed from the existing. The architect stated there were more stalls now than in the new proposal, but there was a lack of definition of the aisles. They extend further down and are defined by concrete wheel bumpers. Discussion continued regarding parking closer to the service area of Burger King, whether or not the proposal changed the entrance and exit of Burger King, the advisability of moving the light standards on to the concrete islands and what the center's liability was because of damage to customer vehicles. Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioners had other lots with this type of floating light standard. The architect responded they felt they were usable, they required more care in parking of cars, but they were not a detriment to use of parking stalls. New Hope Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 3 Commissioner Bartos asked whether the islands would not create a hazard for snow plowing. Commissioner Anderson commented that the most appropriate time to change the poles was at the time of sealcoating. He asked when they next planned to sealcoat. The answer was this year, the next sealcoating would probably be in five years. Discussion continued about the concrete islands and the light stnadards. Commissioner Anderson suggested that perhaps the parking spaces adjacent to the light poles should be a little wider than normal. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Bartos, recommending approval of Planning Case 86-5, Request for Approval of Comprehenvise Sign Plan and Construction Approval for Canopy to Existing Shopping Center, at 2703 Winnetka Avenue, Lloyd Engelsma/Krause Anderson, petitioners. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the commissioners did not have any problems with the proposed sign plan and that each tenant would be aware of the need for compliance with the city's sign requirements. The architect indicated that tenants would be allowed sign size that related to the amount of square footage they were renting. Chairman Cameron stressed the need for the individual signs to comply with city code. voting in favor: Voting against: Abstain: Motion carried. Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron Edwards Anderson Planning Case 86~6 Mr. Richard Krohn stated he was requesting permission to amend Conditional Use Permit his Conditional Use Permit so that he could park additional Amendment Request vehicles at the rear of his property. There are ten stalls Item 4 defined. Three spaces are now designated for Russell Delivery, and one for the YMCA Trailer. He also wishes to park Model Ready Mix trucks. The number of these trucks would be from two to five, depending upon the season. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the only change was necessary because the earlier approval of the Conditional Use Permit had specified the number of vehicles allowed. Mr. Krohn stated that what had changed was that Russell Delivery had added a vehicle and that they also now have the Y's Men Trailer and shack on the site. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the Model Ready Mix trucks were dispatched from this site. They are not, these trucks are there only for over-night parking. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the truck drivers usually parked their personal vehicles on site during the day. Mr. Kohn said that they use virtually the same stalls as are used at night. He has 13 stalls that are blacktopped. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that there is a fence around the property. Discussion then held about the landscaping of the site. Mr. Kohn said there was a green border all around the property. The fence is screened now with slats on the west, from the front end of the property to the apartment garages. The fence on the east side is slatted from the front to the farmer's old building. The north side is also slatted. New Hope Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 4 Commissioner Anderson asked whether there were any plans to blacktop the rear parking area. Mr. Krohn said that the weight of the trucks would quickly destroy any blacktop. In response to questions, the City Manager stated there had been some complaints about the front yard, but as far as the rear parking he did not believe there had been any complaints, other than those about the ready mix company, and they were not specifically as part of the this property. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the trucks sat in the rear lot and ran for any length of time in the morning. The answer was "no", the ready mix trucks had to warm up, but this was for a short time - two to three minutes. Discussion then held regarding the landscaping or lack of, at the front of the site. Mr. Krohn stated he felt the former garage owner had dumped oil into the ground in this area, and that he had experienced great difficulty in getting this to grow. He will ~eep at it, and feels that eventually he will get grass/plants to grow in this area. Brief Discussion followed regarding the study of vacant land available in the city and whether alternative development will be proposed for this general area. It was noted that one possibility was for high density development of the entire area. This is only a preliminary speculation. The city is interested in what options might be available. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the Commission was being asked only to modify the CUP. Mr. Krohn stated that because Model Ready Mix had experienced security problems with trucks left outside at their own site, they felt it was safer for them to park on his property, because his property is locked up at night. Discussion then covered the dust in the area, and whether the rearyard parking should be treated with chemicals. Mr. Krohn stated he felt that the dust problem was caused primarily by the speed of the trucks as they drove in the area. Chis Anderson, representing the apartment adjacent to the property stated he was also a resident of the complex. He felt that the Model Ready Mix trucks created both dust and noise pollution as they sped up and down 49th Avenue. ~e was concerned about the noise of vehicles starting up in the morning, because Mr. Krohn's property was so close to the apartment complex. Morley Hartley, dispatcher for Model Ready Mix stated that the trucks had to build up pressure, two to three minutes of running, but they usually do not start until around 6:00 a.m. The drivers who park on this site are down in the seniority list and would not be the first people dispatched. Chairman Cameron stated he felt the city should have reasonable assurance that the trucks would not be starting up prior to 6 a.m. Mr. Krohn stated that his trucks sometimes leave at 6 a.m. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this case would have an annual review by staff. New Hope Planning Commission Page 5 March 4, 1986 MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of Planning Case 86-6, amendment to Conditional Use Permit at 7600 49th Avenue North to allow outdoor storage of up to 13 trucks on site, subject to annual review by city staff. All present voted in favor. Design and Review Item 5 Design and Review held one meeting during the preceding month. Land Use Committee Item 6 There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Codes and Standards Item 7 There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Approval of Minutes of The Planning February 4, 1986 reviewed. Item 8 Commission Minutes of February 4, 1986 were Commissioner Edwards requested that these minutes be corrected to indicate that in Planning Case 86-1, he had voted against the motion. Comments, Suggestions Item 10 Adjournment Chairman Cameron asked whether the city would make sure that the streets would be repaired, following utility repairs, particularily in the areas where they had recently been resurfaced. The 'City Manager noted that the city was in the process of conducting a study of the vacant land remaining. This will be distributed to the Commission when it is ready, for review. The city is also going to review and study the problem of recreation vehicles and boats as stored in residential areas. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, e Boeddeker Secretary New Hope Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 6 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting April 1, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 1, 1986 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. Roll Call Roll call was taken: Present: Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Friedrich (arrived at 7:32 p.m.), Anderson, Bartos Planning Case 86-7 Construction Approval Request Item 3 The petitioner for Planning Case 86-7 was not in attendance. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 86-7 until meeting. All present voted in favor. Commissioner later in the Planning Case 86-8 Construction Approval Request Item 4 Mr. Peter Hilger, Architect, represented the petitioner in Planning Case 86-8, Rosewood Corporation. Revised site plans for this project were distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Hilger stated that the proposed building was to be located at the corner of International Parkway and Science Center Drive. He noted that Rosewood had completed several other projects in this area. The lot is odd shaped. They propose to construct an office/warehouse building. They propose 30 percent for office use, with the remainder split between manufacturing and warehouse operations. The office portion of the building will be at the southwest corner with the warehouse and truck docks on the east and north sides, toward the railroad tracks. They propose one way traffic, entering off International Parkway, going behind the building to the track docks. This will allow a better use of the tight site conditions. The one way will go from south to north, so that truck drivers have a constant view of the docks as they are backing into them. Visitor parking and office parking will be along the front in an arc pattern, following the shape of the project. Two thirds will be in front and one third in back for employees. The building will have a basic floor plan that will be staggered because of the irregularity of the site and also to provide flexibility in size of rental spaces, from 1800 square feet to 4800 square feet. They will use masonry units, but the exact type has not as yet been determined. There will be a pre-finished metal sign band, which will be continuous all across the front of the building with strip windows along the front, because of the bu.ilding length, this was an attempt to cut down the length. At this time they are presently proposing only identification signs for the building - Parkway Business Center. The project will be landscaped rather heavily with emphasis on the front with shrubs and in front of every bay. There will be a major boulevard plantings along both frontages of International Parkway. There will be boulevard trees and in back only sod because this is a drainage area. Mr. Hilger stated they were requesting plan development approval and also signage approval. They would like to receive approval of both at the same time. He noted that the proposed sign plan was illustrated on Sheet 3 of the elevations. Page 1 The shaded areas represent the areas for individual tenant signs. They will be limited to a particular size sign, based on the space they were occupying. The individual signs will be consistent with the colors of the building. The building identification sign - Parkway Business Center - will be positioned in the center of the building. They propose one free standing sign at International Parkway, which will be consistent with all other Rosewood signs in the area. The signs will be of fiberglass, with the letters imbedded in the fiberglass. They will be high quality signs and will comply with the city Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about exterior lighting. There will be three light poles in the front of the building, one at each of the entrances and one in the middle of the arc. In addition for warehouse parking, there will be lights over each truck dock area and over each entrance canopy, of a down light type. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that they propose to use sods in the landscaping. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Edwards asked about the area indicated as "future parking" along International Parkway, and whether they were actually proposing parking in this area. Mr. Hilger stated they did not need all of that space for parking at his time, based on the way they anticipate building leasing to proceed. They have set this space aside in the event of a future need for additional parking spaces. They are already providing parking spaces in excess of the number required by city code. The City Manager stated that staff had some concerns about the drainage in the middle of the site. He believed there had been some discussion about extending the drainage out of the site. It was noted that the opinion of the City Engineer was that if the drainage was to go toward the back parking lot, it should be extended out. Chairman Cameron asked who would make this decision. It was noted that Mark Hanson had been consulted. There is presently a swale on both sides of the railroad tracks. Mr. Hanson proposes extending the storm sewer 260 feet to an outlet adjacent to the pond. The petitioner noted that the cost of that extension would not be "pocket change". Discussion followed about the rationale of extending this drainage, the fact that the proposed development would probably greatly increase the runoff into the pond, and whether or not the existing pipe could handle this increased runoff. Chairman Cameron asked whether this was something that the Commission should insist on. The architect requested permission to rebut--stating that $16,000 thrown into storm pipe, was a lot of money. It was noted that the extension of the drainage was something that would have to be done eventually, particularly if the property designated for park was to be used. The city would like to accomplish some of this now. The Chairman confirmed that technically the petitioner was asking for development of his property. Question was raised as to whether it was fair for the petitioner to absorb the burden of the entire cost for this sewer extension and new drainage. Discussion followed. New Hope Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Motion Planning Case 86-7 Construction Approval Motion Item 3 The City Manager noted that the city would benefit from this extension. Chairman Cameron asked whether the City would be paying for half of the costs. The City Manager stated that staff wished the petitioner, Commissioner/Council to be aware of this problem. It could be an item for negotiation. It should not be part of the decision of the Planning Commission at this meeting. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of Planning Case 86-8, Request for Construction Approval for Office/Warehouse at 5600 International Parkway, subject to the provision that the required drainage easement be provided along the railroad tracks, and that the proposed sign plan be no more than as required by code. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to remove Planning Case 86-7 from the table. All present voted in favor. Mr. Larson represented the petitioner in this case. He stated they were seeking approval to put up an office/warehouse for their own use and also to include some rental space. Chairman Cameron asked him to briefly describe the proposed building. It will be on concrete masonry, all masonry or a combination with block structure. Part of the building will be office, and the rest warehouse. Approximately 1/4 will be office, 1/3 warehouse, and the rest would be open for lease or retail use. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, it was noted that the construction would be decorative concrete block, painted, and embossed block, with a break off border. All rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building. At this time they plan no signs, but if they wish signs in the future, they will come back to the city for approval. At this time, they plan to dump most of the site. There will be inside storage tenants. the snow in the back of fqr trash, for all visitor parking signs will be provided. There is also a 40 foot easement on the west side. Discussion then covered the drainage on the site and on the adjacent site. Mr. Karl David stated that the property directly to the north of their site has drainage problems. They propose to bring in a certified drainage engineer to recommend a secondary drainage plan. They will talk to the City Engineer about this also. There is drainage off the roof and they were concerned about water falling off the roof into the parking lot. They were looking at using the. drainage sewer for runoff. If they could utilize the natural drainage to the back of the property, they would like to. The City Manager noted that city staff had been working with the petitioner in regard to this problem. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be concrete curb installed on the east elevation against the building and again to the north. There will be blacktop curb on the rest, because they hope to have future additions to the building. They would like to acquire the property next to them. They will sod the front and sides of the building. The rear will be left in a natural state. New Hope Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Page 3 Motion Design and Review Item 5 There will be large trees at the entryway and will move some of the shrubs. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there will be down lighting on the building, and that the two rooftop packages will be painted to match the building. There will be two lights on the south, one at the rear and over the entryway. There will be a spotlight on the north side as requested by the Police Department. Chairman Cameron questioned the large amount of bituminous planned for the rear of the site. The petitioner stated that this was because of the poor soil. They do not intend to park vehicles there. They will store no equipment there, unless they come back to the city for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Larson stated that the blacktop to the rear was at the recommendation of city staff for turn around at the dock area. They only need about half as much as is proposed. Commission Edwards commented that he felt they would appreciate the extra blacktop once it was in. He asked for clarification of the drainage easement on the west side, and whether this was because of future development. The petitioner said "yes" they have talked to the owner of the lot next to them, and were trying to get an option on the property. They would like the forty foot easement because they would prefer to not dump their water on someone else's property. He noted that if the city insisted, they could put in a 15" pipe. They felt it would be more feasible to park on the bad soil and be able to develop the entire project. Lot %3 is good ground for some type of building. Mr. Larson noted that there was 60-70 feet of low ground that was controlled by the railroad. Question was raised as to why there was a need for 100 feet or drainage. The City Manager stated they had discussed this with the City Engineer and he thinks that Bassett Creek has something to do with this. Staff has to work with both the city engineer and the Bassett Creek engineer. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the 40 feet was to tie in to the 40 foot easement to the north, tying the two together. The petitioner stated they had no problem with the drainage, but they could foresee prblems in the future because there were a considerable number of children in the area. He looked at it as a liability, as a hazard, and a danger to the kids in the area. He would rather drain his property properly, than have a child fall into a pond. Commissioner Gundershaug asked staff how the easement should be handled. The City Manager stated he would prefer that this be left up to the City Engineer and the engineer for Bassett Creek. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of Planning Case 86-7 Request for Construction Approval for an office/warehouse at 3531 Nevada Avenue North subject to the working out of the easement between city staff and the petitioner. All present voted in favor. Design and Review held one meeting in March. New Hope Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Page 4 Land Use Committee I tern 6 There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Codes and Standards Item 7 There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Approval of Minutes of The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 4, 1986, March 4, 1986 were approved as printed. Item 8 Review of Council The Council Minutes of January 23, February 24, and March 10, Minutes 1986 were reviewed. Item 9 Additional Comments Item 10 The City Manager distributed copies of the New Hope Vacant Land Study to the Commissioners. He stated he would like to have a public hearing on this at the May meeting. Prior to the public hearing he would like the Land Use Committee to meet with the City Planner, so they could make recommendations at the public hearing. Discussion followed, regarding the time needed for review by the Land Use Committee, whether or not the Council could declare a moratorium for 90 days and when the public hearing should be held. Concensus of the Commissioners present was that the public hearing should be held in June. Adjournment Item 12 In response to questions regarding the development of the shopping center on 42nd/Winnetka, the City Manager stated that details should be worked out soon. However, the petitioners had changed architects from the time about the Sinclair Property, there might have to be shared parking, etc. In regard to the 42nd Avenue Study, staff was almost ready to come forward with the feasibility studies of the project. A plan will be put together of strategies and what/how it will be accomplished. The city will then wait for future opportunities to come up. At the present time, they were hung up by the shopping center. In the event of creating a tax increment district, the city has to be certain that the monies will be there. The option for the shopping center property had been extended to May 14. Hopefully, the city will know what was going to happen there by the May Planning Commission meeting. Brief discussion followed in regard to the city's plan to build houses at 49th/~18. The City Manager stated that the project had been turned down by GE Mortgage Insurance Company. There is a problem because the State cannot just change mortgage insurers. The city is appealing the decision to deny. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Page 5 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting May 6, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 6, 1986 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Roll call was taken: Present: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Anderson, Lutts The City Manager stated that he and the Land Use Committee had not had an opportunity to meet prior to this meeting. In the meantime, he and the City Planner had decided that the Study should be expanded to include more property. There is a possibility that Minnegasco will decide to get rid of their property, which is bordered by Dura Process and the cemetary. However, they are not prepared to discuss this with city staff as yet. Chairman Cameron, referred to the preliminary report, and questioned how the Commission/Council/City Staff would have to proceed, to move it along. He wondered how the City could get the most profit from the report,, and its recommendations. The City Manager stated that it involved an update of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission would recommend either approval or denial of the recommendations in the Study, as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. They would be responsible for recommending to the City Council, who cannot act without Planning Commission approval as far as changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission/Council will have to determine what it wishes to do with the vacant land in the city. It will involve adopting policy guidelines, design drawings~nd site plans, and adopting a policy statement and concept plan recommendations. Chairman Cameron asked whether prospective developers would then have to seek a variance if they wished to deviate from the amended Comprehensive Plan. The Manager said these amendments would give the city additional clout. However, it did not mean that they would have a lot of latitude, because any development would have to be permitted by the zoning code. