Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1978 Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE$ '3. A regular meeting of the Plan~ing Con~is~on of the City of New Hope was held on Tuemaa~, Januarg 3, 1978 at the City. Hall, 4~0I Xglon Avenue North. The meeting was~ called' to orde~ at 7:30 p.m. bg .O~airman Cameron. ROLL CAI~ WAS ~AKEN: ' Present: London, Atchley; Gustafson, Cameron,. ~undershaug - Absent: Bartos (exc~sed), C~ense~, Anderson .~ Anderson arrived at 7:33.. P.m.; Christensen=~rr~ved at 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE 78-t-,~. REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT AUTOMOBtDE sERvIcE WINDOWS IN RB DISTRICTS..? BURGER. KING,~ PETITIONER. ~. .~ Mr. James H~uesrepresented Burger,King Corporation. He. not~ that they were requesting a .code amend- ment to alldw automobile service windows o~ drive-through lanes in the RB District. He stated that there appeared to be a ~natic~al ~rend toward this type of convenie'nce Window as a supplement to existing businesses. Mr. Hayes stated{~that according to the New Hope Ordinance, this tYP~. of window is totally prohibited in the RB District~'~ Since a rezoning would affect 'the total use~of the property, they-were requesting a code amendment~ Burger King has. ~o~oCted some sur~ys that indicated that 35-40% of their customers currently purchase'. food and eat it_off the':premises. Using a window of th~s~ type they feel that about~25%.o£ .the business would use the w~b~OW, I¢ is their.fee!i~g that it would be an'"~xtension of the existi.ng carry 'out trade and would also relieve 8raf~ic congestion in both the parking lot and within the building.. Burger King would li~e to see the.ordinance amended to allow them to h'ave this type of service at their two New Hope restaukants'.~27th/WinY~etka and 7009 Bas~ Lake Road) ~ither as a permitted use or a Condi- tional use. They feel this would still allow the City the full flexibility and'leeway in Overseeing the design of ~he operation and the conditions under which it would operate. The Chairman confirmed that Mr. Hayes realized that he was requesting ~ fundamental.change in the'code- of the City, which wobld affect not only Burger King but any property with the same zoning.. He fur- ther noted that Burger King had been aware of the zoning of the property when they came to New 'Hope and w~hat the restrictions of the zone were. Mr. Hayes agreed that such a use was prohibited and Burger King was so aware when they ~ame to New Hope. -In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Hayes noted that he did not know if they reall'~ lost any business because of the lack of a drive-up window. Where they had instalJed'win~s,'there was usually a 10% increase'in business. The windows are relatively new in th~'~peration and they were not yet sure whether or not this was a sustained increase. It is their feeling that they are able-to provide a much better overall service to their customers with the windows. Discussion followed between Cormaissiuner Gustafson and Mr. Hayes regarding the possible traffic conges- rion with such w~ndows and the fact that some windows of this tgpe~ were closed during the winter months. in existing establishments. ~ '. in answer to a qu~tim~ 'f~m t~e City'Manager, Mr. Hayes noted that the average wait for food would be about a minute and'a ~h~lf. 'T~ey would normally provide nine spaces for stacking. ' Mr. Hayes added that this request was Mim~lar to their request of a year ago, except that then i~was for w,specific location and they had wish~'d-to get the property rezoned.' ~ ' Chairman Cameron commented that what was being requested by Burger King was a very serious issue and would affect noton~'Burger King but the entire City and would have a serious affect on all of'the properties with the same zoning. He, therefore, assigned this request .to the Codes and Standards Com- mittee for review.~. H~.clarified that Mr. Hayes would be willing to meet with the Con~ittee during the review process~ PLANNING CASE 78-2 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.TO ALLOW STORAGE OF SNOW RENOVAL 'EQUIPMENT ON. THE K-MART PARKING.LOT - DON W. LEE, PETITIONER. Mr. Lee stated he':was requesting the variande to allow him to park two pieces of Snow remov~ equip- ment on the K-Mart parking lot. They need to park there because the~ must come in and remove snow at all times of the~night and also needed a location adjacent to electricity for on~ Of the. vehicles. Durlng a heavy snow it was a problem having to drive the equipment in from another lo~ation to plOw.'He was asking permis~£on to park the equipment there during the snow season. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 1978 In answer to a question from the Chairman~ Mr. Lee noted that he felt the snow season would extend from the middle of October to perhaps April 1st. Mr. Lee noted that he had presented the City with a 'letter from K-Mart noting they had no objection to his request to park on their property. The Chairman stated that the code restricted the parking of equipment not directly related to the opera- ~ion of the business. Mr. Lee stated they plowed not only the K-Mart parking lot but the area around the drive in bank, the parking lot at the Red Owl shopping center and the parking lot at the Charles Edwards Company at 49th and Boone. Mr. Lee further stated that he stored his pickup trucks in Crystal where he lived and also had a spot in Plymouth where his equipment was stored in the summer. 'In. answer to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Lee stated that when the snow was especially heavy he would use the equipment stored at the K-Mart site when plowing the Edwards site. The grader would never ~o out but occasionally the end loader was moved. Commissioner Christensen expressed his concern that the K-Mart site would become a central storage spot for equipment to be used at other locations. Mr. Lee noted that one piece of equipment would be parked at the northeast corner of the building, by the electricity behind the grocery store and one parked under the light around the northeast corner of the grocery store. He locks the equipment and noted that he had not e~per£enced any difficulty with children vandalizing or playing on the equipment during the three years he has used the lot. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion stating that because the Planning Commission had reviewed the situa- tion and determined that the two pieces of snow removal equipment are related to the business of the K-Mart Store and the New Hope. Center, they be permitted to park from October 15, to April 1, at the northeast corner of the K-Mart parking lot. Con~uissioner Gundershaug second. Discussion followed about the dates as included in the motion and the amount of snow that required re- moval. Commissioner Gustafson amended his motion to read "... from November 15, or the first snow fall in ex- cess of one inch, whichever comes first...". Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Gustafson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion passed~ PLAWNING CASE 78-3 - REQUEST FOR CODE INTERPRETATION TO PERMIT RETAIL SALES iN SERVICE STATIONS - MINNE- SOTA-OHIO OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Avron Gordon, Attorney with Peterson Engberg and Peterson, represented the Minnesota-Ohio oil Com- that they were appearing'before the Commission because they acted in a position of advi- pany. He noted Council who sit as a Board of Appeals and Judgements, according to 4.602 of the City Code. sor to the City Mr. Gordon noted that the City Inspectors had issued three warnings to the station regarding their retail sales. It is the City's position that the prime use in an automobile service s~ation and the City Code prohibits sales of other than accessory items to the principal use i.e. household items, soap, bread, fire logs, etc. Mr. Gordon stated that the gas station was located in a retail business zone. He added that the sale of convenience items by the station has allowed them to compete in a highly competitive market when many major oil companies were being forced to close down their stations. Until recently M-O has not had any complaints about their sale of non automobile related items, nor any adverse public reaction. They have been selling convenience items since at least 1964. The non automobile related items account for les~ than 10% of their sales, but from 40-50% of their profit. This is what. has allowed them to stay in busi- ness and compete with some of their competitors. The employees of the statio~ conducted ~ '~011 over the past four business'days in regard to the conveni- ence item sale. He submitted the results, requesting they be included in ~he hearing minutes and for- warded to the ~ity Council. The petition is over 15 pages in length. In effect, the petition states that the people signing do not object to the sales of convenlence items at the station and would probably use the service. Mr. Gordon noted that the alleged violations occurred after the application for 1978 licenses. In i~su- ing the warnings the inspector had referred to Section 4.92 of the City O~dinance and its definition of an automobile service station. He then cited the 1976 ~ase of Fairbanks versus the City of Blaine, where the Supreme Court of Minnesota had indicated that where two uses were permitted in a given area, it is not proper for the City to refuse a license to a gasoline station operator who wanted to operate both a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 ~- JANUARY 3, 1978 5. gasoline station and a retail store in an area where two uses would otherwise have been permitted. Mr. Gordon stated he felt they had as strong an argument as in this case because the station was l~cated in a retail business zone. He re-stated that Minnesota-Ohio had been selling convenience items from i~s gas station for a long time. The current difficulty arose because of their license appl~ications for 1978 for a 3.2 beer license and a general retail sales license. They wish to sell the sam~ products in the New Hope station as they sell in other communities. This would allow them to compete and 'to serve the public. It is their opinion that a logical interpretation of the ordinance would permit the t~o uses · '-on the:property. They urged that the Planning Commission recommend this interpretation to the City Coun- cil at their next meeting. He re-emphasized that they were only trying to conduct the type of business allowed in a retail business zone. Commissioner Gustafson asked which particular items had been sold in the station over the past 12 gears and whether there were fewer items sold now. Mr. Terry Thomey, Vice President of Marketing for Minnesota-Ohio, stated that at one time food stuffs had been sold i.e. cookies, bread, milk and eggs, but not at New Hope. They have sold pop, powdered 's~ap, etc. in the past. He added that they tried to handle fast turn items and if they did not moVe sale was discontinued% Commissioner asked whether in the past the City had not gone on record as being opposed to retail sales in gas stations. The City Manager indicated that they had, citing the petition of the Mileage DX station several gears ago. It had been determined at that time that sales had to be of an allied accessory use to the gas station. Commissioner Gustafson, confirming that theCity had determined that only one principal use would be allowed at a gas station stated that he personally regretted the fact that the City Inspector.had'not been aware of what the station had been selling, but did not see that this was any grounds for not enfor- cing the Ordinance. In his opinion, the City had gone on record regarding such sales and he felt that enforcement should be c~ntin~eduntil suchtime as the Code was reviewed. Mr. Gordon commented that there had been a big change in the competition in the oil industry in recent years. A reverse trend exists -- Target and K-Mart are selling gas and oil out of a retail store and the fact t~hat people do purchase items and use the stations as a convenience place is worthy of consideration. The market is slightly different than in the past and such sales mean a lot to Minnesota-Ohio. Chairman Cameron commented on the fact that whatever decision was made by the City on the Minnesota-Ohio request would affect all other companies in the City. Discussion then centered on the type of licenses already held by the station, what items were allowed to be sold by the City, the inspection system used by the City in the past and now, the signs on the build- ing and whether they Were in conformance with the Cbde, and ~lether or not the company intends to remodel the station if they are allowed to sell more items? Mr. Joe Bergland, of Minnesota-Ohio, noted that their largest retail sales surprismngly enough came from a similar station located in Alexandria. Most sales are of an impulse type. They have experienced lit- tle difficulty with traffic problems at other stations due to people shopping extensively. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that the station was a legal non-con- forming use in the RB District. . Commissioner Christe~sen commented that there had been many requests for sales outlets, c6nven~ence stores, etc. before the Commission recently and he personally was concerned only with the City of New Hope. From a citizen's point of view he was not interested in adding another retail outlet to the City, this time in a service station. The Ordinance states one principal use and from his point of view that's where it should stag. -~'' Commissioner Anderson noted that he felt it was a fairly compatible use especially in the RB Zone. It seemed to him that it was a. coming trend to combine uses. The sales have existed for several years and he didn't see that it had been that big a problem. Commissioner Christensen questioned "where do we stop it?". Commissioner Anderson felt itwas self regulation as long as the restrictions of the zone were adhered to. Commissioner Gustafson questioned why the station should be granted special privileges just because theg had been allowed to remain in the district as non-conforming use? Considerable discussion followed regarding the definition of a service station, the permitted uses ver- sus the special use, and~ what should be included under principal and allied accessory uses in a specific location, according to the existing City Code. - 4 JANUARY 3, 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Bergland commented that they were only asking to be allowed to continue what they had done for several years. They would also like to be able to stay in business. He added that last year the mer- chandise operation accounted for 40% of their profit, in the first seven months of this year it had ac- counted for 60% of their profit. Gasoline margins are narrowing every day. They feel that selling convenience items is essential to survival. Chairman Cameron noted that this would be setting a precedent and it was the responsibility of the Com- mission ~o look out for the best interests of the City of New Hope. Discussion then covered the advisability of reviewing the Ordinance and its restrictions and the fact that any changes in the Code or in interpretation of the Code affected the entire City and not this one site. Concensus of the Commissioners was that the issue needed additional study° Chairman Cameron referred the request for Code inter.oretation by Minnesota-Ohio Oil Company to the Codes and Standards Committee. He noted that enforcement of any citations received by the Company would be stayed until the review was completed and the Committee had made its recommendations to the full Commis- Mr. Bergland indicated that Minnesota-Ohio would be willing to submit any input they had available to the Committee as requested and to meet with them. 6. PLANNING CASE 78-4 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE TO PERMIT A ROTATING BARBER POLE AT 7181 42ND AVENUE NORTH - LARRY'S HAIR STYLES, PETITIONER. Mr. Larry Weinzetl stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to have a rotating barber pole at his barber shop. He felt that under normal circumstances a barber pole would be allowed without question. It was a symbol of the operation and the pole had been allowed by the City in the past. The Chairman noted that the New Hope Ordinance specifically prohibited signs that flashed, moved or tended to distract passing motorists. The pele was allowed, it could not u~tate. Mr. Weinzetl noted that the rotating barber pole represented the trade. This particular pole had been at that location for many many years on a rotating basis. Now, since he had been located there, there seemed to be a discrepancy. The City Manager noted that according to the Sign Ordinance the amortization period for that particular barber pole ended as of February 1977. The pole should have been turned off for almost a year. The previous owner had been aware of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Weinzetl indicated that he had not been informed of this by the previous owner. He added that the Ordinance might be something that the City had agreed upon, but he felt the barber pole was a fair trade symbol of his business and taking it away removed something that described his business. He stated the sign was off the main avenue by some 50-75 feet. He had not read the Ordinance but could not imagine how something already there, could be taken away. He felt that with the sign rotating,anyone entering either the restaurant or the store would be made aware of his shop. He felt the sign was very relative to his business. Commissioner Gustafson noted his agreement with the gentleman that the pole was a symbol of a barber shop, but felt it was a symbol whether it rotated or not. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to deny Case 78-4 - Request for Rotating Barber Pole at 7181 42nd Avenue North. Commissioner Atchley second. Mr. Weinzetl questioned whether the question of a rotating barber pole had been considered at the time the Sign Ordinance had been adopted? The Chairman answered that rotating barber poles and all other moving signs had been considered at great length before the revised Sign Ordinance had been adopted. Voting in favor: Lpndon, Atchley, Christensen, Gustafson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion passed. 6a. The City Manager stated that the developers of the PUD proposed for Wisconsin Avenue and Bass Lake Road had requested permission to address the Commission regarding a change in their, development plans. He noted that because they were requesting a reduction in density, a public hearing was not required. Mr. Frank Dunbar represented. Boisclair Corporation. He noted they had appeared before the Commission several months earlier and received approval for one portion of a total development that would have involved two sites in Crystal, one in Robbinsdale and one in New Hope. Because they had been denied ap- proval in Crystal they had to locat~ another site and the resultant time delay had interferred with their financing deadlines. They now will locate in Brooklyn Park instead of Crystal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 JANUARY 3, 1978 10. 11. 12. 6a. Mr. Dunbar stated that because the HUD Office in Washington was ending their fiscal year and there had been a possibility of losing the funding, they had been required to su1~mit a final commitment on the total mortgage package prior to having the contracts signed with their construction company. As a re- sult they had submitted a budget,that because of increasing construction costs over the last months, did not cover their budget. Mr. Dunbar presented revised site plans for the Commissioners to review. Boisclair is requesting two amendments to their original PUD. 1. Reduction of six one bedroom units at the south side of the project and reduction of six underground stalls by the same number. With the removal of the six units the landscaping would be distributed in a different manner in that area -- spreading out the trees more. They had previousl~ been posi- tioned against the buildings. Discussion followed about this request. The City Manager noted that it was really to the City's advantage to lower the density of the PUD. Th~ second amendment they requested was to change the siding material onthe exterior of the buildings. They were asking for this change because the siding as originally proposed was to be installed horizontally and they could no longer obtain a warranty for the siding from the supplier. They now propose to use a texturized masonite, in- stalled in a shiplap design. Discussion followed about the substitute siding and how this would affect the general appearance of the si'te. Mr. Dunbar noted that the same siding, as originally proposed, had been installed on a townhouse development in Golden Valley and had required replacement. Boisclair did not feel the? could install a material not covered by a warranty. They anticipate closing on the entire project in late January. Constructi~q~wi!l begin according to weather conditions in early spring. Commissioner Christensen moved to approve the amendments as submitted on 1/3/78 bg Boisclair Corpora- tion for the PUD approved previously in Case 76-76, with the provision that the amount of landscaping would remain as oriqinally proposed. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Atchley~ Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, London, Cameron Motion passed. 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. NEW BUSINESS The Council Minutes of December 12th, and 27th were reviewed. The Commission Minutes of DecJmber 6th, were accepted as printed. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to re- elect Dr. Cameron as Chairman of the Commission. sioner Gundershaug second. Commi s - Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. London, Atchley, Christensen, Gustafson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson None Bartos Commissioner Christensen made a motion to re- elect Commissioner Gustafson as Vice Chairman. sioner London second. Commi s Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. London, Atchley, Christensen, Gustafson, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson None Bartos Following discussion, it was the co~census of the Commission that it was not necessary to appoint secretary at this ti~e. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 ' JANUARY 3, 1978 13. Discussion then centered on filling the two vacancies on the Commission. The Chairman requested that the City Manager submit an article to the Post requesting that interested citizens apply. He was also requested to contact previous applicants to ascertain if they were still interested in serv- ing on the Commission. The Chairman expressed his concern that the vacancies be filled within the month. 14. Chairman Cameron referred to the previous granting of Waivers of Platting. He felt that the Council as well as the citizens of the City, should be made aware of the Commission's feeling that all future developments should be platted and that no Waivers of Platting be approved in the future. Brief discussion followed. It was the concensus of the Commission that this ShoOld be the new~olicy. Commissioner London made a motion that the Council be advised that it was the recommendation of the 15. 16. Planning Commission that no future Waivers of Platting be granted in the City. Commissioner Christen- sen second. Voting in f~vor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Gustafson, Cameron, Gundershaug,'Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. Chairman Cameron noted that because of the difficulties that Commissioner Gustafson would have for the next month in attending Planning Commission meetings, it was most important that all of the Commissioners make every effort to attend all meetings. He felt it was most important that the Commission avoid the chance of a meeting being cancelled because of the lack of a quorem. The meeting was .adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:56 p.m. Respectful 1 y submit ted, JoyUe Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 17, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 17, 1978 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. Due to the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, City Manager Larson called the meet-. '~ing to order at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Larson then gave the Oath of Office to Commissioners Brian Anderson, Robert Cundershaug, and Bernard Bartos, who were reappointed for three gear terms. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Cameron (excused), Gustafson (excused), London (excused). The first order of business was the selection of an Acting Chairman. It was the concensus of the Commission that Wayne Christensen chair the meeting. He agreed and took over the chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-82 - (CONTINUED FROM 10-4-77 AND 12-6-77) REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AND CODE INTER- PRETATION AT 7202 42ND AVENUE NORTH - RAPID OIL CHANGE, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the petitioner was ill and had requested that this case be tabled° Conu~issioner Anderson made a motion to table Case 77-82 until the meetinq of February 7, 1978. sioner Atchleg. second. Commi s Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gundershaug, Anderson None Cameron, Gustafson, London 4. PLANNING CASE 77-92 (CONTINUED FROM 11-1-77 AND 12-6-77) REQUEST TO REZONE LI TO RB WITH SPECIAL USE PER3]IT FOR ROLLER RINK - BOYD YANCY, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not present. The City Manager stated that staff had notified Mr. Yancy's agent, but had been unable to contact Mr. Yancy personally. Mr. Stu Sheldon, the owner of the Cheapskate Skating Rink in Minnetonka, was present because of inter- est in Case 77-92. The Chairman invited him to address the Commission. Mr. Sheldon stated that he and his partner had talked with the petitioners in this case about the roller skating business. They felt that anyone contemplating going into the business should be well informed. He indicated that there was a problem for everyone if there were too many skating rinks. He noted they had also shared their financial figures with Mr. Yancy in an attempt to help his understanding of the business. He noted that there was another rink that was very well run located in Brooklyn Park. Their rink is only ten minutes down CSAH#18. They have been open since 1975. It was his opinion that the kids in the New Hope/Robbinsdale area that want to skate are already skating at one of these two rinks. He personally doubted that the area could support another rink. His interest in appearing before the Commission was simply to ascertain whether Mr. Yancy was going to proceed with his plans. Mr. Sheldon stated that, in his opinion, a well run skating rink was an asset to a community. A rink that is not well run is a liability and might not survive. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Sheldon stated that the Roller Skating Rink Operator's Association suggested that a basic population of between 80 and 100 thousand peQple within an 8-10 mile area was necessary to guarantee a successful operation. He noted that their Minnetonka . rink was profitable and they had in excess of 200,000 paid admissions a year. Their Cottage Grove rink is not profitable and they had only 100,000 paid admissions last year. A 400-750 thousand dollar in- vestment is necessary to provide a good rink. Commissioner Cb-ristensen commented on the fact that at least from the point of view of young children the population in the New Hope area was declining according to recent studies. Conmissioner Anderson inquired about the traffic patterns at Mr. Sheldon's rinks? Mr. Sheldon stated that during the school year the sessions usually started at 4:00 p.m. and continue to 10 - 11:00 p.m. The major usage is after 7:00 p.m. During the summer it would be a little different because they often have a matinee session. The traffic congestion would be bad for perhaps only 15 min- utes at each end of a session when people drop off and pick up their children. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JANUARY 17, 1978 4. Mr. Sheldon stated he would be willing to share any information he might have with the Commission! if they so desired;to aid in future discussions. Commissioner Christensen thanked him for his offer. Brie9 discussion followed about the type ~f C°n~truction used in a roller skating rink and the number or parking spaces necessary to avoid traffic congestion. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to table Case 77-92 until the meetinq of February 7, 1978. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Gustafson, London Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 6. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 7. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had met on January 16, 1978. He some recommendations to the Commission. First, they propose an amendment to the Code, changing the B-3 Use List to allow, as a Conditional Use, "residential equipment rentals in a totally enclosed building". Commissioner Atchley stated that they also had recommended that "other rental, both residential and in- dustrial, be allowed as a Conditional Use in an industrial zone. Commissioner Anderson made a motion th&t the Code presently before the City Council for review, be amended to include: "Residential equipment rentals enclosed within a building are allowed as a Con- ditional Use in the B-3 Zone and all rentals, both of a residential and industrial type, be allowed as a Conditional Use in industrial zones. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion massed. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gundershaug, Anderson None Cameron, Gustafson, London Commissioner Anderson then stated that the Codes and Standards Committee recommended that regarding joint uses in services stations, the following language be included in the Code as the definition of a principal use: "The main, either permitted, or special use of land or buildings. The principal use can be a single public, industrial, commercial or residential unit or a unified arrangement of buildings, or service facilities, or multiple compatible uses within a single building". Commissioner Anderson noted that this would allow putting together everything in a building, provid- ing the properuy was zoned for it. Co~issioner Christensen expressed his concern that this was an issue that the full Commission should review and vote on. Commissioner Anderson added that they were also recommending the following language: Subd. {5) Multiple OccupancY "When more than one public, commercial, industrial or residential unit occupies part of a multiple tenant lot or building, but the lot or building use is not a planned project, each individual unit must provide its own parking and loading space unless the use qualifies and is approved for use of joint parking facilities; signage is limited to that permitted in Section 3.185 Subd.(7) of the Sign Ordinance." Discussion followed between the Commissioners and the City Manager about this proposed change and whether this would control all types of sales, whether or not accessory, and how the City would enforce the Code. The City Manager pointed out that there were two types of situations -- one where an actual second business would be involved, the other where sales of some type of non related materials were to be sold in connection with the main use. The second situation was one that might nemd to be con- trolled by special use or by defining what could be permitted as an accessory use. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY 17, 1978 Commissioner Anderson stated that the Committee had felt that there would be no future service sta- tions built in the City, so the ordinance did not have to be designed to keep additional facilities out but to accommodate existing stations that might be in trouble or felt they needed such sales to survive. Discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding the possibility of all locations attempting to sell or provide more than one type of product. Concensus of the Con~ission was that this issue should be tabled and reviewed by the full Co~m~ission at the first meeting in February. Commissioner Atchley suggested that perhaps the Commission/City should also make a determination as to exactly which direction their concern should be in regard to multiple uses. Is the concern for the safety of the area, i.e. traffic hazards caused by additional uses, or about competition for smaller stores, the appearance of the buildings, or what? Commissioner Christensen expressed his feeling that the City should have very firm control over these multiple uses in an establishment. The subject of allowing commercial recreation in industrial zones was then discussed. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Codes and Standards Committee was recommending that beth the existing Code and the proposed Code be amended to add commercial recreation as a conditional use in industrial zones. They suggest the following language as a definition: Commercial Recreation: Bowling alley, golf, pool hall, dance hall, skating, trampoline, tennis, handball and other racket spo~ts and similar uses. They further proposed that the following criteria be imposed as part of the granting of such a con- ditional use: A. The proposed site must have immediate access to an arterial street as classi- fied in the City Street Plan. Bo They further A. The proposed site must be at least 500 feet from a residential zone or use or separated from such zone or use by an arterial street, railroad or similar physical barrier or by existing industrial or commercial development. recon~end that the following development site criteria apply: The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the site. Bo Parking areas shall be screened fiom view of residential districts and shall be curbed with continuous curbs not less than six inches high above the park- ing lot or driveway grade. C. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. Do All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the right-of-way or from a residential zone or use. The entire area other than that occupied by buildings, structures or plant- ings shall be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete material which will control dust and drainage. The City engineer shall approve the material and grading. F. Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the number of plants shall be subject to approval by the City. Commissioner Anderson made a motion that the Use Lists for industrial areas in beth the existing Codm and the proposed Code be amended to include commercial recreation~with the location and site develop- ment criteria as above. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. Bartos, christensen, Atchley, Gundershaug, Anderson None Cameron, Gustafson, London PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JANUARY 17, 1978 9. 12. NEW BUSINESS 8. The Council Minutes of January 9, 1978 were reviewed. The City Manager noted that the Council wi'shed the Planning Commission to operate with only eight members for six months to determine whether this might be a better number of members for the Com- mission. Discussion followed. The Planning Commission minutes of January 3, 1978 were accepted as printed° The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 1978 A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 7, 1978 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, the City Manager called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. After consideration, the Commission requested that Commissioner London assume the Chair for this meeting. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Barton, Atchley, Gundershaug, London, Anderson Absent: Christensen(excused), Cameron (excused), Gustafson (excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3o PLANNING CASE 77-82 (CONTINUED FROM 1-17-78) REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AND CODE INTERPRETATION AT 7202 42ND AVENUE NORTH - RAPID OIL CHANGE, PETITIONER. Mr. Flaherty represented Rapid Oil Change. Co~missioner Anderson commented that the Codes and Standards Committee had met on the issue of the Use Lists for service stations and had recon~ended some language to be included as an amendment to the Code. However, at a previous meeting of the Commission it had been the concensus that the issue should be con- sidered by the full Commission. It was Mr. Anderson's opinion that this issue should be again tabled until the full Commission was in session. 4/ Mr. Flaherty stated they had a lease on the Metro 500 station. Their business is providing a ten minute oil change for cars and trucks. They do not sell any other product, only the oil change service. It was l~s opinion that if they stayed within the prescribed percentage they could install a sign. When he had attempted to obtain a sign permit they were informed this was not true. The City granted them a stay of enforcement until the issue of multiple uses in service stations and additional siqns could be resolved. Their present position is that they have a temporary sign permit and occupancy permit% Commissioner London commented that since the matter had been sent to Con~ittee and it had been the Commit- tee's recommendation that the matter be discussed by the full Commission before any policy was amended. Concensus was that this case should be tabled until the entire mater of multiple use of service stations could be reviewed. At that time, the petitioner will be notified to once again appear before the Commission. Mr. Flaherty noted that the present sign was in compliance in regard to the 15~ restriction. He would be glad to appear at any future meetings as required. Commissioner Barton moved to table Case 77-82 until a later date, with the petitioner to be notified whe,, the question of the ordinance amendmen= was again before the ~ission. Commissioner Gundershauq secon~]. Voting in favor: Barton, Atchley, Gundershaug, London, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Motion passed. The City Manager stated that the petitioners for both Items #4 and #5 had requested that their cases be postponed until the meeting of March 7, 1978. Commissioner Gundershauq made a motion to table Planning Case 77-92 and Case 77-104 until the meeting of March 7, 1978. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Barton, Atchl~y, Gundershaug, London, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Motion passed° PLANNING CASE 78-5 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PUD AT THE NE CORNER OF 35% AVENUE AND HILLSBORO, HAROLD 7o JORGENSON, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not present. Chairman London stated this case would be placed at the end of the Agenda to be considered at a later time. PLANNING CASE 78-6 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE AT 2~63 WINNETKA AVENUE - KING TV, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not present. Chairman London stated this case would also be placed at the end of the Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - FEBRUARY 7, 1978 8. PLANNING CASE 78-8 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT THE SW CORNER OF 50TH AND COUNTY ROAD #18 SERVICE ROAD - D.A. AND L.T. DEMEULES, PETITIONERS. Mr. Lawrence Demeules stated they wished to construct an office building on the site. They are request- ing a variance because of the soil problem on the land. He presented a letter from their consultant confirming the soil problem (attached to official minutes). There is also an exceedingly wide boule- vard (80 feet tapering to 58 ~eet) as a result of the County land acquisition for #18. He had contacted the County and they have no plans for this boulevard. The City Manager stated he had received a copy of the letter from the County stating they had no plans for this boulevard. They are requesting a front setback variance of only 20 feet instead of the re- quired 50 feet. They would still be 75 feet from the service road with the proposed building placement. The north side is 20 feet from the lot line. They will have a small warehouse and need some space for · trucks. The warehouse will be small, primarily fasteners, welding rods, etc. The building will be used for their corporate office, engineering, purchasing functions. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to approve Case 78-8, Variance in Frontyard Setback, due to the location of the County Road and the actual setback that will occur because of the land acquired ~y the County. Commissioner Bartos second. Commissioner London noted that he felt the record should show that Mr. Demeules had presented a letter from a soil engineer recommending the proposed placement of the building on the site because of the pool soil. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. Bartos, Atchley, Gundershaug, London, Anderson None Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson 9. PLANNING CASE 78-9 - APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AT 3241 WINPARK DRIVE - SIR VEND, PETITIONER. Mr. Ron Ankeny, architect representing Sir Vend,stated they were asking for conceptual approval for an addition to their existing building. The building will be 176' x 53.8' and will have a loading dock, a garage, some freezer storage, a commissary and an office area. It will be used to package and pro- duce sandwiches for vending machines. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the architect presented a model which he used to illustrate how they intended to tie the two buildings together. They will be of block, fluted concrete and tied together with a redwc.~d or cedar strip across the front. There will be on-site parking spaces for 61 vehicles -- 34 spaces at the new building and existing park- ing which will provide more than the required amount. In response to a question regarding the screenlng of the parking, they felt that since most of the park- ing was toward the rear of the building or up on the plateau, screening would not be needed. They do intend to install some trees, including some Colorado Spruce, Ash plus the existing crab apple trees. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he felt they could have been more imaginative in planning their landscaping for the front of the building. The trash enclosure will be fenced with wood as required. During a discussion on curbing, The City Manager stated that concrete curbing would be required if the City Engineer felt that proper drainage required it. There will be ~ecurity lights on the north, west and south sides of the building as well as behind the existing building on the north. They will be metal of a multi-vapor type. There will be recessed lights in the main'canopy and each of the doors will have a light high on the building. There will he one light on the back and one light on the south of the parking lot. Trucks will make their turning movements on winpark Drive to get to the warehouse. They had looked at entering from the north, but the sewer lines were too close to the surface to permit the necessary grading. There are presently about seven semis in and out during a day, from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Considerable discussion followed regarding the proposed iandscaplng and the problem of security which might prohibit a lot of landscaping. The owner seated they would attempt to make the site as attrac- tive as possible while still maintaining security and giving the police the ability to observe the site. He noted that originally there had been four more trees on the site that had been destroyed by vandals. Ail refrigerator units, except one, will be inside the building. · Additional discussion followed regarding the landscaping as proposed, the need for concrete curbs, the exterior building materials, the need to tie the two buildings together visibly and the need for these details to be complete at the time of appearance before the City Council. The City's strict land- scaping requirements, as well as the truck access and the fact that the proposed means of access was the only solution to the problem were also reviewed. The' City Manager noted that t.hey have provided a sufficient number of parking spaces according to Code. -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 ~- F~BRUARY 7, 1978 10. He added that Sir Vend had previously appeared before the Commission in an attempt to solve their parking problem but had felt that had to tie this together with expansion plans. Mr. Bill Hunter, President of Sir Vend, stated they would hope to start construction soon, with comple- tion before winter sets in next year. He noted that they also had to deal with government agencies (4) in regard to their plans for the completion of the interior of the building. He stated he felt the fluted concrete block or the pre-cast panels, when combined with the wood would give the two buildings the appearnce of one. The hack and side would be of the plain block. There is some existing fluted block on the second level. Commissloners Gundershaug and London both expressed concern for the lack of landscaping. Commissioner Gundershaug again questioned whether there could not be hedging along the parking area and drive. Commissi oner London stated he appreciated that there was a concern for safety on the site and protection needed against vandalism but questioned whether there could not be more landscaping and still provide the necessary security. Commissioner Gundershau~ made a motion for approval of construction plans in Case 78-9 with the follow- ing stipulations: 1. That the two buildings will be tied together - appearance wise - using fluted block. 2. That all roof top equipment will be screened on both the old and new buildings. 3. That there will be concrete curbing in the parking area. 4. That additional landscaping be provided, i.e. a hedge semi-shielding the $arking lo£ on the east of the building. Commlssioner Bartos second. Commissioner London noted that the Design and Review Committee would be willing to meet with the peti- tioner on Monday, before the Council meeting. He suggested that the changes be on the plans at that time. He further noted that he was concerned still with the landscaping. He felt that a complete plan would be required by the City Council. He noted that the City had certain requirements in respect to size of plantings and the type. He suggested that the petitioner contact the police department for their opinion of the suggested additional screening and landscaping. The Design and Review Committee will meet at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, February 13, 1978 to review the final details on this project. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. Bartos, Atchley, Gundershaug, London, Anderson None Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson PLANNING CASE 78-10 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL/SPECIAL USE FOR RESTAURANT/VARIANCES AT INTERNATIONAL PARK- WAY/BASS LAKE ROAD - ROSEWOOD CORPOraTION, PETITIONER. Mr. Howard Rekstad represented Rosewood. He was accompanied by Mr. Ken Bureau. They are proposing to construct a Golden Skillet restaurant on a one acre site off Bass Lake Road at International Parkway. He stated they felt this was a good use for this property which is in a total site containing much bad soil. Mr~ Bureau stated they have provided more than the required parking spaces (46 instead of 21), 34 seat- ing spaces, the parking lot will be curbed, the trash enclosure will be of cedar and they intend to use mercury vapor lights in the front and back parking lots. They are requesting parking in both front and hack because they are on two roads. The building will front on International Parkway. They plan to use 27 combinations of shrubs and trees including fir, maple, spruce, pfitzer, etc. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner was asking for three separate items -- a special use, variances and construction approval. During discussion Mr. Bureau stated that because of the soil conditions he felt that only a very small commercial or industrial building could be built on the site, other than the restaurant. He was not sure any industrial building would want to go in there. He felt it was a natural site for commercial. The City Manager noted that the petitioner planned to come in at a later time for the platting that would be necessary to divide out the lot. The platting would be due before any building was started. Discussion then covered the size of the proposed lots 2A, lB, 6A and 6B. Mr. Rekstad noted that lot 2A had 47,748 square feet and 2B 43,560 square feet. A bank is interested in Lot 2A. The soil is also bad on lots 6A and 6B. They are presently open as to type of development for these lots. Mr. Bureau stated they felt the proposed use would meet the criteria for granting a special use. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARy 7, 1978 In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos Mr. Bureau stated they felt the area would support a restaurant of this type. Commissioner Bartos expressed concern that trash might accumulate on the site and that the restaurant might close in year because of poor business. Mr. Bureau stated that the restaurant would be a fast food, sit down restaurant serving chicken and the accompanying items. Discussion then covered the proposed green area (37%)and the large amoun= of blacktop proposed and whe- ther this much was necessary. The back opening will be screened, they plan to use concrete curbing, and the exterior finish will be a brick face with a mansard roof. Also discussed were the ladder in the back of the structure and the dangers it might cause. The sign proposed is larger than City Code allows. Commissioner London noted that the City had a very complete and strict sign ordinance and suggested that prior to ordering any signs, the petitioner review the ordinance and make sure the signs would comply. The City is not very lenient about signs and he wished the record to show that the petitioner had been informed about the need for complying with the Sign Ordinance. He then confirmed that the petitioners 'needed variances in both the size of the building and the width of the lot, a special use permit and construction approval. Discussion then centered on the lot sizes as proposed and why they could not be platted to meet Code, whether there would be a financial return to the City justifying the special use and whether they would be creating a mini commercial area which would be contrary to the development plan for the area, as well as the closeness of this site to several other fast food outlets and the fact that a proposed bank could not have a drive-in facility in this zone. Mr. Rekstad commented that the testing reports had showed only small pockets of good soil in the poor soil. It was their opinion that a restaurant would enhance the area. The commissioners expressed concern over a single item menu restaurant in this area and referenced the history of development at Boone and Bass Lake Road and the number of fast food restaurants already on and proposed for Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt the vote should be split on this case. The special use should be voted on first and then the variances and construction approval. Mr. Rekstad noted that they felt that a tenant mix was very necessary for a successful development ~n this area. The commissioners expressed concern that this might lead to a variety of fast food restaur- ants in the area. Mrs. Barbara Miller Johnson, 5801 Ensign, stated she was very oppese,i to the proposed use. She was con- cerned about the noise and nuisance factors of such a use at night. An office or other use would quiet down at the end of the day. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommendinq denial of the ~pecial use in Case 78-10 for construction of a restaurant in the industrial area, based on the fact that it was the assessment of the commmssion that this particular develo.oment is nor in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan as proposed for this azea and that the nuisance characteristic generated by the use would have adverse affects and that the logical impact of the user ms regarded as more negative than the possible economic return to the City. Commmssioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchtey, Gundershaug, London, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Motion passed. Mr. Rekstad questioned how the.financial return to the City could be greater with a vacant piece of ground than with a building on it. The City Manager cor~mented that the fast food restaurants in the City probably cost the City more than the taxes returned to the City with police calls, nuisance complaints, etc. Commissioner Gundershaug moved to table consideration of the request for variances and construction ap- proval in Case 78-10 until after the City Council meeting of February 13, 1978. Cul~,,~ssioner ~rtos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Gundershaug, London, Anderson voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Motion ~assed. Mr. Rekstad commented on the fact that when Rosewood had received concept approval for their overall project a restaurant had been mentioned as a possibility in the area. Co~issioner London replied that a full service restaurant was probabl~ acceptable; the opposition was to a single menu operation of the type proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' 5 ' FEBRUARY 7, 1978 6. Case 78-5 was taken off the table. Hr. Jorgenson stated that he was requesting permission to build the double bungalow approved for the corner of Hillsboro and 36th (lot 3) earlier on the lot at 35% and Hillsboro (lot 5). Commissioner Gundershaug stated that the Design and Review Committee had had no problem with this request other than they felt there should not be identical houses on the two corners. Mr. Jorgenson stated, for the record, that he was withdrawing his approval for Lot 3 and would come he- fore the Commission again, when he desired to build on that lot. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion for ap~oval of the PUD in CAse 78-5 at 35% and Hillsboro with the stipulation that the PUD previously approved for 36th/Hillsboro (Lot 3) be rescinded. Commissioner Bartos second. -- ~ Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchleg, Gundershaug, London, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Motion passed. 11. PLANNING CASE 77-55 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - SHOPPING CENTER AT SE CORNER OF 45TH~WINNETKA - NYSTROM CONSTRUCTORS, INC. PETITIONER. Mr. Ron Krank, architect, represented the petitioner. He stated they were before the Commission because they were requesting permission to make some minor modifications to their plan. The size of the build- ing had been reduced from 132,000 square feet to 231,000 square feet and the "L" shape had been changed to a rectangle. Lunds will now be facing 45th and Minnesota Fabrics facing Winnetka. The entrances will be basically the same and the landscaping and berming ~11 be pretty much the same also. The ex- terior treatment will not be changed. There will he light standards at the. NE corner of the site, at the corner of 45th~Winnetka, one at the curb cut at the center of the site, one about 3/4 of the way down the site, and one at the other entry. There will be low level landscaping to compliment the fixtures. Mr. Krank then reviewed the landscap- ing as changed indicating the changes on the plan, noting ~ossible butting up against the building. He stated that that they have included as much green as only the cleaner and Lunds will have an out- side entry. The other tenants will open off the mall. He noted further they were committed to provid- ing a service area to the west for Lunds. This entry will be treated the same way as the front of the building, with wood,serated canopy and landscaping. They will also use painted break off block. The light standards will be 50' high, of a square type, rectangular and graphic in shape to match the canopy. Discussion then was held on the proposed sign plan. Mr. Krank stated they intend tO provide signage only for the major tenants (four or five) the fabric store, clothing store, liquor store and Lunds. They will have a Sign Consultant come in to meet with the City and comply with the Ordinance. The sky lights have been eliminated, the mall will be landscaped and there will be benches, landscaping in the mall. These plans will not be finalized until they are sure about the tenants. The plan is for the mall to be a resting place. Mr. Krank stated they were still working out where the curb cu=s would be with the County and the adja- cent owner. During a discussion regarding roof top equipment, Mr. Krank stated each tenant would have their own rooftop equipment. They had not anticipated screening them. He did not think they would be visible from the street as they are low units. He stated that the petitioner hoped to break ground this spring, construction to take six to eight months. Discussion then centered on the service area in front of the grocery store and the possible danger to pedestrians who would have to work through this area if they wished to go to any other store in the center. Mr. Krank stated there would be a 16' high wall to shield the trucks. The commissioners expressed consi- derable concern over the hazards of the traffic pattern in the service area and the possible danger to pedestrians and felt the plan should he revised to include a sidewalk. Commissioner Gundershaugmoved to recommend approval of Case 77-55 - Construction Approval for the ~Center at 45th~Winnetka subject to ~he followin.