Loading...
1985 PlanningPlanning Commission Minutes January 8, 1985 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, January 8, 1985 in the Conference Room of the Minnesota Federal Building, 8320 42nd Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Edwards, Lutts, Gundershaug, Cameron, Bartos, Friedrich, Kolander Absent: Anderson Following discussion, the concensus of the Commissioners was that inasmuch as the City Council had not confirmed the re-appointment of Commissioners Cameron and Edwards, they would be unable to officially act at this meeting. They left the table, and observed the proceedings from the audience. PUBLIC HEARINGS PI~ANNING CASE 85-1 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE OF TRAILERS AND CON- STRUCTION EQUIPMENT AT 2900 NEVADA AVENUE - NEVADA PARTNERS, PETITIONERS. The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner BartQs, second by Commissioner Kolander to table this case until later in th~ Meeting. Voting in favor: Voting against: Lutts, Gundershaug, Bartos, Friedrich, Kolander None Motion carried. It was noted that the petitioner in Case 85-2 had not yet arrived. The petitioners from Cases 85-1, and 85-2 arrived at the meeting. Commissioner Gundershaug moved to remove Case 85-1 from the table. Commissioner Kolander second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Lutts, Gundershaug, Bartos, Friedrich, Kolander None Mr. Dick Tieva represented the petitioners. He stated that Nevada Partners had previously received approval from the city/City Council/Planning Commission for construction of a two phase building on their site. They have completed phase one. They have been using the area designated for phase two for storage of trucks and equipment until such time that they will construct the second phase. He was re- questing the Conditional Use Permit to allow this parking and storage on a temporary basis. They had not realized that they needed approval for this type of storage. Their present plan is to construct phase two in a year or two. They do intend to build on this property, since it is too expensive to use for outdoor storage. He said that the only neighbors to the property were one house.and across the pond. Commissioner Lutts asked whether the city had a problem if the petitioner used this area for outside storage? The City Manager said "not really", although the area could be viewed from Louisiana Avenue. Technically it is a clean type of storage. Cor~missioner Lutts asked when the petitioner intended to start phase two? Mr. Tieva said that he felt they were aiming at being back before the Commission/City in a year or two, if economic conditions were right. He added that the trailers were painted white, and used for construc- tion storage. Commissioner Friedrich asked whether the trailers were usually empty? Mr. Tie~a said that there were maybe bits and pieces of pipe, etc. in the trucks. There was nothing at all hazardous stored in them. They are typically padlocked to prohibit vandalism. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about a one year time limit on the Conditional Use Permit, and whether this would be agreeable to the petitioner? CommiSsioner Kolander confirmed that there were no hazardous materials stored in the trucks, but only . plumbing fittings, etc. that would be there fora limited period of time. There was no one present in regard to this case. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - January 8, 1985 Commissioner Lutts made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 2900 Nevada Avenue to allow parking of a maximum of six trailer trucks, and for outside storage for a period of one year. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Lutts, Gundershaug, Bartos, Friedrich, Kolander None It was noted that the City Council meeting would be on January 14, at 7:00 p.m. at St. Joseph's Community Center at 36th/Boone. PLANNING CASE 85-2 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 7308 39TH AVENUE NORTH - GREGORY DAVIS, PETITIONER. Mr. Davis was present and stated that they were requesting a three foot sideyard variance to allow them to build an addition on their housethat would include a bedroom and den. The City Manager stated that the city code required ten feet on the non garage side of a dwelling. Discussion between the petitioner and the Commission regarding the neighboring property, and the distance between the proposed addition and the neighbors. Mr. Davis said that the sideyard butted up to the backyard of the neighbor, whose house fronted on the other street. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that the petitioner intended to have the addition match the existing house as far as exterior finish, color, roofing material. He then asked about possible drainage problems from the addition. Mr. Davis said that the natural drainage would not be affected by this addition. It would not change the contours of the land. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner had an accurate survey of the property. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Kolander made a recommendation for approval of Case 85-2, sideyard variance of three feel at 7308 39th Avenue North, on condition that the addition match the existing house in regard to texture, color, and roofing material. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Lutts, Gundershaug, Bartos, Friedrich, Kolander None COMMITTEE REPORTS 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 City Manager stated he would be distributing some material shortlyt The city wishes to fine tune the recent codification. There is also the issue of care centers in multi-fami}y or single family zones to be addressed. He added that the City Council had imposed a 45 day moratorium on the establishment of such facilities to allow the city time to study the effect on density and dispersion. He noted that the State Law would take precedence in this issue. However, the city wished to be very certain on dispersion of the facilities. They wished to set certain standards and get them in place before anything happened. Two organizations had expressed interest in purchasing property in the city for such facilities. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission Minutes of December 4, 1984 were approved as printed. The Council Minutes of December 10, and December 28, were reviewed. Commssioner Gundershaug asked about message boards on ~ommercial signs, and whether anything had been de- termined on this issue. The City Manager stated that the City Attorney had advised that the city could not tell people what to put on their message boards. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern that they would become merely an extension of the business advertising. He did not think this was the intention of the Commission or the new ordinance to allow this. He felt this was an issue that should be examined more closely as far as ordinance language. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1985 The City Manager said that there were three issues to be determined in regard to message boards -- letter size, square footage allowed or required for center designation, and content. This would also be back before the Codes and Standards Committee for discussion. It was the concensus of the Commissioners that they needed direction on this issue. The City Manager noted that there were probably going to be some tenant changes in the near future in the Winnetka Shopping Center, as well as a possible application for a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant on 42nd Avenue. 12. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker, Secretary III. DESIGN AND REVIEW MINUTES~ JANUARY 21~ 1986 Call to Order time: 3:30 p.m. In Attendance: Bob Oundershaug~ Jim Edwards~ Gale Friedrich~ Doug Sandstad~ sta?? liason, Plan Case 86-2~ Petitioner: Sunshine Factory - Randy Rosengren~ 7600 - 42nd Ave. No. Request: Parking variance~ CUP -Text amendment ?or drive-up window and construction approval ?or additions· A detailed presentation was made by Randy Rosengren and his architect Juris Curiskis about the proposed expansion o? the restaurant. Sta?? advised the committee that the text amendment has been initiated by the city and dra?ted language has been ?orwarded ?rom our consulting planner to permit a conditional use permit ?or such an order/pick-up service window (see attached letter ?rom A1Brixuis). This request is unique and not addressed by current city codes. It was noted by the petitioner that the present restaurant seats about 268 persons~ and the new expansion will allow seating ?or 294 persons in addition to a maximum peak employee load Friday evenings o? 28-30 workers, The ?ollowing suggestions were o??ered by the committee or Add landscaping~ such as a shrubbery along the 42nd Ave. ?rontage~ and the south 200 ?met o? the Quebec ?rontage. b. Speci?y that no snow storage is provided on the site. Reconsider drive-up window location to increase vehicle stacking. The proposed design shows three vehicles stacked and the ?ourth blocking a cross aisle ?or internal circulation o? vehicles. This was not acceptable by the committee, The proposed ordinance would require 90 ?met o? stacking without any vehicle con?lict. Detail the screening o? roo?top equipment and location. The petitioner is encouraged to discuss a possible shared parking arrangement ?or non-simultaneous use with the property owner to the north~ who may be agreeable, In addition~ the petitioner is ?rem to calculate parking requirements based upon ordinance language which allows a ten percent total deduction o? gross square ?ootage in order to calculate. Because the proposal includes only an additional 26 person seating oapacity~ it may be advisable to scale down the expanded seating capacity because o? the parking variance issue which requires a non-economic hardship to quali?y. Design & Revie~ Minutes Icontinued) The petitioner was reminded to submit the $300 variance ?ees to the city; $150 ?or the ?iling ?ee and $150 zoning deposit, IV. Revised plans a?ter this meeting must be submitted to sta?? no later 4:00 p.m. on January 28th in order to permit our reviewing process prior to the Febuary 4th Planning Commission meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. ~e×t scheduled Design and Revie~ meeting is February 187 1986.. City Manager City Clerk ?ile Attachments northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Dan Donahue Alan Brixius 14 January 1986 Sunshine Factory Expansion 1'31.01 - 86.02 BACKGROUND The Sunshine Factory Restaurant at 7200 42nd Avenue North in New Hope is pro- posing to expand the existing restaurant and install a phone order/pick-up service window at the rear of the building. The existing restaurant is a permitted use in the B-3 zoning district and as such, the expansion only requires a site and building plan review. The phone order/pick-up window for a restaurant facility of this type is not permitted through the existing ordinance. As such, the City is suggested to consider a zoning text amendment to accommodate this type of use. We have reviewed the applicant's request and outlined our comments in the following pages. TEXT AMENDMENT The text amendment to consider allowing phone order/drive-up service windows at restaurants is addressed prior to the site plan review to provide criteria for evaluating the site plan. If the drive through window is unacceptable for restaurant facilities, the restaurant expansion should be considered for its own merit. The Sunshine Factory is a quality sit down restaurant that is typically patronized by customers that come to dine at the restaurant and enjoy the atmosphere it offers. A pick-up service window for a restaurant of this type is a unique request. Due to the type of restaurant that the Sunshine Factory is, the operation of the service window greatly differs from drive through windows at convenience food establishments. · 4820 minnetonka b/vd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420 Dan Donahue 14 january 1986 Page Two The Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 1979 estimates that a quality restaura'nt generates a weekday average of seven vehicle trip ends at peak hour for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This estimate is lowwhen compared to a high turnover, sit down restaurant which generates 22.2 trip ends for peak hour and a drive-in restaurant which averages 78.8 trip ends per peak hour. Due to the nature of the quality restaurant, the proposed drive through is not expected to greatly impact the on-site parking or circulation, provided the site has sufficient parking to adequately accommodate the restaurant. The Sunshine Factory drive-up service window shall not have an outdoor order service board that would allow on-site food ordering from the automobile. Food orders shall be made by phone prior to the customer's arrival or on-site take out orders shall be made inside the restaurant, requiring the customer to park their car. By eliminating the on-site order board, the restaurant reduces the amount of traffic waiting at the pick-up window for food and discourages drive through traffic. Based on the afo'rementioned operational characteristics, the City may wish to consider a text amendment to allow for restaurants to have a phone order service window. We have drafted a proposed text amendment by tailoring the conditional use convenience food drive through window to the operational characteristics of the quality restaurant. , Our initial thoughts on this matter are presented below: 4.125 Conditional Accesory Use B-3. Certain accessory uses are permitted in the B-3 district with various limitations, and are conditional uses for the purpose of this Code. The following are conditional accessory uses under the limitations described. Explanation: Since the phone order pick-up window is an accessory use to the restaurant that presents special concerns regarding site design, circulation, parking, etc., it seems appropriate to make it a conditional accessory use. (6) Phone Order/Pick-Up Service Window; for restaurant facilities as defined in Section 4.022 of this Ordinance. .E~planation: The phone order/pick-up window is intended to serve restaurant facilities such as the Sunshine Factory. The con- ditional use is tailored to the operational characteristics of the restaurant facilities. As such, it is necessary to make the distinction between restaurant facilities and convenience food establishments. This provision ties the use to restaurants as defined by City Ordinance. Dan Donahue 14 January 1986 Page Three a. Phone-Order Food Orders. All food orders for pick-up must be received by phone or by an order placed inside the restaurant facility. Outdoor on-site food order boards shall be prohibited. Explanation: The intent of the use is to serve phone orders. As such, the design standards attempt to regulate the type of orders. The prohibition of an outdoor order board prevents the service window from turning into a convenience food drive through window where orders are placed and waited for on-site. bo Traffic Control. The stacking lane and its access must be designed to control traffic in a manner to protect the buildings, green space and other automobiles on-site. Explanation: This provision requires that the pick-up window and stacking area be designed to not interfere with on-site parking, loading or circulation movements to insure safe operation of the service window and on-site circulation. Stacking Space. Not less than ninety (90) feet of segregated automobile stacking space must be provided for the service window. E~planation: Due to the nature of the restaurant facilities, the customer turnover is much slower than fast food establishments. This, and the elimination of outdoor order boards which prevent customers from ordering and waiting in their car for service, reduces the need for car stacking. Based on discussions with staff and the applicant, a 90 foot standard is being suggested. This standard is half of what is required for a convenience food drive through service window. This provision also requires the stacking spac9 not to interfere with the on-site traffic circulation. do Use of Street. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for stacking of automobiles. .Explanation: The automobile stacking shall be designed so as not to result in stacking onto a public boulevard or street. Noise. The stacking and window placement shall be designed 'and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile and communication noises, emissions and headlight glare as to adjacent premises, particularly residential premises, and to maximize maneuverability of vehicles on the site. .Explanation: The site design for the service window must be such as to prevent negative impacts on surrounding properties. Dan Donahue ..14 January 1986 Page Four Hours. As a condition of issuance of a conditional use permit, 'ho~r~' of operation may be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare. .E~p.l~nation: In areas where the operation of a service window may negatively impact an adjacent property, the City may restrict the operational hours to reduce the nuisance factors. The text amendment is presented for your review and comment. A formal amendment is attached as Exhibit A. SITE PLAN REVIEW Use and Lot Standards The existing restaurant is a permitted use in the B-3 zoning district and the existing lot complies with the lot area and width standard. The building with the proposed expansion complies with the B-3 setback standards. Landscaping Review of the proposed site plan reveals a general absence of green space. The site provides only the minimum 5 foot landscape strip area around the perimeter of the parking area with some green space at corners of the lot. The veranda expansion eliminates existing landscaping area. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance does not require commercial properties to reserve a percentage of its lot area for green space. As such, the absence of green space is not a zoning violation, rather a site design observation that should be considered. .Parking. The following parking requirements apply to the proposed building expansion: Restaurants, Cafes, Private Clubs Servin~ Food and/or Drinks, Bars, Taverns, Night Clubs. At least one space for ~ach 7orty square feet of gross floor area of dining and bar area and one space for each eighty square feet of kitchen area. Office Buildings, Animal Hospitals and Professional Offices. Three spaces plus at least one space for each two hundred square feet of floor area. Warehousing.., Storage or Handling. of Bulk Goods. That space which is solely used as office shall comply with the office use requirements and one space per each one thousand square feet of floor area, plus one space for each company owned truck (if not stored inside principal building). Dan Donahue 14 January 1986 "Page Five Each of the aforementioned parking standards is based on the building's floor area which is calculated on the basis of the exterior dimensions of the building minus ten percent credit. The ordinance does not allow for a credit of greater than 10 percent. Review of the applicant's building plans indicates that the total building size is approximately 18,900 square feet, allowing for a floor area credit of 1,890 square feet. The parking requirement should be determined on a net floor area of 17,010 square feet. The applicant has indicated that approximately 3,100 square feet of floor use was unassigned and not included in the parking calculation. The unassigned area alone exceeds the 10 percent allowable~parking credit. The applicant also credited the assignable floor area by 10 percent, further reducing the floor area for the parking calculation. Using this method, the applicant demonstrated a parking demand of 201 parking spaces and provided 222 parking stalls. Based on the strict interpretation of the ordinance, we have estimated a parking demand of 244 spaces. This was determined by reducing the unassigned floor space to 10 percent of the total floor area and introducing a portion of the entry as dining area and the employee lounge and mechnical room to the storage area. Applicant's Calculations Gross Net Parking Stalls City Projections Net Parking Stalls Kitchen 3,464 3,117 39 3,464 ~ 80 43 Dining 6,763 7,086 152 7,552 ~ 40 189 Storage 5,191 4,672 5 5,602 ~ 1,000 6 Office 466 419 5 466 ~ 2'00 + 3 6 Unassigned 3~100 4,690 0 1,890 0 18,984 201 18,984 244 The applicant's site plan displays a total of 222 parking stalls, 22 parking stalls short of what is required. Because the office is an accessory use to the restaurant, the City may chose not to require the additional three spaces required of a pro- fessional office. This would leave the site short by 19 spaces. A variance from the required parking standards must be considered to allow-for the building expansion. Curb Cut and Circulation For the most part, the on-site circulation works well with the parking stalls and driveway aisles all dimensioned in accordance with City standards. There does exist a number of circulation problems in an area at the rear of the building where the pick-up window is proposed and on-site deliveries are made. Dan Donahue ..14 January 1986 Page Six The stacking area for the service window extends east across a driveway and into a curb cut. This arrangement is unacceptable. To resolve this design problem, the service window should be located at the western end of the kitchen to allow all car stacking behind the building. The driveway aisle which accesses the service window and unloading area allows for two-way traffic flow. This situation is undesirable because the service lane is undefined and will be in direct conflict with east bound traffic. We recommend that the driveway aisle directly behind the building be designed for one-way west bound traffic. To encourage this design, we suggest that the parking access from this aisle be angled to reduce conflict with cars stacked at the service window and to promote one-way traffic in this area of the site. Loading Based on the New. Hope Zoning Ordinance, the restaurant facility is required to provide an on-site loading area that would be 70' x 10' in. size and exclusive of the parking and driveway aisles. The site plan does not show a loading area. The applicant proposes to have all site deliveries made between 7:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. prior to business hours. The City has allowed an exception to the loading requirement when deliveries could be scheduled so as not to conflict with business hours. We would recommend that-a written agreement be established to guarantee conformance with the agreed delivery times. Service Window As noted in the curb cut and circulation paragraph in this report, the location and design of the service window presents several problems with the on-site traffic circulation. These items must be resolved to make the phone order pick-up window functional. Other than the circulation concerns, the site appears to be able to accommodate a phone order service window. RECOMMENDATION The applican{'s request is unique with regard to the phone order pick-up window. The City must determine the acceptability of the service window for this type of restaurant facility. If the City chooses to accomodate the applicant's request, the text amendment must be considered. Review of the site plan indicates several concerns that must be addressed prior to any final approval. They are as follows: Parking Variance. Based on the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, a restaurant facility of this size should provide 244 parking spaces, the site plan shows only 222 parking spaces. As such a variance is required. Dan Donahue .14 January 1986 Page Seven e e The service window should be relocated to the western end of the kitchen area to prevent the stacking area from encroaching into the eastern driveway or curb cut. The driveway containing the service window should be designed for one-way west bound traffic to reduce traffic conflicts. To promote this design, the parking loaded from this driveway should be angled to the west. The City should receive a written agreement from the applicant to insure that deliveries to the site will come between 7:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. in lieu of providing a designated loading area. cc: Doug Sandstad ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.125, CONDITIONAL ACCESSORY USE, B-3 TO ALLOW FOR A PHONE ORDER/PICK-UP WINDOW FOR RESTAURANTS BY CONDITIONAL USE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE HEREBY'ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4.125 of the City of New Hope Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to add: (5) Phone Order/Drive-Up Service Window; for restaurants as defined in Section 4.022 (120) of this Ordinance. (a) Phone-In Food Orders. All food orders for pick-up at the service window must be received by phone or by an order placed inside the restaurant facility. Outdoor on-site food order boards shall be prohibited. (b) Traffic Control. The stacking lane and its access must be designed to control traffic in a manner to protect the buildings, green area, and other automobiles on the site. (c) Stacking. Not less than ninety (90) feet of segregated automobile stacking must be provided for the service window. (d) Use of Street. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for stacking of automobiles. (e) Noise. The stacking and window placement shall be designed and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile and communication noises, emissions and headlight glare as to adjacent premises, particularly residential premises, and to maximize maneuverability of vehicles on the site. (f) Section 2. and publication. Hours. As a condition of issuance of a conditional use permit, hours of operation may be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage Passed by the City Council of New Hope on this day of 1986. ATTEST: Edward Erickson, Mayor Ayes: Nays: EXHIBIT A 0 _J 0 5 .88 EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN EXHIBIT C SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS .o-.o~: ~L f -l EXHIBIT D FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXHIBIT E FIRST FLOOR AREA SUMMARY Z I-- Z I.IJ EXHIBIT F BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN EXHIBIT G BASEMENT AREA SUIqMARY EXHIBIT H ELEVATION PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1985 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 5, 1985 in the Conference Room of the Minnesota Federal Building, 8320 42nd Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The City Manager administered the Oath of Office to the two Commissioners who had been re-appointed by the City Council, Robert Cameron and James Edwards. Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Kolander, Anderson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Absent: Bartos, Friedrich (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE 85-3 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY FOOD SAL~ AT 3535 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - G~'~l'f OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. The City Manager noted that staff had spoken to the petitioner on this date, and there was a question as to whether or not they were going to attend this meeting. He requested that the case be tabled until the end of the meeting. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Kolander to table Case 85-3 until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: Kolander, Anderson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Friedrich ' . '.. Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 85-4 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEY~RD SET~ACK AT 5910 XYLON AVENUE NORTH - EDWARD DOOLEY, PETITIONER. Mr. Dooley was in attendance and stated that the house on this lot was built into the hill, and there was not a good place to position the air conditioning unit in the rearyard. He was requesting the vari- ance to permit the unit to be installed in the sideyard. The unit would still be 55 feet from the neigh- bors house. Commissioner Edwards asked why it could not be put in the back yard? Mr. Dooley answered there was to be a deck built into the grade in the rear and he felt that there was no place in the rear yard that would provide an efficient place of operation. Commissioner Lutts confirmed with Mr. Dooley that the deck was planned for across the entire back of the house. ~ Commissioner Anderson asked whether Mr. Dooley intended to screen the air conditioning unit from the neighbors? Mr. Dooley said he had not intended to. The unit will be only about five feet in size, and there will be landscaping there anyway. Commissioner Anderson stated there were two factors involved in a variance such as this. They units were usually noisy, and they were also unsightly. The city tried to reduce the intrusion ~or the neighbors. In answer to a question, Mr. Dooley said he had not spoken to the immediate neighbors about this variance. Commissioner Edwards questioned the height of the grade behind the house. Mr. Dooley said the deck will go out right on grade. He intends to terrace the wal~ 12 feet from the house, up to about five feet. The basement will be below the deck. Co~missioner Lutts asked who the existing trees belonged to -- this site, or the neighbor? Mr. Dooley responded that there were some on both properties. Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioner was certain about the 55 foot distance to the neighbors? Mr. Dooley said that the neighbors home was 45 feet from the lot line. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioner would agree to planting a dense row of shrubbery next to the air conditioning unit, to act as a screen. Mr. Dooley said "yes" if it were required. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1985 Martha Fredrickson, said that she was the neighbor immediately to the east of the property. She was concerned because the house was above grade. Her sleeping level is on the same level as the air condi- tioner will be located, and she normally does not operate an air conditioner herself. She was concerned about noise. Mr. Dooley said that one alternative would be for him to shorten the deck and position the air condition- ing unit in the rear, at the corner. In response to a question' from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Dooley said he would like an immediate answer on his variance request, rather than a table. Mrs. Fredrickson said she was concerned mainlY, with the noise levels. Mr. Dooley noted that the landscaping would be up to the owner of the house, however, he could make sure that the owner did landscape around the unit. Chairman Cameron noted that-perhaps some dense arbovitae, or green shrubs about three feet out would be good screening. Commissioner Lutts made a motion recommending approval of the variance in sideyard setback at 5910 X~lon Avenue North, as.requested in Case 85-4, subject to the providing of dense shrubbery for screening pur- poses,' as proposed at this meeting. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Kolander, Anderson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts None Bartos, Friedrich The Chairman noted that the city staff would be watching the site along about May to guarantee that the screening had been provided. 3. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Kol'ander to remove Case 85-3 from the table. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Kolander, Anderson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts None Bartos, Friedrich The petitioner was still not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Kolander to table Case 85-3 until the meeting 5o of March 5, 1985. Voting in favor~ Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug,_'Edwards, Lutts Anderson Bartos, Friedrich COMMITTEE REPORTS There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Commissioner Anderson,. Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee, stated the Committee had met but that he would defer to Mr. Licht, the Consultant and the City Manager to speak first to the issue of group homes. He referred to a recent news article, and commented that this is currently apparently a "hot" issue in several communities. The City Manager noted that the city had received information in regard to group homes planning to lo- cate in the City of New Hope. The City Council had subsequently declared a 45 day moratorium on accept- ing these plans, to allow staff to study the issue in more depth. This moratorium will expire on 25th of February. Any changes proposed for the Zoning Code in regard to such facilities, must be reviewed before that time. This was the reason the issue was before the Planning Commission at this meeting and it would be discussed again at the City Council meeting of February llth. He stated that Dave Licht would explain the proposed changes. He requested that the Planning Commission take some action on the proposals at this meeting. Mr. Licht stated that within the last several years the Minnesota State Legislature had enacted unique zoning, which mandated the local acceptance of certain types of housing. Residential care facilities came under this new jurisdiction. He noted that he felt that while this was not new legislation, some of the uproar probably was because people had just become aware of these changes. The cities thought they had jurisdiction over such facilities and have discovered that they do not. This was the reason that the City Council had directed that the City Manager, the City Attorney, and Mr. Licht look into this issue to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 FEBRUARY 5, 1985 insure that the city's codes were adequately structured to insure the protection of both the neighbor- hoods in which such facilities would be located, as well as the protection of the residents that would occupy the units. This review has been conducted during the last several weeks. Mr. Licht stated that the regulations as they address single family facilities (less than six residents) cannot be changed. This must be coped with by the community. They are specified as permitted sf uses. In regard to residential care facilities which would house from seven to sixteen individuals, the legis- lation does allow the establishment of a Conditional Use Permit requirement, by the local jurisdiction. to assure proper maintenance and operation of the facility. Mr. Licht stated that in regard to sihgle family facilities, the State has assumed total responsibility for the operation, and the individual city has no say in the operation. He noted that once a license is granted, it became extremely difficult to pull the license. There are basically two steps of control. One is the State, in regard to licensing, and two, is under local zoning regulations. He stated that in his experience, these facilities have not been problems. The discussion then centered on the recommendations for changes to the city code as prepared by Mr. Licht (attached). It was noted that they had also looked at the issue of homes being allowed to operate from sites in cul- du-sacs. A suggestion had been made that the city require at least two points of access to such a facility. In Mr. Licht's opinion and also in Mr. Corrick's this could not be controlled. Any such restrictions would have to be simultaneously imposed on all multi-family residences. Commissioner Anderson stated he had concerns about parking. 