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that there were only 83 acres remaining in the city, not counting the Minnegasco property. The City Manager stated that there were 60+ acres, not counting the railroad property. Commissioner Gundershaug referred to the Study, and wondered whether staff was recommending changing some zoning at this time, before they knew what potential development could be. The City Manager stated they would not adopt the rezoning at this time. A recommendation could be made to staff to prepare a rezoning, i.e. there had been a recommendation that the railroad property be rezoned to a housing use. The Study is only a concept plan, property would not be automatically rezoned, by adopting the recommendations of the Study. New Hope Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 1 Commissioner Edwards confirmed that such rezoning could not be done anyway, without talking to every landowner. Discussion followed regarding procedures to be followed in the event that large blocks of property were recommended to be rezoned. The Manager stated that the State Legislature had stated that the Zoning Ordinance took precedence over the Comprehensive Plan. Once its adopted, the city can move forward toward initiating changes. First, they needed a basic plan in the attempt to attract re-developers. Financial planning is also necessary. Chairman Cameron asked whether these recommendations would help with development of some of the vacant land. The manager answered yes. Chairman Cameron confirmed that staff has also reviewed the Study and its recommendations. The Manager noted that a great deal of time had been in review of the Study. Chairman Cameron asked for confirmation that there was no major "goof up" as far as the recommendations were concerned. He then questioned whether any of the concerned property owners had been informed of the Study and its recommendations. The manager stated that at this time he was not sure how to proceed with this. He did not know whether everyone had to be notified. He has consulted the City Attorney. Chairman Cameron stated he felt there was almost a moral obligation on the city's part to notify owners that the city was looking at their land, and that the city had another/different angle on the land's use. He felt it might make for more of a future hassle if they were not notified. He felt the owners should be notified, and informed that the Study was available for their review at the City Hall, before any public hearing. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that there were approximately 4~ properties involved, and felt the city should find out if there was a lot of interest in their plans. Discussion followed regarding procedures. Concensus was that property owners should be notified prior to a public hearing. An attempt could be made to deal with them individually, and if they were still not satisfied, they could then attend the public hearing. Chairman Cameron confirmed that even the Study offered alternative recommendations. The City Manager confirmed that the City Planner should be at the public hearing. Commissioner Edwards confirmed with the City Manager that at the time, and even at the public hearing, they were only talking about a concept plan. Concensus was that the public hearing should be scheduled for the June Planning Commission meeting June 3, 1986. Discussion then covered some of the recommendations of the Study, including some suggestions for housing islands in the middle of industrial land, whether such development would obligate the city to provide roads, etc., and whether or not there was a possibility that future developers would cooperate in road building. Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 2 Adjournment Also, discussed was the future of the railroad property and whether the railroad was interested in disposing of the property. The City Manager stated that from a staff perspective, they would like to see some mixed housing in that area. Commissioner Edwards said he had a tough time seeing houses in that area. Chairman Cameron noted that there would be nothing wrong with the Commission changing their minds on these recommendations. The City Manager said that it was his understanding that the Zoning Ordinance would still prevail, even though the concept plan indicated that they would prefer housing or some other use. Chairman Cameron asked whether there was anything else to come before the Commission at this meeting. The City Manager stated that the city planned to change the Ordinance as it related to satellite receivers. This was necessary to comply with FCC regulations. The changes would restrict their placement in front yards, or in required side yards. They would also be able to regulate the signage on receivers, as it pertained to the city's Sign Ordinance. He plans to have these proposed changes before the Commission at the June meeting. He noted also that there would probably be plans for a 150 unit apartment complex before the Commission in June. This has not already been approved by the Council. If the developer cannot get the money, they do not want to go through "hoops" at this time. The city can no longer issue revenue bonds for housing any more and the developer must apply to the State. In response to questions about the shopping center, the Manager stated that the buyers were supposed to close this week. Their option had been extended to May 8. Discussion followed regarding this proposed development, the restrictions of a tax increment district, and the procedures to be followed in the event of condemnation. It was further noted that a decision on the railroad bridge on Medicine Lake Road had not been made. The Manager stated that there had been several public hearings scheduled, but they had all been cancelled. Hennepin County and the railroad are still trying to work this out. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 3 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting June 3, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 3, 1986 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. Roll Call The meeting was called to order at Robert Cameron. Roll Call was Taken: 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman Planning Case 86-9 Variance to Retain Second Driveway Item 3 Present: Anderson, Cameron, Edwards Absent: Lutts, Friedrich, Bartos Gundershaug Mr. Robert Busch stated he had recently purchased his home. There was an existing double driveway. He had built a garage with a new driveway. He requests permission to keep both driveways, because the original driveway provided better access to the house, and also because it provided more off-street parking for the site. In his opinion it would give the best use of the property. He noted that when he applied for the building permit for the garage, the Building Inspector had informed him that he must apply for the variance if he wished to retain both driveways. He has now also furnished the city staff with a survey of his site. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Busch stated that the house was at the north of the lot, and the new driveway was quite a distance from the house. He plans to cut off the extension to the north, and will redo the whole house, including the windows. He stated he had not talked to his neighbors about this request. Commissioner Anderson confirmed with staff that the neighbors had been notified. Chairman Cameron confirmed that when ~e applied for the garage building permit, Mr. Busch had been told he would have to remove the existing driveway. Mr. Busch said he had been told if he wanted to retain it, he would have to come before the Commission. He felt it was much more convenient to keep both driveways since the front entrance is cut off from the new driveway as the main entrance to the house is toward the north, and the original makes it easier to gain entrance to the back door. 'Commissioner Edwards stated that the city's rationale was to keep parking off the street. His concern was that the second driveway would become an open storage area, and the city frowns about that, he had strong concerns about this happening in the future. Mr. Busch noted that the existing driveway was blacktopped, and had a curb cut. Motion There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Chairman Cameron, stating that he felt there were some extenuating circumstances' in this case and he felt that Mr. Busch was improving the looks of his. lot, and therefore recommends approval of the variance requested for a second driveway at 5605 Wisconsin Avenue North, because of the location of the entrance to the house and the distance between the two driveways. Voting in favor: Anderson, Cameron Voting against: Edwards Absent: Lutts, Friedrich, Bartos, Gundershaug New Hope Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Planning Case 86-10 Variances to Expand a Non-Conforming Dwelling Item 4 Mr. Jeffrey Rudy stated his house was a nonconforming structure. He now has a garage and a half and would like to extend to the south leaving only a 15 foot setback on the south side. The house faces west with the wide side of the lot to the front of of the house. They are on a corner. The distance to the next dwelling from the extension would be approximately 45 feet after the proposed construction. He had spoken to five of his neighbors and had received no objections from them. He then presented photographs to the commissioners showing the space between the houses. The double garage would give him the ability to store vehicles inside rather than outside, and he felt it would increase the value of his home. He planned to build it himself, with the help of his father-in-law, who was in construction. He presented plans to the commissioners. He stated that Mr. Sandstad had asked him to check into expanding to the north also to consider placing the garage to the front of the house. Because of the roof, he did not feel this would be practical, as he would have to remove 80% of the existing roof to do this. It would also be a lot more expensive, and would not increase the market value. The new addition would include a new cement driveway and matching doors. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, he stated he planned to leave the existing trees at this time. The driveway will be widened to accomodate the garage and he hoped to straighten the driveway out. The entire roof will be reshingled, hopefully this summer, and that the color and texture will match the existing house. He re-stated that the neighbor to the south had expressed no objections to his proposal. The lot has not been surveyed yet, but will be before construction. It was confirmed that the 15 foot distance was to the wall, not the overhang of the garage. Commissioner Edwards commented that there did appear to be enough room for the addition, as long as it was stipulated that all textures, color, etc. would match the existing home, so that it would all tie together. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the variance requested in Planning Case ~ 86-10, to 15 feet from the property line, at 8620 Del Drive North, subject to the texture, color and roof material matching the existing house, and subject to the filing of a lot survey with the city. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 86-11 Rear Setback Variance Item 5 Mr. William Lyman, petitioner in Planning Case 86-11, stated he wished to put on a porch where his deck had been. They had planned to change the deck into a three-season porch, but did not realize that they needed permission to do this. He had discussed his plans with the neighbors and also had posted a copy of his proposal on' his patio doors for them to see. The neighbors do not object. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the roof line and materials to be used would match the existing house. The City Manager said there had been no objections. Motion There was no one present in regard to this request. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the rear setback variance as requested in Planning Case 86-11, at 3332 Ensign Avenue North, subject to the addition matching the existing home. All present voted in favor. New Hope Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Planning Case 86-12 Mr. John Cassiani represented the petitioners in Planning Case Conditional Use Permit 86-12. He stated that Mr. Jerry Kelly was no longer a part of and Construction this project, as the purchase had been completed the previous Approval week. They will now proceed with the revamping of the New Hope Item 6 Mall. He presented a sketch of the proposal, stating it was very similar to what the Commission had reviewed in November. They plan to build an addition on the north side of the existing mall to house the pool area of U.S. Swim and Fitness, the major tenant, the addition to the south side of the mall will include a new strip shopping area, with glass fronts, with hopefully a restaurant as one of the tenants. They have included a loading dock facility and will have enclosed trash area. The west side of the new addition will be matching brick and the parking proposed meets all code requirements. The architect stated that it was basically the same plan as had been approved in November. The north configuration had been changed slightly to gain more parking spaces. There are additional spaces because of the changed north elevation. These changes had been made because U.S. Swim and Fitness wanted a wider lap pool. There will be a strip fluorescent underneath the entire facade, pole lights in the center both for security reasons and to give a bright look. All proposed foot candle powers are shown on the drawings. The architect noted that the electrical installations had been designed by an engineer. The survey had been updated, and the new survey includes all property involved. The architect said all utility easements are on the survey. Discussion then concerned the proposed landscaping for the site. It was noted that they intend to have a landscape architect become involved in this, and this should be completed in the next week or so. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there landscaping than was originally proposed. would be no less Using illustration boards, the petitioner described the project. U.S. Swim and Fitness will occupy the bulk of the existing mall, 40,000 square feet; there will be an interior corridor for tenant use with front and back exits; ten new tenant spots for the shopping area; a walkway around the front of the center under an overhang, with glass fronts. U.S. Swim and Fitness will have a lap pool, whirl pool, sauna, nautilus and weight equipment and aerobic space. There will be a running track, lockers, and a juice bar in the lobby. There will be an overhang, a blue and white facade with red letters, lighted from %he rear for signage. They will retain the brick now on the building and extend it to the new area, and also extend it over the awning to hide the concrete block from view. The north side will be concrete block painted to match the building. There will be a walkway under the awning the entire length of the mall. The petitioner noted that the revised preliminary plat had been submitted to the City Manager on June 3, 1986. They hope to be completed by early 1987. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that there were no variances required and that the proposed red/white/blue color scheme would be acceptable for the color scheme of the proposed "commercial core" of the city. He further confirmed that the parking and drive aisles as proposed were without variances; that there will be concrete curbs; new blacktopping and new striping for the parking lot. New Hope Planning CommiSsion June 3, 1986 Commissioner Edwards then asked whether the petitioner had been able to reach an agreement with the owner of the shopping center to the north regarding sharing the driveway. Mr. Cassiani stated that the owner was due back to town on the llth of June. He planned to meet with him as soon as possible after that date to resolve the problem. He anticipates meeting with him during the second week of June. Discussion then covered what the petitioners would do if a deal could not be made. Mr. Cassiani said he did not anticipate any problems in this regard. Chairman Cameron noted that what ever proposals were approved by the Planning Commission at this meeting would stand. Any future changes, i.e. sharing the driveway, would have to come back to the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Edwards, it was noted that there would be four dumpsters in an outside storage area, with doors. The area will be about 120 feet deep to accomodate trucks. Discussion then covered the drive aisle to the west and its width. .Commissioner Edwards noted Design and Review's concerns that the driveway should be 24 feet instead of 30 feet, to allow for more landscaping. The architect stated he believed that K-Mart had a fence on the border. Discussion then covered cleaning up that rear service area. Employee parking will be on the north side. The only public access is on the east side. Mr. Cassiani said that U.S. Swim and Fitness would have alarmed, security doors. There will be no new rooftop equipment, but existing will be painted to match the building. The architect stated that the original landscape plan was being updated. The City Manager stated staff had no additional security concerns. Staff had checked with the U.S. Swim and Fitness regarding traffic impact at that site, and felt that the problems there were due to the site in Richfield. They did not feel they equated with the New Hope site. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the driveway to the K-Mart Site had been retained. Chairman Cameron stated that the city would like to see the Sinclair site updated along with this proposal. Mr. Cassiani said he could go on record that they would enjoy the opportunity to do tha~. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the curb cuts to the outlot will be closed. The main entrance will be south of the U.S. Swim and Fitness Facility. They will have a single entrance into the facility. The corridor is only for service purposes and to provide a sound buffer between the Fitness facility and the shopping area. Commissioner Anderson said he was impressed with what they propose, but wished there could be more green area. Discussion then covered snow removal and the possibility,i of making the driveway narrower to provide additional space for snow storage. It was noted that it could get very costly if all snow had to be removed from the site. Commissioner Edwards commented that in a site such as this it would almost have to be trucked off. Mr. Cassiani said he would discuss this problem with other property managers in the area, before the Council Meeting. Commissioner Edwards then asked whether the petitioner had been able to reach an agreement with the owner of the shopping center to the north regarding sharing the driveway. Mr. Cassiani stated that the owner was due back to town on the llth of June. He planned to meet with him as soon as possible after that date to resolve the problem. He anticipates meeting with him during the second week of June. Discussion then covered what the petitioners would do if a deal could not be made. Mr. Cassiani said he did not anticipate any problems in this regard. Chairman Cameron noted that what ever proposals were approved by the Planning Commission at this meeting would stand. Any future changes, i.e. sharing the driveway, would have to come back to the Commission. In response to questions from Commissioner Edwards, it was noted that there would be four dumpsters in an outside storage area, with doors. The area will be about 120 feet deep to accomodate trucks. Discussion then covered the drive aisle to the west and its width. .Commissioner Edwards noted Design and Review's concerns that the driveway should be 24 feet instead of 30 feet, to allow for more landscaping. The architect stated he believed that K-Mart had a fence on the border. Discussion then covered cleaning up that rear service area. Employee parking will be on the north side. The only public access is on the east side. Mr. Cassiani said that U.S. Swim and Fitness would have alarmed, security doors. There will be no new rooftop equipment, but existing will be painted to match the building. The architect stated that the original landscape plan was being updated. The City Manager stated staff had no additional security concerns. Staff had checked with the U.S. Swim and Fitness regarding traffic impact at that site, and felt that the problems there were due to the site in Richfield. They did not feel they equated with the New Hope site. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the driveway to the K-Mart site had been retained. Chairman Cameron stated that the city would like to see the Sinclair site updated along with this proposal. Mr. Cassiani said he could go on record that they would enjoy the opportunity to do that~ Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the curb cuts to the outlot will be closed. The main entrance will be south of the U.S. Swim and Fitness Facility. They will have a single entrance into the facility. The corridor is only for service purposes and to provide a sound buffer between the Fitness facility and the shopping area. Commissioner Anderson said he was impressed with what they propose, but wished there could be more green area. Discussion then covered snow removal and the possibility.~ of making the driveway narrower to provide additional space foe snow storage. It was noted that it could get very costly if all snow had' to be removed from the site. Commissioner Edwards commented that in a site such as this it would almost have to be trucked off. Mr. Cassiani said he would discuss this problem with other property managers in the area, before the Council Meeting. Motion Planning Case 86-14 Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Home Rearyard Setback Item 8 Motion Planning Case 86-15 Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Home Item 9 Commissioner Edwards informed the petitioner that when they returned to the Commission, they should provide information regarding what the building wilt look like, what new landscaping is proposed, etc. He noted that Design and Review would have another meeting before the July meeting. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Anderson, to table Planning Case 86-13 until the meeting of July 1, 1986. All present voted in favor. Mr. Lindberg, petitioner in Planning Case 86-14, stated he was requesting permission to add a carport to the side of his garage. His house is non-conforming because what is legally the the rear setback is the front of his house. The proposed addition would be 7'3" from the neighbor's lot line. Chairman Cameron expressed concern about the addition of a carport, instead of a garage addition. Mr. Lindberg said he basically wanted the space to store his Winnebago, to keep it out of the sun and rain. He could enclose the space. The addition would match the existing structure as closely as possible and would be painted to match the house. Chairman Cameron stated that the city's concern is that carports tend tO become places for outside storage - he asked for agreement that this would not be its use, and would only be an extension of the garage. Mr. Lindberg said he would like to start off with a carport, and enclose it by winter. Chairman Cameron said he thought the Commission could agree to a six month time span, as long as they had Mr. Lindberg's word, that the carport would be enclosed by the first of 1987. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the roof line would match the house, and questioned whether the petitioner had talked to neighbors about his plan. The immediate neighbor was agreeable to the plan. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the variance to allow a carport, as requested in Planning Case 86-14, at 5904 Aquila Avenue North, subject to the carport being completely enclosed before the first of the year. All present voted in favor. Mr. David Hanson, petitioner in Planning Case 86-15, stated he would like to construct a double garage on the west side of his home. His reason is. that there are mature trees that he would like to keep. He has a gravel driveway. He would extend the roof line straight out. He presented drawings of his proposal to the Commissioners. Chairman Cameron confirmed that a construction company would be doing the work, and that the roof materials, garage materials, and color will all match the existing house. He plans to blacktop the new driveway and plant grass over the old driveway. Discus'sion between the petitioner and Commissioner Edwards regarding the possibility of shrinking the garage size to 18 feet. The petitioner stated he wanted to have a service ~oor toward the steps. There was no one presenf in regard to this case. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the petitioner talk builder about the roof line. to a The petitioner said he had talked with two different contractors about the roof, and this proposal was a result of their' suggestions. New Hope Planning Commission .June 3, 1986 Motion Planning Case 86-16 Construction Approval and Variance for Frontyard Parking Item 10 There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the variance requested in Planning Case 86-15, at 8113 50th Avenue North because of the unusual circumstances of the placement of the house on the lot. All present voted in favor. Mr. Robert Baker, the architect, represented the petitioner in Planning Case 86-16. He stated he has worked also with Viking Sauna, and Custom Glass companies, two of the tenants for the proposed building. These two tenants intend to occupy 2/3 of the proposed building. Neither of them are heavy traffic businesses, and have just a few truck deliveries. The proposal meets all of the setback requirements of city code except their request for frontyard parking. They are requesting this variance because there is only one way to come into the site. They are providing an abundance of greenery, including shrubs, etc. They consulted a landscape designer for the plan. The building will be of pre-cast concrete. He stated it was a difficult lot to build on, and they will have to use pilings in the construction. They will use both a structural engineer, and a mechanical engineer in the process of construction. He stated that the Building Official had requested that the loading dock be turned to an angle, to give more room. They had no problem with this change. Storm water runs onto their property now. They plan to put in a catch basin and re-route drainage into the utility easement. They had checked with Hennepin County in regard to their draining a little more water into their drainage system. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the petitioner was requesting only the one variance, as well as construction approval, and that one dock would be tilted 35 degrees to allow greater turning radius for trucks. It is proposed that the dock traffic would come in from International Parkway. Following discussion, the architect agreed that there be signage indicating the one way traffic flow. Commissioner Edwards noted that Design and Review had expressed concern about potential conflict with truck and car traffic, and would like all traffic to flow in one direction only -- in a clockwise manner. The petitioner agreed, that roof top equipments if any, would be either screened or painted to match the building. The green area will be sodded and trash storage will be inside the building. The City Manager stated that the Police Department had not indicated a need for any more security lighting than is being proposed. The pole l'ights will be of a down-light type. Commissioner Edwards said he thought the petit~0ner had done a fine job, and confirmed that following Design and Review the petitioner had decided to eliminate the loading dock to the north, in front of the building. The architect'said they were converting the loading area into one area--the owners feel that there would be only three or four times a year that they would need the dock, most detiger'ies, particularly the glass delivery trucks would drive right into the bui'lding. New Hope Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page 7 Discussion then covered the possibility of eliminating the drive in the center of the building. Commissioner Edwards concerned about possible conflict with traffic, Chairman Cameron is not sure this should be done. The architect said the driveway could be moved 10 feet or so. Commissioner Anderson stated he had a lot of problems with the circulation on the site since a large truck would block the entrance and also infringe on the docks. He suggested flattening the route quite a bit. The architect said this could be done, the angle could be turned on both the loading docks and thus eliminate the one in the center. Discussion continued regarding the traffic flow on the site, and the location of the loading docks. Mr. Baker said that Custom Glass, one of the main tenants wanted the large doors and docks. Commissioner Anderson said he would prefer that they had all angle parking. Chairman Cameron questioned whether this case should not be sent back to the "drawing board". He asked the petitioner his opinion of a table until July. Mr. Baker expressed concern that this would not sit well with the petitioners, since there had been some problems in purchasing the property. Chairman Cameron asked whether Mr. Baker thought the problems could be worked out prior to the ~Council Meeting. Mr. Baker stated he would be glad to work it out. Commissioner Anderson requested that the petitioner make sure that the truck clearance would provide for a WB50. He said he would propose to pass this case on to Council, subject to the changes recommended. He noted that the petitioner would have to run these changes by Mr. Sandstad prior to the Council Meeting. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the variance requested in Planning Case 86-16, at 5651 International Parkway, subject to the petitioner revising the traffic flow pattern to a clockwise pattern, changing the parking to angle parking, making adjustments to the loading dock area to accomodate a WB50, and subject to the approval of Hennepin County regarding the storm water drainage. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 86-17 The City Manager then addressed the Commission, stating that Rezoning Request, PUD Planning Case 86-17 was a little tricky, because the city is Concept Approval, Pre- proposing a redevelopment plan. What was before the Commission liminary Plat, and o at this meeting was a concept plan for a PUD for a 150 apartment Easement Vacation complex. It is proposed to be constructed with the assistance of Item 11 the city, through a tax increment plan and a redevelopment district. The reason for the tax increment assistance is that this property meets the policy of the city for developing a major property. There are marginal soil conditions, and real problems with the site.~ An additional problem are storm sewer and sewer lines running diagonally through the site. They are proposing to develop as an R-4 zone, as recommended by the Planner. The rezoning would be from I-2 to R-4. The preliminary plat approval is to combine two separate properties. The Commission also'must make a recommendation on the vacat'ion of the easement. In this particular case, one of the reasons for the tax increment being considered, is because the pipes will have to moved. Mr. Dick Curry stated he was representing the limited partnership. He asked Dan to give a run down on the schedule for this consideration. New Hope Planning Commission June 3, 1986 The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission recommendations would go to Council on June 9. The public hearing on the tax increment plan and the redevelopment plan, involving $1,100,000 would be for purchase of the property and soil correction. Commissioner Anderson noted that vacation of an easement could not be done until the city had entered into an agreement. Mr. Curry noted that the soil was extremely bad which was another reason for TIF. Dick Faricy, architect with Windsor Faricy, said he had prepared a preliminary concept. He stated that the easement lines are generally diagonal, and there is some soil on the site that is not desirable. The proposed project would consist of 150 units, 75 in each arm of the building. The building will be three stories in height with inside parking of 1 space per apartment and exterior parking of 1.25 spaces per unit. The site will be entered from two sides and the front yard will be left quite open toward 36th Avenue, consisting of green space, holding pond and possibly some amenities. Each unit will have a balcony. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was adequate sight distance in relation to the tunnel under the railroad pass. The petitio~'er thought it was 500-600 feet. Motion Motion Commissioner Anderson stated he would personally like to see a lot of landscaping toward the south, and was also concerned about compatibility with the church property and the "sea" of asphalt in front of the church. He further confirmed that they wil~ be "market rate" units. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the rezoning from I-2 to R-4, subject to the development concept. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending concept approval of the PUD, requested in Planning Case 86-17, subject to approval of the redevelopment plan and the creation of a tax increment district. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat requested in Planning Case 86-17, subject to the relocation of the utilities and that the existing two easements are vacated. All present voted in favor. Mr. Scott Stuhr and Mr'. Vernon Stuhr addressed the Commission in regard to Case 86-18. Scott Stuhr stated that they had taken all of the suggestions made by the commission/city and had re-laid out the building site and redesigned the parking lot. This was the site plan they were now presenting. They will need one variance in setback property. They wish to construct building. on the west side of the a seven unit apartment In response to a question from. Chairman Cameron, it was noted that this proposal had not been reviewed by the Design and Review Committee. Mr. Vernon Stuhr said that after the last meeting, they had redesigned the site, and now needed a variance to come closer to the west property line. Chairman Cameron confirmed that they were requesting a variance of 25 feet, to allow them to come within 10 feet of the property line. Chairman Cameron asked when the city first received this proposal? The City Manager stated he had first seen it a week ago Friday. New Hope Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page 9 It was noted they had not gone before Design and Review. The original plan had been to request only concept approval. The petitioner had subseqeuntly come in with this plan, detailing the room sizes, etc. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards, the Manager stated that front setback requirements are 35 feet. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there would be only a ten setback on the west side and a 15 foot setback on the south, rear side. City foot or The City Manager stated that the question of whether or not the parking lot could intrude into the setback was being researched, and would be answered by the City Planner. Chairman Cameron stated he felt this was a lot of building for this site and that the setbacks being requested are pretty severe. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the corner of the parking lot was 17 feet from the corner, and thus provided adequate sight lines for cars. He stated he also felt that 7 units was a pretty intense use of the land, otherwise he found no major faults with the proposal. Commissioner Edwards stated that he had to echo the same concerns.. He would like to see a smaller development, perhaps with 5 units. He felt seven just didn't seem to fit on the site. Scott Stuhr said that with the exception of the one variance, they were following the City Code. Technically the property should support 7.5 units. Speaking for his dad, he was trying to get the maximum he could out of the property. Mr. Stuhr stated that only four or five units would not be cost effective, they needed seven units. Chairman Cameron said he appreciated their problem, but the city's problem is that the development would be on site for perhaps 50 years, and the Commission/Council have an obligation to protect the city's interest. Discussion followed about the setbacks required and the changes to the proposal from the original plans. Mr. Stuhr commented that it was an odd shaped piece of land and difficult to plan. Chairman Cameron asked whether they had considered combining the vacant property, with the property occupied by their home and developing the entire site. Mr. Stuhr said it had been surveyed years ago and this was found to be not feasible. Then they had gotten some apartment ideas. To change back the other way, it would cost more money again. Commissioner Edwards asked what Mr. Stuhr saw happening to the house and lot in the future. Mr. Stuhr said he might sell the house and move into the apartment. In response to questions from Edwards, he noted that the lot was 75' x 180' Chairman Cameron stated he felt the Stuhrs had the Commission's response. He felt the setbacks being requested were pretty severe and that the ~evelopmen~as too close to Bass Lake Road. He did not think the proposed development would be an asset.to the city. Mrs. Stuhr questioned how only four units would make it livable, when seven would not. Chairman Cameron's response was that with four units there would be more green area and more space aound the units. New Hope Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page 10 Motion Commissioner Anderson stated the city wanted the site developed, standing vacant it didn't do the petitioner any good, nor the city. Lengthy discussion followed between the Stuhrs and the Commission. Items discussed were the possibility of combining the properties; whether or not the proposed seven unit development would be a detriment to the city, why it had been so difficult in the past for the petitioners to gain approval for their development plans; the dangers involved in additional curb cuts on Bass Lake Road, and whether the petitioner could build anything they desired if they were requesting no variances. The Chairman stressed that it was not the city/commission's role to tell the petitioners what to build, but to interpret plans and the city code in relation to the plans. He repeated his opinion that they were requesting too much building for a small piece of property. Commissioner Edwards stated they were requesting a variance of 50%. Northing this severe had ever been granted by the city. Further discussion followed regarding what would be acceptable on the property, combining the lots, the problems of developing this lot so close to R-1 property, and the possibility of rezoning the entire property R-4. Commissioner Anderson stated the city wanted to work with the Stuhr's, but he personally was concerned about putting too many people on that piece of property. He felt problems would develop in ten years. Vernon Stuhr stated that he felt that in the "give and take" he was doing all the taking. Mrs. Stuhr commented that they had lived there all their lives, paying taxes, and the city would not let them develop the way they choose. They wish to put a seven unit apartment building on that site. Chairman Cameron noted that Commissioner Edwards had suggested five units. Mr~ and Mrs. Stuhr repeated their questions as to what was wrong with six or seven units on the site. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the petitioners would be willing to consider combining both lots and developing the entire site? He felt the site was an island in the middle of residential. His personal experience, made him feel that their home would diminish in value if the seven unit building were built. Scott Stuhr asked whether they would receive permission to build, if they proposed a five unit building? He said he was asking "what they must do, to get this done"? Commissioner Anderson said that with five or six units everything would change. Maybe by dropping down in size, they would no longer need any variances -- it would depend on how the development were laid out. Its a matter of fitting a building on the lot. Mrs. Stuhr commented that at one time the lot had been zoned commercial --they had purchased it as commercial property. The city had changed the zoning. There was no one present who spoke to this request. MotiDn by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, to table Planning Case 86-18 until the meeting of July 1, 1986. All present voted in favor. New Hope Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page 11 Committee Reports Design and Review Land Use Codes and Standards OLD BUSINESS Motion NEW BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Design and Review met once during May. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards to table the Public Hearing on the Vacant Land Study until the meeting of July 1, 1986. All present voted in favor. The Planning Commission minutes of May 6, 1986 were accepted as printed. Review Council Minutes The Council minutes of May 13, and 28 were reviewed. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page 12 June 30, 1986 City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Mr. Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Dear Mr. Donahue: In reply to the notice of the public hearing regarding the City of New Hope land Study, we the undersigned feel there are considerations that make the seven townhouse units proposed on Site F undesirable. Our main concern is the devaluation of the properties on 37th Avenue north of the site. As homeowners in a very competitive real estate market, the investment in our homes must be guarded. The plan leaves little yard space for each unit. We feel the added population density to our area would become a nuisance with increasing incidents of people trespassing our privacy and our properties to access 37th Avenue to the city owned area:west of the site or destinations north. Due to the elevation of the site, the townhouses are esthetically undesirable and could not be remedied by fencing or landscaping. There are also objections to vehicular traffic on both sides of the lots north of the site. For these reasons, a small office similar to the adjacent real.estate_office would be preferable if the site were to be developed. We look forward to our concerns being addressed at the hearing. CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting July 1, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 1, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. at New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Roll Call was Taken: Present: Anderson, Edwards Absent: Bartos Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Planning Case 86-13 The City Manager distributed new site plans for 86-13 to the Conditional Use Permit Commissioners. CUP Development Stage Item 3 The petitioner stated his proposal was primarily to improve the area and accommodate his growing business. The Chairman requested that "for the record" he briefly state what he was proposing for the site. The petitioner stated he would like to add three stalls on the east side, provide storage capacity of about 18 feet at the rear, remove the exterior garbage storage, and move it inside, move the driveway from the existing location to the center on the two property lines (1/2 on each property). Mr. Mosher would bear the expense of the joint driveway. He felt it was a necessity for them, for the business to grow. Chairman Cameron asked whether there were any variances needed. The City Manager stated that staff was recommending that the proposal be treated as a PUD, which then vacates the need for any variances. There were no other technicalities. Commissioner Edwards confirmed with the petitioner that the parking lot would be re-paved and re-striped, that there would be continuous concrete curb installed, a new fence to be moved in further from the property line with a row of trees on the outside. There would be no new rooftop equipment, the chimney sign would be removed. The only other change would be to cosmetically improve the property. The exterior of the building will be brick and mostly maintenance free materials. Trash storage will be moved to the car wash area to provide an enclosed trash storage area, inside the building. This enclosure will have double steel doors. Commissioner Edwards asked if they felt this would pose any difficulty for refuse trucks. Mr. Mosher said no, the area was open for the car wash anyway. There are no parking stalls proposed~ for the front of this area. In response to further questions he said there will be three security lamps at the back of the site. In the front, retail area lights would be left on to light the area from inside the building. The hours of operation he would prefer are 5:00 a.m. to midnight. He would like to "feel out" these hours to determine if they were economically feasible. The existing tanks will be removed and put outside the curb, outside the pumping area. Mr. Mosher said that the hours of delivery to the tanks could be controlled--from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. He preferred to be present when deliveries were made. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 1 There will be only one extra sign - "Archies Bait and Tackle" no fish illustration. The sign on the roof will be as illustrated to staff. Mr. Mosher said he felt the signs as proposed came within the city's ordinance. The City Manager confirmed that the Building Official had no problem with the signs as proposed. Commissioner Edwards then asked about landscaping. Mr. Mosher stated he was thinking of lowering the fence to 3-4 feet, moving it closer to the curb along the east line, inside the row of trees. The fence would be of cedar or redwood. He was thinking of the type of fence that was dog eared at the top, a solid fence, one board on each side. He wants to put a watering system in to keep the landscaping watered. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that he meant an underground watering system in all landscaped areas. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the two owners had worked out the easements. Mr. Mosher replied they had, as far as Mr. Showalter, the owner of the shopping center, was concerned he had agreed to the moving of the driveway, since it was not costing him anything. Commissioner Edwards asked whether Mr. Mosher was going to be responsible for some of the work being done on the properties. Mr. Mosher replied that he always had been, at least as far as snow plowing etc. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the owner of the shopping center had agreed to do the work the city had requested on the site. Mr. Mosher said he did not know what Mr. Showalter had agreed to with the city. He had not been involved in those discussions. Mr. Mosher then expressed concern about the existing trees on his property. Commissioner Edwards said it would behoove him to save as many trees as possible. Concern was~ expressed regarding the construction details for the adjoining properties. Mr. Mosher said he would do the curbs. In regard to the parking lot striping, Mr. Mosher said he was going to contract with a blacktop maintenance company to keep the parking lot in good repair. Chairman Cameron stated that the petitioner must understand that with PUD the city actually signs a contract with both of the property owners regarding the proposal. Both parties must agree. Mr. Mosher agreed with this, stating this would also be for his protection. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission was taking his work that Mr. Showalter would cooperate. Mr. Mosher said they would have an attorney draw up the agreement. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that the proposal looked like a nice development. Commissioner Anderson asked about the existing sign, below the Amoco sign. Mr. Mosher said the sign would be directly below the Amoco sign and the lights would be relocated and balanced. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 2 Commissioner Anderson then referred to Sheet 3 of the proposal, and asked about the traffic flow by the car wash, expressing concern about cars blocking the aisle. Mr. Mosher said that it would be north to south, and that the stacking area had never been a problem. They will have more room than before. He added that there was hardly ever more than one car at a time at the car wash. They have not had a problem in the past. Commissioner Anderson then asked why they were proposing a four foot fence. Mr. Mosher replied that any higher, and the wind could tear the fence apart. He hopes that the trees that will be moved, will offset the lower fence. Commissioner Anderson then asked about the lighting impact on the neighbors, noting that the lights will be 40 feet closer to the houses. Mr. Mosher said the lights would be shielded, as this was very important to him. Commissioner Anderson commented that the proposed plans showed a lot of thought on the part of Mr. Mosher. He confirmed that there would be no parking in front of the trash doors. Discussion then held regarding the height of the proposed berm, 3' above grade, which would be only one foot above the fence, and whether car lights would be seen over the fence. Mr. Mosher said he could install a five foot fence, if this is what the city wished. Chairman Cameron noted that in his position, the fence either had to be six feet high or the berm should be planted with evergreens. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether or not a four foot fence would not be enough, since neither a four foot, six foot, or twelve foot would be enough to block out all lights from the driveway. Commissioner Anderson said he felt there needed to be something there, to create more of a barrier. Discussion continued regarding a fence versus a berm and various types of landscaping materials that could be used on the berm. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he felt if the fence were moved up to the two foot grade line, that would be acceptable. There could be either a five foot fence at the one foot elevation or a four foot fence at the two foot elevation. Commissioner Anderson asked whether changing the curb cut and driveway required approval from Hennepin County. The City Manager said he thought so, he was not sure. Mr. Mosher said that Mr. Sandstad. had held a meeting with the county, and they had said they would give their "blessing". In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson, the City Manager stated that sidewalks were required only if the property fronted on a major arterial. Staff had not considered requiring sidewalks here. They would not conform to existing sidewalks. Mr. Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants expressed concern over items which had to be negotiated. He noted that the moving of the tanks must comply with the plan, it was a major concern. Another concern was the changing of the radius on the east curb cut along 36th Avenue. This will facilitate easier tanker movement. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 3 Motion Planning Case 86-18 Setback Variance and Construction Approval Item 4 Chairman Cameron said this was shown on the plans the Commission was approving. There was no one present in regard to this case. The City Manager requested that the Commission include in their motions the existing standards for the four Conditional Use Permits and approval for the development stage of the PUD. Commissioner Edwards stated that because the petitioner met the four conditions for a Conditional Use Permit, he would move to approve the second stage of the PUD for 9400 36th Avenue, and the Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the site including the relocation of the car wash, removal of the storage tanks, provide firm details regarding the type, size and height, and materials to be used for the fence, and that the fence would be at the six foot elevation. Commissioner Friedrich second. All present voted in favor. It was noted by the Chairman that the next City Council meeting would be held on July 28, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall. Mr. Stuhr was accompanied by his son Scott Stuhr. He noted that they were requesting a setback variance and construction approval for an apartment building on their property at 8201 Bass Lake Road. They are requesting a 15 foot variance at the rear of the property which would provide a 20 foot easement instead of the required 35 feet. Scott Stuhr noted that they had shrunk their proposal to include six apartment units, and have also cut down on the proposed parking area. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that there would be three units on each level. He asked whether this proposal had been before Design and Review. The City Manager said the revised proposal had not. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the petitioner was requesting the setback variance adjacent to another R-4 land use and adjacent to another apartment building. It was noted that the other apartment would be about 40 feet away. Vernon Stuhr said there was a parking area and refuse area on the other side of the fence. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the possibility of tenants in one second story unit, being able to look directly into another second story unit. Scott Stuhr said that at the present time, there are a number of trees on the site. Vernon Stuhr said their property is adjacent to the sideyard of the other property. Discussion followed regarding the site drainage, and whether this will also present problems. The City Manager stated that the plans presented to the Commission at this meeting had not been reviewed by the City Engineer. They had been received only the week before. Trash is proposed to be near the row of pine trees that are presently four feet high, and will screen the trash enclosure. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether that trash enclosure location would not be inconvenient for the tenants. Mr. Stuhr noted that the enclosure could be placed on the main drag, but it would be more of an'eyesore. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 4 Motion Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt a 15 foot variance was a large variance. He asked whether the petitioner would consider cutting 15 feet off the building. Mr. Stuhr said he didn't feel like cutting down the size any more on the building. Scott Stuhr stated they were now requesting only one variance instead of four as they asked for previously. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Anderson said he had a problem with a 15 foot variance. Following discussion with other commissioners, he asked whether the commissioners might not be more comfortable with more than one minor variance rather than the one large variance. He noted that it was an odd shaped lot. Chairman Cameron commented that he did not recall the city ever granting a 15 foot variance. He confirmed that Commissioner Anderson was suggesting trading one major variance for three smaller ones. Commissioner Gundershaug said he had a problem with granting any variances on the site. The lot is being proposed for maximum use, and would be over-built for the site. Commissioner Edwards stated that after reviewing this planning case a month ago, and looking at the site again, he would like the city to look at the entire street in terms of redevelopment. There are single family homes surrounded by multi-family and commercial. He stated he had a problem with six units on the site. He was not opposed to variances but the proposed building is just too big. He asked if the petitioner would consider combining this site with the property to the south. Commissioner Friedrich said he seconded Mr. Gundershaug's and Mr. Edwards' comments. Commissioner Lutts asked whether a five unit building could be built without any variances being needed. Scott Stuhr said they would not know, without talking to their architect. Vernon Stuhr commented that ten years ago they had been granted approval for ten units. Now all they were asking for was a variance. It is now not zoned for anything but apartments. Discussion continued about the possibility of re-positioning the building on the lot. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the petitioners had looked into the possibility of combining both their properties and building on the combined lot. Vernon Stuhr said no, they had not. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending denial of Planning Case 86-18, request for variance in setback at 5641 Wisconsin Avenue North. voting in favor: Voting against: Abstain: Motion carried. Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards None Anderson Vacant and Land Study The next item for discussion was the Vacant Land Study conducted Item 5 by Northwest Associated Consultants. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 5 Alan Brixius reviewed the study for the Commission and assembled citizens. He stated that there had been 37 parcels involved. He suggested that he respond to questions regarding specific sites. The reason for the study and its recommendations was to help the city establish an orderly development of the remaining parcels in the city, and to try to establish the most desirable land use for each piece of property. In this process they had first reviewed the physical plan, and then considered market information and surrounding land uses for each parcel. They had then attempted to establish what they felt would be the preferred land use for each parcel. They then prepared a concept plan. The suggestions in the Study are conceptual, they were not recommending or mandating specific development for the sites. The Study is to help the city in. planning and also provide potential developers with an idea of what the city would like to see on a particular property. The Policies are what establishes how a particular land use could be changed. The complete Vacant Land Study gives the criteria for this. The final steps will be taken after this plan is reviewed, i.e. an implementation plan. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this was a preliminary plan that had been started last fall and was completed in late March. He further confirmed that the next step was to gain comment from the Planning Commission and City Council. These bodies should indicate their concerns with the Study, and indicate any suggested changes they might like made, as well as any recommendations. Chairman Cameron further confirmed that this was a Plan, there is not necessarily any action that must be taken now. There were no changes being proposed under a specific timetable. This document would serve only as a guide to any changes that might eventually be proposed or made. Noting that each of the parcels had been identified for a specific use, Chairman Cameron asked whether this was an "all or nothing" kind of plan. The response was that the Commission/Council/Citizens, would then be considered. Planners wished for input from the and these thoughts and suggestions The City Manager said that it was up to the City Council and the HRA as to whether they wanted to implement the Plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson regarding the Planning Commission role in the Plan review, the City Manager stated that this Vacant Land Study would be an amendment to the city's Comprehensive Plan, and thus needed official Planning Commission approval or rejection. Acceptance of the plan does not actually rezone any properties or make any official changes in property use. The City Manager requested that the Commission proceed to consider the properties as they were listed in the Study for purposes of the record. He stated that all of the property owners had received a copy of the documents so they will know what area is being discussed. Chairman Cameron opened the public hearing on the Vacant Land Study. Lily Johnson, 8016 37th Avenue North, stated she was confused as to why a consultant had been hired to conduct this Study when another Study had been completed eight years ago. Chairman Cameron responded that because there is so little land left in the city that is undeveloped, it was necessary to conduct a review and look at this land from a planning perspective, so the city could know where the land was located and what zoning it carried. The consultant had been hired to inventory the land to help the city determine how they could best develop it. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 6 Ms. Johnson asked why the city got involved in this. Commissioner Anderson stated that many communities did this type of study. New Hope does not employ a fulltime City Planner, but has a contract for consultant services with Northwest Associated Consultants. Natalie Stuhr, 5635 Wisconsin Avenue, asked how long the Study had taken. A consultant from the firm stated that it had taken about three months. Ms. Stuhr asked what the cost had been, after all they were tax payers. Chairman Cameron stated he was not sure that the Commission should discuss that issue at this meeting. This question could be directed to the City Manger, Mr. Donahue. Commissioner Edwards stated that part of the purpose of the Study was to encourage the use and development of the vacant lant available. The city is looking for alternatives for development. There are several parcels like this in the city. It was determined that the Vacant Land Study would be reviewed in order, as presented. A - Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg No public comment. B - Already approved for development No public comment. D - Science Industry Center No public comment. E - International Parkway No public comment. F - Winnetka Avenue, south of 37th Avenue Alan Johnson, 8016 37th Avenue, stated they had collected signatures of people objecting to the proposed land use for townhouses. The petition was presented to the Chairman (attached to official minutes). Their main concern was the devaluation of their property. Chairman Cameron assured them that this would become part of the official record. Brenda Slavocich, 8009 37th Avenue, referred to the ten foot setback proposed from 37th Avenue North, questioning his footage. Chairman Cameron said this was because the property backed up to the flood plain, which will never be developed. The consultant stated that the use was plain, the site goes back into a triangle. be considered a sideyard, and that was feet. to the rear of flood The flood plain would the reason for the 15 Commissioner Edwards noted that the uses depicted in the Study, do not necessarily map out the actual size of a building/use proposed. These were just renderings, has no bearing as to what has to be put on the site. Loren McCarty, 8001 37th Avenue North, noted that all of the houses on the north side are on 90-100 foot lots. He questioned putting 7 units in a 300 foot area. He added that he was on a cul-du-sac, and suddenly the city was talking about putting seven units of housing in an area suitable for three houses. He was also concerned about the elevation of the lots which towered above their lots. He felt it would be like sky scrapers in their back yards. He was also concerned about drainage. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 7 G - NO public comment. I - No public comment. J - No public comment. K - John Parkin, 7641 Angeline Drive stated he was concerned about drainage problems and also what any proposed development would do to property values. He noted that one proposal showed a factory with a parking lot. There is a culvert running right in back of his house, every time it rains, his yard floods. Chairman Cameron stated this is why the City Engineer checks such plans. Mr. Parkin stated that more houses and more streets would create more traffic. Chairman Cameron noted that Mr. Parkin was saying he liked the vacant land. David Norby, 7908 50th Avenue North, stated he agreed 100%. The proposed usage was much too heavy for that particular property. He was also concerned about the elevation being low - he has water problems now. He was not sure that brining in more warehouses as a solution either, big trucks make a lot of noise. Richard Krohn, 7600 49th Avenue North, referred to an illustration that showed a building sitting on a farm on some property that he already owns. He said he didn't know they were planting trees on his property. He questioned how the city could take property that was already privately owned. Chairman Cameron assured Mr. Krohn that the city was only looking at all of the undeveloped property in the city and making suggestions for its use. The city was not taking anyone's property. Mr. Krohn asked about zoning changes, and whether there was a proposal as to how long this process would be, in terms of the city taking action. Is this being let out to developers. Chairman Cameron answered "no", if a developer were to ask the city, they could show them the Plan and make suggestions. Mr. Krohn asked whether the Soo Line had consented to sell their property. Chairman Cameron said "no" and no one had asked them. John Gellerham, stated that his uncle owned the farm on 49th Avenue. As drawn in on the Study, it looks like there are apartments proposed for his property. Chairman Cameron stated that Mr. Gellerman could reassure his uncle, that the city has no plans to take his property. He felt this issue had been explained three times. Co~missioner Anderson stated that there were two documents involved. One is the Zoning Map which indicates what the property is now zoned. If a developer were to come in and offer an owner a fabulous deal, they might'have to/or wish to come before the Commission for a variance, etc. The second document is only a guide plan. This is the city's official notice to the world of how they would like to see the property developed. Most cities have such a document. New Hope is a mature community with most of the land already developed, they are dealing with small parcels surrounded by existing development. The Planning Commission has been charged with looking at this guide plan (Comprehensive Plan) to see whether it is still pertinent. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 8 What the city is trying to do is identify what it would accept in the way of development. The city is not going to go out and try to induce people to buy up property, and they are not going out as an HRA to try and acquire it. Accepting the Study does not mean we are changing the zoning, it means we are accepting the Study/Guide Plan as recommended. They are not proposing any changes to parcels now. It is a study of vacant land in the city. This proposal does not mean the city will be condemning property. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission/City recognizes this as private property, the Study is only recommending. L - Mr. Pukel of Angeline Drive asked what the city was going to do about the water problems. The consultant answered that the plan did speak to moving the drainage but his was a concept plan, it is an effort to indicate how much development a site could support. It does not say this is how it will be developed. The homeowner at 4225 Flag, asked whether or not if/when a developer came to the city, would the property owners be notified so they could come back before the city at a later time. Chairman Cameron answered "yes", approval of the Plan is meaningless in terms of any rezoning. All this says is that as far as the city is concerned, this is one concept. Property rights are fully protected, the city would take nothing without the property owners full participation. It was noted that perhaps a better explanation should have been included in the letter that went to property owners. Chairman Cameron stated there was no intention to defraud anyone of their property rights. The City Manager stated that the City Council had requested this study because of concerns that had arisen when Hennepin County was searching for a site for a garbage transfer station. This site is zoned I-2, which means that such a use could have gone on the property. This would have meant as many as 600 trucks going down Winnetka to the site. This prospect scared the "living daylights" out of the Council as they did not want this to happen and so, looked for alternatives. M - Susan Ellis, 4525 Oregon, stated she would like to keep her area quiet. N - No public comment. 0 - No public comment. P - Bob Thompson stated he wished to point out an error in this site plan. It indicates it is bordered by townhomes, it is apartments. He requested this section be deleted. Chairman Cameron stated this recommendation recommendation of the Planner. was only the Mr. Brixius stated that the city had undertaken a market study to look at market values. Q - No public comment. R - No public comment. S - No public comment. T - No public comment. U - No public comment. V - No public comment. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 9 W - John Bauer, 5539 Winnetka Avenue, asked if the Commission were sure that the city could not rezone without giving him notice. Chairman Cameron said he would be notified. Mrs. Stuhr, stated she knew "what he meant" when they had purchased their property, it had been zoned commercial. X - No public comment. Y - No public comment. Z - No public comment. AA - No public comment. BB - No public comment. CC - No public comment. DD - No public comment. EE - Mrs. Stuhr stated that when they bought their property it had been zoned commercial - they had not been notified of any change in zoning. She stated she felt the Study did them an injustice in recommending a four unit building for the site. The Consultant stated that when the Study had been prepared, they had attempted to fit uses to the particular sites, that would not require variances. FF - No public comment. GG - No public comment. HH - Wilford Getze stated he represented Brook Park Realty, who was handling Fred Seed estate. He said he had no fault with recommendations of the Study, but wondered if it might not be best to leave the two lots separate. He said the estate should be closed within the next year. He felt that industrial zoning for that area was the most practical. II - Carol Adams stated that she felt this area should not have been included in the first place. Several years ago this area had been designated as a nature park, were they in error about that. The Chairman commented that he was not sure that the area had ever legally been designated as anything specific. He said he did not think it would hurt for the citizens of that area to address the City Council again on this issue to see if they could get them to act on it. The City Manager staed that hte City Council has no development plans for this site at this time. Commissioner Anderson asked the Consultant if they had ever considered a passive use for this site. The Consultant responded that it had been his understanding from Doug Sandstad that the park idea had never been acted upon. Commissioner Anderson asked whether it might not be appropriate to develop a public use concept. JJ - A citizen criticized the description in the Study, and asked how the property was zoned. It was noted that it was now zoned R-0 which allowed for office use. Lavida Gable, 2800 Hillsboro, stated that she felt the proposed 8 townhouses really downgrade the properties, her front window was in line with Medicine Lake Road. Chairman Cameron asked what she would like to see there. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 10 Design and Review Item 6 Land Use Committee Item 7 Codes and Standards Item 8 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 3, 1986 Item 9 Council Minutes from June 9, and June 23, 1986 Were Reviewed Item 10 Additional Comments Item 11 She stated she felt what was there now was fine, it should be left as residential, if someone purchased the property and developed it, it would downgrade their property as they would have no view. KK - No public comment. LL - No public comment. Clarence Brandell asked whether the city had any plans to change the Code or City Ordinances, i.e. would industrial zoning still have the same requirements. Chairman Cameron stated there was no plan to change any of them at this time. David Carlson asked whether this meeting was the first time the Commission had seen this planning document. Chairman Cameron said the Commission had had it for a couple of months, this meeting was an official Public Hearing. Commissioner Anderson asked whether there would be any changes prior to the Study going to Council. Chairman Cameron responded that it was his plan that the Study now be discussed by the Commission, one parcel at a time, at their next meeting. Commissioner Anderson asked whether between now and then it might be possible to have a list made of the possible changes to the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the Vacant Land Study recommendations. Mr. Brixius confirmed that Commissioner Anderson was suggesting they prepare an outline of possible changes. Commissioner Anderson said he would like to know exactly what they are recommending and what action this required of the Planning Commission. Mr. Brixius said the city could be very passive in its implementation if it wished. He said they would prepare an outline of actual actions that would be required by the Planning Commission. It was the concensus of the Commission that continuation of the discussion of the Vacant Land Study would be tabled until the August Planning Commission meeting. The Design and Review Commitee held one meeting. The was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The Planning Commission minutes of June 3, 1986, were accepted as printed. The Council minutes of June 9, 1986 and June 23, 1986 were reviewed. The City Manager introduced Jeannine Dunn to the Commission. She has been appointed as Administrative Assistant, and will in the future coordinate planning and zoning. New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 11 Announcements Item 12 Adjournment The Chairman noted that Bernie Bartos had resigned from the Commission. The City Manager announced that the City Party would be held on July 29, 1986. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary New Hope Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 12 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting Call to Order Roll Call Public Hearings Adjournment August 5, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 5, 1986, at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:35 p.m. Present: Cameron, Lutts Absent: Anderson, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards Chairman Cameron apologized to the assembled citizens and stated that because of a lack of quorum, a Planning Commission meeting could not be held. He stated that the city would attempt to hold another Planning Commission meeting as soon as possible, as soon as a quorum could be assembled. The Planning Commission meeting was then scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Thursday, August 7, 1986. The City Manager stated that for the benefit of the citizens present, he wished to announce that Zantigo had withdrawn their petition (86-21) and that the petitioner was no longer interested in pursuing the request. Chairman Cameron added that procedure followed by Planning Commission and Council would then be to deny the request to clear the record. A citizen expressed concern about the meeting on August 7, 1986, since she had already changed her schedule from Tuesday to Thursday in regard to Planning Case 86-19. She was advised that she should put her concerns in writing, and forward them to the City Manager's office, it she could not attend the Thursday meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo c~e Boed~ddeker Secretary Page 1 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting August 7, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order Roll Call A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Thursday, August 7, 1986. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards Absent: Lutts, Gundershaug Planning Case 86-17 The Chairman introduced Planning Case 86-17 submitted by New Hope New Hope Terrace Terrace Limited Partnership requesting construction approval of 150 Construction Approval unit apartment building on 36th Avenue North. Mr. Frank Kubicheck was recognized and introduced himself as a member of the New Hope Terrace Limited Partnership and stated that the Commission had reviewed the project at its meeting of June 3, 1986 and now it has been brought to the final design stage. He noted that the site plan includes two buildings with up to 75 units per building so the total project is 150 units; he stated that the units are three stories of frame construction, with concrete under- ground parking (parking ratio of l:1), one underground stall for each unit; and on-site parking (1.25:1) for a total of 2.25 per unit. He continued the presentation noting that the exterior of the building is one of brick, brick panels mainly, and balconies. He noted that the site has an outdoor swimming pool, two tennis courts and access for the site is from 36th Avenue North. He next reviewed the landscaping plan and noted that the plan shows heavy concentration of pine trees and a fish pond. He further noted that the building interior has a party room, laundry, and the building is fully sprinkled. Next discussed were the individual units; it was noted that the one bedroom units have 700 square feet, and the two bedroom units are of two different layouts and both run over 1000 sq feet. Mr. Edwards questioned if variances are required. Mr. Kubicheck responded by stating that no variances are required. Mr. Edwards then questioned if the site is large enough, with adequate parking stalls, and why the plan includes 26-foot driveway rather than the required 24-foot driveway. He questioned the City Manager on whether a special request had been made for the driveway width. The City Manager responded by stating that no request was discussed at the design and review meeting. Mr. Kubicheck questioned if the City has an ordinance restricting the driveway to 24 feet and stated that he did not see any problem changing it. He then commented there was some concern expressed by the Fire Department about getting trucks into the area. The discussion continued with the question asked if the loadinn area had been added and if it is now of proper size. ~r. Kubicheck responded by stating that to the best of his knowledge it meets the requirements. He stated that from the front of the parking stall to the rear it appears to be 3~ feet in depth. The City Manager stated that at the design review committee there was a great deal New Hope Planning Commission ~u~ust 7, lqg6 of discussion about adequate area for over-the-road moving vans getting on and off the site without tying up the driveway. Mr. Kubicheck stated that it was difficult to not sacrifice parking stalls and to make the proper parking count with a berth that was large enough for van style trucks without having to park in front of the doorway and unloading which would result in the loss of additional parking spaces. Mr. Edwards then questioned if there is to be any rooftop equipment on the building. Mr. Kubicheck responded by stating that there would not be, other than normal venting stacks. Mr. Edwards then questioned how the trash would be handled. Mr. Kubicheck stated that trash will be collected in the parking area in dumpsters and there will be an empty dumpster so that when the dumpster in the enclosure is filled the empty one can be exchanged for the one in the enclosure. He stated that the outside trash receptacles will be enclosed and that they will be totally screened. Next question by Mr. Edwards was whether the parking areas and driveways will be blacktopped. Mr. Kubicheck stated that continuous concrete curb and gutter will be installed. Mr. Edwards then questioned whether the parking lot will be fully striped and have handicapped stalls and the number required for that type of ~-~ building. Mr. Kubicheck sta~ed that the lot will be fully striped and it appears that the handicapped stalls are not indicated on the plan and there are two per building. Mr. Edwards then asked if there are any elevators. Mr. Kubicheck stated that there Will be one. Mr. Edwards continued questioning by asking if any of the units are designed specifically for handicapped individuals. Mr. Kubicheck stated that it is not the intention of the developer to build handicapped units. He explained it is their policy that if requests are made for handicapped accessibility they will be accommodated in the leasing process. He explained that they will take one unit in each building and make it handicapped access- ible, however, they will not put in special shower units, special cabinetry or any other type of facilitiy. If a tenant wants any items above what is described for accessibility, they pay for the modifications. Mr. Edwards asked for an explanation on the siding, stucco and brick exterior of the building. Mr. KubiCheck gave a brief review of the exterior of the proposed building. ~ -Mr. Friedrich questioned if there is some type of fencing provided around the pool area and if it is required. Mr, Kubicheck stated that it is not on the plan but it would be provided. Mr. Friedrich also questioned the water service. Mr. Kubicheck stated that it has been taken care of. Mr. Anderson asked for verification on the parking stalls as it seems that the curbed stalls are nine feet at the entrance but they ~ do not meet the standards at the back wall or at the inner side of the radius. He further stated that the units require seven handi- capped spaces to meet the handicapped code and he is surprised that it is notshown on the plans because they know the handicap codes. · :ew Hope Planning Commissio,. August 7, 1986 Page 2 Planning Case 86-19 Oliver Tam/Domino's Pizza - Text Change Mr. Anderson continued by commenting that regarding the loading area for the semi's it would seem reasonable that they could strengthen and extend the sidewalk at the two truck loading areas, so when necessary a large truck could back up over the sidewalk so it would not block the isle. He stated that as it is shown on the plan, the 30-foot point will block the area and that could be a real inconvenience to people who are trying to drive around; however if it were structurally sound then a semi could be side- loaded as must of them are anyway. Mr. Anderson then suggested that a number ofcolumns and garage area appear to hinder the entrance and exit of the parking spaces and wondered if the columns could be set back or removed. Petitioner stated they could not be moved or the building would fall down but a solution would be to omit the jog in the building; however it would be less asthetically pleasing. The discussion then centered on snow removal and whether it would be a problem or if it could be stored on the site. Next discussed by the Commission was concern regarding the concrete curbing around parking lot but not around entrance roadway. The petitioner confirmed there would be curb on each side of the driveway. The subject of signage was raised by the Commission. Mr. Kubicheck noted there will be two signs, one at each entrance, plus some very small directional signing at the entrance to the building itself and around the pool area and tennis courts. He stated the signs will meet the current city sign ordinance. The petitioner was~ then congratulated by the Chairman on the initial landscaping plan, as it was exceptionally well done. The Commission stated that since the landscaping is extensive, a land- caping bond should be considered to make sure that they put in as much as they are proposing. A lengthy discussion followed regarding maintaining the landscaping and enhancing its chances of surviving the Minnesota winters. The Commission stated that the guarantee must be acceptable to the City Manager and City Attorney. It was also noted by the Commission that the signs and landscaping in the site triangle at the 36th Avenue entrance have to also be preserved and maintained. Motion made by Commissioner Edwards for construction approval requested in Case 86-17, New Hope Terrace Limited Partnership, with the petitionersubmitting to city staff a written agreement regard- ing the planting and maintenance of all the landscaping, handicap parking stalls, and sizes on existing parking stalls. Motion seconded by Commissioner Friedrich. Voting in favor: Edwards, Anderson, Cameron, Friedrich. Against: None. The Chairman then introduced Planning Case 86-19 submitted by Oliver Tam of Domino's Pizza. Mr. Roland deJolsvay introduced himself as the president of River City Pizza, and stated that they do business with Domino's Pizza. He stated that Mr. Tam is the new owner of the building, but he is the one presenting this case. Mr. deJolsvay questioned the intent of the ordinance as it reads "convenience store" rather than "convenience food establishment", and he wondered about the definition of "convenience" and asked for a clarification. He commented that if the applicant needs a text change then a request would be made for a text change. Chairman Cameron stated that this is a delivery and carry out restaurant and such use is not defined in the zoning code for a B-1 zone, and a text change or new language would have to be created in the ordinance to allow this use. He further commented that it may need rezoning to B-3 which is not being requested. New Hope Planning Commission August 7, 1986 Page 3 The petitioner was asked to explain why the text change is requested and explain his business so the zoning question can be evaluated. Mr. deJolsvay stated that Domino's Pizza has been in existence for 26 years and is strictly a carry-out operation, with no sit-down facilities, not even a picnic table in front of the store.' He explained that it is a very successful concept, with about 3600 stores nationwide; it is a'small, clean, efficient operation without sit-down service or waitresses to worry about, with 15% carry-out, 85% delivery. He commented that the business employs thirteen to eighteen people, with five or six working at night; they specialize in delivering pizza in 30 minutes or the customer gets a discount on the pizza. Mr. deJolsvay stated he did some informal surveys in the area and believes there is a need for this type of service, since only one of three other pizza opera- tions in the general area has delivery service. He also noted that pizza and coke are the only two items they offer and there are no greasy fryers; just ovens and a walk-in freezer. Commissioner Anderson stated that the problem is B-1 is 100% residential on all four sides and they cannot find a way to accommodate Domino's without also accommodating what would be full-service restaurants in the B-1 zoning district. Mr. deJolsvay questioned how the PDQ and Tom Thumb stores, which also have con- venience food and microwave ovens, are operating in a B-1 zone. Mr. deJolsvay commented that they may be with a conditional use permit and, if so, wondered how it is interpreted. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the fine line in determining the classification for food to be cooked that is provided in grocery stores and the food that is cooked for carry-out and delivery. A statement was made by Commissioner Anderson that there are four or five B-1 zoning areas in the city and all applicants are treated the same. The Commission would have a tough time changing the ordinance as the B-1 zone by its definition is supposed to have the least amount of business, traffic and noise and is also limited to no late night operation. He commented that the pizza operation belongs in a more heavy-traffic zone. The discussion then centered on the traffic generated for Tom Thumbs, etc. as opposed to a Domino's Pizza, and whether a condi- tional use permit for B-1 would open up other business interests to compete. Commissioner Anderson then stated that the planning consultants are professionals who research the issues. He stated that grocery stores are not supermarkets and the terms "con- venience, limited merchandise" may be vague, but even if it is vague, the Planning Commission interprets it in a restricted way. The Chairman stated that he has to be convinced that there is good reason to change the ordinance for the whole city, not just to allow one business to operate in that spot. He stated one of the rationales for B-1 is a limited service area. Commissioner Edwards stated a 7-11 is every bit a heavier use as it is open twenty four hours a day. The Commissioner questioned the distance mile-wise that one of the stores serves. Mr. deJolsvay 'stated that the delivery areas are a mile and a half and because of the 30 minute guarantee they just cannot afford to go any farther than that. The Chairman asked if residents were present to discuss their concerns. Mrs. Helen Devine, 6125 Utah, was recognized and spoke against having the Domino's in the area; she stated her concern being mainly odor. Then Greg Duage, representing a competitor of Domino's, wanted his interest in the outcome of this case to be known, as he also has concerns in connection with his business. Mrs. Devine again was recognized by the Chairman and she questioned whether it would become a loitering place and requested that what- ever goes in there not create noise or traffic problems for neigh- borhood residents, especially in the evenings. New Hope Planning Commission August 7, 1986 Page 4 Planning Case 86-20 Rosewood Corporation Preliminary Plat/ Construction Approval Adjournment The Chairman stated that the City's consultant suggested a possibility of a conditional use permit that would go with that particular business in that particular building so if the business folded the next person would have to get their own conditional use permit. Motion by C~mmissioner Anderson, and seconded by Commissioner Friedrich, to direct the city attorney and city planner prepare a zoning text change for the B-1 zoning which will allow a condi- tional use permit for a convenience food take-out/delivery facility to include the five items identified by the City Planner, architectural compatibility, no on premise dining, conforming site, access to collector or arterial street, parking areas in compliance with city standards, and in addition to that a size limitation as to how many square feet are appropriate, and further, that there would not be any additional similar permits issued within a radius of a mile. The question was never called. A discussion followed regarding the fairness of limiting competition and the fact the limited area of B-1 zoning is nearly all developed. Motion made by Commissioner Edwards, seconded by Anderson, to table the matter for further research. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Voting in favor: all. Commission will come back in one month and look at it again, approve it, and go through the process of the City Council. Chairman Cameron then introduced Planning Case 86-20, submitted by Rosewood Corporati'on, requesting preliminary plat and construction approval at 9401 Science Center Drive. Mr. Peter Hilger of the Rosewood Corp. was recognized and presented the request for PUD and preliminary plat approval to create a 70,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse. He noted the site is odd shaped, and has access on Bass Lake Road on the west and Science Center Drive on the north. He stated that the bays would be 60 ft. in depth and there would be office and visitor parking. He noted that the project is visible from County Rd. 18. The building would be located between the Industry Park Building, now owned by Rosewood, and the International Multi-foods Building. He continued by stating the landscaping and sign plans were submitted to the City long with water/gas utilities and storm drain proposals. Drive isles with shared access and one-way signs, parking areas and striping, concrete curbing, rooftop equipment, storage of trash, truck docks and semi-traffic, security lighting, and snow removal were discussed at length. An easement for shared access of the truck facilities with the adjoining property was also discussed. The Commission questioned the economic need for another warehouse in the City and what problems may be created for the Multi-foods building. Motion by Commissioner Edwards to approve Planning Case 86-20 submitted by Rosewood Corporation requesting preliminary plat and construction approval. Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Voting in favor, all. Next discussed was the committee structure of the Planning Commission. A work meeting was scheduled for August 19, 1986, 7:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfullly submitted, Carol Carlson New Hope Planning Commission August 7, 1986 P3~e 5 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Special Session August 19, 1986 6:45 p.m. City Hall Call to Order 'Roll Call Vacant Land Study Site F Site P Site K & L Site EE, GG, HH Site W Site AA Site H & I A Special Session of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 19, 1986. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:45 p.m. Present: Cameron, Friedrich, Edwards Absent: Anderson, Lutts, Gundershaug, Bartos The New Hope Planning Commission met in Special Session to discuss the Vacant Land Study. The first area to be discussed was Site F which is a 1.4 acre site on 37th Avenue North and Winnetka. The Commission discussed the residential uses versus office building use. It was noted that the land is presently zoned for office and it was the consensus of the Commission to accept it as recommended in the Vacant Land Study for use as residential. Next discussed by the Commission was Site P which is Louisiana, South of Bass Lake Road. It was noted that the land is presently zoned B-2, nonconforming with permitted use of dry cleaning/ laundry, grocery store, art shop, etc. It was the consensus of the Commission to support the rezoning to residential. Commissioner Anderson arrived at 7:45 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission that Site P be recommended for rezoning to residential as recommended by the planning consultant in the Vacant Land Study. Seventeen acres off of Winnetka near the Ice Arena was next discussed by the Commission. The discussion centered around whether to create a PUD zone, as strictly residential would not be appropriate due to the active railroad track in the area. The City Manager was directed to research PUD's that have been successful in Metropolitan communities. The Commission supported the PUD concept for the site. The Commission next review EE, GG, and HH, of the Vacant Land Study and taken into consideration were the public comments. It was recommended as drafted by the City Planner. Site W, Winnetka near Bass Lake Road, was next introduced for discussion. It was discussed that consideration should be given to a three, four, or six unit office building. It was noted in the discussion that two pieces of property should be combined if it is to remain as residential. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend combining with the property to the west to have a three, four, or six unit building. The City Manager was directed to check with the planner regarding the issue. Next discussed by the Commission was Site AA, 49th and Winnetka. It was the consensus of the Commission that it be split into two lots to allow two, two-unit buildings. The Commission expressed some concern regarding parking. It was accepted as recommended by the consultant that the property continue as residential as presently zoned. It was the consensus of the Commission to delete options H & I and to delete alternatives GG and HH. Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Vacant Land Study as drafted by the planner. New Hope Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Planning Commission Adjournment Next discussed in detail were the Planning Commission Sub- committees. The City Manager reviewed the Planning Commission Ordinance and noted that the need for for the Land Use Committee has diminished over the last few years. He commented that at the present time the Chair handles the issue or an ad hoc committee is appointed to research and recommend resolutions or solutions on current concerns. Also discussed was the present review process of the Design and Review Committee. The City Manager stated that an alternative is to have the staff meet with the applicants to discuss in depth zoning requirements, city issues and concerns. It was noted by the Chairman that the need for the Design and Review Committee grew out of the City's review process. He stated that there is a need that must be met and it is met when the Commission reviews the applications as outlined in the Design and Review Organiza- tion. He stated that staff looks at the detail and the Committee looks at the amenities. He stated that the process at the present time is very productive, as it allows the applicants time within the two-week period to redraft and correct problems that exist. He noted that a lot of the cases and issues are cleared up, and it prevents staff from making promises. It was noted by the City Manager that the Building Official and the Administrative Assistant meet with the Design and Review Committee and it gives staff an opportunity to ascertain the type of things the Commission is concerned about. Also discussed in detail was the possibility of setting up a procedure for minor approvals by the staff including air conditioners, three season porches, and minor variances. There was a consensus of the Commission to further research the issue. Next discussed by the Planning Commission was the CommissioN's roll in economic development within the City and whether the Commission should take a pro-active role or one of review. The Commission discussed in detail potential conflicts of interest and perception of conflicts of interest. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol E. Carlson New Hope Planning Commission Page 2 August 19, 1987 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting September 2, 1986 Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 2, 1986 at the 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: Anderson, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: None Planning Case 86-22 Mr. John Gries, representing the petitioner in Planning Case Request for Preliminary 86-22 stated that he was requesting approval of a preliminary Plat Approval with Zero plat to allow a zero lot line split, with a variance for one lot, Lot Line which due to the configuaration of the site, was undersized. Item 3 He stated that the owners were presently living in Arkansas, and wished to sell the property. A brief discussion followed. The chairman noted their was no one present in the audience regarding this case. Motion Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat at 9225 29th Avenue North, with a variance in lot size for one lot, as requested in Planning Case 86-22. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 86-~ Mr. John Gries stated that he also represents the petitioner, Mr. Request for Preliminary Scherer. They were again requesting approval of a preliminary Plat Approval with Zero plat to allow a zero lot line split. In this case, there were no Lot Line variances needed. Item 4 Motion The chairman noted no one was present in regard to this request. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, to approve the preliminary plat as requested for 4001-4003 Jordan Avenue, in Planning Case 86-23. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 86-24 Mr. Steve Hendrickson represented the petitioner in Planning Case Request for Conditional 86-24. He stated that he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit Use Permit and Con- to allow him to operate an automobile-service related business in struction Approval a B-3 Zone and construction approval for a new building. He Item 5 stated that he believed that his request met all requirements for setbacks, and parking of the City Code. Greg Hawkins, architect for the project, stated that the plans presented to the Commissioners had been revised since the Design and Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the petitioners were not requesting any variances. The City Manager stated that technically there were no variances required. They needed a Conditional Use Permit, but they should possibly have an additional Conditional Use Permit because of the fact that the proposed building is over 5,000 square feet, and code requires a loading dock or berth for this size. Mr. Hendrickson said the building would · be constructed of concrete block and brick and there will be no rooftop equipment. He noted that the outdoor trash area will be totally enclosed and have a gate. Page 1 In response to questions, Mr. Hendrickson stated that all of the parking and drive areas will be paved or blacktopped with a continuous concrete curb. He stated that the parking areas will be re-striped every year. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that all remaining green areas would be sodded. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards, Manager stated that staff had no problems with the lighting as proposed. the City security Commissioner Gundershaug inquired about plans for signage on the site. Mr. Hendrickson stated that to date he has not addressed the issue of signs, but he was aware of the city's Sign Ordinance. Mr. Hendrickson indicated that the proposed hours of operation are 7 - 7, Monday through Friday, and 9 - 6 Saturday. He added that he did not imagine there would be anything larger than a one-ton truck vehicle making deliveries to the property. He said the business would only involve servicing mufflers and exhaust systems on the Midas side of the building. A discussion ensued regarding future plans which may include two separate businesses in the building. It was noted that the building could be divided in the middle. The City Manager noted that if there were two separate businesses on the site, the petitioner would have to submit a comprehensive sign plan to the city. Mr. Hendrickson stated that he planned to do only engine servicing on the site, there would be no engine re-building. He noted that for his site in Golden Valley, one of the restrictions of his Conditional Use Permit was to prohibit certain types of repair on the site. He suggested that perhaps New Hope might wish to do the same. Commissioner Gundershaug said he thought the city ordinance already had this type of restriction. He inquired as to whether it would be possible to exit and turn left at the east driveway. The City Manager said there was no way this could be done because of the island in the road which goes back half a block from the intersection. Commissioner Friedrich noted that at Design and Review it had been suggested that perhaps the rear of the lot could be opened up. He asked whether the petitioner had been able to pursue this. Mr. Hendrickson said he had conversations with Mr. Glodek, but Mr. Glodek is not interested in either granting him an easement, or in selling him some additional property. Discussion then centered on the frequency of semi-truck traffic to the site and whether such traffic could create problems. It was noted that Mr. Hawkins design indicated how the traffic would flow. Mr. Hendrickson stated that when a truck made a delivery, they would unload it as quickly as possible. Often the entire staff would help unload to move the truck off the site as fast as possible. There would be a delivery once a week, and probably only 40 times a year. They would enter the site from Bass Lake Road and exit on to Winnetka Avenue. There was no one present in the audience in regard to this request. New Hope Planning Commission Page 2 September 2, 1986 Commissioner Edwards stated that a great deal of time had been spent at the Design and Review meeting trying to come up with a better solution for trucks to get on and off the site. What was being presented at this meeting was pretty much what had been discussed at Design and Review. He stated he was'concerned about a multiple use building on this site.' Chairman Cameron asked wha~ would solve the problem. Commissioner Edwards said perhaps some type of loading dock or berth. He was concerned with the east side of the building where a separate business might be. Trucks would have to back almost out into Bass Lake Road. Chairman Cameron said he was concerned about the possibility of a second business because the proposal was so "loose". He was concerned about the type of traffic a second business might generate. Mr. Hendrickson said he did not mean to be vague, it was just at this point, he did not have a tenant. He noted that the trend today was to cluster automobile service related businesses together. He was under the impression that if the Conditional Use Permit is granted it will require that the second business operate under the same conditions and restrictions as the first business. In response to concerns about how long he intended to operate at this site, Mr. Hendrickson indicated that anytime he constructed a building he was obligated to give Midas a 30 year lease. A second business would be subject to the same conditions. He re-stated that there would be no heavy duty body work done on the site. Mr. Hendrickson said that a second business was needed at the site for economical reasons. Chairman Cameron asked how much space the second businesss would use. Mr. Hendrickson said roughly 3,000 square feet. Each business would have a store front facing Bass Lake Road. The intent of the building construction was to allow the Midas operation and another service related business. Commissioner Anderson asked about the trash area, and what type of garbage trucks would be entering the area. Mr. Hendrickson said there were a variety of styles of trash containers some are front loading and some dumpsters are designed to be rolled out. Commissioner Anderson said it looked to him as it a large garbage truck might have a hard time getting out of the site. He then questioned whether Design and Review had been concerned about screening between this site and the funeral home. Commissioner Edwards said Design and Review had considered the landscaping to be generally adequate. He noted that there are no residential uses in the area. Discussion then covered the proposed driveway width of 30 feet. The City Manager stated that the.City could require a 24 foot width. He said staff did not have a really strong opinion on the width of the driveways. Commissioner Anderson said he was concerned about vehicles coming out of the driveway and blocking it, if cars are stacked on the site. He would like to see the width of the driveways to be 26' or 28'. Mr. Hendrickson said he had no problem with that. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether some would be permitted to turn with a narrow path. September 2, 1986 New Hope Planning Commission Page 3 Motion Amendment to City Code Commissioner Anderson said he was concerned about a semi or a large garbage truck trying to back down the~ area. He felt front loading trucks would have problems. Mr. Hawkins said he had talked with Mr. Sandstad of city staff, and either he, or the ordinance had indicated that they should provide 30 foot driveways!for easier access for sem~i~trUCks. Mr. Hendrickson said that if the city preferred a 28' driveway, he would not take issue with two feet. There was no one present in the audience in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner.Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a minor auto business, at 5600 Winnetka Avenue North, in Planning Case 86-25, providing the two drive aisles were reduced in size to 26' to 28', 26' being preferred, and construction approval. The City Manager said that there was a technical problem in that City Code requires a loading berth for this size building. In this particular case, staff was not pushing for a loading berth. Commissioner Edwards amended this motion to include approval of a variance of the loading berth requirement in the City Code. All present voted in favor. Chairman Cameron stated that before the Planning Commission could consider cases 86-25 and 86-26, they must consider the issue of a text change to the City Code to allow for a take-out food business in the B-1 Zone. The City Manager noted that the text change had been requested previously. The Commissioner was to consider the language of the actual text change at this meeting. If this language is approved, action will be taken to amend the City Code. The text change must receive a favorable vote in order to consider Planning Cases 86-25 and 86-26. Chairman Cameron stated that the text change was being requested to allow a take-out restaurant as a permitted use in a B-1 zone. He added that the Commission had held a lengthy discussion on this issue at the recent work session. The Planning Consultant had now submitted a report on the subject with some language to be used in the text change. Commissioner Anderson stated that in his opinion, the letter from the Planner to the City Attorney, Steve Sondrall, took care of most of the concerns. He felt the question was whether or not the city wanted to allow such take-out restaurants in all of the B-1 Zones in the city. Commissioner Anderson then suggested that a change be made on Page 3, Item 5, to read: ...... arterial street. He stated that his personal feeling was he did not see much difference in a grocery store that is allowed in a B-1 zone and what is being proposed. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the city could restrict hours of operation for such an establishment. The City Manager stated that in the B-3 zone, code limited gas stations/convenience stores to certain hours of operation. Chairman Cameron asked whether now would be the time to restrict hours, or if it should be done when a petitioner requested such a use. Commissioner Edwards stated that he was comfortable, for the most part, with what was being proposed as far as text was concerned. He had no problems with this particular type of use in the B-1 Zone. New Hope Planning Commission September 2, 1986 Page 4 Commissioner Friedrich asked whether the city would restrict the hours of operation. Chairman Cameron stated that the Planning Consultant had not recommended such action. Commissioner Anderson asked what the restrictions were in regard to hours of operation for a gas station/convenience store in a B-3 Zone. The City Manager stated that for a convenience store with gas in a B-3 Zone, the code states that the hours shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 p.m., unless extended by the City Council. Discussion followed as to whether specific hours of operation should be added to the text for this use, as they are in the B-3 Zone. Commissioner Gundershaug said his concern was with the history of the site. In the past it has been a mess all the time, and he felt that the city should set some hours of operation. Chairman Cameron suggested 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether perhaps 1 a.m. might not be more practical for a pizza business. Chairman Cameron suggested that the hours of operation could be specific, with the responsibility put on the petitioner to request and justify an increase in hours of operation. The City Manager stated that language in the B-3 Zone when referring to take out window operations, indicates that the hours of operation may be restricted as necessary, in view of traffic, nuisance, etc. The City has the prerogative to limit hours of operation. Consensus of the Commission was that this language was preferable to stating specific hours of operation. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Design and Review had not reviewed the Planning Cases 86-25 and 86-26. He was concerned that the six or seven requirements for a Conditional Use Permit be reviewed. Discussion followed about the Code requirements for parking spaces, where delivery vehicles would be parked and stored overnight, etc. and also concerns about outside storage restrictions. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending acceptance of the text change to the city Code as found in the August 18, 1986, letter to Steve Sondrall from Northwest Associated Consultants, including the definition of "Convenience Food Establishment" and adopting the six conditions for a Conditional Use Permit, and adding a seventh condition restricting hours of operation, as necessary, in view of traffic, nuisance to surrounding areas, etc. with the city having the prerogative to limit hours of operation. Also included should be a parking restriction to one space for every 150 square feet of floor area, with a minimum of six spaces. All present voted in favor. The City Manager noted that the ordinance change would not be effective until it had been reviewed by the Commission/Council in its final form and published. Planning Case 86-25 Mr. Gary DeWees represented the petitioner in Planning Case Request for Conditional 86-25. He stated they were requesting a Conditional Use Permit Use Permit to operate a take-out restaurant. Item 6 In response to questions from the Chairman, he stated that he had spoken to Doug Sandstad and Jeannine Dunn of the city staff at length about the request. New Hope Planning Commission September 2, 1986 Page 5 Chairman Cameron stated he did not feel the Commission had enough information before them at this meeting to act on the request. He said he was sure that Mr. Sandstad would be glad to talk to him about the restrictions involved in such an operation. Mr. DeWees asked whether the staff recommendations would be made available to him. The Chairman said that the Commission's recommendation was that he should work with Mr. Sandstad. Another issue of concern is the common driveway, shared with Amoco. The City must have a legal piece of paper, giving an easement agreement for this property. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the petitioner speak to Mr. Sandstad to see what was required. The two parties should work together before appearing before the Commission. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug to table Planning Case 86-25 until the meeting of October 7, 1986. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 86-26 Mr. deJolsvay represented the petitioner in Planning Case 86-26. Request for Conditional He stated that they also were requesting a Conditional Use Permit Use Permit to allow them to operate a pizza take out and delivery service. Item 7 Chairman Cameron inquired whether he had talked to city staff regarding his plans. Mr. deJolsvay said that when he had talked to Mr. Sandstad previously, he had indicated at that time that everything looked all right. He had not talked with him since they submitted their plans. The City Manager stated that the submitted site plan did not address some of the existing conditions on the site. For example there were fewer parking spaces than required by Code and parking was really the big problem. Mr. deJolsvay said they were providing 49 parking spaces and was not sure what the requirements were. Chairman Cameron said this was what the Commission needed to see before they could consider the request. The City Manager said that the petitioner was not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building, but that staff had some problems with the site as it is, and wish to have it brought up to Code. Chairman Cameron asked whether it was not standard policy that when someone requests any type of change in building activity or use of property, at that point the city looks at all aspects of the site as this is an opportunity for the city to bring the site up to code. Concensus of the Commission was that this was the Commission's position, that properties should be brought up to code at such a time. In reference to Planning Case 86-26', the Chairman said he thought the Commission would need a lot more information than they had to act the request, i.e., parking plan, landscape plan and a detailed site plan. He suggested the petitioner speak to staff and they would give him a good idea of what was possible in the city. The first step for the petitioner would be to sit down with city staff. Mr. deJolsvay said he must have misunderstood what Mr. Sandstad had said. He said he had also submitted the building plans and the parking layout. It was noted that the Commission had not seen these revisions. New Hope Planning Commission September 2, 1986 Page 6 Motion Design and Review Item 8 Land Use Committee Item 9 Codes and Standards Item 10 Planning Commission Minutes of 8/5/86 Item 11 Review of Council Minutes of August 11, and August 25, 1986 Item 12 Additional Comments Item 13 Mr. Tam stated that he had brought plans into Mr. Sandstad on Tuesday a week earlier. He had counted the 49' parking peaces and had not made any comment on the number. Chairman Cameron said the Commission would table this request until October. This would give the petitioner ti~e to m~et with city staff and find out exactly what the city requires'~ .~ Following discussion it was the concensus of the Commission that these cases should appear before Design and Review. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commission Edwards, to table Planning Case 86-26 until October 7, 1986. All present voted in favor. Design and Review held one meeting in August. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. In response to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager stated that the Planning Commission Minutes of August 5, 1986, had not as yet been typed. Commissioner Anderson questioned the Council Minutes of August 11, 1986, page 3, in Planning Case 86-17 where reference was made to a 2' curb. Commissioner Anderson asked if the resolution passed at the meeting in regard to a 9281 athletic field was a zoning issue. It was noted that it was a response to a request from the district regarding the possible establishment of an athletic field in New Hope. It was noted that the Stuhr case would be back before the Planning Commission before December if it were to continue. Chairman Cameron referred to the discussions of July 7, 1986, and stated that the concensus was that the city had outlived the Land Use Committee. This committee will be dissolved, and if land use issues come up, the Commission will act as a committee as a whole. Discussion then covered the present vacancy on the Commission and the procedures to be used in filling that vacancy. It was asked whether the Planning Commission would be involved in the selection process. Following discussion of various suggestions, the Chairman requested that the City Manager inform the Council that the Planning Commission would participate in the interview process when requested. Discussion then centered on underground gas tanks and what was done with them. The City Manager stated that State Law had recently been changed. If a station were out of operation for six months, the tanks must be removed. Discussion continued about the dangers of leakage from the tanks and how tallies were kept regarding capacity. It was noted that the Fire Marshal in the city was involved in the disposition of the tanks. In response to questions, the City Manager stated that the Sinclair case was now in the hands of the two attornies. He added that there was a possibility that the shopping center plans also would be revised in the near future. September 2, 1986 New Hope Planning Commission Page 7 Adjournment It was noted that the County has reached agreement with the railroad, and the overpass was scheduled to'~. be removed. It has yet to be decided whether or not the city will be working with Golden Valley and Crystal to rebuild Medicine Lake Road. The meeting' was adjourned by unanimous consent a~8:54 p'.m. Respectfully submitted, e Boeddeker Secretary September 2, 1986 New Hope Planning Commission Page 8 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting October 7, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 7, 1986 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Lutts Planning Case 86-25 Mr. Greg DeWiese represented the petitioner. He stated they were Request for Conditional requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to conduct a Use Permit carry-out pizza restaurant at 2720 Winnetka Avenue North. Item 3 Commissioner Gundershaug asked if any changes had been made to the site plan since the last Design and Review meeting. Mr. DeWiese said that based on those discussions, several changes had been made. Because of the reduced size of the driveway, there will be increased landscaping in the front of the building, they will move some of the proposed plants for the rear, to the front, and they will include a six foot high fence around the property. The fence will be of cedar, board on board, and six feet high. There will be an eight foot fence around the trash enclosure, which has been relocated to provide for a greater turning radius. The s~gn plan has been submitted to the city. He was under the impression that it was to be included in the notes before the Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the sign plan conformed with the Sign Ordinance of the City. The City Manager said it was being reviewed by city staff and could not be included in the packet to the commissioners. In regard to the shared parking, it was his understanding that the other tenants/owners had submitted requests for Conditional Use Permits to the city and have paid their fees. They are presently looking at the articles of the agreement for the shared parking. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed for the record that this agreement will in effect "take the city off the hook". Mr. DeWiese said there had been some confusion on their part as to what the city's desires were regarding the document for the shared parking agreement. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about included in the packet. Exhibit "B" that was The City Manager stated this was from the Planner, and was provided in the event that the shared parking didn't work out -- there had to be some provision for handling the problem. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the Manager said the conditional use permit requests and parking agreement should be before the Commission at the November meeting. Mr. DeWiese stated that it was their intention to satisfy the city, in either one of the two ways. Discussion then covered the type of curbing to be installed, and the loading area. Mr. DeWiese asked whether striping would meet the requirements., they would prefer this. Page Commissioner Gundershaug said that they needed something to designate the loading area, and that this should be included in the plans before the petitioner appeared before the City Council. He then questioned the petitioner as to whether he would have a problem with installing co~crete curb instead of bituminous. Mr. DeWies said cost was a factor at the moment, adding $5,000 for concrete curb plus the cost of additional landscaping was a factor. Chairman Cameron asked how long they expected to use the building. Chairman Cameron added that because it was a permanent building, the city's experience had been that bituminous did not hold up as well as concrete would. He felt the petitioner should seriously consider installing concrete curbs. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about snow removal. Mr. DeWiese said he was not sure how it had been handled in the past, the building had been there for a long time. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that there was no room to pile snow on the site, and there were not enough parking spaces to use for storage of snow. He confirmed that all rooftop equipment would be screened. Commissioner Friedrich asked about the type of truck traffic the petitioner expected on the site. Mr. HeWiese said their deliveries were once a week, probably in the evening and loading would be done at the back door. Tom Thumb uses a variety of delivery trucks. He added that with the landscaping changes they were making, he though it would be very difficult to unload at the front of the site. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that the turning radius for trucks as proposed was not ok with the city staff. Referring to the Planner's report, Commissioner Anderson asked the petitioner to comment on the proposed dimensions on the site. The City Manager said that the petitioner had not as yet seen the Planner's report. Mr. DeWiese stated that from the sidewalk, there was a six foot berm, an 18 foot parking stall, and a 20 foot driveway. Commissioner Anderson said the 20 foot drive aisle was too narrow. Mr. DeWiese said that the parking stall dimensions had come from Mr. Sandstad of city staff, he had not been aware that they were inadequate. This dimension is what had been recommended to him. Commissioner Edwards said this had been discussed at Design and Review. The driveway must be 24 feet wide, a 20 foot drive aisle is not appropriate. He confirmed that the sidewalk would be six feet and the berm area five feet. Commissioner Anderson said he felt the curbs could be concrete. He felt a snow plow could damage bituminous curbing. Commissioner Gundershaug asked attendance. whether the owner was in Mr. DeWiese said "no", he was a sub-lessee from Tom Thumb, the owner is Mr. volp. He has spoken to Mr. Volp, and he is agreeable to the changes as long as the petitioner was spending the money on improving the site. Tom Thumb and Mr. Volp are not paying for the improvements. New Hope Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 2 In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. DeWiese said he was willing to pay for these improvements because they wanted the site. However, he would probably have to sit down and do some figuring on the economics of the current agreement if he had to install concrete curbing. The agreement with Tom Thumb would be for 14 years. During that time, he expects to invest some $15,000 in the site. Additing concrete curb would increase this cost to $20,000. Chairman Cameron asked how the Co ~mmission could deal only with a tenant, and not the owner. The City Manager stated that the property owners were in agreement and had "signed off" on this proposal. Chairman Cameron questioned that the owner didn't care what was done to his property. Mr. DeWiese said his lease was with Tom Thumb, if he did not get the lease, Mr. Volp would get the same amount of money from Tom Thumb as he does now. He added that in regard to Tom Thumb, they have become a very large operation. They are interested in having the site improved, but not in using their own money to do so. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a take out restaurant, Planning Case 86-25, subject to the drive aisles being 24 feet in width, continuous concrete curb around the parking areas, and a site designated as "loading area" on the south side of the building. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 86-26 Mr. Oliver Tam represented the petitioner in this case. He Request for Conditional stated he was one of the owners of the property, and they were Use Permit requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to install a Item 4 Domino's Pizza on the site. He distributed plans to the commissioners. Mr. Tam said the plans had been changed since the Design and Review meeting. They had added the driveway to Sumter. This new plan had been drawn after talking with the City Planner and Mr. Sandstad. It had been their recommendation. On the north end the driveway was supposed to be closed, Mr. Sandstad had recommended that it be open. He had also recommended that the driveway to Sumter be reduced by half (originally 24 feet) to allow trucks only to exit. Commissioner Edwards stated his concern over the new plan and the fact that it had not been reviewed prior to the meeting. He asked whether the parking areas had been moved, and what were the dashed lines to indicate. Mr. Tam said that the dash line indicates the existing curbing. They would be moving the curb back two feet. In response to questions, the City Manager said that the only possible variance required would be in parking, depending upon what is done about the driveway. Staff did not see any difficulties. Mr. Tam said that Dominos would install new rooftop equipment, and it will be screened. Commissioner Edwards noted that all equipment on the roof must be upgraded when the new equipment is installed. He asked about security lighting. Mr. Tam said there was some there, it had been damaged but would be repaired. The City Manager said this was not a concern of staff. New Hope Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 3 Commissioner Edwards reminded the petitioner that the lights must be hooded, to protect the residences to the south. He confirmed that the trash area would be enclosed, with a gate and that the petitioner was adding landscaping to the site. Mr. Tam said that at the front and on the north and east sides they would be adding Alpine Currant bushes. He felt this should be enough, there would not be too many cars there. Following discussion about the existing trees, Mr. Tam said they would not be removed. Discussion followed about the possibility of removing the parking stall to the west lot line, to provide a larger barrier. Commissioner Edwards asked about snow removal and storage and how they intended to handle this. Mr. Tam said the building had been there for ten years, whatever they had been doing seemed to be working well. If they had to haul the snow away, they would. Commissioner Edwards noted that the city did not allow snow to be piled up in the parking stalls, thus eliminating their use for parking. Commissioner Edwards stated that the city strongly recommended concrete curbs around the parking area. He asked whether the petitioner would agree to this. Mr. Tam said it didn't matter, if they could do it within their financial powers. He would have to consult the Designer. Commissioner Edwards reminded the petitioner of the city's Sign Ordinance, and the fact that since this was a multiple use building, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building would have to be filed with the city. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the fence at the rear would be repaired and retained. He then questioned the fact the site seems to be used for a parking lot. At the present time there are three cars that seem to be parked there permanently. Chairman Cameron asked if the petitioner knew who the owners of these cars were. Mr. Tam said he had left them a note, telling them to move the cars or they would be towed away. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the truck access at the rear. He did not feel the 16 foot dimension between the rear lot line and the building would allow a truck to enter that drive. He did not think a north bound truck could enter, entering into the right hand lane. He questioned whether traffic could be induced to come in from the north on Winnetka, rather than the south. He was not in favor of widening the driveway as its a very tight situation in there. He asked about the rationale of closing the 62nd Avenue exit. He felt the same results could be accomplished by closing Sumter and leaving 62nd open. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that then the trucks could not get around the building. Commissioner Anderson said they could by moving the parking up against the building. He was not in favor of closing 62nd and leaving Sumter open. He felt Sumter should be closed and 62nd left open. Discussion followed. The Chairman said he felt there was enough confusion about this case that it deserved another month. He added that he felt there seemed to also be confusion among city staff, the Planner and Design and Review. New Hope Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Motion Planning Case 86-27 Request for Variance in Letter Height of Sign Item 5 Lengthy discussion followed between the Commissioners and staff regarding which exit would best be closed, the additional traffic that could be routed on to Sumter, the fact that the traffic would only be on Sumter for about 80+ feet, and how much actual traffic would be generated by this use. Chairman Cameron asked what the Commission should tell Mr. Tam. He said he felt that the city had helped get him into this confusion, and that the city should help him get out. He asked Mr. Tam if he would like a table until November or for the Commission to proceed. Mr. Tam said he would like the case to go ahead. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the Conditiooal Use Permit requested in Planning Case 86-26 subject to the following modifications: 1. Moving the island back into the edge of the building; 2. Taking out the farthest parking stall to the west, to avoid turning into the planting island; 3. Leaving all existing landscaping on the site; 4. Installing continuous concrete curb around the perimeter of all parking stalls; 5. Including a bond to insure the performance of the work being proposed within a reasonable time period - 12 months. voting in favor: Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Anderson Absent: Lutts Motion carried. Dennis Hansen represented Murphy Oil. He stated they were requesting a variance from the restrictions of the sign ordinance to allow them to have 30" high letters on their canopy sign. This is the same height as the canopy. The reason for the 30" letters is that in their opinion it is impossible to see the sign as you are driving on Bass Lake Road until you are almost in front of the station because traffic is usually moving at 35 miles an hour. Chairman Cameron confirmed with the petitioner that they had already installed the new signage. Mr. Hansen said "yes", this had been a misunderstanding. He had asked Mr. Sandstad about the Spur Moducal, and discovered that the only thing that had been approved had been the wall mounted sign. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Hansen worked for Murphy Oil. Mr. Hansen said that 30" high letters are the standard size for the Spur moducal signs. He had put up the sign and then Mr. Sandstad came out and saw them and contacted them regarding the size. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Hansen had come into the city offices for permission to put up the Spur Moducals, and had received information about the sign ordinance at that time. Mr. Hansen said he did not consider the Spur moducal a wall mounted sign. Rather than take them down, he had asked if he could apply for a Conditional Use Permit or Variance. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hansen said they had had the station since April of 1985. Commissioner Anderson noted that the only reasons for granting approval of this size of letters was if the petitioner could prove that there had been significant changes in surrounding businesses, or if there were unusual circumstances that would justify the variance for the increased letter size. He added that if they feel the site has restricted visibility, they had to have known that when they purchased it. New Hope Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 5 Motion Planning Case 86-28 Item 6 Motion Design and Review Item7 Codes and Standards Item 8 Vacant Land Study Item 9 Mr. Hansen indicated it had not been researched enough. As far as there being a hardship, they felt that 12" letters are not visible for any distance down Bass Lake Road because the building sits back on the site. There is no good identification, even with the Spur station. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that when the station was remodeled the sign ordinance was stressed and had been noted at Design and Review and also when they had come to the city for permits. Mrs. Bonnie McFay, 7300 Bass Lake Road, stated they had a new style sign, which had been installed on a trial basis at their business. She said the sign had been too high, and it had been lowered, but the view of it is now blocked by a tree on the property to the east. She felt the only good identification sign they had was the one now on the canopy. She added that there seemed to be a lot of variation in what people could get by with and what they could not in the City of New Hope. She referred to the elderly high rise which has had a banner for several months. Mr. Sandstad had made them remove their banner from the station immediatlyo Chardon Court has a banner that must be 8' by 60'-how do they get by with this signage. The City Manager said that new facilities were allowed to put up banners for a certain period of time. Mrs. McFay said this banner had been up for nine months. She then referred to the new Amoco station on 49th and County Road 18 - she questioned whether that sign was legal according to the city's laws. Chairman Cameron noted that the city's Sign Ordinance was a long standing ordinance. When people came to the city for approval, they were always made aware of the Sign Ordinance. He stated that there have been very few non-conforming signs allowed in New Hope approved by this Commission. If there are some existing non-conforming signs in the city, it is the city's job to enforce the ordinance. This is not an excuse for the Coramission to approve this sign. James McFay, lessee of the property said he would like the Commission to consider their request favorably. He felt it was vital to their business. He felt that if the Commission took a look at the sign and site, they would agree. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending denial of the variance requested to Planning Case 86-27. All present voted in favor. Mr. Hansen asked about the size of the sign at the Amoco Station at 49th and County Road 18. The Chairman noted that they had not come before the Commission for a variance and that city staff would check on the size of the sign. The petitioners in Planning Case 86-28 were not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 86-28 until the November Planning Commission meeting. All present voted in favor. Design and Review had met once in September. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The next issue discussed was the Vacant Land Study. New Hope Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 6 Motion Motion Planning Commission Candidate Interviews Item 10 Motion Approval of Minutes Planning Commission Item 11 City Council Minutes Reviewed Item 12 Comments Item 13 Adjournment Jeannine Dunn stated that the planning staff had been requested to incorporate the suggested changes as a result of the public hearing. She added that the public hearing on the Vacant Land Study had been continued, rather than closed. She added that the Commission must not only close the continued public hearing, but they must make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Vacant Land Study and amend the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, - second by Commissioner Gundershaug, closing the public hearing on the Vacant Land Study. All present voted in favor. Commissioner Edwards referred to Site AA, which in the amended study still recommended four units at Winnetka and 49th. He said he felt very strongly that the Commission/City should consider dividing this lot and putting two buidlings with two units each at that site. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, Anderson, recommending acceptance of amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. second by Commissioner the Vacant Land Study and All present voted in favor. The next item of business was the interview of the two candidates for the Planning Commission. Mrs. Linda Oja and Mr. William Sonsin were interviewed by the Commission. Items covered were their personal backgrounds, their perception of what they could offer to the city and commission, and their availability for attending the various meetings involved with the Planning Commission. Following discussion, concensus was that both candidates would be excellent choices for the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending to the City Council that both Mrs. Oja and Mr. $onsin be appointed to the Planning Commission, with the next vacancy not filled. All present voted in favor. The Planning Commission minutes of September 2, 1986 were accepted as printed. The City Council minutes of August 25, and September 8, were reviewed. The City Manager reviewed the changes that have been accepted for the development at 42nd/Winnetka which include a change in the canopy and landscaping from what was originally proposed, and the substitution of concrete curbing for continuous concrete curbing. The question of the Sinclair Station at 42nd/Winnetka is now with the attornies. The city expects to receive the joint agreement between the two owners on Friday of this week, for the shared parking at the above site. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, New Hope Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 7 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting November 5, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order Roll Call A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, November 5, 1986, at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Present: Anderson, Lutts,. Cameron, Gundershaug Friedrich, Edwards Planning Case 86-28 Delores Fletcher represented the Parent-Child Center. Request for Conditional Lebow, owner of the building was also in attendance. Use Permit Item 3 Mr. Harry Mrs. Fletcher stated that they wished to conduct the parent child center at the above location, as a benefit to the people of the complex and surrounding area. She stated that there are parent child centers in Canada and in Rochester, New York. One reason for the location is that lack of transportation is a large concern for the people that would use the parent-child center. There is no cost for the participants of the center. The apartment is rented from Mr. Lebow. They will serve a maximum of six families at one time. There will be two certified staff people on duty at all times. Because most of the participants will either be in the complex, or within walking distance, they do not believe there will be any parking problem. Chairman Cameron stated that the Planning Commission was not concerned with the program as such, but was interested in the building, and whether or not it meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit for this type of use. The Planning Commission had to review the proposal as it affected and met the ordinances of the city. Co~missioner Anderson asked how the p~tioners had selected this location. Mrs. Fletcher said they had looked at several locations, and this one had been selected because of the economic need of this area for such & service, and the safety of their staff. Mrs. Fletcher distributed brochures on the program to the Planning Commission and staff. Stating that a Conditional Use Permit was not portable, but was specific for only this apartment unit and building. Commissioner Anderson asked how long the Center planned to remain in this location. Mrs. Fletcher said they had signed a one year lease. She said they would work with no more than six families at one time, and had a goal of reaching 4~ families. Their hope is to provide a service for the apartment tenants, and who would not need cars for transportation to the site. It is also walking distance from several other apartment complexes. Commissioner Anderson said the city/commission were concerned about parking in areas where cars should not be parked, and the city staff had requested that the owner remove the blacktop from next to the buildings and replace it with sod. The parking areas should also be re-striped. This would be one of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. New Hope Planning Commission November 5, 1986 Page 1 Motion Planning Case 86-29 Request for Variance, Construction Approval Item 4 Lonnie Grabhan was introduced as the person who would charge of the center on Bass Lake Road. be in Commissioner Anderson referred to the staff recommendation that the lot be re-striped prior to May 10, 1987, and that prior to that time, the asphalt near the buildings be replaced with sod. Mr. Lebow, owner of the complex, asked why it is now sub-standard, when it had been resurfaced according to the city's directions. He added that only 42 of his 60 tenants even had cars. Jeannine Dunn, the Administrative Assistant for the city, stated that the Building Official had indicated that parking lots are often striped every year and that the existing parking lot was sub-standard. He had recommended that it be re-striped. Mr. Lebow stated this was the first he had heard of this problem, and that if the city wanted something done, he would like to hear about it. He indicated he could re-paint the stripes. Commissioner Anderson stated it could be re-striped in the spring. He further indicated his and the city's concern with the non-parking areas that were blacktopped. Mr. Lebow said the parking area was thirty feet away from the building windows, not facing the apartments. Ms. Dunn referred to the site plan, and indicated the area in question was next to the buildings. This is what staff is proposing to be green area. It is currently asphalt. She further indicated that the City Manager had recommended that the repairs to the site be made by 1987, when the re-striping is done. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the petitioners planned no structural changes to the site. There was no one present in regard to this case. Ms. Dunn stated that the tenants of the building had been notified of the Center, and that the city had received no objections to the plan. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending granting the Conditional Use Permit for the Parent-Child Center for one year, at 8421 58th Avenue North, Planning Case 86-28, with a staff review at that time, with the stipulation that at the time of the review by staff, the re-striping be done and the green space areas be sodded. Voting in favor: Anderson, Lutts, Gundershaug Voting against: None Abstain: Cameron Absent: Friedrich, Edwards Motion Carried Commissioner Anderson stated that this motion would give the petitioners from now until the year's end review to make the changes on the site--Fall of 1987. Vernon Stuhr was accompanied by his architect Mr. Pattee. He stated they were requesting a 15 foot setback variance on the west side of the site. They plan to construct a six unit apartment building with six enclosed garages. The building will be built on grade. They are requesting a 20' setback instead of the code required 35' Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the parking lot will have/-'~, continuous concrete curb, will be blacktopped, and that the parking spaces will be striped. The trash enclosure will be enclosed with cedar fencing. New Hope Planning Commission November 5, 1986 Page 2 Motion Planning Case 86-30 Request for Variance Item 5 Discussion held regarding the required loading berth. It was noted that this was the reason for the turn-around on the east side of the property. They have moved the north parking to the right and decreased the parking spaces by one. The only sign will be one "no parking" sign. identification signs. There will be no Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner was aware of the New Hope Sign Ordinance, in case in the future they desired an identification sign. He further confirmed that the building will be sprinklered. It was suggested that Mr. Pattee consult with city staff as to the type of sprinkler system. It was further noted that the city staff has recommended the sprinkling system, because of the difficulty of an emergency vehicle getting on to the site. Mr. Pattee said they were planning to install a Japanese green barberry hedge which was a hardy plant and grew to between 3-5 feet high. It was noted that the Marshal Ash should be moved about 20 feet to the west to provide a sight line at the corner. There will be both a front and rear door in the garage. The green area on the site will be sodded. Ms. Dunn noted that the City Engineer had reviewed the drainage plan for the site. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he still felt that the proposed building was too much for the site. Commissioner Lutts asked about snow removal. Mr. Stuhr stated that they would have to haul it away, if they could not pile it on the lot. Mr. Pattee commented that storage of snow was a problem in Minnesota. Commissioner Gundershaug said it would be a definite problem if they piled the snow on one of the parking spaces. Chairman Cameron asked whether there was any way that the petitioner could design the building to require only a 10 foot variance. Mr. Stuhr said they had tried, but this was the best they could do. Mr. Pattee noted that it was a rough site to develop. Chairman Cameron said his number one concern was the heavy use that six families would put on this particular property. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Anderson, recommending approval of the setback variance and the variance for loading berth, at 5641 Wisconsin, Planning Case 86-29, subject to a performance bond being provided to guarantee that the required landscaping would be provided within one year. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Lutts, Cameron Gundershaug Friedrich, Edwards Mr. Carlson said he was requesting a one foot sideyard variance, and a six foot frontyard variance to allow him to expand his one car garage to approximately a two and a half car garage. This would give him four plus feet to the side lot line, and 24 feet to the front line. He said he could not go too far to the rear because of his landscaping in the rear yard. He distributed pictures illustrating the site. He felt the addition would make the entire site more attractive. New Hope Planning Commission November 5, 1986 Motion Motion Commissioner Lutts asked what the extension of the house was now to the rear. The answer was about eight feet. Mr. Carlson said if he had to go only to the rear, he would lose the two top tiers of the landscaping, and have to fill in the yard. There will be an overhang of one to one and a half feet on the north side. This would put the wall about four feet from the lot line, instead of five. The neighbors dwelling is over ten feet from the lot line. In response to questions from Commissioner Lutts, Mr. Carlson said he did not plan any driveway work, and would probably put cedar siding on the front of the dwelling. It is presently masonite. He had talked to his immediate neighbors, and they had no objections to his plans. Commissioner Anderson said that the City had been reluctant to allow people to go into the frontyard setback. He asked whether the garage could be expanded without going into the front yard. Mr. Carlson said it would be a great deal more expensive. He would have to undo all of the landscaping and fill in the back yard. He added that the garage next door is only 29 feet from the curb, and he did not think this addition would stick out that much more. Commissioner Gundershaug asked why he didn't just expand to the rear, since he was going to expand four feet back anyway. Mr. Carlson said the existing garage was 24 feet. He wished to be able to tandem two cars on the one side of the garage. There is also a chance that in the future he would want to expand with a family room next to the kitchen. Mr. Carlson said he thought the addition would make the dwelling look more attractive. He couldn't imagine that anyone would even notice that the building extended out six feet to the front, because of the curve of the street. Chairman Cameron stated that the charge of the Planning Commission was to enforce the city's ordinance requirements, and to grant a variance of this type required a very good reason. The city just did not grant very many frontyard variances. Mr. Carlson asked what the purpose of the 30 foot setback was. Chairman Cameron said it was to keep houses from being too close to the street, and too close to the neighbors. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Brixius of the city's consulting firm said that the size of the expanded garage would not exceed the city's maximum of 900 square feet. Discussion followed about the possibility of extending the garage a lesser amount, and whether or not the petitioner would like the case to be tabled for one month. Mr. Carlson said he wished to start as soon as possible on the addition. He said that he felt the smallest frontyard extension he could use would be four feet. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Lutts, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the one foot sideyard variance at 4673 Ensign Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner ~-~ Gundershaug, recommending approval of a four foot frontyard variance at 4673 Ensign Avenue North, as requested in Planning Case 86-30. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion failed. Anderson Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug Friedrich, Edwards New Hope Planning Commission November 5, 1986 Planning Case 86-31 The petitioner stated they were requesting a Conditional Use Request for Conditional Permit to allow off-site parking by Amoco Oil. This request had Use Permit been recommended by staff. Item 6 In response to questions from the Chairman, Ms. Dunn stated that the agreement for the shared parking is in the process of being developed, but has not been finalized. The parties involved have not been able to get together as yet. She stated that the City Manager had recommended that this be approved, since the agreement will be made available to the city prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion · Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending that the Conditional Use Permit for off-site parking at 2720 Winnetka Avenue be granted. All present voted in favor. The petitioner requested that this case be considered by the Council at the second meeting in November as he was afraid they would not have the completed agreement until that time. Chairman Cameron directed staff to inform the City Manager of this. Planning Case 86-33 Request for Construc- tion Approval Item 7 Clarence Brandell said he was requesting construction approval for a 24,800 square foot office/warehouse building. There will be 20% of the land used for the construction, 39% of the site will be green area, blacktopped area will be ~round 40% of the site. Mr. Brandal said that since he had appeared at the Design and Review Committee he had talked to the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. He spoke to a Dale Claridge and had been informed that if a site had less than 2 1/2 acres they did not have to have approval from the Commission. His site is 2.8 acres. He had then talked to the DNR people and they had no interest in the site at all. Mr. Claridge had requested a pond with a wier (a way of catching gasoline and oils from the blacktopped area) but this request has not been made officially yet. Mr. Brandell said that the area at the northeast corner of the lot was large enough for this pond. He has added bushes and trees to the plan since Design and Review. There are no variances requested, or necessary for this development. Chairman Cameron asked when Mr. Brandell might receive the official request for the pond. Mr. Brandell said that the next Shingle Creek Committee meeting was scheduled for November 13, 1986, and he would be on the agenda. Ail rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building, trash will be stored inside, there will be continuous concrete curbing except at the northeast corner where there will be the drainage area. The parking lot will be striped. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that another concern of the Design and Review Committee had been that there be signs indicating "one way" traffic for trucks. He confirmed that the petitioner was aware of the city's Sign Ordinance. The building will be of concrete construction, and will not be sprinklered. A hydrant will be added at the rear of the site. This will provide for two hydrants on site. They have increased the truck maneuvering room. All green space will be sodded and will have a sprinkling system installed. In response to questions, Mr. Brandall said he would prefer to use his Letter of Credit to providing a new performance bond. New Hope Planning Commission November 5, 1986 Page 5 Motion Design and Review Item 8 Codes and Standards Approval of Planning Commission Minutes Item 9 City Council Minutes Reviewed Item 10 Comments Item 11 Adjournment Mr. Brixius said that actually this was even more desirable. Ms. Dunn said that this would allow the city to draw on it if necessary. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the wier would be at the northeast corner of the site. He expressed concern about the location of the pond, and that it not be in the parking area. Ms. Dunn noted that Mr. Hanson had reviewed the plan. Mr. Brandell said that Shingle Creek did not know exactly what they wanted, since it was such a small piece of land. However, if they want the pond and wier, that area would not be blacktopped. Chairman Cameron stated he felt it was a class plan. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending approval of the construction requested at 9200 49th Avenue North, Planning Case 86-33, with the stipulation that a Letter of Credit be provided for the landscaping. All present voted in favor. Design and Review Committee met once in October. There was no report from Codes and Standards. The Planning Commission minutes of October 7, 1986 were accepted as printed. The Council Minutes of September 22, and October 6, were reviewed without comment. In response to questions from Chairman Cameron, Ms. Dunn stated that the Council had not yet acted on the new appointments to the Commission. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission November 5, t986 Page 6 DESIGN AND REVIEW MEETING MINUTES November 19, 1985 Plan Case: 85-38 3:30 p.m., U.S. Swim and Fitness - New Hope Mall Project. Petitioner: Represented by Tom Zumwalde, architect, Denny Griswald and Chris Griswald. After a lengthy discussion about the major changes proposed on the site the following suggestions were made to the developer: A. Consider a Conditional Use Permit or "joint parking" with the adjacent center if the numbers are required by ordinance. Provide parking spaces and driving aisles that meet the performance standards in our ordinance for 64 foot bay width. Document statistics if the petitioner wishes to propose parking on site that would use our category (dd) in the zoning ordinance for "other cases", because of the commercial recreation uniqueness. Designate and label all parking to the rear west side of the building as employee parking only. Provide at least two comforming semi loading truck docks at the rear of this building. Designate where trash storage in bulk will be kept on the site and how it is screened if stored outside. Eliminate the "plain rear wall" proposed for the south wing of the building, which would be unattractive from the west. This should be done with exterior materials such as brickwork for siding as on the front of the new building and could include extending the canopy around with store-front type doors and glazing. There may be some good marketing reasons to do this also. Provide landscape schedules and detailed landscape plans. I. Illustrate exterior lighting proposed for the site. Snow removal from the site would be required according to this proposal. Platting is also required, although fees have not been submitted, because with this project a separate parcel of land is included with the existing property. Comraittee members present: liason: Doug Sandstad. Bob Gundershaug, chairman, staff DESIGN AND REVIEW MEETING MINUTES - Paqe_2 Plan Case: 85-36 II. 4:15'p.m., Proposed Amoco Oil Gas Station Car Wash, with store at 9400 - 49th Ave. No. Petitioner: Tom Schlangen and Jim Filippi. A brief discription of the proposed development was made by petitioners and discussion followed with the committee. The following suggestions were offered: Increase the landscaping on the site. Provide control for vehicle stacking for car wash, so that west driveway is not blocked. Site development with three separate uses may be overloading the property. Maximum development is occurring with minimum landscaping. Staff has noted that the parking spaces on the north end of the site are not realistically located near the subordinate use retail sales "store", and therefore, may not meet the intent of the zoning ordinance. E. Screen roof top units. F. Eliminate asphalt on the site where possible. Provide copies of the traffic turning design overlays that were used for this site. Provide additional detail to the Planning Commission and Council on the proposed "landscaping boulders", a style with which the city is not familiar. Committee members present: liason: Doug Sandstad. Bob Gundershaug, chariman, staff III. Both petitioners were advised that blueprint changes made after Design and Review must be submitted to staff no later than 4:00 p.m. on November 26, 1985, in order to be considered at the Planning Commission meeting, which is to be held on December 3rd and the Council meeting scheduled for December 9th. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:45 p.m. Next scheduled Design and Review meeting is December 24th, at 3:30 p.m. CITY OF NEW HOPE 44~1 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 2, 1986 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 2, 1986. The City Manager administered the Oaths of Office to the two new commissioners, Linda Oja and William Sonsin. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja. Absent: Anderson Planning Case 86-34 Charles Thompson and Wade Reedy represented North Ridge Care Consitional Use Permit Center. Mr. Reedy stated they were seeking approval for a Condi- Item 3 tional Use Permit which would allow them to provide a child care center for their employees. The center is not inteded to compete with other day care centers but will only be as a convenience for the employees. Northridge had conducted a survey and determined that there were 200 children of employees that could use this service. They also feel that there are advantages for both the children of the center and the residents of the nursing home complex to be able to occasionally interact with each other. Mr. Reedy gave a report including some history of other day care centers that had been established by employers, and some data that in the cases where nursing homes had provided interaction between residents and on-site day care care children, it had proved to be beneficial to all. He stated that 95 percent of the employees at Northridge are women, and they feel providing this on-site day care would lift some of the transportation burden for these employees. There has been data that supports a rise in employee morale whenn day care is on site, as well as less absenteeism. The day care operation would be structured and coordinated by trained child care workers. They would have no problems meeting guidelines established by the State Department of Human Services. He added that while interaction between the children and the elderly would not be desired by all residents, there would be a percentage that would greatly profit by the interaction. Frequent contact between the two ages could also alleviate some of the fears that children sometimes have about the aging process. Present plans would include two stages. At first they would start with infants. This would require no immediate structural changes. They would hope to begin the infant program by March 1, 1987, with the Toddler and Pre-school stage to begin either June 1, 1987, or September 1, 1987. He distributed site plans to the Commissioners. The day care center would be located in the northwest corner of the West building. Eventually there will be a play area for the older children to the east of that building. Mr. Reedy re,emphasized that the day care center will be only for the Northridge staff. It will not be opened up to the community. He said that some of the nursing home/center combination facilities are 'located at Oak and Acorn at Stevens Square; Circle Pines; Wilder; and Trevilla of Golden Valley and Sunshine Day Care. Mew ~{ooe Plannin~ Commission December 2, Mr. Thompson addressed the Commission regarding proposed structural changes. He stated that they would begin with the infant care center and if this proves to be successful, will expand to the toddler and pre-school stage. This would require only changes in the size of the toilet and sink, and the purchase of appropriate equipment, i.e. cribs, rockers, etc. Commissioner Lutts confirmed that at the present time they were requesting approval only for the infant care center. The original center will accommodate eight infants. The petitioner stated that the majority of their employees are part-time, and some would only use the center two days a week, some would use it more. The hours of operation will be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and the center will be used primarily for employees on the day shifts. Staff will consist of one licensed teacher, plus an aid for each four infants. At the infant stage of the center they would need only a refrigerator. They would return to the Commission for approval of their future plans for expansion. They would like to start offering infant care on March 1, 1987. The next stage could start June 1, 1987 but probably will not start until September 1, 1987. They confirmed that at that time they will come back before the Commission for approval of their plans. In response to a question from the Chairman regarding how they will choose which children will be accepted, the petitioner stated that there were State regulations that regulated selection. They ultimately hope to have 8 infants, 7 toddlers, and 10 pre-schoolers. Commissioner Friedrich asked how they would distribute food into the day care area. He also asked about the doorway indicated on the plan. Mr. Thompso~ said that State regulations require an outside play area and this would require the installation of a door. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Thompson stated that the day care center is proposed to be locatred in the old apartments of the nursing home--it is in the lower wing of the 1978 building. Commissioner Edwards asked whether they had considered 24 hour service. The response was that there did not seem to be a need for night-time day care. The question had been asked on the survey. Mr. Thompson, Jr. said that should this need arise, it would be no problem. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding the need for fenced in play area, Mr. Thompson said this would be provided when/if they went to the toddler/pre-school stage. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioner would be required to return to the CommissiDn/City when they went to the next stage. The City Manager stated they could be given approval for the entire concept. Chairman Cameron asked how this proposal fit into the zoning and comprehensive plan. The City Manager replied that under this zoning, R-3, the petitioner could establish a daycare facility for up to 7~ children. The setbacks are met, there is off-street parking and the proper accessibility to arterial or accessory streets. They meet general CUP requirements, and will meet State regulations. The proposal also meets Building and Fire Code requirements. New Hope Planning Commission December 2, ]986 ?aqe 2 He added that the Commission/City could impose restrictions on the approval, particularly as they relate to traffic considerations. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there would be additional employees hired. Mr. Thompson said there would only be four new employees in the beginning. He added that they do have an agreement with the School District to use their parking lot on weekends or when school was not in session. He added that there did not seem to be as much of a parking problem in winter as in warm weather. They do constantly inform their employees that they must not park on the residential streets, and enforce this as best they can. There are now 717 people employed at Northridge. This has increased over the last four years. Mr. Thompson, Sr. stated that the only area left to increase parking space was on the north side of the parking lot. This could add space for 20-25 cars. However, they are reluctant to increase the blacktop if not necessary. A resident of the area, Clyde Green, 5406 Zealand Avenue, stated that recently there had been 11 non resident cars parked on Zealand Avenue. He said that Wednesdays and Thursdays are the heaviest parking days for on-street parking. One of his concerns is the ability of emergency vehicles to get on to the site with all of the on-street parking. The City Manager noted that he~ did know that Northridge did actively have their security staff working on the parking problem. A last option would be for the city to post the street as "no parking". This had been done along Cooper High School. The city has not polled the residents along Zealand in regard to such a signage. Mr. Thompson said that they continually notify the employees to not park on Zealand. Discussion continued regarding space for possible expansion of the parking area. The City Manager indicated that the owner of the property across Boone, might be interested in selling his property. This might be a source of additional parking space. Commissioner Gundershaug referred to the "resident" stickers that are used in the area of North Memorial Hospital. Chairman Cameron stated that the city should not make a rule that it could not enforce. Discussion continued in regard controlling the on-street parking. to possible options for Mr. Thompson, Jr. said they had at one time given out stickers to employees, but it proved to be not workable. People would have more than one car -- it had proved to be a nightmare. Commissioner Sonsin asked how many children they intended to have in the overall facility. Mr. Thompson said about 25, if they go to the toddler/pre-school ages. Mr. Reedy said it was their intention to have the employees with children come into the regular employee entrance, remove their coats, and then bring the children to the daycare area. All employees use one entrance. New Hope Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 3 Motion Design and Review Item 4 Codes and Standards Item 5 Approval of Minutes of November 5, 1986 Item 6 City Council Minutes Reviewed Item 7 Comments Item 8 Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the conditional use Permit for an employee daycare facility at 5430 Boone Avenue North, Planning Case 86-34, with the condition that the facility met all requirements found in City Code 4.073(2). 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 of November 5; 1986 were accepted as printed. The City Council minutes were reviewed. The City Manager distributed member rosters to the Commissioners. Corrections were made. Mr. Donahue then informed the Commissioners of a workshop for Planning Commissioners. He indicated that if anyone was interested in attending this workshop, they should contact either Jeannine Dunn or himself. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission December 2, 1936 Page 4