~ 1. That all roof top equipment be screened if visible from the street. 2. That a comprehensive sign plan be developed for the entire cente~. 3. That drainage be approved by the City Engineer. 4. That there be a continuing sidewalk to connect the two mall entrances on the east side.. Commissioner Bartos second. Mr. Krank questioned the screening of the roof top equipment and stated he had a problem with this be- cause of the number of pieces of equipment involved. Corm~issioner London stated that the screening of visible roof top equipment was a hard and fast policy in the City, adding it ~ould be possible to have one screen for all equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - FEBRUARY 7, 1978 11. Mr. Frank indicated that he would have no problem with this if the site lines could be worked out. Commissioner London noted the concern was equipment that could be seen from people on Winnetka and 45th. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Gundershaug, London, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Motion ~assed. 7. Inasmuch as the petitioner had still not appeared, Commissioner Gundershaug motioned to table Case 78-6 - Sign Variance for King TV - until the meeting of March 7, 1978. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, A~chley, Gundershaug, London Voting against: Anderson Absent: Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 13. Design and Review Committee met on January 24, 1978 and will meet again at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, Febru- ary 13, 197.~. 14. Codes and Standards had no report. Their report on the use of service stations will be discussed when the full commission is in session. 15o 16. 19. NEW BUSINESS T~ Council minutes of January 23, ~978 were reviewed. The Commission minutes of j~uary 21, 1978 were accepted as p~nted. The meeting ns adjourned by. unani~mus consent at 10:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary 7505 W Hwy. Seven. Minneapob$. Minnesota 55426 305 Valley Green SQuare, LeSueur, Minnesota 56058 (612) 933-8880 (612) 665-6486 BAKKE KOPP BALLOU & McFARI. IN~ INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS February 3, 1978 'Mr. Dave Demeules Standard Iron & Wire Works 2930 North Second Street Minneapolis, ~[inn. 55411 Soil Conditions Proposed Building Site New Hope, Minnesota Dear Dave: The results of the subsurface investigation are summarized in a report dated January 23, 1978. According to this report the northern and western portions of the site is .the better location for a building. In the south and southeastenl portions of'the site, it will be necessary to strip the existing fill, swamp deposits, and top soil and then place compacted fill to floor elevation. The maximum depth of soil that must be removed occurs just to the west of Hillsboro Avenue and to the north of 49th street. In this area as much as 11' of soil must be removed before the compacted fill can be placed. Based on the soil investigation carried out in the area west of Hillsboro Avenue, we recommend that you place the building to the north and west of the site as far as possible in order to avoid the extensive and costly earthwork required for the southeastern portions of the site. Sincerely,._ BAKI~ KOPP BALLOU ~ McFARLIN,.. INC. Harold P. Bakke, P.E. HPB/kc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 1978 3b. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Co~mission was held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on Tuesday, February 21, 1978. The meeting was called to order bg Assistant Chairman Custafson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson, Cundershaug Absent: Cameron (excused), London, Anderson London arrived at 7:31 p.m. and Anderson arrived at 7:34 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS 3a. The first item of discussion was joint uses in service stations° Commissioner Gustafson expressed his concern with the handling of food in gas stations° The City Manager stated he had talked to the City's Sanitarian who had stated that the City of Minne- apolis has had little problem with the sale of canned items. There is a danger that packaged items will pick up odors and flavors from the station. It had been the opinion of the Sanitarian that this was going to continue to be the trend in service stations -- to include retail outlets. He recommended that stations be required to separate food from other sales items, provide a separate clean-up area for the sales people and if possible, provide two separate sales people, one for outside and one inside. The Sanitarian had further stated that there seemed to be little problem with milk sold in cartons. It was his opinion that the problem of retail sales in gas stations could be handled. Commissioner London stated that his observation in other cities had been that the food items were in a separate room from the automotive items and questioned whether this might not be a requirement to consider? Commissioner Gustafson then raised the question of parking facilities, feeling that the average station does not have adequate space for people who are only there to purchase convenience items and not gaso- line. Discussion then centered on the traffic problems that might arise from the lack of extra parking spaces whether there was any way that this could be controlled by the City, the danger of cars being backed up into the street, as occasionally happens just with gasoline sales, if many different items were sold at the station, and whether one control would be to define the actual retail space and require "x" num- ber of parking spaces, based on the space used for sales. Discussion then covered the combination of service bays, automotive sales, and food sales in one build- ing and the sanitation considerations, as well as what the actual concern of the city should be --- traffic, sanitation or the joint use of a facility. Commissioner Anderson stated that, in his opinion, if the facility satisfied the licensing requirements of the City in regard to food sales, the use would be OK. Why did the City need to be further involved? Commissioner Gustafson expressed his concern over many diverse uses developing in a single service sta- tion facility. Commissioner London questioned what difference the number of stores operating out of one facility made, as long as they did not pose any hazard to the City? Discussion then covered primary use versus accessory use, how this would be determinedand how many ac- cessory/auxiliary uses should be allowed. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether the zoning of the property would not control which was the primary or accessory use, supplemented by the special use permit? Concensus of the Commission was that the City's concern should be directed toward how the uses would affect the City, the potential traffic problems, hours of operation, parking and sanitation. Chairman Gustafson stated that the Codes and Standards Committee would take the discussion under ad- visement and try to draft an ordinance that would relate to joint uses in gas stations. The second item under discussion was the requirement for an architect,s certification of building plans in the City. Mr. Bernard Herman, architect and resident of New Hope, was present. Chairman GUstafson requested that Mr. Herman come forward and address the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - 'FEBRUARY 21, 1978 3b. Mr. Herman stated that, in his opinion, the suggested City Ordinance had the potential for creating more problems than it would'solve. He did not mean this in a critical manner but felt it was a dif- ficult issue. His concern was with the City's Ordinance. He felt that the language in the State law was very weak in its interpretation in regard to architects and professional engineers. The State law refers to an architect or engineer certifying plans in "his" area of competence. Mr. Herman noted that it was his hope that the Planning Commission would take a very strong posture toward this problem. In response to a question from Chairman Gustafson regarding the major weaknesses in the Ordinance, Mr. Herman stated that in the past the New Hope Ordinance only required that a building be designed by an architect. He felt the proposed ordinance, in using the word aesthetics (as included in the Attorney General's report) in relation to certification might cause problems in enforcement. In his opinion, New Hope must determine what were appropriate aesthetic concerns. This would influence the enforcement of the ordinance. He further stated that he felt the only other direction to go was to refer to the other phrase from the State law "area of competence". His fear was that an electrical engineer would be designing buildings and conversely architects would attempt to design electrical sys- tems. By defining "area of competence" you satisfy the requirement of the State law which mentions engineering and architecture interchangeably. Now, an architect could draw up a set of plans, sign them and present them to the city. What the Or- dinance was saying is that each area must be certified by someone certified in their "area of compe- tence''. This might be the way to bring all of the areas of expertise into action as it would give separate responsibility for each area of training i.e. architect, electrical, mechanical, or struc- rural engineer, etc. Mr. Herman felt that there would be an enforcement problem in terms of the proposed ordinance as it refers to the Department of Protective Inspections approving the aesthetics of a building. There would also be problems in an engineer, building official or inspector being concerned with approving aesthe- tics if he were not trained in this area. Discussion followed regarding these potential problems as outlined by Mr. Herman and whether this should be a concern of the City, i.e. an ugly or unaesthetic building as designed by an engineer or a structur- ally unsafe building if designed only by an architect, as well as the need for certification in each area of expertise. At the present timestaff is responsible for ~etermining the safety of structural and mechanical engi- neering design. The City Manager noted that if there were questions,about design or engineering that the staff was con- cerned about, they referred the matter to the Consulting Engineers or to the State Building Department. Mr. Herman stated that by requiring separate certifications they were trying to interpret the State law literally. Commissioner Anderson commented on the fact that separate certifications would involve more expense for the owners of proposed buildings. Mr. Herman commented that if an owner goes to an architect, he deals with one person but the architect is responsible for having the separate areas of concern certified. He noted that on a small project requiring separate certifications might be very restrictive. In response to a question from Commissioner Atchley regarding how a person's ability to certify was de- termined, Mr. Herman stated it would be by education and training, or equivalency. He noted that per- haps this should also be included in the Ordinance language. Mr. Herman stated that, in his opinion, the proposed ordinance should not be altered or amended, but redrafted with direction from the Planning commission and staff, so that it will be something that th~ City can live with. He repeated that he felt the City would have difficulty enforcing the ordinance. He did not feel it was consistent with the City's plans for future development. In the past the City had been very lucky to have an ordinance requiring an architect's signature. Chairman Gustafson stated that he felt both of these matters should be continued in Codes and Standards with the idea that at the second meeting in March two formal Codes and Standards Committee positions would be presented to the full Planning Commission in the setting of a public meeting. He requested that Mr. Herman make some time available to the Codes and Standards Committee to give them some help. Mr. Herman indicated his willingness to do this. Chairman Gustafson thanked Mr. Herman, on behalf of himself and the Commission, for the time and ser- vice he has willingly given to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - FEBRUARY 21, 1978 There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Design and Review met on February 13, 1978 and February 21, 1978. NEW BUSINESS The Commission minutes of February 7, 1978 were omitted from the Planning Commission pack. They will be included with the next agenda for approval. In response to a question from Con~issioner London, the City Manager stated that the New Hope Shopping Center owners would be back before the Commission in April in regard to their signs. The owner of King TV will appear before the Commission on March 7th. The City Manager noted that the temporary signs at the M-O station on Bass Lake Road were apparently in violation and would be handled by the inspectors. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 7, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 7, 1978 at the City Hall, 4401 Xglon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: London, Anderson Anderson arrived at 7:35 p.mo PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-92 (CONTINUED FROM 2-7-77) REQUEST TO REZONE LI TO RB WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROLLER RINK - BOYD YANCY, PETi'TIONER. The petitioner was not present. He had been advised of the meeting time. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table this case until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug None London, Anderson 4. PLANNING CASE 77-104 (CONTINUED FROM 2-7-77) AMENDMENT TO SIGN PLAN - 8801 EAST RESEARCH CENTER ROAD STEVEN CHENEY, PETITIONER. Mr. Cheney noted that he had been at a previous meeting regarding the sign plan for this building. At that time he had presented only a plan for the front of the building. Presently the three tenants a~l have different sized letters and signs.. He is proposing to change two of the signs to six inch block painted letters, position on the 3 1/2 foot wooden strip that runs around the top of the building. The letters will be white against the black background. The letters will be centered for each tenant, both vertically and horizontally. Mr. Cheney further proposed to have the tenant with both front and side exposure remove the side sign and replace it with the same type of sign as will be on the front of the building. On the other end Jiffy Products has a sign. THey have requested this sign to allow truckers to locate them. The pro- blem is that they do not occupy the end space and according to the ordinance are not allowed an addi- tional sign. He requested an additional sign for Jiffy Products, with white letters of the same size as on the front signs on a painted board, with an arrow indicating the company location. This is one of the variances -- to allow Jiffy Products an additional sign on the end of the building. The tenants at the back of the building have identification signs. M~.Cheney proposed that each tenant have their name and address on their door on the rear side, with the letters of a uniform size and type. Mr. Cheney brought a three inch reflecterized letter as an example of the letter type. This letter is readily available in the event that tenants changed and new names needed to be installed. The one problem with this is that Gra-Tec, Inc. now has signs with eight inch letters painted on their doors. He felt these were professional appearing signs and he would like to leave them as is, be- cause it would involve repainting and, in his opinion, might look worse than leaving them as is. This was the other variance. Discussion then covered these proposals as'well as the existing ground signs~ Mr. Cheney noted that it was his understanding that they would be allowed directional ground signs if they did not exceed the two square foot maximum. There would be one ground sign on the east side and one on the west -- Gra-Tec and an arrow and Jiffy Products and an arrow. Commissioner Gustafson indicated that the City would need a detailed proposal of the proposed signs that included the sizes and exact location, as well as the size of letters. Mr. Cheney stated he would leave this information with the City Manager before he left the meeting. In response to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager stated that staff had no problem with this proposal, as long as the petitioner was sure of what he was agreeing to and was making a firm commitment. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 77-104 including the two variances as indicated by the petitioner. Commissioner Bartos second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES o 2 - MARCH 7, 1978 4. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion carried. Chairman Cameron suggested that Mr. Cheney prepare a fairly decent illustration of his proposed signs before he appeared before the Council on March 13tho 5. PLANNING CASE 78-6 (CONTINUED FROM 2-7-77) VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE - MIDLAND SHOPPING CENTER -- KING T.V., PETITIONER. Mr. Leroy Usher, o~n~er of King T.V., stated he was requesting a variance to allow his sign to remain as it is until the termination of his lease (11-30-79) at which time he intended to leave the center° The sign extends one and a half feet above the brick and he guessed there was a new ordinance stating it had to be even with the brick. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the ordinance in question was not a new ordinance but had been adopted in 1972, allowing five gears for conformance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson regarding when Mr. Usher had become aware of the problem, Mr. Usher stated about eight months ago, when he received a ticket for non-conformance. The sign had been in position for about eight years. Discussion covered the cost of moving or replacing the s3gn, as well as the fact that eight gears had allowed Mr. Usher to recover the cost of the original sign. Also discussed was whether the sign could simply be lowered in the same position and not replaced. Commissioner Custafson,noting that he would be willing to allow the petitioner to keep the sign until the termination of his lease, made a motion allowing the sign variance until 11-30-79 or until such time that the lease was renewed. At this time the sign must be replace, and brought into conformance imme- diately. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Commissioner Christensen asked what the Commission would do if another company came before them that was not leaving the Center and asked for this kind of variance? He realized that each case had to be considered on its own merits but in trying to be fair to all citizens he quesrioned granting this var~. ance. The ordinance has been in effect for six years and almost everyone else has complied with it what was the reason for an ordinance if it was not to be enforced? It was his feeling that it was unfair to those who had been forced to comply with the ordinance. Commissioner Atchley questioned where the Commission could draw the line -- one year, five years? Commissioner Anderson agreed that if it were a case of replacing the s~gn a variance might be justified, but wondered if it could not merely be moved down -- what would the estimated cost be for this? Mr. Usher stated he was not sure whether the sign could be moved down. It might still extend o~er the brick even then. In answer to a question from the Chairman regard a total sign plan for Midland Center, the City Manager indicated that there was a plan, but basically it had been to retain the signs until leases came up for renewal and then coordinate them. The pylon sign had already been changed. Additional discussion centered on the alternatives open to the Commission -- vote on the request for a variance or table the case to allow the petitioner to gather more information as to costs, etc. of moving the sign down and whether or not the sign would then conform with the ordinance. Mr. Usher stated he would get additional estimates. Commissioner Gustafson moved to table Case 78-6 until the meeting qf .~pril 4, 1978. Commissioner Atch- ley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Voting against: Anderson Absent: London Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-11 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 31ST~LOUISIANA AVENUES - R. L. JOHNSON INVESTMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER. The City Manager noted that Cases 78-11 and 78-12 were tied together and the Commission might prefer to review the preliminary plat first. PLANNING CASE 78-12 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 31ST~LOUISIANA AVENUES - R. L. JOHN- SON INVESTMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH 7, 1978 Mr. Bob Jo~son represented the Petitioner. They are requesting approval of a preliminary plat at 31st/Louisiaha' (78-12.). They also would like a variance in lot size for Lot 3 of the plat. Origin- ally the lot was large enough but the easement given to widen the street diminished the total footage. The lot is now only 36,110 square feet. Mr. Johnson stated they were looking for six buildings in the plat and were asking for a street with a cul-du-sac on the end to be put in by the City. They had discussed their plans with the City Council about a month ago. The possibility of running a road through Crystal from the north at 32nd Avenue had been mentioned. He added they were also requesting for a variance in the green area from 35% required to 25% on Lot Six (78-11). This includes the pond area. Chairman Cameron questioned why they could not make the building smaller? It was his opinion that they were trying to put too much building on the site. Mr. Johnson noted that it was not too much for their purposes. They feel that because the site is by the railroad tracks, having less green area would not hinder the rest of the development. He added they intend to build all six buildings and anticipate retaining ownership of them. There are no specific clients in mind at this time. Lots !, 2, 3, have 36.5 green area and Lots 4 and 5 have 35.5% green area. It is their feeling that they have given enough extra green area to justify the variance for the reduction on Lot Six. They do not as yet have a tenant for this site but have applied for a railroad spur. Discussion then centered on the importance of green area in development, the zoning on the Crystal pro- perty along the tracks (also industrial) the zoning of the other adjacent Crystal property and the amOunt of blacktop that was planned for the site. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Johnson said they plan to have eight loading docks but couldn't say how many trucks there might be in one day. All truck traffic would be at the front of the building. Commissioner Christensen noted they would need 110 parking spaces for the proposed building. Would there be sufficient room for i10 parking' spaces as well as room for the trucks using the eight docks? Discussion followed between the Commissioners as to the issue before the Commission, the preliminary plat, the requested variances in green space and lot size and whether or not the Commission could vote on the green area variance in 78-11 without seeing actual building plans. Commissioner Christensen commented that he did not feel the City was gaining enough to justify a 10% reduction in green area. Mr. Johnson noted that he felt they were trying to be cooperative. If they just built what the lot could support they could get a lot more building. Discussion continued between Mr. Johnson and Commissioner Christensen about how extensively a lot should/ could be developed. Mr. R. L. Johnson commented that they were attempting to keep the development in good taste and trying to protect both Crystal and New Hope. They could very easily build a lot more building than planned if they were not concerned about the citizens. They are merely asking for some flexibility. He did not feel the Commissioners were willing to listen to what the developer wanted for their warehouse distri- bution. Mr. Johnson noted that they could take out the road and give the City the required green area but they would end up with a very large building. He felt they were giving up some things. The Chairman noted that the Co~nission was 'not debating construction plans at the present meeting. Mr. Johnson stated they had come prepared to discuss construction plans and landscape plans hoping that things could work out more quickly. Chairman Cameron commented that, in his opinion, 10% was much too much of a variance in green area, par- ticularly when the Commission had not seen what is'actually planned for the site. He added that the Commission could not discuss or vote on construction plans that they had not reviewed or that had not been reviewed by the Design and Review Committee. Mr. Johnson stated that the revised preliminary plat does include the necessary easements. Discussion then centered on Lot 3, the plans for its development inasmuch as it is an undersized lot, the origin of this lot in relation to the entire parcel and the reasons that the lot size had diminished. The City Manager noted that the division went back to the City's beginnings (early 50's). There is a 30 foot strip between Lot 3 and the existing house. Louisiana will be approximately six feet wider than a residential street when the upgrading is completed. It will be a nine ton road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH 7, 1978 Mr. Thomas Fisk stated he had just bought his property in December and the proposed cul-du-sac Will go right into his front yard. It sounded to him like a lot of trucks would be going in and out of the entrance every day as wei2 as the cars. He did not go along with the idea of all of these trucks on Louisiana. He did not know where the truck route was that fed into the area. It seemed to him they must go through a lot of residential area. He further stated his concerns that a 36 foot wide street was not sufficient size for a 40 foot semi. He was concerned with the dangers of the trucks to the many children living on the street. The Chairman noted that the property had been zoned industrial as long as there had been a New Hope and was zoned industrial when Mr. Fisk purchased his home. In answer to a question about routing the street the other direction, Mr. Johnson stated that Louisiana would be an all weather road and would be a 9 ton road. It had been his understanding that Crystal was not interested in the road going through their community. Mr. Fisk noted that he wished the record to show that he was against the road going into his front yard. Mr. Vernon Brengman, 3032 Louisiana, asked when the area had been rezoned? He had been a resident for 14 years and his property faced Lot #2. He also was concerned that the truck traffic would have to pass a park and school and endanger the children who were walkers to the school. He felt it would be very bad for the people living on Louisiana to have this much traffic on the street. The City Manager repeated that the area in question had been zoned industrial since 1953. It had been rezoned to light industrial under the current ordinance. There have been several suggestions in regard to rezoning in past years but the zoning had not changed. He added that he felt the record should,show that the industrial road would go only to 32nd Avenue. Crystal will probably post Louisiana for "no trucks" north of 32nd. Mr. Robert Dowden, a partner in St. Croix Ventures, that is also involved in the proposed development, asked whether the Commission felt the problem with the green area occurred because the property would be zoned I-I. He questioned whether changing the zoning to G-I would help solve the problem? Chairman Cameron stated that the only difference this ~uld make would be in the amount of green space required and he did not feel he could vote for that. Commissioner Anderson commented that the basic issue was still what would go on the property. Mr. Bob Johnson stated they had approached the City Council regarding this development, as well as the proposed road, for direction and the results of that meeting were what they were presently submitting to the Commission. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Johnson stated they had not brought the road in from the north because this would involve dealing with another community. Mr. Dowden commented that it was his impression .that Crystal did not want the road. Mr. Johnson stated they were not trying to put something over on the Commission and would like ~ome in- put in regard to alternatives that could shorten up the road and cul-du-sac. Mr. Loren Fagerness, 3016 Louisiana, stated he lived across from Lot #3. He commented on the fact that there was a lot of undeveloped area toward Medicine Lake Road from this site. He asked why all the trucks had to run on Louisiana? The Chairman repeated that this land had been zoned industrial for many years (early 50's) and that there had always been the possibility of its being developed. The City cannot dictate what goes on the proper- ty since the owners have a right to develop their property as long as it is done within City Ordinances. Considerable discussion continued among the Commissioners regarding the two requested variances -- the 10% reduction in green area in Case 78-11 and the reduced lot size in Case 78-12. Commissioner Bartos commented that the Commission had in the past stuck to its guns on the green space requirement in industrial/commercial areas and he did not think they should compromise their previous stands by allowing the 10% reduction in green spaces on this lot. Commissioner Christensen commented on the variance in regard to required lot size for Lot #3. He ex- pressed concern about how it would be developed. He questioned whether a hardship had been shown to justify a 20% reduction in size required. Commilssioner Anderson commented that, in his opinion, this would only result in a smaller building and this seemed preferable to the possibility of joining the property with the larger piece and construction a much larger building along Louisiana. He did not see the harm in granting a variance allowing a smal- ler lot. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to deny Case 78-11 - Request for Variance in Green Area of 10~ on Lot 6 of the ~o~osed p!.~t. Commissioner Gundershauq second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MARCH 7, 1978 Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson None London Discussion then returned to Case 78-12 - Approval of Preliminary Plat with Variance in Size for Lot 3. Suggestion was made that possibily the street could be curved into Louisiana rather coming straight out. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he felt that traffic engineers would prefer a "T" intersection. The City Manager added that there was also the question of adequate visibility and a "T" was preferable to insure the visibility. Commissioner Atchley made a motion to a~prove Case 78-12 - Preliminaru Plat at 31st~Louisiana with a Variance in Size for Lot #3, due to the odd size of the lot and because they had given up frontage when Louisiana Avenue was widened. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Commissioner Christensen again commented that he felt a hardship had not been proven for this variance. Commissioner Anderson again noted that all a smaller lot was going to mean was a smaller building, which he felt was preferable along Louisiana. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 78-13 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HILLSBORO AND 51ST AVENUE - PRE CISION ENGINEERING COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Mike Casey represented Precision Engineering. He~ presented plans to the Commissioners to review. He noted that the suggested changes as a result of the Design and Review Committee meeting had been made on these plans. Mr. Peterson of Adolphson/Peterson was also present. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the building will be 43,836 square feet. They will manufacture sub component plastic parts. They intend to operate 24 hours a day and anticipate approximately 90 ployees. There will be no on-premise sales, no show rooms and no sales facilities. They anticipate there will be 3-4 semis a day in the beginning and may increase to 5-6 in the future. They will have no rail- road access. The building will be of saxon brick in the office area that faces south. The remainder will be concrete block with decorative block on the side facing County #18. The roof top equipment will be screened, and there will be four trugk docks facing east and two handicapped parking stalls by the office. The parking lot will he lighted and striped. Mr. Casey stated that time had not permitted them to eliminate the parking spaces on the plan bdt they intend to eliminate 11 spaces that are directly east, moving the two handicapped spaces to the front of the office with a ramp. The space will be retained for future needs. Changing the parking will allow more turning room for the trucks. There will also be security lighting on the building. The City Manager noted that the Police Department had a suggestion for the petitioner as to the type of lights they use. The refuse containers at the NE part of the.~building will be fenced with cyclone fencing. Mr. Vic Knutson, also of Precision Engineering, stated they plan one small lighted sign indicating the name and address of the company. This will be installed within ordinance requirements. They plan ano- ther sign facing toward County #18 which will also be installed in compliance with City Code. In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos regarding pollution control, Mr. Casey said they dealt with high priced plastic materials. They manufacture component parts and do not plan large on-site storage. The type of the materials used are for the most part classified as not being able to support a flame - non burning category. They are neither a pollutant or a fire hazard. All of the ventilation systems have been designed to comply with OSHA and EPA standards. There ~i1 be no odor' involved. They do not mold any PVC. There should be no odor within the building or outside° There will be no outside storage other than the trash, which will be screened. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 78-13 - Construction Approval at Hillsboro and 51~ Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. Screening provided for roof top equipment of a decorative wood typo. 2. That signage will be installed according to City Ordinance. 3. That there will be screening around the refuse containers. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH 7., 1978 4. That the eleven parking stalls to the east will not be striped at this time but the space retained in case of future need and the two handicapped stalls moved to in front of the office area with a ramp provided. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent= London Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. ll. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. They had met on 2/13 and 2/31/78. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the Codes and Standards Committee will meet at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 14, at the City Hall. The representatives from the M-O gasoline station will also be present. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Con~nittee had already met with the representatives of Burger King regarding the drive-up window request. The material received by the Commissioners from Burger King had been a result of that meeting. The Committee will address this issue also at their meeting, along with the suggested ordinance r~tuirement for archi- tecture certification for building plans. NEW BUSINESS 12. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of 2/27/78. He noted that the Council had supported the Commission's denial of the special use for a restaurant off Bass Lake Road. They had also reviewed Mr. Ernst's request and there was a possiblity that Mr. Ernst would appear before the Commission at the April 4, 1978 meeting. 13. The Commission minutes of 2/7/78 and 2/21/78 were accepted as printed. Case 77-92 was removed from the table. There was still no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion denying the request for a rezoning from LI to RB and a Special Use Permit for a Roller Rink. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson None London 14. Mr. Terry Jones, 4641 Rhode Island North and Mr. Grotewold, 4648 Sumter North, requested permission to address the Commission. Mr. Jones noted that the vacant property next to their homes had been purchased by Criterion Homes. They were concerned about the drainage should a home be built there. They were requesting guidance since there had been drainage problems in the past. The neighbors want to insure that the builder does the proper things. They feel that all have the potential to lose s~nce the lot is the low spot in the area. The Chairman noted that the City employs an engineer to look after these problems. The City Manager noted that the builder could not continue with his plans without a building permit based on the approval of the City Engineer. He suggested that Mr. Jones contact Mr. Glen Cook of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates and express their concerns to him. Mr. Cook is aware of the problems in this area. 16. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boedd~ker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 2~, 1978 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 21, 1978 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue'North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson, Atchley Absent: Christensen (excused), Gundershaug (excused) COMMITTEE REPORTS There was no report from the Land USe Committee. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. This Committee's meeting had been resche- duled to Tuesday, March 28, 1978. 5. Codes and Standards met on Tuesday, March 14, 1978 at the City Hall. Commissioner Gustafson opened the discussion on the question of multiple uses in gasoline stations. He stated that the Committee had met with the representatives of Minnesota-Ohio gasoline company. It was only a fact finding session. The Committee has asked the Sanitarian for the City to take a look at a couple of levels of sanitary codes to allow food stuffs to be sold from gas stations. They had considered allowing some type of mixed sales, tied in to the square footage of the station. If good stuffs are to be allowed, they wish to have them controlled by specific standards tied into the New Hope Code, possiblyproviding more control presently allowed by the State of Minnesota Health Depart- ment and Department of Agriculture. The Committee hopes to have a recommendation by the second meeting in April. The next item discussed at the Codes and Standards Comm~ttee'meeting had been driv~-up service windows at fast food restaurants. This review had revealed that drive~up service windows for the dispensing of food seemed to be an active means of serving food in ~he majority of the metropolitan area. It was Com- missionerGustafson's opinion that the ordinance should be revised to allow drive-up windows for food service in fast food restaurants. A suggestedpotential ordinance revision had been distributed to the Commission. Chairman Cameron asked what the potential number of sites involved would be, since he felt New Hope had a large number of fast food restaurants. There are presently five facilities that would apply. Commissioner Gustafson commented that, in his opinion, if a proposed site did not in every conform to the requirements of the proposed ordinance, they should not in any allow a change from these require- ments. Discussion then covered the number of fast food outlets now in the City and the potential for more of this type of restaurant, as well as the need to have the ordinance strict enough to avoid possible fur- ther requests to change the ordinance to accommodate existing sites. The next issue discussed was the amount of stacking space that should be required on a given site. It was Commissioner Gustafson's feeling that it should be expressed in feet rather than number of cars and that it be at least 180 feet. He further recommended that the stacking area be completely separated from the standing maneuvering area by concrete curb and landscaped berm. He felt it was important that cars be unable to exit over the curb or landscaped areas. Discussion followed 'regarding the amount of space required for a berm, the need for room to allow snow plowing, etc. and whether requiring a berm might place an Undue hardship on the owner of the property. Various types of barriers were suggested, i.e. parking blocks, fences, and the discussion continued as to whether it was unreasonable to require a permanent barrier between the stacking lane and the par~- ing/driving area. Discussion covered the need to establish criteria for the barrier, while allowing some esthetic or design leeway for the property owner. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt that people going into or out of the restaurant should have free access, and would not get stalled be]~nd the drive up window line, and that the drive up line should be curbed or divided by a barrier on both sides of the lane. Commissioner Atchley noted that the:c~mm, ittee had felt that the drive-up window was an auxiliary use, not the principal use of the restaurant,and that the people desiring to go into the restaurant should have protection. The City Manager stated that, in his opinion, a review of problems could be conducted any time. If there were a problem ~t would be reviewed and there need not be the requirement for an annual review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MARCH 21, 1978 Commissioner London noted that it would be ideal if the parking could be one side of the facility and the drive-up lane on the other to provide maximum safety for pedestrians. The City Manager noted that this was a good point and could perhaps be required with a new development but such a restriction would cause a problem on an existing site. Commissioner London and Chairman Cameron expressed their concern for the safety of pedestrians cross- ing the drive-up lane. Additional discussion followed regarding the need for separation of drive-up traffic and foot traffic to ensure pedestrian safety. Concern was also expressed about the possible need for additional signage, and whether a menu board, which would be necessary for a drive-up window, would be included in the total allotment according to ordinance requirements for signage? The City Manager noted that the ordinance presently allows two ground signs if the facility had not used more than ten square feet of wall sign. The size of the ground signs was determined by the type of street. The City Manager suggested the addition of an Item #7, to read: In addition to the signage permitted under Section 4.66 of the City Code, a restaurant with an approved drive-up service window shall be permitted an additional menu/direc- tional sign not to exceed 16 square feet, which shall be approved as to placement and design as part of the special use approval. ~is item will be presented at.a public hearing the second meeting in April. Commissioner London moved that a formal ordinance be. drafted per the discussion of the meeting and forwarded to the City Attorney for final approval, to be ready for uub!ic hearing at the second meeting of April 1978. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None Christensen, Gundershaug The third issue reviewed by the Codes and Standards Committee had been the proposed requirement for an architect's signature/approval on plans submitted to the Planning Commission. It had been the Committee's position that they would be hard pressed to push to have an architect's signature required. They would like some input from the Design and Review Comittee regarding the es- tablishment of such a ~equirement. They did not feel it "bought" the City that much protection to re- quire an architect's signature rather than that of a qualified engineer. The City Manager noted that the current ordinance was not valid according to the Attorney General's ruling. The State Building Department states that either an architect or an engineer can' sign plans. Commissioner Gustafson noted that this item had previously been on the agenda and the Commission had heard testimony from Mr. Bernard Herman regarding the need to require an architect's signature. The Committee was seeking further input from the Design and Review Committee as to whether this was, in their opinion, a requirement that should be mandatory. Commissioner London noted that basically Design and Review was concerned with esthetics and landscaping etc. when they reviewed a proposal. It seemed to him that they needed to be reasonably confident that plans had been prepared by competent people to avoid any disaster type situations. Does this require an architect's signature or an engineer's? He felt that experience had shown that when plans had been prepared by an architect, they presented fewer problems, and called for fewer return visits to the committee. The City Manager noted that there was always the possiblity of a developer simply purchasing an archi- tect's signature and re-submitting the same basic plans. The Chairman stated he felt it would be wise to have some input from the Design and Review Committee before acting on the architect signature question. Commissioner GUstafson stated he would contact Commissioner Christensen regarding this. He requested that Codes and Standards meet again on Tuesday, March 28. The meeting to be held at his home. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH 21, 1978 NEW BUSINESS 6. The Council minutes of March 13, 1978 were reviewed. The Citg Manager noted that Council had requested that Mr. Corrick attempt to find some t~pe of solution for the development of the propert~ at 42nd/#18. 7. The Commission minutes of March 7, were approved as printed. 8. Discussion was held regarding the membership of the Commission, the moratorium as established b~ Council limiting the membership to eight members for six months, and whether the Commissioners wished to react to this moratorium. No action taken. 10. The meeting was adjourned bg unanimous consent at 8:24 p.m. Respectfull~ submitted, Joico Boeddeker, Secretar~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 1978 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 4, 1978 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xglon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CALL-WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson. Absent: London (excused), Christensen (excused), Atchley (excused), Anderson Anderson arrived at 7:34 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNINC CASE 78-6 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 7, 1978) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE - KING T.V., PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson tabled Case 78-6 until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: None Absent: London, Christensen, Anderson Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-24 - REQUEST FOR PUD APPROVAL AT 4005-07 JORDAN AVENUE - WILDER INVESTMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Thomas Wilder stated they were requesting PUD approval on the lot that is already zoned for a double bungalow. It is a similar project to the projects already being developed. The double bunga- low will have a fence along Highway #18, continguous with the rest of the properties. It is a two- bedroom, tuck under garage unit and will be a rental unit. It is faced on the lot to take advantage of the pond. Landscaping had been added since their appearnce before the Design and Review Con~itteeo Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the fence will be the same as that behind the other duplexes, that there will be approximately 950 ~quare feet on each side, and it will be rental property. The exterior will combine stucco and cedar siding. Mr. Wilder noted that theg had added three globe type plantings, two evergreens, and two juniper trees on each side and that there will be two silver maples on each side by the driveway. Mr. Dick Henry, 9325 40%, asked how many double bungalows were planned for the area? Mr. Wilder answered six -- there are three now and the proposed is number 4. One will be facing 36th. This bungalow will be reached from Jordan Avenue. He stated they will further try to build a small mogel and position the fence on top of the mogel toward ~18 to assist with noise control. In response to a question from Mr. Henrg regarding the intersection at 40%, the City Manager stated that the intersection is scheduled to be changed this summer. They will remove the curb and right angle the corner. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to approve Case 78-14 - Request for PUD at 4005-07 Jordan Avenue. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Christensen, Atchley Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78~%4.- REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE FOR RETAIL SALES AT 8708 EAST RESEARCH CENTER ROAD - AFP CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Peter Thorpe represented AFP Corporation. He distributed literature about the corporation to the commissioners. He stated they were requesting the special use to allow them to sell their products. The request was based on the fact that they were processing and assembling the product they wish to sell.- At the present time they employ seven people and expect to eventually employ from i0-t5 people. Referring to a letter from Mr. Thorpe dated 11/8/77, Gustafson confirmed that they were not planning to.expand the total area they leased in the building but expand the uses of the space already leased. Mr. Thorpe noted that they plan to use 750 square feet for the showroom, 2280 square feet for the ware- house and 1440 square feet for the mezzanine area. They plan to use this facility as their stocking warehouse for their proposed facility to be built in Des Moines. They will receive pre-cut/machined parts to be assembled in New Hope. About half of the employees are involved, at the present time, with the manufacturing portion of the facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - APRIL 4, 1978 The hours of operation will be 6 - 9 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and noon to 6 p.m. on Sunday. They do not anticipate any additional signs. They have one sign on the door provided by the owner of the building. In answer 'to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug Mr. Thorpe stated that customers, after purchas- ing the units,drove ~o the back to pick them up. They had experienced no problems with congestion. Normally there are only one or two cars at a time. They do not anticipate any problems with traffic in the future. Only about 10-12~, certainly less than 20~,of their sales occur during the week. The week- end is their big tim. Richard Pennock, representing the Church of the Epiphany, questioned where the customers came from and the type of operation. Mr. Thorpe noted they were just one tenant in the Boone Distributing Building. They sold shelving units of laminated board and usually advertised in the Tribune. The customers responded to this ad. He added they felt that the hours of operation now in use were sufficient and did not anticipate changing them. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of Case 78-15 - Request for Special Use - subject to the hours of operation as indicated by the petitioner and an annual review by staff. Commis- sioner Gundershau~ second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Christensen, Atchley 6. PLANNING CASE 78-16 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 4200 WINNETKA AVENUE - MOBIL OIL CORPORATION - ED PETERSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Kenneth Fry, represented Mr. Peterson who is the lessee of the station. He stated that he understood the station was in direct violation of the sign ordinance because they have two signs over the limit. They will take down the island sign and were requesting permission to retain the car-wash sign. They feel that having the sign indicaLing that there was a car wash on the site could mean from $700 to $960 a month for the lessee during peak car wash months. He felt it served to point this feature out in a neighborhood of competitive pricing. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the City really had no problem with the pylon sign as long as the total square footage of the sign was within 75 square feet. He asked whether they could not advertise both the name of the station as well as the car wash within this 75 feet? Mr. Fry stated that the sign could be altered but that the wording presently on the sign would be so small, if all was included on a smaller sign, that it could not be seen from the roadway which they felt was necessarg. Commissioner Gustafson-confirmed that the ground sign at the bottom of the pylon would be removed. He requested that the City Manager clarify the meaning of the Sign Ordinance in relation to the sign area and how the square footage was calculated. Mr. Fry noted that the car wash service was owned by the lessee and he felt something would be lost if the sign were smaller. A new sign would have to be manufactured if the variance were not granted, since the existing sign could not be altered. Commissioner Gustafson stated he found it hard to find anything unusual or different about this sign in relation to other gasoline station slgns that had been brought into conformance with the Code. He, there- fore, made a motion to deny this request for a variance of the Sign Ordinance in Case 78-16. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Chrlstensen, Atchley & Mr. Fry confirmed with the Commission that if they brought the carwash and Mobil signs on the front pylon down to the maximum square footage, the s~gn could remain since the Commission would consider it as one sign. 7. PLANNING CASE 78-17 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 2800 HILLSBORO AVENUE - LANVESCO CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Bill Dolan, Engineering Consultant, represented Lanvesco. He stated they were proposing to divide the land in Presidential Estates into two lots for the purpose of condominimizing the project. Theg will split the property between the two buildings. The recreation facilities (swimming pool and tennis courts) will be on one lot but the residents of both lots would have access to these facilities. This would be a condition stated in the condominimizing documents when they were filed with the state. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - APRIL 4, 1978 Chairman Cameron questioned why it was necessary to divide the lots? Mr. Dolan stated it made it easier to legally describe the properties and create a condominium if the land were platted. The Chairman then asked about the uncompleted improvements of the property which were still unfinished since the time of original development? Mr. Dolan noted that they had just learned of this circumstance and would take up the matter with their client. The City Manager noted that approval of the plat could be subject to the completion of these development details. He added, in response to a question from the Chairman, that the City would be satisfied with the guaranteed access provision as proposed, if Mr. Corrick was satisfied with the document. The condo- minium documents must be filed along with the floor plans, with the State, including the rules, regula- tions and plans for maintenance guarantees° Mr. Steve Davis, attorney preparing the condomium documents, stated that the documents will address the cross easements in detail. The recreation areas will be shared by both buildings, as well as the res- ponsibility for the maintenance of the common area. It will be the corporate responsibility of the Home- owners Association. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to approve Case 78-17 - Approval of Preliminary Plat for Presi- dential Estates, subject to the completion of all development details (sidewalks, driveway appro.aches) still unfinished since the original apartment approval was given. Commissioner Bartos second. Discussion followed among the commissioners regarding the need for requiring a development bond to in- sure completion of the unfinished details. Mr. Davis requested that minimum restrictions be imposed in order to speed the filing of the documents. He assured the Commission that he would check with his clients immediately, regarding the unfinished im- provements. Discussion about the time required for filing the documents and whether the Commission should require a bond if the improvements were not compleked at the time Of this filing. Commissioner Anderson amended the motion to state that .approval of the plat was contingent upon the com- pletion of all development detals, prior to the filing of the plat, or the ~posting of a development bond. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting on the amendment: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Gustafson, Anderson Came ron London, Christensen, Atc~ley Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Christensen, Atchley Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 78-18 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 51ST/#18 - CRAWFORD-MERZ, PETITIONER. Mr. Ray Merz stated they were requesting approval of their construction plans. To his knowledge the con- struction was entirely within the City's zoning requirements. They had shortened the building by ten feet to accommodate the required 35% green area. He noted that they will move the transformer pad into the green area since the Fire Marshal had agreed they could do so. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the building would be an office/warehouse; that they were provid- ing 35 parking spaces, the truck\docks will be on the east side of the building, and that the parking in front of the building will be~osted "no employee parking". Mr. Merz noted that there will be five roof top units, painted to match the building that will not be visible from the street. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that if they were visible from the street it would be required that they be screened. Mr. Metz stated that signage will be in accordance with City Code. There will be ground lights shining back toward the building on the west side. At the rear, lights will shine down into the parking lot. There will be safety lights on the building. Refuse containers will be inside the building. They do not plan to screen the transformer because the power company requires five feet of clearance around the unit. PLANNINC COMMISSION MrNUTES - 4 - APRIL 4, 1978 The building will be of waffle block, with a brick face type of block below and painted. The truck turn around has been increased, the parking lot striped, and concrete curbing is provided around the parking lot. They would prefer not to use concrete curb in the rear because of the problems of snow removal. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that if there were a need for drainage control it would be required that concrete curbing was used. He confirmed that there will be a five foot sidewalk across the front of the building with handicapped parking as required. The east driveways will be 14'6" and be one way. Commissioner Cundershaug further noted that the west driveway was only 20 feet ~d if they were to be two way drives they would need to be 24 feet in width. Considerable discussion followed regarding the proposed landscaping. The plan called for sodding the front, seeding the rest of the green area and included five Marshall Ash trees and 14 Spirea bushes. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that, in his opinion, this was a very minimal landscape plano Mr. Metz stated that their instructions to the architect had been to include landscaping per the City requirements. He would be willing to increase the landscaping. Commissioners felt the Citg should not compromise their previous standards regarding landscaping. The Chairman expressed his concern for the minimal landscaping and oted that there were other buildings in the area with much more provided in the way of landscaping. He suggested that on Monday, Mr. Merz bring a plan to the Council that included more extensive plantings. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he did not see whg the balance of the property should not also be landscaped as well as being concerned about the front. This is a developed industrial park and repre- sentative of the City of New Hope. He added that he felt there should be some overall criteria that should be met in regard to landscaping. Mr. Metz noted that he felt uhey were pushing pretty hard in tripling the proposed landscaping. He ques- tioned what the Code required? The City Manager stated that the Code required an adequate landscape plan. Discussion continued. Commiss!oner Gustafson, in asnwer to a question from Mr. Metz, stated that he felt the landscaping should be developed at least in the same proportion as the front, on the remainder of the property. Mr. Metz noted that if they added planint on the north and east, he did not feel that planing on the south would accomplish much since it was screened by Federal Tool. He requested that they be allowed to seed between the buildings and sod the north side. He stated he would send the plan back to the Landscape Ar- chitect for re-doing. Commissioner Gundershauq moved to approve Case 78-18 - Approval of Construction Plans at 51st~#18, sub- ject tO the following: 1. Parking on the rear will be condensed to make for easier turning. 2. That any visible roof top equipment will be screened. 3. That a new landscape plan be provided for the City Council meeting, showing sod on the west and north sides of the building with additional plantings, added on the north and east sides of the bui!dinq in at least equal density as that shown along the front. That concrete curbs be on the ~arking lot and handicapped parkin~ shown on the drawings. 5. That the parking spaces on the front be marked "no employee" parking. 6. That the drive be changed to 24 feet if it is to be two way, or designated one wa~ if it remains narrower. Commissioner Bartos second. Commissioner Anderson noted that widening the drives would not permit the reduction of any green space. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Christensen, Atchley 9. PLANNING CASE 78-19 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE AT 7801 47~ AVENUE NORTH - THOMAS MERTZ, PETITIONER. Mr. Mertz stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to extend his garage to the rear wall of his house, which is offset ten feet. He would also like to excavate under the garage for a basement. He noted that the siding and roof would be of the same color, type and material as on the existing house. PLANNING. COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - APRIL 4, 1978 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson regarding a possible home occupation, Mr. Mertz stated he wished the larger garage to enable him to park his van inside. He did not intend to do any work in the garage. He stores the tools used in his electrical profession in his van. He picks up the materials he uses himself at wholesale houses and would not be using the garage for storage. The City Manager noted that he saw no problem with the home occupation since~ the business is conducted on the phone and there were no signs exCept on the truck, which will now be in the garage. He suggested that Mr. Mertz pick up a copy of the Home Occupation Ordinance to make sure he complied with the res- trictions. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 78-18 subject to the addition beinq constructed of the same color and texture as on the house now. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundersha~g, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron t0. PLANNING CASE 78-20 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL/VARIANCE/PLAT APPROVAL ON BASS LAKE ROAD, WEST OF PENNSYLVANIA, ED DOOLEY, PETITIONER. Mr. Dooley stated he was requesting permission to build his building on Bass Lake Road. The building will be constructed of decorative block. He is requesting a variance in the front setback to 35 feet in order to allow all the parking in the rear off Bass Lake Road. The parking lot will be of a hard surface and include handicapped parking spaces, be striped and have a curb around the perimeter. The garbage retaining area will be enclosed with a fence. The equipment on the roof is approximately 28" high and the building will have a three foot parapet along the perimeter which will shield it. He plans to sod the south side and th~ landscaping will include three sugar maples, five black spruce, four Colorado blue spruce, four arbovita, four mugho pine, four juniper and four pfitzgers. He is contem- plating installing a sprinkler system. They are hoping to get by without any signs. He has the building about 70% leased to certified public accountants and an attorney. If they do'decide to use signs they will be well within the City Ordinance. There will be three mercury lights, two on the side and three 500 watt mercury lights in the back all on a photo cell. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Dooley introduced Mr. Don Forsyth his part- ner, who had been in contact with Don Murphy of the Hennepin County Highway Department regarding the the possiblity of joint driveways and the access on to Bass Lake Road. Mr. Forsyth stated he had spoken to Mr. Murphy thr~e times and the County is interested in getting a joint driveway with Taco Bell. There is an elevation problem between the two sites. Mr. Dooley said that the County had found no problems with acquiring access to the second lot to the west. Discussion then covered the access and the combining of the driveway and how soon these details could he worked out. In answer to a question from the Chairman on what would happen if City approval was given before County approval, the City Manager stated that there was no problem as long as what.the Planning Commission ap- proved was not affected by what the County approved. If there would have to be any changes in the ac- tual building, the petitioner would h~ve to come back before the Commission. Mr. Dooley stated that the County had made no mention to him regarding their desire for an extra seven feet of right-of-way to widen Bass Lake Road. Dr. Cameron asked how long it wo~ld take to obtain the County OK on this project. Should the issue be postponed until the County had made its decision. Mr. Forsyth did not know when a 'decision would be made. Mr. Dooley asked whether thebuilding could be approved contingent upon the County decision? The Chairman Stated he felt there were so many "ifs" affecting the whole project that he was not sure that whatever the Commission did was not' going to just sit until they find out what the County was going to require. He felt it was important to know what the County would insist upon -- if they should require the additional seven feet it would mean the building would have to be moved. In response to questions, Mr. Forsyth stated a two week delay would he a problem. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern about the parking and the joint access with Taco Bell Problem, the setbacks and the need for a definite commitment from the County regarding access to both lots. PLANNING COMMISSION M~NUTES - 6 - APRIL 4, 1978 10. Mr. Dooley stated he did not know how they could get more parking on the site. The Chairman noted that perhaps he was trying for too much building. Commissioner Gundershauq moved to table Case 78,20 until the meetinq ~$ril 18, 1978. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Christensen, Atchley !1. PLANNING CASE 78-21 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AT 4950 #18 SERVICE DRIVE GARY LAURIDSEN, PETITIONER. Mr. Gary Lauridsen stated he was planning to rent space in the proposed addition to the Peterson build- ing. His business was repairing used TV sets which he picked up from dealers. He would like the spe- cial use permit to allow him to have a sale of these reconditioned sets perhaps twice a month. He usually takes the repaired sets to auctions but sometimes there are too many sets to dispose of this way. Discussion then centered on the access to the space Mr. Lauridsen would lease and whether the potential customers would have to pass through the work area of the space. Mr. Lauridsen stated he planned to have a service door put into the hallway to enter his bay. The building should be ready by the first of August. He plans to have a special showroom for the sales portion of the business as this is required by City Code. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of Case 78-21 - Request for Special Use Permit to Permit Retail Sales - subject to the hours of operation being 8 a.m. to 9 ~.m. during the week, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays and 12 noon to 5 p.m. on Sundays. The showroom or display area to be direct- ly accessible from the entrance. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Gundershaug, ~ameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Christensen, Atchley Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE 78-22 - REQUEST FOR PUD APPROVAL AT 41ST AND GETTYSBURG - MARVIN GORDON, PETITIONER. Mr. Gary Gabriel represented Marvin Gordon who was out of town. He stated they are requesting approval for ten townhouse units to be constructed on Outlet A. The property is now zoned for townhouses. The total area of the property is 82,900 square feet.and the hard surface area proposed, including roads, amounts to 25,000 square feet. This allows 70% green area. They plan to construct a six foot wooden privacy fence at the south boundary and plant along the west and south sides of the buildings and along Gettysburg. There will be five two bedroom units and five three bedroom units. Each unit will have an approximate value of $60,000 and will be for sale. Mr. Gordon plans to retain one unit for himself. The green area will be a common area and they will have covenants for maintenance and upkeep. The exterior of the buldings will be of a rough cedar type sid- ing, stained dark, with an asphalt shingled roof. There will be one entrance - a cui-du-sac- from Gettysburg. Discussion then centered on rear exits, from the units and the possibility of installing stairs from the decks. Pour of the units are walk-out units. Mr. Gabriel stated that the Plans had just arraived on Tuesday and it was possible that the architect had overlooked the need for rear stairs. He stated that stairways could be installed from the decks. Commissioner Gundershaug commentpd that because this was a PUD, what the Commission approved was what had to be constructed. The pla~s had to be complete. Mr. Gabriel stated that stairs'would be provided from the decks. Commissioner confirmed that there were no variances being requested. The small units will contain 1188 square feet and the larger units 1280 square feet. The refuse containers will be screened with a six foot wooden fence. The privacy fence to the south will be of cedar, horizontal board on board. There will be two play areas behind the buildings -- one 50 x 200' and another about 50 x 120'. The City Manager noted that the ordinance specified that this area be provided -- to insure that open space is left - it does not specify what must be included. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - APRIL 4, 1978 12. Mr. Gabriel then stated the exterior light would be of a iow profile type that would not shine into the neighboring yards. They propose one trash area for the entire complex. Discussion then centered on trash collection and whether an alternative would not be to have each unit responsible for their own trash/garbage collection as other homeowners are? Commission feeling seemed to be that this might be preferable to a single unit that might create more problems and debris not in- side the enclosure. There will be a maintenance, agreement covering the upkeep of the common areas of the property. In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the back portion of the site, Mr. Gabriel stated that this was low ground and they did. not plan future development in that area. Mr. Mike Malik, 9101 40% Avenue North, spoke on behalf of the people in the Hopewood Homeowners Asso- ciation. He questioned the height of the elevation and the space (48') provided for rearyards between these structures and the homes to the south. The City Manager stated that all that was required for a rear yard was 35 feet. He added that the de- velopment would be only 2/3 of the allowed density of the site. In answer to a question from Mr. Malik, the City Manager stated that the access road was 24 feet wide as required. Mr. Malik expressed his concern. He had thought this property would be considered as a total site with the property to the north, he thought that development of this property had been put off until a de- cision had been made on the Comprehensive Plan recommendations, based on further study on possible zon- ing changes. The City Manager noted that the City Attorney had been working on this issue. Mr. Malik stated they had looked at this site as part of the total developmenE of the area. He thought Mr. Harrington had an option on the property and it had been suggested that they get a single family buffer. Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Harrington did not have an option on tl~s property. He did not need it and the price was too high. Mr. Malik stated they were concerned and were trying to get a total development out of the whole parcel. He wished to go on record for the Homeowners Group stating opposition to this development before they knew what the total development would be. They were not satisfied that there still could uot be some zoning changes on the property. He requested a t~ble until they could get to the Council as to what they will do on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jol~ Mosey, 9225 40% Avenue North, stated that the neighbors were concerned that something would be put into the area that would not blend into the neighborhood. He noted that he understood the property owners had a right to develop their property, but the homeowners had also invested money in their pro- perty and they wanted something there that would noE deteriorate their values. He too thought that development would be of the total area. He was concerned about the height of the townhouses from the rear. He referenced the height of the to~houses on Boone Avenue. He also requested a table until Council hah determined what was to be done on the property. Mr. David King, concurred with the ~equest for a table. He felt the area was very suitable for single family homes. He felt townhouses would be an eyesore. Mr. Dean Ebben, 4108 Gettysburg, agreed with the other gentlemen, tie believed that the City Council was looking at a total comprehensive plan encompassing Outlot A. This should be acted on in the rea- sonably near future. The parce~ has been there for about nine years and he did no~ feel another couple of months would hurt. He requebted a table until a future date. The Chairman requested that the City Manager review briefly the history in regard to the overai develop- ment of this property. The City Manager stated that last year the Planning Commission had recommended adoption of the Compre- hensive Plan, including its recommendation for this area to be developed mid-density. Since then, Mr. Gordon's Second Addition had come in with its development of double bungalows along #18 and single family homes. This area used to be an MR District ~nd had been rezoned to accommodate townhouaes as part of the decision on the 2nd Addition plat. Mr. Harrington then came in with his high rise proposal. At that time there had been discussion about trying to develop the whole property together. This pro3ect was denied. Harrington came back later with a revised plan which the City refused to accept because of the moratorium on apartments. PLANNING' COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - APRIL 4, 1978 12. Council has been attempting to find a solution and had directed the City Attorney to determine a recom- mendation regarding the possibility of downzoning the property. The property is now properly zoned for townhouses and the owner has a right to come before the Commis- sion with this proposed development. The Manager added tha~ he could not say when Mr. Corrick might have a recommendation for this property. Mr. Corrick had been instructed by the Council to meet with Mr. Harrington but not with Mr. Gordon. The Chairman stated he was not so sure that it had been decreed that Outlot A was part of the total package regarding development of this corner. The City Manager then noted that the Council had requested that the Commission review their recommenda- tions regarding the Comprehensive Plan .suggestions for this property. The Commission had done so and had recommended no change fromtheir original suggested development. Co~nissioner Gustafson commented on the fact that the Commission was being asked to react to this par- ticular proposal. He did ~ot see that anything would be gained by the Commission tabling their recom- mendation to the Council. The development of the overal corner of Highway #18/42nd was the Council's responsibility. He felt that the Commission had already acted and reacted to the the Plan recommenda- tions for this property on more than one occasion. He felt that if this was a development proposal before the Commission, they should recommend only on that basis. Co~uissioner Anderson concurred with Commissioner Gustafson. Looking at the overall development of the corner was not w.Sat the Commission was charged with doing at this time. Mr. Richard Henry asked whether the traffic problem had ever been worked out in this area. Mr. Malik noted that this ~'~s~part of their request of the total development of the area. They were concerned with what amount of~ traffic Gettysburg~40% would have to handle. He thought it was part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Homeowners Group had asked that consideration be given to the development of the total property, including Outlot A for possible rezoning. The group had been unaware of any pro- posed development for Outlot A until they received the notices in the mail. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the number of single family homes possi- ble on Outlot A, the City Manager stated that theoretically it could handle eight, but probably would not given the need for roads, etc. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the difference ~hen was no= that great between the townhouses and homes as it would be between multiples and single family homes. The City Manager notch that studies indicated that eight single family homes would generate more traf- fic than 10 tow~houses. Mr. Malik begged to differ with that statement. Discussion continued between Commissioner Gustafson and Mr. Malik about the potential traffic with Commissioner Gustafson stating that he felt there would be a traffic problem on that corner whether or not the area was developed single family or not and he did not feel this one particular being a little higher in density was really the root of the problem. His reaction was to act on this particular de- velopment proposal. Mr. Henry noted that he felt a price of $60,000 for the units would devalue the homes in the area. Commissioner Gustafson stated 'that he would hope that the Commission/City would assure themselves that any to~houses that should go on the property would in no way de-value the surround area, that they would be of equal value and that the development would give the City what it needed in terms of the PUD. He added that if Design and Review felt that the proposed development was consistent in terms of the area in regard to materials used,' etc. there was no problem in his mind with the development going on this property that was already zoned for townhouses. Cor~missioner Gundershaug made a'motion to approve Case 78-22 - Request for PUD at 40%/Gett.ysburg -- subject to the following: !. That the trash container as indicated on the plans be eliminated with each unit to provide its own. 2. That access be provided on the six unit building on the court side to allow exit from both sides of the townhouses (steps from the decks). Commissioner Gustafson second. o PLANNING,COM34ISSION MINUTES - 9 - APRIL 4, 1978 12. Chairman Cameron stated that he agreed that basically what was proposed was fairly much in keeping with the recommended overall plan for the area. He did not see it as setting any unique or special precedents as to what will happen in the rest of the area. One of the reasons for this zoning was to provide a buffer for the single family residences. Townhouse development is a legitimate buffer. The owner had come in with a reasonable plan and was not asking the City for anything. He, in good cons- cience, did not feel he could vote against the proposal or even'delay consideration. Voting in-favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Christensen, Atchley 13. PLANNING CASE 78-23 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 50TH~#18 - D.A. AND L.T. DEMEULES, PETITIONERS. Mr. Rusty Demeules stated they were proposing to build an office/warehouse on #18~50th. It will be primarily an office. The warehouse portion will be quite small. Their manufacturing plants are in Sauk Center and Alexandria. The required parking is 47 spaces. They plan to have 29 spaces with space availble for parking expan- sion as needed. The facia of the building will be block with brick around the edge, roof top equipment will be screened if visible from #18 or 50th, of either wood or aluminum fencing that could not be seen through. Any signs will be within sign ordinance restrictions. The parking lot will be striped and there will be two loading docks. There will be primarily local delivery trucks, perhaps two or three a day. The parking lot will have concrete curbs and there will be lights on the building and two free standing lights along the patio. Refuse containers will be inside. The lawn will be sodded and they will install a sprinkler system. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to approve Case 78-23 - Request for Construction Approval at 50th~#18 subject to the plans indicating future parking spaces, that would be provided as needed in the amount specified for the building size and that the parking lot would be striped. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Christensen, Atchley 14o PLANNING CASE 78-24 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 5420 COUNTY ROAD #18 - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Howard Rekstad represented Rosewood CorporatiOn. They are proposing a building of 65,280 square feet with a green area of 35%, parking for 106 cars will include handicapped spaces and the lot will be 14% asphalt. The building will be located just south of Champion Auto. There are two driveways.-- one for trucks and cars and one for the car parking lot only (separated from the truck driveway by a curb). They have allocated 100' for truck maneuvering/turning. All roof top equipment will be screened with redwood fencing. The lights will he mounted on the building and will be adequate to flood and wash the parking lot. Trash containers will be screened with redwood. The parking lot will have concrete curbing except for the perimeter and around the building, which would be asphalt. The City Manager noted that the City Engineer was looking at the drainage problem and he thought 'the recommendation would be for no curbs. All signs will be within City Code, the parking lot will be striped and the landscaping will include Norway Pine, Norway Spruce and one shademaster tree. There will be sod around the building with the remainder seeded. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he felt the landscaping as provided was very minimal. Discussion covered the need for~additional landscaping on the entire site. Mr. Rekstad stated they would include more iandscaping~an~ have it indicated on the plan before the Council meeting. The building will be constructed of concrete block of a decorative type, painted with graphics. The block will be scored at 8" intervals to resemble brick and will be a spec building. Discussion ~hen centered on the proposed parking, whether or not this many spaces w~re necessary, the poor soil on the lot and the location of the parking lots. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager noted that if the Code were in- terpreted the way it had been done by the Commission during the last six months, the parking could be reduced, since it was not necessary to consider the small office area separately for parking. Concensus of the Commission was that parking spaces could be reduced to 85 with expansion space left as green area for the present time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTEs - 10 - APRIL 4, 1978 14. Commissioner Gundershaug motioned to approve Case 78-24 - Construction Approval in the Science Industry Center subject to: 1. The landscaping and parking plan being revised before the Mondau Council meeting. 2. That any rooftop equipment will be screened. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Christensen, Atchley 15. PLANNING CASE 78-25 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN. APPROVAL - 8711 BASS LAKE ROAD - RICHARD ERNST, PETITIONER. Mr. Ernst stated they were proposing a ground identification sign to be located on the Bass Lake Road side and five 3 x 24' tenant identification signs across the mansard. They are also proposing another ground identification sign listing the tenants on the lower level of the building that gain access from the Boone Avenue entrance. This is the variance they are requesting. The only identification on the doors or windows of the lower area will be a suite number. He noted that all signs, except for the ground sign on Boone, will be in conformance with the ordinance of the City. The Boone Avenue sign would have a brick planter as a base, be made of plastic material for letter backing. The lower level will be used for storage and Factory Rep space. The ~otal area could be divided into into ten bays. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 78-25 - Request for Variance in Siqn Plan based on the fact that the buildinq, had two entrances on different grades. ~ting in favor: Bartos, G~dershaug, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron Motion carried. Commissioner Bartos second. 16. PLANNING CASE 78-26 - REQUEST FOR PUD APPROVAL AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT MARYLAND/NEVADA AVENUES, SOUTH OF BASS LAKE ROAD - DALE HALLEN, PETITIONER~ Mr. Hallen stated he was proposing to divide the property into two separate lots, one to build a duplex on, facing Nevada, and the other for a four unit townhouse on Maryland. It was his understanding that they meet the density, parking and square footage requirements of the Code. The townhouses will be 1144 square feet with a 20' x 20' garage. The duplex site indicates a "proposed" garage because it washis understanding that under a PUD all development should indicated. The exterior will be brick and stucco. The duplex will be owner occupied. He added that the four-plex site will have a hedge on the entire boundary from the door of the house to the corner of the building.' The hedge will be approximately four feet from the building. On the north side the hedge will extend to the fence. Mr. Hallen stated that the original plan called for two driveways. However, Crystal has to approve two curb cuts. He plans to appear before the Crystal Council and request the curb cuts. If this is granted, the blacktop turn around would be eliminated. Commissioner Gustafson strongly recommended that every attempt be made to get the two curb cuts from Crystal. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to aporove Case 78-~ - and strongly u~rg~d ~e peth..t.ioner to seek C~Ysta~'s permission for two curb cuts ~th the understandin~ that ff permission were obtained, the center section of blacktop will be removed and the area landscaped. Commissioner Gustafson second. 17. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, GUstafSon, Anderson None London, Christensen, Atchley PLANNING CASE 77'75 - (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 6, 1977).- SIGN PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCE AT THE NEW HOPE SHOPPING CENTER. Mr. John Rocheford of Draper and Kr~er, represented the New Hope Shopping Center. He stated they are proposing to remove all of the existing signs with the exception of the New Hope State Bank and Community Credit si~s. The rest of the center wouid have all new signs with only four sizes allowed -- four feet in'height with lengths of 10, 16, 20 or 25 feet. They would require that tenants comply with the prescribed specs, including the construction of the sign and the size of the letters. They plan to have three bands around the top of the building, one color on the top and bottom with a darker color in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 11 - APRIL 4, 1978 17. center where the letters would be placed. These colors would be the same all the way around the build- ing. Th~y will require that the edge of the letter be the same color as the background so all blends in. They have not as yet determined the color combinations. The variance they are requesting is for the existing pylon sign on Winnetka. 'This sign is approximately two feet too high. It is also up to the property line. The new ordinance requires a 20 foot setback. It is their feeling that a setback on this sign would be a hazard because of the traffic flow. They are proposing a reader board on the pylon sign, 6 x 12' for various uses. The two poles would be covered leaving only two exposed, to blend the sign together. Mr. Rocheford asked for clarification of the ordinance requirement for 200 square feet and whether this was the combination of two sides or just one side? Commissioner Gustafson stated that the ordinance should read that a two sided sign is measured on one side only. You would allow the same footage on the other side. Thus the Only variance the Center is requesting is for the setback and height of the pylon sign. Mr. Rocheford stated they hoped to start painting the building in May. They are trying out some colors first. He then questioned whether the center, after approval of the overall sign plan would be allowed some flexibility as to actual placement of individual signs as long as they did not exceed the percen- tage limits or other ordinance restrictions? The Chairman noted that it was his opinion that they would not have to reappear for each individual sign approval as long as it conformed to the overall plan. It was Draper and Kramer's responsibility to in- sure that their individual tenants followed the plan that had been accepted by the City. Corm~issioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Rocheford was requesting flexibility within the hand around the top of the building -- the signs might be repositioned within that band while following all other ordinance restrictions in accordance with their overal sign plan. Concensus was that the signs should be spaced according to their number. Commissioner Gustafson then stated that'upon the acceptance of the City of the Sign Plan for the New Hope Center, it was the responsibility of Draper and Kramer to make sure that individual tenants followed these guidelines, before they approached the City for sign permits. Discussion then covered the two signs that will remain and what the Center proposes if either of these tenants should vacate? How would the remaining space be used? Mr. Rocheford noted he had not aPProached that problem. Commissioner Gustafson suggested that Mr. Rocheford have an answer for this problem before he appeared at the City Council mgeting. He then questioned the request for a future pylon sign on 42nd Avenue. Mr. Rocheford noted that if and when they decide they need another sign, they would come before the Com- mission for review if it was not located according to ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of the proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan for the New Hope Shopping Center, including the variance to allow the existing free standing pylon sign to remain and any other current variances to the Code to continue. Commissioner Bartos second. 181 Votin~ in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None ~ London, Christensen, Atchiey PLANNING CASES 78-27 and 78-28 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 31ST~LOUISIANA, R. L. JOHNSON, 19 '% PETITIONER. The City Manager noted, for the C~mmission, that the construction plans were the same for both lots, the building was merely flipped. The~e were no variances requested on either building. Mr. Johnson stated they were presenting a new plat plan since their appearance before the Design and Review Committee, with the parking, landscaping, setback requirements all included. The actual building placement on the lot had not been changed. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that all of the setbacks are now in accordance with Code. The City Manager noted that there was one question on the side where they are using a joint access for the two buildings but the ordinance did provide for joint parking and this arrangement is to benefit everyone by eliminating one access and providing better maneuvering for trucks. There will be 150 feet of blacktop between the two buildings. There will' be a 28 foot driveway, with a center island between the buildings. They are providing 44 parking spaces {34 required). They do - 12 ~ not plan any roof top equipment, but if they do install any, they wili be screened. The trash will be inside the structure. There will be concrete curbing around the driveway. The lights will be surface mounted, with no lights on the north side of the building, only on the south and west. There will be four truck docks. The basic building will be of concrete block of a split face type and the front facing thc residential area will be of brick, with stucco panels above and below the windows. Mr. Johnson noted that the laLdscaping would be as on t.Se plan before the meeting on Monday. The grounds will be sprinklered and there will be no parking in front of the building. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to recommend approval of Case 78-27 and Case 78-28 - Construction Approval for buildings on Lots I and 2 of the proposed plat at 31st~Louisiana. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: None Abstain: Anderson Absent: London, Christensen, Atchley Motion carried. Mr. Bob Dowden of St. Croix Ventures, a partner in the project, addressed the Commission. He stated they had a problem with Lot 3. A variance had already been granted because of the small size of the lot. He noted that there was a building in the immediate area with a 31 foot setback. They would really like to have a 31 foot setback also. A 75 foot setback would hinder their use of the lot. The Chairman noted that the Commission could not give any guarantee at this meeting but he felt they would probably be reasonable. Mr. Dowden asked' what he felt h reasonable expectation would be as to a variance in setback on this site? The Chairman stated he could not make a commitment and would have to see what they planned to put on the lot first. Mr. Johnson stated they had planned the building around a 31 foot setback but withdrew the request tem- porarily following the Design and Revie~ meeting. The Chairman noted he would be willing to look at something around 35 feet for a setback. Planning Case 77-6 was removed from the table. The petitioner wa~ still not present. Discussion regarding the fact that the petitioner was ~old to return to this meeting of the Commission. Commlssloner Gustafson made a motion to deny Case 78-6 - Request for Variance of Siqn_Ordinance at King TV. Coum~ssioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Gundershaug, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson · No~e. London, Christensen, Atchley COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no committee reports. NEW BUSINESS 23 The Council minutes of March 27, 1978 were reviewed. Discussion covered the co~nents made by Councilman Enck regarding the drive-in restaurant ordinance. The City Manager noted that the'Council had referred the question of games of skill and the number to be allowed in a single establishment before a "recreation" center was created, back to the Commission for review. 24. The Commission minutes of March 21, 1978 were accepted as printed. 27. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joy~ce~eddeker, Secretary ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 18, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 18, 1978 at the New Hope Citg Hall, 4401 Xy!on Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Absent: Atchley(excused), Anderson (excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 78-20 (CONTINUED FROM 4-4-78) CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL/PLAT APPROVAL ON BASS LAKE ROAD, WEST OF PENNSYLVANIA - ED DOOLEY, PETITIONER. Mr. Dooley presented new site plans to the Commissioners for review. He stated they had re-positioned the building to the west lot, which had been made larger. They have now provided 60 parking spaces and employee parking will be in the rear. They are proposing a small sign on the boulevard by the curb cut which would have only the address of the building. He added that Williams Electric had laid out the lighting to adequately light the parking lot and the building exterior. They are now considering sub- stituting cyclone fencing for the priviously proposed wood fencing because they are concerned about the deterioration of wood fencing. They propose cyclone fencing on the north lot line and a hedge on the west. Trees and other landscaping will be as indicated on the site plan. They have further allowed the seven feet of right-of-way for the County to use in the potential widening of Bass Lake Road. They no longer are requesting a front setback variance. The City Manager noted that Hennepin County had contacted him and indicated that the seven feet of right- of-way would be required. Comm±ssioner Christensen asked about the road maintenance and whether the plan was still to share the roadway with the apartment complex. Mr. Dooley introduced Mr. Don Forsyth, ~ho had been discussing this matter with the County. Mr. Fors~th stated that Hennepin County now proposes that the curb cut/access be located on the property line between Lots ~e and Two, to avoid the Taco Bell congestion. T_Se access must serve both lots. The County will allow no additional curb cuts. He added that there will have to be criss-cross easements -- from the Lot One driveway to the Lot Two driveway and vice versa. County minimum for access is 26 feet, which they have provided, 13 feet on Lot one and 13 feet on Lot Two. He added that the catch basin in the access could, according to the County, stay there with a different type of cover. Commissioner Christensen then questioned the parking space in the rear of the building which would be a dead end. Mr. Dooley stated that they propose this lot to be strictly for employee parking. At the time that something is built on the second lot, the parking area will be opened up. He added ti]at 65% of the build- ing will be occupied by the owners and he felt they could pretty well control the parking in that lot. Commissioner Christensen then questioned the change to cyclone fencing, noting he felt that wood would be far more attractive. Mr. Dootey agreed about the look of wood but stated he felt that in the long run, cyclone fencing would look better. In answer to a question fr~m the Chairman, Mr. Dooley stated that at the present time the 14 feet to the east of the building would not be blacktopped -- only when.the second lot was developed. Discussion followed between Mr. Dooley and Chairman Cameron regarding the road around the building and whether it could not be completed now?.. Mr. Dootey noted that cost was a factor at the present time. The Chairman expressed concern about the necessity of having to back completely out of the parking lot, even if the lot was restricted to employees. He added that, in his opinion, none of the small office buildings in-New Hope had adequate parking facilities. He then expressed concern about the parking lot lighting. Mr. Dooley stated he had contracted with Williams Electric to design adequate lighting for the parking lot and building, not merely security lighting. He was relying on the electric company's recommenda- tions because he was not an electrician. Discussion then'centered on the landscaping as proposed. The Chairman co~ented on the amount proposed. Mr. Dooley responded that the nursery had recommended using Black Hills Spruce trees because they would be hardy in view of the busy roadway in front of the building. They propose five Black Hills Spruce, three Mugho Pine and six Junipers. Mr. Dooley noted that the strip to landscape was only 20 feet wide. The trash enclosure in the corner of the property will be enclosed with wooden fencing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - 2 - APRIL 18, 1978 Discussion followed between Commissioner Gustafson and Mr. Dooley about the remaining lot, which will be approximately I00 feet wide -- as well as the probable size of any building that would fit on this lot and still allow room for parking. Mr. Dooley stated he is concerned now with building on the one lot and had not given much thought to the other lot. Commissioner Gustafson expressed his concern about the size of the lot and the potential for development. He felt it important that Mr. Dooley realize that what was approved for the first lot would affect the second lot and that Mr. Dooley would have to live with the size restrictions when he decided to develop the second lot, without further concessions from the City. The City Manager noted that there were three options open to Mr. Dooley: 1. To put a building on the lot as it is now, which would be a small building. 2. To expand the present building and eliminate the middle lot line. To do away with the easement for the apartments,bringing their access down the middle, as the County has suggested, and then they would pick up the 30 feet in easement to the east. In answer to questions, Mr. Dooley said he was one of the owners of the building and that at the present time planned to retain ownership of the second lot. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether it would not be better to include the blacktop around the building now, rather than later, because of the convenience it would provide to the tenants. He ex- pressed his preference for a wooden fence rather than a cyclone. His feeling was that the new Mainten- ance Ordinance would take care of the maintenance of the fence. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Dooley stated that they were proposing a lilac hedge screening on the west side. In his opinion, this would look much 2._tter than a fence and also provide more privacy. He would leave the numbe~ of bushes to be planted up to the nursery. The owners want privacy as much as the apartment will. He added that they wish to see the site look as good as the City does. Commissioner Bartos noted that he felt the Commission had in the past been very ~critical of less than adequate landscaping plans and felt they should not be too lenient now. In his opinion, this was a very minimal plan. The Chairman noted that he would like to see at least five more deciduous 5rees of a 2%" caliper included in the landscaping. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend approval of the construction plans for the office building on Bass Lake Road, West of Pennsylvania, as well as the approval of the Preliminary Plat, with. the following stipulations: 1. That the refuse container and wood screen be noted on the plan before the Council meeting. That there be a hedge a~ong the west side of the property facing the apartments. That a wooden fence be installed on the north lot line and properly maintained by the owners. That the lighting installed on the building be adequate for the building and also provide adequase lighting in the parking lot. 5. That improved landscaping be provided on the south side and that at least five additional deci- duous Erees be shown on__t.he plan before presentatio~ Eo the City Council. The iandscapi~ng must agree [~th the specifications outlined in the New Hope Landscaping Policy. Based on the fact that the Commission is concerned about the development to the east of the buildin?,..th~t a roadway be constructed alon~ the east side of the building, which would be one-way in nature, and signed accordingly. Commissioner London second. Commissioner Gustafson commented that in the discussion regarding adequate lighting on the site, he hoped that care would be taken that the light would not be excessive and create a problem for the neighboring properties, that some sort of down-lighting would be used. The Chairman noted that the City Ordinance was quite strict ~n regard to what was permissible. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Anderson Motion carried. PLANNING £OF~ISSION MINUTES - 3 - APRIL 18, 1978 COMMITTEE REPORTS There was no report from the Imnd Use Committee. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had held several meetings. Discussion then centered on the proposed architectural requirements for buildings in New Hope. Col~issloner Gustafson stated that this issue had been discussed on several occasions in Committee and they could not see where the City gained anything by requiring that everything and anything built in the City be designed by a registered architect. He felt that the Design and Review Committee and the Commission, in reviewing proposed projects, would have co determine whether or not the design was adequate. The Committee, therefore, proposed that Mr. Corrick's ordinance be passed on to the City Council with a recon~nendation for adoption. The Chairman questioned whether the phrase "formulation of the esthetic design" contained in the pro- posed ordinance was lega!? In his opinion, this was about as vague as an ordinance could be. The City Manager noted that the ordinance had been drafted based on the recommendations of the State Attorney General on this subject. Commissioner Christensen commented that really, the City had not had too much trouble with this issue in the past. He felt that staff would be the initial judge of the adequacy of a design. The Planning Commission and Design and Review Committee had further input on the ultimate design. The concensus of the Commission was tha~ the proposed ordinance should be sent back ~o the City Council with the statemenr that it had been reviewed, and no amendments were recommended by the Commission. It would be the Council's decision as to whether a public hearing should be ordered. NEW BUSINESS 7. The Council Minutes of April 10, 1978 were reviewed. Commissioner London questioned the granting of the height variance on the New Hope Center pylon sign? He noted that the Midland Center had been require~ to comply with the ordinance. The City Manager stated that the sign itself sat in a pocket and based on the grade of the street, the sign itself was only a few inches over the maximum. The existing sign will also be updated and improved in appearance. The City Manager noted that the Marv Gordon townhouse project had been tabled until the second meeting in May, to allow the Council to act on the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission minutes of April 4, 1978 were accepted as printed. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous conser~t at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 2, 1978 at the New Hope Cit~ Hall, 4402 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WA'S TAKEN: Present: Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: London, BartOs(excused), Anderson (excused) London arrived at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 78-30 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE - 34TH~INDEPENDENCE - BEAUTIFUL SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH, PETITIONER Mr. David Priebe, represented the church. He presented a site plan for the Commissioners to review. The church is requesting the variance to allow them to retain their existing sign. The sign is 32 square feet in size. They are committed, by economics, to keeping the brick monuments and this requires the same width of a sign. They feel they definitely need some identification from #18, and that a lar- ger sign is necessary. Con~issioner Gustafson asked whether Mr. Priebe felt the church would be willing to commit that this sign would be the only one on the property? Mr. Priebe stated that they did not really plan an additional sign, although one had been discussed, other than a sign on the church itself indicating the times of the services. He stated there was no question in their minds that the County #18 sign was the most important. The Chairman commented that while the City had been pretty tough in enforcing the Sign Ordinance he felt this was a ~nique situation, since the church was allowed two 20 foot signs because of the location.. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to 'recommend approval of Case 78-30 - Request for a Sign Variance at Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church - subject to this. sign facing #18 being the onlV free standing sign on the site. If this sign is replaced or other signs for the church are erected on the premiqes, the g~y Ordinance will then be enforced. Until such time, the ordinance restrictions on this sign will bm held in abeyance. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug None Bar'os, Anderson 4. PLANNING CASE 78-31 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO GETHSEMANE CEMETARY ON 42ND AVENUE - CATHOLIC CEMETARIES, PETITIONER. Mr. Howard Fox, Assistant Director of the Catholic Cemetaries, stated they were requesting permission to use one half of the sign that had formerly been located at the corner of 42nd~Winnetka. The sign had been at that location for many years. In granting an easement of 100 feet to Hennepin County for the installation of a signal at the corner, it was necessary to move the sign. They would like to install the sign at the main entrance on 42nd Avenue. It is a redwood sign which would be 4 1/2 feet high from the g~'ound, parallel with the roadway in front of the fence. At the present time they do not plan a sign at the secondary entrance on Winnetka, but realize that they would have ro come before the Commission if they should desire a sign at that location. Discussion followed regarding a future sign and whether the petitioner would be willing to limit the size of any future signs. Mr. Fox stated he would assume that they would do this if it were one of the stipulations of the varl~ce approval. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend that Catholic Cemetaries be allowed to retain one half of their existing si~n and position it on 42nd Avenue, assuming the sidegard setback for 42nd Avenue. If a secondary ~ign. is placed at the auxiliary entrance, that s~gn could be no more than 17 square feet. Commissioner London second. Additional discussion covered the fact that this motion allowed two variances - and two signs. Commissioner Christensen stated he did not feel it was necessary to tie the two signs together at this time. PLANNING 'COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MAY 2, 1978 The Chairman agreed, stating he felt that if an additional sign were ever desired, the petitioner should come back before the Commission for review. Concensus of the Commission was that this would be a better solution° Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion denied None London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Bartos, Anderson Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of the variance in setback requested in Case 78-31 - subject to the height of the sign from the ground not exceeding 4 1/2 feet and that the sign he one half of the sign formerly located at 42nd~Winnetka. This motion assumes that 42nd Avenue be consi- dered the sideyard.for purposes of setback. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 78-32 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 5789 YUKON AVENUE NORTH - JAMES D. GERHARDSEN, PETITIONER. Mr. Gerhardsen stated he was requesting a 7 inch variance to allow him to construct a ten foot addition on his garage. Commissioner Gustafson note~ that the variance in setback was not a large issue, but that the crux of the problem was the living space that Mr. Gerhardsen might place on top of the garage. The Cit~ Ordinance allows a garage within five feet of the lot lot line, but living space is not allowed to come this close to the lot line. He asked whether Mr. Gerhardsen proposed any windows facing to the neighbors to the north. Mr. Gerhardsen stated he did not have definite plans to add living space on top of the garage. Ne would not,.however, place any windows on the side toward the neighbors if he did and would be willing to con- form to the ordinance. He noted that the siding of the addition would match the existing siding on the house, or all siding would be changed to match. Any windows would be on the front and back of the addi- tion. He added that he planned to use the garage for his own personal storage. He does, however, operate a small sharpening business in his basement. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that Mr. Gerhardsen now has a single car garage and plans to add ano- ther single garage to the side of the existing garage. Any living space added would be over the entire garage. In response to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mrl Reimer (Director of Protective Inspections~ for the City) noted that any building plans for the addition would have to be reviewed and inspected by staff to insure its safety. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of Case 78-32 - request for variance in sideward set- back subject to there being no openings 17 the living addition on the side facing north and that the texture and color of the addition exterior match the house. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, CameRon, Gustafson, Gunders~aug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-33 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES IN SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK AT 7701 ANGELINE DRIVE - GEORGE 7o MUNGER, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. Commissioner Christensen moved to table Case 78-33 until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Atchley second. voting in favor: London, Atchley~ Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-34 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7200 BASS LAKE ROAD - M AND 0 OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Frank Freese represented M and O. He stated he had designed a new type of digital price sign that could be controlled from the base of the sign. The sign will be 36 square feet' in size and will meet the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MAY 2, 1978 7o height requirements of the Citg Code. He is requesting a variance on the size of the numbers. The sign will be installed on the existing pole. The price portion will be 4' x 6' and the letters will be 37" high. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Freese noted that there will be no electrical interference for the surrounding area from this sign. It will use high power,factory corrected trans- formers and the entire sign will be operated on 11.2 amps. It will be of a smoked clear lexon to elimi- nate glare. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this will be the only ground sign. Brief discussion followed regarding the other signs on the property and the need for them to be removed. Mr. Freese stated he would instruct the station to clean up the site. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the new sign will neither flash or blink. Commissioner Gustafson stated that in consideration of the fact that the overall size of the siqn is less than the permitted 75 square feet, he felt it was appropriate to allow the variance in the size of the numbers on the price Bortion of the s~gn. He moved to recommend approval of Case 78-34 - request for variance in the letter size of the sign at 7200 Bass Lake Road. The total size of the price ~ortion of the sign will be 24 square feet. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug None Bartos, Anderson 8. PLANNING CASE 78-35 - REQUEST FOR PUD APPROVAL FOR DOUBLE BUNGALOW AT 40% AND JORDAN AVENUES - MICHAEL WILDER, PETITIONER. Revised site plans were distributed to the commissioners. Mr. Wilder stated he was requesting apprQval of a PUD for a double bungalow on Jordan Avenue. He noted that the landscaping additions had been marked on the plan presented to the commission. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that since the D~Sign and Review meeting, landscaping had been increased on the site, adding four silver maples in back, two silver maples in front, and four 3unipers; that the fencing would be continued along #18; that the exteriors of the unit will be rough cedar siding and brick; that there will be a fireplace in each unit; and that he had included stairs from the decks to the g~d. It will be rental property. There will be a single garage for each unit constructed between the living units. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommen4 approval of Case 78-35 - request for a double bungalow at Jordan and 40% Avenues. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-36 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM SR TO MR AT 51ST~WINNETKA - ROBERT CADY, PETITIONER. Mr. Cady stated he would like to rezone this lot to allow the construction of a double bungalow. He noted that he did not feel the lot was desirable for a single family dwelling inasmuch as there is a retail out- let to the east, townhouses to the west, and industrial to the north. There is one single family home to the south, across the street. In response to questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Cady stated he was aware of the fact that the lot was too small for a double bungalow (90' x 120'). He noted that he expected each side to contain about 1000 square feet and each unit would have a double garage. The front of the units would face 51st Avenue. Mr. Cady said he would own the dwelling but rent it to two of his children. Discussion centered on the change of zoning to MR and the dangers involved. Mr. Cadw stated he would guarantee he would build a double bungalow and that he had no objection to a table of his request to allow him to return with specific plans for the dwelling. Commissioner London stated there were several options available to the commission in regard to this pro- petty -- a PUD, rezoning or variance. The Chairman noted he felt it was a good idea to table, but felt the Commission should give Mr. Cadg some direction in regard to how he should proceed so that he was not at loose ends. He was concerned about a possible rezoning of the propertg. Commissioner London stated that, in his opinion, the Commission would be more receptive to the granting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MAY 2, 1978 of a variance on the lot to allow construction of a double bungalow rather than changing the zoning. The City tries to avoid spot zoning if at all possible. Concensus of the Commission was in favor of this approach. If Mr. Cady came back with~ development plans the Commission could consider the entire plan. Mr. Cady noted he would prefer to be tabled until the first meeting in June. Commissioner Christensen tabled Case 78-36 until the meeting June 6th. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, GuStafson, Gundershaug. None Bartos, Anderson 10. PLANNING CASE 78-37 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN REARYARD SETBACK AT 5437 VIRGINIA AVENUE - BARRY A. BLAZEVIC, PETITIONER. Mr. Blazevic stated he was requesting the variance to construct a garage in his back yard. He needed the variance to allow him to save an existing tree~ The new garage will line up with Mr. Blazevic's house and the neighbor's house. The old slab will be removed. He plans to remove the elm tree and the dead pine tree. Mr. Blazevic asked whether he would be allowed to use a flat lap siding on the garage? The Chairman noted he felt this would be no problem as long ~s the garage were detached. ~ommissioner Gustafson confirmed that the color of the garage would be the same as the house upon com- pletion and that the garage space would be used only for family vehicles and that Mr. Blazevic would not be conducting his business from his garage. Mr. Blazevic stated he had spoken to bot~ of his immediate neighbors and they had no objections to his plans. He added that he intended to block up the existing garage and remove the existing driveway. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Case 78-37 - request for a variance in rearyard setback and garage size at 5437 Virginia to allow the construction of a detached 2~' x 24' g~rage, ..~th the stipulation that the existing garage be blocked up, the old ~rive.way removed, and the color of the garag.e match the house. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: 'Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug None Bartos, Anderson 11. PLANNING CASE 78-38 - REQUEST FOR REZONING ROM LB ~ RB AT 7232 BASS LAKE ROAD - DR. JOHN SCHAEFER, PETITIONER. Dr. Schaefer stated that he was an optometrist who operated his practice from the Fountain Building on Bass Lake Road. He was requesting the change of zoning from LB to RB because his practice had grown to the point where it was necessary to move his optical dispensary downstairs in the space to be vacated by the real estate tenant. He will be doing the same thing he has been doing for eight years, but in a different place in the building. In answer to a question from Commissioner London, Dr. Schaefer stated he was in the business of examin- ing eyes, and selling contact lenses and optical equipment.- He presently uses approximately 500 feet for his retail sales. He plans to take over about 550 square feet in the downstairs, approximately one quarter of the building. He has future plans to take over more space for an employee's room and space for bookkeeping and accounting. The real estate company has 1160 square feet and will be moving out in about three months. He is taking over their space. .- He stated that his business consists of the examination, diagnosis and treatment of eye problems and the prescription of glasses/contacts. He will not starting any new operations but simply continu- ing practices already in effect. He needs the space currently used for sales for the examination of eyes and the prescription of contact lens. He did not think this was a typical retail establishment but more of an accessory use to his business of diagnosing eye problems. Discussion then centered on the parking problems at the building as it exists now and the additional pro- blems if more space were devoted to retail sales. The retail portion will have a different name. There will be a manager running this portion of the busi- ness. Dr. Schaefer did not feel there would be any increased parking problem, his emplogees park in the St. Raphael lot and he felt that when the real estate firm left the building, m~ny of the parking problems would lessen. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- MAY 2, 1978 11. Commissioner London noted that using_25% of the building area for retail sales would require 41 parking spaces according to Code. The site now had only twenty. There will also be snow removal problems. Dr. Schaefer again noted that the.problems would not exist when the real estate'company left the building. The Chairman noted that the Commission had to deal with the issue of the rezonlng and the restrictions that were included in a different zoning classification. One of these restrictions if more parking space. In his opinion, rezoning this property would be building in even more problems, for eternity° Discussion then centered on whether the retail sales would be considered a part of the business if Dr. Schaefer did not change the name. Dr. Schaefer noted that it had been his understanding that as soon as he moved the sales portion to another portion of the building, out of his office, it became a retail es- tablishment not in conformance with the Code. Commissioner Christensen commented on the fact that if Dr. Schaefer did not change the name, advertise separately, or have a separate manager it could be considered as part of Dr. Schaefer's business and there would be no problem. Commissioner Gustafson disagreed with this interpretaion. He felt that once the separate space was in use, Dr. Schaefer would be conducting a different type of retail business - the character of the business would change. Commissioner London noted that he would be opening himself up to the public for sales other than to his eye patients. Dr. Schaefer stated he was in the business of eye examination and optical dispensing and did not agree that the business would be any different from what it is now. He does not limit his retail services to his eye examination patients. Considerable 'discussion followed regarding the interpretation of thc ordinance, w.Sether or not the pre- sent operation is illegal, how the situation would change with the additional sales outlet on another level, and what the prime business was? In enswer to a question from Commissioner London, Dr. Scahefer stated that about 50% of his business was devoted to eye examinations and 50% would be to sales. He commented in' regard to the parking that if it proved there was insufficient space for his patients it would hurt his business and he would have to find another location. He felt that he would have twice the space he does now when the real estate firm left. He expects to have a maximum of five or six employees, who all will park in the St. Raphael lot. The Chairman expressed his concerns about rezoning the property. He suggested the possibility of Dr. Schaefer moving to larger quarters in the future, leaving a very small building with retail zoning which would then present even greater problems. Commissioner Christensen again noted his concern, stating that if Dr. Schaefer did not change the name of his sales operation, he could go back and continue as has in the past. Being located on Bass Lake Road there was no possibility of additional parking on the street. If the parking proved to be insufficient it was Dr. Schaefer who would be hurt the most. He felt the City was caught between what was there and what may be right for that particular location. Commissioner Atchley stated he felt there must be some other way to accommodate what now exists. The doctor is only increasing his retail sales area by 50 square feet over what'he presently has. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Dr. Schaefer intends to have no additional signage in the front of the building and that other than increasing his space in the building and moving the retail portion down- stairs, he did not intend to change the type of operation he now has. Dr. Schaefer stated he would prefer to take all of the space in the building other than what his partner (Mr. Cavanagh) needed, rather than lose out on needed parking spaces by renting space to another tenant. Commissioner Gustafson noted he was inclined to deny the request for re~oning and instruct the City Staff that based on the input from the Planning Commission meeting, this should not be considered as a separate retail facility. Commissioner London expressed his feeling that he and other commissioners shared this view, that while they were not in favor of a rezoning, the retail sales should be considered as merely an offshoot of the original operation. It was a question of expanding the oepr~tion. He felt that as long as there were no serious problems in parking in the area, they could perhaps go along with Commissioner Gustafson~s interpretation and if a real serious problem develops, the doctor would have to return to the Commission. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug about what action the City could take should a horrendous parking develop, the City Manager stated that technically the Citg should have some control with the issuing of occupancy permits to future tenants. The problem arose when the City was not informed about new tenants and it became difficult to remove them once they were in the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MAY 2, !978 11. 12. Con~issioner London recommended denial of Case 78-38 - reguest for rezoning at 7232 Bass Lake Road. This denial is based on the Planning Commission's interpretation of the ordinance and the feeling that the retail sales is part of, and incident to, the doctor's original operation and should be allowed to continue and that rezoning would not serve any purpose. This decision was further based on th~ petitioner's assurance that he would require no further signage or advertising with the increased operation. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion carried. pLANNING CASE 78-39 - REpUEST FOR VARIANCE AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 4210 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - K. JOHNSON (BURGER CHEF) PETITIONER. Mr. Johnson stated that Burger Chef was in need of additional seating space. He also intends to add a new type of salad bar which will eliminate four of the existing seats. He is requesting a 12 foot addi- tion to the building which will make the dimensions 72' x 50'. With the addition, the Code would require 67 parking spaces and he now has only 48. He noted that most of the employees are teenagers who do not as yet drive and do not use any parking spaces. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the addition would be to the west side of the restaurant, 12 feet expanding into. the patio area and will include a vestibule on the north side of the structure to eliminate some of the wind. The addition will utilize the same brick, there will be another air conditioner which will be screened; the refuse containers will remain in the same location. Mr. Chritensen referenced the Design and Review discussion regarding the fact that Burger Chef is well run, and also very busy. The parking lot is many times completely full. He expressed concern about adding more seating area when there will be no more parking space available. Mr. Johnson noted that he had contacted the Mobil Oil Corporation in regard to using some of their park- ing space. He had been told he would have to speak to someone from the Omaha office the next time they were in town. The station itself has no control over allowing a shared use. The variance in the sign is necessary because the Burger Chef sign is a franchise sign and there are five letters on the sign that are in excess of the ten inch maximum required in the Code -- the "b", "c" and because of the curl of the letters "g", "h", "f". These letters are 13 inches tall rather than Mr. Johnson noted that General Foods had conducted a survey of the site/operation and the results indi- cated that he would expand even with the existing parking. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the problem was not in the building, but outside. There either must be more parking provided on the site, or access to additional parking provided. Mr. Johnson indicated that even if he were denied his request for the addition, he would still add the vestibule because he felt this would decrease his ~xpenses for gas and electricity by 50%. The City Manager suggested that there might be an alternative solution to the problem. Metro Fone is starting construction -- they do not intend to use the back end of their property. It might .be possible for Burger Chef to work out something with them since Metro Forte had indicated originally they would be agreeable to extra parking on their lot - if some paid for it, of course. Commissioner London suggested that perhaps the matter should be tabled to allow Mr. Johnson to tal'k to Metro Fone and see if he could arrange for another 20 spaces. Mr. Johnson asked whether the question of the sign could be considered so that if the variance were to be granted he could order the sign? Discussion then covered the variance on the letters of the new sign. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the proposed height of the pylon and the total square footage of the sign would be within Code. The variance was only in the size of the letters. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to table the constructiqn approval and parking varia~qe requested in Case 78-39 until the meeting .o~ Ma~ 16. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Atch!ey, christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderso~ Motion carried. ~.~ Commissioner Ch~istensen recommended approval of the sign variance requested in Case 78-39, to allow the letters "b", "~", "c", "h", and "f" to be 13" instead of 10". Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Atchleg, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson~'Gundershau~ Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion carried. PI~NNING. COMMISSION MINUTES ' 7 - MAY 2, 1978 13. PLANNING CASE 78-40 - REQUEST FOR REZONING, PLAT APPROVAL, PUD AT 62ND/#18 - DERRICK LAND COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Kurt Laughinghouse stated they were requesting a rezoning to allow them to develop the property at #18/62nd as a PUD. They also are requesting platting approval. They propose to plat the property into 28 lots, but with only .14 buildings. This will make sales easier. They anticipate that the buildings will be owner occupied. The current zoning on the property is RB. They have held two meetings with the residents of the area regarding their plans. There are 8.5 acres on the parcel, but a large amount of the land is unbuildable. They propose platting the area with the good soil. He noted that there were two corrections to be made on the site plan as presented to the Commissioners. One was that the lots should be marked 1 through 28, the second was that there will be an access to Out- lot A which will be owned jointly by the owners of the units. The City Manager noted that two actions are necessary: one, is to rezone the property from RB to MR and approve the preliminary plat. Approval of the PUD comes with the submission of actual development plans. He added that the Planning Con~ission had already ruled on the advisability of mid-density for this parcel when they approved the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Laughinghouse noted that when considering the total parcel they were proposing only three units per acre, because of the poor soil, however, they are requesting that the he allowed to compress the 28 units into the area containing good soil. In response to a request from the Chairman for reasons, for the record, to approve the rezonlng, Mr. Laugh- inghouse stated that they felt mid-density would be more compatible to the surrounding neighborhood and still represented a reasonable use of the land. The City Manager noted that another reason was the elimination of the access at 62nd Avenue, which had been provided under the old comprehensive plan. Commissioner London stated he felt that the first issue to be addressed was what the proper zoning of the property was -- MR as requested or TR or SR. He confirmed that the intention of the petitioner was ~o sell the units to be individual owner-occupied dwellings. Mr. Laughinghouse noted that there was the possibility that one person would buy one uni¢,live in half of the unit and rent the other, or one person could purchase several units and rent them. Discussion then followed about the possibility, inasmuch as Derrick Land Company is not going to do the actual construction, that the proposed plan would not develop. If this occurred and the property were left with a MR zoning which would allow a multitude of buildings. In a rezoning the City must look at the ultimate use of the property. Discussion then covered the possibility of the Planning Commission granting the rezoning and platting, with the petitioner to'return with definite development plans for the PUD. Mr. Laughinghouse commented that he felt the lender would not be making a commitment if the idea were not viable. He stated it had been his understanding that a PUD had a life of its own, to Insure the follow through of development. The City Manager indicated that the new ordinance would provide this. Discussion regardint the installing of the utilities and the feeling that if these were put in after the platting, this would also restrict the development. Commissioner Gustafson aske~ whether it would be possible to rezone the property SF and then upon the adoption of the new zoning code change the classification to R-2? The City Manager stated that they did not need a PUD for density and that one approach would be to approve the plat as is, rezone to R-2 or SR with the understanding that variances in lot size would be granted, providing that the type of unit in the present proposal were built. This would involve the petitioner. returning to the Commission to construction anything else. Discussion followed regarding this alternative and the control that the City would have over any future development of the property once it was platted. Also covered was the County requirement for berming toward #18 and whether or not there would be any need for additional dividers or fences on top of the berm to cut down the noise level and the need for Mr. Corrick to approve any dedication documents for the Outlot. During a discussion on the street, the City Manager noted that it would be necessary to have a 60' radius circle in the cul-du-sac. It will be a public street. The utility companies will require 10 foot ease- ments. There will be a walkway between lots six and seven providing access to the outlot. The City Manager stated that the walkway can be guaranteed by including it in the development contract/bond. Mr. Jerry Roth, 6085 Hillsbor, asked why it was necessary to have a path~ He .was informed that it was to give the tenants access to their con, on lot. PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - MAY 2, 1978 13. Mr. Jim Whelan, 6091 Hillsboro, expressed the opinion that there should be a restrictive covenant on the lots to guarantee that the houses contain "x" number of square feet to avoid the possiblity of little dumpy houses being constructed. The City Manager noted that the City Ordinance requires 1,050 square feet on two unit structures and 1240 on single units. Mr. Whelan then suggested that it might be better if the City maintained control of the outlot area, rather than the tenants owning it jointly. He also wondered if the little road, Harlan Drive, could not be also tied into this entire project. Mr. Laughinghouse noted that drainage and utility easements would be granted to the City and they would thus control any development of the outlot. He did not feel his company cared what happened to the little street -- could be turned over to the neighbors. If the City wants to vacate the street, this would be fine. The City Manager noted that there were three factors involved: 1. The road was to provide access to the commercial property -- it cannot be extended through the swamp. 2. If the road is not left there, there would be no public access from the south the the outlot. 3. The outlot will be private ownership, therefore, it was possible the new lot owners would not even want to let other people into the property. Discussion continued about this road -- the fact that the Commission could not act on this problem or even recommend. This was a matter to be taken up with staff at a later time. Commissioner London made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning from RB to SR and ap- proval of the preliminary plat at 62nd/#18 with the following conditions: 1. That the cul-du-sac be enlarged to 60 feet in radius. 2. That a noise barrier be constructed on the west side to comply with requirements of the Hennepin County Highway Department. 3. That a walkway be provided from the housing area to Outlot A. 4. That construction plans be subject to approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with ~'~ their procedures. 5. Basements be provided as required by the utility companies and City engineer.. 6. City Attorney approve the language and documentaion in regard to common ownership and easements of Outlot A. The zoning ~pproval is based on the Comprehensive Plan discussions and recommendations. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion carried. 14. PLANNING CASE 78-41 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AT QUEBEC AND 42ND AVENUE - JERRY HARRINGTON., PETITIONER. Mr. Harrington stated he was requesting a waiver of platting on a four foot'strip of land between the railroad tracks and his property and the property of Sheridan Sheet Metal. This is a torrance piece. They did not discover this until the title was examined. They are close ~o closing and he wants to leave Mr. Graving with the four foot strip by his property. Applying for a waiver seemed to be the easiest and quickest way slnce time was a factor. In answer to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Harringto said he was applying for a waiver on the advice of his attorney and after discussion with the City Manager. Mr. Harrington stated that at the time he purchased the property he had'not realized there was both a torrance certificate and an abstract of title. The torrance certificate is for the entire length of the property. He only wants the portion next to his other property. The City Manager stated that the fact of the problem was that with a waiver you would end up with four lc~g metes and bounds descriptions; in platting you would end up with just two simple lot and block descriptions. Mr. Harrington noted that it would take too long for him to get the paperwork through the torrance office, because they were so slow, in time for him to close on the mortgage. After the parcel is closed he will proceed with the torrancing of his two parcels. The surveyor had advised him that he would never get this done in time before closing the mortgage. ' Commissioner London recommended approval of the wai.v~r o~ platting in Case 78-41 at 42nd~Quebec Avenue North because of the time inKol~ed in platting this section now. Co~uissioner Christensen second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - MAY 2, 1978 14. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Cammron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 15. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 16. There 'was no report from the Design and Review Committee 17. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee 6. Planninq case 78-33 was removed from the table. Commissioner Gustafson motioned to table this case 18. 19. 22. until the meeting of May 16th. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Atchley second. London, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug None Bartos, Anderson The Commission Minutes of April 18, 1978 were accepted as printed. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jou. ce Boeddeker, Secretary The Council Minutes of April 24, 1978 were reviewed. PLANNINd COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 1978 1. Inasmuch as the Chairman and Assistant Chairman were both absent, the Commissioners declared that Commissioner Christensen should serve as Chairman. The reyularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Commissioner Chris- tensen at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 1978 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Atchley, Christensen, Anderson, Gundershaug Absent: Bartos, Cameron (excused), Gustafson (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE 78-33 (CONTINUED FROM 5-2-78) REQUEST FOR SIDE AND FRONT VARIANCES AT 7701 ANGELINE DRIVE GEORGE MUNGER, PETITIONER. Mr. Munger stated that he wished to add a two car garage with a dining room attached, behind the kitchen. In order to keep the addition flush with the back of the house and retain his backyard, he has to come- forward ten feet. The front yard variance is ten feet, the sidegard variance is two feet for the garage and seven feet for the living area. In answer to questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Munger stated that the existing garage wilt be re- moved and sold and he anticipates he will also have to remove the slab. He plans to position the new garage in the same location as the existing garage. There will be windows in the dining room addition, but only to the rear of the structure. There will he no windows or doors on the sides of the addition. Upon completion of the garage/dining room the house will become "L" shaped and the roof and siding type and color will match that of the house. There will be a small overhang of approximately one foot. Mr. Munger stated that he had talked to his immediate neighbors -- next door and across the street ' and they had no objections to his plans. There was no one present in regard to this planning case. Mr. Munger confirmed that he had submitted his plans to the City staff. The garage will be 22' x 24'. In answer to a question from Con~issioner Anderson, Mr. Munger stated that the garage would be only for storage of the family's two cars, and not for a home occupation. Commissioner London made a motion to approve Case 78-33, request for variance in front and sideward sea- back to allow the construction of an attached garage and dininq area, as submitted by the ~etitionez. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Votin9 in favor: Absent: Motion carried. London, Atchley, christensen, Anderson, Gundershaug Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson PLANNING CASE 78-39 (CONTINUED FROM 5-2-78) REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL/PARKING VARTaNCE AT 421u WINNETF~ - K. JOHNSON, BURGER CHEF, PETITIONER. Mr. Jol]nson stated that since his last appearance before the Commission, he had talked to the represen- tatives of the shopping center, Mr. Peterson at the Mobil station and Mr. Phil Fernkes of Metro Fone in regard to additional parking spaces they might have, that Mr. Johnson could contract for, to provide additional parking for Burger Chef. As a result of these contacts, he had been told that the shopping center would give him a 30 day at a time commitment because their plans were as yet unsure; Mr. Peterson of the Mobil station said he usu- ally had a full lot anyway, but perhaps a temporary agreement could be reached; and Mr. Fernkes of Metro Fone stated they would have 19 parking spaces, anticipate using only three spaces, but were not willing to give a written commitment for more than 90 days at a time, with an option to renew. They felt a permanent commitment for parking spaces would impair any future plans for expansion they might have. Commissioner London stated that if Mr. Johnson could use 10-12 spaces at Metro Fone and 4-5 at Mobil, this might work. He felt that Metro Forte would probably not expand for 3-5 years, according to what they had indicated when they appeared before the Commission. Mr. Johnson noted that they did not have too many employees at Burger Chef that drove to work -- mostly kids from the school work programs. Commissioner London questioned how much use the customers would make of any auxiliary parking if it were any distance from the restaurant site. He felt that customers would drive'through looking for a perking space and drive on out if space were unavailable. PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES m 2 - MAY 16, 1978 Mr. Johnson stated that he had been unable to contact angone at Mr. Steak -- he would like to be able to combine parking with Mr. Steak and the extra spaces at Metro Fone. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that he felt there should be some signage indicating that there was ad- ditional parking available. Mr. Johnson noted that he felt the problem really existed for onlg about five hours a week, during the time that families came in to the restaurant with children. This is whg he needs additional seating . space. He added that he will increase the number of seats bg 60 with the 12 foot addition. He dis- tributed a plan to the commissioners illustrating the seating arrangement. Commissioner Christensen noted that he felt it was great that the facilitg was so successful, but felt that the time when the restaurant was the busiest, was also the time it would be short of parking. He was concerned about this. He felt 18 spaces was too large a variance° Commissioner London noted that he felt the problem was trging to solve was the seating for families which he could not now accommodate. Theg would not necessarilg take more than one parking space. Commissioner christensen questioned whether at the busiest times, in this tgpe of restaurant, there would not also be people who sat at a table singlg. He noted that there were also a large percentage of people who would eat in their cars° Lengthg discussion followed regarding the size of the requested variance (18 spaces; the dangers of onlg a temporarg commitment for additional parking; the fact that the additional parking could be with~ drawn at any time lacking a permanent commitment but the addition would alreadg have been constructed2 Also debated was the fact that Mr. Johnson had at least received verbal commitments from Metro Fone and other neighbors that would allow him to come close to the Code requirements for parking. Mr. Johnson noted that he would not be making the additional expenditure if he did not feel it would be worthwhile. His concern was providing seating for families, sag on a Fridag evening, who came to the facility, purchased their food and ~h~n discovered there was no pla~e to sit. If there are not spots to park, people will drive on. He needs~ additional seating inside. He felt it was common for the Mro Steak customers and Burger Chef customers to interchange use of the parking area. Mr. Johnson added that he had enough parking spaces according to the number of seats planned. He did not have enough spaces to accommodate the Code restriction for one additional space for everg 200 feet of total space. He questioned the reason for the additional requirement? The Citg Manager clarified the restrictions of the Code -- one space for everg three seats, and one space for everg 200 feet of floor area -- staCi.ng this was to accommodate emplogees and the occasional custo- mer who came alone, thus creating a one and one use. Commissioner Christensen noted that it was his opinion, based on his personal experience at the restaur- ant, that one space for three seats was not sufficient. He noted that a hardship had to be proven for the granting of a variance -- it was up to each Co~issioner to determine whether or not a variance was justified. He referred to past requests for parking variances and commented that in this instance he felt the Commissioners knew the restaurant would b~ busy and need more parking. He felt'that the tem- porarg commitment from Metro Fone could not be considered as a long term solution. The Con~issioners then reviewed the proposed plans for the addition -~ both the ten foot version and the twelve foot version. Mr. Johnson noted that if he added only ten feet he would gain 48 seats. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson he stated that it would not be economicallg feasible for him to construct an ad- dition that provided only 20 extra seats. Additional discussion followed regarding the two alternatives for the addition. Commissioner Gundershaug stated it was his feeling that the ten foot addition was more practical -- that people would drive on through iftheg could not find parking space. In answer to a question from the Commission, Mr. Johnson noted that he would be willing to accept the ten foot addition. He would put a permanent sign in the rear of the facilitg noting that there was additional parking at the Metro Fone site° More discussion followed as to whether or not the customers would even bother to use supplementarg park- ing if provided. Mr. Johnson stated that if he couldreach an agreement with Mr. Steak he would build a paved lot at the rear of the Metro Fone propertg. He as ge~ has be~n unable to contact anyone at Mr. Steak due to the fact that it had recentlg changed owners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a 3- MAY 16, 1978 9. i0. Commissioner London questioned whether it would be possible to have the employees of Mr. Steak also park at the Metro Fone site, thus providing more spaces for customers? Commissioner Christensen stated that, in his opinion, the Commission had to act on the request for variance and that he did not feel that anything would be gained by attaching conditions to the approval regarding the obtaining of additional parking spaces at Metro Fone. He felt the potential lack of space would be Mr. Johnson's problem and he would have to worry about it. Mrs. Charlene Johnson stated that she worked at the New Hope Burger Chef a lot. She wished to add that the restaurant had a lot of customers that walked to the facility. They needed the additional seating even if they did not have additional parking. She felt that the walkers also needed a space to sit and that they.further had many school kids as customers during the noon hour. The City Manager confirmed that there was a lot of foot traffic to the restaurant from across the shop- ping center lot during the noon hour. Additional discussion followed regarding the parking spaces that might, he available at Mr. Steak, those used occasionally now at the Mobil Station and the distance to the Metro Fone site for people to park and walk to the restaurant. Commissioner London made a motion to approve the construction plans and parking variance as requeste,; for the ten foot addition, allowing 128 seats, to the Bur~er Chef restaurant at 4210 Winnetka. Com- missioner Atchley second. Commissioner Christensen requested that the minutes reflec= that there is a great deal of foot traffic to the restaurant and this was the only reason he could see for the granting of the variance. In answer to a question, the City Manager noted that there had not been too much of a problem with traf- fic at the restaurant even during busy times. Commissioner London noted that he felt they would not be creating any additional traffic because there are two exits and people who could not find a spot to park would simply drive on through, just as they do now. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. London, Atchley, Christensen, Gundershaug, Anderson None Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson COMMITTEE REPORTS There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Design and Revie.w. Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Mr. Anderson noted that he felt that the discuss!on regarding the addition of certain retail sales in service stations should be.tabled until such time as the Chairman of the Codes and Standards Com- mittee was present. Unanimous agreement from the Commissioners. NEW BUSINESS The Council Minutes of May 8, 1978 were reviewed. The Commission Minutes of May 2, 1978 were accepted as printed. Following discussion, Commissioner Gundershaug moved that the Planning Commission meet onl~ once a month during each of June, July and August. Commissioner London second. Discussion then covered the fact that the regularly scheduled meeting for July fell on a Wednesday be- cause of the holiday. The concensus of the Commission was that it might be difficult to obtain a quor- em on Wednesday. Concensus was that the July meeting of the Planning Commission would be held on Tues da~ Jul~ 11, 1978. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. London, Atchley, Christensen, Gundershaug, Anderson None Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MAY 16, 1978 11. 12. Discussion then was held between the Commissioners, regarding the number of members that should serve on the Co~mission, eight or ten. General feeling was that there had not been too many pro- blems with only eight members. Commissioner London felt that with ten members there was a better chance of having a quorem. Dis- cussion followed on this theory. Commissioner christensen stated he felt that eight was more workable, two more members would only add to the discussion time, which sometimes was a/ready too tengthg. Commissioner London stated he felt that with only eight members, there was a greater burden placed on the sub-committee members. Concensus of the members of the Commission present (4-1) was that the structure should remain at eight members. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 6, 1978 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson~ Anderson Absent: London (excused), Gundershaug (excused), Christensen (arrived at 7:34). PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE 78-36 (CONTINUED FROM 5-2-78) REZONING SR TO MR - 51st~Winnetka--Robert Cady, Petitioner. The City Manager stated that Mr. Cady had called him and was not ready with his plans and had requested a table for one month. Commissioner Gustafson moved to table Case 78-36 until the meeting Of July i1, 1978. Commissione, Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Gundershaug, Christensen PLANNIWG CASE 78-42 - SIGN VARIANCE - SAMBO'S RESTAURANT - 7201 BASS LAKE ROAD - SIGNCRAFTERS, PETITIONER. Mr. Jack Lawrence represented Signcrafters. He stated they were requesting a variance in the size of the letters of the proposed Sambo's sign. This request was based on the fact that the Sambo's name is a registered trademark which they feel is the sams as a logo. The New Hope Ordinance does not restrict size of logos. He presented a letter to. the Chairman indicating that the trademark had been registered. The total square footage of the sign meets the restrictions of the Ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson referred to the original discussions regarding the Sign Ordinance and its proposed amendments and confirmed with Mr. Lawrence that he had at the time of those meetings been present and been afforded an opportunity to speak in regard to restri.ctions in letter size as proposed and that Mr. Lawrence had also spoken in regard to the increasing trend of using logos in signage. Mr. Lawrence stated this was true, that he had spoken against restricitng the size of letters on signs in any way. Commissioner Gustafson. then stated that following the public meetings, the Committee had again reviewed the proposed ordinance as well as the input received from citizens and had subsequently adopted the cur- rent wording of the Ordinance which states: (m) Sign, Logo. Any letter, character, or symbol used to represent an entire word or group of words denoting the name, trade .or purpose of a~y business. Commissioner Gustafson asked Mr. Lawrence how he could construe that the name Sambo's was a logo or even representative of a group of words? Mr. Lawrence stated this was his interpretation of the Ordinance -- "Sambo's" was a registered trademark. He referred to the logo at the Sunshine Factory which had been approved by the Commission. The City Manager stated this sign had been approved under the old ordinance restrictions and that it would need to come into conformance after the amortization time passed. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Mr. Lawrence had any other facts to present to justify granting the variance, other than his opinion that the name "Sambo's" was a logo. Mr. Lawrence stated it was a registered trademark and he felt a trademark should be considered a logoi Chairman Cameron commented that in his opinion, it was a word not a logo. Discussion followed about other signs, in the City, trademarks, and the definition of logos, as well as the many other companies with registered trademarks who had complied with the New Hope ordinance. Mr. Lawrence said that Sambo's felt it was a logo and were prepared to take a legal stand. In response to a question from the Chairman, he stated this was not a standard sign but had been designed for the New Hope restaurant. -2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 1978 4. Chairman Cameron stated that a telephone call had been received from Dr, Abrahamson, whose office is located across from the Sambo's site, who had expressed opposition to the larger letters. Mr. Charles Peugh, of Signcrafters, noted that he had looked up the definition of trademark in the dic- tionary and the language was practically the same as for a logo. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending denial of the request for variance in letter size in Case 78-42. Because of the language in the Ordinance and the measures that had been taken in the re- view cycle while drafting the definition, he felt it was appropriate that the Commission strictly enforc~ the definition of a logo as stated in the Ordinance. The name "Sambo's" under the City's definition is not construed as a logo and they should be required to meet the letter size requ2rements of the balance of the businesses that front on Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Atchley second. Commissioner Anderson commented on the fact that the Commission had made oil companies bring their let- ter sizes into conformance and that while a variance had been granted to Burger Chef in letter size, that request was for a much smaller variances. Commissioner Bartos aasked how much of a variance was being requested. The answer was that the Ordinance allowed ten inches, and the proposed Sambo's sign would have letters up to 40" high. The variance that had been granted to Burger Chef had been for in inches and had been granted because of the style of the letters. The variance was on only three letters in the sign, Commissioner Gustafson commented on the fact that the petitioner's reason for the variance was that the sign was a logo. However, having been a member of the Commission and of the Codes and Standards Commit- tee who had reacted to the petitioner's earlier request for a definition of logo, by reviewing and draft- lng the present wording in the Ordinance as the definition of logo, it was'his opinion there was no way, based on the Committee discussions, that they ever had given consideration to using the blanket term "registered trademark", which would include many national companies, as meaning logo. Chairman Cameron commented on the many other petitioners, with registered trademarks, who had been forced to conform to the Ordinance restrictions. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Gundershaug Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 78-43 - VARIANCE FOR GARAGE CONSTRUCTION AT 3840 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - DARRELL BUNNEL~, PETITIONER. Mr. Bunnell stated he was requesting the variance to extend his garage ten feet to the south, adding 300 square feet to the s2ze. The purpose is for storage,there will not be any extension of the door, primarily for a boat and fire wood. His current garage is really only a garage and a half. The exist- ing roof line will be continued and the siding of the addition will match the house. There will be a separation between the storage area and the garage. It will be used only for storing equipment -- no home industry. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the original setbacks at the time of construction of the house had not met City Code. Therefore, there is some confusion regarding the legal setbacks on the front and side. He then asked Mr. Bunnell if he would be agreeable, if the Commission granted him front and rearyard setback variances, to agree to no further additions into the sideyard to the south? He added that in a sideyard you could build to within five feet of the line. Mr. Bunnell stated he was perfectly willing to agree to this. He had no further plans for the yard to the south. He stated he had been in his home for 11 years and planned to remain the rest of his life. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 78-43, recuest for variances in front and rearq~.rd. setback at 3840 Boone Avenue, with the understanding that agreement had been reached with the petitioner that no further building, other than the garage addition proposed in this case, will go on the proper- ty south side. That the garage will have a divider between the garage and the work area and that the roof line and siding.will match that which is on the home. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Gundershaug Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-44 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT IN THE 4800 BLOCK OF ZEALAND AVENUE - HOUSE OF HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH, PETITIONER. Mr. Merle Jossart represented House of Hope Church. He stated that the church presently owns the proper- ty between Boone and Zealand Avenues. They are in the throes of planning the building of a new sanctuary, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- JUNE 6, 1978 They propose to plat the property into six lots -- five to be for single family dwellings and the sixth to be retained by the church. In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos, Mr. Jossart stated the church intends to sell the lots to a contractor to construct single family residences in a similar style to what is now adjacent to the property. The City Manager noted that the City would need easements along the east and west lot lines. Mr. Jos- sart agreed to this, stating these would be on the final plat. The City Manager stated there appeared to be no drainage problem but that the City Engineer would check this. Commissioner Bartos moved approval of Case 78-44 request for preliminary plat on Zealand Avenue at 48th. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson,.Anderson None London, Gundershaug 7. PLANNING CASE 78-45 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT TACO BELL - 7500 BASS LAKE ROAD - UNIVERSAL SIGN COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Merv Hoyt represented Universal Sign Company. He stated they wished the variance on the letter size, because it would be very expensive for them to have to change the molds for the letters. The sign total size does meet the criteria. They are also requesting additional signs on the sides of the building. The Ordinance allows three such signs, they would like to have five. They would be placed concurrently with the lighting on the building. They would be 1' x 3'. Commissioner Gustafson noted that there would he no problem with the side signs if they came within the total allowable square footage. Mr. Hoyt noted they were requesting an extra six square feet for these signs. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, he stated that the Taco Bell sign was manufactured in California. This was the smallest sign they make. Discussion followed regarding the proposed size of the letters (13" to 18") and the fact that other na- tional or chain operations also often had suandard sized signs which they had brought into conformance with the City Code. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he had heard nothing t o justify the variance and that he felt that the signs for all commercial outlets on Bass Lake Road should be treated equally. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to deny Case 78-45 - request for variance in letter size on signage at Taco Bell and further recommending denial' of the requested variances for additional small signs, b~ed on the total square footage of these signs exceeding code. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Gundershaug Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-46 - REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL ON INDEPENDENCE AVENUE (GETTYSBURG HILLS 2ND) - CRITERION HOMES, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. The City Manager stated there were some changes in the organization and this might explain why no one was in attendance. It was really a simple problem. This request was to correct an error made by the surveyor in the original platting. The two lots had been ~caled off wrong. The lots meet all require- ments of the City. Commissioner Bartos recommended approval of the reques~ for pl. at approval in Gettysburg Hills, Case 78-46. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Gundershaug PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - '4 ~ JUNE 6, 1978 9. PLANNING CASE 78-47 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN AT 54TH~BOONE - NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER - SIGN- CRAFTERS, PETITIONER. Mr. Charles Peugh represented Signcrafters. He stated that theg were reqeusting the variance on the letter size. They felt that the letters would not be visible from the street if they were smaller than proposed. The sign will be 25 feet back from the street and is basically an identification sign. They are within the 40 square feet allowed for a commercial sign on a collector street. Mr. Charles Thompson, Administrator of the Care Center, stated he felt the name would be lost in the trees if the letters were smaller. The sign will be constructed of wood with illumination from the ground. They also request 2' x 2' entrance signs because it is almost impossible to obtain a smaller sign that is illuminated from within because of the size of the transformers required. Code allows two square feet for such signs. In answer to a question from the Commission, Mr. Thompson noted that North Ridge was a tax paying operation. The proposed sign will be placed at the entrance on Boone. Mr. Thompson stated they wished to place the directional signs at each entrance and exit around the block. He did not anticipate requesting additional signs on the property in the future. Commissioner Christensen commented on the directional signs. He felt those proposed were basically a safety type of sign and would help avoid head-on collisions. Considering the fact that the sign pro- posed for Boone Avenue actually was designed simply to identify the care center and not to draw crowds, he felt it was attractive and could be accepted. Commissioner Gustafson stated that because of the nature of the business, even if it were profit making, he felt the business was benelitial to the City. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of Case 78-47 - request fo.r sign variance at North Ridge Care Center. Commissioner Christensen, second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Atchley, Anderson London, Gundershaug 10. PLANNING CASE 78-48 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 7409 ST. RAPHAEL DRIVE - PAUL DEC, PETITIONER. Mr. Dec stated he was requesting a variance to allow him to construct a garage into the rearyard setback. He wishes to position the garage into the backyard because at some future time he hopes to add on to the right side of the deck and wishes to guarantee access from right to left in his backyard. He felt it would be more expensive to attach the garage to the house and he preferred a detached garage. Discussion followed regarding the e~act location of the.proposed garage. Mr. Dec decided he would like to position the the garage 15 feet from the lot line, and was thereby requesting a 20 foot variance. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Dec that the garage will be 24' x 24', would have a gable roof and have the same type of siding as on the house. Discussion then centered on the overhang on the garage. Mr. Dec stated it would be two feet on each side of t]~ garage. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 78-48, request for a variance in rearyard setback ' at 7409 St. Raphel Drive, to allow construction of a detached garage no closer than 15 feet from the rear lot line and no closer than five feet from the side lot line. Commissioner Bartos second. i1. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Gundershaug PLANNING CASE 78-49 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 4531 WINNETKA AVENUE - S AND L BUILDERS, PETITIONER. Mr. Stewart Moss represented S and L Builders. He stated he was requesting a variance to allow him to construct a single family home on a lot that is undersized and also a rearyard setback variance. Discussion centered on the setbacks as required, the reasons for the larger setback off Winnetka, whe- ther or not the house at 4541 Winnetka had been constructed under old requirements; the advantages to PLANNINC COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JUNE 6, 1978 11. the builder if the house were lined up with either the apartments or the house at 4541 Winnetka; the fact that a setback providing for a larger backyard might be preferable than a frontyard variance; and whether or not the builder was proposing too much house for this lot. Mrs. Lysdahl, 7919 46th, stated that her backyard and the yard of the proposed house would be against each other. She has a dog and was concerned about the need to be in the yard all of the time if the new owners had small children. The Chairman noted that any size house might create a problem as far as the backyards were concerned. 'Commissioner Gustafson commented that regardless of the setback, a problem with dogs and children could exist. This, however, was a neighborhood problem and must be settled between property owners~ In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Moss stated he anticipated the house would sell for approximately $56,000. Con~.~issioner Christensen cormented on the fact that an attempt to construct a house on this site, with all of the required setbacks, would make a very small house. This is perhaps the kind of lot that would not allow an adequately sized house without setback variances. In today's market it might not be possi- ble to build a much smaller house than they propose. Commissioner Gustafson stated he felt the most important thing was the noise level from Winnetka. Commissioner Anderson commented that he did not think 5, 6, or 8 feet would make that much difference as far as noise level was concerned. His personal preference was that the front setback was of less con- cern, since it was a very public place, and he would prefer more space in the rearyard if he were to pur- chase this house. Commissioner Atchley agreed, stating he too would prefer more backyard than front, particularly on Winnetka. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the City would have any problem with the house being lined up with the house at 4541 Winnetka. The Manager answer no. Mr. Moss stated he had no real difficulty with this either. Commissioner Christensen agreed that perhaps a frontyard variance was preferable to a rearyard variance. Commissioner Christensen made a motion for approval of Case 78-49, .granting a variance in frontyard set- back and a tentative variance in the rearyard, if required, in order to line up the house with the one 12. at 4541 Winnetka, with the suggestion that the petitioner complete the measurements prior to the Council meeting on the 12th June. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Gundershaug Mr. Moss confirmed that the measurements should be documented and presented to the City Council on June 12th. PLANNING CASE 78-50 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REARYARD SETBACK AT 5425 RHODE ISLAND NORTH - LEO JOHNSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Johnson stated he wished to add ten feet to the east side of the garage. His house is on a corner. He plans to remove the existing garage and completely rebuild another one. He will use the same floor- ing. The roof line will be the same as on the house and the siding will also match the house. The purpose of the addition is to store his camper, two cars and the other personal equipment. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson, the City Manager stated that there are one or two garages constructed in the City that have variances to be only five feet from the rear lot line. Commissioner bustafson made a motion to recommend approval of the requested variance in setback require- ments at 5425 Rhode Island Avenue North. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christens~n, Atchley, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Gundershaug, Cameron Motion carried. PLANNIN~ COF~MISSION MINUTES - 6 - JUNE 6, 1978 13. PLANNING CASE 78-51 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL AT 5420 ~18 SERVICE DRIVE - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Ken Burau represented Rosewood Corporation. He noted that Rosewood had previously presented an over- all sign plan. They plan basically the same treatment for the entire park, similar to earlier projects. They will have clean lines, identification signs with smaller tailored signs for the individual tenants, i.e. Suite A, B, C, etc. The design of the building includes a block area whore the proposed signs will be positioned. The signs will be limited to a total 10% of the total wall area. There will be no individual office signs. No one was present in regard to this case. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Gundershaug Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to gpprove the proposed sigm plan for Rosewood Corporation, Case 78-42, subject to staff approval that the plan as submitted meets the requirements of the City Code. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Gundershaug, Ca~eron 14. PLANNING CASE 78-52 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT MEADOW LAKE SCHOOL - 62ND~BOONE - RICHARD CORDELL, PETITIONER. Mr. Cordell stated that he was presenting a preliminary plan for th construction of a media center at Meadow Lake School. The plan is now being worked on by various consultants. It involves some remodel- ing and an addition facing the southwest corner of the playground area. Commissioner Christensen noted that this case was before the Commission simply because the cost of con- struction exceeded $10,000. The media center will create a connection between the existing structures at Meadow Lake. The brick will be matched as closely as possible, there will be no added lights and no signage or additional park- ing space needed. Commissioner Anderson questioned the addition to an elementary school Which might have to be closed in five years. Mr. Cordei1 stated that the School Board had approved the project; Meadow Lake School is located in the far northwest corner of the School District and that there are absolutely no plans for closing this school. There are 900-1000 kids at the school and they anticipate the enrollment will remain stable. Commissoner Bartos asked about the Metro Land Planning 'Act in relation to this project. The City Manager noted that Mr. Cordell was not involved with this aspect. Commissioner Gustafson asked for clarification of what a media center actually was? Chairman Cameron stated that this was the area formerly classified as a library. However, with the aUdio visual facilities and other non print materials now offered, the building did not have sufficient room to accommodate the facility. It is for use only of the children at Meadow Lake School. Mrs. Clare Hagerty, 8517 60%,stated she was opposed to the facility. She did not think they needed it. With all the schools closing she thought it was funny to all of a sudden add on to MeadOw Lake. Mr. Cordell noted that there was no existing room for the media center in the building. There are 36 class rooms and 35 teachers now. Commissioenr Gustafson stated that the q~estion before the Commission involved the construction of the building, the site of the addition, and any.problems this might cause in the area. The qUest of the need for the media center was a School Board decision, not the City's. Commissioner Christensen reconL~ended approval of Case 78-52 - construction plans for the media center at Meadow Lake School (62nd~Boone) subject to the brick matching as closely as. possible the existin~ ~ brick, and there being no additional lights or sign~ge on the buildinq. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Gundershaug Motion carrie~. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - JUNE 6, 1978 14. 15. The City Manager, in answer to an earlier question from Commissioner Bartos, stated that the Land Plan- ning Act was the same Act that the City had done their Comprehensive Plan Revision under. It required that any school construction project over $200,000 had to be reviewed bg the Metro Council and the municipality. PLANNING CASE 78-53 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GREEN AREA AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 5100 #18 SERVICE DRIVE - BENSON-ORTH, PETITIONER. Mr. Grey Hollenkamp, of Cottle-Herman Architects, represented the petitioner. Mr. Hotlenkamp stated they were requesting a variance in the green setback along 51st Avenue and along Hillsboro. At the time of original construction the building had not been positioned parallel with 51st Avenue, as it should have been. They now have a situation where, as they attempt to add on, they are too close to 5ist Avenue. The addition to the building will make the total square footage less than 40% of the site, the green area remains at 35%, but they would like to encroach into the 20 foot rear and side setbacks. It would be a ten foot setback at the worst condition and increase to 16 feet. Because they are proposing to cut down on some of the green area, they have added landscaping to the area. The parking lot is lower and is essentially screened from the road. The o~ner's business takes upmost of the block. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that this was the Harris Industry Building. The building now has. approximately 19,000 square feet and the petitioner is proposing to add 16,000 square feet. A portion of the addition will be office, but the major portion will be warehouse. The loading docks will be moved from the south side to the northeast side. There will be three docks. Handicapped spaces have been provided on the new plans. The building exterior will match the exist- ing building. If there is roof top equipment, it will be screened. They plan no additional signs at this time. They will continue to store the refuse inside. Lighting will consist of three wall packs. They intend to sod on the east and south sides and seed on the north side of the building. Discussion then covered whether or not there was a need for a sign by the main parking lot indicating there was no truck traffic allowed; and the need for curbing around the building, as well as any drain- age problems that might require additional curbing. Mr. Hollenkamp stated they had provided curbing around the four foot strip around the building with land- scaping between the curb and building. Mr. Larson stated they had not as yet received a report from the City Engineer regarding the drainage but felt that curbing would be required. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Hollenkamp stated that the owner of the property was anticipating the need for expansion and that there was a possibility that they might lease some of the space. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of the construction plans and setback variance as requested in Case 78-53, with the recommendation that a sign be placed at the south entrance of the parking lot, 16. conforming to Code, indicating that trucks should not enter that driveway. Commissioner Gustafson second. Additional discussion followed regarding the curbing, the advisability of waiting for the report from the City Engineer to determine their need; and the fact that curb might help protect the green area. Commissioner Gustafson requested that the motion include that if drainage is not a problem, concrete curbing be installed in accordance with the height requirements set forth by City sta?f. Ccsmissioner Christensen accepted Commissioner Gustafson's addition to the motion. Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Gundershaug Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-54 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7820 42ND AVENUE NORTH - ROBERT WINBERG, PETITIONEz~. Mr. Winberg stmted he was attempting to buy this facility from the Standard Oil Company. When he does this he would like to remodel the building and add a storage space. He presented pictures for the Commissioners to review. The construction will eliminate much of the equipment, etc. that is presently visible on the site. The exit end will be knocked off, with an overhead door installed. They intend to brick the front with material matching the existing brick. They plan to put the furnace on the roof and vent it down. If it is visible, it will be screened. The furnace is to be placed on the roof as a cost saving measure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 -- JUNE 6, 1978 16. At the present time the facility can service up to 50 cars an hour during peak times. With the addi- tion they hope to be able to handle 75 cars an hour. The addition should lessen traffic problems. They plan to use wood chips rather than sod in the landscaping because they fee/ sod would be a pro- blem to maintain. There will be no additional slgnage on the building. Discussion followed on the drainage problem at the north end of the site adjacent to the Metro Fone site. Mr. Winberg stated he wou3d be willing to install a curb at this end if the City desired. Also covered was the condition of, and the need for, the fencing at the lot line. Mr. Winberg stated he would like to remove the fence but leave the trees. The fence is currently not in good repair. He added that with the addition, he would be able to move the dryers farther back about six feet, move the rinse area and thus gain about 15 feet of drip area. This should almost eli- minate the problem of dripping on the street. Mr. Fernke, of Metro Fone, stated that Glen Cook, the City Engineer, had been out to the Metro Forte site looking at the problem and had also talked to Mr. Winberg. In his opinion, the fence was an eye- sore and he would like to see it removed. The trees could stay. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 78-54 - const?~uction approval at 7820 42nd Avenue North with the following stipulations: That the fence be removed from the north end of the property and that in its place a curb for drainage control be installed on the north end of the property, with Mr. Winberg and Mr. Fernke working out details with City staff. 2. Any rooftop equiopment will be screened if required by City Code. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Gundershaug 17. PLANNING CASE 78-55 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AWD PUD APPROVAL AT 30TH~FLAG - GARY GABRIEL, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Taylor represented Gary Gabriel. He distributed a revised landscape plan to the Commission. He also had illustrations of the proposed units and elevation information for review. He noted that the neighbors assembled had already had an opportunity to review this material. They request approval of a preliminary plat and approval of a PUD. They propose to construct 19 double bungalows and one four-plex on the site, which is.bounded by 30th Avenue, Hillsboro and Flag Avenues. There will be a cul-du-sac at the south boundary. They are asking for no variances. The property is presently zoned MR. There Building A will have 11,079 square feet of Building B will have 16,090 square feet of Building C will have 1,500 square feet of Building D will have 1,338 square feet of will be four different styles in the development: finished liging area ~n each unit. finished living area in each unit. finished living area in each unit. finished living area in each unit. Buildings A and C will have single garages with two outside parking spaces. Building B will have a double garage with two parking spaces outside. Building D will have an unattached double garage and four outside parking spaces. The unit designs will be staggered, to avoid all units of a similar appearance on one street. There will be concrete sidewalks and blacktopped driveways. Since the Design and Review Committee meet- ing, the landscaping for each unit had been increased by adding shrubs at the front of the homes. The units will have decks, but it was Mr. Taylor's feeling.that stairways from the decks should be the option of the homeowners. Following discussion, it was determined that Building Type B should have steps from the deck to the ground. There will be some rental units, but the proposed price will be $120-$130 thousand dollars for a duplex unit. Mr. George Hussman stated he was the developer of the site and that he planned t~ sell the units. He thought some of them would be owner occupied, with one half of the unit rented. Discussion followed regarding the need for a fence between Presidential Estates and their property and whether a berm or landscaping might not be preferable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 o JUNE 6, 1978 17. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the garage size. He felt that the proposed garages were too small, especially in view of the fact that the Commission was constantly receiving requests from citizens to increase the size of their existing garages. He felt a single car garage was inadequate for a 1200 square foot unit. Considerably discussion followed regarding the proposed garages, trends in automobile size, the increas- ing number of citizens who now have recreational vehicles etc., ~ whether or not there was space to increase the garage sizes, and whether or not the petitioner would be seriously hampered bg a one month delay. Mrs. Diane Tchida, 3000 Gettysburg, requested that the developer address the issue of traffic flow and indicate where the entrances and exists were to be located. There will be entrances on Hillsboro and Flag. The units facing on to Gettysburg will have driVeways to the street as in single family homes. Mrs. Tchida also questioned how the decision was made in regard to determining density in an area? The Chairman noted that the City Zoning Code controlled this. The property is question is zoned MR and thus could support a maximum of some 120 units legally. The proposal before the Commission is for 42. The City Manager confirmed that Mrs. Tchida was a new resident of the City and reviewed briefly the history of this particular parcel, restating that it was zoned for multiples and that the intended use was considerably less density than legally allowed. In response to a question from a citizen in the audience, the City Manager stated that the City had no plans to install a signal at the intersection of 27th/Hillsboro and that the warrents are not there for a signal. Chairman Cameron noted that Medicine Lake Road was a County Road. FolloWing discussion between Commissioner Gustafson and Mr, Taylor, Mr. Taylor noted that he was not ad- verse to using natural berms and plantings 'as a divider between Presidential Estates and their site. The Chairman stated that in his opinion, it was more important to provide a visual barrier to break up the lines. Mr. Taylor stated that he would take this issue under consideration along with the possible increase in the size of the garages. Commissioner Christensen moved to table Case 78-55 until the meeting of July 11, to allow the petitioner time to review the proposal in regard to garages, the fence and the steps from the decks. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. COMMITTE~ REPORTS 18. 19. 20. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson None London, Gundershaug There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 21. The Council Minutes of May 22, 1978 were reviewed. 22. The CommiSsion Minutes of May 16, were accepted as printed. 23. Commissioner Anderson submitted his resignation from the Commission effective following the meeting of July 11, 1978 He is moving to Plymouth. 24. Commissioner Christensen commented on the fact that he had observed trucks pulling in and out of Cream- ette before seven o'clock on several occasions. The Manager stated they were not allowed to unload or load, there was nothing against pulling in the site. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, he stated that the issue of drive-up windows at fast food restaurants would be before the Council on June 12, 1978. 25. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:15 p.m. R~pectfu,~~ Jo~c~eddeker , Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1978 A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 11, 1978 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. This meeting had been rescheduled from the 4th of July, because of the holiday and the inability to obtain a quorem for the 5th July. The meeting was called to-order at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug London, Anderson London arrived at 7:33 p.m. and Anderson arrived at 7:41 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 78-1 (78-62) AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING TEXT FOR DRIVE UP RESTAURANT WINDOWS AS SPECIAL USES IN THE RB DISTRICT. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the recommendations of the City Attorney pretty much coincided with the recommendations of the Codes and Standards Committee regarding this issue, as had been for- warded to the City Council. He did question one item -- the stacking lane requirements. He clarified that it had been the Committee recommendation, following discussion both in committee and at the Planning Commission meeting that there be some type of division provided to create a segregated stacking lane in an attempt to separate the traffic lanes from the area used by customers walking up to the fast food window or into the restaurant. Concensus was to add the word "segregated" i~ item (ii) immediately preceding the word "automobile". The City Manager stated that he saw no problem with adding this to the text. It was a good point. Also discussed and recommended was the elimination of the word "can" in item (i). In answer to a question from the Chairman regarding other businesses that might request drive-up facili- ties, the Manager stated that this particular ordinance amendment referred only to "fast food" restaur- ants in the RB District. The Manager further stated that the Commission could either take a look at the question of drive-up windows for other businesses now, or wait until they received specific requests for such drive-up facili- ties before them. He felt that there were too many different factors involved, to enable the commission to make a general amendment ~r all automobile service facilities. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he did not think the Commission should put itself in the position of trying to anticipate trends of business practice but rather should react to specific needs in the City as they develop. Mr. Jim Nunn,of Burger King, stated he was standing in for the gentlemen in charge of their original re- quest. He appreciated the efforts of the Commission. Commissioner Gustafson suggested that. Mr. Nunn obtain a copy of the proposed amendment before the matter appeared on the City Council agenda, in order to be able to react to the proposal on the 24th. Commissioner Gustafson recommended approval of Case 78-1 (78-62) with the amendment to the language as proposed. Commissioner Atchiey second. Section 1 (4.44 (3) of the City Code. (3) In Retail Business Districts: Drive-up s~rvice windows for fast food restaurants (as defined in Section 3.03 ~), with special criteria as follows: (i) Only fast food restaurants qualify. (ii) Not less than 180 feet of segregated automobile stacking lane must be provided for the service window. ~ii) The stacking lane and its access must be designed to control traffic in a manner to protect the buildings and green area on the site. (iv) No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for stacking of automobiles. (v) The stacking lane and window placement must he designed and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile and communication noises, emis- sions and headlight glare as to adjacent premises, particularly resi~ dentiai premises, and to maximlze maneuverability of vehicles on the site. (vi) As a condition of issuance of a special use permit, hours of operation mag be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare. PLANNING COMMISSION $IINUTES - 2 - JULY 11, 1978 3. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 78-55 (CONTINUED FROM 6-6-78) PRELIMINAR~ ~LAT/PUD APPROVAL - 30TH/FLAG AVENUE - GARY GABRIEL, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Taylor and Mr. George Hussman represented Mr. Gabriel. Mr. Taylor stated that they had changed Unit A, so that it now contained 2,054 square feet on each side. In an attempt to resolve the problems raised at the Planning Commission meeting of 6-6-78, they had widened the garages and now also include storage space in the garages. There will be two "A" units with walk outs and the remainder "A" units will have stairs from the balconies. The garage size were increased but the square footage of the liv- ing units remain the same on Units "B", "C", and "D". There are no single car garages. The garages will be 22' x 20', with the except of the Unit "C" garage which will be 20' x 22'3". Each double unit building will have four indoor stalls and four outdoor stalls. In an attempt to create a barrier between the two parcels of land, they have included Russian Olive and Barbery bushes on the south property line. They intend to leave it up to the individual home owner as to whether or not they wish to fence. There ~s, in their opinion, insufficient space to allow a berm between the two parcels. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that Mr. Taylor realized that with a PUD the number of plantings as indicated on the plan, were what was required to be provided. Mr. Taylor stated he understood this. Commissioner christensen requested that the record show that Building A will now have 2,054' per unit, Building B will have 1690' per unit; and that all construction as discussed at the meeting of 6-6-78 remains the same. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 78-55 - Request for Preliminary Plat and PUD Appro- val at 30th~Flag Avenue~ Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 78-36 - REQUE?TFOR REZONING S~ TO MR AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE AT 51ST~WINNETKA - R. CADY, PETITIONER. Mro Cady stated he was requesting permission to build a double bungalow on his lot located at 51st~ Winnetka. He distributed plans of the proposed dwelling. Commissioner London noted that it was necessary to make a "case" for a rezoning. The criteria were that the area had changed significantly or there had been a mistake in the original zoning. He requested that Mr. Cady address these reasons. Mr. Cady stated he felt his property was a type of island in the area. To the north was industrial and the railroad tracks; to the east was the bakery thrift store; and to the west were multiples. There is one single family dwelling to the south. HOwever, immediately south of this dwelling were dentist's offices. In Mr. Cady's opinion, this was not a particularly desirable piece of land for a single family dwelling and felt it lent itself to double bungalow development. Commissioner London confirmed that the requested variance in lot size was for 2500 square feet. He asked Mr. Cady to justify this large a variance. Mr. Cadg stated there was land to the north, between the new street and the industrial park that was not large enough to build on and he felt this might have some bearing on his request. The City Manager noted that Mr. Cady's proposal met all required setbacks. Con~issioner London questioned whether this was too large a structure for this size lot. He noted that, in his opinion, because of the location he did not feel this was too much of a problem. Mr. Cady stated that the double bungalow would, at least in the beginning, be occupied by his mother and two of his children. It will have a cedar siding/brick trim exterior. Commissioner Anderson questioned what latitude there was in regard to the rezoning being granted and a possible change in building plans.' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JULY 11, 1978 The City Manager stated that the Commission should specify in a variance approval, that construction would be for the building as presented for review. Corm~issioner London made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from S~ to MR at 51st~Winnetka and ~pproval of the variance in lot size, conditioned ~pon the construction of essentiatlq the same house as presented to the Planning Commission on July 11, 1978. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain: Christensen Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 78-56 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 3008 ENSIGN - HENRY FAGERSTROM, PETITIONER. Mr. Fagerstrom stated he was requesting permission to put a ten foot addition on to his existing garage to convert it to a double garage. He stated that the curvature of the street cut into his yard. His house is already at variance with the setback because it is positioned only about 27' from the corner.. There would be only 25 feet to the lot line from the proposed addition. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the total size of the garage, including the proposed addition, would be 22' x 24'. Mr. Fagerstrom stated that the same type of roof line would continue on. the garage with an extension of six feet on the rear to provide shelter for a wood pile. He plans to continue the same board and bat- ten exterior that is now on the front of the garage. He does not plan to conduct any home occupation in the increased space. Coa~aissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 78-56 - Request for Garaqe Variance at 3008 Ensign, subject to the continuation of the same roof line as on the existing ~arage and that the siding color will be the same as on the house. Approval is also g~ven for the additional overhang of six feet at the rear of the garage. Commission Christensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson None 7. PLANNING CASE 78-57 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7112 BASS LAKE ROAD - PONDEROSA STEAK HOUSE, PETITIONER. Mr. Larry Eaves, Operations Manager for Ponderosa, and Mr. Bill Lawrence, Jr.,of Lawrence Signs,were in attendance in regard to this request. Mr. Eaves stated that Ponderosa Systems was in the process of changing all of their signs in the entire country. The proposed sign is a replica of their corporate trademark. Mr. Lawrence stated that the requested variance is for the height of the letters. The total size of the sign is within the ordinance restrictions. He stated the proposed design is the company's registered trademark and could not be altered. The variance would be for 13~ inches on each letter. To change the sign to conform to the Ordinance would require shrinking the trademark down to a size they felt would be hard to read. lhe site is on a corner, sort of on a peninsula in the City of Crystal. Mr. Eaves stated that from one side the sign would be completely blanked out and the other side would be facing Crystal. They would like the new sign to allow them to stand out among the other businesses. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the crux of the problem was that the existing sign would be allowed to remain until the end of the amortization period. This amortization period had been established to allow allow businesses to recover their original investment for signage. However, the Ordinance specifically stated that if there was significant alteration to the sign, the entire sign had to be brought into con- formance with the new sign ordinance. Ail businesses that face Bass Lake Road now and all new business locating in New Hope are being forced to conform to the ordinance. When the amortization period expires for these businesses, they would also be asked to conform to the Ordinance. Inasmuch as he did not see that a case had been made proving special circumstances, he did not feel that a variance was justified. Mr. Eaves noted that the sign was a national trademark and they were located on an island. They felt it would be very beneficial to them to have the proposed s~gn. Conm~ssioner Gustafson stated that the Commission was not questioning the fact that the sign represented a national trademark, but that the trademark would be there regardless of the size of the sign or the size of the letters on the sign. Chairman Cameron asked about the temporary sign that was always in fron~ of Ponderosa. Mr. Eaves stated he had thought this sign was legal if it were set back. from tb~ boulevard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - ~ - JULY i1, 1978 7o The City Manager stated that it was against the ordinance to have a second ground sign if the wall sign was over ten feet in size. Commissioner Gustafson recommended denial of Case 78-57 - Request for Variance in Size of Sign Letters at 7112 Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Christensen second. In answer to a question from Mr. Lawrence regarding the reasons for the stipulations as to letter size, Chairman Cameron stated that the Ordinance grew out of many months of study by the Codes and Standards Committee and the Planning Commission. This included contact with business people and sign people and took into consideration the type of street the sign faced when the ordinance was drafted. The restric- tions had not just been arbitrarily plucked out of the air. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Commission had also consulted a study, previously been conducted in another area, in an attempt to avoid being arbitrary in the establishment of the criteria. Commissioner Anderson noted that a precedent had been set for the requirement for conformance to the letter size maximum in the Ordinance, particularly along Bass Lake Road. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson None 8. PLANNING CASE 78-58 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 3124 ENSIGN AVENUE - ROGER GRIMM, PETITIONER. Mr. Grimm stated he would like the variance in setback to allow a child's playhouse to be located in the sideyard easement. The playhouse is on four posts, the platform size is 8' x 10', the house portion is 6' at the peak and 4' at the eaves. The size of the house is 7%' x 7%'. The house will be 7' off the ground.. The yard is fenced. Mr. Grimm stated he had signatures of ten of his neighbors, including the neighbor who is adjacent to the playhouse. In answer to questions regarding why he had built the house on stilts, Mr. Grimm an- swered it was to simulate a tree house. He stated he would have no objection to a requirement in a motion for approval, stipulating that he would move the house at his expense if it ever became neces- sary because of drainage or utility easements. He noted that if the family should ever move, they would take the playhouse with them. He is still waiting for a ruling from the Building inspector as to whether he needed stairs to the house, or if he could use a moveable ladder as access to the playhouse. He intends to padlock the playhouse when they are not at home. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval Of a stay of enforcement in Case 78-58, subject to the agreement by the petitioner, to move the structure at his own expense, if City Staff determines at any future time that the structure creates a drainage problem, utility maintenance problem, or any such hin- drance to the easement. Commissioner Christensen second. Commissioner Anderson confirmed with Mr. Grimm that the one neighbor who had expressed objection to the playhouse location was not an adjacent neighbor. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson None 9. PLANNING CASE 78-59 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CODE AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT THE MIDLAND SHOPPING CENTER - FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN, PETITIONE~.. Mr. Paul Klaverkamp represented the owners of Midland Shopping Center. Mr. Bruce Bednark represented First Federal Savings and Loan. They are requesting construction approval and an amendment to the Code that would allow First Federal to have a drive-up lane, in the RB District. They are asking that the drive-up facility be considered an accessory use. Mr. Bednark stated that First Federal has anotherfacility with a drive-up window very similar to the one proposed. They find that the usage is very minor, not like a conventional bank, because the trans- actions take longer. Chairman Cameron stated that there were two issues in this case. He noted that City Ordinance changes take some weeks and while the Commission might find merit in the amendment to the Code to' allow a drive-up lane, they could not approve construction plans that would include such a window unless the Code were amended. The plans could be approved but the window could not be used until such time that the Ordinance amendment had been adopted. The Commission cannot approve plans in violation of the Ordinance. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether such windows were prohibited because it was a window or what? He compared this type of window to the Penny supermarket operation with its drive-up facilities to pick up groceries. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY i1, 1978 Mr. Klaverkamp requested that the Commission at least consider the amendment to the Ordinance. First Federal would like to begin construction this summer and feel it is essential to their operation to have this convenience available for their customers. Discussion followed between Mr. Klaverkamp and Chairman ~ameron regarding the interpretation of acces- sory use to an existing business; the process involved in amending a City ordinance, as well as the time involved; and the fact that the Commission must recommend such a change to the Council. Also discussed was the advisability of single drive-up lanes for savings and loan operations as acces- sory uses; the current trend for drive-up facilities in many business; and whether the savings and loan business will change with the recent approval of the draft system for Savings and Loans. Mr. Bednark noted that even with the introduction of the draft system, the Operation was still essen- tially a savings and loan. The draft system simply allows the customer to drawn on the account. He did not see a significant change occurring in the use of the drive-up facility. Savings transactions take too long (3-7 minutes). It will be a convenience for the customer, not a fast means of completing a transaction. The drive-up window would, be open only during regular operating hours. Commissioner Gustafson noted that if hours of operation were a concern of the Commission, this particu- lar facility was immaterial as far as the amendment to the Ordinance, since the Ordinance would if adopted control all such operations, not merely First Federal. If the Commission felt that hours of operation of drive-up windows should be controlled, this also should be included in the proposed amend- ment. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of the following language, identified a~ proposed 4.52 (4). Second by Commissioner Atchley, "One lane drive-up service windows for financial institutions in RB or Industrial Districts, providing the facility is approved as part of the original constxdc- tion approval of the building. If a service window is to be added to an existing building, or if more than one lane is to be provided, a special use permit proce~ dure must be used and the facility must be found to meeE the criteria of Sections 4.43 (2)~or (3) and the Council shall apply such conditions as necessary to elimi nate traffic, noise and other nulsance characteristics." In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager stated that the amendment would be before the Council for final adoption at the first August meeting if it went through without problem. Voting in favor: London, Bar'us, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Motion carried. Discussion then was held regarding the construction plans for the proposed First Federal Building. Mr. Jim Moeller of Atbitz Design presented a photo of the prototype building. The building will be lo- cated at the~o~th end of the shopping center. It will be a 300 square foot building. T~ey plan to have a five foot planting area in front of the building between the sidewalk and the building. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the petitioner intends to build next to the "Now Bikes" store. They plan to have a canopy over the single drive-up lane, about ten feet off the ground. A driver will swing in to the north, and then turn to exit or drive west out of the shopping center. They es- timate having approximately 4-5 cars an hour, and plan one sign facing south and one sign facing east from the canopy. Both signs will be lighted. There will be electrical wall packs on the east, against the structure of the building. There will be two decorative lanterns, one on each side of the door, one decorative lantern on the east and one on the north. There will be shrubbery along the door facing the shopping center, extending into the sidewalk. Live plantings will be provided. They plan to have up to eight employees. Discussion then centered on the parking situation at Midland Center; where there existed adequate spaces for parking; whether essential parking spaces would be lost in allowing for the turning radius in the drive-uu lane; and whether employee parking spaces were included in the total parking requirement~provi- sion at the center. There are presently 541 spaces provided in the lot for the center. In reference to an earlier statement, Mr. Bednark noted that they anticipate 4-5 cars per day at the drive-up window, not 4-5 per hour. Discussion then covered the access to the center at the north, the proposed parking spaces near this access and whether this parking could be eliminated because of the stacking problems that sometimes occur at this exit? In answer to a concern expressed by a citizen, Commissioner Gustafson stated that flashing signs (i.e. time/temperature) were not allowed under the New Hope Sign Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 ° JULY 11, 1978 Dr. Paul Wrobel, 7901 28th Avenue, expressed concern about the lights of the turning vehicles shin- ing over the fence into his home. He further requested that the Commission be sure there was adequate parking space, with this addition, since some existing spaces, would he lost with the additional build- ing and the space required for turning. Mr. Roger Boswell, 2832 Winnetka, expressed his concern about the additional traffic; the difficulties that now exist with people attempting to cross Winnetka from Terra Linda; and the difficulty of trying to turn north from the exit. He added that many trucks also use this entrance to the center and was concerned about space when the new building is finished. Discussion then centered on the access to the center and the fact that the County had designed this ac- cess; the total parking requirements of the cen[er; the parking spaces now located at the north end of the center; the possibility of extending the island on Winnetka; the traffic flow in the center itself; and whether the owners had sought any professional advice regarding internal traffic flow. Also dis- cussed was whether the drive-in area should be defined with curbing as well as being striped. The City Manager noted that inasmuch as the screening to the north of the center had been a problem in the past, perhaps this would be a good time for the Commission to review this problem. During a discussion of this fencing problem, the Chairman suggested that the parties concerned could get together to discuss mutual concerns and solutions. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of the construction plans in Case 78-59 for First Federal Savings and Loan. Con~issioner London second. Concensus of the Commission seemed to he that it would be desirable to request that the County take a look at the access to the center and the possibility of extending the island on Winnetka Avenue. Also suggested was that the owners of the center consult a Traffic Engineer in regard to the internal flow, before their appearance before the City Council. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. None 10. PLANNING CASE 78-60 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FRONTYARD SETBACK AT 6008 RHODE ISLAND NORTH - ALEXANDER PRESSMAN, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 78-60 until the meeting of August 1, 1978. sioner Atchleq second. Commis- Mr. Gordon Miller, 6017 Rhode Island, stated he was present in regard to this case. The Chairman informed him that the matter would be the first item on the agenda on August I, and that additional notices would not be sent. Mr. Miller will be contacted if the petitioner withdraws his request. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson None 11. PLANNING CASE 78-61 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 3400 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE - VAUGHAN DU SCHANE, JR. PETITIONER. Mr. DuSchane stated he wished to construct a detached double garage. He was seeking the variance to allow him to go within ten feet of the south property line (approximately 25 feet from the street). The other variance is in the size of the total garage space. He now has a single car garage which he wishes to retain. He would like to use as little of the backyard green space as possible. There are also two lilac bushes he would hate to lose. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the most important concern was that there would only be ten feet be- tween the garage and the boulevard area. Parked vehicles in the driveway would project into the boule- vard area, which is City property. Mr. DuSchane stated he planned no home occupation in the space, it was for personal storage. The siding and color of the garage will match the house. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission had to be concerned about such encroachment into the boule- vard, because anything approved now, would be there for a long time. They were concerned about set- backs from the residential streets. Mr. Jerry Ciardelli, 3409 Hillsboro Avenue, expressed his concern for additional detached garages, since the other homes in the area had attached garages. He was concerned with the looks of the area and preserving the quality of the neighborhood. If everyone built extra buildings they might as well have alleys. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY !1~ 1978 11. The Chairman noted that the Commission was also concerned about the preservation of the neighborhood, but had no right to prohibit a citizen from building a garage as long as he met setback requirements. The Commission must be concerned about the setbacks and the fact that the petitioner was requesting · over 900 square feet of garage space. Mr. Du Schane noted that he would need a variance to put anything on the south side of his property. The Chairman agreed with this statement. Con~issioner Gustafson made a motion recommending denial of the setback variance in Case 78-61. Com- missioner Atchley second. Commissioner Anderson commented on the previous statment regarding'.the Commission not being able to prevent the petitioner from constructing a garage on his property within setback requirements, but noted that the Commission could prevent him from having a triple garage. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Bartos, London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Anderson Commissioner Gustafson then made a motion recommending approval of the variance in garage .size in Case 78-61, sublect to the garage being positioned within the setback requirements and that the siding type and color match those of the house. Con~uissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug London, Christensen, Anderson 12. PLANNING CASE 78-63 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION'APPROVAL OF SHOPPING CENTER AT 45TH~WINNETKA. NYSTR©M 13. CONSTRUCTORS, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob N~strom and Mr. Jim Nystrom were present. Mr. Bob Nystrom stated that it had been necessary for them to change their construction plans because they couldn't seel the mall concept. They were able to obtain tenants for the front portion but not for the back. The tenants are basically the same as before, Lunds, Savings and Loan, Hardware Store, Restaurant, with the exception that the New Hope State Bank was going into the space that Minnesota Fabrics had previously been planning to lease. There are approximately 72,000 feet leased already. The'area on the west of the site will be retained for future expansion, l~ere will be a 30 foot road around the bu_lding with curbs. In answer to a qeustion from the Chairman regarding the Cit~ Engineer's approval, Mr. Nystrom stated that the drainage was basically the same. They have added two catch basins. All of the parking lot is curbed. The lighting will also remain essentially the same only there will be more lights. Elevations are basically the same as before. Mr. Nystrom noted that they feel that it is perhaps not feasible to rent space to tenants who want only 800 square feet. They are considering requiring all tenants to lease 1600 square feet. There will be no outside storage and employee parking will be to the rear. The lanscape plan is basi- cally the same as before, each business will have a sign that will be installed within ordinance res- trictions. There will be a six foot high fence by Lund's truck dock. There will be a wide walkway on the north side, inside the property line. Because of the changed depth and the visibility from Winnetka, the equipment on the roof will be screened. The fronts of the bank and Lunds will be brick and wood facia, the remainder will be exposed aggregate with highlights. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 78-63, construction plans for shep~ing center at 45th/Winnetka, with the stipulation that the petitioner presen[ a landscape plan and a s~qn plan to the City Council at their meetinq on the 24th. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson None OLD BUSINESS Brief discussion regarding Benson-Orth's request to amend the requirement for screened rooftop equipment at their building in Winpark Drive. The Commission after discussion agreed that it would be preferable for Benson-Orth to paint the equip- ment in a blending color rather than screen each piece of equipment. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Benson-Orth's request to paint the rooftop eguipment rather t~n screen it. Commissioner Gustafson second. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~ 8 - JULY 11, 1978 13. 14. 15. 16. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gu~dershaug, Anderson None COMMITTEE REPORTS There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Commissioner Gustafson, Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee, noted that the proposed wording in regard to accessory retail sales from service stations in RB and GB Districts was ready. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to pass on the the Council, for future 17. 18. 19. 21o 23. submission to the City Attopney for final draft, Section 4.44 (9), regarding accessory sales in ser- vice stations. Commissioner Atchley second. 4.44 (9) Accessory Retai7 Sales from Service Stations in RB and GB Districts. In the RB and GB Districts Accessory retail sales of food, household con- venience items and sporting goods may be conducted.fr~ a building and site on which the principal use is Automobile Service Station provided the Coun- cil shall find: 1. That the proposed sale items are definitely accessory to the princi- pal use. 2. That there are specific parking spaces above th~ regular require- ments for the service station provided to assure parking for cus- tomers of the accessory use. 3. That any sale of foo~ items are subject to the approval of the City Sanitarian w.5o shall provide specific sanitary requirements on an individual basis for each proposed sale location. 