1. Was that in the establishment of group care facilities in a single family zone, there was no city 'control of parking, i.e. a large facility would have a definite impact on the parking of the neighborhood. 2. He was also concerned about a large facility being constructed on two single family lots and the impact this would have on the traffic in the neighborhood. Chairman Cameron aoted that this was another issue, and not under consideration at this meeting. Commissioner Anderson stated it was an issue that needed to be looked at. Also to be reviewed should be the issue of off-street parking, and size of buildings, to guarantee some type of compatibility with the existing neighborhoods. This needed to be looked at in the future. Mr. Licht said that he felt the possibility of a large building being constructed on two lots would not be a problem because, first a developer would have to sub-divide or combine the lots. He raised the ~.question of whether the commission/council/city would really want to establish limits on the size of any facility with the city. Any limitations would have to apply across the board to construct. Commissioner Anderson asked what types of facilities were covered by the State legislation. Mr. Licht answered all licensed facilities, i.e. handicapped, mentally retarded, Rule V, Rule 8, Rule 34 etc. Anything that is licensed by the State. Chairman Cameron asked how the term facility would be defined? Mr. Licht said that the State defined this, it comes under the licensing regulations. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the 1320 foot restriction between facilities, and wondered exactly what this meant. Mr. Licht said he felt this meant another group care facility. He repeated his feeling that the multi- family facilities would present no concerns for the city. He felt the primary concern is that the facility is cared for, and that the residents are cared for. The city has to rely on its existing stan- dards in regard to parking, screening, etc. Discussion continued. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommendin~ that the language in the R-1 and R-2 zones be cleane,~ up as it applied to residential care facilities, and that the R-3 zone be amended as follow~.: Group Homes - Multiple Family should be removed from the permitted use section (4.072)(7) of the R-3 District: To be added to the conditional use section (4.074) of the R-3 District: (4) Multiple Family Residential Care Facilities as defined by State Statute ( ) provided that for the protection of the residents of the facility: (a) The facility is licensed by the State of Minnesota and the operator of the facility provides documentation of compliance with all applicable Federal, State, Metropolitan and County regulations. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - FEBRUARY 6, 1985 (4) (b) The facility is in compliance with and is maintained in accordance with the Minnesota State Code and Uniform Building Code. (c) The facility is incompliance with protections as specified by the City Fire Marshall and City Sanitarian. (d) The facility is not located within 1,320 feet of any similar type use or care facility. (e) The entrance of the faciiity is located within four hundred (400) feet of a public transit route and stop, and pedestrian access is available, or the operators provide a transportation/access plan which is found acceptable by the City Council. (f) The operation is subject to annual review and continual monitoring by the City's Human Services Committee and is found to be in compliance with all applicable construction and operation regulations and standards. (g) The criteria as specified in Section 4.212 of this Ordinance are considered and found to be satisfactorily met. Commissioner Lutts second. - Voting in favor: Kolander, Anderson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Friedrich Motion carried. Discussion continued with the City Manager noting that he and Mr. Licht and the City Attorney had discussed this matter and the establishing of a Conditional Use Permit for residential care facilities. Another option had been making them a permitted use with certain conditions. It had been the concensus that a Conditional Use Permit was a better way to go. This would require the facility to apply for a permit, and would require a public hearing before approval. Conclusion was that this would be an easier way to handle the issue. Nancy Abramson, representing Community Care Corporation, asked to speak. She stated they had already approached the city in regard to a facility and had responded to the city regulations as they had been informed of them by staff. She wondered if their request would be grandfathered in? Mr. Licht said it was his understanding that the city would enact the new revisions to the code, before this could occur. Mrs. Abramson said she had a strong opinion that this was illegal. She noted that the facility was a very worthwhile project. They had acted in response to what they had been told by city staff. They have a purchase agreement signed, staff hired and are concerned about this proposed change will do to their plans which are already in process. Commissioner Anderson asked whether assurances had been given to them by city officials? Mrs. ~Abramson said "yes", her problem was with the timing involved. Commissioner Anderson asked whether their facility would comply with the issues discussed? Mr. Licht noted that he felt the entire matter had to be taken up with the City Attorney. The Chairman stated that this particular issue, had nothing to do with the concerns that the Planning Con~nission was reviewing at this meeting. Commissioner Anderson requested that the City Manager and Mr. Licht review the R-1 and R-2 zone language for general standards that would apply to residential care facilities in regard to parking, building size, and other issues and make a recommendation to the commission. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission Minutes of January 8, 1985 were approved as printed. The Council Minutes of January 14, and January 28, 1985 were reviewed by the City Manager. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5, 1985 A regula= meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, March 5, 1985 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: PreSent: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Lutts (arrived at 7:36 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 85-3 (TABLED FROM 2-5-85) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY FOOD SALES AT 3535 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - GETTY 0IL COMPANY, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the petitioner had requested a further table until the meeting of April 2, 1985. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich to table Case 85-3 until the meeting of April 2, 1985. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Lutts Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 85-5- REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PUD AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT THE NEW HoPE MALL - CONSTRUCTION 10, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the petitioner had requested a table until the meeting of April 2, 1985. The petitioner and staff had met together prior to this meeting to discuss the proposed plans and the petitioner had decided to hold off to allow time to prepare an overall site plan for the proper~y. Chairman Cameron asked what had been decided in regard to Council's desire for a city center development plan for that area? The Manager noted that this was one item that would be discussed at the Council's upcoming work session. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug to table Case 85-5 until the meeting of April 2, 1985. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards None Lutts 5. PLANNING CASE 85-6 REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-O TOB-3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE-THROUGH, A_ND CONSTRUCTION A~PROVAL - 7500 BASS LAKE ROAD - TACO BELL, PETITIONER. Mr. Bill Piarchi represented Taco Bell. He stated he was area construction manager for Taco Bell. Chairman Cameron suggested that this request be split into two separate issues. The issue of the rezoning would be considered first. He asked the petitioner to speak to this issue. Mr. Piarchi introduced Mr. Doug Sinclair, the real estate representative for Taco Bell. Mr. Piarchi stated that they felt that the present zoning was improper for the use. Taco Bell is a non- conforming use in the R-O~zone. They must have the rezoning in order for them to add a' drive-through to the restaurant. It is felt that the drive through is an economic necessity. Chairman Cameron stated the city/commission did not rezone property for economic reasons. There were two criteria that justified a rezoning -- that the original zoning was in error, or that the area had changed substantially to warrant a change in zoning. He asked the petitioner to speak to this. Mr. Piarchi said that other parcels along Bass Lake Road had been rezoned, ie Shakey's, the furniture store, and that their property adjoined the furniture store property. He stated that their rationale was two-fold, first, if they could not put in a drive through the property would stay as it is with no upgrading, and the drive through is to them a necessity. The property to the west has been rezoned, and other parcels up and down the street have also been rezoned to a business type zoning. They adjoin a business zone. Mr. Sinclair spoke in terms of the future of the site. He said that at present, the store was operating at approximately 60% of the volume desired. They feel that the drive through will have an impact on that volume, and will also increase employment in the area. It will provide a better, more well defined area for the customer. They hope in the future to do more upgrading to bring this site into a proto-type store. He added that he felt it was reasonable to argue that there has been a change in the tenor of that area toward a more commercial orientation. He suggested that the present zoning was not in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 MARCH 5, 1985 conformity to.the other properties in the area. Commissioner Bartos asked why the petitioner wished to rezone to a B-37 Mr. Piarchi stated that the B-3 zone was required for a drive through addition. They were requesting the rezoning to allow them to construct this addition. Chairman Cameron noted that the zoning concerned everyone. The furniture to the west was rezoned to a B-2, he felt he could be convinced that a B-2 was acceptable, but he felt a B-3 was a significant change in the zoning. A B-3 zone opens up the site to all kinds of uses.for the property, especially in the event that Taco Bell pulled out. He added that the City of New Hope took the issue of rezoning very seriously. Commissioner Anderson asked whether this site was similar to other Taco Bell restaurant sites in regard 2to size? Mr. Sinclair stated that he did not feel it was far out of line, it might be a little smaller that the sites they now look to acquire -- they usually look for 30,000--35,000 square feet of land for a new store. Commissioner Anderson asked whether there wa's anything else that the city could do to help them, other than rezone the property and allowing a drive through? Mr. Piarchi presented an illustration showing the proposed changes to the site. He stated that from an economic standpoint, they had to increase volume, to generate the cash to continue to upgrade. He said they would also like to have some better signage and to.upgrade the property to be more of a full scale restaurant~ with a nicer place to sit down to eat. To add the drive through would cost in the vicinity of $80,000. A change in the signage would be the next step, which would add another $6,000, with remo- deling another $125,000 investment, and a dining room upgrade of another $27,000 - $35,000. They cannot invest this money without a return on the investment. Commissioner Anderson stated that the purpose of an R-O zone was to provide a transition area from the residential into the R-3 zone. He asked again what the city could do, short of allowing a drive-through, to help the site? Mr. Piarchi said the first order of business was a drive through. He would have to bring up anything else with the corporate portion of the company. He noted that a question had been raised regarding the safety of the site. He had reviewed a portion of their restaurants with similar sized sites, and had found that there were apparently no traffic problems. Mr. Otto Ridl stated he owned the apartment next to the site. He felt that the proposed drive-through would be quite a detriment to the tenants in his building. Mrs. Joy Fish, 5608 Pennsylvania, stated she was concerned about the rezoning because then anything could go on the site in the future. They had been residents for 32 years, and she .was against rezoning. She said they definitely did not want a drive through on their street because of the potential noise. Victor Fish, 5608 Pennsylvania, commented on the petitioner's comparing their operation with the furni- ture store. The furniture was not located across from a residential area, and had different hours. Mrs. Joy Fish stated that she felt a drive through would be very detrimental-, and that the furniture store had daytime hours, not night hours. Mr. Ron Bisk, of Pennsylvania Avenue, stated that the original building had to have a variances to go on the site for parking, they are now asking to expand the operation. He felt that possibly they should not be there, the site was too small, and he felt they were trying to shoehorn the business into a too small site. He had not heard anything from the petitioner speaking to the surrounding residents. Discussion followed between Commissioner Anderson and the Planning Consultant about this request and possible options other than the rezoning. Chairman Cameron said he felt the commission should address only the rezoning at this time. Mr. Sinclair stated he heard the concerns about the B-3 zoning. It had not been their intention to ex- clude the neighbors from their plans. He had asked the managers of the restaurant if there had been any complaints or comments regarding the current nature of the establishment and had been told "no". They are not concerned simply with the rezoning, if it were possible to have a drive-through in a B-2 zone, that would be fine. City Code allows a drive-through only in the B-3 zone. Mr. Sinclair questioned whether there could not be some deed restrictions regarding a drive-through on the site? Chairman Cameron said that would not be worth the paper it was written on. Chairman Cameron asked for a show of hands from the Commission regarding their position on the rezoning. He informed the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 MARCH 5, 1985 5o petitioner that the commission would table the request for a month if he preferred, or they could pro- ceed through the process and receive a possible denial, but be sent forward to the Council. He noted that the commission's job was to watch out for the best interest of the city and its citizens. He asked whether the petitioner felt there was any merit in a table? Mr. Piarchi noted that it was his understanding that he could bring back the request in six months. He would like to proceed with the hearing. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending that the request for rezoning from R-O to B-3 in Case 85-5 be denied. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos,. Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 85-7 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR'DRIVE-THROUGH, VARIANCE IN PARKING, CONSTRUC- TION APPROVAL AT 7202 42nd AVENUE NORTH - TACO JOHN, PETITIONER. Mr. Tom Winterhalter represented the petitioner. He stated that he believed they met all the requirements for the site. He believed there had been an error in the requirements, convenience store vs. restaurant. Convenience store calls for 88 spaces, restaurant calls for 24. Chairman Cameron noted he was not sure he understood the distinction for this site. Mr. Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, stated that the trend toward convenience food stores has basically changed. They used to be only drive ins. Now these types of restaurants have become more of a sit down type of place. When they calculated the parking, they figured the portion that would be used for sit down dining, lobby area where people picked up food to be eaten offsite in determining the required number of spaces. Commissioner Friedrich asked how many parking spaces were required? Mr. Brixius said they had divided the area into three parts, addressing both the convenience food section, and the restaurant or sit-down section. This approach was.legal under the city's ordinance. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the site required 32 parking stalls. Mr. Winterhalter said that he believed the site would accommodate five more stalls than shown, but that it would require taking out some .green area. He believed that the site plan accommodated all of the needs. The restaurant proposed would be one of their larger restaurants in the twin cities -- there is room for parking. He had though he only needed to meet the requirements of the kitchen and dining room. He thought the land would allow 32 parking spaces. He noted that there is presently an auto repair shop on the site, that the current zoning is B-3. He felt the use was definitely an improvement of the property and he felt he had exceeded the green area requirements on the property. He felt that traffic control was a problem on the site now. He felt remodeling would improve the esthetics of the site, as well as employee-wise. He did not think the variance was any problem. It will be a low volume fast food restaurant. He felt this use would create less traffic than anything else that could go in there. He would prefer 27 parking spaces to the 32 required and keep the additional green area. Com~nissioner Friedrich confirmed the number of variances being requested -- variance in setback, variance in parking, and variance for the drive up aisle. He noted that the petitioner proposes only 2/3 of the required length for the drive up aisle. He questioned how the proposed traffic would enter and exit on the site. Mr. Winterhalter said the traffic was routed in an easy-tomunderstand manner. The driveway is set away where it cannot create problems. Commissioner Friedrich expressed concern about the two-way traffic in the front of the site, where there was presently shown diagonal parking. Mr. Winterhalter said this met city code with the 24 foot right-of-way, with the drive-through coming out one side of the building. He did not see where there would be congestion for incoming traffic. Commissioner Friedrich said he was concerned that traffic traveling west in front of the restaurant could not drive into the diagonal parking spots. He questioned whether it would not be better for the traffic to flow around the building. He was also concerned about traffic off of Nevada attempting to park and having to go back out on 42nd Avenue. He asked what the intended hours of operation for the restaurant were? Mr. Winterhalter said they would probably open at 10:30 a.m. and stay open until midnight, with the drive- in staying open until 1 a.m., except for Sunday. He has arranged to have deliveries made by L and L Dis- tributing Company before the restaurant would open in the morning. Discussion followed regarding the ability of semi trucks to maneuver on the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH 5, 1985 Mr. Winterhatter noted that there was presently a six foot fence on the north and west sides of the pro- perty that was in need of repair. He plans to repair the fenc with wood. The drive-through speaker at the rear of the building woUld face into a dead zone, to deaden the sound. Discussion followed about the noise from the drive-through and the possibility of the city requiring a noise impact statement. In response to questions from the commissioners, Mr. Winterhalter stated that there would be approxi- mately 80% new plantings. He plans to leave the existing cottonwoods, and increasing the green area with the addition of silver maples and oak trees. There will be security lighting with low voltage lamps, aimed down. Main.sign will be the only signage on the property, may be lighted. Refuse container will be enclosed with block and wood. The parking lot will be curbed. Discussion then centered on the building, and whether or not there will be curbing around the'building. Mr. Winterhaltsr said the existing building was of porcelain. He intends to use a staccato finish, with .a slight overhang for decoration. The remainder of the building will be of rough sawn cedar. Commissioner Friedrich noted that the city may require a security deposit from the petitioner to insure that the proposed landscaping is completed. He confirmed that the parking lot would be striped and that any rooftop equipment would either be concealed or painted to match the structure. He then asked about the parking spaces notihg that the site plan showed 23 spaces, and code required 32. Referring to the proposal, Chairman Cameron commented that he felt the landscaping could be better. He said that was the one thing the petitioner had control, noting that there were residential properties on two sides. He felt that the trees proposed were of the cheapest variety, and that with the speaker there could be a need for a denser landscaping in that area. He felt 25 crab apples and spruce trees would improve the site. He was disappointed in the landscaping proposal. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the driveway coming in from 42nd Avenue and turning right, and questioned whether this would not be a difficult move. He also expressed concern about the landscaping. He said he did not see that much had been added since the Design and Review meeting. He noted that Mr. Sandstad, the building official, had been operating under the assumption that the proposed parking was adequate for the site. He asked how the petitioner intended to handle snow removal? Mr. Winterhalter said it would have to be trucked out if it became necessary. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern about the stacking lanes for automobiles attempting to get into the driveway, and where they intended the cars to be? Mr. Winterhalter said that the proposed eight to nine feet allowed cars to get into the stacking area, and that the proposed fl~w would create the least noise. He felt that if it were moved 10-12 feet back, it would be a detriment to the neighbors. He would be willing to move the lane. Commissioner Edwards asked about the need for 180' of car stacking area and how the petitioner intended to provide this on this particular site? Mr. Winterhalter said that he felt the stacking area would be adequate -- it worked out to be about 140'. He did not see any potential problem with the stacking area. It was more than they had in any of their other locations. Discussion then covered the surface of the site, and the proposed curbing. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the curbing would be either concrete or bituminous, and would be continuous. In response to questions regarding security lighting, Mr. Winterhalter said he did not anticipate there would be a security problem, and did not propose any security lighting in the north and west corners of the site. He felt that the lighted panel in the drive-through lane would be sufficient. There will be security lighting on.each side of the building -- with 60w bulbs. The City Manager stated that the police department had not expressed any concerns regarding this lack of security lighting. Commissioner Edwards stated that he was also very disappointed in the proposed landscaping for the site. It had been understanding after Design and Review that additional Plantings were going to be included. Discussion then covered the staccato board around the building, and whether the petitioner proposed to install some type of covering over the seams. Mr. Winterhalt said no. Mr. Johnson, architect for the remodeling, stated that this type of building was difficult to do anything with. Commissioner Edwards stated that it was a fact that where there were seams of this type, the material tended to deteriorate over time. He encouraged the petitioner/architect to investigate covering these seams in some manner. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MARCH 5, 1985 Discussion then followed between Commissioner Anderson and the petitioner regarding the traffic flow on the site. Mr. Winterhalter said he felt the traffic would be split 50/50 as to direction. Most of the people would know how to get to the back, and he felt with 20 foot parking stalls he did not anticipate any problems. They could come in from either of two driveways. He thought most people would come in off 42nd Avenue. There will be directional signs. He did not intend to have a one-way aisle as he felt for ease of movement, most people would go out the other way (Nevada). Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioner had consulted a traffic engineer to assist in designing the traffic flow and parking lot? Discussion continued regarding the entrance and exits to the site, and the direction the traffic would take. Commissioner Bartos commented that he felt the site had great potential and could be really attractive if there was more landscaping provided. Mr. Winterhalter said he had only instructed the architect to add more of the same as far as the landscap- ing was concerned. The choices came off an approved plan for the site which had never been built. He thought he had put a lot of money into landscaping, and his Number One concern had been that the plantings be hardy. He could not afford to put in 30 crab apple trees and 20 spruce trees. He felt he needed to have a tree that developed in a hurry. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what the petitioner's time table was as far as development of the site? Mr. Winterhalter said he wished to proceed as soon as possible. Conunissioner Gundershaug stated that he felt that in view of the amount of concern expressed by the com- missioners about the landscaping and about the parking layout, it might be better if the petitioner had his request tabled, to allow him to develop a better traffic flow, and a better landscaping plan. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt the problem was not only the parking but the traffic flow on the site. He felt it would be almost impossible to make a right hand turn out of the site, and that there was a hodgepodge of parking proposed. He had serious concerns about building in a problem or a nuisance for the city. Mr. Winterhalter stated he was a small business man, and a month's delay would cost him about $4500 in interest and principal payments. The architect said this was about the fourth plan they had tried. He thought that bt Monday they could have a better plan, with the landscaping improved. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gundershaug;said he sympathized with the petitioner's concerns, and asked whether he felt he could provide a new parking arrangement and a new landscaping plan before the City Council meeting on the llth March? Chairman Cameron expressed concern about an entirely new plan being presented to City Council when it had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug said he would be willing to have a meeting with the petitioner at the Design and Review meeting in March, to review new plans, and perhaps they could then proceed to Council at the second meeting of the month. Commissioner Edwards said he could live with this solution also. He was disappointed that there had been no changes in the landscaping, strictly on an economic issue. His preference was that this case be tabled for a month. He would like all of the commission to see any new plans for the site -- he didn't like being pushed into this box. Commissioner Anderson said he felt this case must be tabled, it really deserved another hearing. Mr. Winterhalter said he thought he had written down everything mentioned at Design and Review. If the case could proceed to Council, he would bend over backwards to get going on it. It was the principal and interest payments that scared him. He would make the changes by Monday. He had met with city staff prior to appearing before the Commission. Chairman Cameron noted that the inspector was not a traffic engineer. It was the concensus of the commissioners that this case should be tabled until the April meeting. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Bartos to table Case 85-7 until the meetinq of April 2, 1985. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards, Lutts Anderson, Gundershaug PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 MARCH 5, 1985 7. PLANNING CASE 85-8 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TOEXPAND NON-CONFORMING USE, CONDITIONALUSEPERMIT FQR RETAIL SALES EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7300 BASS LAKE ROAD - MURPHY OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Doug Dixon represented Murphy Oil. He stated that they have a option to purchase the site. They are requesting an amendment of %he Conditional Use Permit so that they can also ask for a variance to add on to the building so they could have additional space for convenience food sales. They wish to add to the east. They also want to have space for a walk-in cooler. The addition would match the exist- ing brick with a mansard facia around the building. They plan to remove the existing storage shack from the site. There will be a six foot privacy fence around the perimeter of the site. Commissioner Anderson confirmed they were requesting a five foot setback variance. Mr. Dixon said the plans show a six foot privacy fence on three sides of the property. In response to a .request for him to speak to the hardship that requires the variance, Mr. Dixon. noted that there was very little that could be located on ~this property. A conditional use permit had previously been issued for the existing use, they would like to enhance this use because it is almost impossible to put anything else on the site. ,They do meet the parking requirements of the city. Mr. Dixon referred to publications that indicate that the mark up or profit on only gasoline sales is so slight, that it is necessary for operators to look for other ways to generate revenue. One of the concepts for doing this is convenience. food sales/stores. They would like to build an 1800 square foot facility, and are asking for an additional 900 square feet, which is very minimal for such a facility. They have found that most purchases made in this type of store are made by people already there for gasoline purchase. There are Very few times that you would see more than six to eight cars on the site. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the hardship requiring the variance, is mostly economic. Mr. Dixon said there were six parking spaces on the west side, three on the east side, and two more to- ward Bass Lake Road. They do intend to replace the fence, and the new fence will be either redwood or cedar. Discussion then covered the parking spaces, and the need for them to be positioned off the property line. All spaces will be striped, with adesignated handicapped parking space. Any rooftop equipment would be screened if necessary. They hope that this will be screened by the new facia which will be 36" in height. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that any new construction will match the existing exterir as closely as possible. Concern was expressed by the commissioners regarding the minimal amount of landscaping that is proposed. It was noted that the planters proposed will be in a concrete area. Discussion continued regarding the portable curbing as proposed, and the difference in cost between portable and continuous curbing. Commissioner Edwards noted that city code requires that any curbing be continuous, and could not be portable. Also noted was that they do not propose any curbing around the building. The Planner indicated that they need something around the edge of the building. Chairman Cameron asked why this had not been questioned earlier, it was his understanding that the code r~uired a raised building or curbing around the building, to provide a buffer between the driveway and the building. He reminded the petitioner that they would also have to comply with the New Hope sign ordinance if they intended to change any signs. The City Manager stated he would discuss the issues of the curbing with staff and the Fire Marshal. Mr. John Piwoschuk stated he owned the building to the north and wondered whether the addition would be finished better. He questioned the six foot fence, noting -that the people in his complex have to exit along this and the fence would in effect create a tunnel. Mr. Dixon said the fence only comes up 1/2 of the way on the north and south sides. There would be land- scaping along the north elevation. The building addition will have the existing brick around it. Discussion followed regarding fuel tanks, their location, and the possibility that a 40 foot fuel tanker would block the parking area. Mr. Dixon noted that Murphy Oil has an auditing system and tests all tanks at regular intervals, looking for leaks. They could be located quickly. He did not know if they would check existing tanks before purchase -- the cost is $1500 a test. The City Manager noted that there was no city requirement for this. Commissioner Kolander stated he thought there was a state requirement for tanks to be checked for leaks before a property changed hands. Commissioner Anderson read from the code as it addresses the obligation to make a non conforming use a conforming use, and noted that he could not justify the variance on the grounds of a hardship other than economic. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - MARCH 5, 1985 7. Mr. Dixon commented that Murphy Oil was only trying to make the site into a better business site. Mr. Brixius, the Planner, stated that because it is presently a non conforming structure, this could be a reason for the variance if it was in the spirit of the cod~. This was a case where lot depth cannot meet the required setbacks, and therefore a physical hardship does exist. Chairman Cameron suggested that they add 8-10 trees somewhere on the site. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommendingapproval of the variance to expand the CUP, subject to solving of the curb issue, and the addition of increased plantings, and construction approval as requested 9. 10. 11. 12. 15. at 7300 Bass Lake Road, Case 85-8. CommissionerEdwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts, Voting against: None Motion carried. coMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Committee had held one meeting during February. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 1985 were accepted as printed. The Council Minutes of February 11, and February 25, 1985 were reviewed. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, o/yce~ Boeddeker, secretary DESIGN & REVIEW MINUTES March 18, 1986 III. Called to order at 3:30 p.m. In Attendance: Bob Gundershaug, Chair; Jim Edwards, David Namie, Doug Sandstad, Howard Larsen, Carl David. Plan Case 86-7, Petitioner: VIDCO Co., represented by Carl David, property owner and Howard Larsen, requesting construction approval for an office warehouse at 3531 Nevada Ave. A brief presentation was made by Mr. Larsen of the proposed development of a one-story building on this site. VIDCO is a concrete and masonry contractor and they would occupy approximately one-half of the building. The other 50~ is speculative tenancy. It was noted that the curbing is bituminous around the parking and driving areas, except for the north perimeter, which is concrete, and along the building which is also concrete. It was also noted that the five boulevard trees shown on the plan are okay in a Linden species, as long as the trunk diameters are minimum 2 1/2" each. The committee had the following recommendations: Screen rooftop equipment or paint to match the building, and make note of this on the plan. Shift some of the Ash trees on the north sideyard adjacent to another warehouse, to the front yard, where space permits. Committee would prefer to see fewer shrubs near the driveway entrance because of visibility needs, and would prefer to see trees that are kept branch clear within eight feet of ground level. It was noted that the decorative block on the building will be painted in the two-tone color scheme. De It was also agreed the trash storage is inside the building. A forty-foot wide drainage and utility easement is needed along the western perimeter of the site, because of existing drainage in the immediate vacinity of the Bassett Creek flood plain, which is several hundred feet north. In addition, the petitioner is to contact Mark Hansen, City Engineer, and discuss in detail grading proposals for this western portion of the site. Very little detail is shown on the plan submitted. Page 2 F. Staff recommend approval. IV. Plan Case 86-8, petitioner: Rosewood Corp., represented by Peter Hilger and Ken Bureau. Request: Construction approval of office warehouse (speculative) at 5600 International Parkway. A detailed presentation was made by the architect, Peter Hilger, about the proposed development on the site. It was noted by Rosewood that the site will have an underground sprinkler system and inside refuse storage. Staff and Committee had the following suggestions: Lower the berm proposed for the front of the site to a maximum height of three or four feet total. Note on the plans that all rooftop mechanical units will be color-clad painted to match the building. Adjust the drawing so that all driveways are at least 24 feet wide. Snow storage is proposed only for the rear ponding area; nowhere else on the property. Provide a drainage and utility easement for railway frontage purposes of storm water runoff along the frontage that is twenty feet wide up to a point where the newer pond will be excavated, and include said pond inside the drainage easement as approximately sketched on the site plan discussed at this meeting. In addition, note that no other easement is shown in this area of the property on th~ land survey even though statements have been made about a railroad easement that exists. Please clarify whether such railroad easement also exists and why it is not revealed on the new land survey. Contact City Engineer Mark Hansen regarding a possible extension of the twenty-four inch RCP storm sewer towards the wetland east/northeast of the site. Both petitioners were advised to revise plans and submit to staff no later than the end of the day, on Wednesday, March 26, 1986, in order to have revised plans discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on April 1st, and the Council Meeting on April 14th. Page 3 The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Next scheduled Design and Review meeting is April 22, 1986, at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Carol Carlson, Dir. of Administrative Services File Approved Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Meeting # ~I Call to Order Roll Call Planning Case 85-3 Conditional Use/ Food Sales 3535 Winnetka Ave Item I CITY OF NEW HOPE q~q01 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 7:30 p.m. April 2, 1985 City Hall Chairman Cameron called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 1985. Present: Chairman Cameron, Commissioners Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts and Anderson (Cmr. Anderson arrived at 7:15pm) The Chairman introduced the first item on the agenda, consideration of Planning Case 85-3, submitted by Getty Oil Company, requesting a conditional use permit for food sales at 3535 Winnetka Avenue North. He noted that the Planning Commission considered the application on February 5, 1985 and it was tabled to the April 2, 1985 meeting. Mr. Chuck Gregory, representing Texaco, owners of the property explained that Texaco's philosophy is to enhance their fuel sales with convenience food stores. He stated that he is before the Commission to request a conditional use permit to allow them to sell items such as prewrapped chips, Twinkies, etc. Currently funds are not available to convert the facility into the elaborate store they eventually hope to have. They would eventually like to sell convenience food items and possibly 3.2% beer. "Ch'airman Cameron asked the petitioner to describe the proposed changes to be made if the application is approved. Mr. Gregory ,~tated the partition which is in front of the door now will be moved back five feet, there will be 580 square feet of retail space with the same amount of storage (currently there is 168 square feet - 14x12 for retail sales, the remainder is storage), parking will meet the requirement, nine, .and there is a possibility more stalls could be added. Commissioner Lutts inquired as to whether the food sale would be secondary to the principal use which is sale of fuel on the site. Mr. Gregory stated they would sell "pick up" items to begin with and when they remodel, they would request Permits to sell additional items. Commissioner Lutts inquired whether the parking stalls would be stri~d and whether Mr. Gregory had contacted the sanitarian regarding health requirements. Mr. Gregory explained that the parking would be on the west curb cut, at the back of the lot. Also, two additional spots may be available to the north and confirmed the stalls would be striped. He state . .he had not contacted the sanitarian.-'-~T~bey sell only prewrapped food items. Upon inquiry by Councilmember Lutts regarding curb cuts, Mr. Gregory replied that he was going to request the curb cut issue be waived at this time as he had to obtain input from the main office. The primary use of the facility is fuel sales and they did not want to hinder these sales by closing too many curb cuts. In regard to meeting the green area requirements, Mr. Gregory stated he did not feel the five foot requirement between the curb and property line would be a problem. Commissioner Lutts stated he felt the curb cuts are a problem and Texaco may be reQiHr~rt tn cln~e at least two of the curb cuts. He then referred to staff concern regarding restroom facilities. Mr. Gregory confirmed he would move the restro0m door to the opposite interior wall and it would be available for public use. He also stated that if too many curb cuts were closed, it could hinder the fuel sale business. Chairman Cameron stated that a request for a condtional use permit is not taken lightly In order to approve the request, the station has to be brought up to city stand~rd,s The curb cuts and landscaping cannot be r postponed'. He concluded his comments by noting that the Commission and City require a landscape plan, indicating the number size, type, etc., of plantings. Planning Case 85-7 CUP/Variance/CA 7202 q2nd Ave. N. Item 2 Commissioner Anderson stated that the two curb cuts along Winnetka Avenue should be left as they are as they do not interfere with the flow of traffic. The existing median would force the traffic to go only one way. This would also provide for a better flow of traffic inside the facility. He then stated that the curb cut along 36th Avenue should be closed due to its proximity to the existing semaphore. He con- tinued that the Commission needs good working plans in order to make a recommendation to the City Council and suggested the matter either be tabled for one month or ap- proved contingent upon approval of the landscape plans by the Design and Review Committee. Chairman Cameron stated that, although the landscaping is not the main issue, the Commission does need to be provided with a plan. He stated he was comfortable with Commissioner Anderson's recommendations regarding curb cuts. Commissioner Edwards questioned the petitioner why Texaco would wait two years before further expanding the operation. Mr. Gregory responded that the capital is not available at this time for remodeling and the firm is content to work with what is currently available. Commissioner Bartos stated he agreed the curb cuts on Winnetka are essential and the cut on 36th should be eliminated. Mr. Gregory questioned whether Texaco could come back at a later date and request additional landscaping, uses, etc. Chairman Cameron advised that the site was not large enough to facilitate more than what is being proposed. Mr. Gregory stated the site plan is based on Texaco's design. City manager Donahue advised the site is undersize for what is intended for future use by Texaco and a variance would be required. Chairman Cameron reminded Mr. Gregory there is no guarantee a variance would be granted at a future date. Mr. Gregory confirmed he understands the entire project would have to be reviewed at that time and could be approved or denied. Commissioner Anderson commented that there are enough unresolved issues to warrant tabling the application for one month to allow the petitioner time to prepare final plans and have them reviewed by the D&R. Mr. Gregory stated he was agreeable to tabling the issue for one month. No additional comments were heard for or against Planning Case 85-3. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commission Bartos, to table consideration of Planning Case 85-3, request for conditional use permit for accessory food sales at 3535 Winnetka Avenue, Getty Oil, petitioner, until May 7, 1985. All present voted in favor. Next introduced by the Chairman was consdieration of Planning Case 85-7 submitted by Mr. Tom Winterhalter, owner of the proposed! Taco John, 7202 42nd Avenue North. The chairman stated that the Planning Commission considered the application conditional use permit/CUP/variance on March 5, 1985 and the requests were tabled to the April 2, 1985 meeting. Mr. Winterhalter verified that the Planning Commission had received a copy of the BRW Consultant report which he had sent to the City. He then introduced Mr. Howard Preston planning engineer ,to answer questions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Preston reviewed a site plan showing the original plan and the revised plan. The plan included on-site traffic circulation. He noted the two entrances, one on 42nd, and on on Nevada ! would allow for one way traffic flow/and the exits onto 42nd and Nevada also provide good traffic flow. He stated that the parallel parking proposed on the original plan has been eliminated and 60° angle parking is now being proposed. He explained that the size and number ~,,~ of stalls will meet ordinance requirements. Twenty-nine stalls are now proposed versus' 23. He continued his presentation by noting the drive- up operation has been slightly modified since concern regarding stacking distance, potential impact on parking, and access was expressed by the Planning Commission. The drive-through site has been revised to provide an eight foot wide drive-through and the stacking lane will extend from the drive-through window around the north and west sides of the building approx- imately 160-165 feet. The B-4 zoning requirement is 180 feet. Mr. Preston commerited bn the landscape Plan and explained that he is not familiar with landscaping. He stated that a landscape architect had prepared the plan after meeting with Mr. Sandstad the city's planning consultant. He noted that the plant materials and numbers were listed on the information provided to the commission. Mr. Preston noted that the basic change is the slightly larger plant material. Mr. Preston continued by stating that the location of the order board has been re- located to the northwest corner of the building. He noted that the property to the west is not residential. One person will be assigned to the drive-up to take and fill orders. Mr. Winterhalter feels this will also serve to control the potential noise problems as only one vehicle can be served at a time. Commission Friedrich referred to the plan presented at this meeting and inquired whether the entrance/exit area would be painted as well as the one way direction arrows Mr. Preston stated the areas would not be painted. He stated that the areas were colored on the plan to denote traffic flow. A sign will be placed off the entrance on 42nd Avenue informing the driver of the one way direction to the right. In addition a sign will be placed off Nevada informing the driver which direction to turn. In addition, the angle of the parking will indicate the traffic flow from Nevada. Mr. Preston noted there would be a sign identifying the drive through area as well as paint stripes designating the drive through aisle. Commissioner Friedrich questioned whether the six stalls at the back of the lot would be designated as employee parking stating he felt these areas must be designated as employee parking to avoid problems with customers backing into the stacking area. Mr. Preston confirmed these areas would be designated for employee parking. He noted that there was a concern that the customer vehicles would block the employee parking area, however with a maximum of six employees at the site this will not be a problem. Commissioner Friedrich then asked Mr. Winterhalter to described the changes in the proposed landscape plan. Mr. Winterhalter referred to the landscape plan noting the existing cotton wood and poplar trees which are approximately 70' in height. He explained that, in addition, smaller trees and rocks have been added in the island area. Larger trees toward the residences and apartment buildings have also been included in the plan. Larger trees toward the south and east property lines and trees along the perimeter are also an addition. Mr. Preston stated they are ptopos~g to add four honeylocust and six scotch pine, approximately six to eight feet in height along the fence area to shield the residences. In addition, an alpine current hedge of approximately 79 bushes to be maintained at a 2 foot height.is to be included Mr. Winterhalter stated the plantings run approximately two to three feet in height and acknowledged that it would meet the 20' site triangle requirment of the city. Mr. Winterhalter noted that the blacktop area to the north and northwest would be removed and completely sodded. The embankment in the back of the lot would not be sodded. Commissioner Friedrich stated he was concerned with the 250 feet of fence line. He advised the petitioner to research the possibility of adding planting along the northwest corner along the inside. He then inquired as to the upkeep of the existing fence. Mr. Winterhalter stated the existing fence will be replaced and repaired as required. It will be painted to match the exterior building trim. Mr. Winterhalter stated that in the north section of property along the fence line, there is an area with fairly large, unidentifiable trees, which are approximately 25' high. They are proposing tO remove these trees and plant them along the fence line or jog the fence downward to save the trees in the area. Chairman Cameron questioned why this wasn't indicated on the plan. Mr. Winterhalter stated he had not advised the consultant that the trees exist in this area. To avoid cutting the trees down, he stated he would prefer to lower the fence and plant the scoth pine along the fence line. Chairman Cameron stated this would be an acceptable solution. Commissioner Anderson stated that the reason for the requirement of trees is to provide screening for the apartment buildings. Otherwise the residents would have to look at the fence. He stated that consideration should be given to having planings on the side of the fence facing the apartment building. Mr. Winterhalter stated he did not think there was room to plant trees on the other side ;of the fence as it is now proposed. Commissioner Friedrich questioned if there would be a setback problem along the fence line. Mr. Preston replied 'that a 1½' foot set back has been provided along the fence line. An additional change to the plan includes widening of the sidewalk from 3' to 5'. This additional two feet, along with the provided setback, will allow for sufficient room for pedestrians to walk. Commissioner Friedrich questioned the delivery hours, types of vehicles and hours of operation. Mr. Preston stated deliveries would be from 7 am to 10:00 am, and no semi's would be allowed on the site, even though there is sufficient room for a semi. Hours of operation for the restaurant are 10am to lam with the lobby open until 1 am and the drive through open until 2 am on weekends. He noted that during the week, both the drive through and lobby would close at lam. Mr. Winterhalter confirmed that lighting on the site would consist of a hooded security light - approximately 120 watts - on the rear door. Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Friedrich, Mr. Winterhalter stated snow would be removed from the location and there would be a roof top heating/air conditioning unit which would be below the site line. Mr. Wi:nterhalter stated that there would be nine Scotch Pines instead of the six noted on the plant schedule. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the D&R recommended additional landscaping to the north. Thep.revious, plan identified a large number of small shrubbery to the north which has been completely eliminated from the plan presented at this meeting. There are nine scotch pine proposed for the north site versus 22 potentilla on the original plan. He stated the intent of the D&R was to require additional planting, not · substitute one type for another. Mr. Winterhalter stated the change in curb cut forced the planner to look for 'dif- ferent parking areas, which resulted in removing some landscape area. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether the fence was being moved from its location on the plans. Mr. Winterhalter stated it is not being relocated, however, some of the green area along the fence and the drive would be eliminated. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that the ~previous drawing showed the potentilla along the north side of the fence, which has not been removed or changed ~ the original drawing was presented. On the west side, there is still room for the potentilla as shown on the previous plans. Mr. Gundershaug stated he felt it was critical to include these plantings because of the long expanse of the fence. Discussion continued regarding this issue with Mr. Winterhalter stating that costs and financing are a concern, however, he would be willing to reduce the number of scotch pine to six and add the required potentilla shrubbery. Commissioner Gundershaug recommended to Mr. Winterhalter that the potenti Ila be added to the plan. Commissioner I~dwards stated the Planning Commission is not here to redesign the site, however, concessions are being asked of the city on this particular site. He stated that a substantial amount of landscaping has been removed and larger trees have replaced what was removed. He continued by stating that he likes the idea of the jogged fence to save the existing trees, however, the addition of the potenti Ila CO~jlrt serve to break up the length of the fence line. He concluded that the additional should should -~.~ be added without taking away what has been proposed at this meeting. Commissioner Fr drich expressed his concern regarding the operation of the order board until 2 am. Discussion followed regarding this issue with Mr. Winterhalter stating he would be agreeable to operating the order board with the microphone until 12 ~ and from/~-~ 12 am, until 2 a~n, orders would be taken at the window. No further comments were heard regarding this issue. Planning Case 85-10 Sideyard Setback 8200 39th Ave N Item 3 Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Bartos, approving Planning Case 85-7, request for conditional use permit for drive through, variance in parking and construction approval at 7202 q2nd Avenue North, proposed area for Taco John, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 24 additional potentilla be added along both side of the fence to the north and west 2. The order board will operate until 12 am - orders will be taken at the window from 12 am until 2 am 3. Snow removal will be off site All present voted in favor. The chairman next introduced Planning Case 85-10 submitted by Mr. Patrick O'Meara, owner of the property at 8200 39th Avenue North. Mr. O'Meara was recognized by the chair and stated he is requesting a two foot variance to the sideyard setback requirement to allow construction of an addition to an existing single car garage to convert it to a double car garage. He noted that the site slopes gradually to the west which side of the home the garage is on. The original survey which was approved shows that the house was to be placed twenty feet from the west property line. The home is actually located ten feet further to the west, which has created the problem and the need for a variance. Commissioner Kolander inquired how the proposed addition would be placed on the lot. Mr. O'Meara replied he is anticipating to construct a "pie shaped" addition. He noted that the back of the proposed addition would be 7 feet in width and would be used for storage. The front of the addition is to be approximately 14 feet across. He has not decided whether he would build a two story addition. He confirmed he has not taken any bids on the proposed project. Commissioner Kolander commented that the contour of the land could lend itself to possible erosion problems. Mr. O~Meara stated he will know in approximately two months whether he will be build- ing one or two stories. Structurally he does not feel there will be a problem. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. O'Meara stated there would be no over- hang on the west side, it will be flush, the material and color will match the existing building and he has contacted his neighbors. His neighbor to the west, 8208 39th Avenue North, George Pulscher, does have some concerns. He stated he wanted to be a good neighbor and architecturally feels the addition will be an asset. Mr. O'Meara stated he did not know what could be done with the landscaping, however, he was willing to work with it. Mr. O'Meara confirmed he would be widening the drive to accommodate the two car garage facility. Discussion followed regarding the proposed configuration of the addition with Mr. O'Meara stating he would use the narrow, 7 foot end for storage and the wall between the existing garage and addition would be removed. Chairman Cameron then asked whether anyone present wished to express concern or discuss issues regarding the proposed addition. Mr. George Pulscher, owner of the property at 8208 39th Avenue North, stated he is concerned the proposed addition would: 1) devalue his. property; 2) increase runoff to his property; 3) create more problems due to the narrow space between the lots; 4) further shade the area which is currently heavily shaded. In addition, Mr. Pulscher stated he is already being encroached upon on the opposite side of his house. He concluded he would like some type of barrier, such as a o/clone fence, erected between the two properties. He stated his house is approximately eight to ten feet from the property line. Commissioner Kolander Questioned whether the tree on the front of the property would have to be removed. Mr. O'Meara stated he felt the tree was toward the front of the lot and would not have to be removed. Discussion followed regarding the drainage of the lots with Mr. Pulscher stating the run off between the two lots is toward the front. Chairman Cameron stated that the addition itself should increase the property value. Planning Case 85-12 Request for rezoning from B-3 to B-2 7312 42nd Ave. N. Item 6 Commissioner Gundershaug inquired whether the petitioner would be receptive to tabling the. issue for one month based on the fact that the petitioner is tentative as to the type of building he will actually construct. He also questioned whether a variance would be required if a one story addition was built and later a request would be made to convert it to a two story. City manager Donahue advised that, since it is residential property, a variance would not be required, only a building permit. Commissioner Edwards stated he was comfortable with the variance request subject to the condition that the addition not encroach further into the sideyard setback and that the addition match the existing building in color and texture. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Pulscher stated he would like acyclor, efence erected between the two properties. He again voiced his concern re- garding devalution of his property. Mr. O~Meara stated that he was receptive to tabling the issue for one month in order to decide on the configuration of the building, cost, etc. No further comments were brought forward with regard to this issue. Motion by Commissioner Kolander, second by Commissioner Bartos, to table Planning Case 85-10, request for sideyard setback variance for garage addition, 8200 39th Avenue North, until May 7, 1985. All present voted in favor. The chairman introduced Planning Case 85-12, request for rezoning from B-3 to B- 2, 7312 42nd Avenue North.and recognized Mr. Jim Price who appeared before the Commission representing the petitioner, and Mr. Jim Miller, attorney for the estate of Milt Honsey. Mr. Price stated they are requesting a conditional use permit with a variance for on site parking. Chairman Cameron advised the petitioner that the only issue before the Commission at this meeting is rezoning. The plans presented to the commission would not be under consideration at this time. Mr. Price state he had been advised to present some type of plan to the commission which indicated the type of facility they wished to construct, he then provided the Commission with pictures of buidings similar to the one proposed, as well as pictures of the existing site. Mr. Miller then discussed the legal aspects of the rezoning request. He stated that it is his opinion that the problem stems from rezoning from GB to B-3 in 1979. The GB zoning would have allowed the construction of an office building on the current site. The [3-3 zone has designated the property non-conforming as far as use is concerned. Mr. Miller referred to the report prepared by Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., which includes a map of seventeen sites in the 42nd Avenue area, seven of which are currently non-conforming because of the B-3 classification. He continued that if the property was rezoned B-2, which would allow an office building up to 3500 square feet, it would not conform to the B-2 requirements as they are too restrictive in area and width. Mr. Miller stated that the building on the site (Jiffy Print and Run) , needs to be replaced, however, under the current zoning ordinance, the uses which are allowed under the [3-3 zoning are impractical for the site. The discussion continued with Mr. Miller stating that, under the current zoning ord- inance, the property would need a B-2 zoning classification with a variance for the length and width of the lot. Mr. Miller stated that it is the petitioners' opinion that an economic hardship exists on this site which was created by the city when it rezoned the property from GB to B-3. The site cannot, in his opinion, effectively support a permitted use under the B-3 zoning. Mr. Miller concluded by stating they feel the problem can be solved by: 1. Rezoning from B-3 to B-2 with a variance in size, or: 2. Make a text amendment to the current city ordinance permitting a commercial/professional building as a per- mitted use in a [3-3 zone Commissioner cameron stated he feels the dilemmaWas clearly outlined by the petitioner, however, to rezone and allow thevariance would not be the best solution to the problem. He then inquired why commercial offices are not a permitted use in the B-3 zone. Mr. Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., advised that the city decided to designate this area for auto oriented businesses. He then reviewed the permitted uses in the area and noted it is not unusual for communities to run into cases where there is non conforming lot size within a zoning area. It is intended that these areas would be redeveloped with the constraints of the designated zoning district. To amend the zoning to allow for this provision does not address similar commercial uses which face the same problem (Tom Thumb, All Star Sports, etc) . He noted that when the zoning was adopted by the city, it was felt this type of use--segregation was appropriate. Ne continued that other communities are typically more segregated and the less intense office use area is used as a transitional barrier between more intense districts. Chairman Cameron stated he felt common sense dictates that a less intense use should be allowed in the area but, the problem is that the city's zoning plan does not permit this use. Unless there is some way to combine the smaller pieces of property, this will continue to be a problem. Mr. Brixius used as example the recently approved Taco John's facility in the B-3 zone - if an office building were allowed to be constructed next to the restaurant, the potential noise would have the same affect on office workers as on the residents in a residentially zoned area. One of the concerns addressed in the comprehensive plan was the traffic conflicts along 42nd Avenue. Only one curb cut would be allowed on the lot for access to 42nd Avenue. In addition, there would be concern as to whether a lot which is between 10 to 12 thousand square feet could accommodate an office building with only the one access. Mr. Miller questioned how the site could function as zoned, with a more intense use, if it could not function under a less intense use. Mr. Brixius advised this is the purpose of redevelopment, to bring an area into con- formity. He then suggested additional land could be purchased to bring the lot size into conformance. Mr. Miller stated they had explored this option and there are no additional B-2 or B-3 lots available. In addition, they had contacted Taco John's in regard to purchasing their parcel of land, however, Taco John's was not interested. Mr. Brixius advised he had outlined the option of zoning the property on its merits provided the city would consider permitting a smaller lot size in the B-2 zone. He noted that B-2 is intended for limited retail district and regulates and restricts the size of the building. It is not in direct competition with the B-4 district. As it stands~ Northwest Consultants cannot make a recommendation for approval under the current zoning ordinance which would warrant a number of variances. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Brixius to outline the options available to the city. Mr. Brixius responded the options available are: 1. Redevelop 2. Consider a zoning amendment and handle it through an ordinance change 3. Consider an amendment to either the B-3 or 13-2 zone, however, the entire area, not just one site should be reviewed. The discussion continued with Mr. Miller using the example of LBass Lake Road as an area which has conflicting uses. Commissioner Anderson advised the petitioner that a zoning amendment could take at least six months. He inquired whether the petitioner was familiar with a community which allowed an office building within a B-3 zone. Mr. Miller stated he did specifically know of areas which allowed this use in a B-3 zone, but did give examples in the cities of Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale which he felt were comparable. Commissioner Anderson advised that zoning districts commonly changed across major intersections. Discussion continued with Commissioner Edwards stating the entire district should be discussed in greater depth. He is not prepared to make any recommendations for changes or variances at this meeting without the benefit of further research. Chairman Cameron agreed. Commissioner Bartos stated he also concurred and suggested Design and Review Item 7 Land Use Committee Item 8 Codes and Standards Committee Item 9 Approval of March 5, 1985 Minutes Item 10 Comments. PC 85-31 Suggestions. Requests Item 12 Color Coding Agenda Rezoning Soo Line Property Keelor Steel 49&18 Announcements . Adjournment the matter be tabled for at least 30 to 60 days to allow the city consultant and the Planning Commission to review the matter in depth. Commissioner Anderson stated that this parcel was unique because of the apartments behind the lot. He agreed that the area should be looked at as a whole. Mr. Brixius stated the area should be reviewed as a redevelopment issue and the alternatives and consequences of any changes should be explored. Mr. Miller stated he would be willing to meet with the city's consultant to offer any input he had. No further comments were heard on this issue. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Bartos, tabling rezoning request under Planning Case 85-12 for two months. All present voted in favor. Lengthy discussion was held by the Planning Commission regarding the increased need for staff input especially in the area of Design and Review. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. City manager Donahue advised the Planning Commission that the updates to the zoning code are still being reviewed by staff. The minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of March 5, 1985 were approved as presented. In regard to Planning Case 85-31, Chairman Cameron inquired why Commissioner Ander- ~ son advised allowing the two curb cuts along Winnetka Avenue remain open. Commissioner Anderson advised this would allow better internal traffic flow. Chairman Cameron stated he liked the idea of color coding the agenda items, however, he did feel the issues (conditional use, zoning request, etc) needed to be clearly noted on the information sheets. City manager Donahue advised the Commission that staff is reviewing the possibility of working with Soo line and rezoning the 27 acres along Winnetka Avenue from I-1 to R-4 Commissioner Bartos commented on the exterior appearance of the Keelor Steel facility. The city manager advised the Commission the facility has just recently been remodeled and they are just now moving into the new building. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Edwards as to the status of the 49 and 18 project, city manager Donahue advised that staff hopes to have a proposal ready to provide to developers sometime in May. No announcements were made The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patrice Carlson Recording Secretary Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE a, q01 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 55q28 June q, 1985 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order Roll Call Planning Case 85-3 Accessory Food Sales Getty Oil Co. Item 3 A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1985, 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 Was Taken: Present: Anderson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Absent: Friedrich, Kolander, Bartos Mr. Charles Gregory represented the petitioner. He noted that since the Design and Review Meeting, they had increased the amount of landscaping to be provided, adding trees and shrubs. He stated they wished to continue to sell food items at the station, of the con- venience food type. They had come to the city in February to obtain the licenses, and discovered they needed the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Edwards referred to the discussion held at that meeting regarding the fourth curb cut on the site. He /confirmed with thelpetitioner that at this time, they do not intend to close off one curb cut. It was noted that all four driveways will conform to the setback requirements of the city. The City Manager confirmed this statement. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Gregory said they had clarified the location of the rear line with the County. The lot line is the solid line as indicated on the site plan. It is located outside the sidewalk. Commissioner Edwards asked about any additional signage that might be installed. Mr. Gregory said that at this time there will be no change. They are aware that they must consult the city before they change the signs. He added that there will be continuous curb around the site. There will be concret~lcurbing around the city property, combined with timbers and landscaping and decorative rock. It was noted that Exhibit #I, was the most current landscape plan. The corner landscaping has been scaled down to 12" to avoid any sight line problems at the corner. They will put up an enclosure for the trash and rubbish storage. Mr. Gregory said he had to get approval from the company before he could state exactly where this enclosure would be located. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that all four sides of the enclosure would be screened from view. It was noted that the southwest corner of the site would be the preferred loca- tion for the storage enclosure. There is security lighting behind the building, and they do not intend to add any additional lighting. The lighting will be down directed. Chairman Cameron asked about any proposed interior remodeling. Mr. Gregory noted that at this time they plan no changes. They would perhaps return for this approval when money loosens up. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the driveway on 36th Avenue at the Northeast corner of the property, and whether they would not consider removing it. Mr. Gregory said they felt it was needed for the traffic flow. They will move it back to meet the city ordinance setback requirements. Commissioner Anderson confirmed with the City Manager that the petitioner would have to appear again before the commission/council if they wished to expand their operation in any way. There was no one present in regard to this request. Motion by Commissioner Edward, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending ap- proval of the Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Sales at 3535 Winnetka Avenue North, subject to the petitioner, prior to the City Council meeting on June 10, indicating on the site plan where the trash enclosure would be located and type of materials to be used for the enclosure. Voting in favor: Anderson, Cameron, Edwards, Lutts; Voting against: Gundershaug. Motion carried. Page 1 Planning Case 85-13 Preliminary Plat 'Approval Item 4 Planning Case 85-1~! Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval Item 5 Mr. Baker said they were requesting approval of a zero lot line plat to permit separate,~''~ legal descriptions of each half of the building/site. Chairman Cameron confirmed that all minimum ordinance requirements were met in the pro- posed plat. The City Manager stated that all setback requirements had been met. There was no one present in regard to this request. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the preliminary plat as requested at ~I041-43 Jordan Avenue North. All present voted in favor. I~: was noted that the preliminary plat indicated that the name would be Gordon's Lakeview Terrace III. There is already a plat with this name, and the new plat would have to be Gordon's Lakeview Terrace IV. Mr. Gallus represented St. Therese. He was accompanied by Dan Swedberg, and Mark Ahrens the student administrator from St. Therese. Mr. Gallus stated they are proposing to remove the duplex on Winnetka to make room for 35 more parking spaces. Hopefully, this will eliminate the problem now existing with people parking on the street. The existing lights will be moved over, to join the two parking areas. The lights will be shielded and pointed down. In response to questions, Mr. Swedberg then spoke to the proposed landscaping of the new parking lot. He said they will provide both evergreen and deciduous trees along the golf course lot line. They plan to leave the area nearest Winnetka as a sodded area, as they feel they need this space for snow storage in winter. Commissioner Edwards verified with Mr. Swedberg which plants would be new on the site plan, and which were existing to be moved. The retaining wall on the north lot line will have a fence along the retaining wall. In response to questions from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Swedberg said that the wall will be of landscaping timbers. It will go from grade to a height of about 30". The fence will be board-on-board, cedar boards on both sides and will provide air spaces. Discussion then covered the proposed plantings along the fence and the north side of the site. Mr. Swedberg indicated there was a problem, since in order to get all the trees off the street, they would need all this space for cars. They plan to put vines along the fence. They felt it was too close to the retaining walls for other shrubbery; there was a danger of them freezing out. Commissioner Edwards confirmed with staff that there were no variances required for either the driving aisles, or the size of the parking spaces. The City Manager indicated that there was a problem with the site plan, since the drawing as presented was not to scale. Mr. Swedberg said that the new parking lot was an extension of the existing parking lot. There are new curb cuts required as the two parking lots will connect. The driving aisles will line up in the two lots, and it appeared to him that there would be plenty of room for the parking. Commissioner Edwards asked for confirmation that when the site plan was drawn to scale, that the parking stalls and driving aisles would meet the city's requirements. It was noted that thejdrive aisles would be 24 feet wide, Commissioner Edwards noted that at D and R, discussion had been held in regard to adding plantings or hedging along Winnetka and also on the western edge of the lot, primarily to block out headlights from the nearby residences. He felt he would have a tough time voting for this plan, without some protection for the residents from headlights. Mr. Swedberg said this problem had been considered seriously. He indicated that across the street there was a Iow ~loughlarea. They also need to have an area for storage snow. He distributed photographs of the corners of the buildings that would be affected. Commissioner Edwards noted that the residence at the northeast corner was positioned at an angle, and could be affected by headlights. He then asked what would happen to the snow after it was plowed. New Hope Planning Commission Page 2 June 4, 1985 Mr. Gallus said it would be piled up, after plowing, until such time as the contractor could truck it off the site; perhaps a week or so. During discussion on the parking lot lights, it was noted that they would be down shielded. The existing lights face to the south, and there will be one additional light installed that would face to the north. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they had considered moving the landscaping pro- posed for the back of the lot, toward the golf course, toward the Winnetka Avenue side. lie felt this would be preferable, and they could use the rear of the ,!site for snow storage, rather than the front. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Swedberg said it had been suggested to them that there be shrubbery on all sides of the site to shield the parking lot from view. Chairman Cameron questioned why the golf course needed to be shielded rather than Winnetka or the residents. Ne felt Winnetka needed additional landscaping, perhaps some spruce trees to break up the large area in front of the parking lot. Mr. Swedberg said that sounded reasonable and they would relocate some of the proposed plantings. Commissioner Anderson asked whether they had considered moving the existing driveway, which would provide them another 9 parking spaces. It was noted that they felt the driveway should stay as it is, because with a jog it wouold prove difficult for moving vans, etc., to get in and out of the site. Commissioner Gundershaug commented on the "horrendous" number of cars presently parked on Winnetka and questioned whether the increased parking spaces would be enough. It seemed to him that there were more than 36 cars parking on the street now. Mr. Gallus said they felt the new lot would accommodate their needs; on the average there were 30-35 cars parked on the street. Mr. Dan Pulosky, 5811 Winnetka Avenue North, said he was concerned about the parking lot and the fence. He lives on the north side, the second house over. He was also con- cerned with the parking on the street, especially the danger to children. It had been his understanding that some cars could be parked at the mortuary across the street. He was concerned about what the fence would look like. The petitioner noted that the fence would be 4½ feet high, and would be constructed of cedar, which would be left to weather. It was noted that this would be about 16-17 feet from the residence building. Mr. Conrad, 5827 Winnetka Avenue North, asked whether 36 spaces would be enough parking. Mr. Gallus said that this would take care of a great share of the parking problem. 'lhe biggest problem was from 8:00 a.m. to noon. The majority of the staff cars would leave at 2:30 p.m. In response to a question, it was noted that there had not been a count done on the number of cars parked on Winnetka, by city staff. Chairman Cameron asked whether there had been a large number of complaints in regard to the on-street parking. The City Manager indicated that most of the complaints were generated by the staff and police deparment. Mr. Conrad stated he felt it was dangerous driving through the area. Chairman Cameron indicated that safety was a police problem, and not the Planning Commis- sion§. The resident at 5809 Winnetka said he was concerned about the visual impact of the parking lot. He felt the trees should be brought to the Winnetka side; he was concerned about a sea of asphalt. He was also concerned about the impact for the residents, both visually and from the lights shining into the houses. Considerable discussion followed regarding the retaining wall, its height, and the affect this would have on the yellow duplex. It was noted that the wall would be 6" below the window sill. New Hope Planning Commission June ~I 1985 Page 3 ' Mr. Swedberg stated that he felt that the lights from at least the first row of cars woula be blocked. The City Manager stated that the staff had expressed concern about the fact that the site plan had not been drawn to scale, the retaining wall is not shown on the plan, and the parking space dimensions needed to be indicated. Mr. Swedberg said that they had been concerned with presenting the design plan, and would follow up with details, after receiving approval. Comment made that the next Planning Commission meeting would not be until August. Mr. Gallus asked whether they could provide these details to the city staff before the Council meeting to avoid a further delay. One. of the neighbors objected to the manner that St. Therese had proceeded, and the fact that the family had to move so quickly out of the house. He though the matter should be tabled until August. Chairman Cameron indicated that this was not the issue the being considered by the Commis- sion, and that the Commission/city was not there to punish the petitioner. It was noted by the petitioner that the family that had to move, had received some financial considerations from the Home. Chairman Cameron again, expressed his concerns about the parking along Winnetka and the landscaping along Winnetka. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt that before this case went before the City Council, all details should be reviewed by the city staff, and that complete details should be on the site plan, including the landscaping amounts and location, the size of the parking spaces, etc. Planning Case 85-15 Sideyard Setback Item 6 It was noted that there was also some concern about too much landscaping along Winnetka/_,,. Avenue, which would provide a place for lurking and present a security danger. Ther~ · was a need for the police to see into the parking area. The City Manager stated that there was also the issue of the rezoning to be resolved. He said that the city had requested that St. Therese plat their entire property into one legal description, to eliminate the many different parcels that presently exist. St. Therese is requesting that the entire lot be rezoned R-4. He noted that one of the guidelines in ,/ the comprehensive plan in regard to a rezoning, was a change in character of the area involved. Staff felt this applied to this site. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the rezoning from R-2 to R-4 at 5801 Winnetka, and 8000 Bass Lake Road and approval of the preliminary plat for the entire site subject to the standard utility and drain- age easements being provided and indicated on the final plat. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the construction of the parking lot at 5801 Winnetka, Case 85-14, subject to the plans being drawn to scale, complete details being presented to city staff for review prior to the Council meeting on June 10, 1985, and that the majority of the landscaping proposed for the west line of the site be moved to the Winnetka Avenue side, with considera- tion given to security and the danger of lurking, behind this proposed landscaping. These changes must also be indicated on the site plan, prior to the June 10, 1985 Council Meeting. All present voted in favor. Mrs. Moorhead stated they wished the variance to allow them to place their air conditioner condensor on the side of their home instead of th~ rear yard. Their deck extends across most of the back, of the house. They would also like the unit to be moved so it would not be visible fr','~ the picture window. She noted that the beams in their basement are running the wrong way for easy installation of the unit. The side where they wish to place the unit, is next to the neightbor's garage. Commissioner Anderson asked why the unit could not be placed behind the garage. Mrs. Moorhead said that she contractor had said it would be a bad solution to the problem.~'~ Commissioner Anderson asked whether Mrs. Moorhead understood why the commission/city d!scouraged the installation of these units in the sideyard. She indicated did, but they had discussed this with the neighbors, who did not object. Commissioner Anderson indicated he had some trouble supporting this variance request. The houses are close together. He asked what they intended to do to screen the unit. New Hope Planning Commission June q. 1985 Page 4 Design & Review Item 7 Land Use Committee Item 8 Codes & Standards Item 9 Approval of Minutes of May 7, 1985 Item 10 Review of Council Minutes of 5/13/85 Item 11 Adjournment Mrs. Moorhead said they would plant some shrubs and some evergreens. There is an existing fence, and they did not feel the unit would be visible from the street. Commissioner Gundershaug asked why the unit could not be back 8-10 feet and screened. This would be preferable to him. Commissioner Edwards said he had a tough time with this request because future neighbors might wish to expand, and they would be stuck with the sound and noise and a potential problem. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve the variance requested at 9232 q0½ Avenue North, subject to the air conditioning unit being located at the point of the backyard where the neighbor's garage approaches the petitioners house, and subject to trees being planted to screen the unit. Voting in favor: Anderson, Cameron, Gundershaug; Voting against: Edwards, Lutts. Motion carried. Design and Review Committee held one meeting in May. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Discussi(~nheld regarding the need for language in the City Code as it relates to parking space size for compact cars. Concensus was that this shoulrJ be reviewed with changes made in code if necessary. The City Manager indicated that the city attorney would be preparing updates to the code shortly. The City Manager stated that the YMCA wishes to extenc; their day care/group nursery program into the church at 36th/Winnetka. Technically there is no language in the code addressing this. It is staff's recommendation that the code be amended to allow such day care facilities in the R-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. He felt this would be a good addition. Chairman Cameron said he had no problem with setting a meeting for July to discuss this issue and any others necessary. He did not feel comfortable with being hurried through a decision without some idea of the impact such a code revision would have generally and without some advice from staff. It was his opinion that thcs, City Manager should have the city attorney proceed with possible language changes, and have the staff and City Planner prepare some input for the Commission to review. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Commission would probably also have a report fro~ the Planner regarding the study on 42nd Avenue, in July. Perhaps both issues could be r:eviewed and discussed at the same meeting. He also requested that staff and the Planner research what other cities are doing in this area. Following discussion, the meeting was set for Tuesday, July 16, 1985. The Planning Commission minutes of May 7, 1985 were approved as printed. The Council minutes of May 13, 1985 were reviewed. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker New Hope Planning Commission June q, 1985 Page 5 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 1985 Work Session 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A special meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 16, 1985, at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. Roll Call Roll Call Was Taken: Planning Case 85-18 Day Care Request 3540 Winnetka Avenue Item 3 Present: Lutts, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Anderson, Friedrich, Edwards; Mr. Anderson arrived at 7:37 p.m. The City Manager introduced this case. He noted that in a previous case, the Plan- ning Commission had approved a text change, which allow a day care facility in an R-1 zone, in a religious or educational institution. This change and subsequent resolution had not been completed by the city attorney. It is now in the process of being published and will now be enacted as the council, at their special meeting on Monday evening, July 15, 1985, had reaffirmed the text change which will allow day care facilities in the R-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. It had also been left out of the new codification. This will be updated. He added that the YMCA is requesting this Conditional Use Permit to permit them to have a day care facility in Holy Nativity Lutheran Church, at 3540 Winnetka Avenue North. A copy of the ordinance change was distributed to the commissioners. Ms. Marilyn Gltter-Moriarity, Associate Executor of the YMCA was present to speak to this request. She stated that they had been going over this proposal for the last few weeks and feel that they now have everything in order as requested by city staff. They have met with the Fire Marshal and know what must be provided from his perspective. Chairman Cameron asked how many children they hope to have at the center. Mrs Moriarity said 29, pre-schoolers, 2½ and up. The hours of operation will be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She added that there is an excess amount of off-street parking available. There IS also sufficient space for drop off and pick up of the children. In answer to a question regarding the outside play area, Mrs. Morlarlty said that in the beginning they be using mobile play equipment. Hopefully, in a year or so, they would be able to install permanent equipment. Dr. Cameron asked about any potential slgnage. Mrs. Morlarlty said that she anticipated the need for a small sign, but that she was aware of the legalities involved and the city's sign code. Chairman Cameron said he thought that the the entire property, the city could not probably need to be initiated by the church. city would need a total sign plan for just keep on adding signs. This would Mrs. Moriarlty said for the day care a sign was not an actual necessity. Chairman Cameron confirmed tha~ the center would meet all state regulations regard to day care facilities, and be completely licensed. In response to further questions, Ms. Moriarlty said they planned to open on August 26, 1985. The City Manager noted that the city had advised the church of the need for a compre- hensive sign plan. This requirement does not really affect the YMCA and its day care. The sign plan presentation is the responsibility of the church. He added that there is now a third organization headquartering at the church, and they will also probably want a sign of some type. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioner would have a site plan that detailed the location of the play ground etc. Ms. Morlarlty said she had submitted one site plan for the inside, and felt they could easily do the same for the outside. The city manager stated that the petitioner had been advised that an exterior site plan was not needed. Page 1 Motion Design & Review Item 4 Land Use Comittee Item 5 Codes & Standards Item 6 Marketing Study Item 7 Commissioner Bartos asked whether they intended to install any fencing to control the area where the children would be playing. Ms. Morlarlty asked whether it was required. She felt there was a sufficient area that it would not be necessary, since the site was a distance from the street. They had looked into the possibility of fencing the play area. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that they would be using the southeast corner of the site for the play area. In answer to questions from Commissioner Lutts, it was noted that the ages of the children would be 2½ to 5, pre-schoolers, and the center would operate all yeas round. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commlsszoner Bartos, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit fox a day care facility at Holy Nativity Lutheran Church, 3540 Winnetka Avenue North. All present voted in favor. There was no one present in regard to this case. It was noted that this would be considered by the City Council at their meeting on August 22, 1985. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. There was no report of Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The next ~tem on the agenda was the discussion w~th the representative of the City Planner's offmce in regard to the marketing study for 42nd Avenue, and the draft report that had been submitted on the 42nd and Winnetka area. The Planner was represented by Mr. Allen Brlxlus and Mr. Dan W~lson. Mr. Br~xius emphasized that the report as submitted was only a preliminary report. They would make any changes necessary following d~scuss~on at this meeting. He sa~d that they had contacted business people in the area ~n regard to their concerns- feelings about the area. Mr. Dan W~lson, who is an associate with Northwest Consultants, said he worked primarily w~th the financial and marketing work of the area. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Wilson said they had approached the problem of the retail area ~n regard to what had happened recently to consumption, the tremendous changes going on in the area which they found ~nfluenced the retail- ing, the type of maintenance pattern that exists, etc. They felt that the consump- tion was beginning to taper off, and that expansion had come to a halt in the area. If a developer was gozng to be ~,terested ! in going into the area, they would be · nterested in trying to serve new people, as well as the old peopl~ in a d~fferent way. In their opinions the New Hope trade area was shrinking. The businesses are basically remaining unchanged, but there ls an increase in competition from surrounding areas, which are expanding greatly. The city does not have a regional focus now~ retail area is more of a neighborhood focus rather than a community focus. He felt there was currently enough land zoned for commercial ~n the area. He stated in lnterviewzng a number of business people he had been surprised that concern did not come through as strongly during the interview process. He felt the busmness people have a very positive attitude in v~ew of their future - "tomorrow · s going to be better than today". It was his op~n~on that in this type of ~nter- view, people were usually honest in answering questions from a stranger. He stated however, that what was appropriate and applied to the shopping center areas, did not apply to the 42nd Avenue area. Forty-second Avenue was a transportation area. The shopping centers appeal to a totally different market. Also to be considered is the different types of shopping, the K-Mart vs. the Winnetka Mall. He noted that the New Hope Mall was desperately trying to be a d~scount mall, but was more properly classified as a liquidation center. The shopping areas are selling goods and services to totally different people. He felt there should be a logical tie between the shopping center. There is of course a problem w~th ease of transportation between the malls. He also found that because the business people are all fle~cly independent, they don't work well together, 1.e. hours of operation fluctuate widely, ad campaigns don't tie together, and he felt there was very little discussion or cooperation between the owners/operators of businesses. Page 2 One exception was the New Hope center, they at least are talking to each other. He felt another factor was that there was a tremendous lack of identification--too many signs, not saying anything. Mr. Brixius said he did not feel it was entirely the buslnessmen's fault, part of the problem is the location, the area at 42nd/Winnetka is not a point of destina- tion for many people. Chairman Cameron asked what should be done about Mr. Wilson responded that a solution had to address not only the need for Increasing the use of the retail area, but it also had to be financially feasible. The problem has to be dealt with in terms of what the businessmen see as the problem, and what the city sees as the problem. The City has to think in terms of what is good for the tenants also. Chairman Cameron stated that what was good for the city as a whole must also be considered, as well as whether the three centers will or should remain strictly commercial areas. The centers need traffic, they need people to stay in their business locations, and people to come into the area to shop. Mr. Wilson noted that shopping also has to be fun, and has to deal with some of the basic needs of the area. They have found that the biggest need in a shopping center is food shopping, or restaurants. The city needs to investigate what other types of food places they could get into the area, i.e. a McDonalds would be a terrific draw to an area such as 42nd/Winnetka. Chairman Cameron stated he was not sure what Mr. Wilson was suggesting. He noted that the Planning Commission was not at this time involved with the 42nd Avenue study, the politicians could deal with that. However, he did not feel that adding a McDonalds to the area could solve the existing problems at the 42nd/Winnetka center. Mr. Wilson said he felt it could help a lot. Chairman Cameron indicated that he didn't think the city would go that way, unless they could get some trade-offs from Mr. Kelly. Mr. Brlxius referred to th~ city's City Center plan that was prepared in 1977. He stated that there is a need to establish a common identification in the area, to integrate the existing business into a convenient shopping area, and to try and implement the 1977 design plan. He added that one of the best approaches to upgrading would be for the tenants to apply pressure on the management owners of the center to be involved. Mr. Brlxius then referred to the area of 42nd, east of the tracks, which consists of many small lots. He felt development should be discouraged on the small lots, in the hope that they could be perhaps combined. He added that based on the marketlr~ analysis the city has llmited potential for development in this area unless th~s was done, i.e. Insty Prints and Taco John. He felt that traffic concerns and ac- companying problems, and the problem of the small lot~ had to be resolved first. Some type of easy access also needed to be provided in the area. A possible solution could be to establish a redevelopment area, to consolidate land acquisition. There is a need for a development plan for the 42nd Avenue area. Also of concern are the traffic volumes and speeds east of the railroad tracks. Another concern is that the city should work with the county to prOvlde a re-align- ment of Nevada, and perhaps acquisition of land to connect the intersection. He also felt that if the county were petitioned for a signal, this would slow traffic down. Also necessary is to simplify the ~ngress and egress onto 42nd Avenue. These were the problems they felt had to be addressed ~nltlally. He then noted that one of the problems facing the city in redevelopment and upgrading was the attitude of the businessmen toward the city. The city in many ~nstances has a negative image, which has baslcally been formed by having to deal with the zoning ordinance and the sign ordinance, which are quite restrictive. It is im- portant that the city convince the businessmen that the city does care about their success. He felt that the sign ordinance was a big problem with the businessmen. They want signs so people know where they are. This is a situation that has to be addressed. If it is too stringent, it should be re-evaluated as to the restric- tions. He felt this had to be resolved before the city could go too far in up- grading. Also needing review are some zoning decisions that the city has made in the past. Businesses surrounding the site of an unpopular zoning decision hear only one s~de of the lssue, and this also contributes to the city's poor business image. Page 3 He felt that the city should explore some means of opening up communication with the businesses in the area by, promotion of the formation of businessmen organization to encourage the business people themselves to identify the problems, and g~ve the city someone to meet with. One type of approach might be a workshop meeting, of the organization or businessmen and the city officials, to give the bus~ness people an ~dea of how and why the c~ty operates the way it does. An organization of the bus~ness group would provide some lteract~on. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Brlxlus was saying that the 1977 plan was still workable for the city. Mr. Brlxlus said that a lot of the design criteria was still viable. Also recom- mended would be a common architechura~theme; limited access to the public streets and multiple curb cuts also add to the congestion at the intersection. Chairman Cameron stated he felt that the Planner was talking about an ideal situa- tion, and the city and area was not an ideal situation. A solution was needed for the existing problems. Mr. Brlxlus said that a working communication, would open up the dialogue between the city and the business community. Chalrman Cameron asked whether he was advising that the c~ty start specifically, i.e. by creating a tax increment district, or politically. What was the first step. Mr. Brlxlus said he felt the two could operate almost simultaneously. Things to be considered are as follows: 1. Organization of the business community. 2. Release of the report of the study on the area--if the community felt some agreement with the report, then there was a basis for cooperation. 3. A total development plan. 4. Some type of promotional effort to specifically attract businesses that would work in the area. 5. Consideration of new uses in the area, educational, i.e. dance school; enter- tainment as a small theater, some form of apparel store, i.e. something that would complement a Kupennheimer, which apparently is doing well; medical faci- lities that tend to generate their own traffic also bring people into a given area. He added that before going through an economic promotion, however, it would be necessary to resolve some of ~he internal conflicts that presently exist. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug on the possibility of K-Mart cooperating in the effort, Mr. Brlxius stated that K-Mart was the least receptive business in the area to such cooperation. Commissioner Anderson questioned why this was presented to the Council before the Planning Commission. He thought ~t was a planning study. The City Manager stated that the study had not been presented to the Council formally. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the planners had met with the majority of the business owners, or just the tenants, to discuss the long range plans for the area. Mr. Wilson said that the only owner they discussed the plan with was Mr. Kelly. He added that he had not received the same response from Mr. Kelly as apprently he had expressed to the comanunity/city. Mr. Kelly has a big problem with his center, and he is most anxious to solve this problem. Commissioner Anderson asked whether a study had been conducted on the rent structure, and how they compared with other areas. Mr. Wilson said that the rents were "all over the map". He also indicated that the taxes in the area were pretty hefty, out of line toward the "high" range. Commissioner Anderson commented that the city was actually dealing with four separate cmmerclal areas, and that the planner indicated the need for the c~ty to get them to work together. It was h~s opinion that the business people did not see any reason for them to work together. The c~ty did not actually have a city center. Mr. Brlx~us commented that there actually was too much retail space in the community now. A total development could cause the surrounding convenience centers to suffer. Page 4 Discussion then covered the identification of the area that ideally would be included redevelopment proposal. The planner indicated that there was a strong student market, and perhaps there should be an appeal to that market. The YMCA is a health facility, and would provide an ideal small town approach, if the bank, the c~ty hall, /groceries could also be tied together. As far as convenience goods are concerned, there is a convenience store on almost every corner. Mr. Wilson commented that there appeared to be a lot of money in the area, but that the business people did not see it that way. Commissioner Gundershaug commented on the fact that the merchants in the area never seemed to put out any flyers, or similar advertising, and it d~d not seem to him that they had done much to try and help themselves. Commissioner Anderson stated that this was typical of a neighborhood shopping center mentality. A strategy needs to be developed--thIs might in turn get the merchants together. He felt that the city had to somehow decide what they wanted the area to look l~ke, and contain,, and then decide to achieve lt. For this the city needed some guidance. Chairman Cameron asked whether the bank was willing to cooperate. Mr. Wilson said he thought they would cooperate, but he didn't see any leadership from them. Chairman Cameron asked what the planners were recommending that the city do first. Mr. Brlxlus sa~d he felt the city's chief function would be to initiate something that w~ll make the business community aware that the city was concerned w~th the vitality of the area. He felt that the downtown business people were unaware of all that existed in the area. Something has to be done to organize the bus~ness people. Chairman Cameron asked the Planner whether he had ever se~a community where this had been done successfully. Mr. Br~xlus said that the c~ty of Lakeville had done this. They had told the bus~- ness people that they had to organize, and put the burden on them. Mr. Wilson cautioned that it was not a quick solution. Better communication between the c~ty and the business community and also the need to maintain standards the area need to be stressed. Commissioner Bartos said that after talking to three or four business people, he agreed that it boiled down to communication. Mr. BrlxlUS said that he had recommended a bus~ness organization, because that way the city could address all of the businesses in the community. Discussion then followed on the image that the city has in the business community, and possible ways to improve communication, including releasing the report, when completed, to the business community and asking them for input. The city manager indicated that the Chamber of Commerce for the area was also inte- rested in getting involved, and wants to call a meeting of the business people in the community. He stated that there was a New Hope contingent that met perhaps once a month. Discussion then covered the possibility of establishing a redevelopment district for the area, and joining the small lots together. The next step would be to locate developers that were interested in developing the area. Also discussed was how the 1977 Plan could be applied to any changes now being proposed. Mr. Wilson suggested that the city should perhaps re-examine the zoning code, and the sign code to see ~f come changes were called for in restriction, perhaps in- volving the business community in the process. He felt that the/c~ty should begin the planning and re-evaluation process, and establish communications with the bus.ness Community, but not promise up front that major changes would be made in ex.sting restrictions. Try to get the community to understand the reasons for the restric- tions. It was suggested that a section in the final study by included indicating the strengths and weaknesses of the area. Page 5 Motion Mini-Warehouse Construction Study Item 8 Adjourr~nt Item 12 Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Bartos, that there be a joint meeting between the Council and the Planning CoF~ission and the Planner to discuss this entire issue. It was noted that concensus was that the report provided a vehicle for several actions on the part of the city and that a strategy should be established before further steps were taken to the business community, or before the report was made public. Unanimous agreement on the need for a planning meeting between council and planning commission. Chairman Cameron asked whether, because of the hour, the planning CORL~iSS1On wished to discuss the mini-warehouse issue at this meeting. The city manager reviewed the background on mini~warehousesin the city and indicated that the Council had become concerned about the proposed construction at #18 and Bass Lake Road, and what the impact would be on the zoning code, etc. This was the reason for the enactment of the moratorium on mini-warehouse development and similar developments in the city. Commissioner Anderson noted that since this meeting was a work session for the entire planning commission, perhaps it would be advisable to discuss the min~-ware- house issue, and report from the planner at a sub-committee meeting first, and they could report back to the full commission at the August meeting. Chairman Cameron suggested that at the next Planning Commission meeting, August 6, 1985, the Codes and Standards committee present a summary of the planners report and make a recommendation to the full commission. The meeting was adjourned bY unanimous consent at 9:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Page 6 -.'l NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case No. 85 - 19 City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the New Hope Planning Commission will meet at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North in said City on Tuesday, August 6, 1985 at 7:40 p.m. to hold a public hearing on a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wood working shop in a single family zone, on the following legally described property: Lot 12, Block 1, Mork-Campion Manor 4900 Virginia Avenue North Richard and Janet Drechnik, Petitioners The New Hope City Council will consider the recommendation of the Plan- ning Commission regarding this request for the purpose of taking action at its meeting at the City Hall on Monday, August 12, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Ail interested persons are invited to attend both meetings and to be heard. Dated: July 18, 1985 Carol Carlson City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post issue of July 25, 1985. 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 85-16 Sign Plan Approval Item 3 August 6, 1985 7:30 p.m. City Hall A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 6, 1985, at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30p.m. Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Lutts, Edwards (arrived at 8:17 p.m.) The city manager stated that the petitioner was not present, but added that this was a minor request. The company had previously had only one sign. There are ,.now more than one company in. the, building and they are.requesting a second sign. It will be on the northeast corner of the building, on the building. Commissioner Friederich asked about the materials to be used. The city manager stated they were to be plastic, and have blue letters. The letters will be eight inches high, and there are no variances required. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the sign would be attached to the building. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that it will be basically an identification sign. A gentlemen from the audience asked about the location of the sign.. He was informed that it would be on the northwest corner of the building, facing toward 49th Avenue. The city manager stated that there will be just the one sign on the building. The sign as proposed meets all codes, and will have 8 inch letters. The reason for the comprehensive sign plan request, is that there will be more than one name on the sign. The gentlemen from the audience asked why the company had not required approval for the original sign. Motion Planning Case 85-19 Conditional Use Permit for a Busi- - ness in the Home Item a, The Chairman stated that all sign requests are approved by the city staff. This particular sign was required to appear before the planning commission and city council because there will be two signs, and there are to be multiple names on the sign. Motion was made by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the comprehensive sign plan as requested in case 85-16 for Bobs Inc.. 8700 qgth Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Mr. Drechnick stated that he was requesting the conditional use permit to operate a wood working shop out of his garage. This is only a part-time occupation. He has another full-time garage. He builds vanities, etc., in the garage. He shuts down by 9 p.m. Some weeks he will work in the garage 4 days in a row, and some- times he won't work for a week or two. He presented a letter to the Chairman, signed by the neighbors stating they had no objections to the occupation. The letter is attached to the official minutes. Mr. Drichnick said there was no retail sales conducted, up the materials himself, went to the customers homes to to do the work at the garage. He then would deliver customer. There were no deliveries involving large trucks and no traffic. He picked measure, etc., and returned the finished product to the or building supplies. Commissioner Anderson inquired why the petitioner was requesting the conditional use permit. Mr. Drechnick stated that the inspectors had found out he was working out of his garage and requested that he come to the commission/council to request this conditional use permit. He was advised that this was necessary because his garage was detached. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that Mr. Drechnick also had another regular place of business. Mr. Drechnick stated that he worked a full-time day job, anddd the cabinet making only at night. This was just part-time. He sometimes worked only an hour or two. If he ever got too big for the garage, he would move into a separate building. Commissioner Anderson noted that the city was very cautious about such home occupa- tions because they were in the midst of a single family area. He noted that the burden was on the petitioner to show cause why the city should grant the conditional use permit. He asked whether there were any extenuating circumstances that would allow the city to grant the request. Mr. Drechnick said that the business was one he would plan to eventually go into in a separate building. It is a business that he would like to be able to do fulltime. This is just sort of a starting point for him. He felt he did not make that much noise, the neighbors hadn't complained. Its a starter for him, to get into something he really liked. He added that the inspector had told him that the business would be checked every year to see if any changes needed to be made. Commissioner Anderson asked how the inspector had come to the house originally. Mr. Drechnick said he was remodeling the house, and he came to see me in regard to that. He also had received an unsigned letter in the mail about the business. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that Mr. Sandstad had told the petitioner that if the garage were attached to the house, he could conduct the business without a conditional use permit. Mr. Drechnick said yes, he had then requested that he apply for a permit. Chairman Cameron asked where the petitioner got his wood and other supplies. Mr. Drechnick said he picked them up at a warehouse. Chairman Cameron asked how he disposed of the trash. Mr. Drechnick said that as far as the wood, friends would take it and burn it in fireplaces, etc. He keeps scraps in a box in the corner of the garage. Chairman Cameron asked what he did with the cars, lawnmowers, etc. Did he use a heater in the winter if he worked in the garage. Mr. Drechnick said he kept the lawnmower in the shed, there was room for the vehi- cles to go into the garage. He pushed the work to the side when they had to be inside. He did use a heater in the winter. In response to a question from the Chairman, he said he had no advertising. He went to the customers homes, measured, etc., and then returned to the garage to build. He would then deliver the finished cabinets to them. There was no additional traffic involved in the business. Chairman Cameron asked about the noise and dust problem. Mr. Drechnick said he had checked with the neighbors, and one had not even known he was working in the garage. He did not have any large tools, he had a 4" joiner, and didn't create any unusual amount of dust. In response to a further question from the chairman he said he did not know of any complaints from the neighbors. Commissioner Bartos noted that the code stated that only 300 square feet was allowed for such a business, the petitioner had a 500 square foot building. What was there to keep him from using the whole building. Mr. Drechnick replied, "just my word", he always cleaned up his work area, so that the vehicles could be inside the garage. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioner did not store paint and stain in the garage. Mr. Drechnick said he did very little of that type of work, he did not keep quantities of stain or paint, and had no power tools, and used no chemicals. He did not keep a large quantity of materials on hand. Mr. August, 4924 Virginia Avenue North, stated he had been a resident since 1960. He has been very happy livig in the village and liked the planning that had been done in the village and was present at this meeting to make sure it stayed that way. He said he had heard the petitioner working as late as 10:30 at night. He did not need this. His yard abuts the yard and is kitty corner to the lot. He stated that a variance had been issued so that a garage could be built. He felt that this business did not belong in a residential area, it is out of place. He did not know whose names Page 2 Motion were on the letter, but his was not, and he knows that other neighbors do not . like the business. The city manager presented a letter to the chairman, from a Mr. Thomas, 4901 Virginia Avenue North, in regard to the conditional use permit request. (attached to official minutes). Mr. August referred to a previous request from the petitioner for a home occupation that had been denied. He commented that the property was an eyesore in the neigh- borhood, the house had been under construction for a long time. Mr. Drechnick asked whether Mr. August would like to see his building permit. Mr. August stated that there was always something that doesn't really fit into the residential area. Mr. Drechnick commented on the statement made in regard to working late at night on Saturday, saying they were not even home that night. Mr. August said he meant to say, last Saturday at a little after 6:00 he heard a saw running. Mrs. Drechnick commented that they were trying to improve their home. Mr. Drechnick commented that there were several other neighbors that worked in their open until at least 10:00 p.m. He did not work or run his saw after 9:00 p.m. As far as his home went, he had a building permit to do the construction on the house. He felt the neighbors agreed with what he was doing. He had talked to the neighbor next door and he had no complaints about the business. He stated there was nothing in the yard now, it had been cleaned up. There is an old boiler by the curb for someone to take, if they needed it. He repeated that as far as the business went, he did not run the saw after 9:00 p.m. Chairman Cameron asked what he would do if the city refused his request. Mr. Drechnick said he would lose some of his business and some of his income. Mr. August commented that he had worked in the garage on Sunday. Mrs. Drechnick asked what the difference was whether they worked on their home, and own projects in the garage, or on the cabinet building, what was the difference. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Licht, the Planner, about the code as it referred to home occupations - 4.038. Mr. Licht stated that the conditional use permit was required because of the fact that the work was being done in a separate building, not the principal building, also there was the noise factor, and the fact that the work being done was a home occupation. The problem comes with the policing the operation, whether the building is actually being used for a garage, or just for a business. Commissioner Anderson stated he had a difficult time offering a motion for acceptance of this request, he deferred to the other commissioners. He noted that it was obvious that the occupation had created a problem, and commented on the petitioner coming to the city "after the fact". Mr. Drechnick asked what difference there was between his building cabinets and a repair service for small machines/engines. They are given conditional use permits to work 8 hours a day, and also have noisy tools, grinding tools, sharpening tools, they were not quiet. He was asking to operate a business in his garage, not after 9 p.m. He did not want to lose what he was doing. The Chairman noted that he was asking for permission from the city, he had stated his case, and the commission had to act on the request, they were not present to make judgements. Motion was made by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Bartos, recom- mending denial of the conditional use permit as requested in Case 85-19, 4900 Virginia Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Page 3 Planning Case 85-20 Sideyard Variance Item 5 Motion Planning Case 85-21 Parking Variance Item 6 Mr. Kranz stated he was requesting a 5 foot variance on the north side of the pro- perty, to allow him to add a family room to the existing home. He presented a plat plan to the commissioners for review. He stated that they could not expand to the west because there was an underground swimming pool, and it would be too close to the pool. Also, they wanted to be able to see the pool from the inside of the house, for safety's sake. They wish to build the addition, because they have limited storage space. They would have storage space under the addition, in the basement area. Commissoner Gundershaug asked whether the neighbor's home, which would be next to the addition was bedroom space. Mr. Kranz responded that this was kitchen area, in the neighbors home. He presented a signed statement from the neighbor to the Chairman, which indicated no objections, along with some photographs of the area. He stated that the houses are close in the front, but separate rather rapidly, so that at the rear of the addition, they would be about 40 feet apart. In response to a question regarding the siding on the addition, Mr. Kranz said it would match, however the existing house had both vertical and horizontal siding. He also confirmed that there would be a full basement under the addition. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the proposed roof line, stating he was dis- turbed by the flat roof not matching the house roof. Mr. Kranz noted that they had a hip roof. The architect had felt that it would match all right. The cost of tying the roof to the ~existing roof, would be very costly, about two to three thousand dollars. This is why they were requesting a flat roof. He added that there was really no other place for the acldition. Commissioner Bartos stated he had the same concerns about the flat roof. Chairman Cameron asked whether the addition would go behind the chimney. Mr. Kranz said yes, that from the street you would see the chimney, not the flat roof. There was no one present in regard to this request. Motion was made by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the five foot variance request on the north side of the property at 3240 Ensign Court, Case 85-20. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron; Voting against: Gundershaug. Motion declared carried. Mr. Dwight Chestnut, the contractor for the proposed change, rep~-esented the peti- tioner. He was accompanied by Mr. Frank Gleason from the Lund's bakery. They requested a conditional use permit to allow them to open a small retail store, in space in the buidling that had previously been used for a "break" room by the employees. The store would dispose of day old merchandise. There are presently 41 regular parking spaces and two handicapped spots. The construction will consist of removing a window and putting in a doorway. Chairman Cameron noted that the city's number one concern was with the traffic. He felt there was already a traffic problem on the site. The representative from Lunds stated that they have changed their baking time to 4 to 12. Therefore, they have two operations, the deli and the bakery. Commissioner Edwards arrived. The deli operation would close up about 2:00 and the bakery would start up at 4:00. He did not think there would be a problem. Chairman Cameron asked what their plans were for parking. It was stated that the day old bakery would be picked up by 10:00. They had tenta- tively scheduled hours from 10 to 3. The cars during the day would be mostly deli employees. The bakers frost the cakes at night, after they have cooled. In response to a question about number of employees on each shift, he stated that there were 20-25 employees in the deli operation and 25 at night. Page 4 Motion City Center Marketing Study Item 7 Commissioner Anderson asked about deliveries. It was noted that in regard to taking out merchandise, most of that is done at 3 to 4 in the morning. They usually return at 1 to 3 p.m. If they get permission for the store, they would probably bring bread back at one other time during the day. Commissioner Anderson commented that the area did not seem to be a strong retail area. Mr. Gleason noted that this was one reason why they propose short hours for the store operation. They would like to try and recoup about 80% of their loss. Chairman Cameron asked what they did with the surplus food right now. Mr. Gleason said they give a lot of it to charity, and sample some of it out. Commissioner Anderson said he felt the city needed some hard fact data on the propo- sal and also a study of the traffic patterns and volumes. Mr. Gleason said he did not feel it was all that bad. A lot of the cars that park in the lot are from people using the park across the street, particular during the evening hours. The traffic seems to start when the mens and boys softball games start. Commissioner Anderson noted that the site was already sub standard on the parking. He added that before he would support something such as this cup, he would like to see a study showing the number of vehicles in a day, by time of day, etc., to determine whether the site could accomodate this additional land use. The city needs some physical evidence that there was surplus parking available. Mr. Gleason suggested they could have the employees park at the far end of the lot, and keep the center open. He thought this would eliminate the problem. Commissioner Anderson asked what effect it would have on their plans if the commission tables this request for 30 days, to allow them to get a hard study on the traffic situation. Mr. Gleason noted it would probably not have too much effect, although they did want to get going on the remodeling as soon as possible. They wanted to be good neighbors, and work with the city on this. Lunds has a reputation to uphold. Chairman Cameron suggested that when they came back to the Planning Commission, they should have a definite proposal that addresses the remodeling, the hours of operation, the parking situation, traffic plan, the number of trucks that would be in and out, and the anticipated amount of traffic that might result from the retail store, including where employees would park. Mr. Gleason again noted that they did not feel they would generate a lot of traffic. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they intended to put up any signs. He noted, they should also know what signs they propose when they return to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the had considered any other locations for the retail store. Would they consider another outlet away from the site. Mr. Gleason noted that Lunds owned the building and would like to use it. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Bartos, tabling consideration of Case 85-21, until the meeting of September 3, 1985. All present voted in favor. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the petitioner submit the traffic study to the city staff as soon as possible. The city manager stated he would have the Building Inspector, Doug Sandstad, speak to them in this regard. Chairman Cameron referred to the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council in regard to the moratorium at 42nd, and possible development plans for that entire area. It had been agreed that the planning commission would review it at this meeting, and make any recommendations they might have as to what the city should do. There will be another meeting between the commission and the Page 5 council at a future day. There is also to be a meeting withstaff and council to allow the city to come to some conclusions about how they want to proceed. Commissioner Bartos stated he had visited with some of the merchants, and he felt that the city had stirred up some interest'~among them. Mr. Licht, the city's planning consultant, stated that the study done by his firm was a statement of fact, not a plan. It was not debatable as far as the conclusion that the merchants are not working together on making the area a success. The study points out that there are areas that need to be addressed. He added that the city had authorized a physical planning study, to help them determine how to function better. This study will be coming back in a month or six weeks to the commission/council. Referring to the study done 7-8 years ago, and in reviewing the study, he noted that in looking at the physical plans, there were some things still relative. A number of things identified now in the marketing study had been identified in that report. He added that the city manager had requested that staff and his office get together a potential work program as to "what happens now". One part of that has to be some coordination/communication between the city and the merchants. One of the things identified in the study was the merchants' opinion that the city was not interested in the success of the centers. He disagreed with that conclusion. This is being addressed as a separate physical study. He did not think the city ordinances are that far out of line. From the city's perspective, he felt they should not throw in the towel in regard to softening ordinances, they do work. Commissioner Anderson noted that it was his understanding that the commission's goal in getting involved was to act as a facilitator. He asked whether there were any planning issues that need to be addressed officially by the commission~ He felt the commissions position was to meet with, advise, and monitor. Chairman Cameron noted that the study puts all the facts before the commission/city. He noted that the city council and the mayor felt there should be several meetings on this issue, and it was his understanding the Chamber has also set up a meeting. Following further discussion, it was the concensus that it was not necessary to review now, and that the city should react to the! responses received from the merchants. Chairman Cameron asked the city manager what he saw happening now, and whether there was anything the commission should be doing, not to make waves. What role did he want the commission to fill, what are the possibilities. The city manager said that the city has to first determine where they are going on these proposals. Mr. Licht said he felt that the study had shown the need to bring the public into the area. Fast food would do this. He was aware that there were some people who did not want any of that kin~ of business in the area. He felt one of the options to pursue is fast food as far: as generating more people into the area. It will be necessary to take the conclusions of this study and tie them into the design guidelines of several years ago. A future program must be put together. Discussion then followed about possible land use, the role the city would, or should, play. The city also has to resolve the issue of uses that will be acceptable for the area. There must be direction from the council/staff/commission on this. Commissioner Anderson asked about the 42nd Avenue Study. Chairman Cameron noted that this was included in the physical plan study. This study will review the basic land uses, land use vonfigurations, circulation, access to properties, traffic volume and problems. This will be presented to the city/council/ commission and will include a plan and recommendations. Commissioner Edwards asked whether they will be looking for input from the commis- sion. Mr. Licht said that once the concepts were established, they would come to the commis- sion and council for input. Commissioner Edwards said he would like to separate the two issues. Chairman Cameron noted that the commission would have to do their homework. He felt this had generated a lot of discussion in the city. The city manager stated that one of the things staff would do would be to come up with some recommendations, as a point of departure. Paqe 6 Zoning Code Updates Item 8 Motion Next Item on the agenda was the proposed zoning code updates. Commissioner Anderson noted that these had been discussed at a meeting between the City Manager and the Planner and Codes/Standards. The next step would be, following review, a recommendation from the commission to the city council that public hearings be held regarding the proposed changes. Discussion followed regarding these changes as proposed, the fact that there had to have been a reason or request from either staff or council to make the changes in the code and the recommendation of the city attorney in the regard to these changes. Commissioner Anderson noted that another issue he felt that the city had to deal with was "mother in law" apartments. He asked Mr. Licht to review this. It was the concensus of the commission that staff should direct Mr. Licht to put these proposed ordinance changes into specific language that the commission and staff could act on. In regard to the moratorium on mini-warehouse construction, Mr. Licht suggested that the city could create a new zone for mini-warehouses that would give the city stronger control over the development of mini-storage facilities: 1. City must decide whether it really wants to become the mini-storage site of the Twin Cities. 2. Determine the compatibility of a residence in an industrustrial zone. Commissioner Anderson noted that he was reluctant to introduce another zone into the city, and would rather treat such development as a conditional use permit, with essentially the same controls that could be imposed in a separate zone. Mr. Licht noted that the city council had been extremely concerned about the number and placement of mini-warehouses in the city. They wanted to control where they could be located. A separate zone would not be a new concept as the R-0 district acts as a buffer, and also gives the city additional control over development. A conditonal use permit could basically say that any industrial zone in the city could have a mini-storage facility if the development was located adjacent to a residential area as a transition area. What was involved was the amount of control that the city wished to have. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city could not just prohibit living quarters on such a site. Why couldn't the owners simply hire 24 hour a day security guards. It was noted that if the city wanted these facilities to be up to "snuff", they basically have to be developed according to single family standards. This would include dry sprinkler systems and fire walls every 2000 square feet. This restriction would say to anyone coming in that the city would require more, above and beyond, any other city in the area. He noted that mini-warehouses seemed to be an extremely profitable business operation. He added however, that they were a Iow revenue producing use, the question could be "why" should the city risk the costs of fire and police protection, for a relatively Iow tax return. Commissioner Gundershaug raised the issue of existing facilities that wished to expand and whether or not they would be required to come up to the new code standards. Discussion continued on the merits of the two options, a separate zone for mini-ware- house and control through conditional use permits, the fact that such uses do not provide many new jobs for a city, and a concern about possible spot zoning, as well as whether the city had experienced problems with the existing mini-warehouse developments. Mr. Licht noted that one concern was what was stored in the units, and the difficulty of policing what was stored inside, hazards are a concern. The concensus of the commission that they felt it preferrable to control the develop- ment of mini-warehouse facilities through the conditional use permit and its restrictions as long as these restrictions were stringent. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, that the city manager should direct the Consulting Planner to prepare the 12 items for submission to the city council for approval of the recommended Code amendments. All present voted in favor. Page 7 Design and Review Item 9 Land Use Item 10 Codes and Standards Item 11 Approval of Minutes of July 16. 1985 Item 12 Review of Council Minuts of July 16 Item 13 Questions Item 14 Adjournment There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. The Codes and Standards Committee report had been handled earlier in the meeting. The planning commissioner minutes of July 16, 1985, were accepted as printed. The council minutes of July 22, 1985 were reviewed. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what had happened to the landscaping that had been scheduled to be done at Frank's Nursery. The city manager stated that he would check with staff on this issue. Commissioner Edward asked about the status of the development at 49th and County Road 18. The city manager noted that they planned to submit an RFP to the city council at their meeting on Monday August 12, 1985. If this is approved, they would proceed toward finding a contractor and get him to start building. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Page 8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case No. 85 - 19 City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the New Hope Planning Commission will meet at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North in said City on Tuesday, August 6, 1985 at 7:40 p.m. to hold a public hearing on a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wood working shop in a single family zone, on the following legally described property: Lot 12, Block 1, Mork-Campion Manor 4900 Virginia Avenue North Richard and Janet Drechnik, Petitioners The New Hope City Council will consider the recommendation of the Plan- ning Commission regarding this request for the purpose of taking action at its meeting at the City Hall on Monday, August 12, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. All interested persons are invited to attend both meetings and to be heard. Dated: July 18, 1985 Carol Carlson City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley 'Post issue of July 25, 1985. · // ~.,,, 1,/ j ,,/? O' ../ ,.¢ ,, .~/ ,// . /'/' ~ ~t"-/ ~'"-- ~ CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting September 3, 1985 7:30 p.m. City Hall CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 3, 1985, at the 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 Present: Anderson, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts, Edwards Absent: Friedrich Planning Case 85-21 Mr. Frank Gleason and Mr. Dwight Chestnut represented the Conditional Use Permit petitioners. Mr. Frank Gleason stated they were requesting a CUP and Parking Variance to allow them a retail store for day old merchandise. They also Item 3 need a variance in the parking requirements. Following the last meeting they had tried to answer the concerns of the commission (attached to packet). These include: Hours of operation - 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Signs - There will be signs on the building, over the entryway door. Truck Traffic - 80% of the traffic would be pr-ior to 10:00 a.m., and will be mainly merchandise and supplies. There will be probably one truck before 10:00 a.m., of returned merchandise for sale. He estimated there would be 20-24 cars parked between 10 and 4. They felt customers would spend about two minutes per visit. Advertising - They plan to rely on word of mouth and also use the New Hope Shopping Guide. Customer Parkinq - They have allowed for 7 parking spots in front and one handicapped spot. The employees will park in another location. He then referred to their traffic counts (attached to commission packet). He stated that Saturday was basically a preparation day and he did not do a traffic count for that reason. Chairman Cameron indicated that his concern remained with the traffic problems. He felt the store would only increase the existing problems. It was indicated that staff had commented that the traffic was already a problem, and the store might not make it worse. There is an internal traffic problem on the site, and if this would get worse, it would in turn harm the store's operation. The city manager distributed pictures taken illustrating some of the traffic problems on site. by staff, Commissioner Anderson asked about he docks and truck traffic. It was noted that 90% of the traffic would be at the north dock with only 10% at the southern dock. It was noted that semi-trucks would probably deliver on Mondays and Wednesdays, with vans being used mostly on Thursday and Friday. Friday is a back order day and both kinds of trucks could be on the site then. Mr. Gleason felt he could control the congestion internally. Commissioner Anderson noted his opinion that the south driveway was hazardous. Mr. Gleason replied that most of the deliveries would be before the store opened at 10:00 a.m. He added however, that he could not control when the over-the-road truckers would be on site. Page 1 Commissioner Anderson indicated that if the traffic and employee parking could be controlled during the hours the store was in operation, this could help. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he would like to see the hours of operation changed to allow one more hour for deliveries -- i.e. 11-4. Mr. Gleason indicated this was a possibility. The city manager referred to the photographs, indicating that trucks were on site at 12:30, 1:00, 1:45 -- although not necessarily different trucks. Commissioner Anderson questioned the proposed 90 degree parking. He questioned whether it would help the traffic. He noted that there was no curb on the northeast side of the parking lot--he asked why this had not been installed. Mr. Gleason said he did not know, this was before his time, he had inherited the situation with the job. To his knowledge it had not been asked for. Commissioner Anderson asked the city manager to research this as well as the number of accidents and times of day of accidents caused by turning into the site. Commissioner Bartos Stated he had looked at the site, and it definitely needed some fine tuning. Chairman Cameron asked what the petitioner could do about the basic traffic coming into the site. How could the customer be sure of what they were supposed to do, and where they were to park. Mr. Gleason said they would do everything possible to make it work--they would keep the striping up with the arrows indicating "in" and "out". Chairman Cameron asked about snow removal and it was confirmed that snow would be piled at the back of the site, by the building compactor. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about signs. There will be signs indicating customer parking, the hours of operation, and where employees should park. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about salesman and where they would park. Could they mistakenly park in the area reserved for customers. He also wondered how many spaces they would lose by going to 90 degree parking. The answer would be 42 plus 2 handicapped versus 39 plus 2 handicapped. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether he planned to direct traffic north and south. Mr. Gleason indicated this would be the best way, but he could not say for sure this is how it would be handled. Trucks would be at the northeast dock for the most part--the southeast dock would be primarily for deliveries and receiving. The traffic flow now comes in at the north docks. Commissioner Gundershaug said his preference was for diagnol parking with a one-way flow through the site. Mr. Gleason said he could make it one-way. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Anderson again referred to the traffic situation, stating it was less than ideal, and could get worse. He felt the building was too large for the site and too small for the proposal. Page 2 Motion Motion Planning Case 85-22 Preliminary Plat Approval for a Zero Lot Line Item 4 Motion by Commissioner Anderson second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending approval of the CUP at 4730 Quebec Avenue North, subject to annual review by staff, and a report back to the planning commission regarding any complaints about the operation, accidents by the site, also that the parking area be widened to 44 feet with 20 foot parking stalls, with 90 degree parking and that everything be curbed in accordance with city standards. He would like customers to enter and leave at the northeast driveway, to prohibit trucks from parking in the fire aisle. Discussion followed about the 90 degree parking versus angled parking. Chairman Cameron suggested that the angle be reversed to force customers to come in from the south and exit from the north. Motion was amended with second by Lutts. Also recommended approval of the variance for parking with entire parking area to be curbed. Motion by Commissioner Anderson second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending approval of the CUP at 4730 Quebec Avenue North, subject to annual review by staff, and a report back to the planning commission regarding any complaints about the operation, accidents by the site, also that the parking area be widened to 44 feet with 20 foot parking stalls, forcing customers to come in from the south and exit to the north. All present voted in favor. Mr. Cady stated he would like the zero lot line to allow him to sell one half of the unit. He indicated he had received permission to build under a PUD six years ago. The original two tenants are still in the building. One is his mother, who will will remain there, and the other tenant would now like to purchase her half. He is requesting a variance to allow the undersized lot. Chairman Cameron stated the petitioner would have to give the commission a lot of good reasons'for this request, to justify the request. Mr. Cady said that it was an existing building, and he has kept the property up well. He felt future maintenance might be difficult to insure unless the owner was living in the unit. The Chairman indicated this reason did not speak to the problem of the size variance. Mr. Cady said it would allow people presently living in the city to own property and would also insure a greater degree of maintenance, with an owner living on the property. Commissioner Edwards said there were other configurations that could be used to divide a property, other than straight lines. Commissioner Bartos indicated he was still concerned about the 3337 square feet, as it was so far under the code requirements. He added that even if the property were zoned B-3, it would be way under the required footage. Commissioner Anderson confirmed with the city manager that a variance had been issued in the past for the property. He asked whether the petitioner had attempted to purchase any land at the rear of his property. Mr. Cady indicated he had not. Commissioner Anderson stated it was his personal opinion that the petitioner was asking too much of the city. David Licht, the city's consultant planner indicated that there was another way to divide a property such as this. He said that three lots could be created, one for each of the units and one for the open space. Thus a buyer would purchase a unit and a percentage of the open space. Page 3 Motion Planning Case 85-23 Preliminary Plat Approval Item 5 Motion Design and Review Item 6 There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the petitioner was interested in pursuing this option, and would like a table. Mr. Cady indicated he would be happy to do this. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Bartos, to table Planning Case 85-22 for 30 days until the meeting of October 1, 1985. Voting in favor: Anderson, Lutts, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug; against: None; abstain: Edwards; absent: Friedrich. Motion Carried. The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, to table Planning Case 85-23 until the meeting of October 1, 1985. All present voted in favor. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. Land Use Committee I tern 7 There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Codes and Standards Committee Item 8 Codes and Standards had met to discuss changes in the zoning ordinance. issues pertaining to Approval of Planning Commission Minutes Item 9 Also present at the meeting had been Dave Licht and Chairman Cameron. Mr. Licht had been directed to prepare these changes to the ordinance, working with the attorney for presentation to the Planning Commission and Council. Issues to be updated included: performance bonding, the elimination of special zoning, off street loading regulations, changing minor variances to be handled by staff only, updated CUP criteria, earth shelter homes to be a variance, and other housekeeping criteria, items including convenience food facilities, mini warehouses, etc. These revisions are to come back to the planning commission and council as a package. Hopefully they will be before the commission/council in October. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that when the package is presented for review and action, all pertinent changes will be highlighted for ease in identification. The Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1985, were accepted as printed. Review of Council Minutes Item 10 The Council Minutes of August 12, and August 26, were reviewed. Marketing Study Item 11 Chairman Cameron asked for an update on the marketing study being conducted. Alan Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants stated that a meeting had been held with the local business people to discuss options and alternatives available toward updating the 42nd Avenue/mall area. He felt they had a pretty good turnout for the meeting and had attempted to identify the common problems that exist between the business people and the city. He stated that the Mayor had agreed there was a problem, and he had suggested an organization of the business group in the city center area. Hopefully this would allow for some interaction between the group members and between the group and city staff. Some of the suggestions had been to schedule joint promotions and joint advertising. He felt that some of these suggestions would be organized within the business community. Page Mr. Licht noted that part of the commission agenda packet had included an outline and thoughts and opinions on the city commercial core guidelines, did the commission still feel they were pertinent. However, the merchants also need to have input into this. He felt that the community was starting to look at the possibility of some modifications. Chairman Cameron asked what the commission was to do now. Commissioner Anderson stated he didn't think the planning commission should take a position at this time. He felt they should hear some input from the user group first. He saw nothing invalid in the report, but would like some other people to comment on it. He also felt that the city center issue and the 42nd Avenue problem should be separated. Mr. Licht asked whether the commission had any major concerns with the guidelines for the city center. Feeling was that the user group should come back to staff with some ideas, before proceeding. Hopefully this group would present a united front on what they felt was needed in the area. Concensus was that at this point, commission action was not necessary. The city manager indicated that there was a rumor that the New Hope Mall was to be purchased by a Mr. Oreck, however, this had not been confirmed. Mr. Licht said the other thing needed was to separate the two areas for both discussion purposes and proposals for change. He suggested that Mr. Brixius review the concepts for the commission on 42nd Avenue so they would know where they were at this time. Mr. Brixius said they had first identified the planning area, and contacted the business people. Issues of primary concern seem to be the traffic problems in the area at 42nd/Winnetka, which include speed, volume, and number of accidents at this intersection and also at 42nd/Quebec. Another area of concern is 42nd/Nevada and mid block where Paro's and the small shopping area are located. The land uses are not compatible, there are some areas with no screening or buffering, some sites are under used and some are over used. There are also non conforming uses in the area. Building conditions vary but for the most part are good. Most of the single family homes in the area are in excellent condition. There is a lack of parking, and poor maintenance and there is need for general repair and maintenance. They have prepared two alternatives for the area. These alternatives include possible realignment of streets, elimination of curb cuts, hopefully, the installation of a traffic signal. There is also the potential for a redevelopment proposal that could include combination of small lots, a possible multi-family development, and relocation of some businesses into the city center core. It was the concensus that the possible re-alignment of the streets and installation of a semaphore would solve many of the existing problems in the area. A semaphore would also provide a pedestrian crossing site. Also of concern is the railroad underpass, how this would affect any future development plans, and whether the railroad and county would be interested in working with the city in regard to this redevelopment. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that Option I as presented by Mr. Brixius was preferable. Page 5 Adjournment Mr. Licht requested that the commissioners review the proposals, make their own lists of concerns and items that need consideration and submit these to staff. It was felt these should be in writing. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary Page 6 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 85-22 Request for Preliminary Zero Lot Line Item 3 October 1, 1985 7:30 p.m. City Hall A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, October 1, 1985. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Anderson, Lutts, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Friedrich Planning Case 85-22, tabled from the September 3, 1985, ~meeting. Request for Approval of Preliminary Plat for Zero Lot Line at 7900 51st Avenue North - Robert/Marilyn Cady. Motion Planning Case 85-23 Request for Preliminary Zero Lot Line Item 4 The city manager stated that the petitioner was withdrawing his request at the present time. He intends to refund half of his fee. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, to deny Planning Case 85-22. Voting in favor: Lutts, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson; Voting against: None; Abstain: Edwards; Motion carried. Planning Case 85-23, tabled from the September 3, 1985, meeting. Request for Approval of Preliminary Plat for Zero Lot Line at 8117-8119 28th Avenue North, West Suburban Builders. The pet~i6ner was not in attendance. Motion Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Edwards, to table until the end of the meeting. All present voted in favor. .Planning Case 85-24 Mr. Haight stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to Rearyard Setback Variance replace his deck and enclose it with a screened porch. The deck Item 5 constructed as a legal encroachment into the easement, but if it is enclosed it requires a variance. This was his understanding. There are no houses within 100 feet of the proposed addition. The only other alternative would be to build the deck/porch on the side of the house. This would overlook the neighbors two level deck, which they would prefer not to do. In his opinion it would be less of a problem for everyone if they could put it on the rear of the house. Chairman Cameron noted fhat the required rearyard setback was 35 feet, the petitioner's house is already only 32 feet from the line. He felt this was asking a lot, to have the porch come within 17 feet of the rear line. He then confirmed that Mr. Haight plans to have only a roof and screens on the porch, it will not be a'three-season porch. C6~missioner Lutts confir~ed that the materials would match the existing house and that the roof line would match. He noted .that since the house was already non-conforming, he asked again about placing it on the side of house. Mr. Haight said he would then need a wrap around deck to the back at any rate, and he felt it would be too close to the neighbor's double deck~ In response to a question, he said he had not talked to his neighbors about his specific plans. It was noted that no neighbors had come to the meeting to object. The proposed deck would be probably six feet wider toward the back line and the width of the house. He was not sure of the exact materials he would use. In regard to the ease of converting the deck to a 3-season porch in the future, he said he did not think it would be too difficult, but would have to consult his contractor. Page 1 Motion Planning Case 85-25 Rezoning Request Item 6 Motion Planning Case 85-26 Conditional Use Permit & Construction Approval Item 7 Chairman Camero~ asked why he needed such a large deck. Mr. Haight said he had asked the contractor what was possible, and he had looked at the area and given them suggestions. This is the design he came up with. Chairman Cameron stated that the city's concern was that once the deck was built, it would be there a long time. The city's concern has to be that houses don't encroach on each other. Mr. Haight said they had at first considered replacing the deck and placing a portable porch on it. This would not have required a variance. However, they felt it might be blown over by heavy winds. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Haight then discussed the proposed roof line; it will match the present roof; the area under the deck will not be used for storage purposes; and whether or not the petitioner had received any negative comments from the neighbors, he had not. Mr. Anderson noted that one reason for the setback requirements is to preserve the privacy of single family homes. He commented that Mr. Haight's rearyard was adjoining his neighbor's side yard. Discussion continued in regard to possibly tabling this request for one month to allow Mr. Haight to explore some other possibilities. Mr. Haight felt this would be satisfactory, since they probably could not start the project until spring anyway. Discussion then held as to whether Mr. Haight would be willing to reduce the size of his deck, and if he wished to consult his contractor in regard to changing the proposal. There was no one present in regard to this request. Chairman Cameron stated that this was one of the most severe variances the commission had been asked to grant. He felt maybe a table would be wise. There were two options open to the petitioner: One, planning commission could act at this meeting, forward the request to council, with Mr. Haight amending his proposal before-the council meeting, and having them vote on his request. Two, the commission could table the case for one month to give him time to re-form his plans. Mr. Haight said he would prefer the first option. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of a variance to within 20 feet of the rear lot line, subject to the roof line and materials used matching the existing structure. Voting in favor: Anderson, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug; Voting against: Lutts, Edwards; Absent: Friedrich; Motion carried. The city manager stated that the petitioner had requested a table until the November meeting. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 85-25 until the November meeting. All present voted in favor. Mr. Parker introduced his engineer, to make the presentation. New site plans were distributed to the commissioners. Mr. Parker stated he was the owner of KTCR which was now KTCZ and KTCJ. They are presently using the same tower facilities as they have for 20 years. He had purchased the station from Mr. Tedesco, and they no longer use the building at 3701 Winnetka. New Hope Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Troje, the engineer stated they were requesting approval to allow them to construct a small building attached to the Tom Thumb store which would house the FM transmitter. There will be a line to the base of the first tower, and an FM antenna on top of the tower. They need the variance to build the building. Chairman Cameron asked who the owner of the property was. It is A1 Tedesco, the former owner of the radio station. Chairman Cameron expressed concern that the city was dealihg with one owner, and two separate businesses on this property and whether they intended to rent out the space at 3701 Winnetka. Mr. Parker stated that when he purchased the station, part of the agreement had been that he would be able to build a small building on the land to the rear of the Tom Thumb store to house the transmitter. There had been problems with placing the building behind the building at 3701 Winnetka. In response to questions, he stated that Parker Communications would own this new building, though it will be on Mr. Tedesco's property. The Chairman questioned what would happen if the Tom Thumb store were to be torn down is the future. Mr. Edwards stated that did not pertain to the situation, if Mr. Tedesco sold the store, it would be subject to any agreements that might have been made. Chairman Cameron expressed concern about two owners operating out of one piece of property. How does the city have any control. Mr. Parker said he didn't own any property, he leased the buildings. Chairman-Cameron asked whether this arrangement had anything to do with licensing procedures. Mr. Troje said the question had come up, but he did not have the answer. Chairman Cameron said he felt the city needed an answer, the city has concerns abodt a second business on the property. The city manager said it would depend upon the zoning of the property. Mr. Troje said he had understood that the proposal would require a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Edwards said he was interested in knowing whether the city could allow two separate businesses on a site. Mr. Troje asked whether they should get this answer. informed that the city would research this issue. He was Mr. Troje said he planned a 14' x 16' structure, using one common wa~l with the Tom Thumb store. This was a fire wall. They would us~ the same kind of block material, and the roof line would remain the same, there will be no difference in height, and the painting will blend in. The building will house two radio transmitters: one operates during the daytime and the other operates 24 hours a day. The radio transmitters are approximately 36" x 72" tall. There will be cables coming out from the building. One line to the tower at the NE. There will be six bay FM antennas. There will be de-icing equipment at the top of the structure. There will be the transmission line and six other lines out to the remaining towers and returning to the building. He anticipated they would be eight feet above the ground, over the swamp. New Hope Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 3 They feel they need better security at the base of the tower and plan to replace fencing, probably chain link with security barbed wire at the top. They wish to correct the existing situation. He restated they wish to add the structure, behind the Tom Thumb, to support the new transmission lines and add an FM antenna on top of the east tower. He was not sure at this time whether the tower needed to be replaced. They were inspecting this. The original plan had been to build a brand new tower. They are trying to determine what the condition of the tower is, i.e. the physical condition. Mr. Parker said they wish to determine whether it is safe, with the additional weight proposed for the top of the tower. They are still waiting to hear from the co~npany that built the tower originally. If they cannot find someone to certify that the tower is safe, they will build another tower. They have no intention of putting themselves or anyone else in jeopardy. Mr. Anderson commented that it appeared to him that they were requesting two different things, first, a rearyard setback variance, and second, permission for a second business and whether this was appropriate for the B-1 zone. Mr. Anderson confirmed for the record, that the new building would match the Tom Thumb store as far as appearance, and materials, and that there would be no direct access between the two structures. He then asked what type of traffic this new structure might create. Mr. Troje said there would probably be maintenance once a week, they inspect once every two or three weeks. Once the transmitters are installed, they don't need constant maintenance. Mr. Anderson noted that he did not see any improvements proposed for the site, or any indication where service vehicles would park, and where maintenance people would walk to reach the building/towers/cables. Mr. Anderson stated he didn't feel the commission had the information they needed to make a decision, and felt the case should be tabled until the answers were provided. He then asked whether the cables could not be installed under ground, at least from the building to the first tower. Mr. Troje said it had been done, it is much more expensive, but the biggest problem is the FM line, it is a gas insulated type, which will occasionally leak. The primary concern is access to the line if a problem develops. If a section of the line needs repair, if the line is above ground, it is more easily located and repaired. This results in less down-time for the station. He stated it was very costly to replace underground cable if a problem develops. As an engineer, his preference would be for the cable to be above ground. I~ answer to a question from Mr. Anderson, he stated that the transmitters would have to have separate power. Mr. Anderson commented on the fact that the site was next to an apartment house and the view of the cables was not particularly aesthetic, he felt it infringed on the amenities of the apartment residents. Mr. Troje said the location of the power lines is usually dictated by the power company. Mr. Anderson asked about the conditional use permit requirements, noting that staff had taken a liberal interpretation of the requirements. New Hope Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 4 The city manager noted that there was no other category to consider this .type of case under. Mr. Parker added that it could cause serious problems, if the line had to be buried. If lightning struck a transmission line, it blows a hole. If the line is buried, it could take days, or weeks to repair. This would be a serious problem, not only to listeners, but to the FCC as they require any maintenance be done within a reasonable time. To accomplish this, the lines had to be accessible. Mr. Anderson asked whether after a lightning strike, the lines had to be replaced. Mr. Parker said that was correct. Discussion continued about the process of replacing damaged cable, with Mr. Parker stating that new cable comes on a reel and they replace damaged cable rather than repairing portions of the line. Question was asked as to whether it was possible to lay the cable inside a conduit, over the ground to make it easier to repair. Mr. Parker said that one problem was that they had to inspect the whole distance, in the event of a problem. The city manager noted that Conditional Use Permit presently existed for the placement of the towers in the flood plain. The city has to approve a permit request, and any changes from the current tower location, etc. Question asked as to whether concrete pilings and towers would be different, and it was noted that the petitioner would also have to deal with the Corps of Engineers. The city manager stated that he had received some paperwork from the Corp of Engineers. A permit request that the city has to approve and any changes from the current tower configuarations, i.e. the pilings, technically a new conditional use permit must be applied for ~nd granted or denied. Mr. Troje stated they were waiting for the results of a survey, it has been suggested that when they pour concrete, an iron be driven into the ground at an angle, in the swamp where the anchors are now, metal pilings could be driven in toward the tower at an angle, where the anchors will be changed. It was also noted that the petitioner had to deal with the watershed district as well. A permit must be issued by the district, but his will not be done until the city gives the ok. City ordinance states that the placement of a tower in the flood plain is under a conditional use. If a tower is replaced exactly as currently exists, there is no problem, but if there are any c~anges, any variation in the cable, the city must know specifically what they are. Mr. Parker stated they were awaiting results of a soil survey, and the company had suggested that they not pour concrete but drive anchors into the ground at an angle, because of the soil condition; there is a mixture of sand and clay beyond 30 feet, and sand beyond 40 feet. The metal anchors/metal pilings driven at the angle is what had been done at the WDGY towers. It was suggested that the petitioner also talk to the Corps of Engineers in regard to Bassett Creek and any restrictions. New Hope Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 5 The city manager stated that the city had a license with Mr. Tedesco for the rental of the city owned flood plain and the placement of the towers. It says in the agreement that the agreement is assignable but the new owne~ must notify the city in writing of the change of ownership, and any proposed changes, or nothing can be done. Mr. Parker said he felt this must be an oversight, and he would talk to Mr. Tedesco. He added that he had not read this agreement. The city manager confirmed that the agreement existed and that he would give Mr. Parker a copy so his staff could review it. Provisions of the agreement require formal notification to the city. Mr. Bartos asked what type of environmental impact the transmitter would have on the apartment residents, from a noise standpoint. Mr. Troje said that the only noise from the transmitter would be from the fans that keep it cool; the building will be insulated to protect the transmitters from heat and cold. Mr. Parker said he was concerned about the ability to operate two separate businesses on the site. He asked whether this was something he should clarify. The chairman said that the city would ascertain this information. Mr. Gundershaug asked how they would service the towers, and whether they would have a permanent easement from Tom Thumb. Mr. Parker said yes, from Mr. Tedesco. Mr. Gundershaug asked what would happen to the present building. Mr. Parker said the building at 3701 Winnetka was owned by Mr. Tedesco. The new building would free this building up for his use. Mr. Gundershaug confirmed that there would be no access between the Tom Thumb and the new building and confirmed that the petitioner intended to install a fence around the towers. Mr. Gundershaug asked whether they intended to add any landscaping to the site. Mr. Troje said he was not sure it was necessary. Mr. Gundershaug suggested the addition of some small greens in the front to enhance the view from the road. Mr. Parker said they would talk about this with Mr. Tedesco. Jim Quayle, 7924 37th Avenue North, asked whether the new antenna wo~ld have any affect or impact on radio and TV reception for the neighbors. Mr. Troje responded with no, they were required by the FCC to satisfy any interference. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the station would fix any problems they might create. Mr. Quayle asked what chance there was that this problem might happen. Mr. Troje said there was a small chance, but it would be corrected. New Hope Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 6 Motion Planning Case 85-27 Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval Item 8 Motion Planning Case 85-23 Item 4 Motion Mr. Parker said that interference did not happen very often. Mr. Anderson asked the city manager to check the legal implications of two owners on the property. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Bartos, to table Planning Case 85-26 until the meeting of November 5, 1985. All present voted in favor. Mr. Troje asked when they would receive questions they need so they can proceed. The Chairman suggested the petitioner should as well as Staff. the answer to the talk to Mr. Tedesco Mr. Parker stated Mr. Tedesco was not often in town, usually in Florida, and he was concerned about getting him together with the city. He asked whether there was any way he could help in this process. Mr. Cameron noted that it would surely be nice if the city could get some improvement in the looks of that piece of property, especially in front. Mr. Edwards commented that just a fresh, clean look, would help. It was noted that the petitioner should meet again with Design and Review at their next meeting; about three weeks. The petitioner was not in attendance. The city manager stated he did not think anyone was planning to attend the meeting. It was actually a minor request. It is before 'fhe co~mission because it is a new building with multiple tenants. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the request met the ordinance restrictions and that no variances or conditional use permits were necessary. He then questioned how many tenants were anticipated in the building. It had been his understanding that there were only to be three tenants. The city manager answered that it was his understanding that there was room for six tenants. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Lutts, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve planning case 85-27, for Comprehensive Sign Plan at 9401 36th Avenue North. All present voted in favor. The petitioner was still not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Lutts, to table Planning Case 85-23 until the meeting of November 5, 1985. The city manager noted that the petitioner had been informed that he should appear after he had missed the last meeting. Voting in favor: Lutts, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards; Voting against: Anderson; Absent: Friedrich; Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt the petitioner should be informed that this was the last time the case would be tabled. If he fails to appear at the next meeting, the request should be denied. New Hope Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 7 Design & Review Committee Hesign and Review held one meeting to review the plans for Item 9 Sandpiper Cove. Land Use Committee Item 10 There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Codes and Standards CoL~mittee Item 11 Codes and Standards met with the city manager, the planner, and the city attorney Steve Sondrall to discuss the proposed code changes. Mr. Sondrall was present to review these changes and answer questions if necessary. Chairman Cameron noted that he assumed that ~he commissioners had read and reviewed the changes, and understood what they were. He confirmed that the commissioners understood what they were being asked to approve. Mr. Sondrall said that essentially the ordinances had been changed in response to staff recommendations and recommendations as a result of the discussions held between Mr. Donahue, Mr. Licht, and also to respond to the desires of the city council. Mr. Sondrall then reviewed the recommendations, as attached to the official minutes: Performance Bondinq - Ail in favor of recommended changes. 2. Special Zoninq ~~ - All in favor of recommended changes. 3. Off Street Parking - Ail in favor of recommended changes. 4. Garage Location - All in favor of recommended changes. 5. Single Famil~ Developments Ail in favor of recommended changes. Minor~ Variances - Language change, suggestion to have provision for minor variances to proceed directly to Council upon staff recommendation. All in favor. Cross Reference to CUP Criteria - No recommendation for change - All in favor. Earth Shelter Homes - Code to conform to State Law. Recommendation to change to a CUP. If applicant meets standards, no further action necessary. Conditional Use Permit would be easier for the applicant. Edwards commented that he did not think the city should make it too difficult for the applicants. Voting in favor: Edwards; Voting Friedrich. Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts, against: Anderson; Absent: 9. Clerical Errors to be Corrected ~o_9~v~_q~?~l~ .?.~q~ Operatig.ns· - Basic%~lly these changes clarify restrictions, correct lack of restrictions specified for B-3, apply B-4 zoning restrictions. Tighten up the parking restrictions. Ail in favor. New Hope Planning Commission Page 8 October 1, 1985 Motion Motion Approval of Minutes Item 12 Reviewal of Minutes Item 13 Other Business Adjournment 11. 12. No Chan~es Propose~ Se__l_~__~r.~%~ini W~h.o.u.s.~ - Discussion held on recommendations - concensus was there should be no T-1 district. Feeling was this would open up a "can of worms". All in favor. 13. Accessory_A_p_p~t_m~q~ - Edwards commented that he felt what was proposed was strong enough. It was noted that this issue had been dealt with in the past upon direction from Council. Feeling was that it was a significant change from existing policy and deserved more consideration than it was received to this point. Edwards recommended that this be sent back to committee. Anderson requested that city manager discuss this with Council, to determine direction prior to Codes and Standards review. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, that Item 13, Accessory Apartments not be forwarded for council action. All present voted in favor. Motion by Co~nmissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, that the proposed code changes, with the exception of Item 13, be forwarded to Council for action. All present voted in favor. The city manager stated that these resoluti0n%', which should be back before November meeting. changes would require the Commission at their He noted that there will be perhaps two significant developments before the Commission at that meeting also. R-4 Approval of Planning Commission minntes of September 3, 1985, and were approved as printed. Council minutes of September 9, 1985, and September 23, 1985, were reviewed. Discussion held in regard to special meeting if necessary. There will be a possible request for a zoning change from I-1 to R-4; this would have to be a PUD. bo Commissioners were receptive to the possibility of a special meeting on October 22, 1985. City manager to notify. City manager reported that New Hope Mall has been sold with an option that expires February 15, 1986. No final .information available. Co~issioner Gundershaug asked about the required landscaping at Franks Nursery and why it had not been completed. The city manager was to check on this. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:45 p.m. Respectively submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary New Hope Planning Minutes October 1, 1985 Page 9 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting November 5, 1985 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, November 5, 1985 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. Present: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Absent: Lutts, Gundershaug, Anderson (arrived at 7:39) Planning Case 85-23 Mr. Wilson represented West Suburban Builders. He stated they Prelminary Plat with were requesting plat approval with zero lot line to allow sale of Zero Lot Line Approval each side of the double unit. Item 3 Commissioner Bartos confirmed that there were no variances required and that everything on the site met city code. There was no one present in regard to this request. The city manager noted that it was a staff recommendation that the final plat indicate all the normal easements as required by the city utilities. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the lot split would be right down the middle of the building and site. Motion Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of Planning Case 85-23, Request for Approval of Preliminary Plat with Zero Lot Line at 8117-19 28th Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-25 Request for Approval Preliminary Plat Item 4 Harold Peterson, of Jim Hill and Associates represented the petitioner. He noted that in the late 1970's the property had received PUD approval for 58 units. To date only 36 units had been constructed. Poor soil had prevented the construction of more units on the east end of the property. Therefore it was unfeasible to build the last 22 units. They are requesting approval to form a new block, and transfer the originally proposed 22 units into a single condominium building. They. would create a~ outlot, and the building would face Boone Avenue. There would be a single lot, occupied by the condominium building that would be divorced from the Homeowners Association. Access would be from Boone Avenue. They are proposing 30 parking stalls on the north side, and 38 in the garage. They are proposing landscaping as a buffer to the west and south. The city manager indicated that a letter had been provided by the petitioner stating the changes that would be made as a result of their appearance at Design and Review. The plans provided to the comr~issioners at this meeting were updated. Commissioner Anderson asked about the concerns expressed about fire equipment gaining access and the turning radius. It was noted that they have increased the size of the openings to the parking lot and are proposing a fire hydrant, and will sprinkle the building. Commission Friedrich asked Whether the sprinkler system would be in the living units as well as the garage. The city manager noted that the parking as proposed did meet code. In answer to a question, Mr. Peterson stated that the existing easements are shown on the plan, they have not shown the pending easements. Handicapped parking is provided. Page 1 The city manager noted that the final plat must indicate all easements. Discussion then centered on the proposed loading zone proposed for the northeast end of the property, making the entrance approximately in the center of the building. The loading zone is at the entrance to the garage door and the underground parking. The main entrance will be on the east side, with the residents driving to the north side of the building. The Fire Marshal had reviewed the plans and changes had been made per his concerns and recommendations. Mr. Peterson noted that they were providing some Russian Olive and Blue spruce trees and also lowered the building. They plan to berm the south end of the building. The first floor elevation is 9.17, and the top of the berm would be 9.22. There would be Blue Spruce and Radiant Crab Trees at the top of the berm. In response to a question from Friedrich regarding recreational space, Mr. Peterson said there would be open space around the building. Commissioner Bartos asked about the landscaping, noting that the 250' running east and west along the south side, indicated only 5 trees. He felt it was pretty sparse. Mr. Peterson stated they also plan 17 Russian Olives along that side. Commissioner Bartos felt that sometimes live very long, and -he felt that the toothpicks. Russian Olives did not trees would look like Commissioner Edwards said he agreed about the screening toward south, noting he felt it would be great to have a thicker hedge. He was also concerned with the north section of the site, around the parking area. He strongly suggested that the south and west sides have heavy screening and also the north side of the parking lot. Mr. Peterson stated that the parking lot would be depressed, below the level of Boone Avenue. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern about sight line of the residents to the west and north. Mr. Peterson said the parking lot would be 9.10 and street level at the intersection wo~ld be 9.1, there would be a 3 to 1 slope. The city manager said that staff felt this was acceptable. In answer to a question from Edwards, regarding sidewalks, Mr. Peterson said they propose one from the entrance to Boone Avenue. There are existing sidewalks along Boone Avenue and Rockford Road. Mr. Peterson expressed concern about steps and winter, not getting along very well. There are presently n° plans to install security lighting around the building and parking lot. Mr. Plummers stated that the landscaping as proposed was a result of the beefing up of the landscaping suggested at Design and Review. This was why they had added the Blue Spruce trees. Mr. Peterson said they had ~lso added Blue Spruce trees near the building. Review of t~e proposed plan documents revealed that there was lighting on lexon poles planned. The city manager said staff felt that the back of the site was so inaccessible, that security lights might not be necessary; no way to get back in there. Page 2 Motion Motion Commissioner Edwards felt it was going to be a very dark place. He suggested that the petitioner look into the issue of security lighting at the rear of the building. He confirmed that the parking lot would be blacktopped, striped and have concrete curbs. All grass areas will be sodded. Mr. Peterson said that most of the natural growth at the rear of the proposed building would be left as is; only natural vegetation. Commissioner Edwards suggested that the areas to be sodded, should be indicated on the plan. He asked who would end up with Outlot A. Mr. Peterson said they were requesting that these two units be added to the condominium unit. Outlot A makes those two proposed units, unbuildable. They would be deeded to the Homeowners Association. There will be no rooftop equipment, trash will be collected in a dumpster in the basement. Building will have aluminum siding and asphalt shingles. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the building would match the present Sandpiper Cove architecture. An illustration was provided for the commission's review. Commissioner Anderson expressed concerns about the 3 to 1 slope on the west side of the building. He felt the slope was more than 3 to 1. He asked if someone from the County could look at this. He felt it was a safety factor, and questioned whether there was need for a retaining wall. In answer to a question from the Chairman, it was noted that it was possible to mow a 3 to 1 slope. Commissioner Anderson wondered if they could raise the parking lot at least one foot. He asked the city manager to have the city engineer look at this possibility and check the proposed turning radius. Mr. Peterson noted that handicapped parking was proposed for the outside of the building. There was no one present to speak to this request. The city manager requested that the commission make separate motions in regard to these~requests. The Chairman reviewed the criteria for a rezoning that a mistake had been made originally, or that the area had changed sufficiently to warrant a change. The city manager stated that in the orginal PUD the Planning Commission had approved the density for the site. The present' proposal does not change the density. The soil on the site prevents the construction of the original units. The city's Comprehensive Plan supports this development. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the Rezoning from R-3 to R-4 in Planning Case 85-25, based on extenuating soil conditions that do not allow the originally proposed development of the site. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Bartos, recommending approval of the amendment to the PUD, in Planning Case 85-25, subject to a sidewalk with steps leading to Rockford Road and Boone, that the back side of the building (west) be lighted in a downward manner, that landscaping on the south be doubled, that the main driveway aisle into the property be widened, and that the handicapped parking be brought up to the State Code requirements. Page 3 Motion Motion Planning Case 85-26 Conditional Use Permit Item 5 Also recommended was that the original proposal for 58 units be changed to allow 37 units as existing, with 22 proposed R-4 units and that the loading zone be extended an additional 20 feet at the very least, in an architecturally suitable manner. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that all easements would be indicated on the final plans. All present voted in favor. Discussion then covered Outlot A, which will be deeded to the Homeowners Association. This will be done immediately. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Bartos, recommending approval of the preliminary plat in Planning Case 85-25 subject to Outlot A being deeded to the Sandpiper Cove Homeowners Association. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich recommending approval of the construction proposed in Planning Case 85-25. All present voted in favor. Mr. Troje spoke on behalf of Mr. Parker. The city manager distributed revised plats to the commissioners. Mr. Troje stated that since the case had been tabled in October, they had made improvements in the proposed landscaping, and the new drawings indicated these changes. They added 5 poplars, to basically screen the west side of the building and added major landscaping to the front of the existing building and plan to sod in one of the curb cuts. The number of parking stalls provided are as recommended by the city staff. They also propose to refinish the fence toward the parking lot and perhaps put in some shrubs. The rest of the site will be sodded. Commissioner Anderson noted he felt it was a tremendous improvement over the previous proposal. He confirmed that the commission was being asked to approve only the building addition at this time. Mr. Troje said he thought it was a technical aspect, as far as the city was concerned, for the city's protection. They need a registered Minnesota engineer and another engineer to look at the plans regarding the flood plain. It was confirmed with Mr. Parker that they have access rights to the swamp via the Tom Thumb site. They intend to bury conduit out to the swamp. Commissioner Anderson co~firmed that they will not be overhead wires until they reach the swamp area. Mr. Troje stated they needed something substantial as far as the poles were concerned. They will go approximately 180 feet from the back of the property line to the rear tower. Poles can be placed every 20-30 feet. Discussion continued on method of securing cable, and the view of the site from the apartment building. ~ommissioner Anderson expressed concerns about the tenants of the building and what they would see from their windows. Mr. Parker noted that regardless of what their view, it would be considerably improved from the existing view. The cables will be consolidated and there will be less cable exposed. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the area where the driveway will be removed will be leveled to be even with the existing surface of the parking lot and asked about the area to the west side of the fence. He suggested it be sodded. He questioned whether the owner had given any consideration to moving the fence. Mr. Troje said the owner was not really willing to do much of anything. Moving the fence would become a much greater expense. Page 4 Motion There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to construct the utility building, at 7980 36th Avenue North, subject to additional landscaping being provided and improvements to the entire site, and a variance to allow expansion of a nonconforming use, Planning Case 85-26. The city manager noted that petitioner should indicate on the plans, exactly where the underground cable will be and where it will come out to be above ground. He also suggested that it would be helpful to submit a elevation drawing. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-28 Sideyard Setback Variance Item 6 Mr. Unger said he was requesting the variance to allow him to keep an already inplace air conditioning unit in the sideyard of his property. In his opinion this was the best spot for the unit. Putting it in the rearyard would require destruction of the basement ceiling, and would also inhibit the view. He felt it would also be a little more hazardous from a fire service standpoint. He felt the installation met the intent of the ordinance because, the ordinance was concerned with noise, and because of sight lines of the unit. It is 75 feet from the curb and also 85 feet from the west and the neighbor's house. The neighbors unit is closer to his bedroom than his unit will be to the neighbors. There are many shrubs planted and he felt the only time it would be visible might be slightly during the winter. The unit is already installed and he would like to leave it. Commissioner Anderson noted that ideally it should be back as far on the lot as possible. He asked whether they intended to add any screening. Mr. Unger said there were 8 shrubs along the fence that are currently 1-2 feet tall and will get bigger, and provide a dense screen. There are a variety of shrubs, including Thorn Bush, Honeysuckle, Bridle Wreath, and Mock Orange bushes. Commissioner Anderson asked how the installation had gotten this far. The city manager said it had been discovered at the time of final inspection. Mr. Unger said he had not been aware of the restriction. contractor had applied .for.the permit. His Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the permit stated "Not in sideyard". The city manager said this was true. Commissioner Cameron confirmed with the petitioner that the neighbor affected by the installation did not have a problem with the location. Motion There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Bartos, recommending approval of the variance in sideyard setback at 3018 Independence Avenue North, as requested in Planning Case 85-28. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-29 Ms. Bohnert stated she was requesting the Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit to allow her to have a beauty shop in her home. Customers would Request be able to go through the garage and down the stairs to the shop. Item 7 She would leave the garage open to allow the pass through. The only other way would be around the garage, but there is no sidewalk. She is not planning any exterior changes. She had been told she could have a 2' x 2' sign that she would put on the house, by the garage. Page 5 Motion Planning Case 85-31 Construction Approval Utility Building Item 8 Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the petitioner understood that if granted, the Conditional Use Permit would be exclusively for her use, the home could not be sold as a property allowing a home occupation. She would operate only 3 days a week, the hours would be 1-7. There would be at the most three cars at one time on the site. She said she would not be able to handle more people at a time than three. Chairman Cameron asked whether she planned to do any advertising. Mrs. Bohnert said she already had a cliental built up and didn't anticipate advertising. There was no one present in regard to this request. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending for a home beauty shop present voted in favor. Anderson, second by Commissioner approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to annual review by staff. All Mr. Bill Rothschaefer represented the petitioner. He stated that Northwestern Bell was in the process of updating equipment as part of their expansion plans. This includes a need for a building that would house electronic and fiber optic equipment. This type of equipment would provide quicker, faster and clearer transmission for their customers. This will be of benefit to the average customer. One advantage of digital and fiber optic systems is that there is very little noise on the lines. Chairman Cameron noted that his request was almost identical to the request from the radio station. There were two owners involved, and two separate uses on the site. Commissioner Friedrich asked about the construction materials for the proposed building. The building will be of a wood frame and have a brick facade. Northwestern Bell has an agreement with the owner of the property that the new structure would match the front of the building already on the site. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that there would be no exterior lighting on the building. Mr. Rothschaefer stated that once the construction was completed, the building would pro~ably be checked out by Northwestern Bell employees about once a month, there will be no daily traffic. Once the equipment is installed, the systems will be monitored from either downtown or another regional site. He added that they have in the past never seen a need for exterior lighting on these facilities. Commissioner Friedrich noted that there were some problems existing with the property, i.e. a shortage of parking spaces (11 short). Mr. Rothschaefer said this had been discussed with the Building Inspector and also with the owner of the company. Northern is willing to lease to Northwestern Bell as is but they have only 11 employees plus maybe two over the road salesmen. The area at the rear of the Northern site is labeled bituminous but not used extensively, unless to park a semi on occasion. Northland has no anticipation of increasing their number of employees or converting to Some type of retail operation. The Chairman commented that in the past the city has allowed a lesser number of parking spaces on a site, providing there is an area reserved for future expansion of parking, if needed. The city manager stated that the Inspector had some conversations with the people at Northland, and they were willing to upgrade the site in two years. They are willing to provide a bond of some sort to guarantee this. Page 6 Motion Planning Case 85-32 Preliminary Plat Request Item 9 Discussion followed regarding the upgrading and who should bear the costs. Mr. Rothschaefer said that if they were required now, they would either have to absorb the costs, or look for another site. Their hope was to get the lines in the ground before it freezes. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether the petitioner would be willing for the Commission to table this request for a month to allow the city to get a handle on what Northern planned to do. Chairman Cameron asked why Northwestern Bell had not come in with this request earlier. The city manager stated that Northwestern Bell had contacted the city last spring about two lots near the railroad tracks. This site had looked good until the request had gone to the Utility Commission of the State. There are some existing easements that the Utility Commission will not remove until next year when the cross arms are installed at the railroad crossing. Chairman Cameron asked how close the city was to an agreement with Northland and the bond. Could this be resolved before the City Council meeting. The city manager stated the city would try to get this resolved before the Council meeting on the 12th of November. Commissioner Anderson commented that there was not a representative from Northland at the meeting, and the city was in effect agreeing to give something to Northland. Commissioner Edwards asked about staff discussions regarding landscaping of the site, and whether any landscaping had been proposed. The city manager stated that there is no landscaping required in that particular zoning district. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Anderson, recommending approval of the construction of a utility building at 5040 Winnetka Avenue North, Planning Case 85-31, contingent upon the satisfaction of the bonding issue with Northland, the owner of the property, to guarantee the future upgrading of the property to bring it up to city code. There was no one present in regard to this request. All present voted in favor. Mr. Brandell stated he was requesting the preliminary plat to to allow him to sell the top portion of Lot 1, to the adjoining property owner. This property is short of space to expand their parking because they are short of the required green area. Commissioner Bartos asked about the easement on the south line, it should be increased from 5' to 15' and also the easement for the sewer line should be increased to a minimum of 10' Mr. Brandell stated he had no problem with increasing the easements at the north line of Lot 1, nor on the south or west lot lines of Lot 2. Chairman Cameron asked what the petitioner planned to do with the rest of the property. Mr. Brandell noted that he had previously received approval for a mini-warehouse development on the site. When he sold part of the property, there would no longer be room for this type of construction. He felt the best dse would be for light industrial, for which it is zoned. He does not have any plans for development at this time. Commissioner Edwards asked what assurance the city would have that by approving this plat, they would not end up with a property that could not be serviced, because of lack of access. Page 7 Motion Planning Case 85-33 Construction Approval Request Item 10 Mr. Brandell stated that he had a purchase agreement from the owners of the property. It has not yet been accepted because the owners were out of the country. He had been working on this purchase for quite some time. Commissioner Edwards asked whether there could be some assurance that if the deal did not go through, the city would not end up with a landlocked piece of property. Discussion followed regarding this potential problem, and whether this could be guaranteed legally. Chairman Cameron asked whether the attornies could work out some iron-clad deal to assure this. The city manager said yes. In answer to a question about a potential table for one month, Mr. Brandell stated that a delay could hurt the deal. They are just waiting for permission to conclude the sale. He felt he was within a few days of completing the sale. The city manager noted that the owners of the property interested in buying Mr. Brandell's property had been before the Commission a year ago seeking extra parking. The city had suggested at that time that they pursue purchasing some extra land. Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the preliminary plat at 9200 49th Avenue North, Planning Case 85-32, contingent upon the city attorney's approval, that the parcel is actually sold, and that easements are provided as outlined by staff. Voting'in favor: Voting against: Motion Carried Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Anderson Mr. Bransdell asked whether the Letter of Credit presently held by the city for landscaping, which would be over the easements, would still be in effect. The city manager said he would look into this issue. Scott Stuhr and Frank Pattee represented the petitioner. Mr. Stuhr said they wished to build the apartment house on the property adjacent to the existing home. T.he building will have 7 two bedroom units, have aluminum siding, asphalt shingles on the roof. The driveway is designed for no traffic off Bass Lake Road. It would have the entrance to the site on Bass Lake Road and the exit on to Wisconsin. Chairman Cameron asked whether the proposal had been designed by a registered architect. Mr. Pattee said yes, he had drawn the plans. It was a difficult site to work with. The only way they could get seven units on the site was to have access off Bass Lake Road and exit on to Wisconsin; one way traffic. Commissioner Edwards expressed concerns about the areas mentioned at the Design and Review meeting. Mr. Pattee said that each unit would have separate heating units. There will be a washer and dryer on the first floor. The heat in each unit would be electric. There i~ a separate room on the first floor for the laundry and this is where the meters would be. Commissioner Edwards asked where maintenance equipment such as hoses, rakes, etc., be kept. Mr. Pattee said at the end of the garages. He confirmed that they were requesting no variances for the construction. Page 8 Motion Planning Case 85-35 Concept Approval of Preliminary Plat Item 11 Discussion was then held regarding a green space requirement, the width of the driveway around the south side of the building, and the traffic flow, and the possibility of relocating the existing curb cut. Commisssioner Edwards asked whether there had been any traffic studies conducted and noted that the curb cut might have to be moved. Chairman Cameron expressed concerns about the traffic problems on Bass Lake Road, and indicated he might be willing to consider a variance in setbacks to have two driveways on Wisconsin and closing the curb cut on Bass Lake Road. Mr. Pattee noted the requirement for one uncovered parking space per unit, and noted that this had been designed to give the maximum return for the space, and he felt that changing driveways would end up in an entire corner of asphalt. Discussion continued regarding the entrance and Pattee said he did not know how they could build without using Bass Lake Road. exit, and Mr. the building The city manager confirmed that city code required 3500' of green area. Discussion then about garbage collection and whether the driveway as proposed would allow enough turning radius for a garbage truck, and the danger if the truck had to back up on to Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Anderson asked where snow would be piled. Mr. Pattee said they would have the corner of the property to pile snow on and also five foot strip at the rear at the end of the parking stalls. Commissioner Anderson stated that in his opinion this proposal was over utilization of the site. He felt they were asking too much from the City and that he would have a hard time supporting this proposal. He was also concerned about cars getting in and out of the parking stalls. Commissioner Bartos stated he felt there were some inadequacies with the site, adding that the entrance on Bass Lake Road, with the traffic on that street scared him. Mr. 'Stuhr asked whether they could receive a variance on the amount of the green space required. Discussion continued regarding the curb cuts, the required distance for a curb cut from the corner (40 feet) and possible alternatives to these problems. Mr. Pattee stated it would cost too much money to build fewer units. It would not be economically feasible. The plan had been designed to get the maximum use of the land. Chairman Cameron expressed concerns about the landscaping, or lack of. He felt that there needed to be additional landscaping to protect the tenants in the building from noise and to enhance their sight lines. He personnaly would like to see more greenery provided. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to table Planning Case 85-33 until the meeting of December 5, 1985. All present voted in favor. Mr. Pope, the plan architect, represented the petitioners. He stated that the site in question was 2.27 acres at West Broadway and 61st Avenue North. They are proposing a three story, 72 unit apartment building for elderly. There will be underground parking for tenants and guest parking in the front of the building. They are requesting the rezoning from the existing R-1 to R-5 which is for elderly. Page 9 Motion Motion Motion There are currently four structures on the site. Ail existing structures would be removed. They are requesting no variances, there will be 58 stalls in the garage and 36 stalls outside. Landscaping would include deciduous trees and bushes, and evergreens. There will be screening along the main entrance and along the walkways and they will use coniferous materials to screen the driveway and garage areas. There will be a mechanical room in the garage, a lobby and an elevator. There will be storage and laundry rooms on each floor. The one bedroom units would have 782 square feet and the two bedroom units would have 1000 square feet. The exterior will be face brick, there will be covered balconies, there will be a canopy over the entrance. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that at this time the petitioners were only asking for concept approval. The city manager increment project. them to proceed. stated that they were working toward a tax They must have this concept approval to allow Commissioner Bartos confirmed that the concept approval would not preclude any future changes in the project. He added that the area was blighted now, and he felt the plan proposed would be an asset for the city. The city manager noted that the architects, Pope and Associates, had been the architects for Northridge. In response to a question from the Chairman, the city manager stated that the rezoning would not be finalized until the construction is approved and the development agreement is in order. It can all be withdrawn if the project does not proceed. Everything is tied together. Robert Erickson, 6007 West Broadway, stated his concerns about the road that was not in the best condition and was well traveled. He felt there was a lot of traffic morning and evening, all week long. However, he Would be glad to have the new development there. Question was raised as to extending the sidewalks. It was noted that 60th was a division street between New Hope and Crystal. Chairman Cameron commented that normally elderly housing did not create a lot of traffic. Commissioner Anderson asked about 61st Avenue, and why they had not lined up with that. The answer was that it had been a staff recommendation that it be offset by 40 feet. Following discussion it was the concensus of the Commission that this should be looked into further by staff. Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending concept approval of the rezoning from R-1 and B-3 to R-5, Planning Case 85-35, because the area had changed sufficiently since originally zoned and rezoning is as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending concept approval of the preliminary plat, Planning Case 85-35. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending concept approval of the PUD, Planning Case 85-35. All present voted in favor. Page 10 Design & Review Item 12 Design and Review held one meeting in October. Land Use Committee Item 13 There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Codes and Standards Item 14 There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Approval of Minutes of The Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 1985 as printed. Item 15 of October 1, 1985 were accepted Council Minutes Item 16 The Council Minutes of October 15, and October 28, 1985 were not ready for distribution to Planning Commission. 42nd Avenue Study Item 17 The city manager commented on the completion of the study on 42nd Avenue. He noted that input was needed, and there was a possibility that the comprehensive plan would need amending. Chairman Cameron suggested that the Commission first needed to sit down with the Planner, to fully understand the recommendations before they could act. Discussion regarding a joint meeting of Council and Commission with the Planner to discuss the implications. Tentative meeting date was set as Monday, November 18, 1985. Introduction of new Administrative Assistant David Namie Item 18 The city manager introduced David Namie, the Administrative Assistant, who will shortly be in charge of coordinating the presentations to the Planning Commission. Adjournment Item 19 The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary Page CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 3, 1985 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 3, 1985, at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. Roll Call The meeing was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman. Roll CalI was taken: Present: Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos, Friedrich, Anderson (arrived 7:55 p.m.) Planning Case 85-26 Mr. Troje represented the petitioner. Mr. Parker was also Conditional Use Permit present. Mr. Troje stated they were requesting permission to Radio Tower replace the one tower. The new tower will be of an equal size, Item 3 but will have a stronger base. The cables will be underground until they reach the flood plain. They will then be mounted on poles -- six poles approximately ten feet apart. They need a stronger tower, to accommodate winds, etc. They will also replace the guy wires. He noted that letters had been supplied to city staff and commissioners from a registered engineer, stating he will certify that the tower and base would be secure. He will also design the anchors. They are unable to tell what type of anchors and supports were originally installed. They are still waiting for more specific information from the transmission line people. The towers will be in the same spot, and will look the same. They will replace only the one tower which is located at the far east, closest to Winnetka. They are requesting the addition of a 65' tower, everything else will be the same. Chairman Cameron asked whether this construction will tear up the landscape. Mr. Troje answered that there would be some knocking over of the reeds, but that they intended to do the work during the coldest months to allow access into the flood plain, and they felt that the natural growth would come back in the spring. They do not feel the construction work will cause damage. Chairman Cameron confirmed with staff that the city will oversee the work to guarantee there is no damage. Discussion then followed between Mr. Troje and the commissioners regarding the security fences at the bottom of the towers. Considerable discussion regarding chain link, versus tight wood construction. Mr. Troje noted that they would do what the city wished, but his preference was for wood, with a security barrier on top, to avoid any chance of the chain link creating a transmisison problem. It was confirmed that it is their intention to secure the base of all of the towers, not just the new tower. The new fences will be much sturdier than what is existing. Mr. Parker asked it if would be possible for the Commission to approve the installation of a secure fence, either wood or chain link. Commissioner Edwards asked why they didn't just say they would install a wood fence. Mr. Troje said this would be his preference. Chairman Cameron stated that the City/Commission was concerned about the fences being secure and the least attractive to kids as possible. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 1 It was stated, for the record, that the fences at the base of the towers will be of a wooden security type, with additional security material on top. In answer to a question, Mr. Troje stated they did not feel the other towers needed maintenance at this time, however, they will be looked at. The engineers say that at this time only the one tower needs replacing. Commissioner Edwards asked about the time frame for constructing the new tower? Mr.Troje said he thought it would be 60 days. Commissioner Edwards asked if the petitioners had a design example of the layout for installing the cable both underground and above ground. The petitioner said they had not brought any pictures of how the poles would look in the flood plain. They will be basic galvanized metal posts that will only need occasional painting. The wire will be strung about ten feet above the ground. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that the petitioners bring an example of the type of fencing to be used when they appear before the City Council. The City Manager noted that the city's Flood Plain Ordinance did speak to the issuing of the permit, and the standards to be followed in installation. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion Motion by Commission Gundershaug, second by Commission Edwards, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a radio tower in the Flood Plain, Planning Case 85-26. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a radio tower in the R-1 Zone, Planning Case 85-26. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-33 Construction Approval for Apartments Item 4 Mr. Donahue stated that the petitioner, Mr. Stuhr, had not submitted any revised plans to staff. He further noted that the County had stated that they would not allow the curb cut into the property from Bass Lake Road. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards he stated that once the petitioner develops the site, he will lose the existing curb cut on Bass Lake Road also. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Edwards to table Case 85-33 until the meeting of January 7, 1985. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-36 Mr. Tom Schlangen and Mr. Jim Phillipi of North Star Engineering Conditional Use Permit Consultants were present in regard to this request. Serlf Serve Car Wash Item 5 Mr. Phillipi stated that the site in question is north of 49th Avenue, and east of County Road 9t8. It is a long and narrow site - 320 feet long, and varying in width from 40 feet to 135 feet. They will need to bring in some fill to bring the site up to grade. The property is zoned B-3, and they are requesting permission to build a gas station, initially with only four pumps, covered by a canopy, a small store connected to the station to sell convenience items, and a drive through car wash. The store space will be about 450 square feet. There will be three service bays at the north side. The building will present a uniform appearance and they do intend some landscaping to block off the wall. He then showed the commissioners illustrations of the elevations. The pump area will be screened from County Road ~18, and also from 49th Avenue. Parking for employees will be on the north side and will also be screened. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 2 There will be two parking spots for the convenience store, one in the front of the building and the second one at the rear of the car wash. In addition they will have eight parking spaces at the fuel pumps. They felt that the vast majority of the customers for the store will be people already there to purchase gasoline. They will be a small operation and do anticipate generating the kind of convenience store volume of a Super America. They do not anticipate that they would have any drive in customeres only for the convenience store. The car wash will run on a 60-90 second cycle. They do not anticipate any stacking problems at the car wash. Discussion then covered the car wash, the drive and stacking lanes, and how traffic will be directed to the car wash to avoid cars cutting across the pump lines. It was noted that the blacktop would need to be striped. The petitioner stated he felt there was room for five cars in the stacking lane. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, they noted that they had considered other options for the site, but that the shape of the site and the setbacks required prohibited a different layout. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that they were proposing a maximum development of the site and questioned whether it might not be too heavily developed. Rooftop equipment will be screened with solid cedar, painted to match the building. There will be a 20 foot strip, back 10 feet, that will add additional plantings. They will still meet the minimum parking requirements. The building will be constructed of concrete block, with 1" insulating board. There will be a brick exterior, the top three feet will be grey block, with a metal facia. Pictures were presented of another site, of similar design, to illustrate the proposed exterior finish. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how a gas transport would be able to maneuver on the site? It was noted that one set of pumps would be shut off, when a transport was delivering. The petitioner noted that it had been suggested that transport deliveries be limited to 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. They do plan to be open 24 hours a day. There will be no unpackaged food items sold in the store. Trucks would be able to exist on the north road, out to Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner plans to install only one island of pumps at this time. These will be covered by a canopy. Future additions of pumps would be dependent upon the volume of business. Commissioner Gundershaug then indicating this had been a Committee. asked about the landscaping, concern of the Design and Review The petitioner indicated they are proposing a rock mulch with additional berms to screen and block the view of the parking lot. They indicated they would, not be adverse to eliminating the rock mulch, substituting the berms with a hedge row. The berms would be four feet high, and of a triangular shape. Landscaping will consist of evergreen, summit ash, and hedge materials. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern about the amount of blacktop proposed. It was indicated that the drive aisles to the east would be 24 feet wide, with the aisles in the tank area to be 37 feet wide. This would allow the transports to get to the tanks. The driveway to the north is 24 feet. In response to questions regarding the blacktop proposed for the southwest corner of the site, the petitioners noted they would prefer to install this now to provide turning movements for transports. The storage tanks will be located on the front of the property. This had been the advice of the Building Official. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 3 Commissioner Edwards stated he would like to see some consideration given to moving the location of the tanks a little farther down. He also felt some of the parking should be moved to other areas than the north and felt they would need more parking spaces up by the front door. The petitioner said the building was positioned as far north as the required setbacks would allow. He stated that he had considered cutting down the size of the building but it did not appear to be viable economically. He felt that three services bays were necessary. Commissioner Edwards stated he felt the petitioners were asking for too much on the small site, especially, considering that the land was less than level. They will need about 5000 yards of material to make the land level. They also will have to bring water into the site from the other side. He plans to have two service employees in the store, three mechanics, plus a service person. There will be a second shift at night. Commissioner Anderson commented that it appeared to'him that they were asking for three conditional use permits, plus a variance for a driveway of more than 24 feet in width. He felt this made the site extremely tight. He felt the petitioner could do a better job with the site than what was proposed. In response to questions, it was noted that restrooms in the service facility, and one store. there will be two in the convenience Discussion then covered the parking areas, how people would get into the northwest area for parking, and the possibility of replacing three vertical parking spaces with parallel spaces. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the parking for the convenience store being in front of the pumps as people run into the store. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the car wash would be open 24 hours a day and questioned whether the gasoline deliveries would not interfere with the car wash operation as far as traffic was concerned. Transports would block the entrance to the car wash. He also confirmed that the petitioner understood that the city would allow no outdoor sales area. Chairman Cameron expressed concerns about the size of the site and the maximum use as proposed. He was further concerned about the lack of parking space, close to the convenience store operation. He noted that the city had to be sure, before they allowed such development, that there would not be built-in conflicts. He felt that parking was lacking for the store. He further stated his concerns about the minimal landscaping proposed. The city also had to be concerned about the surrounding areas, some of which was residential. He felt more trees were necessary, felt they could use 20-30 more ash trees or a similar type of tree. He noted that they were removing six or eight 4-6" trees, and they were not going to replace them. The petitioner noted he was willing to increase the number of trees along the front -- he could add four or five trees, and also could add two parallel parking spaces by the pumps, about 85 feet from the store. Discussion followed about the need for the convenience store to attract customers. Their primary use is to sell gasoline. The future owner of the station stated he was looking at the service area only as a means of attracting customers. He did not anticipate ever wanting to expand the sales area. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 4 Motion Planning Case 85-38 Conditional Use Permit Variance in Parking Item 6 In answer to a question from Commissioner Lutts, the owner said that generally the people that would shop in the convenience store would be those people that drove in to purchase gas. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the petitioners had heard the concerns of the commission, and asked whether they thought there would be any benefit in the commission tabling this case, to allow them to go back to the drawing board. The owner said he felt this would allow him to present an updated landscape plan and try to provide some more parking spaces. He added, however, that he just did not think additional parking spaces were necessary for the convenience store. He was not looking for people who wanted to do their weekly shopping. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether given the trend in service stations today to increase the number of items for sale, there was not a possibility that they would be back soon requesting a larger store? The owner said that the marketing direction that Amoco was taking, he did not believe this would happen. This was a corporately mandated design, and he would not be seeking to increase his sales. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there was any way that the location of the gas pumps could be changed. He was concerned that the primary movement was across in front of the pumps and then out. The answer was that because of the setbacks, there was no way to shift the building toward the north. This would require a variance. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested making the building smaller. The owner stated this was not feasible. Commissioner Anderson noted that there were options for the petitioner at this time. One would be for the commission to act and send it forward to the Council, another would be for them to table the case until the January meeting to give more time for possible revisions. The petitioner indicated he would prefer a table. There was no one present in regard to this case. Chairman Cameron indicated that he didn't think the commission would be against granting a variance on setback if it could in turn solve some of the present problems with the proposal. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, to table Planning Case 85-36 until the meeting of January 7 1985. All present voted in favor. ' Mr. John Cassiani represented Offices, America, Inc.. He stated he was at the meeting as a developer interested in re-habbing the New Hope Mall. They wish to bring in a major anchor, U. S. Swim and Fitness to lease 38,000 square feet in the center. They will build additional square footage to bring the mall space up to the 80,000 square foot range. They plan to take the existing leased space and move it to the perimeter and install glass store fronts with pull-up parking to most of the tenants space. They were appearing before the Commission to secure conceptual approval of their plans for this re-hab project. They realize that the Mall needs a shot in the arm, and they feel that U.S. Swim and Fitness will provide this. They feel the upgrading of the mall, with a new exterior finish would be good for the people in the mall and the community. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Tom Zumwold, architect for the project, used illustration boards to give an overview of the proposed project. The plan is to create additional space for tenants and also for U.S. Swim and Fitness at the north side of the existing mall. The perimeter of the mall will all be for leasing space, including any existing tenants who wish to remain. They feel with the new exterior the view from the intersection will be an attractive focal point. There will also be a connecting canopy. Mr. Cassiani said he had a meeting scheduled with the owner of the Winnetka Mall on Wednesday to discuss the possible connection of the malls. This is not in a finalized stage of discussion. The architect noted he had several meeetings with the owner of the Winnetka Mall to discuss the possibility of linking the two malls. He noted that there are also utility easements that would prohibit any future development from straddeling the division lines. They envisioned a visual connection at the very least, between the two malls. The intention is to convert to a strip center with bays 70 feet deep to the west and south. U.S. Swim and Fitness will occupy the north end, plus the proposed addition. They propose a metal canopy to bring out the face of the building, to also provide some shelter for customers. They will use face brick, and typical store front areas, with a uniform sign band. They propose painted concrete block for the north and back sides. Dennis Griswold then spoke to the landscaping. They are proposing 90 trees for the perimeter, including evergreens and junipers, with shrub massing to provide some screening to the back and also to add visual interest. The main entrance will have a row of canopy trees and as a focal point between the two buildings a double row of juniper along the sidewalk with shrubbery behind. They will work with the people from the Winnetka Mall if possible and there maybe some minor adjusting in landscape plans. They are trying to create a garden affect, using raised planters with locusts. Referring to the Design and Review meeting and the concern over parking, the architect stated that they had provided an alternative plan which incorporated the required parking. The change is that they shortened the length and increased the widths of the aisles to 64 feet. Copies of the revision were distributed to the commissioners and a rendering of the proposal was provided. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how much would be cut off the building with the changes. The answer was approximately 10,000 feet. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the changed proposal assumed that they would have cooperation from the people in the Winnetka Mall regarding the joint entrance. The architect stated that the parking proposed was within the required setbacks. Commission concensus was that perhaps a little more landscaping could be provided. In response to a question, it was noted that the shared parking with the Winnetka Mall would hopefully be discussed at the next day's meeting. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the commission was being asked only for Concept Approval, and that actual construction and all details would be back before the commission for review. Discussion then covered commission concerns, which included the need for a second loading dock, where trash would be collected and stored, the appearance of the west and south sides of the new addition and the need to attempt to tie the two buildings together. Also of concern was the view from 42nd Avenue driving east. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 6 The petitioner said they were looking at some greenery, and perhaps a walkway and perhaps using a different type of block, or glass on the back of the store fronts. He said they would be willing to put a nicer type of block on the back. There will be exterior lighting, and snow will be removed fkom the site. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern about security between the two malls. He was also concerned about trucks coming in and out of the site and felt there needed to be some type of control, perhaps by signage. The architect noted that a service aisle would run all the way around the building. Alan Brixius from the Northwest Associated Consultants stated that the current parking plan met all requirements. He added that a joint parking plan between the two malls would be helpful for both of the malls. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioners were aware of the New Hope Sign Ordinance and its restrictions. He further determined that a walkway was planned for around the entire building, that the parking lot would be curbed and striped, and that there will be lighting in the parking lot. They feel that generally, the existing rooftop equipment will be converted to smaller units. They have also considered the potential of raising the parapet. Chairman Cameron asked whether they had discussed their plans with K-Mart. Mr. Cassini said he had attempted to talk with them, but they had not as yet returned his calls. Commissioner Anderson stated that since the two driveways were very dependent upon the Winnetka Mall's cooperation, he was concerned about losing access between the two malls. Both of the malls would suffer from this lack of access. He asked if, should agreement be reached on shared access, how they intended to manage the relationship into perpetuity. Mr. Cassini said he intended to have documents drawn up by their attornies, that would be simple and concrete in writing, that would be filed along with the property, to be used by future owners also. Discussion then covered the driveway around the back side of the stores, and the need for fire and emergency vehicles to be able to gain access, as well as the traffic pattern between the New Hope Mall and K-Mart. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, the architect stated that there would be enclosed trash storage. Commissioner Anderson expressed extension toward 42nd Avenue. concern about the proposed The architect responded that they were saddled with 60,000 square feet of building that doesn't work today. Mrs. Neff, operator of the Paper Outlet in the New Hope Mall, stated she had been there for three years and expressed concern that she had just moved next door to her original site because she had been assured by Mr. Kelly that she would not be dumped out of the center. She loves her present location and the people and the customers. She was concerned about the purchase of the center, when it would be effective and what would happen to the existing tenants. Chairman Cameron stated he was not sure that these questions and concerns were appropriate at the Commission meeting. Mr. Cassini said he had meetings set up with present tenants, to see if they wished to remain. He stated that the tenants were not going to be bulldozed into decisions. No one would be forced out -- tenants would have plenty of notice regarding any changes. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 7 Motion Motion Motion Public Hearing on 42nd Avenue Improvement Study Item 7 Chairman Cameron indicated he liked the proposal very much. Commissioner Edwards agreed with this. Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioner had approached the owners of the Sinclair station. The city manager stated that the city HRA was on record as wanting to try to incorporate the station with any redevelopment of the area. Mr. Cassini said they were going to try to approach them. The city manager noted that the proposed text change must be approved before concept approval could be given. This would include the use in the B-4 zone, as a conditional use permit. Alan Brixius said the commission could give concept approval subject to a text amendment. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending that staff prepare an amendment to the text to allow this use as a Conditional Use Permit in the B-4 Zone. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending concept approval of Planning Case 85-38. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to an adequate agreement between the Winnetka Mall and the New Hope Mall regarding access, to be reviewed by the city attorney. Voting in favor: Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Edwards. Gundershaug. Abstain: The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the 42nd Avenue Improverment Study and Recommendations on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Alan Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants represented the city. He stated that the 42nd Avenue Study had evolved from the planning process adopted by the city. Things considered were the Comprehensive Plan as previously adopted, the plan for the City Core, and concerns about commercial growth, the 42nd Avenue area, the desired land use of the area, and the problems of excessive curb cuts on 42nd Avenue and traffic/accident patterns. Issues of concern are traffic circulation, the high speeds in the area, and the high number of accidents. New Hope has limited commercial development, and the present strip development has added to the lack of continuity. There is a lack of traffic control also because of the lack of controlled access east of the railroad tracks. He felt that the high traffic volume and accident rate might support a petitioner for a semaphore. There also should be a realignment of Nevada Avenue. They had also studied the land use in the area and the lack of compatibility of the landscaping. They had come up with the following goals. 1. Safer access on to 42nd Avenue 2. Need for harmony of land uses. 3. More positive emphasis of the New Hope Center area. 4. Need to provide for a cooperative agreement between city and the owners of the businesses in the asea. the New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 8 They propose that west of the tracks the curb cuts should be combined, and left turn lanes provided. On the east side of the railroad tracks they propose to eliminate the small commercial areas, and eventually push for overall high density housing development in the area. Re-alignment of Nevada Avenue was a high priority at this time. This includes redevelopment of three sites, bringing the driveways north of the intersection to direct traffic to Nevada, eliminate some of the curb cuts in the area. He stated that actual implementation is right now, up in the air. This is because of pending legislation at the Federal Level which may discourage any redevelopment projects at this time. They will have to wait until the first of the year. The means of implementation would be through tax increment financing bonds. The first phase would deal with the north side of 42nd Avenue including the access to the print shop and Oregon Estates. Randy Rosengren of the Sunshine Factory asked how much land would be required to expand the right-of-way. It was noted that right now there is 60 feet and they would need at least 80 feet. seven feet would probably come from the north side and 17 feet from the south. They would like to create some type of positive image for downtown New Hope, how this was to be achieved, would determine how much right of way would be necessary. Ann Liebenstein of Northwest Associated Consultants said they had tried to align the development with the businesses to the west. More extensive engineering studies are required to determine exactly what is required. Commissioner Anderson asked how the right of way would be acquired? Mr. Brixius said first they would have to identify exactly what was needed, then they would try to negotiate with the property owners, and if this did not prove effective, the city could go to condemnation. Ms. Liebenstein said that because it was a county road, the county would have to agree to changes, and that the costs would be split 50/50 between the county and the city. In answer to a question from the owner of Metro Fone, Mr. Brixius said that nothing is proposed at this time to affect the access road to that property. He added that long term development time frame could be 5-20 years, depending upon legislation enacted during the next month. He re-emphasized that this was basically a concept plan. The time table would start, when a developer became interested, and the city would be trying to cooperate with the developer. Ken Johnson, of Hardees restaurants asked about his area. Mr. Brixius stated that at this time they were suggesting some additional landscaping along Winnetka on 42nd Avenue, but that they are proposing no change in land use, or change in access at this time. A citizen expressed concern about the northwest corner of Nevada and 42nd, and the many rumors that were circulating about this potential development. Mr. Bri×ius stated they hoped to coordinate the properties, the commercial uses in the R-0 are not being proposed for change at this time. Discussion then covered the restricting of access to 42nd Avenue and the fact that both the city and the County see this as a problem, the excess curb cuts, etc. There are too many traffic movements in an uncontrolled area. There is also a problem with sight lines in the area of the railroad tracks. In response to questions the City Manager noted that the present discussion was the official public hearing, that the commission would act, and recommend to the City Council. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 9 Motion Motion Motion Design & Review Item 8 Codes & Standards Item 9 Land Use Committee Item 10 Approval of Minutes November 5, 1985 Item 11 Review of Council Minutes Item 12 Adjournment The Chairman noted that one of the purposes of the public hearing was to gain citizen input. He asked whether anyone had any serious reservations or concerns, doubts about this proposal, and suggested that this was the time for them to speak up. A citizen asked what type of development was proposed for the area east of the railroad tracks. Mr. Brixius said they were proposing reducing commercial development and going to a high density residential. They would encourage developers to come in to do this. Following further discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission that the city should proceed with these proposals. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the underpass, Mr. Brixius said that the railroad had no plans to change the configuration. The city manager stated that the tracks presently have heavier use than previously. Motion by Gundershaug, favor. Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner to close the public hearing. All present voted in Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards stating that inasmuch as the concensus of the Commission was in favor of the 42nd Avenue Report and its recommendations, the report should be accepted by the City Council. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended as recommended in the 42nd Avenue Report. All present voted in favor. Design and Review had met once in November. There was no report from Codes and Standards. There was no report from Land Use Committee. The Planning Commission Minutes of November printed. 5, were accepted as The Council minutes of November 12, and 25, were reviewed. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, y~ce Bo~s dde~ke r~~''' New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 10