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