4. That the space and location of the accessory sales area shall be specified and any expansion of the space without an amendment to the permit shall be grounds for revocation of the permit. 5. 'That the accessory sales shall qualify for and be granted an ahnual food handling or retail sales license in addition to the zoning per- mit for ~ special use. 6. Potential interference with adjacent development - commercial or residential-because of parking, access or traffic volume shall be reviewed and upon a finding that such factors will create problems or nuisances the special use permit shall be denied. 7. The service station shall maintain all requirements for parking, storage, and green space as if it were the sole use on the site. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson,Gundershaug, Anderson None NEW BUSINESS Discussion then held on the need for replacement of three members of the Planning Commission within a short time. Concensus was that an article should be placed in the New Hope-Plymouth Post seeking new members. The City Manager was directed to contact the POST regarding such an article. The Council Minutes of June 26, 1978 were reviewed. The Commission Minutes of June 6, 1978 were accepted as corrected. Page 8, Item #17, Paragraph #3. Building A will have 1179 square feet ........... living Building B will have 1690 square feet ........... Discussion then held on the setting of a date for Commission discussion on the revisions ~o the Compre- hensive Plan now being prepared by Midwest Planning. The City Manager noted that the 1st August meeting did not appear to be heavy as yet. If it proved to be too crowded an agenda, a special meeting could be held the third Tuesday in August. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:18 p.m. Joyc~'e~B~eddekerl Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August i, 1978 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was calle~ to order at 7:30 p.m. bg Chairman Cameron° ~ 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Atchley, 'Cameron, Gustafson, Gu~dershaug Absent: Christensen (arrived at 7:37 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 78-60 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 6008 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE - ALEXANDER PRESSMAN, PETITIONER. Mr. Pressman stated he felt the insulation in his house at 6008 Rhode Island was very bad. He request- ed permission to construct a porch 9' x 10', to help with the heat loss situation. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Pressman Stated that he plans to enclose the existing stairs, and finish the exterior of the porch to match the house. He does not wish to destroy the appearance of the house. The porch will have walls and be insulated, but will not have any hea~. It will include windows similar to those on the house. The porch will be entered through a door on the driveway side of the house. In answer to questions from the Chairman regarding the large size of the proposed porch, Mr. Pressman stated he felt it should be this large because of the slope of the roof on the house -- he felt it would look better. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that Mr. Pressman wanted the pitch on the porch to be the same as the pitch on the house. Mr. Bob Olson, 6009 Rhode Island Avenue an~ Mr. Gordon Miller, 6017 ~.hode Island Avenue, were present. Mr. Olson stated that they were not present to contest the variance, but to be sure that nothing was go- lng to be approved that would detract from the block. It was confirmed that the siding and color would match the existing house. The Chairman noted that it appeared that the proportions would be compatible. Chairman Cameron stated that the basic concern of the Commission was the variance requesting encroachment into the front yard. Ail considerations are reviewed but as a rule, the Planning Commission and Council dc not get into the esthetics of a case, other than to try and guarantee that an addition will look good. The porch will extend nine feet into the frontyard setback. Mr. Miller asked what the Code was in regard to footings? The City Manager replied that the footings must be 42 inches deep. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the actual building plans would be reviewed by the City staff to de- termine that the addition complied with Code restrictions before a b~ildingpermit was issued. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending, approval of Case 78-60 - variance to allow the addition of a 9' x 10' porch to the front of the house at 6008 Rhode Island. Approval is subject to the shingle and siding material matchinq the current sidinq and color of the house. Commissioner Gundershau~ second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Abstain: Motion carried. Bartos, Atchtey, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug None Christensen 4. PLANNING CASE 78-64 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 7829 TERRA LINDA' DRIVE - LESTRR BAUMAN, PETITIONER. Mr. Bauman stated he was requesting permission to build a detached garage behind his house. His lot has a water problem that made his tuck-under garage unuseable. In a heavy rain it has literally filled up with water. He plans to construct a 38' x 24' garage. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Bauman has bricked over the existing garage and will change it to basement area. The new garage will'match the existing dwelling with the exception of using a lighter colored shingle on the roof .... The new larger garage will be used only for storage of four cars and other personal items, not for any home occupation. The siding will match the house. PI~NNING COMMIssION MINUTES - 2.- AUGUST 1, 1978 Mr. Bauman stated he had chosen the spot for the garage in order to line up with the existing driveway. They would like to retain the present driveway for parking space. The City Manager stated there was nothing in the Code that would prevent this as long as the curb cut did not exceed 2D feet in width. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the garage variance at 7829 Terra Linda Drive in Case 78-64 - subject to the qid~ng being constructed of the same material and same color as on the existing house. Commissioner Atchle~ second. Voting in favor= Voting against: Motion carried. Bartos, Atcbley, Christensen , Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug None 5. PLANNING CASE 78-65 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH WEIGHT TRAINING SCHOOL IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT - JAMES JANOS, PETITIONER. Mr. Janos stated he was asking for the Special Use Permit for the school to be located at the Boone Part- ners Building at 8736-40 East Research Center Road. He felt it was an advantage to have the school in an industrial district because of the size of the building, the height of the ceilings, and the fact that welght training became a little noisy at times. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Janos stated that there were no special events planned, that he did not feel that the school would be open after 10 o'clock at night and he did not know what the parking situation might be, because it would depend upon how successful the school was. He stated he felt that the highest number of students at one time would be 15-20. There could be as many cars but this would not be during daytime hours. He did not foresee ever scheduling any events dur- ing the week during daytime hours. Mr. Janos stated he was planning to lease 2500 square feet and that the height of the space was another advantage because of the increased ventilation. He will provide changing rooms and shower facilities in the office portion of the rented space. He is sub-leasing the space from Triple A Viking. In response to questions from'Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Janos stated he planned to install a minimum of six olympic bars, three thousand pounds of weights,dumb bells,cables, permanent bars, and press down machines. The cement floor will be cushioned in some areas with a rubber material. He stated he hoped to be in the space by the end of August. Triple A will be moving out and he should be able to occupy the space as soon as he has approval for the school. Chairman Cameron noted that the City has had a great deal of difficulty with the owner of the property in regard to maintenance and making necessary improvements. He stated that the City/Planning Commission would like to get the owner in to discuss these problems. Mr. Janos said that the owner was aware that he was planning to sub-lease the space. The lease would be for two years with a three year option to renew. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Janos stated that he would imagine there would be a steady in and out flow during the daytime hours because weight trainers would use the facilities at different times depending upon their working schedules. He felt also that many people would arrive to- gether to train. DiScussion then centered on the parking situation at the building; the fact that during the daytime the froat of the building was crowded with cars and that many more cars would send people on to the street for parking. Also discussed were the bathroom facilities and whether Mr. Janos' school would have the exclusive use of the two bathrooms or have to share them with another tenant. Mr. Janos stated he had assumed that he would not be sharin9 these facilities. The Commissioners cau- tioned him to find this out before he signed any lease. Commissioner Gundershaug commented on the "horrendous" maintenance of the buildingS-and the fact that the parking lot was a quagmire of mud. He noted that he felt the petitioner should be aware of this and check this out before signing any sub-lease agreement. In answer to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Janos stated that he felt the age of the stu- dents would be from junior high age to 60. He added that when school started in September, he felt the greatest surge of pupils would be after four o'clock. Commissioner Christensen stated that he did not feel it would be fair to the petitioner to hold up his approval and subsequent occupancy because of the maintenance conditions at the building, but felt that it was important for the City to attempt to contact the owner and work out the problems that presently exist on the site. · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3- AUGUST 1, 1978 In answer to a question from Commissioner Atchley regarding the difference between a g~m and a weight training school, Mr. Janos stated he would be available for advice to an~ student requiring it. This facility will be geared primarily for the weight lifter, in contrast to health spas and sports clubs that are usually geared to the'tennis/racketball player. He intends to have no yearly contracts but will charge monthly fees. Mrs. Theresa Janos stated they had received quite a bit of favorable reaction from coaches in the ar~a regarding their plans for the school, because of the feasible cost and the type of space and equipment that would be available. Discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding the possibility of contacting the owner of the building and encouraging him to meet with the City staff in regard to the condition of this site and the maintenance of the building. The City Manager cautioned the petitioner to protect himself, in regard to the mentioned problems at the facility, before he signed a lease. Commissioner Custafson made a motion for approval of Case 78-65 - request for a special use permit t~ allow a weiqht training school in an industrial district, subject to the fact that the petitioner hhs agreed that he will ouerate under the constraints of the Code, following the items outlined in the Code ix.regard to operating a school in an industrial district, with the stioulation for an annual review by City Staff. Ne cautioned the petitioner to be aware that at the time o3 the annual review, the ~ermit could be terminated at the completion of any year, if the items in the Code were not met. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the petitioner should be aware of all of the conditions of the Codes in regard to Special Use Permits, so that he could write his lease ~n a manner that would allow him to extricate himself from the lease, should the City subsequently determine that this was not an appropriate use of the site. Commissioner Bartos second. Con~issioner Atchtey expressed his concern about the parking facilities on the site, and the number of cars that were presently parked there during daytime hours. The City Manager noted that the gymnastics school had recently changed its policy and that parents were not any longer allowed to come and watch regularly. He felt this would help ease the traffic/parking problem. Chairman Cameron informed the petitioner that the City had a strict Sign Ordinance and that he should check these restrictions, as well as the building sign plan, before he ordered any signs. Commissioner Christensen noted that the petitioner should be aware of pOtential problems with the owner of the building and its maintenance, etc. when signing any lease. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Motion carried. Discussion then covered the possibility of the City requiring the owner to provide adequate maintenance and upkeep of the building and grounds and how this could be enforced. Also suggested was that the owner be required to meet with the staff and Planning Commission regarding these problems, as well as the amount of time involved in getting the owner to comply when a "red tag" ~s issued by the Inspection Department. PLANNING CASE 78-66 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 8001 BASS LAKE ROAD - COUNTRY CLUB MARKET, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Parlin of Brede Signs and Mr. Noss of Country Club Markets were present. Mr. Parlin stated their company had built the original sign for the store. Last gear when the store was remodeled, the one sign to the west had been removed. It would involve considerable expense to re- build the sign to conf~rm with the City Code. He requested that the sign be allowed to remain as is, even though it is larger than Code allows. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that as a condition of the approval of the remodeling last year, the sign had been required to be brought into conformance with Code. Mr. Parlin stated that the sign had been installed in 1969, with the exception that the background is now white. Mr. Noss stated that at the time of the remodeling, he did not believe Country Club understood that the requirement was that the sign had to he changed to conform. They had thought that bg removing the sign toward the west, they were in conformance. They have cut the original signage in half and the store is bigge~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST I, 1978 The Chairman confirmed with Mr. Noss that at the time of the approval of the addition to the store, Country Club had agreed to conform to the Sign Ordinance but had not real~zed what they had agreed to? Cor~issioner Gustafson questioned whether Mr. Noss was aware of the fact that under the new Sign Ordi- nance, there was an amortization period based on .the value of the original sign? This is conditioned on the fact that if any remodeling is done to the structure, the sign will be brought into conformance. He asked what the value of the sign was? Mr. Parlin stated it was worth $3000-$3500 if produced today. Mr. Noss stated that those figures did not include the cost of the lighting which ~uld bring the value up to $6,000-$7,000. Commissioner Gustafson noted that baaed on the valuation of the sign when installed, in July of 1979 the sign would have to come down. He added that he did not feel that a variance would he allowed at this time. The best the Commission could do would be to grant an abeyance. Mr. Noss stated that it was his understanding of the Ordinance that the Commission had a right to review this requirement for conformance. He added that their sign had 17 letters and he felt it was a hardship to have to change the sign. He felt that the Ordinance created a hardship for anyone that had a lo~ger name. They have 42 stores with the name spelled out. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Noss stated that the sign had been up since 1969 and could reasonably last 15-18 years before needing replacement, especially since it faced north. In answer to a question from Corm~issioner Gustafson regarding the ability to reduce the sign to the maxi- mum of 125 square feet, Mr. Parling stated it would involve using very small letters. They have always used block letters for these signs which unfortunately take a lot of space. Discussion followed regarding other businesses that had also felt it would be impossible to conform to the Ordinance, but had managed to do so. Mr. Noss repeated that their name has 17 letters and other business names did not. The height of the letters in their signs has always been four feet. Commissioner Christensen asked what the sign had been worth when it was installed, not what they felt it was worth now? This value is what determines the length of the amortization period. The answer was about $2500 for the letters only. Commissioner Christensen stated that he was concerned with granting something that had no end to it. The ordinance stated a specific time period and he felt the Commission should adhere to this, as it pertained to all businesses. In his opinion, when the amortization period was over, the sign woul~ have to be changed. He would have a problem granting a variance beyond that time. He added that he remembered well when the variance had been granted to the Country Club Market and its restrictions. He questiDned whether anyone would have a problem recognizing that this was a Country Club Market, even if the word market were not used? He asked what the importance of the word "market" was to the petitioner? Mr. Noss stated that "Country Club" meant a private club to him. Discussion followed between Mr. NoSs and Commissioner Christensen regarding the total name and what it meant to the viewer, as well as how ~any customers they were seeking to draw in from the street that did not already know it was located there? Mr. Noss stated that, in his opinion, it was a sign in good taste and he did not see how it could he in- terpreted as contributing to problems created by other signage in other areas of Bass Lake Road. It could not be considered the same. He restated, that with 17 letters in the name it was a hardship to have to conform to the Ordinance. Chairman Cameron stated that every other business in the City that had appeared before the Commission had also felt it would be a hardship to change their sign to conform to the Ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson questioned what size the petitioner felt would adequately incorporate the name "Country Club Market"° Mr. Noss thought they might shrink it down to 88 feet, but including four foot letters. They do not use anything but four foot letters. The Chairman stated that he hoped the p~titioner could see what the concensus of the Commission was -- that while they might be willing to grant an abeyance of conformance for a period of time, at some fu- ture date, the sign was going to have to come into conformance. In his opinion, a sign that was three times the allowable size was completely unacceptable. Mr. Noss stated he understood this but that at that time he would be before the C~mmission again. PLANNING CO~H4ISSION MINUTES -5- AUGUST i, 1978 6. Commissoner Gustafson.made a motion for denial of Case 77-66 - sign variance at County Club Market, with the understanding that the stipulations in the previous remodeling approval for compliance to the current Sign Ordinance be stricken at this time, and thas the amortization period, for which the Com mission had assumed a value of between $3,000 and $6,000, be continued until July of 1981. The peti- tioner will be required to either request a variance prior to that period of time, or bring the sign into conformance after Jul g 1981. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carried. Bartos, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug None 7. PLANNING CASE 78-67 - REQUEST FOR VAR'IANCE IN SETBACK AT THE SOUTH END OF THE FLAG AVENUE CUL-DU-SAC - DR. IRVING HERMAN, PETITIONER. Dr. Herman requested a variance in setback on Lot 13 of his development. It is an elongated lot. They intend after the house is completed to put a fence on the rear lot line to protect the house from 42nd Avenue noise. In order to get the maximum design in the house and garage they feel they need a variance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Dr. Herman stated they propose a 26 foot garag$ to provide additional storage space in the garage. This feature has been a well received addition to their plans. They presently have 17 lots committed and hope to finish development by winter. There was no one present concerning this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of th~ variance in rearyard setback on Lot 13, Cooper-Herman Addition, Case 78-67. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson None Cameron, Gunders~haug PLANNING CASE 78-68 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE AT 8513 MEADOW LAKE PLACE - WARREN R. TABOR, PETITIONER. Mr. Tabor stated he plans to build a driveway to the east side of the house going back to an unattached garage at the rear of his house. He feels the lot will hold a garage at the rear and he would then have additional storage space. Mr. Tabor stated that he would like to use the existing garage space for storage to allow more room for living in the basement area and room for a ping pong table and perhaps a' foosball table. He would'pre- fer to leave the front of the 'garage as it is. hnd put in a wall inside. There is a door that would allow access from the basement to the ne~ storage area. The existing driveway is concrete and he would hate to have to 'remove this. Discussiun between Mr. T~bor and Mr. Bartos regarding the cut by the driveway and the type of wall that would be required to retain the dirt. Mr. Tabor felt it would be at'most a four foot wall -- Mr. Bartos thought perhaps seven or eight feet. Mr. Tabor plans to use treated material, similar to railroad ties, for this wall. He thought he would probably have to remove the arbovitae at the front and the large elm at the rear of the property. He stated he had not as yet decided about the type of material to be used for the driveway. He would like a roof the same design as on the house on the garage and he would try to match the shingles on the house. Commissioner Bartos expressed concern with the fact that Mr. Tabor would end up having two garages. Mr. Tabor stated he planned to use the existing garage for storage only. The new garage would have to be located as far from the house as possible to allow him to make the turn. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager stated there were no Code require- ments regarding the wall being so close to the lot line. Staff would simply have to determine that this caused no problems. ~ Commissioner Gustafson expressed concern about the blocking off of the garage, feeling there should be some type of permanent wall construction ~nstead of the existing door. He suggested that the petitioner g~ve some consideration to this. In response to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Tabor stated he would like to have the ma- terial on the garage match the house but he did not know for sure what he would use, either up and down siding or shakes. He intends to use some type of hard surface material for the driveway. Commissioner Christensen expressed his concern over the uncertainties in this case, as far as the wall,. the driveway material, the exterior treatment of the new garage, and the use to be made of the existing garage and the retaining of the garage door. He felt that decisions should be made regarding these items, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - AUGUST 1, 1978 certainly bg the time this case appeared before the Council. Commissioner Gustafson stated that, in his opinion, retaining the garage door and putting in a stud wall behind it was unacceptable. He did not feel this would be a permanent enough solution to the problem. He felt it was important that the Commission know what Mr. Tabor intended to do. tn response to Mr. Tabor's question as to whether the Commission wanted a plan, Commissioner Gustafson stated that in making a decision on a request for a variance, the Commission had to react to actual plans for the property. If the space was going to be retained as a garage, then a variance was neoded because of the overall size of the garages. If it is truly going to be changed into a family room, then there should be some form of permanent wall constructed across the opening to change the character of the house and to convert it to liveable space in the basement. He felt the Commission had to know which way Mr. Tabor intended to go. Commissioner Bartos suggested that maybe a table would allow the petitioner to come back to the Commission with moro specific plans. Mr. Tabor stated he had not made any plans or contactod a contractor until he saw what the outcome of the meeting would be. Commissioner Christensen stated that the Commission did not really care what Mr. Tabor did with the space, storage or family room -- but they had to know what his actual pl'ans were -- which way he intended to proceed~ Discussion then followed regarding the advisability of tabling this request until the September meeting to allow Mr. Tabor time to determine exactly what he wished to do and whether Mr. Tabor intended to con- struct a retaining wall on each side of the driveway. Conm;issioner Barto's made a motion to 'recommend approval of Case 78-68 - variance for an oversized garage, with the existinq garage to be utilized as both garag~e ~nd sto_~__age, space, ~.gbject to suitable materials being used to construct a retaininq wall and either concrete or blacktop being used for the driveway. The roof ~nd siding of the new proposed garage must match the present structure on the lot. Approval is also recommended for a rearyard setback of 21 feet. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Commissioner Gustafson amended the motion to include that the plans for the retainmng~ wall, as to mater- ials used and construction, were to be approved by the staff, prior to the construction. Commissioner Gundershaug. second. Commissioner Christensen questioned why the Commission was approving a variance for three garages, when he thought the request had been for a setback variance for a new double garage. In his opinion, the case should be tabled to allow Mr. Tabor time to figure out what he was really requesting~ow much it would cost, what type of wall he planned to construct. He felt Mr. Tabor needed more time to decide exactly how he wished to proceed. Voting in favor: Voting against: Abstain: Motion carfied. Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug Christensen, Atchley Cameron 9. PLANNING CASE 78-69 - REQUEST FOR FENCE VARIANCE AT 5800 BOONE AVENUE - MAX GREEN, PETITIONER. Mr. Green stated he would like to install a fence down the side of his property that faces Bass Lake Road. The fence is primarily to cut down the. noise from the street. He is requesting a six foot high fence. He would run the fencing diagonally, staying within 20-21 feet of the lot line to aid in the safety of the intersection. At the presen= time, he does not plan to fence in the balance of the front yard. The City Manager stated that the fence as proposed would be acceptable to the City. Brief discussion followed about the visibility from the driveway and whether there was room for snow to be piled between the street/sidewalk and the fence. It was determined that the fence as proposed was not going to create a ~roblem with visibility. The fence will be stained to match the house and will be of a stockade type. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of Case 78-69 - request for variance in fence height at 5800 Boone Avenue North. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in Favor: Bartos, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, ~dershaug Voting against: None Motion carried. PLANNING COmmISSION MINUTES - 7 - AUGUST 1, 1978 10. PLANNING CASE 78-70 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION - 6057 SUMT~R PLACE - ARLEN LUNG, PETITIONER. Mr. Lun9 stated he was requesting the Special Use Permit to allow him to continue to operate his bicy- cle repair and sales business from his garage. He has two teenage sons who help him with the business. He said he had consulted tho village twice and been told that he could continue as long as no one com- plained. Someone apparentlg has Uow complained~ ! In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Lung stated that his garage was 24' x 24' in size. Theg usually keep the customary equipment in the garage, i.e~ lawn mowers, tools, etc. Theg also park at least one car in the garage at night. He felt theg probably use 450 square feet of the garage for the business. He is ~ school teacher and in September the business usually slows down. He does not have regular hours, but usuall~ tries to close up at 8 o'clock at night and magbe opens up at 10 a.m. He is alwags closed on Sundag. It is an informal tgpe of operation, people often call be- fore theg come. He parks all his cars in the garage during the winter. He does not have ang large electrical or mechanical equipment that is used in the bicgeie repair~ He does not keep an~ parts or bicycles outside. The customers normallg park in front of his house and in his drivewag. 'At times he might have two cars there at the same time. There are perhaps a half dozen cars during the course of a day. The busineps is conducted bg word of mouth, he does no advertising. He adde~ that his next door neighbor has had some difficulty with cars parking in front of his driveway. He has tried to warn pepole to park in his driveway. He has a lot of kids driving up for parts/repairs on their bicycles. He felt that 70-80~ of the customers call first to see if they are at home. He handles new bicycles as well as rebuilt ones. Commissioner Bartos commented on the tightness of the cul-du-sac for turning around. He stated that he has not received an~ complaints about kids on bikes trespassing on neighbor's property. He had contacted his neighbors before the Planning Commission meeting and most of them encouraged him in the business. The neighbor to the right of his home is the most disturbed by the business, in his opinion. He tries to tell the customers not to block this neighbor's drivewag. In answer ~o questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Lung stated he felt the business was at the maximum he could handle. He had investigated establishing a separate shop, but rents were high and the bicgcle business is seasonal in regard to beth sales/repair. He stated that he might gross about $20,000 a ~ear from the business. During the winter months he might have five-six bicycles in the garage. Dur- ing the summer there are usuall~ 15-20. In answer to questions from Commissioner Christensen, he stated he did not usually have several dozen bicgcles for sale a~ a time. In answer to a question from the Citg Manager, Mr. Lung stated that he thought there had been 15-20 bi- cgcles in the garage when the Citg Inspector had visited. There is ~o delivery of the bicycles -- he picks them up himself. ~11 trash ls kept inside. Discussion followed regarding the maximum number of bicycles at any one time (50-60); the fact that the inspector had observed a large number of bicycles in the garage; and that occasionally if he could make a purchase for a good price ~here might be more unassembled bicycles than usual stored in the garage. Commissioner Gustafson noted that bas~callg there were two areas of the criteria controlling home occu- pations that Mr. Lung's operation violated. The total number of square feet used for the business and the generation of extra traffic. The Commission had to be concerned with the nuisance and safety haz- ards of the business. The neighbors should not be forced to suffer because he had a successful business. In response to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Lung stated that he felt about half of his business involved the sale of new/used bikes and half repair. Commissioner Christensen questioned whether or not he would continue the business if the sales portion were eliminated. Mr. Lung said he would have to see how the business went under these conditions. He felt that a large portion of the sales was of new bicgcles. Discussion followed about the means Mr. Lung might use to control the traffic and where customers parked. It was felt that the traffic was the main concern in regard to the home occupation. Commissioner Christensen questioned how Mr. Lung could justify calling this business a hobby, when he was actuallg conducting a home business in competition with a bicycle shop that was forced to rent commercial space? Mr. Lung stated that the busiest months of the gear for his business were MaU through September. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - AUGUST 1, 1978 10. Commissioner Gustafson commented that, in his opinion, $20,000 a year was a very high level of busi- ness for a home occupation. · Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 78-70, request for a special use ,uermit to conduct a home occupation at 6057 Sumter Place, subject to the petititioner operating the business .by appoint- ment only~ that he remind the customers when they make appointments where they should park; that he take every opportuq~ty to make sure that cars.park only in his driveway; that he take steps to advi.~ his neighbors that he should be advised immediately if any'vehicles are in their way; and that the special use permit be reviewed annually by City staff. 'Commissioner Gundershaug second. Commissioner Atchley stated that he felt the bike repair business was a very good hobby for a home occu- pation, but he felt strongly about the competition with other retail sales operations in RB Districts. Voting in favor: Gundershaug Voting against: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Motion denied. Mr. Lung asked whether he would have a time limit in which to disband his sales business since he had approximately $3,000 worth of inventory on hand? Chairman Cameron stated that all the Commission did was recommend action to the City Council. It would be up to them to make the final decision. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend approval of a special use permit at 6057 Sumter Place, to allow a home occupation fo~ the repair of bicycles and the sale of parts as such, but not the 11. 12a. whole bicycles. Commissioner Atchley second. It ~;as the feeling of the Commissioners that the traffic situation was th~ largest problem in this re- quest, although there was some concern about the competition in retail sales and the fact that they were conducting a commercial enterprise in the home. In answer to a question from Commissionbr Gundershaug, Mr. Lung stated that if he was de;~ed the Special Use Permit for sales/repair, he would continue the repair business and see what happened as far as the business was concerned. Commissioner Christensen amended his motion to include an annual review by staff. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor of the amended motion: Bartos, Christensen, A~chley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Motion carried. The City Manager noted that Mr. David Licht, of Midwest Planning and Research, was present in regard to the updating that had been completed to the Comprehensive Plan in line with the recommendations of the Metropolitan Council following their review. Mr. Licht noted that the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted in Jan.uary. The process they had.gone through was to update the plan following the review of the Metro Council and their subsequent recommenda- tions. There are no substantial changes in the documents already distributed to the Commissioners. They s~mply deal with areas ~dentified in the Metro Council's original review or the 1976 review. On Septem- ber 5, he will have an ~mplementation manual ready for the Commission. Mr. Licht stated he hoped that it would be possible to have a public hearing on the 19th September on th~ Plan update and the Housing Plan. The remaining three documents will be ready this week for staff review. Mr. Licht stated he hoped to have New Hope's Comprehensive Plan the first to complete the review process of the Metropolitan Council. The Chairman stated that the Commission should plan on a public hearinq on this matter on the 19th o~ September 1978. COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there was no immediate need for a decision on the problem of signage for home occupations. This matter was tabled until a later meeting. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he felt the proposed language regarding the definition of "medical" in the Code was clear cut and appropriate. There was no disagreement among the Commissioners with this statement. He suggested that a public hearinq be scheduled reqardin~ this definition chan~e for the Code! on September 19, 1978. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9- AUGUST 1, 1978 13. There was no report of the Land Use Committee. 14. There was no report of the Design and Review Committee. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Cameron read a letter Of resignation from Commissioner London. This resignation was accepted by the Commission. The Council minutes of July 10, 13, and 24th were reviewed. The Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 1978 were accepted as printed. The Chairman commented on the fact that he had heard rumors suggesting that Rosewood Corporation was planning to consturct a motel complex on #18. He asked whether this was a reality. He suggested that perhaps the staff or Commission could invite them to discuss this plan (if it is a concrete plan) with them at some future date. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos regarding the dumping being conducted on the north side of 49th Avenue, west of Boone, the City Manager stated that the owner of the property had an old dumping permit that allowed this. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~Joyce Boeddeker Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -l~., September 19, 1978 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday: September 19, 1978, at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Atchley, Christensen (Commissioner Atchley arrived at 8:05 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS Hearin9 on adoption of update of comprehensive plan and housing plan. The Chairman announced that the public hearing for the updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan would be held at this time, pursuant to legal notice providing for same. Mr. David Licht, Midwest Planning and Research, Inc., appeared before the Commission to present the updated comprehensive plan and housing plan. No one appeared in regard to the matter. Mr. David Licht then reviewed Community Development Plan Development Framework (Report No. 4) Update of June 1978. He called the Commission's attention to the significant changes. Previously, Midwest Planning and Research had given the New Hope housing count and population count in excess of the Metropolitan Council's projection. At this time, based upon the work now done, the count is lower than that previously suggested by Midwest. Mr. Licht said this would not have any significant impact on the city or on the overall plan. Initially, the projection by Midwest was around 8,500 units; now it is down to 7,757 as shown on page 14 of the update. This projection is based on land available at this time. The new population projection is 19,902. The major subject addressed within the update is environmental considerations. The report documents the fact that the City has this well in hand. Metro had asked that this ussue be responded to after their review of the 1976 community development plan. The assessment of land use intensity has also been reviewed as the basis for the projected population count. Also, the demand on sewer, water and public services has also been evaluated. Mr. Licht stated that there would be no adverse impact on these systems. Mr. Licht then advised that the intent is to place this update as a preface in the original document. He noted that it will also be necessary to refer the document, for a maximum of six months, to the surrounding communities. Hopefully, the other communities will complete their review within 30 to 45 days because they have previously reviewed the earlier report. Then the report must be ' forwarded to Metro Council for final review. Commissioner Gustafson asked that the second paragraph on page 5 be corrected to show that ponding area no. I is in the nortwestern corner of the City. No further comments were offered by the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Gundershau9 accepting Community Development P'lan Development Framework (~eport.~o. 4) qpdate, June i9-~d forwarding, same to City Council. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Christensen _Motion declared carried. Mr. David Licht, Midwest Planning and Research, Inc., then presented the Housing Action Plan Update, August 1978, to the Planning Commission. He directed Commission's attention to pages 14 and 15 of this report. Mr. Licht said the report contains a reprint of the City's adopted Housing Policy Plan.. On page 14 there is a summary of events since 1976, the time at which the first document was produced. Mr. Licht said that almost every item has been achieved with the exception of the maintenance program through nbighborhood groups. He said they are recommending that such an aPproach still be considered although the neighborhood groups have not shown interest to date. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 19, !978 Mr. Licht said that, although the City had actively pursued correction, two apartment complexes have not been upgraded because the units did not qualify for Section 8 funding. He noted that these apartments are still a problem which perhaps can be handled through the Maintenance Code. Mr. Licht continued that the most significant factor is that New Hope had exceeded its goals for housing action, now having 233 approved units. The Metropolitan Housing Authority is actively working in the City. Mr. Licht then noted that the balance of the report is simply an update of statistics which are factual in nature. Upon inquiry, the City Manager advised that the 14 unit housing development for Scherer property was in its final approval stage under the Communit Development procedures. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Bartos acceptin~ the Housin~ Action Plan U~t~, August 1978, Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Christensen Motion declared carried. Mr. David Licht then stated tha~with the acceptance of these two documents, the comprehensive plan has been updated sufficiently to forward to Council and then to neighboring municipalities and Metro Council. Mr. Licht then presented the following three documents to the Planning Commission: 1. Update of Profile 2. Community Development Plan Implementation Manual - July 1978 3. Community Improvement Program - August 1978 He said that these three documents were not adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, but are simply for City information. Mr. Licht then stated that the only new project that had been added was the concern with noise control from County Road 18. Motion by Commi~ssione[ Gu~de__r.s~a~uq_,.s__econd by Commisqjgjer.Bartos recognizing that the above three ~eports had been submitted by Mr. Licht_a_n~ce~n_!_q_~a~l~. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Christensen Motion declared carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission interviewed the applicants for appointment to the Planning Commission. Appearing were Mr. George Daly, 9315 59th Avenue North, and Mr. Jim Edwards, 8803 32nd Court. Discussion related to reason for wanting to serve on the commission, any potential conflict of interests, background of candidates and availability of time. Commissioner Atchley arrived atthe meeting. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second ~_y Commissioner Gundershauq to forward the names of the two applicants to the ~6uncil"with the comment that..the Ptanninq CR~mj~j~n b~iev~_bp~lic.a~ are futl~ qual-~'~ serve on the Commission~ Voting in favor: 8artos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Abstaining: Atchley Absent: Christensen Motion declared carried. 10. ll. 12. Planning Commission Minutes 8~ ~3~ September 19~ 1978 The Council minutes of the meeting of SePtember II, 1978 were reviewed. The City Manager advised the Commission that while the Council minutes do not specifically so state, Council asks that the Plannin~ Commission be in~eview of an ordinance to control combination ~airv stores~as sales. The minutes of the September 5, 1978 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Comments/requests from citizens~ commissioners and staff were then called. There were no announcements. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~liot City Clerk-Treasurer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commisslon was held on October 3, 1978 at the New Hope Cit~ Hall, 4~01 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: ])~, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Atcblew PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 78-74 (CONTINUED FROM 9-5-78) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 4225 NEVADA AVENUE - DAN GESSAMAN, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not present. Commissioner Gustafson motioned to table the consideration of this case unti 1 the end of the meeting. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: ~ Bartos, Voting against: Non~ Absent: Atchleg Motion carried. Christensen, Cameron, Custafson, Gundershaug, Edwards PLANNING CASE 78-78 (CONTINUED FROM (9~5-78) REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT AT 8801 EAST RESEARCH CENTER ROAD - GEAR AND BROACH, INC., PETITIONERS. The City Manager stated that Mr. Cheney, the owner of the property, had .been notified of the meeting end requested to appear. The Chairman questioned if ~re was any way for the City to get the owner to meet with the Commission? The City Manager stated that it appeared that it appeared that Mr. Cheney was attempting to sell the.' building. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the petitioner had stated at the previous meeting that the owner (Mr. Cheney) had given verbal permission for him to change the size of the letters. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to amend the sign. ?lan for the building at 8801 East Research Center Road, Case 78-78, to require that all letters be ten inches in heiqht and that City Staff advise the $e- tioner and owner accordingly and if the owner has disaqreement with this, he be requested to notify the Cit~ within 30 da~s. Commissioner Bartos second. Commissioner Christensen noted the problems with the building and the difficulty of contacting the owner, and questioned whether the petitioner might be a means to get the owner to come in and discuss the pro- blems. He suggested a table. He had no problem with the amendment to the sign plan but simply felt this might be a means to reach the owner° Con~lssioner Gustafson commented that it appeared that the owner had little interest in the building and that he did not feel the Commission should have to waste any more of its time on the metter. The request to change the allowable letters from 6" to 10" was not unreasonable. With the motion, the owner was be- ing given 30 days to agree to the change or to contact the City. Voting in favor: ~, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 78-81 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 8701 NORTHWOOD PARKWAY - DONALD AND EPPIE BECK, PETITIONERS. The petitioners were not in attendance. Commissioner Gundershaug motioned to table this case until the end of the meetinq.. Cm~ssioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: ~y, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchlew Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSSION MINUTES - 2 - OCTOBER 3, 1978 6. PLANNING CASE 78-83 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 4440 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE NORTH - TIMBERLANE H~MES~ INC.~ PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson motioned to table consideration of this case until the end of the meetinq. Com- missioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. A;~l~, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards None Atchley 7. PLANNING CASE 78-84 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE IN.SIGN AT 7009 BASS LAKE ROAD - BURGER KING, PETITIONER. Mr. Jim Nunn, Site Development Engineer for Burger King, stated they were requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a drive through service window at their facility on Bass Lake Road. The variance request is to allow them to move the existing sign. The service window will be located on the side of the building covered by a canopy, at the rear of the building there will be an order station. There will be a stacking lane of 235 feet. This would be striped to the rear of the building and curved toward the canopy and to the exit. The reason for this is to allow people to leave the line or in the event of a too high vehicle approaching the canopy, there would be room to leave the lane. The existing exists would not be cahnged as far as the curb cuts were concerned. They have agreed to the Design .and Review Committee suggestion to have counter clock wise move- ment through the site. There is an existing island with their pylon sign, they are also asking for a vari- ance to allow the sign to be moved approximately 25 feet into the new green area. They plan to upgrade the existing sod and match the boulevard landscaping in the area ad3acent to the pick-up window. Commissioner Christensen referred to the Design and Review meeting and the statement that there would pro- bably be 5-6 cars stacked to the order point and beyond that 5 cars stacked at the pick-up point. The service at the window will take approximately one minute per car. Mr. Nunn stated they had revised this figure to two cars per minute, once the work crew was experienced. The west entrance will be "in" and the east entrance will be "out". There will be concrete curbing from the order point to the pick-up point and the remainder of the lanes will be painted on the asphalt. The striping will allow cars to leave the lane until they reach the order point and also facilitate snow re- moval. The canopy is nine feet tall, and the warning sign will be a hinged, break-away sign, to notify vehicles that they are too tall to go under the canopy, The same roof line will be used as will the same type of brick on the exterior. The lot will be asphalt. Discussion then centered on the parking lot, and ~he west lot. Mr. Nunn felt that it was preferable to not use angle parking in this lot, stating he would lose six spaces, and if it became necessary it could be changed in the future. Commissioner Christensen noted that at the Design and Review meeting there had been concern expressed about cars backing into each other and angle parking had been suggested as a safer solution to this problem, Mr. Nunn stated they wished to move the sign because it would free up the entrance. They would prefer a traffic dividing island, instead of what is there. If this is going to be a problem, they will leave the existing sign where it is. Commissioner Christensen stated that variance requests should have a hardship factor. If the sign is to be moved, according to Ordinance, the sign wou~d then have to he brought into conformance with the Code. If it is left where it is, it will be allowed to remain until the end of the amortization period. Mr. Nunn noted that in this case he felt they would withdraw the variance rquest and stay with the standard island, reduced in size, but with the sign in the same position, with traffic lanes on each side. He did not feel this would create a safety ~azard, but would cause people to slow down. If it were moved, it would be easier to negotiate but they will leave the sign where it is. The hours of operation on the drive-up window will be the same as the standard store operation. time these hours are: 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through Thursday 11 a.m. to 1 a.m. Friday through Sunday During the summer months, the facilty stays open until midnight. At this In answer to a question from ~he Chairman regarding foot traffic, Mr. Nunn noted that they would discour- age foot traffic. The rear lighting will not be changed with the exception of the menu board which will he lighted. Discussion of the hours of operation followed. Mr. Nunn stated that they anticipate that 25~ of the business will be from the drive-up window. These percentages are about the same as of people who now come in, purchase their food, and leave the facili.ty to eat. PLANNING COMMISSION ~4INUTES - 3 - OCTOBER 3, 1978 Discussion then centered on the striping of the lanes, versus curbing and the sign that indicated the height of the canoN° Mr. Nunn said they preferred the sign at the rear of the property, feeling it was for the first time customer and repeat customers would know about the height of the canopg. Commissioner Gustafson referred to the considerable discussion held at the time of the Ordinance revi- sion regarding the need for positive separation between the lanes. Mr. Nunn stated they felt striping was necessary ~nstead of curbing at the rear to allow trucks to nego- tiate for deliveries, and for snow removal. Deliveries are always made before the store is open. Considerable discussion followed r~garding the need for concrete curb lane separations. Commissioner Gustafson was on record as in favor of the concrete curbing. Commissioner Christensen stated he was in favor of the flexibility of the striping but did feel that angle parking on the'west lot would improve the maneuverability of the cars. Mr. Nunn stated he would prefer angle parkin9 to curbing. Other commissioners felt that there was sufficient space to turn and exit, and seemed to prefer that ~3 angle parking instead of concrete curbing. Discussion also covered the loss of spaces if the parking was angled4 Mr. Nunn felt they would lose five or six spaces. Parking has not previousl~ been a problem at this site. Mr. Nunn, in answer to questions from the Chairman, stated that there had been no recent compla'int~ from the neighbors in regard to the lighting. There had been complaints earlier, but the District Manager had met with the neighborhood spokesman and the fence and evergreens had been installed ~o alleviate ~his problem. There were no citizens present in regard to this case. In answer to questions from Commissione~ Christensen, Mr. Nunn stated there will be two entrance arrows and ~woexit arrows indicating the direction cars should go. They will also have directional signs at the entrances. Commissioner Christensen made a motion for approval of Case 78-84 - Request for Special Use Permit to allow a drive-up service window for the Burger King at' 7009 Bass Lake Road with the £ollowinq stipulations: 1. That angle parking be provided on the west side of the parking lot. 2.That the clearance sign be moved more to the west of the building to allow the use of curbs beginnin~ at the ordering point. 3.That .some type of landscaping providing a screen be installed on the driv~-u~ lane as it faces north, approaching the pickup .point. 4. That at the time of the Council m~eting a better landscape plan be presented relating to the new green area. Commissioner ~undershaug second. Commissioner Gus~afson asked whether Commissioner Christenson would be agreeable to amending the motion to include that the approval was subject to annual review bg Staff in regard to the hours of o~eration of drive up window and the possible creation of a nuisance for the neighbors~ Commissioner Christensen agreed as did Commissioner Gundershaug. Voting in favor: Uoting against: Absent: Motion carried'. Dalg, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Gustafson Atchleg 8. PLANNINC CASE 78~85 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM SR TO LB AT 9000 ROCKFORD ROAD - RUSSELL PAVEY, PETITIONER. Mr. Richard Huffman stated he was the attorne~ for Mr. Pavey and Mr. and Mrs. Gar~ Johnson, owners of the property. The~ are requesting a change in zoning from SR to LB at 9000 Rockford Road to allow Mr. Pavey to convert the house to an office. There are no planned changes to the exterior of the building or to the existing landscaping. Mr. Paveg's business deals in securitg systems, monitOring o~residential and commercial securit~ systems. He intends to use the site as a coporate headquarters and will install electrical monitoring s~stems in the building. The on-site parking is sufficient and he plans no changes i~ either the parking facilities or the curb cuts. Mr. Huffman stated that as another reason for the requested zoning change, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have had their home for sale for approximatel~ six months and have had no inquiries other than commerical buyers. They feel that the basis for the request is the change in the area (the. change in the interchange), the hazards caused by the. traffic as a result of the change in the interchange, the fact that the site al- read~ has natural barriers setting it apart from the surrounding residential area. Flag Avenue is now cul-du-saced from 45th and there is a natural land divider between this site and the adjacent residential property to the east -- a 30 foot clif. They feel this separates the property both actuallg and visuallw. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1978 There is additional LB zoning at the southeast of the intercb~ange, He added that he also understood that Rockford Road will continue to be upgraded in the futu~and mentioned the two churches located west of the site. Mr. Pavey does not intend to change the exterior 'of the building or the landscaping. There will be 6 or 7 people on the staff and the property can handle 8-10 cars. There is a four car garage and 6-7 on-site parking spaces° The Chairman noted that the City had to be very careful in rezoning property because the zoning, once changed, stayed with the property for ever, even if owners changed. Mr. Huffman noted that the heme had been used for home offices in the past, Con~issoner Bartos stated that this was his concern. The site contains 69,000 feet and once rezoned it would be difficul~ to stop construction of an apartment building on the site. Mr. Huffman stated he felt the City had other restrictions that would prevent this from occurring. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager noted that City Code did not per- mit the granting of aspecial use permit in a. SF zone, for this type of use. The property would have to be rezoned if the use was to he permitted. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Pavey stated that as a rule his customers did not come in and out of the office -- they were telephone contacts. There were very few off the street customers. He does intend to have a small sign, There will be perhaps 5-6 people in the office during daytime hours. After 5 p.m. there will be only one person manning the monitor board. Chairman Cameron asked about additional utility lines or radio towers. Mr. Pavey stated there will be a small repeater antenna on the roo~, similar to those used for two-wag radios. There will be no extra electrical lines coming in. The central station connection is all tele- phone connections. There was no one present in regard to this case. In response to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Pavey stated that there would he no residen- tial disturbance caused by the two-way radios. He said that he used a high frequency band (458)which is higher than police departments use. There will be no extra trucks only a van which will be kept in the garage. Commissioner Bartos made a motion to recon~end approval of Case 78-85 - Request to rezone the property at 9000 Rock~brd Road from SR to LB. Commissioner Cady second. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether this particular rezoning might open up the possibility of the land all the way down Rockford Road to this type of conversion of single family to business? He was con- cerned with the change this would make on the street. The Chairman agreed that this was a concern. Mr. Jo~hnson noted that the house to the west of his property, now owned by the church, is already being used as other than a single family dwelling.-- It is a drop in center and counseling center for the church youth. Mr. Huffman noted that this dwelling does have heavier than residential use and traffic as a drop-in cen- ter. Commissioner Gustafson restated his concern about the rezoning changing the character of the street and that it might start a trend toward conversion from single family to business use in the area. A citizen expressed his concern bout a precedent being set in this rezoning. He lives a block to the east and could foresee a move in that direction. Mr. Huffman noted that he felt that the size of the lot in question lent itself more to this conversion as well as its proximity to #18. The citizen noted that all of the lots facing 42nd were deeper than the average lots. Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Gustafson, Christensen, Cameron Absent: Atchley Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1978 9. PLANNING CASE 78-86 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN LOT SIZE AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AT 5805 WINNETKA AVENUE - JOHN URNESS AND BRUCE PATTERSON, PETIT. IONERS. Mr. Mike Moser,. Attorney for the petitioners, stated they were requesting permission to divide the tract into two equally sized lots to allow the units to be sold separately as individual townhouses. The rent structure does not permit a single owner. There will be no structural changes made in the propert9 or any change in the land useage. It will only serve to make the property more saleable. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that the division would be down the common wall. Mr. Moser stated there would be an easement provided to the driveway access and garage. He stated that if approval is given for the division, he will submit a formal plat to the City immediately. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Bartos made a motion for approval of Case 78-86, Request for Variance in lot size and ~re- 3Jminf~ plat approval at 5805 Winnetka Avenue. Conm~ssioner Cady second. Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Cameron Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 78-87 - REQUEST FOR CONCEPT APPROVAL OF PUD AT 42ND/~18 - JERRY HARRINGTON, PETITIONER.. Site plans were distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Harrington briefly reviewed the history of this site, noting that in 1977 he had received approval from the Planning Commission for a proposed combination elderly and family housing complex '-- this had been denied by the Council. There had been no activity since then. He is now proposing five duplexes on Gettysburg which will provide an orderly transition from the iow density on the east to the mid density on the west. Three of the duplexes will face Gettysburg and two will face the access road. There will be 108 units in the apartment building. To the south there is a 150' outlot which has been approved for townhouse. He felt this provided another transition area. There will be 108 parking units under the building and 118 open spaces to the east. An additional 75 parking spaces toward the north on #18 with another 22 spaces on the access road have been designated but were not to be developed at this time. The area to the south will be all green area, and the pond will be excavated and used as a pond with drainage lines going toward Northwood Pond. The development will meet all existing codes. There will be 81 two bedroom apartments of 989 square feet and 21 one bedroom apartments of 760 square feet. There will be six handicapped apartments of 760 square feet each. The building will have an elevator from the garage to the third floor which will allow additional handi- capped people to live in the complex. The planned handicapped apartments are designed to accommodate people in wheelchairs. The duplexes on the east will have two enclosed parking stalls and four stalls on the site. The site has 500,000 square feet and is developed at 10 units per acre, which is within the mid-density criteria as recommended by Midwest Planning. The building will cover 12.6% of the area; there will be 9.4% parking lot; future parking lot coverage would be 16.5%; green area is 78% and if future parking should be required the green area would be reduced to 70%. The exterior of the building will be brick and cedar shakes on all four sides. The elevation between Gettysburg and #18 is a 40' drop in 800 or 900 feet. It does not, in his opinion, lend itself to individual platting. The building will fit into the side of the hill. The building will be approximately 28 feet high. The~homes a~'the south end of the site will be able to see approximately 20 feet or two stories. The apartments will have balconies, there is inside trash collection and all refuse will be contained inside the building. The landscaping by the duplexes and townhouses to the south will provide an additional barrier for the six to eight feet that will be visible. The duplexes or double bungalows Will provide a barrier for the houses on Gettysburg. They have provided tot lots, barbeques, picnic areas, to the west and south sides of the buildings. He felt he had covered the transition from the low density to the mid density on the north side. This pro- posal is a reduction of 90 units from the original plan approved bg the Commission at an earlier time. Commissioner Christensen summarized what Mr. Harrington was proposing: 108 family units in the apartment building; 118 open parking spaces; the mid density complex to be three stoires toward the residential PLANNING COMMISSION ~4INUTES OCTOBER 3, 1978 10. area and four stories toward #18. The apartments will have balconies; there will be 81 two bedroom. units of 989 square feet; 21 one bedroom units of 760 square feet; and six handicapped apartments. The complex will be open to anyone, in contrast with Mr. Harrington~s proposal which was limited to elderly and family tenants. In answer to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Harrington stated that he felt the one bed- room apartment units would be primarily occupied by elderly people or couples and that the two bedroom units would have no more than four people in them. There will be underground parking. The building will have a security system, entered only with a key. The five duplexes will serve as a buffer area. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Harrington stated that he mow controlled the entire parcel. He added that the duplex units would be comparable to those being constructed on the circle on Jordan Avenue. Each side will have a minimum of 1000 square feet, will be of frame construction and have stucco and stone exteriors. If approval is granted to the concept, he will be back before the Planning Commission with his actual plans. He will also submit a plat showing the five lots, handled as individual units. At the present time he plans to retain control of the apartment complex. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Harrington stated there was a large amount of traffic from #18, access was difficult and he had felt it preverable to leave the large open space to the north. He has no specific plans for this land other than its use as future parking. Discussion about the previous suggestion that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Harrington combine on a road between their properties. Mr. Harrington stated that he was aggreeable to such a solution, but felt he could no longer wait for Mr. Gordon's decision on this matter. If Mr. Gordon should agree~ he would face the end duplex toward the south instead of Gettysburg. Mr. Duane Rest, 9209 40% Avenue, asked how long Mr. Harrington had had the property? Mr. Harrington stated that it would be five years in June since he had been trying to develop the property. Mr. Rest questioned where they were planning to run the traffic? Mr. Harrington stated it would go out Gettysburg to 42nd. In answer to a quostion from Mr. Rest ~egarding a signal, Mr. Harrington stated that the County had said there were no warrents for a signal at that corner. It was a County decision, not the City's and not his. Mr. Rest stated he felt there was already too much traffic in the area. Mr. Walston, asked how many stories this unit'would be (three stories toward the south, four stories toward #18). During discussion regarding the elevations, Mr. Harrington stated that Mr. Walston would be able to see the top six feet of the building. Mr. Walston stated he felt that the traffic was a con- cern and he was also concerned about traffic as it came off #18. If it is difficult to make a turn now, and the traffic became worse it might send the traffic south on Gettysburg, and even to Flag. This was his primary concern. He commented that this plan was a substantial improvement over the last one pre- sented. Mrs. Mary Gwin-Lenth, 9217 40~ Avenue North,commented on the statement made earlier regarding only six feet being visible to the single family homeo=.mers. She stated this would be true only if the indivi- dual's nose was on the curb. They were not talking about the view from living room windows. Mr. Jerre Gwin-Lenth, 9217 40% Avenue, stated his primary concern was still with the traffic. He refer- red to the comment made about only 108 vehicles, stating he felt it was possible that the units would be occupied by people with two or more cars and there could be close to 175-200 additional vehicles because of this development, and probably double the daily trips. He stated he had heard nothing regarding the solving of the traffic problem. He felt that a traffic plan should be establis.%ed and it should proba- bly call for a reduction in density and a lower number of vehicles in and out of the site. The logical way to control traffic was to reduce the unit density. In answer to a question from Mr. Gwin-Lenth, Mr. Harrington stated that the property could support 30-35 single family units. Mr. Gwin-Lenth questioned whether single family only would not be a better plan considering the totally single family flavor of the neighborhood. Mr. Harrington noted that his proposal med the mid density requirement of 10 units to an acre. Mr. Gwin-Lenth said he realized this, but objected to the proposal on the basis of the health, safety and welfare of the ar'ea. A citizen asked what the property was presently zoned? He was informed that it was zoned MR and had been so zoned since 1966. Kathy Moorhead, 9232 40%, expressed her concern with the traffic increase on both 40% and Gettysburg, as well as on 42nd. Her living room will look directly out on to this piece of land and felt that the proposal would not.enhance the.neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - OCTOBER 3, 1978 i0. Mr. John Mozey, 9225 40% Avenue, stated he represented the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Association. The association has been active for some years in the community. He pointed out that Mr. Harrington's last proposal had no~ been approved by the Council because of the existing community and their concerns, and the welfare of the area. He stated that when the property had been zoned MR there was more access to the property. The site is now almost land locked. He commented on the fact that Mr. Gordon had changed the zoning on his property at the southwest corner and Mr. Wilder had now developed a very satisfactory area. It seemed to him that everything being done on the surrounding property made this site less and less conducive to the traffic situation. He felt that traffic on #18 had already exceeded any expectations and mag get worse and cause even more of a traffic problem in the area, Gettysburg is now used by the residents for jogging, walking, biking and playing bg the high density of children in the area. There are already problems with speeding in the area and.he was further not sure that New Hope needed aug more apartment buildings. He felt there must be some alternatives. He agreed something should be decided in regard to this property so that they could all take a rest. Mr. Harrington stated that the reason the Council had turned down his previous proposal was because he had requested a variance in parking spaces. It was his opinion, that single family residences often generated about the same amount of traffic as multiple. The Chairman noted that the Commission/City had been attempting to deal with the question of this pro- perty for over seven years. It was his feeling that perhaps l0 units per acre was too much density and perhaps six units per acre would be preferable. Commissioner Christensen stated he felt a tremendous step had already been made by Mr. Harrington. He felt most of the criticism at the meeting had been directed not at the structure, but at the traffic situation. He noted that perhaps some type of bus service, etc. could alleviate the traffic problems in the area. He also commented on the need for the elderly/nursing home type of housing. He agreed that traffic was a potential problem. Mr. Harrington commented on the fact that people work at different times -- they did not all line up at the starting gate and drive out to Gettysburg at a given time. He repeated his opinion that single family development creates almost as much traffic at peak times. There is not that concentrated a traf- fic situation in most apartment complexes. Co~uissioner Christensen made a motion recommending concept approval of the PUD at 42nd/#18 with the stipulation that Mr. Harrinqton.might wish to look at the fact that he is going in at maximum and tho Planning Commission was concerned about this. If he could address this concern as well as the traffi~ situation Mr. Harrinqton should do so. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards DaVy Atchley The City Manager clarified that the proposal if approved in concept would still be back before the Com- mission for actual plan~construction approval at a future time. i1. PLANNING CASE 78-88 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7324 36TH AVENUE NORTH - HAAGENSON BROTHERS, PETITIONERS. Mr. Henry Skinquist represented the petitioner. He stated they were requesting approval for an addi- tion to an existing building. The building is an office/warehouse. The same type of building mater- ials will be used on the exterior and the construction will be of the same style. They request no variances. There is a steep bank shielding the railroad overpass and a high bank continues around to the north of the property. The addition will be 24' x 9i.'. The appearance of the front and two sides of the building will not be altered. The property supports adequate parking spaces for both the existing building and the proposed addition. There is crushed rock at the far rear of the site for parking expansion, but they would pre- fer to not pave the area at this time. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the addition will be non heated and used for storage, that the refuse containers will be inside the building and that the construction materials will match the exist- ing building. There will be no change in the roof top equipment or in the signage. Discussion then centered on the parking on the site. There are currently not enough striped spaces on the blacktopped portion. However, the petitioner did not feel they need as many spaces as are required by Code. There is ample room for expansion of parking if a need develops. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - OCTOBER 3, 1978 12. There are now29 striped spaces on the blacktop. The City Manayer noted that there should be ten more to meet Code, according to the square footage of the office/warehouse. Commissioner Christensen noted that the petitioner could provide more spaces -- room for 22 -- on the crushed rock area. Discussion followed regarding this area and the need for screening outside storage areas. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the petitioner stated he did not feel there was going to be a drainage problem. There is a catch basin at the rear of the property now. There has been no change in the drainage pattern because of the proposed addition° The Chairman noted that the Commission preferred green area for future parking expansion, but since crushed rock was already there, he did not feel a dangerous precedent was being set. Commissioner Christensen clarified that the petitioner understood that if at some future time additional parking was needed, he must provide it. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 78-88 - Approval of Construction Pla~s for Rainbow, Inc. at 7324 36th Avenue North. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. PLAN~ING CASE 78-89 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND GREEN SP~CE VARIANCE AT THE NEVADA AVENUE CUL-DU-SAC - WITCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Reynotd Roberts, Architect, represented the petitioners. He stated that since the Design and Review meeting, some of the details on the plan had been changed. They are now proposing a one story, approxi- mately 21 foot clear span warehouse building and bay with a two story office area. There are three load- ing vestibules on the north side, providing six loading docks. Traffic patterns for trucks will be around the docks and back out. They cannot at this time estimate the nun~ber of trucks there will be on/-~, a given day. Automobile traffic would be able to drive in either direction on the site. Wi tcher Construction Company has granted an easement along the west side of the property. Since the Design and Review meeting the petitioner had purchased an additional 65 feet of property. They are now providng 32% green area and 34% parking with 34% building area. They are requesting permission to park against the property line on the east side. They feel this is preferable to moving the building forward a~ud cutting the front green space down. They would like 18 parking spaces in this area. They meet all setbacks. They are providing 100 parking spaces and cannot imagine that this would not be ade- quate. Commissioner Christensen noted the City's Sign Ordinance and that when/if they determine what signs they need, they must conform with this ordinance. Mr. Roberts stated that at the present time they did not anticipate a need for a variance in signage, Commissioner Christensen noted that at the Design and Review meeting the feeling had been that it was preferable to keep the front green space° Mr. Roberts noted that there will be concrete curbs and everything will be sodded except for the swamp area. It is their feeling that if the natural state looked good, it should be left as is. Rooftop equipment will be screened. Refuse containers will also be screened. Along the back there will be three lights in the loading area; on the east side there will be two building mounted lights; on the south side there will be three pole mounted lights; and on the west side there will be two lights on poles. Witcher Construction Company will be the ma~n tenant. Discussion then held regarding the landscaping as proposed. Commissioner Christensen stated he felt it was minimal. Mr. Roberts stated there were 20 trees provided. The City Manager noted that the property to the north would have to be handled legally, either platted or split off. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 78-89 Construction approval with a green space vari- ance of one percent, recognizing that part of that variance is taken away because of the easement, with the sti.oulation that a ptattin~ will be requi'red for the land that was recently purchased to the north of the site. The pl.atting to be completed before any occupancy would be permitted. Commissioner Barto~ second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Daly, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards None Atcbleg PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - OCTOBER 3, 1978 13. PLANNING CASE 78-90 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND PARKING VARIANCE AT THE SO0 LINE RAILROAD AND WINNETKA AVENUE - RAUENHORST CORPORATION ~ PETITIONERS. Ms. Michelle Foster represented Rauenhorst. She stated they were requesting construction approval for an office/warehouse building which will be the third building in the New Hope Distribution Center. The building will consist of 114,000 square feet, with 52,000'office and 62,000' manufacturing area. They are providing 286 parking spaces. The ordinance requires 334 but the proposed tenant, Honeywell, is re- questing only 275 spaces. The building will not be operated at night. However, they have proposed some lighting for the rear portion of the parking lot. There is lighting proposed on the building itself but it will not shine into the residential areas. The grading and utility plan indicates that there will be curbing along the southern portion of the parking lot and service road. In response to previously expressed concerns regarding the landscaping and maintenance of the first two buildings, Mrs. Foster stated that Rauenhorst has already looked into this matter, has been in contact with the landscaping firm and has both verbal and written commitments from them that the dead landscap- ing will be replaced within the next few weeks. They will follow up on this problem. She then addressed the drainage problem and the parking variance as requested. This had been submitted to Glen Cook for review. He has essentially approved the plan. They intend to put in a control flow mechanism for the storm sewer to control the downstream flow. A portion of the site to the rear (north) of the building will be necessary for a holding area. Mr. Cook did not feel they.should put in parking in this area at this time. He had recommended that if parking is put in this area it should be at an elevation of 906 -- the rest of the parking area is at an elevation of.912. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the green area will be a l]ttle more than 35%. Refuse will be screened, there will be no roof top equipment on the two story section. They anticipate that the two story section will screen the equipment on the one story building. Discussion then centered on the landscaping and the maintenance problems of the site and the dangers of this problem re-occurring. Concern was expressed as to how the City could guarantee proper care of the grounds. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the tenant, Honeywell, was intending to sign a ten year lease. Ms. Foster in response to questions stated that they did not intend to curb around the parking lot be- cause experience with the other two buildings had not shown the lack of curb to be a problem. The City Manager noted that the engineer had looked at the parking and drainage problem, had not as yet reco~ended curbing, but would be reviewing the problem again. Discussion continued in regard to the landscaping situation and how the City could protect itself and guarantee propeI maintenance. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager noted that the Maintenance Code had not been tested as yet, but that this was a possible means of control -- occupancy approval can be tied to the landscaping and its maintenance. Mrs. Karen Weeks, 8316 50th Avenue, asked whether the problem had been caused by ineffective trees, or ..~2 ,~ the fact that they had not been watered? Ms. Foster noted that this was why she suggested some stipulation addressing the maintenance and replac- ment of tkm landscaping in any motion, Discussion continued. Mrs. Weeks asked whether it would also be possible to include the need for mowing the berm? it has not been mowed since they moved into their home in June. She then addressed the problems of the noise levels that have consistently exceeded the maximum allowed. These have been tested by the City. She also wondered about the noise from the trucks that run all night and whether this was allowed? They had been told a week and a half ago that the noise from these trucks would cease but at of this day they were still running all night. Commissioner Gustafson noted that it was his understanding the Division of Honeywell that would occupy the proposed building was the Traffic Management Division. If this is true, he did not believe this operation would involve a significant number of trucks and that there should~ not be any trucks running all night long. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - OCTOBER 3, 1978 Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 78-90 - Construction Approval with a Parking Vari- ance at the Rauenhorst site at the Soo Line Tracks/Winnetka, with the stipulation that before petitione~ met with the City Council they will have worked out some kind of agreement regarding the landscaping and maintenance of all three buildings that will protect the City of NeW Hope, and that there will b= some answers regarding the noise polution problem presently existing in this develo?ment. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: ~|~, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Gustafson Absent: Atchley Motion carried. 14. PLANNING CASE 78-91 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN WITH VARIANCE AT THE RAUENHORST SITE AT THE SO0 LINE TRACKS AND WINNETKA - NEW HOPE PARTNERS JOINT .VENTURE, PETITIONERS. Ms. Foster stated they were requesting two signs. One to be designating the building as New Hope Distri- bution Center (the first two buildings). These signs are to be in conformance with the City Code. They are also proposing numeral signs for the truck docks and wall identification signs for the tenants. The City Manager confirmed that they do not plan to put up blanks, but will only put up signs for the actual tenants. The numerals on the truck docks are five feet in height. The tenant identification signs will be 5 x 2% feet, and will indicate the name and address of the tenants. The proposed signs are for the first two buildings. The third building will be a one tenant building and will have different signs conforming to the Code. Ms. Foster stated they were requesting a varaince on the New Hope Distribution Center sign because the sign will be made of Fab Con and this material comes in eight foot panels. They are requesting 112 sq. feet instead of the allowed 75. They desire the eight foot panel because the ID sign will then be high enough to cut down on the van- dalism problem. Commissioner Gustafson recommended approval of Case 78-91, with all signs approved as submitted, with the understanding that no other wording was to be permitted on the pylon sign and that the letter size must conform to the code and that only the wording area is considered to be si~n. Voting in favor: ~¥, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. Commissioner Christensen moved to remove Case 78-74 from the table. Commissioner Cady second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. ~y. Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards None Atchley Commissioner Bartos made a motion to recommend denial of Case 78-74. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: voting against: Abstain: Absent: Motion carried. ~ Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Gustafson christensen Atchle~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 11 - OCTOBER 3, 1978 5. Commissioner Gundershauq motioned to remove Case 78-81 from the table. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: ~, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. Con~issioner Christensen recommended tablin~ Case 78-81 until the meeting of October 17, 1978. sioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: '~ , Bartos, Ch~kstensen;. Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. Commis- Commissioner Christensen recommended removinq Case 78-83 from the table. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: ~¥, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. Commissioner Christensen recommended tabling Case 78-83 until the meetinq of October 17th. Co.~u~issioner Gundershauq .second. Voting in favor:~)~; Bartos, Chrsitensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 15. There was no report from the Design and Review Conuaittee. 16. There was no report from tt~ Land Use Committee 17. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 18. Chairman Cameron collebted the questionnaires that had been distributed to the Commissioners. 19. The Council Minutes of September 25, 1978 were reviewed~ 20. The Commission Minutes of September 19, 1978 were accepted as printed. 21. In response to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that the striping on 36th Avenue would be completed in the spring of 1979. 22. The City Manager noted that because of a change in State law, the Planning Commission meeting of November 7th, would need to be changed, because it was Election Day. The date could be changed or they could start after 8:00 p.m. Because of the possible use of the room for election work, it would be better to change the date. Following brief discussion the concensus of the Commission was that the meeting should be held on Novem- ber 6th at 7:30 p,m. 23. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10~54 p.m, Respectfully submitted, ~eddeker, Secretar~ -. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 1978 A regular meeting of the New Rope Planning Commission.was held on Tuesdag, October 17, 1978 at the Hew Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: ~/y , Atchl eg , Cameron, Gustafson , Gundershaug , Edwards Absent: Bartos, christensen Christensen arrived at 7~33 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE 78-61 (CONTINUED FROM 10-3-78) SETBACK VARIANCE AT 8701 NORTHWOOD PARKWAY - DONALD AND EPPIE BECK, PETITIONERS. Mr. Jerry Horn represented Mr. and Mrs. Beck. Mr. Beck was out df town. Mr. Horn stated that the Becks wished to put a 20 x 40 foot addition on to the south side of their home. Thew have had a problem wi t2~ their basement flooding whenever there is a heavy rain and this has created. a need for additional living space. Commissioner Gustafson questioned how far from the lot line the addition would be located? The answer was 14 feet from the back lot line. The roof line would extend the line of the house and the siding texture and color would match the existing house. There is seven feet between the proposed addition and the woven fence. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether 14 feet was sufficient for a back yard in terms of adjacent neighbors and future owners of the property? Mr. Beck was not aware of whether or not there would be windows in the addition. He stated he did not believe there would be a basement under the addition but he thought Mr. Beck intended to raise the gar- age and install footings to allow an attached structure. Presently there is a floating slab under the garage. Discussion about the space between the proposed addition and the garage and whether the garage would be attached when the addition was finished. Chairman Cameron expressed concern about what Mr. Beck was actually proposing. Discussion followed about the size of the requested variance, the reasons for, and practicalitg of, stalling footings under the garage, and the fact that there were several unanswered questions regarding the proposal that Mr. Horn could not answer, in Mr. Beck's absence. In answer to a question from Commissioner Atchley, the City Manager stated that if a garage were unat- tached, there must be a= least five feet between the house and garage. Mr. Wayne Fjerkenstad, 3665 Boone Avenue, questioned whether Mr. Beck's proposed addition would be with- in Code? Commissioner Gustafson answer "no". That was whg the Becks were appearing before the Commission, they were requesting permission to have a 14 foot setback in the rearward. The. Code calls for a 35 foot set- back. Mr. Fjerkenstad stated he was against any addition that did not meet Code, because of the effect it would have on his property and its resale value. He was further concerned that he would end up a narrow strip between his two neighbors. He would like the privacy afforded by the Code restrictions on setbacks. He noted that his bedroom is now only 7~8 feet from his side neighbor's house. The City Manager stated that if Mr. Beck did intend to do something to his garage, the garage could he moved toward Boone Avenue and attached ~o that end of the house. Be noted that it was his understanding that Mr. Beck traveled almost every week. Mr. Horn confirmed this. Discussion then covered whether it might be possible for Mr. Beck to attend the next Planning Commission meeting to answer questions from the Commission. It was noted that the next meeting would be on Monday, November 6th, because of the fact that Election Day was November 7th. Mr. Horn stated that it was possible that Mr. Beck raight be available on a Monday, it was certainly more possible than a Tuesday. Pn~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - OCTOBER 17,1978 Commissioner Gustafson, stating that inasmuch as there had been much concern expressed regarding the details of Mr. Beck's proposal, moved to table Case 78-81 until the meeting, of November 6th. Commis- sioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. ~D/F, Atchley, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershau9, Edwards NOde Bartos The City Manager questioned whether the Fjerkenstads should attend the meeting on the 6th.? The Chairman noted that their concerns were part of the record but that if theg wished to return on the 6th, they would be welcome. Mrs. Fjerkenstad questioned how long the process could go on, if the Becks did not appear before the Commission? The Chairman stated that the Commission attempted to be fairlg reasonable, but it would be advisable for the Becks to appear at the meeting on the 6th November. 3. PLANNING CASE 78-83 (CONTINUED FROM 10-3-78) SETBACK VARIANCE AT 4440 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE - TIMBERLANE HOMES, INC., PETITIONERS. Mr. Terry Avery represented Timberlane Homes, Inc. He stated that Timberlane had purchased this property from Criterion Homes. They had sold several homes and had a buyer for this lot. However, the buyer wanted this particular home. They were requesting a variance to allow this. He noted that the setbacks varied depending upon which side was considered as the back of the property. The City Manager stated that it was not a question of what you considered the rear yard. The backyard was everything that was to the rear of the house, according to Code. Mr. Avery noted that Timberlane owned the property back of the iot.inquestion and there was ample room on that lot, even if they received a variance for the setback. There would be no problems he felt with a neighbor. Discussion then covered why the house could not be re-positioned, or the plan reversed? This would allow the house to fit on the lot without requiring any variances. Mr. Avery stated they would prefer the variance, but if they could not obtain one, they would have to go with an alternative. He would, however, have to consult his supervisor and the buyer. Additional discussion-held regarding the possibilitg of reversing the floor plan and whether the peti- tioner would like the Commission to act on his request or table the matter until the next Planning Com- mission meeting. This ~ould allow them time to consult the buyer of the property. Mr. Avery stated he would prefer a table. Commissioner Gustafson tabled Case 78-83 until the meetinq of November 6, 1978. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: ~/y, Atchiey, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None ~ Absent: Bartos Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS The Chairman opened the discussion regarding the future work of the Planning Commission and the responses he had received to the questionnaire he had distributed earlier to the members of the Commission. He stated that he felt it was important to learn if the members of the Commission had any concerns about the direction the Commission was taking, the type of cases they saw most often, and their disposition of these cases. He also wondered whether they felt the Code should be looked at in terms of possible revi- sion. It was his opinion that there was a pattern in the cases as reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt that there would be an increasing problem with the granting of variances and asked what was a reasonable restriction to be placed on such variances, to allow peo- ple to make minor changes in their propert~ and avoid having to move. He suggested that the percen- tage of the total lot size that would be acceptable to be covered, might be reviewed. Ne felt that there should be some dimensions in regard to how far people could go in altering their property. The Chairman noted that most cases differed slightly in their requests, and it might not be possible to develop guidelines that applied universally. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - OCTOBER 17, 1978 Concensus of the Commissioners seemed to be that discussions should be held on this issue and that per- haps some guidelines and criteria should be developed in regard to such restrictions to variances as.. well as how far the Commission should go in the granting of variances. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager stated that the percentage of coverage approach had been used and that New Hope presently had stricter codes regarding setbacks tha~ neighboring municipalities. Chairman Cameron stated that he did not feel that a major overhaul of the setback requirements was re- quired but that perhaps some additional guidelines could be established in regard to the future granting of variances. Commissioner Gustafson commented that, in his opinion, because of the aging of the City, some of the minor changes people wished to make to their property could be allowed, in order to keep people from leaving the City. Commissioner Atchley stated he agreed with the approach, but felt that as in Case 78-83, when an entire addition would encroach into the setback, this was too much of a variance, as were some previous en- croachments within one or two feet of the lot lines. Chairman Cameron requested that the next time that Codes and Standards mst, they give some thought and discussion time to this issue. The Chairman noted further that he would finish reviewing the questionnaires before the next meeting and would make new committee assignments at that time. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 8. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 9. The City Manager reviewed the Council Minutes of October 10, 1978. He stated that the problems at the Rauenhorst Building (Case 78-90) had been solved bg pulling the building back a bit. Witcher Construction (Case 78-89) in the King Industrial Park had agreed to increase the green area 1% by reducing the building size and had been approved. Mr. Gessaman (Case 78-74) had received approval conditional on the building being straightened up. The BuckfordRoad rezon~ng request (Case 78-74) had been denied, A large delegation of neighbors had been in opposition to the proposal. The Harrington PUD request (Case 78-87) had also involved several hours of discussion. The Council re- quested the City Attorney to come back with a resolution finding facts for denial as well as a brief out- lining the_ legal consequences of a denial. This item will be back on the agenda on November 13. The County also expressed its intention to act on the Zoning Code as soon as a decision is made on the property at #18/42nd Avenue. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager noted that Rauenhorst had agreed to replace the dead landscaping this year and again in the spring, if it proved to be necessary. Commissioner Christ~nsen questioned why the Council had not sent Case 78-74 (Gessaman) bacM to the Plan- ning Commission, since they had reversed the decision as recommended by the Conm~ssion? Does this mean that people will get the idea that they can simply bypass the Planning Commission? The City Manager noted this was a valid point. However, perhaps Mr. Gessaman had showed up at the Council meeting because of the receipt of a letter stating his request would be automatically denied if he did not appear and the Council did have a recommendation from the Commission before it for action. I0. The Planning Commission minutes of October 3, 1978 were accepted as printed, with the request that ~he spelling of Mr. ~/~ ts name be corrected from "Cadg" to "Daly". 11. The Chairman questioned why the intersection at 42nd~Winnetka had only two lights when other intersec- tions in the area were so much better lit? He noted that when the gas stations close at night, the corner is quite dark. The City Manager stated he would look into this matter. The Manager noted, in response to a question, that the word on the shopping center was that final papers were to be signed on the 18th, October. 13. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:13 Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING CONHISSION HINIJTES NOVEHBER 6, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Honday, November 6, 1978 at the New Hope City Hall, ~qO! Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Rinnesota. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Gustafson at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Atchley, Oaly, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent; Cameron (excused), Christensen PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 78-~1 (CONTINUED FROM 10-17-78) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 8701NORTHWOOD PARK- WAY 7 DONALD AND E~PIE BECK~ PETITIONER~. Hr. Beck stated hew ould like to put an addition on his house and attach his garage at the south side of the house. The addition would be 20' x 40~. He distributed sketches showing his proposed addi- tion as it would look from the east. He wishes to upgrade his property and is anticipating the time when his mother and father, as they grow older, would move in with the family. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Hr. Beck that the shingles would match the existing garage as well as the roof line and the color of the existing house. Beck stated they had been in their home since I962 and did not anticipate moving. Commissioner Gustafson noted that one of the concerns of the Planning Commission was the amount of green space that would remain in the backyard if the addition were built as planned. Hr. Beck stated he had a six foot, and in some places a seven foot, fence around his property. The green area on the neighbor's side of the fence would remain the same, the amount of green space in Ei~..yard is the only place it wou]d be diminished. He'did not feei the addition would have any affect On either home to his sideyards. It would leave 'a fourteen foot setback in the rearyard. tn answer to a question from Correissioner Gustafson, the City Hanager noted that according to co~l~e, the rearyard setback should be 35 feet. Mr. Wayne Fjerkenstad, 3665 Boone, stated that he wes concerned with th~ addition, and the possible ef- fect it would have on the resale value of his home. In answer to a question from the Commissioners, Hr. Beck stated he had not discussed the addition with his neighbor, and was only recently aware that Hr. Fjerkenstad objected. Hr. Fjerkenstad said he was concerned because he felt that he was being closed in on all sides and would soon end up with no space around his property at all. He did not want to end up with a 'tunnel' feeling on his property. In response to a question from the City Manager, Mr. Beck stated he planned to raise the garage, put footings underneath and then attach the garage to his home. He wished the garage to be attached for security reasons ~hen he was out of town. There is about 50 feet from the front of the.garage to Boone Avenue. The City Hanager asked whether Hr. Beck had ever considered moving the garage closer to Boone Avenue? ~r. Beck stated he though this would be a mess. He felt it would not look good since the garages down the street are lined up. He felt the garage should remain in the same relationship to the house next door. He said that the garage as proposed would line up with Mr. Fjerkenstad~s garage. Commissioner Gustafson stated he felt the Commission's principal concern should be directed toward the amount of green space that would be left in the backyard if the addition were constructed. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendin~ denial of Case 78-81 - variance at 8701 Northwood Parkway. He added that he felt a great concern for cases of this type because, of the size of the variance. He felt this was of more concern than the impact to the neighbor to the south. He felt this variance was a lot to ask for on this particular lot. Commissioner Atchley seconded the motion. He added that he agreed with Commissioner Gustafson, that there should be a limit as to how much of a variance could be requested. He felt that this request went beyond the normal variance. Hr. Beck asked what the Commission felt would be a lenient variance? PLANNING COPLMISSION MINUTES - 2 - NOVEMBER 6, 1978 Commissioner Atchley stated that the Commission could only act on what had been requested. Commissioner Gustafson stated he felt the real question was the amount of the variance requested in re- lation to a particular situation. In his mind, a 21 foot variance was not a reasonable request on this site. Mr. Beck noted that the neighbor to his south had encroached into the sideyard easement. Commissioner Gustafson responded that the sideyard easement, garage to garage, was only ten feet and a one foot encroachment into that ten feet was a different situation than a 21 foot encroachment into 35 feeL. Commissioner Gundershaug Commented that he agreed with the City Manager that perhaps Mr. Beck should con-- sider altering the position of the garage as an alternative to this problem. He should perhaps have an alternative solat.i~on before he appeared at the City Council meeting on the 13th November. ' Voting in favor: Bertos, Oaly, Atch]ey, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Christensen Motion carried. Commissioner Gustafson suggested that Mr. Beck consider an alternative placement of his garage because .if he could position the addition/garage with required setbacks, he would not have to reappear before the Coe~nission. PLANNING CASE 78-83 (~0NTINUED FROM 10-17-78) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 4440 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE - TIMBERLANE HOMES~ INC. PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. The City Manager noted that the petitioner had been contacted by phone as a reminder of the meeting. Commissioner Gustafson moved to table Case 78-83 until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Dal¥ second; Voting in favor: Bartos, Daly, Atchtey, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Christensen Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-92 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 9301 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE - WILLIAM LAWRENCE, PETITIONER. Mr. Lawrence said they were requesting the variance to allow them to incorporate two building identifica- tion signs into one. Mr. Howard Rekstad represented Rosewood Corporation. He presented an illustration of the proposed sign. He noted that when the origina) approval had been grantea for the buildings, the signs had been included in the overall plan as designated. They had been informed by City staff that when a building is on a different lot, it felt into a different category and they now needed e variance. They are requesting a sign of 8' x 11'6". Code would allow a sign that is.iS feet high. The sign will be located on the divider island between the two buildings and will be an identification sign for the two buildings. Commissioner Gustafson commented on the fact that at the time of the building approval, Mr. Rekstad was made aware of the New Hope Sign Ordinance and the need for conformance, but not given specific approval for a sign plan. Mr. Rekstad read from past minutes, that indicated that a sign plan had been included in their presenta- tion that conformed with the City Ordinance. He noted that they had made an effort to include all of the sign criteria at the time of original approva]. They had been aware of the Code. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the letters on the sign would be eight inches high. Discussion then centered on the other signs on the site. Mr. La, fence noted that there was a discrepancy on the drawings as presented to the Commission. This illustration indicated four directory signs, marked A, 8, C, D, that were non-conforming. The allowable square footage is I' x 2' and these directional signs will now conform to Code. Mr. Rekstad stated that there wilt also be building signs for each tenant with at least 1300 square feet. These signs will be 4' x 4k, with q inch letters on black plastic. These signs had already been approved. All of the tenants will have the same type of sign, installed by the Corporation. The City Manager noted that previously everything had been approved subject to the signs meeting City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 ' NOVEMBER 6, 1978 Commissioner Gustafson, stating that because of the unique nature of the site and the fact that the two signs were to be incorporated into one, he would motion for approval of the Variance for a Ground Sign' for completed Building A and proposed Buildin~ B as requested in Case 78-92, .subject to the as- surance that the letterin9 size on the sign will be in conformance with the City ~ign Ordinance. Com- missioner Bartos second. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Rekstad stated that Building B would have the same sign plan if it develops into a multi-tenant building. If, however, it should become a single tenant building, the signage might be different. The signage, however, will meet Code. They intend to begin construction in the spring on the second building. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards None Cameron, Christensen 6. PLANNING CASE 78-93 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 8132 46TH AVENUE NORTH - MICHAEL LETTS.t PETI- TIONER. The City Manager stated that this case actually required two variances. Mr. Allan Matson was present and stated that Michael Letts had formerly worked for him. He had quit and taken all of the papers regarding these houses with him. What Mr. Letts had done was to position the houses on the lots without taking into consideration the boulevard when measuring. Mr. Letts had been the coordinator of the project. He 'stated that they did not know what to do now, since everythTng was already in. He added that there had been soil problems on the site, and original excavations had needed to be drained, dug out, had rock added, etc. He had been told by Mr. Letts that at the time the footings had been poured, they were inspected by City Staff and no one had said anything about the setbacks. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the variance as requested was for 3+ feet in the frontyard and 1'3" in the sideyard. Commissioner Atchley asked what procedures a builder usually followed before putting in a foundation? Mr. Matson stated they usually find the stakes and measure from the boulevard. Mr. Letts had not done this. He had measured fdom the curb. There was no excuse, it had been measured wrong. Commissioner Atchley noted that he had even missed on measuring the sideyard, Mr. Matson, in response to a question, stated that the survey had been correct, the error occurred when Mr. Letts measured. They had not felt they had to check out everything that he did, they were proved to be wrong. Mr. 8ob De Gardner, of De Matts, Inc., commented that the surveyor had laid out the lot correctly, but the coordinator of the project, Mr. Letts, had measured from the curb not from the boulevard. The Buil- ding Inspector had come out at the time the footings were poured and said everything was OK. Then a second inspector came out and tagged the site, putting a hold on the project. The houses had been lined up with the other houses down the street. Mr. Rod Krueger, 8124 46th Avenue North, stated he lived next to the two empty Iots.~ He had lived with the mess all summer and is for the variance if it will clear up the situation. He wants these houses built. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of Case 78-93 - Variance in front setback of 3.2' and sideyard variance of l.l' Commissioner Gun~ershau~ second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards None Cameron, Christensen 7. PLANNING CASE 78-94~- REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 8140 46TH AVENUE NORTH - MICHAE. LEI"TS, PETITIONER Mr. Matson presented an illustration of the house in question, noting that they were way off in the mea- surements. He wondered if it would be possible to turn the garage and have the driveway facing the other way? Commissioner Gustafson noted that the principal concern of the Commission and the City was the driveway and the sight lines to the corner where the stop signs are. He was sympathetic to the problems of Mr. Matson and the amount of money already invested in the site, but because of the location of the lot on the corner, he personally felt hard pressed to allow the home as it is presently proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - ~ - NOVEMBER 6, 1978 Hr. De Gardener questioned whether they could come in from behind the garage, which is 50 feet off the corner. He felt if they came in from Xylon, they could make the house look nice, Commissioner Gustafson confirmed the width of the garage as 22 feet, which they propose to be on Xyion. The City Manager noted that there would be a 20 foot sideyard setback required. There would have to be considerable movement of the foundation to have the project come in under Code. Mr. Matson stated that one of the problems is that because of the poor soil, wher~ the basement was lo- cated, the land was ail compacted. Mr. Krueger noted the house was in line with the other house. He added that he had not understood all of the facts when he commented that he wished both houses to be completed. Stating that he felt the Commission could look at this request all night long and the situation would never get any be~ter, Commission Gustafso~ made a motion recommending denial of Case 78-94 - Variance in Sideyard Setback at"8140 q6th Avenue North. Commissioner Edwards second. ' Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards None Cameron, Christensen 8. PLANNING CASE 78~5 - REQUEST FOR REZONING LI TO MR IN THE 5700 BLOCK ON BOONE AVENUE - ROSEWOOD CORPOR- ATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Howard Rekstad stated they were requesting approval of a rezoning from LI to MR at their property located west of Boone Avenue. He noted that from the very first time that Rosewood Corporation had met with the Planning Commission, their overall development plans had.included housing on the site. They feel that this request is a logical one, because in their opinion, there is a need for additional multipie residences in New Hope; in this area at the present time Boone Avenue is the dividing line be- tween multlpie dwellings to the east and light industry toward #18. This land was zoned at the time of the City's original Comprehensive Plan. It is their opinion that putting apartment buildings to the west will provide good transitional zoning, will provide a variety and fit in better than a large office/warehouse. Second, there is an area next to the ponding area, that will be dedicated to the City as park space. This area is about 700 feet long, lOO feet wide and will be five to six feet ~eep. They will put a path around this area and it will be a nice green area. With transitional zoning and with the dedication of the land for a park, they feel better use will be put to the land than if a large warehouse is built there. They propose a 92 unit apartment complex that will include a tot lot, swimming pool, tennis court, and underground parking. They feel this rezoning and deveqopment will enhance the entire area. Another reason for the change in zoning is the soil condition of the site. Mr. Rekstad stated that when the original industrlai park was laid out, they had been unaware of the degree of the bad soil. The original layout had called for this particular site supporting l O0,O00 square feet of development. It is their opinion that the site would not support anything close to this figure. Soil conditions would not allow a large office/warehouse on the site. They feel their proposal is better use of the property. With the park area, it will also provide the residents of the apartment complex with a beautiful vista. Commissioner Bartos questioned how the poor soil could support a 92 unit apartment complex if it would not support a large office/warehouse. Mr. Rekstad answered that the surface area of the building would not be as large as aA office/warehouse. He said they were taking the word of Twin City Testing as to the number of pounds per square inch, the land would support. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the prime concern of the Commission was the question of the rezoning and whether there had been a change in this particular site to warrant a rezoning. Commissioner Bartos stated that he felt a decision to rezone this property required more study by the Commission, as well as consultation with staff. He noted that there was stilt moratorium on the build- ing of further apartment complexes in the City of New Hope. Mr. Rekstad stated he was aware of the moratorium, but because of the money situation which is going to get tighteG they felt they should be ready to move when the moratorium is lifted. This is why they request the rezonin9 decision now. Then, if and when the moratorium is lifted, they could proceed to come before the Commission with a complete set of plans for the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' $ - ' NOVEMBER 6, 1978 Commissioner Bartos made a motion to table Case 78-95 until the first meetin9 of January, 1979 (2nd) to allow the Lan'd Us~ Committee time to study the impact of a rezonin~ and time to cons61t with staff~ and to allow time to notify a la~er area of citizens re~ardin~ the .~otential rezoninq. Corm~issioner Daly second. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt this was a logical sequence that had to be taken. The matter of the rezoning needed serious thought,as well as an overall assessment of the Science Center and a re- view of the Comprehensive Plan and its recommendations for this area in .relation to a rezoning. He felt it was in the best interests of the City to proceed in this manner, and to take a longer time to review. Mr. Rekstad stated that it had been his understanding that the surrounding property owners had received notices. If there had been any objections they would have attending the meeting. It was noted that in a rezoning, notices were sent to an area of at least 350 feet. Commissioner Bartos commented that he felt the Commission would be derelict in its duty if they did not take a very close look at the what and why of this proposed rezoning. The City Manager asked whether the Commission wished staff to send notices of the proposed rezoning to a larger area than required by statute? The answer was yes. Voting in favor; Bartos, Daty, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Christensen Motion carried. Mr. Rekstad wondered if there was some reason that this case could not be handled in December? Commissioner Gustafson noted that there was only one meeting left in November and there would be only one meeting in December. He did not feel this was sufficient time for proper review, particular with the approaching holiday season. In response to a question from Mr. Reks~ad, the City. Manager stated that notices are sent within 350 feet on a rezoning. The City Manager noted that they would send notices to a much larger area before the next meeting, since the people in that area have an active homeowners group, Commissioner Gustafson stated that there were two things involved in this request. They wish additional time to allow the Land Use Committee and the City staff to review the possible impact of the rezoning on the total City and a review of the rezoning in regard to the Comprehensive Plan. There is also a desire to notify a larger area of the City of the proposed rezoning and apartn~nt development, He felt that 60 days was a reasonable amount of time to table this case. Discussion continued between Mr. Rekstad and Commissioner Gustefson in regard to the proposed plans and the proposals included in the Comprehensive Plan in regard to zoning in the City. The City Manager stated that the Commission had up to six months to consider a rezoning request. PLANNING CASE 78~6 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES AT 7200 BASS LAKE ROAD - MINNESOTA OHIO OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Joe Berglove represented Minnesota-Ohio. He stated that they were requesting a Special Use Permit to allow them to sell convenience items and household items as an accessory use under the new ordinance. He referred to the drawing of the proposed layout for these sales as previously presented to the City. Mr. Berglove then addressed the requirements of the new ordinance. There will be 128 lineal feet of shelf space devoted to automotive sales, and 74 lineal feet for the non automotive sales. In terms of dollar sales, they are estimating that the sale of gasoline and automo- tive items will be about twelve times what the sales of non-automotive items will be. They do not anticipate any increase in the number of customers because of the increased variety of sales items. However, they do have 13 parking spaces on the site. Most of the sales in this type of opera- tion are made to people who come in for gasoline and pick up an item or two when they pay for their gasoline without moving their car from the driveway. There are two employees on duty at a time. It was his opinion that the parking will be adequate. Mr. Berglove noted that they would work with the City Sanitarian in regard to any health requirements he he might have. In regard to the requirement of the Code that the sales areas be specified, he stated they intend to do this, and will make no changes in their plan without consulting City staff. Mr. Berglove noted that they do not anticipate any increase in the public use of the retail sales and do not feel they will increase traffic in the area or create a public nuisance. PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES - 6 ~ NOVEMBER 6, 1978 In answer to question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr, Berglove stated that the aforementioned parking spaces were not marked, but that they would be willing to stripe them if the City desircd. He added that they had previously requested a variance for their sign but it had been denied by the City Council. At the present time they have no plans to change the signage, Discussion then covered the signs on the site, and the fact that the City Inspectors have had a constant task in policing the signs at this station. Hr. Berglove stated that it was his impression that the signs were presently in compliance. Commissioner Gustafson commented that they might be in compliance today, but he wouldn't bet on Wednes- day, since the signs seem to go up and down regularly. He suggested that Mr. Berglove make sure his employees were informed of the restrictions of the City Sign Ordinance. Discussion continued about the number of signs on the site and the way they constantly change. In answer to a question from the City Manager, Mr. Berglove noted that he did not have any figures as to the estimated number of cars that would come in to the station just to purchase non:automotive items. tn his opinion the number of cars would be minor. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Case 78-96, subject to the parkin9 spaces on.the site being striped; that there be at least ten striped spaces; that the petitioner is aware of the conditions of City ordinances ano meets these requirements and subject to annual review by. staff. Commissioner Atchle.y second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Christensen Hotion carried. tO. PLANNING CASE 78-97 - REQUES~ FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 5520 COUNTY ROAD #t8 - CHAMPION AUTO, PETI- TtONER. Mr. James Cooperman, stated he was the architect for the proposed addition. He was accompanied by Mr. Rose, President of Champion Auto. The addition is for an office of approximately ~O0 square feet. It will be positioned to the north of the existing office and to the west of the existing warehouse. It will be one story in height and match the present building. They are proposing a total of 71 parking spaces. There are presently 48 stalls. They feel this is adequate for their needs. There is plenty of room on the site for additional parking should it be needed. Mr. Rose noted that the loading area/dock to the north is not used for trucking purposes and this would be an additional space for parking if necessary. Mr. Cooperman then stated that the total building on the site will be approximately 68,650 square feet. The total area of the site is 478,000 square feet which is about 14.33% building coverage and green area of 84%. There is already a large amount of landscaping on the site, in their opinion, and they do not plan to increase the amount, although some of the present landscaping will me relocated. There is a natural area at the south side of the site, which they plan to leave as is. There is also a ponding area ex- tending east and west on the site. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, it was noted that with the addition, 114 parking spaces are required. They plan to stripe 71 at this time. There is ample space to the north and at the rear of the building for additional parking if needed. They plan no additional signage and the rooftop equipment will be painted to blend in with the warehouse. The construction materials will be the same as on the existing office building. Discussion covered the landscaping and the proposed relocation of some of the shrubs. Mr, Cooperman, restated his feeling that there was a large amount of landscaping on the site. Commissioner responded to this, noting that in his opinion, there was not a large amount. He asked whe/ ther this building would be the headquarters of the firm? Mr. Rose stated it was the headquarters, and that he would commit to adding some shrubbery around the front of the bui'iding. However, he wanted to have this done professionally. The long range plans for the siCe do include add|tiona] landscaping, This should be planted by the end of 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - NOVEMBE~ 6, 1978 Commissioner Gunde~shau9 recommended approval of Case'78-97 - Construction Approval for an Addition at 5520 County Road #18~ subject to the followinq: '1. That although only 71 parkin9 spaces wilt be striped now, there is adequate space for the required 114 and they wilt be added as City Staff determ nas the need. 2. That the rooftop equipment will be painted to coincide with the rooftop equipment on the existing oral'ce a~d blend into the buildin9. 3. That additional landscaping wil) be provided at the front of the building, Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: ~lotion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards None Cameron, Christensen II. PLANNING CASE 78-98 - REQUEST FOR ELIMINATION OF GARAGE SPACE. AT 5964 WINNETKA - ELLSWORTH SWENSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Swenson noted that he was not requesting permission to eliminate a garage but he cannot afford to construct one at this time. He plans to build one in the spring. They purchased the home last fail and were not aware of the high cost of heating the home and that they would have as much trouble as they did with frozen water pipes. This is why he wants to close up the present garage. He has seven children and cannot afford to stay home from work every other day to thaw out water pipes. He plans to attach a garage on the other side of his house. He'has checked out this possibility with staff. Commissioner Gustafson noted that approval to close dff the garage now would be contingent upon Mr. Swenson presenting specific plans for the garage he intends to buiid in the spring, identifying the specific site, the dimensions, etc. He noted that it was his understanding that there were some space problems on this site. Mr. Swanson agreed to these conditions. Discussion followed regarding the size of the lot, the ten foot easement and whether there was room for a double garage on the site. The City Manager aksed whether, if it proved to be necessary, Mr. Swenson would be willin9 to live with a 16 foot garage? MC Swenson answered yes. The cars will be in the driveway for the winter. He intends to put siding on the closed garage opening this winter of a cedar type of material. He added that his brother,who is a builder, had agreed to come up in the spring and construct the garage. Discussion then covered whether Mr. Swanson had any plans to convert the garage space to living space and how much trouble it would be for him to close off t~e garage opening by makin9 it flush to the remainder of the house. Mr. Swanson stated this would be no problem, but he felt the inset cedar siding was decorative. Before he could use the present garage space for living space he would have to insulate the area. This would be done after the garage were finished. He then asked whether it would be possible to have two driveways? The City Manager noted that there was one allowable curb cut per single family dwelling. The City Coun- cil would ru]e on the driveway. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 78-98 until the first meetinq in April, 1979. At this time Mr. Swenson must come forward with specific plans for the garage, the driveway and the clos- ing off of the existin~ garage on a permanent basis. Commissioner Gundershau9 second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Christensen Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE 78-99 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 8008 37TH AVENUE NORTH - RAYMOND KASCHT, PETITIONER. Mr. Kascht stated they had purchased their home four years ago. The house is a split entry and they were crowded for storage space. A year ago they decided to build a garage on the west end of the lot,. They received a permit for a 24' x 24{ garage. Ever since they have been going around and around with the inspectors who say they have too much square footage. This is why they have applied for the vari- ance, so they can keep all the storage space, PLANNING COHMISSION HINUTES - 8 - NOVEMBER 6, Ig78 12. Cor~nissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Kascht that at the time of the original building permit, the agreement was that the garage would not exceed 700 square feet. That when final inspection was made it had been discovered that the original garage had not been closed off and there was a total of 951 square feet of garage space. At that time an agreement was made that he would partition off ~ section of the original garage to reduce the total footage. Mr. Kascht stated he had closed off one side of the door to make it look like a single garage door. How- ever the inspector wouldn't OK this, so he tore it out again. He and the inspectors have not been able to come to any agreement up to this time. He wanted to settle it tonight. Discussion then held between Mr. and Mrs. Kascht and the Commission regarding the dimensions of both the old and new garages; the total garage space now available; the use that will be made of the extra garage/storage space, and whether or not the original garage should be partitioned for storage but eli~ minate its use for car storage, Mr. Kascht stated he was a carpenter and had many tools which he hoped to be able to use again in the future which he stored in the garage space. He saw no sense in partitioning the original garage. He does not plan to operate a business from the space but hopes to be able to continue his trade as soon as his health permits. Mrs. Warren Slavice~, 8009 36th Avenue, stated they lived across the street from the Kascht home, that they had the most direct view of the lot and had no objection to the extra garage space. She added that Mr. Kascht's property was the best kept in the entire neighborhood. In answer to a question from Commissioner Daly, Mr. K~scht stated they planned to park two cars and use the extra space for storage. He anticipates having another car in the future. When his daughter drives they will need a three car garage. Commissioner Gustafson. noting that when the new Ordinance was adopted, Mr. Kascht would need a variance of only 5! feet, made a motion recommending approval of the request for a variance for oversized garage space in Case 78-99 at'8008 37th Avenue North. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Daly, Atchtey, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Christensen Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-83 was taken off the table. The City Manager recommended that this petition be denied, since he did not feel the petitioner was any longer interested in this variance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion denying Case 78-83. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchtey, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards None Cameron, Christensen 13. PLANNING CASE 78-36 was then reconsidered. Mr. Cady stated that when he had appeared before the Commission earlier, he had been unaware that the dimensions of his lot as stated, included not only the boulevard but the sidewalk. Allowance had not been made for the footage lost when Winnetka Avenue was widened. This change in the dimensions of the lot make it impossible for him to construct the house within the setbacks as he originally proposed. He is; therefore, requesting permission to construct the same double bungalow on the lot even though the size of the tot is diminished. The building would be 33.7 feet from Winnetka and would be moved five feet from the west property line. The City Manager noted for the record that at the previous public hearing there had been no one objec- ting to the plans for the double bungalow on this int. It was the concensus of the Commission that this request should be granted. Mr. Cady was to c~tact the City Manager later in the week in regard to whether or not he should appear before the City Council at their meeting on the 13th. COMMITTEE REPORTS 14. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. )5. There was no report from the Land Use Committee, Commissioner Bartos asked for a volunteer from the commission to serve with him on this Committee. Commissioner Oaly volunteered. PLANNING COHMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1978 16. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21, 22, OLD BUSINESS This item, regarding Committee assignments and the future work of the Commission, was tabled until a future meetin9 when Chairman Cameron will .be present, by Acting Chairman Gustafson. NEW BUSINESS The Council Minutes of October 23, 1978 were not available for review. The Commission Minutes of October 17, 1'978 were accepted as printed. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Atchtey moved to recommend the cancellation of the meeting of December igth. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards None Cameron, Christensen Chairman Gustafson said a letter of resignation had been received from Wayne Christensen. Mr. Chris- tensen has been transferred to Omaha, Nebraska effective immediately. Commissioner Bartos asked when he and Commissioner Daly could meet with staff in regard to the proposed rezoning on Boone Avenue? The City Manager stated they should agree on a time and then contact staff to set up a meeting. 23. The meetinq was adiourned' by unanimous..consent at ~:4~ p.m. Respect fu 1 I y__~submi tted, ) Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1978 3o A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 21, 1978 at the New Nope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos (excused), Gustafson COMMITTEE REPORTS There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. It was noted by the City Manager that there would have to be a meeting of this committee next week to review two cases that will appear at the December 5, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. The Manager noted that Commissioner Bartos wished to have a meeting on Friday December 1st, regarding the proposed rezoning on Boone Avenue at 57th. The Chairman questioned whether other Commission members might not want to attend this meeting, adding that he would be interested in attending. The City Manager will notify the members when a time is established for this meeting. 5. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. OLD BUSINESS The Chairman reviewed the questionnaire that had been distributed earlier in the year to the members. Ne noted that the feeling of the Corm~ission was unanimous that staff gave them reasonable guidance with- out dictating or directing and was complimentary for the help received from staff. Council did not fare as well. The Chairman then made Committee assignments. Codes and Standards will retain Commissioner Gustafson as Chairman, with Commissioner Atchley Assistant. He requested that the cases be split between the Chairman and Assistant for presentation, since the bulk of the workload seemed to involve this Committee. He also requested that Commissioner Daly serve on that Committee. The. Land Use Committee will be chaired by Commissioner Bartos with Commissioner Atchley Assisting. He noted that Commissioner Daly should continue with the review of the r~zoning on Boone, if he so chose. Commissioner Gundershauq will be the Chairman of Design and Review and Commissioner Edwards will Assist. The City Manager confirmed that both Commissioner Gundershaug and Commissioner Edwards would be available for a meeting of the Desiqn and Review Committee at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28. 1978. Chairman Cameron asked for ah update of the issues that are still to be considered by the Codes and Stan- dards Committee. The City Manager stated that the question of how many amusement devices should be allowed at one location before it became a commercial recreation center was one issue. Also to be considered was whether a second use should be allowed in service stations, other than retail sales, and a third was the Council request for Committee review to determine whether there should be stricter requirements regarding lot grading for drainage on single family lots. The City Manager noted that as a result of discussion at the recent Council meeting, the Council wishes the Planning Commission to prepare the new zoning map based on implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. There are two basic ways to handle this: The Land Use Committee could look at it first or the Manager could prepare maps designating how he sees the Plan being carried out. Concensus was that the Manager should proceed with preliminary mapping and listing of the controversial areas in regard to the proposed new zoning. The Manager indicated that this would be before the Commission at their January ]6th, meeting. NEW BUSINESS 8. The Commission Minutes of November 6, 1978 were approved as printed. PLANNING COMHISSION MINUTES - 2 - NOVEMBER 21, 1978 10. The Council Minutes of November 13, 1978 were reviewed. The Manager noted that the Council had pretty much carried out the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the planning cases. In regard to the site at 46th/Xylon, Council had denied the request. The petitioner now intends to reappear before the Commission with a proposal for a detached garage, and with the house facing ward Xylon. The majority of the time at the Council meeting had been spent on the Harrington Proposal. Council had ordered an independent traffic study -- bid proposals for the study will be on the agenda of November 27th. Cable TV is again coming to life in this area -- there are a couple of firms interested in bringing it into the area. Discussion was also held regarding the actual intent of the R-3 or mid-density zone, Council has de- cided that this zone should allow only eight units per acre. The Chairman commented on the fact that there was a vacancy on the Commission and that the members should be alert to any possible candidates. 12. The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~oyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1978 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 5, 1978 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Daly, Atchle¥, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gustafson (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 78-100 GARAGE VARIANCE AT 7940 60½ AVENUE NORTH - JERRY AND LOIS PETERSON~ PETITIONERS. Mr. Peterson stated they were requesting two variances, in size and setback, to allow them to construct a 22 x 24 foot addition on to the front of thei~ existing garage. In response to a question from Commissioner Atchley, Mr. Peterson stated they wished these dimensions because they have a storage problem. The house is all living area and they need storage area as well as room for their cars. He said he felt it would be a good deal more expensive to put the addition to the rear of the property. It would require fill, additional foundation and he would lose at least four trees and some shrubbery. The roof line will peak in the front and feed into the existing roof line. Commissioner Atchley asked whether Mr. Peterson had considered extending the addition 12 feet toward the front and the r~emal:nderltoward.the back? Mr. Peterson answered this would also add a lot to the cost, but he guessed it was a possibility. He stated the garage was strictly for storage, he had no home occupation of any kind. Commissioner Atchley commented on the fact that the addition as proposed would be very close to the pro- perty l~ne. The addition as proposed would match the existing house and roof as far as materials used. Mr. Peterson said they had lived in the ho~e for three years and intended to remain for quite a while. Discussion then centered on possible changes in the existing garage, whether or not the existing doors woutd be removed and whether it was feasible for Mr. Peterson to consider constructing an addition only half the size proposed. Chairman Cameron noted that the City had an ordinance controlling the setback from the street and that this variance came closer to the lot line than any he had ever seen. He expressed concern about room for cars to park in front of the garage. Mr. Peterson noted that the average car was almost 20 feet long and he did not think it would be possi- ble to reduce the size of the addition by half. The City Manager stated that Mr. Peterson would have to cut back 16 feet to meet the setback require- ments, but a lesser amount could provide parking area. The required frontyard setback is 30 feet. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Peterson stated he had not as yet discussed his plans with a contractor. He did not intend to begin construction until Spring. The Chairman commented that maybe Mr. Peterson should discuss his plans with a contractor to see if it really would be too expensive to expand the garage toward the back. It was possible he could end up w]th the storage space needed with an alternative plan. He asked Mr. Peterson whether a table of this case would seriously affect Mr. Peterson's plans? A table would allow Mr. Peterson to explore other possibilities. Mr. Peterson stated he did not feel a table would be serious. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that after driving past the house, it was his opinion that a 20 foot addition to the front would destroy the whole good looks of the house. Also there would be no place for cars to park in front of the garage. He agreed with Commissioner Atchley tl~at even cutting the addition front extension in half would not destroy the appearance as much. He felt this was too much of a variance to ask for. Commissioner Bartos agreed that the variance as reque§ted was too much, and agreed with the advisability of a table. He added that this request was not a case of harship. Mrs. Peterson commented that 6ne problem with putting half of the addition to the rear was that they they would have to remove the door. They felt it added security to allow the existing door to remain. It would also be more costly. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - DECEMBER 5, 1978 3. Discussion followe~ regarding the size of regular cars and what types of cars Mr. Peterson owned. He noted that he drove different cars in different seasons, but included were a Chrysler and a Cadillac. Mr. Dan Hemberger, 8000 60½ Avenue North, presented a petition to the Chairman, that had been signed by fifteen neighbors, expressing opposition to the variance as requested. (petition attached to offi- cial minutes). Mr. Doug Prellwitz asked whether there was a not a regulation in the City limiting the size of the total garage space? The Chairman noted that Mr. Peterson was requesting a variance not only in setback but also in garage size. Mr. Hemberger then commented that he lived directly to the west and had had a view for 16 years and this addition would take away his view. He was very much against the variance. Commissioner Atchley made a motion to table 78-100 until the meeting of'January 2, 1978. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 78-102 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AT 5179 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH I BEN FRANKLIN, PETITIONER. Mr. A. G. Link represented Ben Franklin. He distributed photographs of the site where they were request- . lng the variance. He stated that Ben Franklin rented warehouse space at the location. Their trailers are parked there. They have had problems with vandalism in the area. This vandalism, as well as the re- moteness of the area, are the reasons for requesting the variance. Because of the remoteness of the area he did not believe the lack of screening would make the site an eyesore or a nuisance to the neighbors. In answer' to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Link stated they were leasing 80,000 feet of the 96,000 foot warehouse. He stated that two sides of the parking area were landscaped and that one side was the ware- ~ house. Ben Franklin has been working with the police department to try and control the vandalism and ;reak-ins. They had suffered break-ins during the first week of October amounting to S2000. The police nave suggested also that they increase the lighting in the area. It was Ben Franklins opinion that add- ing screening would simply increase the chance of additional vandalism. Responding to questions from Commissioner Atchley, Mr. Link stated that four or five parked trailers were normal, but there could be a maximum of eight or ten at the peak of the season. He was willing to commit [hat there would be no more than ten trailers at any one time parked away from the docks. The balance of the [railers would be at the docks. There are lO-12 employees in this building. Most of them park right up to the building. He saw no immediate need for additional employee parking in the future. In regard to Ben Franklin's long range plans, Mr. Link stated they had a lease through 1979 with two, one year options to renew. They plan [o operate pretty much as they do now. They will employ 15 people at the most. He stated that the loaded trailers are parked up to the docks. No trailers are left run- ning and they are dry trucks, with no refrigeration units. As a rule they operate from 4 a.m. until 10 p.m. Chairman Cameron asked about noise in the area and whether it was only from the trucks or whether there was also equipment on the building creating noise problems? Mr. Link answered that there was no equipment in the building and no equipment running except for the heater motors in the building. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that the City has received a consider- able number of complaints about noise at this facility. There had also been complaints about blowers or equipment on the building being noisy. Mr. Link stated again that there were no blowers or equipment on the building, but commented that there was another building they were not leasing and he did not know what their operations were. The Chairman commented that the nearest residence was quite a distance away from this lot. Discussion then covered the Ordinance and its time restrictions on truck movement. The City Manager stated that the Ordinance restricted loading and unloading before 7 a.m. Also reviewed was the parking lot and whether it was strong enough for trucks to sit on. It apparently has broken up but has been repaired by the owners of the property, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1978 The City Manager noted that there was no City standard controlling the thickness of the parking lot base. It is the owner's responsibility to maintain the tot. Discussion then covered whether the ordinance interpretation required additional screening and the type that would be necessary and the reasons for granting a varaince. It was the Commission's opinion that a variance would be required but that in view of the circumstances, a variance could be approved. They further felt that the existing screening was adequate. In response to a question from the Chairman as to whether Rauenhorst had been made aware of the request for a variance from the screening requirement on their property, the City Manager noted that they had received a notice of the public hearing and had not contaced the City. He added that the homeowners who had previously complained about noise from this operation had also received a notice, but were not in attendance. Commissioner Atchley made a motion to recommend app.roval of Case 78-IO2 - request for a variance from the screening requirement at 5179 Winnetka Avenue subiect to: 1. The number of trailers parked away from the dock to be limited to a maximum of ten. 2. A review of the parking situation to be made by staff within a two year period. 3. The variance being limited to the occupancy of Ben Franklin. Commissioner Bartos second. Mr. Link commented on the fact that there was another 16,0OO feet in the building that Ben Franklin did not lease. He questioned whether that potential occupancy would affect Ben Franklin's operation? It was noted that this variance applied only to Ben Franklin and a future tenant would have to apply for his own variance if he so desired. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards None Gustafson 5. PLANNING CASE 78-103 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES IN SETBACKS AT 4600 XYLON AVENUE - DE MATTS, INC. PETITIONER. Mr. Alan Matson represented the petitioner. He noted that they had been before the Commission previously because of an error in placement of the two foundations at 46th/Xylon. This error occurred when an em- ployee measured from the street, instead of the lot line, in staking out the foundations. They were're- questing the variances to allow them to use the existing_ foundation at 46th/Xylon. The garage portion of the foundation has been removed and the proposed house will now front on Xylon. They are requesting a frontyard variance of from 2.5' to 2.8~ and a sideyard variance to 14.3' and 19.3~on 46th. The house will line up with the other homes on 46th. In answer to a question from Commissioner Atchley regarding removing a portion of the basement and extend- ing it the other direction, Mr. Matson stated that the wall would have to be broken up and removed. The proposed home is a fleetwood home and is built in Fairmont~Minnesota to the specifications of this foun- dation. He did not know what they would have to do to compensate if the foundation were to be changed. Mr. Rod Krueger, 8124 46th Avenue North, asked for clarification of the amount of the setbacks as requested. He added that because of the history of the site he, and he felt his neighbors also, would be in favor of granting the variances so the house could be constructed and the area cleaned up. The Chairman noted that he could speak only for h.imself, but obviously if the neighbors had been con- cerned, they would have attended the meeting also. Commissioner Atchley made a motion to approve the setback variances at 4600 Xylon Avenue as requested in Case 78-103. Commissioner Gunder~'haug second. - Voting in favor: Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. Commissioner Atchley commented that although he had made the motion to approve the variances, he was not sure it was justifiable except for the circumstances involved. The Chairman noted that he did not feel anyone was happy with the variances, but he did feel this was probably the best that could be done in this situation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4 - DECEMBER 5, 1978 PLANNING CASE 78-I~4 - REQUEST FOR PARKING AND GREEN SPACE VARIANCES WITH CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 5600 COUNTY ROAD #18 - LIBERTY/SHAMROCK, PETITIONERS. Mr. David Lenzen represented Liberty/Shamrock, He stated they were in the process of purchasing the Minnesota Fabrics building. They would like to construct a 15 x 120 foot addition on to the east side of the building. They need the variance from the green area requirement of 1% and a variance in parking. They will have 256 spaces available but the Code requires 297. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with Mr. Matson that the addition to the east side of the building w'll match both the existing facla brick and the block on the west and that she east side will be re- painted. In answer to questions, Mr. Lenzen stated that initially they would have llO employees, and anticipated a maximum of 179 employees. He added that he was aware that according to Code, there was no room for future expansion on the site. They plan additional lighting on the building, shining down on the park- ing area. The parking lot will be re-striped. -He stated that the petitioners were aware of the Sign Ordinance and any signage would meet the ordinance. Refuse containers will be inside the building. Discussion then covered the landscaping and the weeds on the property. Mr. Lenzen stated it was his understanding that there was grass under the weeds. They would reseed or sod if necessary. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that in the new landscape plan, the landscaping from the front of the s'te had been removed and added to the back. This disturbed him. He felt that if the green area was to be less than Code requirements, more shrubs and plants should be added. He felt the span on the east side of the bulding was very long and needed to be broken up with some plantings. Mr. Lenzen stated they would replace the trees ir the front and add more trees in the green area. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos regarding the possibility of install'ng picnic tables, etc. in the green area for the benefit of the employees, Mr. Lenzen stated that they had done this in their other facility and would most likely do so here also. He stated that the docks on the south side will be remove0, although some of the doors might be left. However, it will be painted to blend in with the remainder of the building. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to approve the construction of an addition with a variance in green space at 5600 County. Road ~18 in Case 78-104, subject co the following: 1. The addition exterior will match the existing building. 2. The east side will be painted. 3. Additional landscaping will be provided on the east side of the building over and above what was submitted on the landscape plan of t2/5/78 and that the landscaping shown for the west side of the building witl remain as on the original plan. 4. That the green area De either sodded or seeded to the east side of the building. 5. That the parking tot ~e striped. C~qmissioner Bartos second. It was noted that the landscaping plan should be upgraded before the Council meeting of December It, 1978. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards None Gustafson 7. PLANNING CASE 78~105-REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 4300 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - WARE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Stan Beckman from Ackerso~ Construction Company represented Ware Manufacturing. He stated that since the Design and Review meeting they had included 137 parking spaces on the plan and were submitting a landscaping plan. This was distributed to the Commissioners for review. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug he stated they were no longer going to include docks. They are requesting approval for an 18,OO0 square foot addition. It will look the same as the existing building, there will be no rooftop e0uipment, and the refuse containers will be on the east side but will not be visible from the street. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Dave Falk stated that they anticipate a maxi- mum of 20 additional employees on three shifts. There will be no additional signing and there will be landscaping added by the addition, even though it is not required. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that the petitioner check with the City Manager as to the requirements of the City regarding tree and shrub type and size. PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 ' DECEMBER 5, 1978 Commissioner Gundershau9 made a motion to approve Case 78-105 - request for construction approval at 4300 Quebec Avenue North. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards None Gustafson 8. PLANNING CASE 78-106 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AT 30TH/FLAG AVENUE - RUSSELL A. FIERST, PETITIONER. Mr. Fierst stated that he had purchased three lots from Fleetwood Estates. He was requesting permission to replat them, to allow the double bungalows to be sold ind'ivdually. This would make financing easier to obtain. He felt that single family owners were preferable to the owner/tenant situation. He noted that he was changing the "D" plan as originally approved in th~ PUD. It was ~is opinion that the new plan was better because of the attached garage, rather than an "L". He felt it made the dwell- ing look more like a single family house. The building exteriors will be the same but there will be two legal descriptions. There will be 900 square feet on each side, plus room to finish in the lower level. If the lower level were finished for living space one side would have 1782 square feet and the other 1680 square feet. In answer to questions from Commissioner Atchley, Mr. Fierst stated that the common wails on his houses had two, two by four walls, with sbeet rock on both sides and approximately 3 1/2 inches of insulation between. The City Manager noted that this was an amendment to the original PUD, but that there was no legal require~ ment to send notices. It was the Commission's decision as to whether they wished to act on the amendment at the present time, or table this portion of the request and send out notices, tn his opinion, there would not be any objections from the neighbors. Discussion then centered on the bonding for the development. The City Manager stated that the original developer was bonded for three things, water and sewer, street improvements, and boulevard improvements, including curbs, trees and driveways. Either the original developer can give the City a letter saying this agreement will still hold or else it will be up to Mr. Fierst to provide such a bond. The Commission does not have to act on this but approval should be subject to the bonding being arranged. It was the concensus of the Commission that the proposed plan to substitute for the original unit "D" was preferable and that there was no need to table this portion of the request or to send notices out. The City Manager noted that even with the different lot arrangement on the corner lot, both new lots would exceed 7000 square feet. Commissioner Bartos motioned to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat in Case 78-106 with the stipu- lation that Mr. Fierst is aware of the bonding responsibility. Approval was also recommended for the amended PUD as submitted on 12/5/78. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards None Gustafson 9. PLANNING CASE 78-107 - REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE AT 7709 WINPARK DRIVE - VICTOR KOCHAVER, PETITIONER. Mr. Richard Borner represented Taber-Bushnell. He stated they were requesting a variance in two areas. One is to change the employee parking to the south side of the building. The or.iginal agreement called for 80 parking spaces. They feel that the number of employees (84 on two shifts) do not require more parking space than they already have. There is room for about 22 vehicles on the top of the hill (nor- mally there are about four cars parked there). The latest addition constructed has about three pieces of equipment in it, and there are four employees at most in the addition. They are asking that the parking spaces be reduced to 68. They have experienced no problems with they have reached the maximum level as no more than 30 people. parking during the two years they have been there. They feel far as the day shift is concerned. The night shift usually has Commissioner Atchley questioned whether the two shifts could not create a larger demand for parking with the overlap of shifts? Mr. Borner stated this had been taken into consideration as far as the available spots, but with the roadway between the building which they can utilize and still maintain as a through-way it is not a problem. As far as the rear parking is concerned they have asked for an additional four feet on the front to facilitate employee parking and customers. This would give them 14 spaces including the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 I DECEMBER 5, 1978 9. the handicapped spaces. Commissioner Atchley asked how closely the parking facilities conformed to the requirements of the approval of the addition? Mr. Borner said he was not familiar with these requirements. The City Manager noted that the front parking lot was strictly for visitors, that there was to be no em- ployee parking in the front of the building. The lot in the back was supposed to be widened. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Borner and the existing parking; the north lot where the parking is angled -- this was the lot they wished the extra four feet in. Commissioner Atchley confirmed that there were nine spaces on the side and seven on the front lots. The City Manager questioned the lot on the south side, stating that this was where there were supposed to be 80 spaces. Mr. Borner stated that his was where they wished the variances because it was impossible to get that many cars there. The Chairman stated that he felt there was confusion about what the requirements were, and what the stip- ulations had been at the time of the previous approval. He suggested that the case be tabled until Mr. Borner could appear before the Commission with a good set of plans so that the Commission could readily see what they were talking about. Commissioner Bartos tabled Case 78-107 unti January 2, 1979. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards None Gustafson Commissioner Gundershaug commented on the fact that employee parking is prohibited by Code in front of buildings. 10. PLANNING CASE 75-108 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AT 4120 NEVADA AVENUE - ALDON HORNER, PETITIONER. Mr. John Manning stated he was Mr. Horner's attorney. He said that Mr. Horner had purchased Sully's Care now A ano K Cafe, from John Silliman and his wife in February 1974. In going through the title work at that time cney had suspecceo that there might be an encroachment at the rea- of the cafe into Wendy Jane Terrace. A survey had been prepared by Cherrier and Winter and Associates in 1974 that confirmed this. Mr. Horner entered into a lease, with an option to purchase the property that the building encroached on (site of the apartment complex)with Dr. Herman. Mr. morner subsequently sold the business to Ken Ashmore. At the present time Mr. Horner is negotiating a sale of the real estate also. Mr. Manning stated that he had discussed this problem with the City Attonrey and he had stated that what was needed was a Waiver of Platting. He said he was satisfied that the legal description was prepared by a competent surveyor. He felt it met with the tenure of the Ordinance to correct an existing problem. Mr. Horner, in Mr. Manning's opinion, was caught between a "rock and a nard place" because he had leased the building to Mr. Ashmore who is not amenable to removing the encroachment. Mr. Horner is under a time element to exercise his option with Dr. Haerman to purchase the propert and correct the encroach- ment. Other alternatives have been ruled out by Mr. Ashmore and his attorney, namely a 99 year lease or other similar legal maneuvers. Ne wanes title to the property. Mr. Manning stated it was his personal opinion that this was a legitimate situation in which to ask for a Waiver of Platting. He was under the 'mpression that Mr. Corrick agreed, but he was not attempting to speak for Mr. Corrick. Ne stated he had run this through the Torrens Department at Hennepin County and they seemed to feel it would present no problem. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission operated under a decision made by the City Council, to accept no Waviers of Platting applications. He questioned how difficult it would be to plat this property? Mr. Manning stated it would be practically impossible. In his opinion, it would be unjust not to waive the platting since it was an existing encroachment, and had been for many years. He felt it would cost 300 to 500 dollars to prepare a plat and take an additional one to three months. They are in the process of concluding a sale to Mr. Ashmore. Mr. Horner must exercise his option with Dr. Herman and make payment by the end of the month. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - DECEMBER i5, 1978 10. Mr. Manning said he had explored alternatives with Mr. Ashmore's attorney who was not agreeable to any other solution. The City Manager asked Mr. Manning whether he fel~ he could end up with an owner in terms of title and clearance for a plat? Mr. Manning stated he felt this would be extremely difficult. Right now he was trying to coordinate six people in trying to get a release from Dr. Herman from this plat. He felt the mortgage companies would be more willing to have a waiver, on the assumption that it would not damage their security. He did not think he could ever get a plat. Chairman Cameron stated he fel the Commission hated to violate a precedent but that this was a pretty good and viable case to approve a Waiver of Platting. He felt this would be the easiest way to handle it. The City Manager noted that another concern for the City was that by granting a Waiver, the City was passing a resolution that allowed two legal descriptions. In a plat, Mr. Corrick had to do a Title Opinion, and this could run up to several hundred dollars. Commissioner Bartos made a motion to recommend approval of the Waiver of Plattinq as .requested in Case 78-108. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug,_ Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS ll. The Design and Revi~ Committee had met on November 28, 1978. 12. The Land Use Committee will meet on the 15th December at 4:00 o'clock to discuss the proposed rezoning on Boone Avenue with staff. The City Manager noted that the soil borings had been received on this property from Rosewood Corporation. NEW BUSINESS 14. The Council Minutes were not ready for review. 15. The Cm~mission minutes of the 21st November,were accepted as printed, with the Chairman's comment that his review of the questionnaire and subsequent comments were made with a smile.. 16. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p, m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Jo¥ce Boeddeker, Secretary