Loading...
1980 Planning~ $LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / ' JANUARY 8, 1980 The City Manager administered the Oath of Office to the new Commissioner, Mrs. Therese Wheelock. 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Con~ission was held on Tuesday, January 8, 1980 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN; Present: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gustafson (arrived at 8:05 p.m.). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80 - O1 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES AT 7709 WINPARK DRIVE - VICTOR KOCHAVER, PETITIONER The City M~.uager stated that the petitioner had requested that this case be tabled until the meeting of February 5, 1980. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to table Case 80-01 until the meeting of February 5, 1980. C~- missioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against~ None Absent: Gus tafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 80 - 02 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 31ST/LOUTSIANA - ACKERSON BUILDING COR - PORATION~ PETITIONER. Mr. Stan Beckstrom represented Ackerson. He stated they were submitting two sets of plans for two buildings. This building will be constructed on the ~orthern-mostlot for National Beauty Company. He added that during their appearance before the Design and Review Coa~ittee, it had been suggested that they make changes in the landscaping and parking. The9 had done this and he hoped the plans would now meet with the approval of the Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the building would be an office/warehouse with one half of the warehouse, and one fourth of the office space to be rented to a separate tenant. The construction will be of a pre-cast type, rooftop equipment will be screened with wood, there will be solar activated security lights .(eight) on the building and there are no eutside refuse containers planned ae this time. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that the petitioner should be aware that if refuse containers were at any time placed outside the building, they must be screened. Mr. Beckstrom stated there.were no signs planned at the present time, but he was aware of the City Sign Ordinance and its restrictions and future signs would meet City Code. Commissioner Gundershau. g confirmed that the two front parking spaces had been eliminated and that 74 spaces were to be provided. This figure includes the six spaces at the rear identified as proposed park- ing, if they are needed. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that discussion at Design and Review had also concerned the possibility of future problems with parking, depending upon who the tenant of the building was. Mr. Beckstrom stated that the owner had been made aware, of this, and the fact that an occupancg permit for a future tenant might be a problem if there was not sufficient parking space provided. Commissioner Gundershaug then confirmed that additional landscaping had been provided, that the green area would be sodded, that there will be concrete curbing around the parking lots and that the lots would be striped. There will be a drive marked "one-way" and truck docks at the rear. In answer to a question regarding the hours of operation for National Beauty, Mr. Mike Hekstrom stated the hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., five days a week. Discussion then centered on the amount of truck traffic there would be on the site. There will be be- tween 15-20 semi-trucks a week, but none of them would remain overnight. Mrs. Kranz, 3043 Louisiana Avenue North, expressed concern about the exterior treatment of the building.. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JANUARY 8, 1980 4. Mr. Beckstrom showed Mrs. Kranz an illustration of the proposed building, noting that the construction would be pre-cast, double T~s on all four sides. Commissioner Bartos commented that the landscaping as now proposed looked 100% better than previously planned. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion reco~ending approval of construction in Case 80 - 02 at 30th/ Louisiana. Commissioner Edwards seco. nd. Voting in favor~ Wheel ock, Gulench~n, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried° 5. PLANNING CASE 80 - 03 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 31ST~LOUISIANA AVENUE - ACKERSON BUILDING CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Beckstrom stated that this building will be built under the same conditions as the building in Case 80-02. Commissioner Gundersbaug confirmed that the building would be a mirror image of the first building, that the primary tenant would be a machine shop and that the other half of the building would be rented. The rooftop equipment, if ang, will be screened, the refuse containers will be inside and there will 'be eight exterior lights on the building. Commissioner Gundershaug again noted that all signs must conform to the City Sign Ordinance. The petitioner indicated that the owner would be informed of this. Next item d£scussed was the parking spaces to be provided (61,.with 49 required) and the fact that de- pending upon the second tenant of the building and the type of business, there might be a problem with obtaining an occupancg permit if sufficient parking space was not available. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the green area would be 35% and sodded, that the parkin9 lot was to be blacktopped and striped and that there would be four docks at the rear (four feet high) and. that there would be a one-way drive. It was noted that the trees on the north lot line were common trees with the adjacent lot. In answer to a question from C~mmissioner Gundershaug, Mro Beckstrcm noted that the green area would be 35.3%, not counting the area marked "proposed parking" on the plan. The Chairmen questioned how close the nearest residence would be to the proposed building? The City Manager stated that there was a required 75 foot setback from Louisiana and that the street was at least 60 feet wide. The Chairman expressed concern about a machine shop and the noise involved for the residents across the street. He questioned the hours of operation? Mr. Beckstrom stated ~at the machine shop was not a _~unch press operation. Mr. Gossner(the owner of the building) stated that they ran two eight hour shifts, between 7:00 a.m. and midnight. He added that the shop would be air conditioned and there should not be additional noise in warm weather becuase of open doors, etc. The office area will be in front and the shop will be at the rear of the building as it faces Louisiana. The noise w~ill be of a steady sound type, not loud. In answer to questions, he stated that the trash would be contained inside the structure and that there would be three to four sem/ trucks per day ar the very most. He added that the trucks would unload from the side with the use of an overhead hoist. Usually the trucks were of an open type. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern about the truck traffic and the possibility of a parked truck causing problems for other vehicles attempting to leave the site. Mr. Beckstrom noted that 100 feet was provided end that a semi could not exceed 60 feet in length. Commissioner Edwards stated he felt it would be tight quarters for the trucks to get in and out of the site. Considerable discussion then followed between the petitioner and Conm~issioners Edwards and Gundershaug in regard to this problem. ~ ~LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ./ - 3 - JANUARY 8, 1980 5. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that 31st Avenue was scheduled for surfacing in the spring. The Chairman noted that a second driveway to the site opening off 31st Avenue might solve any problems wi th truck maneuvering. Commissioner Gundershauq made a motion recommending approval of the construction in Case 80-03 at 31st~Louisiana. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. The City Manager, in response to questions, noted that night noise was now controlled by State regula- tions. This would apply to truck traffic. Mr. Gossner stated that the shipping and receiving department would close at 5:30 p.m., not at the end of' the second shift. During discussion in regard to notices sent to residents of the area, the City Manager stated that-the City of New Hope sent notices to the City of Crystal, but that it was Crystal's responsibility to noti- fy the concerned property owners if they wished, since there is no legal requirement to send any notices ~n this type of case. 6. PLANNING CASE 80 - 04 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCE AT 8711 BASS LAKE ROAD - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER. The. petitioner was not in attendance. The City Manager noted that the ~etitioner had not submitted all of the materials requested and the case should probably be tabled. Commissioner Gundershaug tabled Case 80-04 until the end o'f the meeti..n~. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 80 - 05 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AT 2849 LOUISIANA AVENUE - JOHN KLICK, PETITIONER. Mr. John Klic~, President of the Architect Group, represented Auto Sound. He was accompanied by Mr. Arnie Resnick, President of Auto Sound. Mr. Klick stated that Auto Sound wished to expand because they need more space for storage and warehous- ing of incoming goods. The business deals in smal~ radio parts. There will be no additional employees. There are presently 37 parking spaces on the existing blacktop. According to current requirements, the Ordinance requires 49. They also requested a sideyard setback variance on the north property line. The existing setback is 15 feet which would be in violation of the Ordinance. The second floor as proposed would have a five'foot overhang and would be within ten feet of the propert~ line. The existing south setback is '35 1/2 feet. The area on the proposed second floor will contain no 'warehousing but only executive office space. The proposed overhang is on the north and south elevations. Due to the soil conditions on the site, they plan to provide a separate structuring system to support the second floor. The exterior of the front would be changed at the entrance way. They will use a different material for the facia and the second floor will be recessed to make the front of the building more attractive. There will be a logo somewhere on the front of the building and the existing block will~ be covered either with stucco or plastered. They also need a variance in green area. Presently there is 20.2% green on the site. This existing green would not be changed. The present frontyard setback is 45 feet, the Code requires 50 feet. The trees on the north property line and the existing plants will remain. Four Colorado blue spruce will be added to help screen the visitors parking area from the residents across the street. Commissioner Daly confirmed that the petitioners were requesting variances in front setback, parking and side setbacks. He noted that the existing driveway is only. 12 feet wide in some areas and 20 feet wide in others. Code requires 24 feet in width. In his opinion, the docks also seemed to be a problem. He questioned whether the docks had been used at the same time that the parking spaces were in use? Co~missioner Daly further commented that perhaps the building/business had outgrown the site, noting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JANUARY 8, 1980 ' 7. that the provided green area as only 20~. They would need a parking variance of ten spaces as well as ~-~ the setback variances. He felt the proposal was burdening this piece of land. He stated that ~ersonally he could not vote for these variances. Mr. Klick noted that the setbacks are as existing and the only change is the variance in parking spaces and the variance on the north setback. Discussion followed, with comments made that any additional employees would add additional problems be- cause of lack of parking space. It was the opinion of some of the Co~ssio~ers that the petitioner had outgrown the site. Mr. Resnick, the owner, stated that they had not experienced any parking problems on the site as such, but that the nature of the business had changed. It has now become a distributing company, handling a lot more goods for storing and shippin'g. They will be handling a lot more goods in the future, includ- ing parts to be repaired. They need the additional room for storage as well as handling of the merchan- dise. He likes the location and New Hope and hoped to be able to s.tay. The Chairman expressed concerns that the building would be in place for a long time and that the Commis- sion had to be concerned about a future owner and their needs, should Auto Sound leave. The City had to look out for the next 40 years. The Ordinance was written based on amount of space, not the numbe~ of employees. In response to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Resnick noted that cars are brought to the rear of the building for repair and servicing. A major portion of the business involves the repair of equipment. He stated that there were sometimes cars waiting on the property for interim periods for service. The Chairman asked whether the proposed addition was not a terribly expensive proposal? Mr. Klick stated it was expensive but that the owner wished to stay a~ the location in New Hope. In answer to a question from Commisskon~r Gundershaug, Mr. Re,nick stated that there was no land available adjacent to his site for purchase at this time. On the grounds that the petitioner was requesting too many variances - five at least - Commissioner Dal~ made a motion recommending ~enial of Case 8u - 05. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly~ Bartos~ Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against~ None Motion carried. 6. Commissioner 'Gundershaug mmde a motion removinq-.'Case 80-04 from the table. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Dal~, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Commissioner Edwards made a motion tabling Case 80-04 until the meeting of Februar~ 5, 1980. Commis- sione~ Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. Commissioner Gundershaug reported that the Design and Review Committee had met on December 28, 1979. 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. i0. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. OLD BUSINESS 11. Brief discussion was held on the amendments to the sewer plan as provided to the Commission by the City Manager for review. Commissioner Dalw made a motion recommending acceptance of the amendments as printed. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JANUARY 8, 1980 12. Chairman Cameron reported that he had referred the solar energ~ project to Mr. Fredrickson at Cooper High School. The project has been assigned to two senior students. He noted that there had also been an article in the Star in regard to this. He anticipated that the project would be moving along now that school had resumed. NEW BUSINESS 13. The City Manager reviewed the December meeting minutes of the Council and the HRA for the Commission. He noted that the HRA had given concept approval for the proposed project at 36th/#18, and had agreed to use tax increment financing for this project. If it proceeds, it will involve a Code amemdment.. limiting the multiple portion to elderly housing. The project is not get firm, as the developers are still dealing with the owners. The Chairman asked what the discussion on sewer problems, I and I, was? The City Manager explained the MWCC activity and how this affected New Hope. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos, the Manager noted that the replacement of water meters in the City was proceedin9 on the basis of the oldest meters being replaced first, with the ex- ception of homes that are sold, where the meters are replaced on sale. 14. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 4th, were approved as printed. 15. Commissioner Gundershauq made a motion recommending that Chairman Cameron 'continue in that position in 1980. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending that Commissioner Gustafson continue as Vice Chairman in 1980. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchgn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 16. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the Chairman noted that he would b e making new committee assignments shortly. 18. The meeting was ~d)ourned at 8:37 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1980 1. A regular meeting of the-New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 5, 1980 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Robert Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN Present: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: None PUBLIC H~ARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-1 (CONTINUED FROM 1-8-80) REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7709 WINPARK DRIVE - VICTOR KOCHAVER~ PETITIONER Mr. Loren Brueggeman of Benson Orth represented the petitioner. He stated they were seeking approval for an addition to their warehouse. Taber-Bushnei1 is a machine type outfit employing about 80 people. The addition ~s necessary to allow them to .warehouse inventory. There is ~mple space for them to expand on the site and the plan conforms to all regulations. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the addition will match the existing building. It will be of break off block, completly around the building, and will be unpainted ~o mat~ the existing building. The building will be sprinklered and there will be mercury vapor wall packs on the exterior to provide down lighting. The landscaping has been increased and there will be no rooftop equipment. Mr. Brueggeman added that the addition will be heated by unit type heaters within the facility, and there will be no equipment other than vents. There is an existing storage area that will remain and they plan no additional exterior storage. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the petitioner should be aware that any additional exterior stor- age would need to be screened. There will be continuous curbing around the parking lot and the lot will be striped. There are no variances requested. They will provide 104 parking spaces (101 required), the-front parking wil~ be designated "visitor" parking, the drive will be left on the west side of the buildi~g~-additiohal truck' maneuvering space has been provided,a green strip added to protect the vehicle parking from the truck traffic and they will sod around the building. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of construction at 7709 Winpark Drive as requested in Case 80-01. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Culenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-04 - (CONTINUED FROM 1-8-80) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN WITH V~RIANCES AT 8711 BASS LAKE ROAD - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER Mr. Howard Rekstad represented Rosewood Corporation. He stated they were seeking approval for a sign plan but were not really asking for a variance. He stated he had met with staff. He distributed copies of the proposed plan to the Commissioners. Mr. Rekstad stated ~hat the sign plan had three different areas: 1) is the tenant identification signs - they will be flat-sawed aluminum, with lexon letters and silver trim. These signs conform to Code. 2) The tenant interior identification is a small flat sign placed inside the entrance on the north side. 3) The third area covers the building ground sign, which at this point had not been finalized as far as the design. He stated he had been assured that as long as this sign conformed to Code, there would be no problem, rt will be located on Bass Lake Road and will conform to all ground sign requirements. Using an illustration showing the elevation of the site, Mr. Rekstad stated that there would be three 14 foot long signs on the north side of the building, a sign of the same size on the east side of the building, and one sign a little different in configuration over the entrance to the business on the east side. These signs conform to the Sign Cede. Mr. Rekstad stated that, according to the Code ~ Section 3.18~, Subdivision 4, (b) -- a side or wall sign would be allowed if you were using a side for an entrance. It would then fall under the restric- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 4. tions for the primary side, which is the north, Because all of the employee parking is on the south side of the building and only 12 spaces on the north side, they actually have two entrances to busi- nesses on the Boone Avenue side. He added that the entire building, except for one small bag, had been leased out. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the two signs on the east side of the building related to specific businesses that entered and exited only on that side of the building. They did not, in that one busi- ness also had a north entrance. Mr. Rekstad stated that there was also a service door, that was the entrance to the warehouse location for the one business. This business will have two signs and two primary entrances. Commissioner Gustafson referred to the Ordinance and noted that his interpretatioa was that there could be only one main entrance per business, so one sign would be appropriate in referring to the request for a variance. The City Manager stated that this was the way the City had been interpreting the Ordinance. In any case the side could have a sign up to nine square feet in size. Commissioner Gustafson asked which entrance was the main one? The Chairman noted that this was for the petitioner to decide. ~ Mr. Rekstad stated that the one sign is for the entrance on the west side of the building. Discussion followed regarding the tenants, the entrances and the two signs. The Chairman confirmed that the acoustic tile company would have two signs and questioned whether this was not in violation of the Ordinance? Commissioner Gustafson stated it was, in regard to the size of that particular sign -- this is where the nine square feet came ino In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Rekstad stated the two acoustic tile companies were not the same but were subsidiaries, and the space was separated by a wall. They were mutually exclusive, one is the supplier for the other. The sign on the side (east) wall is 5' x 10' It was Mr. Rekstad's interpretation of the Code that the sign could not exceed 125 square feet° Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether the sign to the east, in the corner, was not a secondary slgn but was a business all to. itself? Mr. Rekstad said the sign on the front and this sign were for the same business. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there were two entrances and two signs for the one business. He noted that Code stated you could have one sign at full coverage at the principal entrance and a secon- dary sign which was required to be only nine square feet. He then clarified that the pylon sign to the north would adhere to the Ordinance and be an identification sign for the building. Mr. Rekstad stated he believed the Ordinance does allow tenant identification on such a sign for a multiple occupancy building of not more than four tenants. He stated the sign was more of a ground sign than a pylon sign. Commissioner Gustafson noted he felt the east side sign was a variance. He asked Mr. Rekstad to speak to this variance and its need. Mr. Rekstad said they would request the variance~ if a variance was needed, because of the nature of the corner. It is a corner with heavy traffic and th~ nature of the business would appeal to people traveling both east and west and north and south to let them know this particular business was located on the corner, and that they can come to that entrance and get into the business. Commissioner Gustafson commented that they could come to the entrance and get in with only nine square feet of sign. He asked what they intended to put on the pylon sign? Mrl Rekstad stated the owner had not decided this, but he would think that the sign would be located by the entrance -- he did not see it as a pylon sign but as a ground sign -- employees and guests might be coming in this entrance and people traveling north and south would want to know that the business was there. The Chairman stated, he felt the Commission should split the issue in their recommendation to Council. / PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 4. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending a$proval of the sign ,olan as submitted by Rosewood Corporation for 8701-11 Bass Lake Road, in Case 80-04, with the exclusion of the side wall sign on the northeast corner of the buildinq. Commissioner Gundershaug second. The City Manager clarified that 'only the particular wall sign was excluded but that a sign conforming to Code would be acceptable. Voting'in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. In relation to the variance requested in Case 80-04 for an oversized sign as included in the Sign Plan as submitted by Rosewood for the northeast corner, Commission Gustafson made a motion recommendinq denial of the variance. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 80-07 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES AT 7801-7841 62ND AVENUE NORTH - JOE KORY, PETITIONER ~ Mr. Kory stated he was requesting approval of his overall sign plan, with a variance for 7801 62nd. This address has been split into two tenants with a vestibule entrance. He was requesting a vari- ance for both 7801 and 7811, which access from a common door. The signs will be 18" x 6', two per tenant. There are four tenants in the shopping center. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that all of the signs would be 18" by 6~ and all of the same material and construction type. He also confirmed that the sign for 7821 would be the same type of sign.-- 7801 and 7811 have their entrances off a common vestibule. Mr. Kory stated this was the only entrance in the center constructed'in this manner. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, he stated that the building was completely occupied and that Southland Corporation occupied two spaces. There is space for a future sign, but Southland had indi- cated they were not interested in additional signing at this time. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the ground sign? Mr. Kory stated the open area on the current ground sign will be used for Lords and Ladies - a current tenant. The sign will be similar to the laundromat sign and will conform to the Ordinance. In answer to a question from the City Manager, Mr. Kory stated that according to the inspector, the laundromat ground sign did conform to Code in regard to the size of the letters. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Sign Plan as requested,in Case 80-07, for 780i~7841 62nd Avenue North. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 80-08 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 8620 42ND AVENUE NORTH - YOUTH INVESTMENT FOUNDATION, PETITIONER Mr. Fred Peterson represented the Petitioner. He stated he was the area director for the Crystal-New Hope area. They work with young people in the area in conjunction with the schools and the police on a referral basis. They also operate a camp - Timber Bay. They have been working at the site, approxi- mately one evening a week under a small group format -- 8-10 kids-- and have had an office at the site. The church, who is the present owner of the building, is considering selling the site and has offered it to the Foundation. He is attempting to find out the reaction of the Commission as to whether they could use the facility as proposed -- rent the upper portion and use half the basement level for an office. This space would have direct access to the outside. Mr. Peterson noted he had been working with the city inspectors in regard to their proposed use of this site. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the parking arrangements with the church? Mr. Peterson said the church had indicated they were willing to sign an. agreement with the Foundation that they could share parking -- they would have a signed agreement to that effect, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 6. Mr. Peterson said the hours for public coming in are after school, into the early evening - usually no later than 9 p.m. They always meet in small groups and they are supervised. Meetings usually last an hour to an hour and half. He uses the office space during the day. It has generally been a junior high program and so they don't have a car traffic problem. He stated they haven't met on weekends to date, since they usually take the kids to camp on weekends, Many of their activities are away from the site. The kids are often picked up for activities. They sometimes meet at the site, i.e. to go to camp, but are usually taken home. If there is a drop-off point, it is usually the church parking lot. They do not intend to use any signs. If there were to be any in the future, they would submit a proposal.and it would probably be only an entrance identification sign. Co~m~issioner Gustafson noted that Mr. Peterson should be aware of the City Ordinance and that it does cover his potential needs in regard to signing, and he m~ght be wise to pick up a copy. Mr. Peterson stated that signing was not that important to them, that they tried to maintain a low pro- file and to protect the young people they were working with. There were so many referrals, they did not need to advertise. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there is presently no garage for the house and that they were re- questing a variance because of this. Mr. Peterson said the unfinished area is what was once the garage. It is boarded up with a single door. They would propose to make this the entrance and then reactivate the driveway. They did not in- tend to construct a garage at this point. The Chairman confirmed that if the Youth Investment Foundation did not purchase the home, the Conditional Use Permit would not be needed. Mr. Peterson said this was a preliminary inquiry on his part, because obtaining a Conditional Use Permit would be contingent to any offer they would make to the church for the property. They do not have a tenant at this time, eventually they would like a staff person to live in the house. There is no plan to turn the facility in a residential care facility for young people. Mr. Peterson noted that the Youth Investment Foundation had been around for about ten years and this approach had never been en- couraged. ~--~ The City Manager stated that the church's problem was that they had been using the building for assembly until now. However, if they are to continue to use the building for this purpose they would have to bring it up to Code in regard to Fire Code and they are not sure they want to spend the money to do this at this time. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Youth Investment Foundation would not be making any changes to the house if they purchased it, that would prohibit its being turned back into a single family dwelling including the use of the garage, if Youth Investment Foundation should sell the home and leave the pro- ~erty. He felt the variance as requested was quite an important one. Mr. Peterson stated that basically there would be carpeting put on the floor, addition of some paneling and that they would follow the direction of the City Inspectors. He felt the space could be re-con- verted to a garage if the need arose. Commissioner Daly stated he was very bothered by the lack of garage since the City required everyone else to at least have a single garage. He asked about the driveway and how many cars could park there. It was his opinion that if the building were to be rented out for a long term, some thought should be g~ven to construction of another garage. He was against the Commisslon allowing no garage on. the site. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Peterson said they tried to limit the size of the groups to 8 to 12, except when they go to camp. The counseling meetings have been held on Tuesday evenings and the other contacts are usually one to one, one to two, or one to three. He was not re- commending any change in this procedure. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager stated that the garage question could be tied in to the Conditional Use Permit, guaranteeing that if the ownership changed in the future, a garage would again be provided. In response to a statement from the Chairman regarding the lack of garage and the renting potential, Mr. Peterson stated he had observed many single family homes in the City, where the cars are left outside the garage. He added that they anticipate using the church parking lot for their activities and the tenant would have full use of the driveway. He stated ~he income from the rental of the upstairs was essential to making the program run. It was his responsibility to obtain the funds to make this pro- gram happen. Commissioner Daly commented that when other people had come before the Commission requesting permission to close up an existing garage, there had always been a condition of building another garage tied to any approval of the request. The City/Commission had not encouraged street parking in the past.and the condition for a garage had been imposed on everyone else. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 6. Commissioner Bartos commented that they could tie the Conditional Use Permit to the provision of a gar- age if the building should be sold and revert back to only a single family dwelling. Commissioner Daly noted that there would be a family living on the site without a garage, even with the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Paul Franke, 4200 Decatur North, commented that last fall there had been a similar request to create a business in a single family home to the west of this site. The neighborhood had objected, and it had been overwhelmingly defeated. He felt this use was in conflict with the general mood of the neighbor- hood. It seemed to him that this was not the direction the neighbor.5ood desired. The Chairman confirmed with the City Manager that the neighbors in the area had been informed of the public hearing on this request for a Conditional Use Permit. After a finding that the pertinent criteria for a Conditional use Permit had been complied with, Commis- sioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 80-08, subject to annual review by st~ff. In addition, for the remainder of the life of the Conditional Use Permit herein granted, that a varaince be granted from the garage requirement on a residential pro- perty. When the Conditional Use Permit specificall.y requested by this petitioner has ex~ired, the variance allowing no garage on a residential property will also expire. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gutenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against~ Daty Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 80-09 - REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL/REZONING AND VARIANCES AT 36TH/HILLSBORO - CURRY COMPANY, INC. PETITIONER. Mr. Dick Curry and Mr. Dick Kaufman were present in regard to this request. Using an illustration of the site, they stated they were proposing to develop the corner at 36th/Hillsboro with eight double bun- galow lots, with zero lot lines, to allow each unit to be sold separately. In addition, on the two lots west of the double bungalow sites, they plan two buildings, with 50 units each, for elderly housing. This will be built under HUD financing. With the exception of two units reserved for family occupancy, they will be restricted to the elderly. One of the family units will probably be occupied by a caretaker. They are requesting a down zoning for the portion facing Hillsboro from R-3 to R-2 for the double bunga- low sites, and a rezoning from R-3 to R-4 for the elderly units~ The R-4 zone is currently the only zone in the City that would permit elderly. They are asking, for variances in the lot sizes for the doubles. The entrance to the elderly units would be off Hillsboro. Mr. Kaufman then showed the Comn~ssioners/citizens an illustration indicating how much of the elderly would be visible from Hillsboro Avenue. Mr. Curry stated that basically, the elderly housing and the double bungalows would appear to be the same height, even though the elderly units will be three stories in height. These units will have elevators. Mr. Kaufman stated they intend to grade down, so the elderly units are lower than the doubles. Each of the elderly units will be 550 square feet and the family units 890 square feet. The plan calls for i00 units of elderly. They are proposing the 50 southerly units to be built first. They are asking for i00 at this time because there is often a 2-5 year wait on elderly projects approval. He noted that New Hope has no available elderly housing of th.is t~pe. ~ In answer to questions from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Kaufman stated they were requesting funding for only 50 of the 100 units now. He added that there are only a limited number of units for elderly to be funded in the metropolitan area this year. They felt it would be foolhardy to think they could get ap- proval for i00 of the units at once. Construction start is subject to the receipt of funding. If they do not get funding, they will have to wait to apply in the next funding period. The application must be submitted by March 1st, 1980. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that they were requesting a rezoning from R-3 to R-2 for the double bun- galows - Lots 1~16 - and a rezoning from R-3 to R-4 for the elderly units proposed for Lots 17 and 18. Mr. Curry stated that they estimate the double bungalows will sell for $140,000 to $180,000 for both units. They will be the same type of design as the doubles on 42nd/#18, two bedroom with family room on lower level or three bedroom units. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding the lack of access to Lot 17, Mr. Curry stated there would be cross easements filed. The road from Hillsboro will be a private road. There is no permitted access from 36th Avenue to Lot 17. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern about the variances in lot sizes - noting that none of the double bungalow lots meet the minimum Code sizes. He questioned why they did not increase the size when they had the land. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6 ~ FEBRUARY 5, 1980 7. Mr. Curry stated theg could increase the size of the lots by increasing the depth. They felt it wa~ better to provide the green area to the elderly and that it would be better maintained. By increasing the double bungalow lots, all they would be doing is creating a big back lot that would never be used, just to satisfy an Ordinance. Mr. Kaufman said they were also trying to gi~e as much to the elderly as they could. They are trying to maintain the basic size requirements of HUD. Mr. Curry stated they also felt this size lot worked well for double bungalows: Chairman Cameron asked for a review of the lot sizes proposed for the double bungalows, in square footage. Mr. Kaufman stated that Lots i and 2 would be 13,650 (corner lot) Lots 3 and 4 would be 11,250 Lots 5 and 6 would be 11,250 Lots 7 and 8 would be 11~250 Lots 9 and 10 would be 11,350 Lots i1 and 12 would be 11,370 Lots 13 and 14 would be 10,520 Lots 15 and 16 would be 10,620 The Chairman noted that the Ordinance requirement is for 14,000 square feet fo~double bungalows. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding the larger Lot 18, Mr. Kaufman stated that the road would be taking up some of this land. Lot 18 will provide for the access. They would be will- ing to change the lot line if the Planning Commission so wished. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that they are proposing 116 units total for the site. The City Manager confirmed that under mid-density they could construct 73 units if developed with apart- ment buildings. In answer to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Kaufman stated they would build on Lot 17 first, and that, hopefully, they would get the funding within three years to build on this lot. He did not know what they would do if they did not get the financing. Mr. Curry stated there were other methods of obtaining funds to develop the elderly. Chairman Cameron asked whether this was a specific requirement of the H.R.A. to build elderly? He ques- tioned the fact that there was no guarantee of funding for the elderly development. Mr. Kaufman stated that their purchase contract so specified. He added that the sale and development of the double bungalows and the re-payment of the tax increment financing will allow enough money for them to be able to wait for Lot 17 and 18 to develop after funding is received. Their contract with the HRA and the new~roposed zoning would prohibit them from developing anything other than elderly on the site. It could take from three to five years to obtain elderly financing, if then. Chairman Cameron again expressed the concern that there were no guarantees that elderly would ever be cdnstructed. He further questioned the procedures to be used by the City/Commission to create an elderly zone. Mr. Kaufman stated it would be designated as elderly. The City Manager stated that Council had talked about creating an R-5 District which would be exclu- sively for elderly. He stated that the Planning Commission could make this recommendation and establish a public hearing date to review this amendment to the Zoning Code. Mr. Kaufman stated that the application period for funding expired March 1, for the elderly, and this is why they were before the Commission at this time° Chairman Cameron stated he was having difficulty with the proposal, noting that if the tax increment financing took care of Lots 1-16, he was suspicious of what would happen to Lots 17 and 18. He was not questioning the petitioners good intent, but felt he had been on the com~ssion long enough to know that things change and he felt there had to be some way to tie down the elderly development so the site was not left with an R-4 zone. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson regarding the non-alignment ~f the proposed road with 35~ Avenue, the City Manager stated that the width of the road had been discussed with the engineer and the public safety people and there was no problem, although it would obviously be better to line it up with 35~ AVenue. He stated that the road would be a double lane with storage area at the sides for snow. Commissloner Gustafson asked whether any provision had been made to provide walkways for the elderly? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 7. The Manager noted that it was his understanding that a sidewalk would be installed on the one side, the north, of the road. Mr. Kaufman stated this was correct, Mr. Curry noted that they were going to store snow on the elderly site and they felt there was also enough room to provide apathy for them to walk to 36th.. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Kaufman stated he had no objections to moving the lot line between Lots 17 and 18. He said they would indicate there was a private drive, with cross easements coming in from Hillsboro Avenue. He did not want to have it surveyed. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that the lot sizes for the duplexes bothered him. He confirmed that the double bungalows would be for sale. The second thing that bothered him was the zone change and the con- cern that it be tied down to insure it would be developed elderly. His third concern was whether the elderly units as proposed, could be built on that site without any variances in parking, green space, etc.? The City Manager stated he did not see any reason why they could not develop the 100 units of elderly without requiring any variances, even as far as parking. There is adequate land, but details depend on the specific buildings. In response to questions, Mr. Curry stated they had not done any soil testing, but based on what had been discovered on #18 and 35th and 35~, they did not see any problems with soil. The Chairman commented on the fact that at 42nd/#18 they had found soil that was not useable. Mr. Curry said they had know there was bad soil on that site, but not how bad. The Chairman commented that no one had tested there either, before they began work on the site. He con~ firmed that there had not been any preliminary soil work on this site either. Mr. Kaufman stated that if they had any suspicions of bad soil, they would have tested. Conm~ssioner Gundershaug asked whether there would be any pr6visions made for a bus entrance for the elderly units? Mr. Kaufman stated that MTC could come into the project and had a pretty good track record of doing so, if they did not have to come in too far. This is one thing they would investigate -- a possible exten- sion of the line. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioner had any problem with extending the lot lines of the double bungalow lots farther back, to increase the size of the lots? He noted that if a person were to spend $180,000 for a double bungalow, he felt that they would spend another hundred dollars and buy a good lawnmower to keep it looking good. The size of the lots really bothered him. Mr. Curry stated they did see a problem with extending the lots. Mr. Kaufman noted that the depth of the lots didn't add anything, or was not germaln, in. their opinion. They would prefer to leave them as proposed. They felt the land was better served for the elderly than it would be for doubles. Discussion continued between the Commissioners and the petitioners regarding the depth of the lots on the site, the depth of some of the lots on the 42nd Avenue project, the need for such deep lots, and the potential maintenance and use of the lots. Commissioner Bartos stated he would rather see a wider lot than a deeper lot. In response to a question from Commissioner Daly regarding the reason for not having a curb cut on 36th Avenue, Mr. Curry stated that the County had taken all of the right-of-way on 36th. An exit to the south is also impossible, because the site is already developed. Mr. Curry commented that he felt there would probably be as much traffic from the eight double bunga- lows, as there would from the elderly. Commissioner Daly returned the discussion to the lot size for the double bungalows and the fact that some of the lots were not even near the required square footage. Mr. Kaufman stated there were concerns that both they and the HRA wished to accomplish -- provide the elderly, and this w~uld be a vehicle to do it and also repay the tax increment financing. They need the eight double bungalows to repay the financing to allow the holding pattern to develop the elderly. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 Mr. Curry stated that they also know from their experience that this size lot will work. It is sale- able as well as acceptable. Chairman Cameron noted that they had not as yet evendesigned the elderly buildings. Mr. Kaufman stated that the building shown on the site plan, had been used at another site and they knew it would work on this site. If it were to be changed, it would be only for the better. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this building would work on the site and asked whether adding 20 feet to the double bungalow lots would affect the development of the elderly sites? He questioned whether there might not be an excess of land on the elderly? He noted there seemed to be a lot of "unknowns". Mr. Kaufman said there was this possibility and it would depend upon whether they would meet the State and HUD requirements. They feel the land is better used with this development. The Chairman stated that he felt the feeling of the Commission was that they wanted 20 more feet on _the double bungalow lots. He was concerned also about the lack of details regarding the elderly. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the petitioners were certain today that the proposed elderly sites would meet both State and HUD requirements but would not if 20 feet were adde~ to the double lots? Mr. Curry questioned "why" when this amount of land would work for the doubles, did they wish to in- crease the lots just to satisfy an Ordinance requirement? Mr. Kaufman stated they felt this would provide for a better elderly project and increasing the lot sizes would not be of any benefit to the deouble lots. Mr. Cameron noted that they had not as yet proved this to the Commission. Mr. Kaufman stated they were never certain unless they went back in and proposed a plan. The application had not as yet been submitted. The petitioners added that their architect would certainly have taken the time to ascertain the proposal met permitted size requirements. Commissioner Daly then suggested an alternate layout for the double bungalow lots and roadways, to run a row of duplexes on both the north and south sides of the s~ction, widen the front of the lots, use two curb cuts, establish two dead-end roadways and separate the doubles with the elderly units. Discussion followed. The City Manager noted that he would not argue for the present proposal, but felt that the alternative as suggested by Mr. Daly would create more problems and be very expensive. Mr. Curry noted that they could easily cut the amount of land needed for the elderly units by making them five stories high. Commissioner Daly stated that he could not vote in favor of this proposal, just because there might be another, better solution. Mr. Kaufman noted that their surveyor and architect had worked it out the best way they could, without cutting into Lots 17 and 18. In response to a question from Commissioner Daly, Mr. Kaufman stated that even cutting out one double bungalow would make the lots less than the required'14,000. Commissioner Daly commented that there would be a better quality lot then. Mr. Kaufman stated again that the only way they could repay the tax increment money and go into a hold- ing pattern for development of the elderly, would be to develop the eight double bungalows as proposed. Commissioner Daly stated he was bothered by justifying this proposal because of financing. The City would have to live with the double bungalows for a long time, and 10,000 square feet was just too small. Mr. Tom Walstead, 3417 Hillsboro, noted he had been before the Commission/Council many times speaking against proposals for this property. It gave him pleasure to come to speak for something positive2y. He is also President of the homeowners association, and had discussed the plans with the neighbors along Hillsboro and had received many favorable comments. Mr. Paul Swenson, 3333 Ensign, expressed his concern that there would be some guarantee that the land would be developed as discussed at this meeting. The rezoning to R-4 did not guarantee that it would be developed for the.elderly. This was his first concern, that there be a guarantee for the type of development and density as proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 7. He was also concerned about the density of the double bungalows. He agreed with the Commissioner,s comments regarding qualify of life, and crowding. It had been proven elsewhere in the village and even across the street, that it was economically feasible to develop double bungalows on lots that were of an acceptable size. He did not understand whg it was not economically feasible on the other side of the same street? His concern was that the frontage of the lots meet standards without variances. He felt his concerns were shared by some of the others present. Mr. Bob Vaupell, 3341 Gettysburg, stated he shared Mr. Swenson's concerns. He asked Mr. Curry if there would be any provision for si dewalks for the children that walk to junior high and high school from the area? Mr. Curry said theg had made none. If gou are going to have sidewalks, it is a City project. Theg had no objection if the City did this. Mr. Vaupell's other concern was whether some provision had been made for a stop light at the corner of 36th/Hillsboro? He felt this was a high risk area for both speeders and accidents. Mr. Jeff Salle, 3556 Hitlsboro Court, questioned the density of the double bungalow lots. He noted that the development across the street also contained doubles, and yet conformed to size requirements, He felt the proposed doubles should conform to the neighborhood standards. Mr. Curry noted that this project lived or died with the development of the double bungalows. It was a plain and simple fact of economics. Commissioner Gustafson commented that the Planning Commission lived or died on the basis of how they implemented the Codes of the City of New Hope. Mr. Stan Rosen, 3608 Jordan, commented on the apparent tug of war between the petitioner, who had a fairly acceptable plan to many of the homeowners, and the Commieslon and some others, who were concerned about a guarantee that the remaining land would be developed into elderly housing. He questioned whether the Commission would go along with the proposal if the developer got a commitment for funding? He further questioned whether with HUD financing there was a guarantee that it would be only for elderlg? Mr. Curry stated that the agreement specified that there would be two fam/ly units and 48 elderly. Mr. Rosen then asked whether it would be possible for the Commission to make an agreement that the deal would be off if it did not develop into elderlg housing? Commissioner Gustafson said this was one of mang possibilities. Chairman Cameron noted that there were a number of specific issues to be dealt with and asked the Mana- ger for advice regarding the procedures to be followed and the time table involved in amending the Zoning Code text to provide for an elderly only zone? The Citg Manager stated that legally, the first thing to be done was to consider the rezoning request and determine whether the proposal fit into the recommendations of the City Comprehensive Plan calling for mid-densitg on this site. Discussion followed regarding the rezoning from R-3 to R-4 for the western portion and the need to guarantee that it would be used only for elderly, as well as the application deadline for applying for HUD financing and its affect on Commission action. Commissioner Gustafson, noting that in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and its relationship toward providing different types of housing for elderly and handicapped people, he felt that,in effect, this proposal implements the basic design of the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, is in keeping with the Plan. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchgn, Dal~, Bartos, Ca~ron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards voting against: None Motion carried Commissioner Edwards moved that Lots 1-16 in the~posed Ne~ands 2nd Plat, be rezoned from R63 to R-2 and that Lots 17 and 18 be rezoned from R-3 to R-4, with the understanding~ that when an elderly zone ~s created, this zone will take ~recedence. Commissioner Gundershau~ -- Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gutenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion that the petitioner's plat be denied~ in Case 80-09, because of the undersized lots. Commissioner Daly second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 Commissioner Gulenchyn questioned what alternatives the Commission had, should the financing not go .through, and whether an alternative devel6pment might not be worse than what was proposed now? The Chairman stated that the Commission could only act on presentations, alternatives would have to come back before the Commission. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Wheelock Motion carried. The City Manager confirmed that the reason for denial of'the plat was the lot sizes for the double bungalows. Commissioner Custafson made a motion that a Public Hearing be held on Mar~h 4, 1980 to consider an amendment to the Zoninq Code to create an exclusive elderly zone and that staff be directed to draw up such a code amendment. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 80-10 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7601 BASS LAKE ROAD - VON FJLING, PETITIONER Mr. Kling stated he had a home at 7601 Bass Lake Road. He has had an office in his home for three years with a secretary working in the home. He had not been aware of the City Ordinance against this, until he started to make some changes to turn the family room into an office. He had built a new garage last fall to take the place of the space they had turned into a room. Mr. Kling stated they did not expect any traffic, there will be no signs, they are manufacturer's reps and everything is done bg phone. There is a delivery perhaps once a day by a UPS truck. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Kling stated they handled perhaps a half dozen companies who supplied chemical and corrosion resistant products, i.e. fiberglass tanks, special pipes, a heat tracing line, and special tank linings. The UPS delivery relates to literature on the pro- ducts (75% to 80%). They do stock some of the electrical items. The inventory is kept in the garage and consists of heat transfer cement (5 gallon cans, maybe 50 gallons) and the rest would be heat trac- ing wire and components for the wire. The inventory would take up perhaps 5% of the garage. They are small packaged items. There is no pipe stored. Mr. Kling stated there was one other employee beside the secretary and they were seldom all there at the same time. The other rep has his own office in his home. There are two other homes on the fire land. The hours are basically 8 to 5, five days a week. There is no unusual equipment necessary for the office, and there are no customers coming to the house. In answer to a question from Commissioner Daly, Mr. Kling stated he could not state there would never be a truck larger than UPS delivering because occasionally the heat transfer cement would be delivered bg motor freight. Mr. Ernest Almquist, 7621 Bass Lake Road, stated it was his desire that the Commission vote in 'favor of Mr. Kling's request. Mr. John Robe, Administrator of St. Raphael's, stated he had no objection to the request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 80-10, at 7601 Bass Lake Road, subject to annual review by staff. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS 9. The City Manager noted that a sign plan had previously been approved for the small shopping area at Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. The item was on the agenda for the Commission to determine whether or not the"PDQ" constituted a logo, and also because the beauty shop had installed a s~gn with raised letters, which was not part of the original sign plan. Following discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission that PDQ was not a loqo, and that the raised letters did n~t represent a significant chanqe to the sign plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 11 - FEBRUARY 5, 1980 COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. There had been a meeting of Design and Review on January 22~ 1980. 11. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 12. There 'was no report from the Codes and Standards Co~ittee. The Chairman noted that this Committee would not proceed on the Sign Ordinance until the current court case is resolved. NEW BUSINESS 13. Chairman Cameron briefly reviewed the School District #281 Capital Improvement Program, which is re- quired by the Metropolitan Planning Act. This is a five year long plan which is necessary to meet Metro Council insistence that every school district plan ahead. They have combined the elements in- volving land use and called it the Capital Improvement Program. The District plans no changes in terms of additions or construction in the City of New Hope in the foreseeable future. He did not feel anything else in the Plan impacted on the City of New Hope. The City Manager stated that City staff had found no problems with the Plan. It was the unanimous opinion of the Planning Commission that a public hearinq was not necessary in regard ~o the School District Capital Improvement Plan. 14. The Council minutes of January 14th and 28th were reviewed. The City Manager noted that Sinclair is suing the City in regard to their request for sign variances. 15. The Commission minutes of January 8, 1980 were accepted as printed. 16. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the sign plan as approved last fall for the Nelson Building on Bass Lake Road. He noted that the s~gns on the side of the building were still in place. The frame had been allowed to remain, but the names were to have been removed. The Manager noted he would check into this. Commissioner Gustafson inquired about the house on Winnbtka Avenue that had been given permission to close up the garage, with the condition of adding another separate garage. The Manager stated that the house had been sold and the original garage was once again in use. 18. The. meeting.was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ddeker, Secretary / PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4, 1980 i. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 4, 1980 at the City Hall, 4401 Xglon Avenue North. T~e meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos, Gustafson (arrived at 7:34 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-06 - REQUEST FOR CHANGE. IN SITE PLANAT 5100 COUNTY ROAD #18 - BENSON=ORTH, 'PETITIONER Mr. Tom O'Connell represented Benson-Orth. He noted that Mr. Harris, owner of the building, was also present. Mr. O'Connell stated that the requested change involved the loading docks. The loading docks (two, 48" high docks) were part of the original Harris Building. The initial plan, when the addition was built, was that these loading docks would be removed, and replaced with loading docks on the east. During construction two tenants occupied the addition and there was concern as to whether the loading docks could serve Mr. Harris' business adequately. They, therefore, were requesting that instead of blocking out the docks, they be allowed to remain with certain restrictions being placed on their usage and that the extreme western loading dock be restricted from any semi-truck traffic and that the easterly dock be considered for shorter semi use, during certain hours of the day. They could accomplish this by signage and policing by Mr. Harris. Commissioner Gundershadg asked for clarification of the use of the building, noting that the parking lot always seemed to be full and sometimes cars were pinned in by trucks. He asked how many employees Mr. Harris had as well as the number at Snap On Tools, as well as the amount of retailing in the Harris building? Mr. Harris stated that the parking l~t was never completely filled up, at any time. Munsinger Gymnastics did not have anyone coming in until after 4 o'clock, when most of the other workers had gone home. Snap- On Tools had maybe six or seven cars at one time~ Harris had between 18 and 20 employees depending on the season and the Harris retail businessis a small percentage opposed to the manufacturing portion. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that his concern was parking space and that every time he had gone by,. the front lot had been completely full. He had observed 7 or 8 people at a time in the retail portion of Harris. He had also noticed cars parking by the truck docks. He stated that when the addition had been approved originally a wall was supposed to be put in and Harris had been going to be serviced by the docks at the rear. Mr. Harris said that Snap-On Tools was very securitg conscious and had objected to this. Harris does not now use the rear docks. Commissioner Gundershaug referred to the Design and Review Committee meeting and asked whether Mr. Harris now intended to use the rear docks? Mr. Harris stated they were going to try to keep over-the-road trailers from coming in to block the area. They would have delivers made to the existing side docks. Mr. O'Connell noted that the proposal was that the trucks be diverted to the eastern most dock and ar- rangements made to temporarily store good there. Mr. Harris noted that most of the deliveries ~ere b~ shorter trucks (less than 40' in length) and they would not block the area. There were perhaps two to three trucks per day at the most -- deliveries were usually first thing in the morning with pickups the last thing at night. They have not had any over-the-road trucks in the last three months. Commissioner Gundershaug asked Mr. Harris about his plans to sub-lease a portion of the original build- ing and how this might affect the parking spaces available? Mr. Harris said the situation would be the same as it was now. He felt there were about 20 spaces not presently used. The spaces are more than adequate now (57 total spaces provided). Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the Commission had to look at the long range use of the building and - felt there was no point in creating a potential parking problem. Discussion followed between Commissioner Gundershaug and Mr. O'Connell and the criteria used to deter- mine the number of spaces needed -- that this is determined in part by the size of the building and ground coverage as well as the intended use, and whether leasing could be restricted because of use when adequate spaces had been provideR according to city Code? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / 2 - MARCH 4, 1980 3. Discussion then covered the possibility of limiting the type of delivery trucks and the hours of opera- tion in an attempt to solve the problem. Also of concern was the potential problems of a future use, should Mr. Harris leave the premises and the docks were allowed to remain in place. M~. Harris indicated he wanted probiems no more than the City did. He was willing to post signs restrict- ing the use of the docks, etc. He was also willing to limit the size of the .trucks using the one dock, and allowing only van type trucks at the western most dock. He indicated that he had not as yet ever had a problem or an accident on the site. Referring to the existing signs bg the docks, Commissioner Dalg questioned whether or not it would be possible/practical to indicate additionally who the docks served and the type of vehicles that would be allowed to deliver? Mr. O'Connell stated that at Design and Review they had discussed not only additional signage on the building but also on 51st Avenue, and perhaps making the drive a one way flow of traffic, for the trucks. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the site plan at 5100 Count~ Road #18, as requested in Case 80-06, subject to the following stipulations: that the hours of dock operation would be prior to 9 a.m. and after 4 p.m.; that signs be.posted noting the hours allowing pickup and delivery, and that pickups and delivery truck size be limited to the UPS type and those under 40' in length. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards ~c · Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-11 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT BASS LAKE ROAD AND rNTERNATIONAL PARKWAY - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER Mr. Ted Yoch represented Rosewood. He stated that they were requesting construction approval for a building at Bass Lake Road and International Parkway. Since the Design and Review meeting they had made .... changes in the parking lot plan, the parking lot entrance, and increased the landscaping along Bass Lake Road as well as in other areas. They intend to consider the east side as the front of the building and ~--~ will require no variances. He stated they have provided sufficient parking spaces to accommodate a 10% office occupancy; they will use break off block painted white, there will be a broken front line on the building, charcoal metal flashing trim matching the window frames and the windows will be black glass. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the view from Bass Lake Road, particularly in the area of the truck docks? Mr. Yoch noted the landscape plan, stating there will be screening along Boone. They will carry the same pattern of charcoal grey and white with the metal canopy charcoal on the north side of the building. He noted that the building had not yet been leased out. In response to the suggestions from Design and Review that the building be flipped, Mr. Yoch stated that several things had a bearing on their inability to do this -- one of which was the poor soil conditions on a portion of the site toward the south. He said they had gone through a number of designs but felt they could not put the office area to the north side of the building since they would be unable to pro- vide parking space for employees. He indicated that Rosewood had taken soil-samplings of the site. Rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building and there will be no exterior storage. Any signs will be similar to the industry park building -- black background with white letters and will meet C~de. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Yoch stated he did not think there would be a continuous curb around the parking area because there was a need for drainage. The City Manager stated that the Engineer had not as yet reviewed the plans and made a recommendation regarding the drainage. In response to questions, Mr. Yoch said he felt the future tenants would be either light manufacturing or distribution companies with some office space. The truck traffic area will be marked one-way. Discussion then centered on the type of trees to be planted, especially those facing Bass Lake Road. The landscape plan called for Boleana Poplars and Russian Olive trees. It was the concensus of the Commis- sion that all Russian Olives were preferable to the poplars. They were concerned that there be heavy screening in the area of the building and docks. Mr. Yoch was agreeable to planting all Russian olives although' he felt it was unrealistic to completely screen an industrial building from view. Pr.~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH 4, 1980 4. Commissioner Gundershaug noted he did not feel truck docks were especially attractive, especially from Bass Lake Road as people were just entering New Hope. It was his opinion that 15-20 feet between trees was not veru heavy screening and questioned whether Mr. Yoch would be willing to increase the number of trees? Mr. Yoch answered that he felt Rosewood's interest was just as intense as the City's in presenting an at- tractive building and site. He felt that had already substantially improved the looks of the building noting that Russian Olive trees fill in rapidly. They felt they were providing adequate screening. 'If it proved to be otherwise, they could perhaps make some adjustments. He felt it should be a discretion- ary item for Rosewood. Commissioner Daly asked about the possibility of berming along Bass Lake Road? Mr. Yoch noted there was a slight grade difference, and the property was lower than Bass Lake Road. He did not feel they could effectively berm this side. In response to a question from Commissioner Daly the City Manager noted that there was no question but that some of the soil on the site was bad and he was sure that Rosewood wouId provide this information if requested to do so. Commissioner Daly stated.he felt there could be some berming. He noted he was very concerned about how this building would look at the entrance to New Hope, with visible truck docks. Additional discussion held regarding the possibilities of berming, a retaining wall with plantings on top, a possible different building placement, and the addition of trees to more heavily screen the docks from Bass Lake Road. Also covered was the possible additional cost involved with tabling action on the petitioner versus the cost of additional trees. Mr. Yoch stated he would change the type of trees and plant all Russian Olives as well as add ten addi- tional trees on Bass Lake Road in the section directly north of the building, in front of the truck docks. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding additional parking if it were needed, Mr. Yoch stated they had provided parking spa'ces based on a 10% office occupancy when this was a higher per- centage than they anticipate. The City Manager noted that the parking provided was based on all warehousing and a 10% office occupancy. A manufacturing use would require more parking spaces. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the construction requested in Case 80-11 as submitted, with the exception that the Boleana Poplars proposed for the north side of the site being changed to Russian Olives and that a minimum of ten and probably fifteen more Russian Olive trees be added to the front of the dock area on the north side of the building, that the driveway be permitted at 35 feet wide rather than 24 feet, and including approval of the sign plan for the building, subject to the plan meeting the requirements of the City Code. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Gulenchyn, Daly Absent: Bartos Motion carried. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that he had voted against the motion because he was not adequately satisfied with the screen and because the truck docks were facing Bass Lake Road. 5. The Chairman noted that Cases 80-12 and 80-13 would be heard together 6. PLANNING CASE 80-12 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 4208 FLAG AVENUE AND PLANNING CASE 80-13 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 4200 FLAG AVENUE - SCOTT COOPER, PETITIONER Dr. Irving Herman, noting he was a partner in Flag Builders, stated they had an engineer lay out the 4208 building and he had erred. The cement man had laid out 4200 and missed by three feet. They had not discovered the mistakes until after construction had begun. There is twelve feet between the two houses. They are requesting the variances to allow them to continue with the construction. Commissioner Gustafson raised the issue of a possible fence toward 42nd Avenue prohibiting access of emergency vehicles. The City Manager noted that 4208 could be reached from the sideyard and 4200 could be reached from 42nd unless there was a solid fence. A gate or moveable section of fencing could resolve this potential problem. Dr. Herman noted that there was also to be space provided for a walkway to 42nd Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH 4, 1980 '. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variances at 4208 and 4200 Fla~ Avenue as requested in Cases 80=12 and 80-13, subject to the requirement that if fencing is placed o~ the 42nd Avenue side of the site, a removable gateway section be included to allow for fire ?rotection. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 80-14 - REQUEST FOR FRONTYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 3500 VIRGINIA AVENUE NORTH - WILLIAM AND JUDITH STEWART, PETITIONERS. Mr. Stewart stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to extend his garage ten feet to the front, l~aving a 20 foot setback from the street. He wishes to extend the kitchen into the rear of the garage. He felt this would also improve the appearance of the front of the house. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Commission was conerned with an extension to the front because of the danger of cars in the driveway blocking the view. He questioned why the addition could not be put to the rear of the garage? Mr. Stewart stated that the kitchen was at the south rear of the house and there was a concrete deck at the rear. He had had several contractors look at this and they had stated it would be difficult to get a decent arrangement to the rear. He also has a family room with sliding glass doors. If the kitchen were placed here, it would remove all window space from the family room. In addition he would like a back door which he does uot have at present. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Stewart stated that there was probably no reason they could not extend the entire addition to the rear but that contractors had advised against this as it would involve moving all utilities, heat, etc. as well as the cablnets. Discussion followed between Mr. Stewart and Commissioner Gustafson regarding alternatives to the front ..... extension, the-problems~invo!ved in removing the concrete deck, the advice of the contractors to add on ~--~ to the front, and the danger of cars being parked in the driveway that would block the view as well as pedestrian access. In response to questions from Commissioner Wheelock, Mr. Stewart stated he did not feel extending the garage to the front would hurt the future saleability of the property and in fact might make it more so. He noted the cul-du-sac is on a curve and the ten foot extension would not look bad. He presented pic- tures of the front of his house and of another house where a similar addition had been made. He hopes to begin remodeling in another month. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. SteWar stated that a table to investigate the costs of alternatives to the proposed addition would be a hindrance. 'He said contractors did not wish to give an estimate until they learned whether he had received the variance approval. The depth of the new garage would be 24 feet. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager stated that a garage needed to be at least 20' x 10' since only 200 square feet was permitted for floor space requirements. In response to discussion and suggestion that perhapds the addition could be extended five feet to the front and five feet to the back, Mrs. Stewart questioned whether this would not destroy the roof line? The addition as proposed would match the existing structure with regard to texture and color. Mr. Stew- art had spoken to neighbors and none of them had seemed to have any problem with the proposal. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variance at 3500 Virginia, as requested in Case 80-14, subject to the roof line as shown in the picture and that the siding and texture match the existi.ng house. Commissioner Gundershaug'second. Additional dlscussion followed Commissioner Daly and Mr. Stewart in regard to an extension to both the front and back. Mrs. Stewart noted that contractors had been concerned with changing the roofline at the rear of the house. She felt this was a big problem. Mr. Stewart stated it would further be a problem because of the lack of a doorway into the kitchen. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - " MARCH 4, 1980 8. PLANNING CASE 80-15 - REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN ELDERLY ZONE - CITY OF NEW HOPE, PETITIONER T~e City Manager stated that this amendment was an outgrowth of the proposed elderly project at 36th/#18. The amendment establishes an R-5 Zone, which would permit only elderl~ development. At the present time elderly development is allowed as a Conditional Use in an R-4 Zone. The amendment further provides for the one lot remaining R-3 for the triplex development. The other zoning districts carry out the original plan. He noted that the proposed access street will now be lined up with 35%. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the City would at present have only the one R-5 Zone. The City Manager stated this was correct, but there was the possibility of a request in the future for a change to an R-5. He noted that "elderlg" was defined in the Ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Code Amendment as recuested in Caso 80-15, establishing an R-5 Elderly Zone. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulench~n, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 80-16 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AT 7500 BASS LAKE ROAD - HILLARY MCNALLEN, PETITIONER Mr. McNallen stated he would like to purchase the land and build a building for his business at 7500 Bass Lake Road. He operates a small business machine service with a small amount of retail sales. The business operates mainly out of the office, with six servicemen and four salesmen employees in the field. He felt that 95% of the business was done out of the office. He now has about 3500 square feet for the business. Only 250 feet would be retail/display area. The new building will probably be about 5000 square feet. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. McNallen stated he did not require any signs for the retail portion of the business -- in this type of operation, people come looking for him when they have a need. He felt that his retail signage needs would fall within the ten square feet identi- fication signs allowed by Code. The City Manager confirmed with Mr. McNallen that he would have a building identification s~gn, but with no reference to retail sales. In answer to ~uestions from Commission Gustafson regarding the lot, the City Manager stated that there is an easement on the east side for a road. When the first building was constructed there was an agreement that the road would be moved to come between the t~o buildings. He added .that this was an R-O lot and did not have requirements in regard to building size and lot coverage. The Chairman confirmed that the actual buildings will also be before the Commission before construction. In response to questions ~rom Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. McNallen stated he was not sure whether or not he would rent out one office from the building. He will use about 70% of the building -- and the building would be very similar to the one next door. He wanted it to be designed as an office building. There ~uld be no features included in his building that would prohibit its future use as an office building. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 7500 Bass Lake Road, as requested in Case 80-16, subject to the construction of the building as proposed. Commis- sioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 80-17 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT ON WINPARK DRIVE - MM DEVELOPMENT, PETITIONER The'City Manager noted that the petitioner had requested that this mase be tabled until the meeting of April 1, 1980. Commissioner Edwards made a motion tabling Case 80-17 until the meeting of April I, 1980. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH 4, 1980 COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. Commissioner Gundershaug reported that Design and Review had met on the 19th February and would have a sp~c. ial meeting on March 6, at 3:30 p.m. 12. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 13. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 14. Chairman C~meron stated that there would be a Planning Commission meeting held on March 18, 19~0~ The City Manager noted that there would be two cases under consideration at that meeting -- a sign vari- ance for the new shopping center and construction approval for an addition to Homeward Bound. 15. The Council Minutes of February 11, and 25th, were reviewed by the City Manager. He noted that of special interest to the Commission was the revision of the site plan for the proposed development at 36th/#18 that reduced the total by one unit; that the Council had rescinded their re- quirement for a sprinkler system in the mini-warehouse on Winpark Drive; and approved the sign variance requested bg Rosewood for the building on Bass Lake Road at Boone. 16. The Planning Commission minutes of February 5, were approved as printed. 17. The City Manager referred to the earlier appointment of Commissioner Gulenchyn to a Committee to study possible need of restrictions in health care facilities in residential neighborhoods. There had appar- ently not been much interest from the elected and appointed officials in the surrounding communities. However, Robbinsdale is still concerned and had called a meeting. There will be anotheI meeting on the 12th, at 2 o'clock at the Robbiusdale City Hall, with the State Licensing people to discuss possible pro- cedures. He stated he would be attending and that Mr. Gulenchyn was welcome to come if he so desired, but it did appear as if staff people woul.d be working on the concern. 18. Chairman Cameron announced the following Committee assignments: Codes and Standards: Gustafson (chairman), Daly (Assistant chairman), Gulenchyn Design and Review: Gundershaug (Chairman), Edwards (AssisCant Chairman), Wheelock Land Use: Bartos (Chairman), Edwards 19. The meetinq was adjourned bg unanimous consent at 9:13 .u.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COHMISSION MINUTES MARCH 18, 1980 1. A meeting of the New Hope Plannlng Commission was held on Tuesday, March 18, 1980 at the City Hall, q~01Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Gulenchyn, Oaly, Wheelock, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos (excused), Gustafson (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-18 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN WITH VARIANCES AT THE WINNETKA SHOPPING CENTER - 4301 - 4471' WINNETKA AVENUE - COMMUNITY CONSTRUCTORS, PETITIONER. Mr. Juris Curiskis of Korsunsky/Krank Architects, Inc. represented the petitioner. He stated they had prepared a sign plan that included requests for variances for Hardware Hank, Lunds and the New Hope State Bank. The plan consists of two basic types of signs, Series A and Series 8. The Series A signs include Lunds, Hardware Hank and the Bank. The sub-group of Series A is an indlvi- dual box type. Lunds and Hardware Hank are in this group. Sub Group A2 is the New Hope State Bank, which is a combination of indlvldual letters and a box logo. Series B has two sub groups: The 81 group is for small shops and B2 is for the larger shops. He pro- posed the fo]lowing changes i~ the text: "Type BI signs shall be a height of four feet and a length of not more than 12 feet". In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Curiskls stated they were trying to unify the size of the signs in this group but allow flexibility in materials. In response to a question from Hr. Curlskis, the Chairman noted that in other instances, the size of in- dividual letters on pylon signs had been referred to the single building section restrictions. The Com- mission in applying the Ordinance, had worked on that basis and sign plans that had been approved had been with that interpretation. Mr. Curiskis noted that it did go deeper, in his opinion~ because the shopping center sign was allowed 200 square feet on the center pylon. The individual business section restrictions varied from 35 square feet to 100 square feet. He asked for clarification of whether they would be allowed 20" letters on a sign of 200 square feet,.or if they would be restricted to 10" letters? The City Hanager noted that the New Hope Shopping Center had been required to obtain a variance for let- ters larger than 10". The Chairman suggested that this issued be discussed at a later point in the meeting. Mr. Curiskis then stated that the Lund's sign had been planned at 24' x 4'. However, Lund's had been informed that the sign as made was actually 25'8" by ¥'. Brief discussion followed regarding the method used to determine the overall size of a proposed sign. The Chairman noted that as a rule, a rectangle was used. This would make the Lund's sign 102 square feet. Hr. Nystrom of Community Constructors stated that Steve Hassel from Sheehy Associates would present the criteria for the New Hope State Bank signs. Mr. Hassel stated they were requesting three wall signs, one on the north, south and east sides of the building. They were also requesting a 36 square foot pylon sign at the corner of the bank, about 200 feet off Winnetka. The side signs woutd be $~ x 9' and would be a combination of individual letters and and a box sign with the loto. They would be back lighted. The pylon sign would be the same size, shape and color as the sign at the drive-up facility on 42nd Avenue. They are requesting four variances to allow them the third side wall sign, a larger side wa]] sign and the free standing sign. Mr. Hasse] noted teat the center was allowed two pylon signs and they will use only one. The bank is requesting the second sign. They have attempted to treat the bank exterior, both with materla;ls and the signage as a free standing element and as an anchor for that end of the shopping center, Total signage required for the bank would be ]71 square feet, The Chairman stated he felt the Commission should hear all of the presentations before they asked indivi- dual questions since they were dealing with a total plan for the shoppLng center, Mr. Walter Aldrich, Manager of Public Relations for Hardware Hank then described the sign they propose for their store. He noted that Hardware Hank had been looking forward to ~he installation of a store PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MARCH 18, 1980 in the center. They felt it could be a model store for the center and also serve a purpose for the Hard- ware Hank operation in that they could bring dealers in from other areas who were considering remodeling shores or for new dealers, Hardware Hank has a number of different types and styles of signs for thei'r installations. They are seek- ing to put the top of the llne sign at this center. It is a modular type sign, with individual letters and an illuminated can. They would need a variance because the proposed sign is 117.8 square feet. The next size available to them in this modular style is a 264 square foot sign. They feel they need a size that will be legible enough that a person driving down the street could easily identify the store. They hoped that the impact of the proposed sign would be sufficient for the Commission to approve the variance. Mr. Jack Arberg stated he, together with his father, would own the store. He stated that the proposed sign is the smallest standard sized sign that would face their building. It is a matter of a few square feet over the allowable footage. To have to go to smaller sign would require that custom bulbs would need to be ordered and the cost of the sign would run way out of sign. He requested that the Commission also take this into consideration. Mr. Nystrom asked if there were any questions regarding the signs as proposed? Chairman Cameron stated that while they were requesting approval for an overall sign plan, they had ad- dresaed only the signs for Lunds, Hardware Hank and the bank. He asked whether the Commission was then to assume, that. the other tenants will know exactly the square footage for signs they had been allotted, and that they must stay within this square footage? Mr. Nystrom responded that the tenants would know exactly what the maximum footage was they were alloted, but would be allowed to go smaller if they wished. The Chairman stated he wanted it to be very clear that the Commission was not just dealing with the three signs but with the total sign plan for the shopping center and that any variances granted at this meeting by the Commission, would be the last requests they would receive. Mr. Nystrom.stated this was true.. It is their intent that everyone else will stay within the size frame as stated. They had gone along with the proposed oversized signs for.the three anchors' of the center, because it was felt their signs were equal to the area involved. The New Hope State Bank is a different situation. The bank wishes to use the three signs as proposed to make it appear like an independent building. The requested pylon sign is identification for the bank and is an attempt to try to tie it together with their drive-in facility. The rest of the tenants would have to stay within the sign criteria of the City Code. The City Mana'ger requested clarification of what criteria the tenants would be required to adhere to -- only restrictions on size or on material type as well? Mr. Nystrom said they would have to stay within the Sign Ordinance. They could have different types but the proposed signs would have to be approved by City staff to assure they comply with Code. He added that requirements would state that the signs should be back lighted, but could use metal letters, raised letters, canister type according to the Center Sign Critera. The City Manager noted that staff had no control, except for size and whatever, was approved as part of the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Center. Commissioner Daly commented that in regard to the Lungs sign, they were requesting 102 square feet and the Ordinance allowed 100 square feet. He felt this was an attractive sign and he had no problems with this variance. Commissioner Gundershaug clarified that the Lunds sign would be back lighted~f a box type. Commissioner Daly stated he could not see any justification for the three signs proposed for the bank. Mr. Hassel said they were trying to identify themselves and to complete the look of the bank as a major anchor to the center. They wanted to identify that they were the New Hope State Bank. They also want to relate this facility to the bank drive-in which is located at the corner of Xylon and 42nd. To do this they want to use the same sign look and the same size letters on each facility. They have carried the facade and the brick around the building to enhance the overal~ corner and make it look less llke the back of a building. Commissioner Daly noted that the Ordinance allowed the bank 54 square feet of sign. They were requesting 171 square feet. Each sign is well over the allowable footage permitted by Ordinance. He failed to un- derstand how other businesses could be expected to comply, and have in the past, and operate with 9 square feet and the bank could not operate with the same amount. He added that the Ordinance permitted 9 .square feet for a wall sign, and many businessses have already complied with this restriction. The bank is re- questing 45 square feet per sign. They are not located on a major highway so speed of traffic should not be an issue. He further questioned the use of the pylon sign, a sign type that had usually been permitted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 ' MARCH 18, 1DSO only at shoping centers. He asked why the bank could not operate within the nine square foot restric- tion? M;. Hassel stated a nine square foot sign would be a sign you could barely see and they would further be competing with the other signs in the shopping center. They are located 200 feet back from Winnetka. The bank is trying to establish themselves and their identify as being on that corner. He did not feel they were suggesting a garish sign. In answer to a question from Commissioner Daly, he stated that the 45 square feet included both the word- ing and the li~jo on the wall sign. The City Hanager stated that the rear and side signs would be limited to 9 square feet, a front sign could go up to 100 square feet, as clariflcation for Commissioner Daly. Hr. Hassel said they felt they were facing a more ~ajor thoroughfare and were trying to emphasize that the bank was a major force in the community. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned how many signs the bank had now? He felt that the bank had been in its present location for several years and he belleved they had only two signs. In his opinion, every- one that went to the New Hope State Bank knows where it is located. The bank should by now be pretty well known. Hr. Hassei said they were trying to also increase their business by increasing their facility. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that when the New Hope State Bank had started out, people must have been able to locate it -- adding that he found it hard to buy the need for three wall signs plus a pylon when the other tenants in the center were being limited to basically one sign. He then questioned the message board indicated on the plans as part of the pylon sign? Mr. Hassel stated they were no longer planning a message board. Chairman Cameron clarifled, for the ~ecord, that the message board was no longer included on the pylon sign as requested. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn regarding the reasons for requesting a pylon sign, Mr. Hassel stated it was to get the sign up and away from the building. The bank is located 200 feet off Winnetka, with major pylon signs on either side of them. They wanted something that would stand out. Commissioner Gulenchyn expressed his opinion that the pylon sign did not enhance the looks'of the build- ing -- he felt it would be more attractive without it. In response to a question from the Chairman as to why the bank required four or five signs, Hr. Hassel stated that it was very important to them to tie the center facility to the drive-in facility. Mr. Dan Poppe, Vice President of the bank, stated their main desire was to have some correlation between the auto bank and the center bank. He referred to the possibility of branch banking and that there ~ould be many banking facilities in competition. They pylon sign at the center and the pylon sign at the drive- in were the same, identifying them as the same bank. Commissioner Gulenchyn clarified that the height of the proposed pylon sign was the same height as the soffit of the building .(16 feet). In response to a question from Commissioner Daly, Hr. Hassel stated he would hate to give up any sign, but he assumed that the sign on the south side would be best to ellminate if necessary, because there was no entrance on this side. Chairman Cameron, noting that the shopping center itself was permitted two pylon signs, clarlfled that the Center was willing to give up one of the py!on signs so that the bank could have it. He questioned whether all of the tenants were willing to give up this pylon sign -- which provided general identification? Hr. Nystrom stated the center was willlng to give up the sign. He added that the south side of the bank, without the wall sign, would be a blank facia -- he felt it was really a decor more than anything else. The Chairman noted that the philosophy behind the Sign' Ordinance was that signs should be for identifi- cation, not for advertising. By giving one tenant the second all o~ed pylon, the center had lost forever the use of that second sign. Oiscussion then turned to the sign proposed for Hardware Hank. Commissioner Daly confirmed that the 117 square feet proposed included the lcxjo, which was 42" x qB". The City Manager stated that, under the Ordinance, the logo had to be included in the total square foot- age of the sign. The logo is on!y exempted from the letter size restriction. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 o MARCH 18, 1980 ',' 3. Commissioner Daly stated that he was bothered by the open ended factor of the overall sign ptan as far as the rest of the tenants were concerned. AIl the Commission/City knows is that the sign plan will comply with the Ordinance, but they have no information as to materials to be used, what colors will be o4 anything else. Mr. Nystrom stated at this stage, they did not know who all the tenants would'be. They do know that they must comply with the sign criteria of the City. The tenants will know this when they come to get a permit. The Inspectors will have to see what the sign will look like and that it fits in with the Sign Ordinance. They do not wish to see every color of the rainbow stuck in with no planning but do want a decent flow to the signs. Mr. Curiskis stated that the intent of the unknown signs was to leave them some flexibility as far as type of material and type of letters, but the field for the letters, which would be back lit, would be of white plexiglass. The Chairman stated that the idea of a comprehensive sign plan was to allow some flexibility, but it was also assumed that if the shopping center were allowed some extra dimension, it would also give something back. He was bothered by the fact.that the first three tenants all required variances and that the bank-- was requesting so many variances. The idea was that the City could give something so that individual store people could be creative, yet the total sign plan was not in violation of the Sign Ordinance or of the spirit of the Ordinance. He added that it was noticeable to him as he drove through New Hooe that the Ordinance was being adhered to and that considerable change in signage had taken place in the City. The Chairman stated he was a little disappointed in the total plan as presented. He was bothered by.the total approach and the number of variances required by the three main tenants. Mr. Nystrom stated they thought they had tried to comply with the Ordinance. He felt the variance for Lunds was a matter of how you figured the footage. With Hardware Hank the sign proposed was the one they send to all their stores, but this will be a very nice store and using the stock sign would save the operator a considerable amount ofmoney. The bank is a different situation. They are going on the premise that they have a long term lease, have spent a lot of money to make the bank look nice and they are con- cerned about people identifying the fact.that the two facilities were the same bank. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what people had been doing the last four years, with only two signs? Mr. Poppe stated it had been difficult. Discussion followed about the options open to the Commission in regard to acting on the sign plan cluding a possible table to allow the petitioner time to come back with a revised plan. Concensus was that the motion should be divided. Chairman Cameron stated that personally he was hung up on the bank signage. He did not buy the pylon sign but could justify in his mind the three wall signs. He had no real problem with the sign on the south wall and was willing to trade this sign for the elimination of the pylon sign. Commissioner Gundershaug stated his concerns were the same as the Chairman's in regard to the bank signs. He felt they were asking for too much signage. Commissioner Edwards absolutely agreed with Commissic. ners Gundershaug and Cameron. He asked whether there were any plans for a driveway between the two shopping centers? Mr. Nystrom stated they were still trying to work with the Kellys to see what could be accomplished, they hadn't given up yet. Commissioner Edwards also expressed h~s disappointment that so many of the proposed signs were larger than permitted. As a businessman he had also had to meet the criteria of the location he was in. He had a real tough time with justifying five signs for the bank. Mr. Nystrom questioned whether it would be possible to pass on the three wall signs for the bank, with the concerns as expressed about the pylon sign and let the Council decide? Commissioner Daly said he was also bothered by the south wall sign. Me was concerned about all of the other banks in New Hope that were already living with the Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Gulenchyn stated the pylon sign for the bank was not that attractive and ~;S not warranted along with three wall signs. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether the pylon sign for the Center was included in the sign plan? The City Manager stated there was no problem with the proposed location of the Center pylon or the size. The only problem was with the size of the letters. Mr. Nystrom stated they would work this out. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - -- MARCH 18, 1980 3. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending approval of the comprehensive siqn plan for the Winnetka Shopping Center, in.Case 80-18, with the followinq stipulations: Approval of the Lunds, Home Savings, and Hardware Hank signs and approval of the signs for the east and north wails of the New Hp~e State Bank and denial of the south wall sign and the pylon sign for the bank. Second by Wheelock. The Chairman stated this was a compllcated issue and he felt it might be wiser to split the motion. This was agreeable to the Commission. He added that he felt the Commission should realize that the Hardware Hank sign was approximately 20~ over the Code requirements and would probably be the largest variance ever granted in New Hope. He referenced the K-Nart sign, several years ago when the store moved in, which was very outsized. They had ultimately discovered that they could comply with Code, had done so, and this sign had now become their standard in the country -- so it could be done. If corporations as large as K-Mart could do it, he would think that others could too. The Chairman then called for a vote on the split motion. The first motion recommended approval of the comprehensive sign plan proposed in Case 80-18 as it ap- piles to the pylon sign for the Center, the overall sign plan, and the signs, wi'th variances, for Lunds, Hardware Hank and Home Savings. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Wheelock, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Notion carried. The second motion recommended approval of the variances for the east and north signs (h5 square feet each) for the New Hope State Bank and denial of the south sign and the pylon sign. Discussion followed regarding the fact that the south sign might be justified, without the pylon sign and the fact that the two were not separated in the motion. Commissioner Daly stated he was hung up on the extra bank signs because of all the other businesses who had complied with the Ordinance. Commissioner Edwards agreed with Commissioner Daly. His feeling was that two signs were sufficient for the bank. It is a very distinguished building and he felt would have plenty of identify in its own right just from its exterior appeal. He felt the need for the third sign really wasn't there. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Wheelock, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Cameron Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. The Chairman stated that the plans should be very accurate as to what was proposed before the Council meeting on the 24th. Discussion then covered the criteria for letter size on pylon signs. Mr. Curiskis asked for clarification. It was noted that past policy had been refer the question of let- ter size back to the single occupancy sign criteria -- 10'l letters. It was noted that Winnetka was not a major arterial. The City Manager stated that the size of letters went with the street classification, not the size of the sign. It was Mr. Curiskis' contention that a 200 square foot sign warrented 20" letters. He was thinking of aesthetics. The Chairman stated he agreed with him, and noted that the New Hope Center had larger letters. They had requested a variance for these letters. The Chairman suggested that the petitioner could prepare a sign plan and bring it to the Commission asking for a variance, if they chose. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-19 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 4741 ZEALAND AVENUE NORTH - HOMEWARD BOUND~ PETITIONER. Mr. James Magnuson represented Homeward Bound. He stated they were seeking approval for a 600 square foot addition to the administration section of the building. The materials used would be the same as those on the existing building. The addition will be used for office space but they do not intend additional staff. The pa?king requirements have already been in- creased and any additional parking space was already covered. The Conmlssionershad no question~ in regard to this proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH 18, 1980 4. Commissioner Gundershauq made a motion recommendinq approval of the construction requested in Case 80-19 for 4741 ZealaNd Avenue. Commissioner Edwards second. Vo*cing in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Wheelock, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. Design and Review had held one meeting to review the Homeward Bound addition. 6. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 7. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Discussion followed regarding the status of the Sinclair lawsuit against the City, with the Manager noting that a decision was not apt to be soon, as the case had not as yet gone to court. Discussion then held on the wording of the Sign Ordinance as it applies to letter size restrictions for signs of up to 200 square feet (i.e. shopping centers). The concensus of the Commission seemed to be that a 200 square foot sign should qualify for larger letters. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending that the Sign Ordinance letter size for shopping centers permitted 200 square feet of siqnage be controlled by the regulations for 200 square feet for free stand- i.ng buildings. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Wheelock, Cameron, Gundershaug,Edwar~s Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. OLD BUS INESS 8. The City Manager reported that he had attended the Robbinsdale meeting in regard to controls necessary/' desirable for group homes in residential areas. He felt it had been a very worthwhile meeting. A repre- sentative of the State Licensing Division had attended. In the future, cities will be notified when li- censes for such facilities are applied for. They also intend to have a provision added tha't the Building inspector and Fire Marshal of individual cities will be notified and asked for approval as to the actual building to be used: 9. The City Manager stated that the City Comprehensive Plan had been accepted by the Metropolitan Council, with only two small changes requested: 1) that the collector street designation be changed from 62nd Avenue to 63rd Avenue, and 2) that until the Crystal Airport Commission gets functioning, they would llke the City to adopt a Metro Council map that controlled heights in relation to the airport flight zones. He saw no problems with these requests. He noted that New Hope is the first major City to get their Com- prehensive Plan accepted by the Metropolitan Council. The Metro Council had recommended a letter be sent to New Hope commending th~ City for the excellent plan and noting the procedure would serve as the model for future reviews. 10. The Planning Commission minutes of March 4, i980 were approved as printed. ll. The Council minutes of the March lO, 1980 meeting were reviewed by the City Manager. He noted that Council had approved the Rosewood building, but opposed the use of IRB's for the building if it was not changed so as to present a better side to Bass Lake Road. 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:09 p.m. Respectful ly submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 1, 1980 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 1, 1980 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, EdWards Absent: Gulenchyn (excused), Wheelock PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-17 (CONTINUED FROM 3-4-80) - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT ON WINPARK DRIVE - ~ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER Mr. Warren Israelson represented the petitioner. He stated he was the Engineer for the project. This project will consist of three warehouse buildings in the City of Crystal and they are proposing to divide the property with this plat and to carry out the request of the New HOPe City Council to combine the outlot in New Hope with the Crystal property. The proposed plat divides the site into three lots. Outlot 1, which is in the City of New Hope, will be part of Lot 1, in the new plat. The City~anager asked whether Crystal was now satisfied as far as the proposed parking on the site was concerned? Mr. Israelson stated there would be ample parking for the first building. The spaces allotted will be sufficient. The City Manager noted that the point was, would Crystal approve the plat so the petitioner would not need to return to the Planning Commission of New Hope? Commissioner Bartos noted that the biggest concern of the Commission/City was that the additional traf- fic created would cause Winpark Drive to wear out sooner. The City Manager stated that this platting would take care of this potential problem. When the outlot becomes part of Lot 1, there is no danger of its becoming tax delinquent, and the City would be able to assess and collect assessments. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat on Winpark Drive as re- quested in Case 80-17. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn, Wheelock Motion carried. Mr. Joe Pazandak stated he was the original developer in the area, financed by Fred Seed, who had recently died. One of the items that had become an issue in the settling of the estate'was a $38,000 bond which had been held from the time of the original platting. There are now only two sites left to sell in the plat. In order to release the $38,000 bond, New Hope requested that another bond be taken out in the a- mount of $4,857 to guarantee unpaid assessments. It was his opinion that if these people were going to replat, then they should take-over t~is bond for the outlot. There had been a misunderstanding. The Engineer had recommended release of the utility and street bond providing that the delinquent taxes were paid. They had closed with MM putting up the money for the trees. The City had decided they also wanted the assessments paid. MM will not pay these. Mr. Pazandak asked the Commission to recommend to the Council that as long as these people were re-plat- ting, the original bond should be released and MM should pick up the bond. The Chairman noted that the Planning Commission could not do anything about this. This was a matter be- tween the City Council and the attornies. He recommended that Mr. Pazandak appear before the City Coun- cil on the 14th April. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-20 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DENTAL LABORATORY AT 4215 LOUISIANA AVENUE - TECHNICAL DENTAL ARTS, PETITIONER. Mr. Walter Silvan, stated he was co-owner of the Dental Lab. He stated they had purchased the property in June of 1979. The lot had been rezoned to R-O as a condition of the purchase. They moved into the building in November and since that time have made improvements to both the interior and the exterior, including the removal of some diseased trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / 2 APRIL 1, 1980 4. The nature of their business is processing bridges and crowns for dentists. They haveten employees including the two owners. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the property had been rezoned to an R-O Zone. However, this par- ticular use in the R-O Zone also requires a Conditional Use Permit. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, F~. Silvan stated that there would be ten employ- ees, including the owners, two of whom work different shifts, and that as a rule customers do not come t~ the lab. Other than ~ployees, the only visitors would be occasional salesmen and garbage trucks. There is room for 13 paved parking spaces. The spaces are not presently striped. There is an area in the rear for parking, but that pavement needs replacing. In answer to further questions, Mr. Silvan stated he might hire one more person and that he would have enough room for parking for 15. He felt this number was sufficient. The hours of operation of the lab are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with some overtime. They presently have a large garbage dumpster, that is not screened. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Mr. Silvan would have any objection to providing a living screen or hedge next to the parking area toward the residential area? Discussion following regarding the parking area, Which is on the hill, and the fact that the cars would be approximately 30 feet from the neighbors. Also discussed was the fact that a portion of the building is still'unrented, and when it is rented, that tenant would also require some parking room. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the rubbish area would have to be screened with a non see-through type of fencing, or else they would have to provide internal rubbish collection. He added that this is what the rest of the businesses in the City had been required to provide - an enclosure with a gate. Mr. Silvan said he supposed they could build somethingaround the dumpster. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, he noted he could probably provide a hedge around the parking area facing the residential area. Commissioner Gustafson noted that any signing would have to be in conformance with the City Code and asked whether Mr. Silvan would have any objection to a stipulation that any additional signing be placed on the south side of the site. Mr. Silvan stated "no". At the present time they have a small sign, with three inch tall letters on the east side, right next to the driveway. It is a wooden sign with no lights. He added that in the event the empty space were rented, he had no objectio~ to requiring additional signage be placed toward the south side of the site. Commissioner Gustafson then cautioned Mr. Silvan that he should be aware of the restrictions of the R-O Zone as to the type of business that was permitted, before he rented the space. He noted that City staff could provide him with a list of the permitted uses. He added that there is a specific list of the type of business that would be permitted in the R-O Zone. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Silvan regarding the nee~ to have striped parking spaces for 15 cars, a hedge type screening around the parking lot toward the residential lots and the need for a solid type of fence to screen the rubbish area from view. Mr. Silvan felt these restrictions would be agreeable. It was also noted that the exterior trash enclosure must be screened according to City Code restrictions and that any signage would have to comply with the City Sign Ordinance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Silvan stated that there would ~robably be no more than ten cars in one day and that there is approximately 700 square feet of space available for rent. Corm~issioner Gundershaug noted that depending on the tenant, there still could be a problem with parking space. In answer to a question from Mr. Silvan, it was noted that using the boulevard space for parking would not be permitted. Mr. Silvan noted that there was unused space on the Wax Works site, and questioned whether it might be possible to purchase some of this?. The City Manager noted this might be possible but that the Wax Works would be required to maintain the minimum lot size required by City Code. This would also involve a replatting. He suggested that it might be better for Mr. Silvan to get a lease from the Wax Works to use some of their unused space for extra parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - APRIL 1, 1980 4. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 4215 Louisiana Avenue, as requested in Case 80-20, subject to: 1) that by June 30, 1980, 15 paved, striped parking spaces would be provided, 2) the parking lot is screened with a. living hedge, 3) that if the trash containers remain outside, they be screened with appro~r±ate fencinq according to City Code, and 4) that any signage, other than existing, be placed on the south side of the property. commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn, Wheelock Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 80-21 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 2951 LOUISIANA - I.P.S. ASSOCIATES, PETITIONER Mr. Wally Potter and Mr. Harold Swanson represented the petitioner. Mr. Potter stated they were re- questing a variance in the frontyard setback. This variance would allow the proposed building to line up with the existing buildings on the street, be somewhat closer to the street and they could also then avoid running into the storm pond, and allow for better usage of the site. This would allow grade en- trance on the south and north sides and also to the loading area. Mr. Potter stated he would, if the variance .were granted, be back before the Commission in May to submit plans for the building construction. ~r. Potter noted they had retained a landscape architect to draw up a plan that would include planting buffers on both sides of the building. The frontyard would be all green area and would be sodded. He did not foresee any problems with providing landscaping and would sod, except where they need drainage. The pond level is pretty well established. They had contacted Bonestroo, Rosene, etc. in regard to any drainage needs. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the petitioner would have any problem with the Commission granting the variance, subject to the final approval by the Commission of the landscape plan, at the time of the submission of the construction plans? Mr. Potter stated they would prefer not to invest $5,000 on plans without being sure they would receive the variance. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Potter stated he did not foresee any problems with the City requirements for landscaping and the type of materials specified. They also want a site that is acceptable. The Chairman commented that the Commission was concerned about the residents across the street frem the site. He wanted to make sure the petitioner understood that the Commission/City want a lot of landscap- ing in the front of the building. Com~lissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variance requested for 2951 Louisiana Avenue, Case 80-21, subject to the approval of final construction plans and approval of the landscape plan. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn, Wheelock Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 80-22 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN WITH VARIANCES AT 5600 COUNTY ROAD #18 - LIBERTY DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES, PETITIONER. Mr. Dave Kohner represented Liberty Diversified. He stated they were the parent company of a number of subsidiaries, including Fidelity-Safco. They are requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan, and a variance to allow an oversized front wall sign. The City Manager noted that the City considered this building a multiple tenant building, for purposes of interpreting the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Kohner stated they felt the variance was needed because the building was very large and on a very large parcel of land. Further, the building is set back farther from County #18, because it is not on a service road. He felt the style of the building was such that it was impossible to do anything with it. They felt it would be desirable to have a sign that would be visible from the highway. There have been some problems with truck drivers and even applicants for employment finding it difficult to locate the building. It was their feeling, since the front of the building faced toward County #18, that a larger sign would not impinge on anyone. / - 4 APRIL 1, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / - 6. They do want good looking signage and think their proposal is both attractive and esthetic. They feel the location and the size Of the building w~rrant the variance. In answer to a question from Comm~'ssioner Gustafson, a representative of Nordquist Sign Company stated that the pylon sign would be located at the front of the building, meeting City setbacks, facing north and south, toward County ~18. The letters "IDS" would be 28" in height. The exact location of the py- lon sign has not been determined yet. Discussion then centered on the pylon sign, its size and the fact that if it is positioned six feet above grade, it would be visible over the cyclone fence and front Highway #18. The petitioner stated this sign was considered an identification sign -- and it will not be illuminated. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager noted that the new signs along County #18 should be in compliance with Code. The Champion Auto sign was installed under the old Code as were some of the others. Mr. Kohner presented an illustration showing the proposed sign with variance, and as it would look if installed according to Code. Discussion then held regarding the other signs requested by the petitioner. There will be three signs on the east side of the building for Fidelity-Safco indicating the location of ~'shipping" and "receiv- ing''. There are two directional signs on the building for "shipping" and "will call". The two ground signs are 3' x 3'. Mr.' Kohner stated he interpreted the Ordinance to mean they could have two overall identification signs and two directional signs. Commissioner Gustafson commented that the crux of the problem was the front building sign which was pro- posed for more that 400 square feet - Code allowing 100 square feet. Mr. Kohner noted that the building was very large and the proportions of the sign to the building size were not any larger than other signs in the area proportionately. The building also fronts on a major highway. The City Manager asked, for the record~ what the sign on the east side for Fidelity-Safco was in square footage? Mr. Kohner stated he thought this sign was about 30 square feet° Commissioner Bartos stated he felt they were asking for a lot of sign for the wall sign. The variance would be for over 300 square feet. The chairman commented that originally everyone seemed to have a problem with adhering to Code regarding sign size, but somehow once they had done so, their businesses seemed to go on without difficulty. He noted that City philosophy had been that signage is for identification purposes, not to advertise. He felt that if drivers had problems in locating the building, it would be in how they got off County ~18 to get to the building that would be the problem, and an over 400 square foot sign would not help them with this. He noted that once a truck driver had located the building, they would not have this trou- ble another time. The chairman further indicated he was opposed ~o the size of the variance for the front building sign. He noted that the Commission had several choices on how to proceed: one would be disapproval, second would be approval as proposed, third, could be to table the request to allow the petitioner to return to the Com~ission, perhaps with a sign proposal that would be either under or right at 100 square feet. He asked whether the petitioner had any particular feelings in regard to these choices? Mr. Kohner asked-whether the Commission would accept a request for a lesser variance? · The Chairman stated that the Commission would not accept a variance of much over 100 square feet. Every- one facing County #18 had the same problems and they seemed to have managed well with 100 square feet. In answer to a question from Mr. KoD-ner, the Chairman stated it was the front wall sign that was the Commission's main concern. They wanted to be reasonable as far as the directional signs were concerned. Mr. Kohner stated he thought it might be best if he went back to his principals in regard to the front wall sign. Mr. Chuck Lerberg, of Nordquist Sign Company, asked whether if the petitioner agreed to come back with a sign within the 100 square foot limitation, they would have to still return to the Planning Commission? The Chairman answered "yes", unless, the Co~nission were assured that the sign would be within the 100 square feet and the petitioner would have a new 'sign proposal prepared before the Council meeting. PI2~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES / - 5 - APRIL 1, 1980 6. Discussion then held regarding alternatives to the proposed oversized sign, the possibility of the pe- titioner designing a new sign before the Council meeting on the 14th, and whether the Commission could approve the sign plan, subject to a commitment from the petitioner, that the front wall sign would con- form to City Code. Concensus of the Commissioners was that no one was in favor of a sign exceeding 400 square feet. The City Manager stated there would be no problem with approving the sign plan, subject to the petitioner submitting a plan within the 100 square feet, with the provision that if the sign exceeded this size, it must again be approved by the Planning Commission before being submitted to the City Council. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether it was really necessary to have four signs for Fidelity-Safco? He personally wished they would clean it up a bit and wondered why the words Fidelity-Safco also had to be on the pole signs? Mr. Kohner answered that Fidelity Safco was as big a company as Liberty Diversified. Technically they were informational signs, and are for traffic flow. There are multiple shipping and receiving areas. Cor~nissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the sign plan for Liberty Diversified as ~equested in Case 80-22, as proposed by the petitioner, with the exception that the front wall sign fac- ing County #18, be reduced in size to no more than 110 square feet and that the directional free standi~ signs on the site identifying "shipping" and "receiving" be only directional in nature and bear no adver- tising for the company itself. In addition, that the petitioner be aware that the pylon sign in front of the building, facing County Road #18, must be located in conformance with City Ordinance and that if the petitioner plans to move forward to the City Council with signs other than under these constraints, that the Council return this case to the Planning Commission for further review. Commissioner Bartos second. Mr. Kohner asked whether it would be possible to allow the Fidelity-Safco wording on the two small ground signs? He did feel the name was important there. This is one of the key operating ar~s of the company and he felt this was the key arm, rather than LDI. Commissioner Gustafson, with the agreement of the second, Commissioner Bartos, withdrew the restriction. Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn, Wheelock Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 80-23 - REQL~ST FOR REZONING, APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWN- HOUSES AT 7924-8018 51ST AVENUE NORTH - SOUKUPS UNLIMITED, PETITIONER. Mr. Dan Blomquist sta%ed he was an attorney representing the petitioners. They wish to have the property rezoned to R-3 which is the townhouse zoning. They also submitted a preliminary plat which if approved would permit the townhouses to be sold as individual units. The buildings had originally been built as townhouses, but for financial reasons had not been operated as such. The petitioner intends to purchase the two buildings and convert them to townhouses with individual units for sale. The real estate agent stated they were in the process of obtaining Fannie May approval of the mortgage. To do this, the buildings will have to be in brand new condition, including new furnaces, new roofs, be repainted, tuckpointed, etc. There are high standards for this type of financing. They will look like new. They have entered into a purchase agreement and are scheduled to close on April 30th. Commissioner Daly asked whether in addition to cleaning up the property they had any plans for additional landscaping and plantings? . The agent stated they would be installing a hedge or fencing or perhaps separate patios toward the ware- housing to the north. There is asphalt in the front. In answer to a concern about the rubbish storage, etc., he noted that with Fannie May financing the site had to be in first class condition. The parking area had been resurfaced last sun%mer. They had no plans for striping since they had not intended to assign parking spaces. Mr. Blomquist noted that there will also be a Homeowners Association which will control the common areas, the parking areas, insure maintenance, etc. He noted that the owners were interested in putting together a first-rate project. Commissioner Daly noted that the property was over-built. The present Ordinance would allow only seven units on the site. He felt to make up for this fact, a good landscaping plan and a general clean-up and spruce up would be advantageous. The site has been an eyesore. He confirmed that the maintenance of the common area - Outlot A - would be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association as well as the upkeep of the exterior of the buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING / - 6 - APRIL 1, 1980 7. The City Manager noted that the financing might not go through without the rezoni.ng. The property is a non-conforming use in the R-1 zone at this time. Commissioner Daly asked whether the petitioner would consider coming back to the Co~ission with a firmed up plan for the landscaping and sprucing up of the property? It was noted that the Fannie May appraiser would conduct a detail review, after the site was improved. They could submit this to the Commission for approval if they desired. Mr. Blomquist noted that timing was a problem. They hoped to be able to sell the units early in the sum- mer, after the renovation was completed in May. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether final plans could be submitted for the refurbishing, at the time of Final plat approval? Mr. BlOmquist stated it would be very helpful for the petitioner if the Commission could be specific about what things they felt were troublesome. Commissioner Daly stated more trees and shrubs were needed. He was also thinking of the general appear- ance for the surrounding community. Discussign then held regarding the necessary improvements and the type of cleanup the petitioner intended; what the City/Commission felt necessary in regard to cleanup; the possibilities for improving the front of the property with landscaping, even though there is existing asphalt; the need for cleanup of rubbish and general maintenance of the common area; and the fact that the City could withhold the final plat ap- proval if the site were not appropriately cleaned up and landscaped, even if the City requirements were in exess of Fannie May standards. The City Manager noted that, in his opinion, it would be a relatively simple thing to cut some holes in the asphalt and plant some trees, perhaps install a hedge near the boulevard, and make other improve- ments of this type. Mr. Blomquist noted that the cleanup up they intended to do. He added that if a great deal of landscap- ing was required, they would need to begin working on this quickly and would appreciate any direction the Commission could give. As to the fact that the site was overbuilt by today's standards, there would be no more people living there than a/'e there now. COncensus was that the petitioner should assume that landscaping was of primary importance. The Chairman stated that all of the proposed painting and the cleanup was important but that landscaping was very important. The Commission was looking for a total image improvement. The City Manager noted that the zoning district change and the final plat would have to go hand in hand. The rezoning would not go into affect until the final plat was filed, since the legal description would be tied to the platting. In answer to a question from Commissioner Daly, Mr. Blomquist stated it was an "unknown" as to how many of the present tenants would buy the units, but they would be offered the opportunity to do so. He fur- ther stated that there was a possibility that Soukups Unlimited would buy the third building but that this building had a different owner. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson regarding the pOssibilitY of the Homeowners Associa- tion defaulting, Mr. Blomquist stated that the "rights of the municipality" were guaranteed in the agree- ments, and the lots could be assessed for any necessary maintenance or repairs performed by the City. A resident, from across the street, noted that the proposed plans looked good, adding that the site was an eyesore right now. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending approval of the rezoning to R-3 as requested in Case 80-23, and approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the Commission reviewing a landscape p!.an prior to the approval of the Final Plat. Commissioner Bartos second. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Commissioner Daly would be agreeable to including in the motion that not only the landscape plan be reviewed, but that the plan for rubbish collection and the dressing up and striping of the parking lot and general cleanup of the area be reviewed? This was agreeable. Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn, Wheelock Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,~' - 7 - APRIL 1, 1980 COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 9. There was no report from the Land Use Con~ittee. 10. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS. 11. The City Manager reviewed the Council Minutes of March 24, 1980 as they were not available for distri- bution. He noted that the Council had followed the Planning Commission Recommendations regarding Harris Indus- tries - Case 80-06 - with the condition added, that the situation be reviewed after one year to guarantee that it was working out as far as the loading docks were concerned. They accepted the limitations on hours of use and the signage. Council had accepted the recommendations of the Commission in regard to Homeward Bound - Case 80-19. In regard to the Winnetka Shopping Center sign plan - Case 80-18 - Council had accepted the Planning Commission recommendations with the exception that they had allowed the bank 25 feet of signage on the south side. They pylon sign for the bank had been denied. 12. The Planning Commission minutes of March 18, 1980 were accepted as printed. 15. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J y e Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1980 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 6, 1980 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Edwards Absent: Bartos (excused), Gustafson, Gundershaug (arrived at 7:47 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-24 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT THE WINNETKA SHOPPING CENTER - 45TH/WINNETKA - HOME SAVINGS, PETITIONER Mr. David Shea represented the petitioner. He stated he was not requesting a variance in the total square footage, but to allow them to have a time and temperature device added to the sign. The name portion of the sign is 80 square feet, with the time and temperature device Home Savings would still be within the 100 square feet allowed. He then presented an illustration of the proposed sign. The time/temperature portion would be four by five feet. He noted that the standard time and temperature sign used flashing light bulbs and often presented a problem with light bulbs burning out. The sign as proposed uses only one light bulb and discs that operate electro magnetically and saves about 15% in the amount of energy used. There is also a saving in regard to maintenance, since a fluorescent bulb will burn for a couple of years. The total sign is within the maximum sign size set by the Center. Chairman Cameron stated that the maximum allowable sign size is determined by City Ordinance, not by the Center. Mr. Shea stated this would be the first sign of the type for Home Savings but they do have others on order for some of their other locationsl They will eventually change all of their existihg flashing time/temperature signs for this type. Commissioner Edwards asked why, when the sign plan for the Center had been presented in March, Home Sav- ings had not brought in their request for a variance at the same'time? Mr. Shea noted that a number of things had happened before that meeting. Nystrom had proposed a blan- ket 100 square feet for each of the tenant signs. Home Savings had been asked to just present their n~e sign, without trying to raise any objections or anything like that. Nystrom had said they wanted the sign plan to go through easily. Home Savings had complied with this request, by presenting only the name sign. Nystrom had said that if they had any variances they wanted, they should bring it up later, on their own. ~his is what Home Savings had done. The Chairman asked if this is really what they had been told? Mr. Shea stated it seemed that this is the way the Center wanted it worked. If a variance was to be re- quested, it should be requested later. This is what they had done. In answer to a question regarding the New Hope bank signs, which Shea Architects had also done, Mr. Shea stated that the bank signs were handled separately because the bank was an anchor tenant~ Home Savings was not considered an anchor tenant such as Lunds, Hardware Hank, or the bank. They were to blend in with the tenant space.~ It was his understanding that Council had given approval for the 100 square foot signs for all of the tenants. The Chairman stated that the 100 square foot restriction was an Ordinance requirement. Mr. Shea responded that this is what Home Savings had complied with. Shea Architects had not done the mall itself. The bank had been approved separately. The sign for Home Savings was to be brought in to the Commission independently. Commissioner Edwards asked why the petitioner felt it was necessary to have a time/temperature sign? I~r. Shea answered it was an identification sign! but they also looked at it as a public service type of thing. It would be the only sign in the center that would have a time/temperature feature. People com- ing into the Center would look upon it as a public sel~ice, as they do in other communities. They feel it would be both a public service and an identification for Home Savings. Co~missioner Edwards raised the question of whether this sign was.advertising or really a public service? Mr. Shea stated that if the sign were to be on a pole, in the middle of the parking lot, it might be considered to be advertising, but when it is in connection with the Home Savings front sign, they felt it was identification as well as.public service. 2 MAY 6, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES /, - - 3. Commissioner Daly confirmed that Mr. Shea was aware that the New Hope Ordinance forbids flashing, or moving signs. He stated he was really interested in seeing the Ordinance applied fairly throughout the City. Other banks and savings and lOans had requested this type of sign and had been denied. For this reason, he did not feel he could vote for this variance. Referring to the March 24, meeting and the question raised regarding a possible time and temperature sign for the New Hope State Bank, he felt Council had not been in favor of such a sign. Mr. Shea noted that he thought that the question then, had been in regard to a pylon sign that would in- clude a time and temperature feature. He had represented the bank at that Council meeting. He felt the discussion had surrounded the pylon sign including a time and temperature portion. He thought that per- haps if the time and temperature sign had been included within the total square footage requested, the discussions might have gone further. The time and temperature device for Home Savings would be incorporated within the total square footage allowed by Ordinance'. Mr. Shea added that, in his opinion, moving and flashing signs were the type . you would see on Hennepin Avenue, where there are so many in one area. He felt the proposed sign was not this type but rather more of a changing clock, i.e. a digital watch type. He felt it was an uncle of the old "town clock" sitting in the tower. This is the modern equivalent, with the temperature added. Commissioner Daly com~ented that it was his opinion that this type of sign violated the Ordinance and if Home Savings were to be allowed to put in this type of sign the City would be vulnerable for every other bank/business to request this type of sign. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Shea stated the time frame between the changes could vary from five seconds to thirty seconds. Commissioher Whe~elock asked whether every branch of Home Savings had a time and temperature device? A representative of Home Savings stated that some of their store front locations might not have room for this type of sign. All but about three of their twenty-three offices had a time/temperature sign. The Chai~man commented that he thought there were two decisions for the Co~.ission to make -- first, was whether or not the proposed sign was a flashing sign, and in violation of City Ordinance, and second, whether or not they wished to approve a variance for this sign. He added that the Ordinance spoke to trying to eliminate a carnival atmOsphere created by too many moving signs. There is only one moving sigD~--~ in the City at the.present time ~ this is the barber pole. . Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he felt any sign that changed or flashed had to be considered as a moving sign. Commissioner Edwards agreed, considered the proposed sign a moving sign based on the facts as presented. Cc~missioner Wheelock noted that whether the sign moved or not was academic, the Ordinance speaks to creating an illusion of movement, which this sign did, and a variance would be required. Commissioner Daly referred to the wording of the Ordinance that spoke to moving parts of the illusion of movement. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending denial of the sign variance requested for a time and tem- perature sign for Home Savings in Case 80-24. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Edwards · Voting against: Wheelock, Cameron Abstain: Gundershapg Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried 4. PLANNING CASE 80-25 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 8140 46TH AVENUE NORTH - DE MATTS, INC. PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Cor~missioner Gundershaug moved to table Case 80-25 until later in the meeting. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. ~--~ PLA~ING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MAY 6, 1980 5. PLANNING CASE 80-26 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM I-2 to I-1 at 4800 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - PHOTO CONTROL CORPORATION, PETITIONER Mr. Les Willig, President of Photo Control, was present and accompanied by Mr. Curt Jackels and Mr. George Scott. He noted that Photo Control was currently located in Crystal and that the company was about 20 years old. They are desirous of locating in New Hope. They manufacture photographic equipment and also have a die casting division. This type of operation is a clean operation, not with waste materials, and they don't make a lot of noise. The reason for the rezoning request is tha~ as they progressed in their plans for the move, they found that there were some restrictions they had not been aware of with regard to the number of parking spaces they would be allowed on the premises. They would like to have approximately 140 parking spaces as shown on the plan as distributed to the Commissioners. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Willig stated the transaction had not as yet closed but that financing was arranged for, and they have plans as presented and also plans for improvements to both the interior and exterior of the structure. He added they had not been aware when they began to purchase the building of the problems. The informa- they had been given was that the parking would not be a problem and they took this at face value. This information was not given them by the City. Mr. Willig stated that the property is zoned I-1 and is between an area that is zoned I-2, as is the area north across 49th Avenue. If the triangular piece were rezoned, it would enable them to have the number of parking spaces they feel necessary. Commissioner Daly stated he was concerned with the people across the street and also about the parking and traffic increase that would result. He added that he liked to see green space and that the people across the street would be losing green space and be faced with nothing but asphalt and cars. This bothered him a great deal. It seemed to him that the b~ilding and the sitew~re simply not adequate. He questioned what would happen in the future and was concerned that the street be cluttsred up with cars. He felt this was too big a business for this lo~ and there was not way he could support it. He felt they owed something to the people who had built their homes. It was a nice area and was now faced with the threat of a change in the traffic in the area. Mr. Willig said he concurred with Commissioner Daly and felt tha~ if he were living in an area and thought a big company was coming in and he would be looking at a lot of asphalt, he would have the same concerns. The citizens can be proud of their concerns for them. He noted that if Photo Control Corporation was go- ing to be a citizen in New Hope, they share this feeling and in no way would allow an asphalt prairie to exist next to this type of housing. They are requesting more parking space to keep parking off the stree~ and if they could not be an asset to the community, they did not want to come into New Hope. They wish to be responsible. He noted that when he had first come before Council, one of the questions asked had been whether they would be willing to accommodate the overflow parking from the Ice Arena. Their reaction had been yes. It -was his feeling that the 20% left for green space and landscaping was not the factor, it was what was done with the area and how it was maintained that was important. Commissioner Daly noted that an over-riding concern in a rezoning was that they were opening up the door to another, less concerned company, should Photo Control move to another location in the future. Mr. Willig noted that their financing was structured and their industrial revenue bonds were structured, on a long term basis - 25 years, for example. They don't plan to come in and be a short term outfit. They are financially sound, would provide additional jobs in the area and are a clean operation. They want to be citizens with the Commission and make the City nice. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Willig stated there was very little truck traf- fic. They have a small truck of their own, but there is not a lot of trucking in and out, mostly small trucks. They currently have about 90 employees. They will probably not need all of the extra space now, but were trying to plan ahead. They would use 90-100 now, but the operation is seasonal' to a degree, and there are certain times when there might be a few more people working. They operate from 7:00 a.m. to about 3:30 p.m. and then have another shift that operates, usually until about midnight. There could be 80-90 parking spaces in use at any one time. During conversation with Commissioner Gundershaug about the parking needs, Mr. Willig noted that he would not tolerate an asphalt jungle. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether rather than rezone, a variance route might not be preferable? In response to questions from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Willig stated there was some landscaping shown on the plans as presented and that their intent was to add to the plantings. Additional plantings could be added to the Quebec Avenue side if this was desired by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / - 4.- MAY 6, 1980 5. The Chairman noted that he felt the petitioner should be able.to get the tenor of feeling from the ques- tioning, that it was not a question of "can" but that additional landscaping "should" be done. In a re- zoning request, one of the concerns of the Commission/City was how the business fit into the neighborhood. He felt a lot could be done with landscaping. Quite a bit more screening should be provided. He asked whether the petitioner would accept a month's table, to allow for further planning? Mr. Willig stated that he guessed a month's delay would prohibit them from coming into New Hope. The reason for this is that unfortunately this matter of the parking problem did not come up until quite late. When they became aware of the problem about three weeks ago they had hurried to get the application in. He apologized for not being better prepared but they had not had the experience of coming before a Zoning Board before and had not been in a location where they had owned their own property before. They were currently renting space in four different buildings. The Chairman noted that the Commission's concern was that rezoning was permanent, and that there was the possibility of a variance. He felt there should be a better landscape plan prepared before the City Coun- cil reviewed this request. Commissioner Daly commented on the zoning of the property and the I-2 next to it~ as well as his feeling that there was a need for a buffer zone between the industrial zone and the single family zone. He also felt that to go along and zone day by day, to accommodate a business that wished to move into the Cit~ was making a mockery of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mike Kelly, 7621 48th Circle, expressed concern over the traffic if there were 100 more ca~s in the area. He was also concerned about the shift ~hange at 3:30 when children would be coming home frc~ school. He has a daughter involved in skating and was also concerned about her going back and forth to the arena with heavy traffic. Mrs. Schultz, 7600 48th Circle, stated she did not want to see 100 cars in and out, between 7 - 3:30 and- 3:30 to midnight. She would like to get some sleep. Mr. Arlen Johnson, from 48th Circle, stated he strongly objected to additional parking. He felt it would have bad effects on the value of life and on the property values of the area. The fact that there might be two shifts, plus perhaps ice arena cars would make the traffic worse than it has been. The Chairman commented that someone was occupying the building n~w, and asked how this traffic affected the area? Mr. Johnson noted that the people who have been in the building have not been good houskeepers, but also had only one shift. There were not the problems that might occur with Photo Control. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Willig stated they did not plan to have weekend shifts. Commissioner Dal¥, made a motion reco~aending denial of the rezoning requested in Case 80-26. Com~issioner Wheelock second. The chairman stated he felt this case put the Commission in a tough spot because here was a reputable firm wanting to come into New Hope, the kind of citizens the City wants, but who had perhaps chosen too small a site. He wished there was some way to expand the property. Commissioner Gundershaug felt the same way. He felt he could not support a rezoning. He felt he could buy a variance, but not a variance for all of the parking requested. To him, the front parking could not be there and there would have to be green and a lot heavier landscaping. Commissioner Edwards concurred with these thoughts. He felt the site should retain the I-1 and the park- · ng be controlled. Commissioner Daly also felt this was a quality company, but the land was inadequate. It would be a dis- service to the neighborhood. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. The Chairman noted that this case.would be considered at the Council meeting on May 12th, and added a bit of personal advice -- that if the petitioner could possibly get a prDpos~l for~increased landscaping for the site, ready before the Council meeting, it-might make their proposal more acceptable. 6~ PLANNING CASE'80-27 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIanCE AT 3600 JORDAN AVENUE NORTH - ROY L. LINDGREN, PETI- TIONER Mr. Lindgren stated he had just purchased the home ~but had made the mistake of going by the word of the former owner that there was plenty of room to build another garage. He.now found, when applying for a permit, that he could only go within 35 feet of the lot line. The addition would put the garage to 31 ~eet from the lot line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MAY 6, 1980 6. His yard is half an acre, and he has rather good sized lawn maintenance equipment, as well as two cars which he needs to keep inside. He would do a good job of landscaping the area around the garage. He felt the only other solution would be to put in a shed, which he did not like to do. Co~unissioner Daly stated he had looked at the site and driven up and down Jordan checking the sight lines. He didn't find a problem with the proposed garage. He felt the fence was more of a problem than the gar- age extension would be. Mr. Lindgren stated he planned to remove the existing fence and replace it with a two rail fence, three feet high, with a cyclone fence in the rear yard to prevent children from cutting through the lot. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the roof line, and exterior materials of the garage would match the house as far as texture and color. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommendinq approval of the variance requested in Case 80-27 at 3600 Jordan Avenue. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 80~28 - REQUEST FOR PORCH VARIANCE AT 8048 49TH AVENUE NORTH - JOHN RESCH, PETITIONER Mr. Resch stated he wanted to cover and screen in his 12 x 18 foot deck. He then had decided he wanted to glass it in. He found that to glass in the deck he had to be 35 feet from the lot line. As pro- posed he would be within 22 feet. The porch would be on a deck, four feet off the ground. He has a unique lot, without much depth. Commissioner Daly commented that if the dimensions as sUk~itted were correct, the house was already in the setback area by one foot. He felt that in this case there would still be some decent yard left and ~. Resch did have a narrow lot. He did not have any real problem with this proposal. Mr. Resch stated that the addition would be pretty well blocked'from view. To the west he has spruce trees, and in the summer there are two or three flowering crab a~ple trees separating the porch from the rear of the yard. The neighbor does not have any major windows toward the porch. In answer to questions frc~ Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Resch stated that the porch would be almost all glass, with 72" glass windows. He will have about two feet on each corner that would not be glass, but would be rough cedar. He will probably wire the porch for convenience, because it is off the kitchen. It will be kind of a summer family room. He will insulate the ceiling for practical purposes, not be- cause he intends to heat the porch. There will be an eight foot patio door to the yard onto a four foot wide deck and then steps down. The base will be built up on 6" x 6" posts. At today's prices, he does not intend to ever try and heat this space. Commissioner Daly made a motion recormnending approval of Case 80-28, request for setback variance at 8048 49th Avenue North. Conunissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 4. The petitioner was still not in attendance. Commissioner Daly made a motion tabling Case 80-25 until the meetinq of June 3, 1980. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Da!y, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. There was no report from the Design and Review Co~nittee. 9. There was no report fr~n the Land Use Committee. 10. There was no report fro~ the Codes and Standards Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MAY 6~ 1980 NEW BUSINESS 11. The Council minutes of April 14th and 28th, were reviewed. Commissioner Gundershaug commented on the minutes of the 28th, in which a statement had been made by Mr. Nystrom that the Planning Cormmission had noted that there was a liquor license available. He noted this was untrue, since the Planning Commission had never discussed or been involved in any discus- sion regarding liquor licensing. The Manager noted the Nystrom statement from the meeting on the 28th, in which he had said only the an- chor tenants would require variances. The Manager stated that the bank had come back in regard to their sign and that Council had granted them a full sign on the south side. Another item of interest to the Commission, was that Rosewood had come back in for a change in plans and would most likely appear before the Planning Commission on June 3, with a revised layout for their de- velopment on Bass Lake Road. 12. The Cormmission Minutes of April 1, 1980 were accepted as printed. 15. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~oyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JTJNE 3, 1980 1. A regular meeting of the Planning C~ission was held at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, June 3, 1980. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN Present: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gustafson PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-25 (CONTINUED FROM 5-6-80) REQUEST FOR GARAGE VAi~IANCE AT'8140 46TH AVEI~JE NORTH - DE MATTS, INC., PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. 'Mr. Bill Stewart, 8132 46th Avenue North, a neighbor, stated that the present owner would be late to the meeting because he was tied up with a long distance telephone call. Commissioner Edwards motioned to table Case80-25 until later in the meeting. Con=~issioner Gundershaug second. V~ting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-26 (RETURNED FROM COUNCIL) - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - 4800 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - PHOTO CONTROL CORPORATION, PETITIONER Mr. Les Willig, President of Photo Control, stated he was before the Commission to request a variance to allow reduced amounts of green area, a variance in parking spaces required and variances in setback. He introduced Mr. Ken Johnson, to explain the proposed landscap~ plan for the site. Mr. Johnson noted that they were requesting a variance from 35% to 18% on the green area; a variance in setbacks -- to 13 feet on the west and from 2.2 to 10 feet on the north. They are also requesting a variance in the number of parking spaces to'be provided from 147 to 138. They are proposing to add to the existing landscaping considerably to screen the parking lots. The landscaping will include the addition of 63 do~wood bushes, which are a dense,hardy, fast-growing shrub, along the north. They will also add Blue Spruce, evergreens, five Black Hills Spruce, three Green Ash trees to the overall land- scaping. They propose a new curb cut on 49th, 75 feet from the property corner. They plan a diagonal parking lot, and a one-way drive 13 feet wide for the 49th Avenue lot. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that one of the concerns of Council had been that they consult a Traffic Engineer to design the traffic flow of the lot. He asked whether this had been done? Mr. Wi!lig introduced Mr. Dennis Eyler, who was a Traffic Engineer. Mr. Eyler stated that the proposed plan calls for two-way traffic, except where the diagonal parking area called for one-way. They expect a maximum of about 60 trips into the site in the morning, and 60 out at night. A high percentage of the employees eat their lunch on the site and they do not expect much turnover during the day. There will be perhaps three delivery trucks per day, with an occasional semi-trailer truck. They felt that trucks would be able to maneuver from either entrance. Because of existing restrictions on truck traffic, the bulk of traffic would have to come down Quebec from 49th and 42nd. He had been told most of the work force lived north of 49th, so they would come in from 49th. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding restricting truck traffic to one entrance or the other, he noted he did not think this would be necessary. He noted that there were nine other in- dustrial sites on Quebec Avenue and he felt this was the~way truck traffic would enter, from 42nd, since there was a truck restriction on 49th,~st of Winnetka and east of Louisiana. Discussion covered the adequacy of the spaces and whether trucks would have ease/room to maneuver. Mr. Eyier said he had used truck turning templates on the site drawings and there was adequate area. A truck needed approximately 16 feet of openlng. There was more than this at the narrow spot at the south- east corner of the building. Commissione~ Gh/ndershaug asked about the new ~ntrance and wh~ther it would be marked to prohibit truck entrance? PLANNING C~MMISSION MINUTES 2 JUNE 3, 1980 4. Mr. Eyler said he would recommend it be marked this way. Mr. Willig stated there would be no problem with marking this entrance. Mr. Eyler said he felt the bulk of the heavy traffic would be on Quebec. It would not be a high vol~ for this area. It is a State Aid street and somewhat of a collector street. The next area discussed was the landscaping and green area. Commissioner Gundershaug noted the Co~xais- sion/Council's concern for shielding the parking lots from the residents across the street. He asked how thick the coverage would be, how close the trees would be planted, and whether they would provide a bar- rier immediately? Mr. Johnson said the shrubs would be planted 4 feet on center° They are a very dense type, grow to six feet high and five or six feet wide. They are specifying that the shrubs be three to four feet when planted. By the second year the hedge should fill out. The shrub does not hold its leaves in winter, but is unlgue in that it has a tremendous amount of twigs, so that there will be more density, even when the leaves are gone. There will be a slight gap in the beginning that will fill in quickly. He added that on 49th Avenue, they felt they could get only two shrubs in per parking space, about four feet apart. The plantings will be on the same grade. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the parking lot would have continuous curbing? He noted that sidewalks had been provided as requested by Design and Review. The City Manager noted that Ordinance required continuous curbing in parking lots. Comissioner Daly commented that in addition to the deciduous coverage, he would like to see the addition. of some conifers' for winter coverage. He felt it would really enhance the area across from 48th Circle, in front of the parking area. He noted that there was a trem~endous improvement from the previous plan. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked about future company growth and whether the parking would be adequate? Mr. Willig stated that as near as they could predict, he felt the parking proposed would be adequate for the comp.any's future needs. Mr. Bob Schultz, 7600 48th Avenue North, asked about the distance from the curb to the parking lot on the Quebec lot. He was toid that the setback was 13 feet from the edge of the property line and the boulevard was 14% feet wide. The existing ash trees are 16 feet back from the curb. Mr. Schultz noted that he would like to see the driveway on Quebec used as an entrance only, with exits on to 49th Avenue. He was also concerned about the way the parking lot was to be shielded. He referred to the Council meeting suggestion that a five-six foot mound of earth be installed with evergreens planted on top, to shield the south parking lot. He suggested ways he thought this could be done. Chairman asked whether 25 feet was a reasonable space for a fi%e foot berm? He questioned what ~uld grow in this amount of space and how it could be maintained? The City Manager indicated that this was not enough room for a berm this size. Mr. Mike Kelly, 7621 48th Circle, asked whether it would be possible to move the Quebec curb cut down toward the south, then it could be both an entrance and an exit. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he thought a on~ or two foot berm might help but did not think the Com- mission/City could expect the petitioner to insta~ a higher berm. Mr. Willig commented that he did not =ecall the mention of a high berm at the Council meeting. He noted that a low berm, with trees planted on top, would still have a bare space between the ground and the branches which would leave the parking lot exposed. He noted that Photo Control was concerned with mak- ing the site look hice and if what they propose for landscaping now, proves insufficient, they would ino crease the landscaping in the future. The Chairman asked about a compromise -- suggesting that~instead of a berm, two Colorado Blue Spruce trees be planted between the Green Ash trees,which would add some more screeninq durinq the winter when the leaves are off the douwood bushes. Mr. Willi~ stated this sounded ~reat to him but he deferred the question to ~. Johnson. Mr. Johnson saw no problem with this. Mr. Willig agreed to the inclusion of eight additional sruce trees. Dr. Cameron felt this was a reasonable compromise to the berm idea and also tobreaking up the parking lot view during the winter months. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - ~ JUNE 3, 1980 4. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the variances requested in case 80-26 - variance in ~arki~g spaces, reduction in green area and in setbacks, with the understanding that addi- tional landscaping would be provided aleng Quebec Avenue of at least two Colorado Spruce trees placed between the Green Ash trees and that the entrance on the north side of the property be marked with sign- age prohibiting truck entrance. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, G~lehchn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 80-29 (RETURNED FROM COUNCIL) REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES AT BASS · LAKE ROAD AND INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER Mr. Howard Rekstad stated they were requesting approval of construction plans for a building on Bass Lake Road and International.Pa~way that included variances. They had previously had a building approved for this site, but Council had refused approval of IRB financing because of the appearance presented toward Bass Lake Road and the entrance to the City. They had been referred back to Planning Con~nission to pre- sent revised plans. He noted that a large portion of the site had poor s6il. They are proposing an approximately 48,000 square foot building of an office/warehouse type. It will require some variances. The building will be constructed of decorative black and will be a multi-tenant building. They are requesting a setback variance on the Bass Lake Road side from 35 feet to 20 feet. A variance is also required to allow parking in front of the building. The primary tenant will be'on the eastern end of the building with a secondary tenant on the west end. Following the meeting with De- sign and Review they have made the requested changes. There will be additional landscaping on Bass Lake Road and the building will be recessed about 3-4 feet to reduce the exPosure to the road. Mr. Rekstad stated they were also presenting the sign criteria for the building for approval at this time. The signage will be according to Code. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what the north side of the building was going to look like? Mr. Rekstad stated that the north elevation plans were not as yet completed. It will have continuous decorative blockof a break-off type or scored, and paneled, with a monolithic element with supergraphics on the wall. In response to a questio~ from Cc~missioner Gundershaug regarding the type of graphic, Mr. Rekstad stated he would appreciate it if he could work with the Commission on this later, as this is something the artist did. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that the plans were not complete. How could the Commission approve something when they didn't know what it was. He felt the case should be tabled until plans were complete° Mr. Rekstad stated that based on the experience the City has had with Rosewood, he wished they would bear with them on details. Discussion then covered the parking area and the driveways, which were shown as only 62' wide. Commis-' sioner Gundershaug noted that the Ordinance required-64' of width and 20' parking stalls. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the landscaping on the north side of the building, Mr. Rekstad stated there would be 14 Russian Olives. The building is 300+ feet long on this side. In reference to the parking and the Ordinance requirement for screening'of parking in the front, Commis- sioner Gundershaug stated he felt that 13 trees in 200 feet was not sufficient for a screen. He also expressed concerns about the plan to seed some of the site rather than sod. Mr. Rekstad noted tha~ the parking lot would be continuous concrete around the building and at the ex~ terior it was continuos asphalt. The City Manager stated that the Ordinance required cont%nuous curbing. Mr. Rekstad stated that all refuse containers will be enclosed, the lighting will be similar to that used on their other buildings in the area and that all signage will be according to Ordinance. The building will be as energy efficient as they can make it. In answer to a question frc~ the Chairman, Mr. Rekstad stated that the building exceede~ the require- ments of the Energy Code§. They used 2%" solid insulation cn the roof and will fill the cores in the concrete blocks and use double glazed windows. Commissioner Daly stated that there were so many things about the plan that he was dissatisfied with that he was of a mind to table i~ for a month to allow time for correction and allow the petitioner to PLANNING COMMISSION~MINUTES // -- 4 -- JUNE 3, 1980 5. again meet with Design and Review. The fact that they were planning to seed the area along Bass Lake Road, and planning to use only deciduous plantings and no conifers,as well as some of the other areas ~-~ they were planning to seed were among his concerns. He felt there were so many questions raised by Design and Review that were unanswered, that it would be foolish to try and jam this case through. Mr. Rekstad stated Commissioner Daly had mentioned two items, what were the others? Commissioner Daly noted that all the things that had concerned Design and Review including the lack of a ~omplete plan for the north side of the building and what the exterior finish will be. Mr. Rekstad stated it seemed like false economy to them to sod an area that had been nothing but a weed field for many years. It was his opinion that conifers would not grow successfully in the muck on this site and they would have to replace them within ~ year. Rosewood had tried all types of conifers and they don~t grow in the muck. He suggested that if they looked at the other sites developed in the City by Rosewood, they would see that the deciduous shrubs/trees were the only ones still growing~ Commissioner Dalytook exception to this statement, feeling there were different types of conifers and some would grow on the soi% in this site. He again expressed concerns about the fact that they did not know what the building would look like. Mr. Rekstad stated they had taken a buiIding with five truck docks facing Bass Lake Road, which had been approved and removed the ~ocks, and designed this building in its place'to present a different view. Discussion followed between Mr. Rekstad and Commissioner Daly regarding the first building that had been approved for the site, the fact that it had not been approved unanimously, and the reasons that Council had referred the request back to Planning Commission for plan revision. Mr. Rekstad stated he pleaded for their understanding and for Commission approval,, providing that the south elevation and Bass Lake Road side w~uld be complete. Time was important, they were already looking at winter construction. The prospective tenant also needed some confirmation. · Commissioner· Daly stated he felt it was foolish for the Commission to rush into something when they could wait 30 days and have complete plans. The building would probably be here for 80 years. If there was such a rush and a time element was involved, why weren't there complete plans at this time? Mr. Rekstad stated they had been working to get everything ready on the revisions. Co~nissioner Daly made a motion to table Case 80-29 until the meeting of July 1, 1980. Commissioner Wheelock second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 3. Motio~ by Commissioner Daly, second by Commissioner Bartos to remove Planning Case 80-25from the table. voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. Mr. Alan Mattson represented DeMatts. He stated they had originally sold the house at 8140 46th Avenue. As part of the purchase agreement, the buyer was to build the garage. He had supposedly worked with the City, but when he was ready to move in there were about 12 things that the City wished completed before they would issue an occupancy permit. This buyer had lived in the house for five months and then taken off. DeMatts then got the bsuse back with the garage already built. They then resold the house. When the new buyer was to move in, they discovered that a variance was necessary for the garage. Commissioner Daly referred to the original problems with locating the house and the garage on the site. Mr. DeMatt confirmed that the original detached garage had been buried. The buyer then put qp his own garage. Mr. DeMatt thought everything was O.K. until they re-sold the house. Co~issioner Gundershau9 asked whether the o%n~er of the house was in the railroad tie business, noting the ties in the yard, and the sign on the mailbox? The City Manager noted that the Inspector would visit the site in the morning. In response to ques%ions regarding the drawfng of permits for the construction, Mr. DeMatt stated that when they originally built the house they had applied for permits. The house had been sold and the buy- er had put up the garage as part of the down payment. He assumed he had applied for permits. The ~Inspection Department of tb.e.City had eventually let h~n move in although he had camped outside the house for two days in a tent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES "' - 5 - JUNE 3, 1980 3. Mr. Robert Foley, the present owner of the house, noted that he was not in the railroad tie business. He had ordered them for his own use, but had to order more than he needed. Some were for his brother and he would like to sell the surplus. He had not been informed of the problem with the garage when he purchased the house. He bought the house in the winter, and had been surprised in the spring when the snow melted. He has consulted an attorney about the problems. It was his impression that there had also been a variance involved with the original construction. The Chairman stated that the one thing the Commission could do now, was to make the garage legal. Mr. Stewart, 8132 46th Avenue, commented that he had helped the original owner start the garage, in ex- change for future landscaping work which had never been done, because the owner had left. He thought the o~iginal owner had never received a Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending approva'l of the variance requested in Case 80-25 at 8132 46th Avenue North. Commissioner Gundershau~ second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried° 6. PLANNING CASE 80-30 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AT 36TH/HILLSBORO - SUN OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER Mx. Richard Curry represented Sun Oil Company, at their request. He noted that he and his partner were purchasing the property at 36th/Hillsboro and it was necessary to join the two parcels. He did not know Why Sun Oil had not received a Waiver of Platting earlier. The City Manager noted that they had requested one, but had been refused. Commissioner Bartos commented that this waiver seemed to be only a formality. Chairman Cameron noted that it was necessary'that the property be conveyed to the New Hope HEA. Commissioner Bartos made a motion reco~endinq approval of the Waiver of Plattinq requested in Case 80-30 by the Sun oil Company at 36th/Hillsboro, conveying the property only to the New Hope HRA. Cor~nissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. Mr. Curry asked if this meant the property could only be conveyed to the New Hope HRA and not to them. The City Manager noted that the wording was the City Attorney's suggestions and that Mr. Curry should talk to Mr. Corrick before the Council meeting if there was a specific problem. 7. PLANNING CASE 80-31 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AT 2730 NEVADA ~\~NUE NORTH - JAMES L. REDMOND, PETITIONER. Mr. Reynold Roberts, Architect for Redson Properties, represented the petitioner. He noted that the build- inq was ncw complete and he had been asked to DreDare a siqn plan for the DroDertv. He had reviewed the plan with Mr. Sandstad and they were requestinq no variances from the Siqn Ordinance. All of the siqns are identification siqns or directional siqn$. It is a multi-tenant buildin~ and there will be four to six tenants. The major sign at the cul-du-sac at the north end of Nevada is an identification sign of 31 square feet. It will be placed on a concrete block support of the same type of block as the building.' The directional signs involve a one-way truck situation, are 2% feet, will be of metal, dark brown with white letters stating "no trucks". At the other driveway there will be a sign of the same size that would state "trucks and visitors" with an arrow. These are the three ground~mounted signs. There will be wall mounted signs at the three entrances in the front of the building. One primary and two secondary entrances. 'Each entrancewill have a sign identifying the occupant of that particular space in the building. These signs will be 8 2/3 square feet each, for a total of 26 square feet. At the rear, the three shared loading docks 'will have identification signs totaling nine square feet. The purpose is to identify the loading docks of particular building occupants. The identity sign will be illuminated with a concealed fluorescent strip. The letters "2730 Nevada" will be six inches high. The letters on the directional signs will be three inches and the loading docks two inches high. The building is 60% leased so they do not know all of the tenant names, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES //_ - 6 - JUNE 3, 1980 7. Commissioner Daly confirmed that there were three groUnd signs proposed, one major identification sign '--~ and two directional and that the directional signs would be on metal standards. He commented that the sign plan seemed to be in good taste and he had no problems with it. The City Manager noted that directional signs were not required to be included in the sign plano Commissioner Daly made-a motion recommending approval of the Comprehensive SJ. gn Plan requested in Case 80~31 for 2730 Nevada Avenue. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. '8. PLA/qNING CASE 80-32 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SETBACK AT 4311 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - RON AND JANE KALIN, PETITIONERS Mr. Kalin stated there was only a breakfast bar in their kitchn seating two people and they needed more dining space. They were requesting the front setback variance to allow them to move .their garage for- ward so they could then convert the porch into a formal dining room and change the present dining room to an eating area off the kitchen. Commission.er Daly asked whether they had considered moving the porch back four feet to extend the dining room? Mr. Kalin said this would be a possibility but would be much more expensive construction and the backyard was not very deep. Mrs. Kalin pointed out that the house was a walk--out rambler, and this ~W°uld also make it more difficult to extend to the rear° Commissioner Daly stated he felt that four feet more in front of the garage would not destroy the align- ment of the street to any great degree. He did not think the variance ~-~ould be of any harm at allo Ccmmissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the roof, siding, color and texture of the addition would match the existing house. Mr. Kalin noted .that there ~as also a fireplace between the living room and the porch and to extend to the rear would involve extending the entire living room also. Commissioner Daly made a motion reco~mendinq approval of the variance requested in Case 80-32 at 4311 Boone Avenue North. Co~aissioner Wheeler second. Voting in favor: ~Tneelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried 9. PLANNING CASE 80-33 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT THE NEW HOPE SHOPPING CENTER - KENT LUDFORD AND JAMES GUSTASON, PETITIONERS The petitioners noted that they were located at the rear corner of the New Hope Shopping Center and have no visibility/signs from the street. The New Hope State Bank has given them the two existing signs cur- rently on the building and they are requesting -the variance to allow them to continue to use the signs. They would have them painted, with new fronts put on, to replace the bank signs. Chairman Cameron stated that one problem was that there was a sign plan for the New Hope Shopping Center and that this proposal is not a part of it. He asked whether the petitioners had dealt with the owners of the shopping cente~? Mr. Ludford read a letter he had received from the managers of the shopping center - Draper and Fxamer - stating that they had permission to use the sign boards, on the south and east walls of the shopping cen- ter, presently being used by the New Hope State Bank, with the conditions that any re-lettering cost would be the responsibility of the tenants and that any permits required by the City of New Hope be ac- quired by the tenants. A further condition was that the landlord had the right to rescind the permission for the use of the signs at any time. Chairman Cameron noted that under the sign plan for the.center, those spaces belongs to the tenants as- signed them in the center. Should the spaces be rented in the future, the petitioners could be forced out. The petitioners noted they realized this, but that they 'were willing to gamble because they needed the exposure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / - 7 - JUNE 3, 1980 9. The Chairman questioned how much the signs would actually help? The petitioners felt they would be very beneficial -- they had originally had some front exposure from the pylon sign,, were their names had been listed, but with the new sign they had none. Mr. Gustafson stated that when the bank moved out they lost a lot of traffic. They really need the ex- · posure and he felt it was a gamble they had to take. The City Manager noted that the sign plan called for those signs to be removed when the bank left the . center. Discussion followed regarding the present exposure of the petitioners vs. what they had had originally, the fact that they had been simply told by the center owners/managers where they could locate signs (exterior walls of their space) and the fact that no one ever saw their present signs except truck dri- vers. The other tenantsin the center have a south exposure. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt it was not the Sign Ordinance that was getting in the petitioner's way, but Draper and Kramer. He suggested a table, to allow Draper and Kramer to .come back to revise the sign plan to accommodate the petitioners. Mr. Ludford noted that another problem was that both he and Mr. Gustason had only about 18 months'left on their lease. He noted there was a good deal of rumor regarding the center. He felt that he could not honestly afford, or justify, a new sign now even if he were given permission, versus the length of time left 6n his lease. Mr. Gustason stated he had been given permission to put a sign on the south side and the front, but he felt this was a little ridiculous when he had only 1% years remaining on his lease'. The Chairman suggested another, solution would be to approve the varianc~ for 18 months, to allow the petitioners to get a feeling about what would be happening in the next months. Commissioner Daly stated he felt it was'within the spirit of the Ordinance to permit fairness. Inasmuch as the Commission had authorized a 17% variance for a competitor at the new center, and since new pro- blems had been created for the petitioners by the new center, a type of hardship was created which could be balanced by the granting of this variance. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that a variance for 18 months seemed to him to be fair. The City Manager suggested that the Commission grant a variance for one year with the potential for a six month extension if necessary. This would avoid a last minute request for a review of the sign. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioners would each use 1/2 of the sign space on the south and east, presently assigned to the New Hope State Bank. Discussion covered the possibility of other tenants coming before the Commission to ask for additional signage. The City Manager noted that this variance could be conditioned upon the fact that their present signs were located at the rear of the center. Other variance requests would not then use it. Commissioner Daly made a motion reccmmending approval of the sign variance at the New Hope Sho~ing Center as requested in Case 80-33, for one year with the option of a six month extension at the discretion of the City staff. Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. Design and Review had met on May 27th, 1980. 11. There was no report from Land Use Committee. 12. There was no report from Codes and Standards Committee.' ; The City Manager noted that the Sinclair lawsuit motion for surm~ary dismissal had been taken under ad- visem~lt by the judge. A decision has not as yet been ~eeeived. NEW BUSINESS .~ 13. The Council minutes of May 12th, and 27th, were reviewed. 14. The cc~muission Minutes of May 6th, were accepted as printed. 18. The meeting was adjourned bv unanimous consent at 9:23 ~.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' JULY 1, 1980 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 1, 1~80 at the 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: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gustafson (arrived at 7:37 p.m.) PUBLIC REARINGS' 3. PLANNING CASE 80-29 (CONTINUED FROM 6-3-80) REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES 'AT BASS LAKE 'ROAD AND INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards to table Case 80-29 until later in the meeting. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-08 - REQUEST FOR REVISION OF CONDITIONAL USE PEt%MIT - 8620-42ND AVENUE NORTH - YOUTH INVESTMENT FOUNDATION, PETITIONER Mr. Fred Peterson represented the petitioner. He noted he was the Area Director for the Foundation, serving the Crystal-New Hope area. He noted 'that the previous time he had appeared before the Commission there had been concern expressed about the need for a garage. The Foundation is now in the position where they can purchase the home and are asking permission to amend the Conditional Use Pel~it to allow them to construct a garage now. They will then use that space for their activities and this will eliminate the need to completely re-do the lower level of the home, from which they had originally planned to operate. Constructing the garage now will also solve a problem in the long run, since when the property reverts back to a single family dwelling, the garage will already be there. The garage will be 20' x 30'. The access will be from Boone Avenue. The windows facing Boone will be the location for the future double garage door. The entry door now, would convert to the service door when the building is used for a garage. The Chairman clarified, for the record, that the Foundation already has a Conditional Use Permit to operD ate at the site and they are only requesting an amendment to the conditions of the permit° Mr. Peterson stated that their original request for the Conditional Use Permit was to guarantee they could use the property for this purpose. They are now in a position to purchase the property and have a closing scheduled for the third week in July. Commissioner Daty asked for clarification of the use of the property now and how this would change with the addition of the garage. Mr. Peterson answered that the church has currently been using the building for meetings and as a Sunday School ~nnex. The Foundation has been sharing it with them once a week. The use will not change much except that the upper level will now be used by Foundation staff people as living quarters. The lower level was to .be_ used for counseling services, small group meetings, etc. The meetings are all scheduled and the building will not be used as a drop-in center. The Foundation would instead use the new garage for.its programs.. In response to questions from Cor~aissioner Daly, Mr. Peterson stated that they have an agreement with the church to use their parking lot, subject to annual revfew, and that the hours of operation are not ex- pected to change. He noted that the use of the site fluctuates because, especially during the su~ner months, they go on more trips, e~c. with the kids, and could be gone for up to 10 days at a time. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there would be a normal driveway but that there would not be additional parking on that driveway in connection with Foundation use. Mr. Peterson stated that the exterior of the building will remain as it is now. Everything will be the same as under the terms of the Conditional Use Permit except that they will bu$1d the garage now and use it for thei= programs. He added that the garage would be one level and that the roof line and ex- terior texture and color will match the rest of the house. There will not be additional staff, but the amount of time spent at the site would fluctuate from week to week. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2 o JULY l, 1980 4. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case'80-08. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn~ Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 80-34 - REQUEST FOR SIDEYARD VARIANCE AT 3022 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - MR. AND MRS. LINNE JOHNSON, PETITIONERS. Mr. Howard Bergin, Contractor for the proposed project, represented the petitioners. He stated they were requesting a variance to allow them to extend the wall two feet to allow wall area for a hutch. There is no room at the present time to walk around the table if the hutch is in place. Commissioner Gustafson'confirmed that the addition would match the existing house and that the roof line would be the same. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendin~ approval of the variance requested in Case 80-34. Commissioner Dal~ 'second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos~ Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 80-35 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINAi~Y PLAT AT8620 42ND AVENUE NORTH - MENNONIT~ BRETHREN CHURCH, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Suderman, Chairman of the Congregation, represented the church. He stated that they were reD questing the plat approval to facilitate the sale of the building on the corner to the Youth Investment Foundation (Case 80-08). The proposed lots will meet Code. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that the petitioner was asking only for plat approval which would establish ~-~ boundary lines. Commissioner Bartos made a motion reco~ending approval of the preliminary plat requested at 8620 42nd Avenue North in Case 80-35. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: ~eelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, ~nmeron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Vo~ing against: None Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 80-23 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAI~OF LANDSCAPE PLAN AND FINAL PLAT AT 51ST/WINNETKAAVENUE ~ SOUKUPS UNLIMITED, PETITIONERS Mr. Dan Bloomquist, Attorney, represented the petitioners° He was accompanied by Mr~ SoukUpo He pre~ sented an illustration of the p~opo~ed-landscapingo Mr. Soukup stated they had contacted Roseville Nursery in regard to the landscaping. They were inCorpor- ating 150 trees and shrubs from fairly small to medium across the front of the buildings. The shrubs will extend around the corners. Five additional shade trees will also ~e planted. They also intend to place some shrubs around the dumpsters. There will be a shade tree on the east and west side along the boulevard. The area between the two buildings will be sodded. The trees/~hrubs planted will be a~- cording to Code. They feel the proposal will dress up the front of the building. Commissioner Bartos asked whether they intend to stripe the parking lots? The City Manager note~ that the new Ordinance required that parking lots be striped. In response to questions Mr. Soukup stated they were looking into new fencing around the dumpsters as well as the proposed plantings. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of Case 80-23 - landscape planand final plat with the stipulation that the parking lot striping will conform to the ordinance. Co~issioner Gustaf- son second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried° PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1980 3. PLANNING CASE 80-29 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES AT BASS LAKE ROAD AND INTERNA- TIONAL PARKWAY - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, 'PETITIONER Commissioner Bartos made'a motion'removing'Case 80-29'from'thetable.'CommissionerGustafsOn Second° Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion'carried~ Mr. Howard Rekstad represented Rosewood Corporation. Be noted that they hadmade the Changes requested by'the Design and Review Committee and Planning Commission. The building will be constructed of a com- bination of break-off block and decorative block and will be painted. They have added more trees to tb~ site. The driveways have been increased to 64 feet in width. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershau9 he noted that even with the wider drives, the project would still come within the 35% green area requirement. They will no longer paint super graphics on the building as originally proposed. They have added dogwood trees along the parking ~n the east side and have added five trees to the north side. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Rekstad stated that the slope by the parking lot to the west was 2 to 1 and was more than adequate. Discussion held regarding the position of the parking facing Bass Lake Road and it was determined that the lot would be about 9 feet lower than the street. Mr. Rekstad stated the sign criteria as presented was similar to that of their other buildings in the area. Commissioner Gundershau9 made a motion recommending approval of Case 80-29,'construction a~roval'with variances in the north setback and for parking in front of the building, and approval of the sign ~lan criteria as presented. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting, in favor: ?~eelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 7a. Chairman Cameron noted that there had been a change in plans in regard to the proposed elderly housing at County Road #18/36th Avenue, due in part, to the fact that ~nother proposal for elderly housing in New Hope had been received by the Metropolitan Council and the lack of funding frc~ the government. He stated that Mr. Curry had put together another plan for the development of this corner and would briefly review this plan to ascertain any problems, and receive co,anent from the Commission, before it is presented at a public hearing. The City Manager noted that a special meeting of the Planning Commission had been scheduled for 6:00 p.m. Monday, July 14th, immediately preceding the Council meeting. Mr. Curry thanked the Commission for allowing him to appear before them on such short notice. He stated timing was of the essence because of the financing involved. He presented a preliminary plat proposal to the Commission to review. He noted that the grades as listed with the City of New Hope were not the same as the actual property. It was obvious that semeone had done quite a bit of filling on the site. They had conducted soil tests on all areas of the property. They have found as much as 19 feet of peat in some areas, 12 feet of fill on top of two feet of organic material on others. This fill would have to be removed to remove the organic material and then refilled. Because of the so~l conditions, it will be impossible to line up the proposed street with 35% Avenue North. The plat as now p~oposed accommodates the soil problems. They are attempting to line up 35th Avenue North° The property lines cannot be lined up but the pavement can. They are proposing 15, zero lot line double bungalow lots. The lots backing up to Highway #18 are 75' x 130' but the depth could be increased if it is felt desirable. They are also proposing two lots with four unit buildings on them. to accommodate the poor soil. He noted that they had been working with Glen Cook. At the present time they are not planning individual ownership for the four-plexes but he felt it was a possibility that at a future time the units would be converted to condominiums. Mr. Curry noted that they did not intend to build the area fully. Be was concerned abou~ the need for free standing garages if the four-plex units were designed for individual at this time. The Chairman asked whether this type of planning would create future problems? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -.4 - JULY 1, 1980 7a. Mr. Curry stated he did'not think so. They could simply build the unit and at some f~ture time the building could t~..converted to a condomi~. He stated that all of the units would have to be built within the next 36 months. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Curry stated he did not anticipate there would be any access to Lot 17 from Hillsboro and that Lot 18 would hav~ access from the cul-du-sac. They in- tend to fence along CoUnty Road #18, with an opaque, board on board fence. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, the City Manager noted that variances would be required on some of the.lot sizes, that they were 10,000+ feet short on the total density, and would need a variance on the length of the cul-du-sac, as it would be in excess of the allowable length° Mr. Curry noted he would rather put a commercial building on the property but understood this obviously was not possible. Commissioner Daly questioned the reason for the dropping of the senior citizens housing? Mr. Curry noted that the Volunteers of America hadalso applied for funding (202) for senior citizen' housing. The government is now leaning toward providing funding for non-profitgroups. The VOA had picked another site in New Hope. The government~is not currently providing any funds for Section 8 funding. There was a feeling that if the City turned down the plan as proposed by the VOA, HUD would not'be apt to fund another project three or four years down the road. He noted, in response to a question, that the soil conditions did not prohibit senior citizen housing on the site, but the problem was the lack of funds. Mr. Curry noted that they had been Working with Glen Cook in regard to'the proposed engineering of the site. Chairman Cameron asked about the citizens in the area and whether they had been made aware of the change in plans? Mr. Curry said he could contact and the Manager noted that the neighbors would receive notice of ~he meet ing on July 14tho In regard to the need for rezoning, the City Manager noted that the entire site was now zoned R-3o The two corner lots would remain R~3, and the remainder of the site would be R-2. In response to a question from the Chairman, the Com~ssion agreed to meet on the'14th at 6~00 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Curry noted that the duplexes would not all be the same size. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. Design and Review Committee had met once during the month of June. 9. There was no report from the Land Use ~mmittee. 10. There was no report from the Codes and Standard~ Committee~ OLD BUSINESS 11. The City Manager reviewed the Court deCision and Council's reaction to the Sinclair oil sign case. He noted that basically wha~ the Judge had said was that a logo wDs a symbol, and a symbol could be a logo, and therefore, all symbols were 1ogos and trademarks, in several court cases, have been declared sym- bols, regardless of the fact that it didn't make any sense. Council ~assed the Ordinance to attempt to cut down on everyone ~oming in with a trademark stating it was a logo.- Council has also requested a re- hearing and has authorized an appeal Unless the Attorney can negotiate something with Sinclair° Sinclair will not be able.to install any signs until the matter is settled. Discussion followed, regarding the Sign ordinance, possible changes to the ordinance, and the decision made by the Court. NEWBUSINESS 12. The City Manager 'reviewed the minutes of the Council meetings of June 9, 23, and the HRAminutes of June 17th. PLANNING COMMISSIC~g MINUTES - 5 - JULY 1, 1980 12. He noted that the Metropolitan Council had reviewed the prOposals for the elderly housing and given a Number 1 rating to the site across the street on Xylon Avenue (VOA site) in the Twin City area. HUD had indicated that they will also give the site a Number 1 rating for 202 Funding (non profit). At the present time there is no Section 8 elderly funding being granted. The problem is that if the City/Council turns down the site on Xylon Avenue, for whatever reason, there is probably no way that HUD would cc~e back in and approve funding for another site in the City of New Hope. 13. T~e Commission'Minutes of June 3~ 1980'were approved as printed. . 14. Chairman Cameron asked whether the Manager/Commission felt it would be worthwhile to write a letter to the owners of the two shopping centers on Winnetka Avenue requesting that for the health and safety of the citizens of New Hope, the two sites have a common driveway. Discussion followed regarding the existing traffic problems, the reasons for the driveways not being joined together and the hazards of attempting to go from one center to another. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommending~that a letter be sent by the Chairman to the owners of the two centers in regard to these problems. Commissioner Gundershaug'second. Commissioner Daly suggested that copies of the letters be sent to the tenants of the two centers. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly,'Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Discussion followed between the Chairman and the City Manager in regard to 36th Avenue at Boone and at Winnetka and the condition of the road% The Manager noted that this would be taken care of as soon as a solution to. the problem could be found. 16. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:42~m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary . P.~ANNING CO.,~M. ISSION_.~INUTES -1- JULY 14, 1980 1. A special meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 14, 1980 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron. 2. Roll call was taken as follows:' Present: Wheelock, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Absent: Gulenchyn, Gundershaug, Gustafson (Mr. Gustafson arrived shortly) Chairman Cameron reported that Mr. Gulenchyn had called to say he would be out of town this evening. Mr. Gundershaug is on vacation. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 80-$6,~ request for rezon~ng, Dlat apDrovaland variances for DroDert¥ at ..36th and. Hillsboro ,Avenue~ CurT/.qo~papy_pet~t~one~.(NewHop9 Highlands 2nd Addition) The public hearing for the above entitled matter was called to order by Chairman Cameron. ~ir. Richard Curry represented Curry Company, Inc. Mr. Curry stated that, since the last time he met with the Planning Commission he had made adjustments to make some of the lots deeper. He said the numbers were different than quoted earlier~ certain of the lot lines were 260 feet~ 157 feet and I45 feet, as opposed to 258, 162, and 148 ~reviously stated. Mr. Curry-said that the overall variance in area, instead of 10,000 square feet, worked, out to be exactly 8,940 square feet.' He noted that Lot 27 also needed'a five foot variance for rearyard setback. Other than that, the proposed plat remains essentially the same. Mr. Curry said they do intend to fence along County Road 18 with an opaque, board-on-board type of fence. They do not have any plans to do any fencing along 36th Avenue North. Mr. Curry continued that their position as to a berm ~long County Road 18 is still-negative. However, if it is requested, they will put a berm in. He said that for every three or four feet lost horizontally, the city would gain one foot vertically. To gain'anything from a berm, it would use up much of the back yards. He commented that there already is a chain link fence running along County Road 18 which was put up by the County. He 'would put a fence to the other side of the existing chain link fence. The drainage and the utilities have been checked by the city engineer and that he had hear'd no adverse comments on the drainage or the utilities. It is the intent to loop the wa~er line. The city manager clarified that the total shortage in area, in the overall area, is 8,940 square feet. Upon inquiry, Mr. Curry said that Lots 17 and 18 would be for fourplex development (R-3). Commissioner Bartos commented that Lots 17 and 18 were oversize while all the other lots were undersize. Mr. Curry replied that the approach at 42nd and 18 is ~orking all right. The lots in this second plat are about the same size as the lots at 42nd and 18. The bad soil has been incor0orated into Lots 17 and 18 and that much time had been spent to make the plat:finAncially .workable. ~V~r. Curry then commented that, from the drawing, it did not appear that the blacktop was lined up with 35th Avenue, but it could be adjusted to line up. Commissioner Daly inquired as to how much it would cost to put duplexes on Lots 17 and 18 -- or spread out the remaining duplex lots so that some of the lots do not end up 30 plus percent short of the code requirements. Mr. Curry said that the soil correcgion that is necessary on Lot 18, only for a duplex, is $20,000~ Generally speaking, soil correction at that depth is cheaper than piling. That is the reason they decided against the duplex. Commissioner Daly asked whether it would be better to develop with all aDartment house on 17 and 18 as o~osed to the two fourDlexes. Mr. Curry replied that there was no ~uestion but that an apartment building would be better. The only apartment building that could be built and would work economically is a Section 8 building, ].ow and moderate income housing. Mr. Curry said they would much prefer the Section 8 low and moderate housing to the fourplexes. Commissioner Daly replied that the cul de sac'side of Lots 17 and 18 was really going to be a worthless piece of land. The piece would not be used very much, but the rest of the properties were squeezed into less land than they should be entitled to by the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- JULY 14, 1980 3. Mr. Curry agreed that the cul de sac portion of Lots 17 and 18 would not be used very much, but it would create a nice view for a number of the other lots. He said he thought that Lots 17 and 18 would be developed with four corner quads. Then, there would be two units facing toward the cul de sac. The building is placed as it is on Lot 17 because of the soil conditions and the cost of soil correction to locate differently. Commissioner Daly then asked how much thought had gone in to making everything fourplex with varied design. He said he was really concerned with the 14,000 square foot requirement when 9,000 and 10,000 square foot lots were ~roposed. This is 31% short on a good many of the lots. This is not what he has in mind when he thinks about the quality of life in New Hope or the other suburbs -- to put these people on 9,000 square feet. .He said that this did not seem to be the best way to use the land. ¥~r. Curry commented on the proposed use of the land as opposed to a supermarket. He said he had tried to eliminate commercial development. Fourplexes throughout the area would probably work, but he was not sure. They were proposing what they know there is an immediate market for, what could be built. He again said this size lot seemed to be working very well at 42nd and 18, in face of the worst real estate market he had seen since 1959. More construction had taken place at 42nd and 18 co~ner than anywhere else in gown. Mr. Curry said he thought that zero lot lines and double bungalows were more in keeping with the neighborhood. They are small lots, but in relationship to what you see in Minneapolis, by Lake Harriet and Lake Calhoun, old country club section, they are large lots. Those areas had.never deteriorated nor would the people in the area say that the quality of life was bad. Commissioner Daly again expressed concern with dropping from 14,000 square feet to 9,000. That is not what the city had in mind. This is a high price to pay for the proposed development. Commissioner Daly said that he definitely believed in housing for this piece of land. Because mistakes were made at 42nd and 18, does not mean that the mistake should be repeated again. In some respects he does consider that a mistake. He said he thought there was a better way than what is presented tonight, that he is not against duplexes as such, but that he is against the cracker box approach of jammed in buildings, next to each other, all looking alike, all identical size, and everything the same. Mr. Curry replied that the buildings shown are just an example as to what the lot could con- tain. The buildings could be various sizes as long as the setbacks are met. The one shown is just a typical example of what could be used and still meet the setback requirements. This does not necessarily represent the depth of every unit. Upon inquiry, Mr. Curry stated that there could be a tremendous amount of variation from building to building. The plan before the commission tonight is just to show-how something might fit on the lot, so they had one that has the maximum width of a building for the lots backing up to 18, which is 54 feet. This allows 27 feet of building on each side. He said it was not the intent that the buildings be the same. ~ile all the buildings may not be different, they will all have different facades. There will be variations in floor plans. He continued that if you look at the 42nd Avenue development, there are either 17 or 18 buildings under construction. There is one plan where there are two buildings, another plan where there are three buildings. The latest starts in the area are new plans. Out of the 17 buildings, there are about ten different plans (at 42nd and 18). Upon inquiry as to the number of different plans Mr. Curry thought would be used for the 36th Avenue and 18 develoDment, he said he did not intend to do the building. His guess would be that, out of 15 double bungalow lots,there will probably be a minimum of 7 to 8 different plans. He said he would also say that there would be fifteen different facades on the buildings. They must be concerned with the marketability. As to lots 17 and 18, those buildings will have to be designed for the lots. Usually with four corner quads you have tuck-under 'garages. The tuck-unders will not work on these two lots. Commissioner Daly then suggested that Lot 17 and 18 should be looked at from the long term aspect. Maybe the soil conditions should be overcome and the job done right. The homes will be a part of the community for a long time. Something in the way of financing would have to be addressed. This is one of the few choice pieces of land left in New Hope. Because of soil conditions, are w~going to live with the proposed development? Further discussion held as to the economics of the development. Mr. Curry stated that the present proposal calls for the maximum of tax increment financing. Now the raw land cost ~ without any work, is about $10,000 ~er lot. It is prohibitive to develop otherwise. He said the plat that had previously been ~resented to the HRA witl not work because of soil conditi6ns and costs. It would cost $20,000 to correct Lot 18 for a double bungalow. In correcting soil conditions, you have to correct for the load, not just under the building. The load shifts out and you have to correct outward~ The soil tests were given to the city engineer and city manager. This plat works around the problems as they exist. Commissioner Daly commented that, if $40,000 for soil correction on Lot 1~ and 18 were spread against all the units, this would be $1,100 to $1,200 per unit. Mr. Curry pointed that, if the other buildings were repositioned, there would be additional soil correction work on eight or nine foundations, plus the road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- JULy 14,. 1980 3. Chairman Cameron inquired as to whether the buildings on Lots 17 and 18 would actually be par+ of the project. Mr. Curry replied that under the tax increment financing, Lots 17 and 18 are very much a part of the project. The only reason Lot 18 is included is so that the maximum amount of tax increment financing can be obtained. Financing is still $55,000 short. He said the sellers have been approached to cut this amount off the price of the land. The land cost would then be below the assessor's value on the land. Lots 17 and 18 will be included. Discussion followed as to the garages for the fourplex units. ~lr. Curry said he thought the garages for the four-cornered quad could be all in one structure, which he thought would be better looking than four individual garages. It might be possible to attach to the'end of the building on Lot 18 some back-to-back garages with two driveways going to Hillsboro and two drives running to the cul de sac. On Lot 17, it was his under- standing that the city did not want anything running to Hillsboro. The city manager reminded the commission that they would get a chance to review the'fourplex buildings prior to issuance of permits. Chairman Cameron said that he did not conceive that there was enough land to put a decent berm backing to County Road 18. He asked how hiMh a fence would be. Mr. Curry said that the fence would be the height directed by the city, something about eight feet high. He commented that some people do not want these sound barriers, but he will do whatever the Planning Commission directs. Further discussion followed as to how this fence would fit with the county chain link fence. Mr. Curry said the fence would be placed very close to the property line. He did not know where the county fence was. Then the county would have the problem with maintaining any area that there might be between the two fences. The possibility of providing plantings in lieu of the fence was discussed. Problems with fence maintenance was al~o mentioned. Mr. Curry stated that he would provide plantings if the city thought this would be better. Chairman Cameron inquired as to the screening along 36th Avenue. Mr. Curry said he would be agreeable to using some Russian Olives and amur maples and that he did not mind screening along 36th Avenue, if this is what is wanted. Discussion followed as to the desirability of screening Lot 16 from the shopping center across the street by planting halfway down the 36th Avenue side. Upon inquiry, the city ~anager confirmed that this would be the last chance for the Planning Commission to have input of the double bungalows. Upon question as to the selling price of .the units, Mr. Curry said that, using 42nd and 18 development as an example, the lowest price in that development was $135,000 and the highest price unit about $175,000. He was figuring an average value of $140,000 for the double bungalows, or $70,000 per side and $50,000 per unit on the quads, or $200,000 per building. Mr. Curry was asked to describe the walkway between the cul de sac and 36th Avenue. Mr, Curry said they had not done anythin~ about the walkway. It is a utility easement. There has been ne requirement nor suggestions that it be a concrete walkway. It stands as an easement that can be a walkwav~ It would be sodded. He questioned the advisability of concrete on the easement. The owners of the lots should determine whether they want children walking through there. Mr, Curry replied that it is an easement and would belong to the property owner. They would be responsible for the upkeep. He said if the city found that a walkway was a necessity, the city could put one in sometime in the future. Chairman Cameron again expressed his concern with emergency vehicles being able to get into the area from 36th Avenue because of the length of the cul de sac. Mr. Curry replied that he thought emergency vehicles would come over the yards if it was that big of an emergency, or in between~nyone of the buildings along Hillsboro. He also said they could not get a curb cut onto 36th Avenue. Mr. Curry also noted the availability of boulevard space on either side of the paved street. PLANNING COM14ISSION MINUTES -4- JULy 14, 1980 C~m~ssioner Bartos spoke against a sidewalk big enough for emergency vehicles because of the other types of traffic it might attract. Commissioner Daly then inquired as to the impact of the street being reduced from 60 to 50 feet. This would add to the lots that are already to small. Is 60 feet needed for the dead end street? Mr. Curry said that, if the street is reduced to 50 feet, you still have 30 feet of pavement. Whether the city owns it or the individual owners, it is still the same amount of area. It is there and it is still green. The city manager also noted that, with a 60 foot right of way, you have the snow storage space on public property, or you have room for a sidewalk. The green area would remain the same. Commissioner Edwards inquired as to what other development had been considered. Mr. Curry replied that he had looked at a combination of office/medical to the front with single family along Hillsboro, at the elderly project with double bungalows, a total office development and an apartment building. They could not make the economics work with the apartment building. It would have to be a federally subsidized building, such as Section 8 iow, and moderate income. In trying to fit the development into what the bulk of the neigh- borhood wants and what is going on to the east, the current proposal was developed. Mr. Curry stated that, in his own mind, it is a commercial piece of ground, and that is the way it should be developed. Commissioner Edwards then asked why townhouses or condominiums were not considered. Mr. Curry replied that they had looked at townhouse or condominium development. With the market, they would still have =o have the same density as on the current plan. Commissioner Edwards said that he was not bothered by the density but by the lot width, rather than the lot size. The lot does not allow for flexibility with respect to what can be done with the buildings. He said that, in his opinion, the buildings at 42nd and 18 while there may be different styles, are all very similar buildings with different facades. He said he would prefer a townhouse project, or preferrably condominiums, because of the density. Dicussion followed as to the possibility of a condominium development. Commissioner Edwards noted that, with a condominium, you would have practically total ownershi~ as opposed to ~ or 2/3 of the double bungalow projeUt being investor owned. Mr. Curry said that he thought that initially, % to 2/3 of the units would be investor owned, but by the end of 10 years, this would turn around. He then stated that he did not look at a condominium project in any depth. There was no funding available in the current market. He continued that they now have plans for doubles that look like townhouses with the exception that you have fewer common walls. There are good and bad townhouse designs. Commissioner Edwards stated that he liked the idea of townhouses because of the individual ownership aspect. Discussion followed as to how long the double bungalows would be investor owned. Mr. Curry suggested that if the city wanted the doubles privately owned, the city could float a housing bond at a reduced arte of interest. They would then sell in one day. The city manager stated that housing bonds could not be used because of federal law. Mr. Jeffrey Solle, 3556 Hillsboro Court, said he liked the plan for development as residential and inquired as to the proposed placement of the garages on Lots 17 and 18. Mr. Curry stated that the garage drives from Lot 17 would have to come onto the cul de sac because the city did not want any access to Hillsboro. On Lot 18, he thought there would be two driveways onto Hi!lsboro an~-two onto Independence Avenue, or all four of the drives running to the cul de sac. He said t~at he did not think that there would be four driveways per unit. A developer would most likely just use one driveway to serve the four units. Mr. Tom Walstad , 3417 Hillsboro Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposal as presented this 'meeting. Chairman Cameron inquired-as to when the development would start if it is approved.- Mr. Curry replied that it was his intention to ask Council this evening for perinission to start two to four buildings immediately. This means they will have to line up the sellers and close as quickly as possible, do the grading and start foundations immediately. The water and sewer bids are coming in 20% below last year. This fact has been programmed into the project. It is the same thing with a lot of the construction materials. Money can be saved. The longer the project runs, the more expensive it becomes. Commissioner Edwards again said that he would like the developers to take another look at condominiums or town_houses and that he is opposed to the plat because of the variances involved. PLA~INING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Curry stated if they had to wait two weeks, they would droD the project. There are more option pa}~ments due on August 1. Wm~an by. Cm~m~mn~r ~Hwmrdg_ gmec~nd ~¥ Qomm~ssioner Dalv to recommend denial of Plann~ne Case No. 80-36 Voting in favor: Daly, Edwards Voting against: Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson Motion degl~red failed. Mn~m~ by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Wheelock to recommend approval of Plmn~ C~ No. g0-q6, rezoninm, otattinm and variances for proposed.New Hope Highlands ?~ A~t{nn s~b~mct_~Q_J2ke_P~i~iQnerProvidin~ _s~r~ni~ consistin~ of appropriate plant matmr~mls alo~ County RQ_BD 18__a.n_d half waM down Lot 16 on the 36th Avenue side, wi~h the plant materials to_b~_ from the tree list in the New..Hope Muidelines, Voting in favor: Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustaf's'on, Wheelock Voting against: Edwards Motioq declared carried ~ NEW BUSINESS 4. There was no further business, brought before the Planning Commission 5. ~ADJOURNMENT The meetin~_~Qurned at 6L~5 p.m. by_unanimous consent  itted, Recording Secretary PLA~q~ING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1980 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 5, 1980 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: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, C~neron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-37 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF USE - 3043 LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH - WILLIAM AND LOUISE KRA/qZ~ PETITIONEP~. The petitioner was not present. Cormmissioner Edwards moved to table Case 80-37 until later in the meeting. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. The City Manager noted that it would be necessary to wait until-the scheduled hearing time before consi- deration of the next planning case. He suggested that the Commission advance to Co~nittee Reports on the Agenda at this time. The Chairman concurred. COM3~ITTEE REPORTS 10. Design and Review had one meeting on July 23, I980o 11. There was no report from the Land Use Committee° 12. There~as no report from the Codes and Standards Co~mnittee. The Chairman of this Committee noted that he had met with the City Manager and attornies and had given a deposition in the Sinclair Oil Company vs. City of New Hope court case. NEW BUSINESS 13. The Council Minutes of July 14, 21, and 28th,were reviewed. The City Manager updated the Commission on the status of the Sihclair Oil court case. He noted that the Contempt charge against City officials had been thrown out and the Court had authorized a stay of issuing a sign permit pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. It would be 60 to 90 days before the case would come before the Supreme Court for the ini- tial hearing. Depending on what happened at.that time the case could go through the appeal or be returned to the District Court. 14. The Planning Cc~mission minutes of July 1st, and 14th, were accepted as printed. Pb~LIC HEARINGS The Chairman noted that inasmuch as Cases 80-38 and 80-39 were essentially the same request, they would be heard together. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-38 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7850 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD - ~ ROY SIGN, INC. PETITIONER. 5. PLANNING C$~E 80-.39 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7980 BkqS LAKE ROAD - LE ROY SIGN, INC. PETITIONER. Mr. Tom Duffy of LeRoy Sign Company said ~hat had happened was that they had applied for a permit to change the face of the existing car wash signs at the S~andard 0il stations. They had then discovered that the present Standard signs were non-conforming in regard to letter height. The letters are 15" and the Ordinance requires 10" letters. They were further requesting 5' x 6' signs to be installed under the torch on the existing signs adver? rising "Certi-Care". The existing signs were 6' x 10' signs. The only other sign available to them from Standard Oil are 60" x 100" with 12 inch letters. They are requesting a variance to allow the 12" letters instead of 10". They will reduce the size of the overall sign. PLANNING COMMISSION MI~ES - 2 - AUGUST 5~ 1980 Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the pylon sign would use the existing post and be in the same location. He commented that with the Court case pending, it was his opinion that the Sign Ordinance be ~-~ enforced as written. However with the court case pending he felt that probably the best action would be to stay action on the sign variance requests for 90 days. The Chairman stated he felt the entire Commission was thinking this, but that Standard would like to in- stall the "Certi-Care" signs indicating the gas stations were certified for service. He felt it was unfair to hold up these signs for 90 days pending the Court case outcome. In response to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that the amortization period for the existing signs at these stations had run out and the signs would have to be brought into conformance. Any action on the non-conforming sign is stayed now, however, pending the court case decision. Discussion held regarding the possibility of allowing the "Certi-Care" signs and staying' enforcement of the conversion. The City Manager noted that when signs were altered, all signage on the site was to be brought into conformance under the Ordinance. He felt the question of adding the "Certi-Care" sign was a policy decision on the part of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt this would be a reasonable compromise. The dealer for the station at Bass Lake Road/Winnte~a stated he had no objections to such action. Com~aissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the installation of a "Certi-Care" sign at each of the Standard stations a= 7850 Medicine Lake Road and 7900 Bass Lake Road, in Cases 80-38 and 80-39, with the understanding that the location at 7850 Medicine Lake Road would remove the two siqns now there in lieu of a price sign, to be replaced by the "Certi-Care" sign. Further that it was under- stood by the Petitiouer that in regard to the size of the letterinq on the top of the pylon sign, the City is holding action for a period of 90 days or until the Petitioner is requested to return by the Chair- man of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Gustafson ~/ Absent: Bartos Motion carried° 6. PLANNING CASE 80-40 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ON CURB CUT AT 5832 CAVELL AVENUE NORTH - ELROY MEYER, PETITIONER. Mr. Meyer stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to leave the curb cut and driveway at the same location it has been for the last k9 years. It was his understanding that a year ago, the City Coun- cil had passed an Ordinance requiring that the curb cut had to be five feet from the property line. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the driveway presently encroached on the neighbor's property° Mr. Meyer stated the driveway was on his property but the curb cut, as the property line would extend, would not be on his property. He was told.at the time he purchased his house that this was all right, it was . City property, not the neighbors° He added that the gravel was probably pushed out a bit, but he did not intend to blacktop where the gravel was. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that when the driveway was blacktopped it would exist entirely on Mr. Meyer's property and that this condition had existed for 19 years. Mr. Meyer stated he planned to blacktop the driveway along the property line until it reached the City property (boulevard) and then join the curb cut. In order to position the driveway so it would be en- tirely in front of his property, he would have to curve the drive and would lose some of his access from the north, it would also involve his removing a tree on the boulevard. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mrl Meyer stated he thought it would involve ten or eleven feet if he were to shift the driveway so 'it was entirely in front of his property. In response to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager stated that the boulevard was City proper- ty in the sense that it was a dedicated easement to the road. He added that the City Attorney was unable to make an exact statement regarding the "rights" of the adjacent property owner in this type of case° The Chairman noted that it did not seem right to him that a neighbor could encroach in front of a yard,. just because it was City property. In answer to a question from the Chairman Mr. Meyer stated he did not know what the neighbor felt about ~ the situation. He distributed pictures of the existing driveway to the Commissioners to review. The neighbor stated she could cc~ment on this question. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the driveway encroached four feet into the neighbor's boulevard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - AUGUST 5, 1980 6. Mr. Meyer said that because of the curve in the street and the way his house sat on the property, when it got to the~curb, the driveway encroached. Mrs. Peggy Muehlberg, 5840 Cavell, neighbor to the lot in question, stated she did not agree that the Petitioner should be allowed to encroach on to the boulevard in front of her house over the property line. It was her property. The Chairman stated he could see no problem with allowing the Petitioner to encroach on to the City's five feet of setback requirement, but he would not be in favor of allowing an extension over the neigh- bor's property line and boulevard. Commissioner Gundershaug noted he would be in favor of the five foot waiver but not the encroachment on to the neighbor's property. Discussion then covered the width of the existing driveway (16 feet),whether it was necessary for it to be that wide, how much narrower the blacktop would be than the existing gravel (about one foot) and what would be required to line up the driveway with the garage° Mr. Meyer restated that the City told him 19 years apo it was all right. He stated he needed a wide driveway because they had two cars and his daughter who lived with them also had a car. He added, in response to a question, that the property line ran through the existing gravel. He added that he could not locate the stakes at the driveway, but had found thom on the other siOe and measured the distance of the property. Discussion followed between the Petitioner and Commissioner Gulenchyn regarding the hardships involved in moving the driveway, or in putting a curve in the driveway. Mr. Meyer stated the driveway would come right up to the tree on the boulevard and the tree would proba- bly have to be removed if the curb cut were changed. Discussion followed about soft maple trees and their affect on driveways° Mr. Meyer stated this type of change would limit his access from the north. Commissioner Daly stated that the developer and the City had caused the original problem and he did not object to allowing the variance to position the driveway on the property line but did not approve of encroaching on to the neighbor's yard. C6rmnissloner Daly made a motion recommending approval of the variance requested in Case 80-40 with the ~ti~ulation that the petitioner could have the five foot variance all the way to the edge of the property line at 5832 Cavell, but that it could not encroach on the next lot or its extension into the boulevard area in any way. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Gustafson Absent: Bartos Motion carried 7. PLANNING CASE 80-41 - REQUEST FOR PUD AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL FOR MINI WAREHOUSE AT 4990 COUNTY ROAD #18 SERVICE ROAD - D.A. AND L. T. DEMEULES, PETITIONER Mr. Domeules noted that the following case (80-42) was very similar to their's and asked that Mr. Girard of Olson Concrete be allowed to give an overview of the proposals. Commissioner Daly disqualified himself from participating in the discussion regarding this case due to the Petitioner's involvement with Mr. Daly's campaign committee. Mr. Girard stated they were requesting a PUD to allo~ multi buildings on the same site to be used for mini warehousing. They are designed primarily to approach the commercial and industrial market rather than the residential market. The buildings will be of a pre-engineered metal structural roof system, with a full perimeter around the building. In answer to questions from the Chairman he stated they would not be heated and woul~ have electricity installed for only lights -- no outlets. Mr. Demeules stated that the back of the property had very poor soil conditions and the proposal for m~ni- warehouses seemed the best use of the land. The warehouses will be run from their facility and be mainly for industrial storage. The hours will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., five days a week with their present warehouse staff running the operation. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that security lighting had been added to the building since the Design and Review meeting and that water was available. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - AUGUST 5, 1980 7. Mr. Demeules stated they had talked to the Fire Chief and he had accepted the placement of the fire drant. The site will be totally fenced. If they determine later they need signs, they will come back to the Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the driveways will all be blacktopped and that they do not intend to install curbs. Mr. Demeules stated they felt that curbs might cause erosion problems on the banks. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the need for some barrier by the slope, Mr. Demeules stated he would prefer to install posts to prevent people from going over the slope, because this would not interfere with water drainage° The fencing will be a continuation of the existing fencing and go all around the site. They are consider- lng a double key system for the warehouses, but intend the operation to be run and supervised by their present warehouse staff° They hope this will control the type of storage. Hazardous substances would not be allowed° Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the landscaping as provided was basically ground cover° Mr. Demeules stated that he and his brother intended to maintain the property. They intend to stay in New Hope and do not want an eyesore. He stated that unless the volume of business increased greatly and traf- fic bec~me a problem, they would continue to direct the traffic as it is now. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed for the record that the buildings would be of pre-engineered, pre~ finished, pre-painted metal. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager stated that the only thing the City could do to control the type of storage %~uld be to insist that the buildings be constructed for certain occupan- cies and then act if violations are found. Mr. Demeules stated they intend to police the type of storage in the warehouse as it was to their advan- tage to prohibit hazardous materials. Commissioner Gundershaug made a mo'tion recommending approval of the PUD for a mini-warehouse project as requested in Case 80-41, with the stipulation that some t~e of bumper be provided on the east end of the buildings, around the drive. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Daly, Gustafson Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 80-42 - REQUEST FOR PUD AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL FOR MINI WAREHOUSE ON LOT 2~ BLOCK l, OLSON INDUSTRIAL PARK Mr. Bob Olson stated they were requsting a PUD and construction approval for the same type of usage as requested in Case 80-41. They have the same type of soil conditions. They feel it is the ultimate use of the land. They are gearing basically toward the same type of market. They will have a mixture of space sizes, ranging from 100 square feet up to 2400 square feet or larger. The partitions are flexi- ble. They will control access by a gate. The entire site is either fenced or framed by the buildings. The doors will only be to the inner courtyard and there will be a locked gate at the entry. Their own office and property abuts the site to the south and they will be regulating rental access. They are considering a key system. They feel there might be a demand for entry other than during the regular work~ ing hours. They could make arrangements to have someone from their office on duty during part of the weekend. Commissioner Gundershaug raised the question of a key system allowing people to enter on the weekend and work on cars, tec. when no staff was present. Mr. Olson stated they would have a lease that would spell out the permitted uses, and nothing Qther than storage would be permitted. He realized policing could be a probl~n. The details will have to be worked out on this. He felt there was a demand for this type of storage even in the community for storage of mobile homes, etc. and he felt that their proximity would help to regulate any problems. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that they will provide security lighting and that all of the buildings will have lights, but no electrical outlets. A hydrant is atsobeing provided. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - AUGUST 5, 1980 8. In response to a question, Mr. Olson stated they felt that in a light snowfall they would be able to just plow it out. With a heavier snow they might have to truck the snow out. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there will be a chain link fence, that the front will be landscapped, and the the area by the cul-du-sac and to the west of the site would be sodded. They will seed the area be- yond Industrial Tool. The buildings will also be' of metal partitions. Mr. Olson stated that any signs, if needed, would be re- quested under a separate application. Discussion then covered the rearyard setback. Mr. Olson stated that the frontyard was on the cul-du-sac. with the rearyard to the east. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he had no problems with the proposed setbacks. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the PUD and construction approval as rem quested in Case 80-42 and approval of the setbacks as ~roposed. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Whee!ock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 3. On motion by Cormnissioner Daly with second by Commissioner Edwards, Planqing Case 80-37 was removed from the table. Voting in favor: W~eelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: 'Bartos Motion carried~ Mrs. Kranz stated they were requesting permission to remove a carport and to construct a separate garage on their property at 3043 Louisiana Avenue. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the building at the rear of the property and whether it was presently used as a garage or a storage area? Mrs. Kranz stated they were unable to get to this structure and used it only for storage of snowmobiles, cement mixers, and things of this type. It is strictly an out-building unless another road is put in at some future time. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the garage as proposed would match the texture and color and roof line of the existing house. Commissioner Gustafson then confirmed that the property was presently zoned Light Industrial and that the Kranz' were presently a non-conforming permitted use. He asked what their plans were for the property? Mrs. Kranz stated it was their home and had been for 30 years. They had no plans to sell the h~me at this time for light industrial purposes, this is why they had decided to build the garage. In response to a question about her willingness to have the property rezoned to residential, she noted she thought they would be agreeable but she would have to discuss this with her husband. Co~missioner Gustafson made a motion recommending a~proval of the variance requested in Case 80-37, to expand a non-conforming use to allow the ~etitioners to build a free standing, double garage; with the stipulation that the exterior texture and color would match that of the existinghouse. Commissioner Dal~ second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 9. The City Manager referred to the copy of the redevelopment project that had been distributed to the Com- missioners. He noted that it met the requirements of the Law in terms of redevelopment of a tax increment project. He noted that this is the project on 36th/#18 and had previously been before the Con~nission in regard to platting, rezoning, etc. The present proposal includes 15 duplex buildings and two four-plex buildings. It will cost a total of $422,500 including the purchase of the land, buying out the zoning. The property will be resold for $122,500 to a developer, using tax increment financing to pick up the difference. The City has reached an agreement with the County regarding the value of the property as of January 2, 1980 of $85,800, which allows the City to put together a package which includes a $300,000 bond issue which ap- pears to be saleable in today's money market. PLANNING COMMISSIC~ MINUTES - 6 - AUGUST 5, 1980 The Manager stated that under the Law, the H.R.A. is required to submit this to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and the City had to have action by the Planning Commission to get it before the Council. It is scheduled to be before the Council on Monday, August 11. The problem is that the developer is attempting to get going on construction yet this fall in order to save some money. Chairman Cameron asked w~y the Planning Commission was being drawn ~n on the financing? The Manager said it was because the package had to be reviewed by the Planning Commission byLaw for the hearing. The Commission had the right and duty to recommend as they wish. Chairman Cameron stated he was personally uncomfortable with being involved with this aspect of the pro- posal with absolutely no background, and no understanding of the legalities, etc. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the Tax Increment Project 80-2. Commis- sioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Da!y, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Wheelock, Cameron Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 16. Discussion held regarding the Sinclair case and the number of signs that had been installed in the City in conformance with the Ordinance. The Manager noted that there were 77 signs installed legally and that about 22 signs had now cane to the end of their amortization period and should be updated. Concern was expressed about the people who had willingly conformed to the Sign Ordinance restrictions, should this court case be decided in favor of Sinclair, and the amount of money spent already by many small businesses in an effort to conform. It was felt this was an injustice to these businessmen. 1:7. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:37 ~.m. Respectfully submitted, Joico Boeddeker Secretary PL_ANNING COb~4ISSION MINU~S SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Cc~unission was held on Tuesday, September 2, 1980 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL-CALL W~ TAKEN: Present: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards. Absent: None PUBLIC HEAP~-NGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-43 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL AT 2720 }~EVADA AVENUE NORTH - DEMARS SIGNS, PETI~ TIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Bartos to table this case until later in the meeting. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, ~ustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. The Chairman noted the Commission would proceed with committee Reports inasmuch as they were ahead of schedule. COMMITTEE REPORTS - 8. Design and Review Committee did not meet in August. There was no report. 9. There was no report fro~ the Land Use Committee. 10. These was no report from Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 11. %~e Council Minutes of August llth, and 25th, 1980 were reviewed by the City Manager. He noted that the biggest debate had been the question of the curb cut in Case 80-40. Commissioner Bartos asked whether in the question of the use of the home for bible study by Mr. Mason, the issue would not have usually come before the Planning Co~mission prior to going before Council? The City Manager noted that it perhaps should have come before the Co~ission at least to determine the proper use under the Code. He noted that the final decision by Council had been to allow Mro Mason to continue if the traffic were controlled~ Discussion followed regarding this cased 4. PLANNING CASE 80-44 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 3535 WINNETKA AVENUE - SUBURBAN LIGHTING, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Coi~issioner Gustafson, second by C~issioner Bartos to table this case until later in the meeting. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson~ Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 12. The Plar~ning Commission Minutes of August 5, 1980 were acce~ted as ,printed. 13o Chairman C~aeron asked if anyhhing had as yet been dete=mined in regard tO the condition of 36th AvenUe? The Manager noted he had no answers at this time. Commissioner Bartos asked about the trin~ming of b~ulevard trees when they obstructed vision° The Manager no~ed that 'after it froze, 'the staff would trim t~ees as they had time. However, he said it was the resp0nsibi!it? of the homeowne~ to trim the boulevard trees in front of his hc~e. Mr. Bar- tos noted the trees were not in front o~ his house° PLANNING CC~=MISSIC~ MINUTES - 2 - SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 5. PLANNING CASE 80-45 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY 'PLAT AND CONSTRUCTIC~ APPROVAL AT 4116 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - SHERIDAN SHEET METAL, PETITIONER. ~-~ The City Manager noted that this was the same case that had been approved last year. It was necessax~ to obtain re-approval because of the time that had elapsed since the request. Co~nissioner Bartos made a motion to approve Case 80-45, preliminary plat,construction approval and vari- ance as approved previously in Case 79-45. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug~ Edwards Voting aga%nst: None Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 80-46 -REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 4510 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE - EDWARD ZAPPE, PETITIONER Mr. Zappe stated that he was the owner of the 23 unit apartment building at 4510 Rhode Island. What he was requesting was to add a 12 unit, stalled garage on the west side of the existing parking lot. The original 1965 plans had included space for 23 garages. They had built only 12 garages. He has a number of tenants who have requested garage protection for their cars. He added that the property has a large grassy area and he felt this would benefit both the tenants and the view as the garages would get the cars out of sight even though there would be a reduction of the set- back by four feet. He felt that because of drainage problems, the proposed locati6n was the most practi- cal. The proposed garage would jo~n the west edge of the parking lot and would not interfere with the existing parking. Chairman Cameron confi~ned for the reco~d that Mr. Zappe was request a four foot variance in setback. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the proposed garages would be identical to the existing buildings? Mr. Zappe stated almost exactly. The roof will be a salvage roof rather than a pasted down roof and the aprons on the new garages would be concrete rather than asphalt~ The buildings will look the same as the existing° He did not feel the expansion would c~lse any problem at all with the berm° In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Zappe stated that the tenants would be assigned garages according to their rental units and guests would park at the ends. There will be a total of ten free parking spaces. The garages will be tied in with the lease of the apartments. In response to a question from Commissoner Daly he stated that the existing tree would be saved° Commissioner Edwards asked about parking in front of the stalls, and what the width was between the garages? Mr. Zappe stated it was ten feet center to center. He felt most present day cars were of the cc~pact size. Commissioner Edwards asked howmuch space there would be between the buildings at the front of the garages. Mr. Zappe said there would be 58 feet between the front wall of the east garages to the front wall of the west garages. Even with two cars parked, he felt there would be at least 20 feet between the buildings° In response to questions, the City Manager stated that the existing driveway had ~een constructed before the present Ordinance had be~n enacted. The current Ordinance calls for 20 foot stalls and 24 feet be- tweeno Mr. Zappe stated that the new garage would start at the end of the existing parking lot. Commissioner Edwards noted he was concerned about th~ narrow stalls. He had experienced difficulty in getting out of the stall with a full sized car. Mr. Zappe stated he had received no complaints fr~m tenants regarding difficulty in getting in and out from the parking area. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variance at 4510 Rhode Island as requested in Case 80-46, contingent upon the roof line, color and texture of the new g~rage matching the existing building. Commissioner Wheelock second. Voting in favor: ~neelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos~ Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None ~-~ Motion carried. PLANNING C(~SMISSIC~ MINUTES - 3 - SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 7. PLANNING CASE 80-47 -'REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 3625 GETTYSBURG AVENUE'-'DANIEL HA~KA; PETITIONER Mr. Hanka stated he had lived in his home since 1974. The house is one of the Mary Anderson basics and he now needs more room for his family. He is requesting the two variances in setback to allow him to add a double garage of a tuck-under type, add a bedroom and bath above the garage and a family room at the rear._ He noted he intended 'to put six inch stud walls, another two inches of foam around the out~ side, R-55 to R-65 ceilings, and install four solar panels on the south side of the family room for ,~ domestic hot water purposes. He requested a ten foot front variance and a two foot variance in the northwest rear corner. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Hanka had found the corner posts and that the dimensions a~ presented were correct. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson regarding perhaps moving the garage farther back on the lot, Mr. Hanka stated this would then push him closer to the rear setback and would not match up with the proposed layout. He 'added they had been looking for a way to gain maximum room and still control the construction costs as much as possible. He stated he intends to remove the existing asphalt siding and roof material so that the total house will have the same type of siding and roof. He does not want the house to look as though it had been added to. He intends to put in a basement with a 7 1/2 foot ceiling. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending a~proval of the variances in setback at 3625 Gettysburg as requested in Case 80-47, subject to the understanding that the location, as defined by the petitioner, is approximately correct based on the fihdings of the stakes on the survey, and that the color, texture, and roof line of the house as constructed is one and the same.. Commissioner Daly second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 3. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion removing Case 80-43 from the table. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Mr. Tom Maus, representing Mon-Ray Windows, stated they were requesting approval of a sign plan for the property at 2720 Nevada Avenue North. He presently has a temporary permit for the sign on the space he leases at the site. His sign is mounted on the building, ~d is painted fiberglass. The letters on the sign are to be of the Helvitica style and 8 to 16 inches in height. There will also be signing on the inside of the building. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Mr. Maus was an authorized representative of the building owner? Mr. Maus answered "no" he was representing himself as he needs the sign. He had called the owner - Metric Metals - and the sign company, but no one had been able to attend the meeting. He noted that Metric Me- tals occupies 80% of the building. He had no authorization to act for the owner.' Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with the City Manager that the sign plan was a responsibility of the owner to have approved by the City. The tenants must then adhere to the overall sign plan as approved by the City. Chairman Cameron asked why the owner was not r~Dresented? The answer was that there had been no one free to attend. The Chairman stated that he felt the Commission had no authority to proceed, someone had to be duly authorized to act for the owner. In answer to a question fro~ the Chai-~man., the City Manager stated they had two choices: the case could be tabled until either the owner or the sign cc~pany could attend, or if the Commission had no probl~ms with the plan, they could act on it and send it forward to Council. The Chairman asked 5~. Maus if he thought he coul~ get M and M to attend the Council meeting on Monday. He said he would try. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether a table of the case would hamper the tenant from contining to use his temporary sign? The City Manager stated that Mr. Maus had gone overboard in his efforts to get the owner to come in and present a sign plan for the building. He had originally though he was permitted to install a sign. PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 3. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt this case should be ta~led and the tenant allowed to proceed with the use of his sign under the temporary permit. Discussion followed about the possibility ~f the owner never coming in to the Commission and how much time should be allowed them, whether the Commission could discuss and act on the proposed signs and pass the plan on to Council and whether staff should/could contact the owner and request hiZ attendance at the Coun- cil meeting~. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve the sign plan as proposed at 2720 Nevada Avenue in Case 80-43, subject to City Staff notifying the owner he must appear at the Council meetinq or have a duly authorized, written representative at the meeting on. September 8th. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Gustafson Voting against: Wheelock, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Motion failed. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to table Case 80-43 until the meetinq of October 7, 1980. Commis- sioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 4. Commissioner Edwards made a motion'to remove Case 80-44 from the table° Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn~ Daly~ Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried° Mr. Phil Larson of Suburban Lighting and Mr. A1 Daly of the GettyCorporation were present. Mr. Larson stated they were requesting a variance on the letters of the word "Surfco" on the pylon sign° This is the smallest sign that is available to the company of the standard design. The "Surfco" line letters would average 16" and the "self serve" line would average about 10 1/3" per line. He felt the sign as proposed was ~portant to custc~ers and the to the ~tation to provide visibility. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Surfco was a subsidiary of Getty 0il and that there were seven sta~ tions in the metropolitan area. They are a national operation° It was noted that there was a 76 square foot, a 50 square foot and a 46 square foot sign available to the station. Discussion followed regarding the problems involved, and the expense of having to provide a special size sign for the City of New Hope. The Chairman noted that many other businesses had complied with the New Hope Sign Ordinance restrictions. Mr. Daly noted they were upgrading the appearance of the station and intended to remove the existing signs. He noted the change of the backgroqnd size could =~mount to a couple of thousand dollars. To alter the face could be five dr six hundred dollars ~nd you could end up with a sign that didn't look good° Commissioner Gustafson stated that because of the ~ending court case the City was involved in, he would recommend that Case 80-44 be tabled, and any action withheld, for 90 days, or until the petitioner was requested to return to the Planning Commission. Cemmissioner Dalv second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Chairman Cameron asked the peitioner if he was aware that the City was involved in a court case with Sin- clair that was headed for the Supreme Court. He noted that until that time the Commission did not feel it was fair to force a petitioner to spend money until the court case was settled. The City Manager noted that the petitioner could change their building signs, but not the ground sign un- less the sign was brought into conformance. Mr. Daly confirmed that the table pertained to the ground sign on the property and that he would be noti- fied when he should reappear before the commission. 15. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:26 ~.m. Respectfully submitted ~ d~'' S t JoyC~ Boed eker,, ecre ary PLANNING CO~24ISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1980 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Cc~m~ission was held on Tuesday, October 7, 1980 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN Present: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos (excused) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE 80-43 (CONTINUED FROM ~-2-80) REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL AT 2720 NEVADA AVENL~ NORTH D DE MARS SIGNS, PETITIONER Mr. Larry Maciej represented M-M Development who had built the building. He is associated with the sign company. Mr. Maciej presented a drawing of the proposed signs. He noted that one of the tenants, Mon-Ray WinD dows - had moved into the building immediately after it was built. The second tenant was Metric Metals. He had fabricated and installed the Metric Metals letters and also the signs at the dock for "shipping" and "receiving". He had not been aware he had to present a comprehensive sign plan for ap- proval until he had come to the Ci%y Hall. He had approval from M-M Development to present this plan to the Commission. All future tenants will be required to use individual letters on the building, of non combustible materials - either polyurethane or metal. The City sign criteria will also prevail. The sign area will be over the doors or windows and will not obstruct view. The existing two tenants cc~prise 60% of the building capacity. They also intend to discourage any · future use of logos. A commitment had been made to Mon-Ray W~ndows for a logo, but the owner does not intend to allow logos in the future. Chairman Cameron noted that all multi-tenant buildings were re~ired to present a comprehensive sign plan for the building to the City, that all tenants would adhere to. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the number one concern of the Commission was that an authorized repre- rsent~tive of the building's owner present the sign plan and be able to speak for the owner in regard to implementation of the plan as presented to the Col~mission. Mr. Maciej said that M-M Development had given him that authority. Commissioner Gustafson asked what the name of the officer of the company was that had given him this authority? Mr. Maciej stated it was Ed Nordquist, Vice President of the company. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the sign plan allowed for only three signs.. Any additional sign- age would have to be approved by the Commission and the Sign Plan modified. Commissioner Gustafson then confirmed with the City Manager that signs proposed 9s part of this package met the City Code and would not require additional Co~ission/City approval. The City Manager noted that all signs required permits from the City. Con~issioner Gustafson noted that there are now two signs and that the third sign could be installed without further appearance before the Commission if it met City Code. Signs for additional tenants would require Commission approval. The square footage for the third sign is proposed to be 36 square feet - 24" x 18" - and t~e letters would be raised, of non combustible materials. The single letters would be mounted on the building wall either with adhesive or studs. Letters would be placed directly on the wall. There is one dock that will be identified as "shipping" and "receiving". There are no additional ground signs proposed. Mr. Maciej said any additional signs would be temporar~ directional signs. The City Manager confirmed that the petitioner did not want to designate any fourth or fifth spots on the building for signage. Mr. Maciej stated "no". Commissioner Gustafson m~de a motion recommending approval of the Sign Plan for 2720 Nevada Avenue North as presented in Case 80-43 and outlined in the documentaion presented to the Com~tission. Commissioner Gundershauc second. - 2 - Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion'carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-48 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE AT 3530 YUKON AVENUE NORTH - JOSEPH BUSLOVICH, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not present. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 80-48 until later in the meeting. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 80-50 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION AT 7649 48TH AVENUE NORTH - DONNAVAN LYSDAHL, PETITIONER The petitioner was not present° Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 80-50 until later in ~he meeting. Comissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 80-51 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK FOR ADDITION AT 7930 59% AVENUE NORTH - ARNIE CARLSON, PETITIC~qER Mr. Carlson presented photographs of the view as seen driving down the street in front of his house. ~-~ He is asking for a variance of two feet to allow an addition to the front of his house. They are inter- ested in building a greenhouse on the front of the house. They want to make it more like a solarium, however, and wish to present an attractive appearance. The addition will be 26 feet long across the front of the house. They will use primarily window walls, with casement type windows underneath, to provide ventilation during the sun~ner. They would like tb install solar panels all the way across the. roof and will need the storage space underneath this addi- tion. The project had started because they were concerned with energy and feel they could obtain al- most 50% of the energy needed for their home with these improvements. The outside wall will be probably slanted up to 15 degrees which they had been told by the Building Inspector would be permitted. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Calrson stated they had contacted the Minnesota Energy Department in St. Paul and had been given names of people to contact. They had selected a person who specialized in green houses. She ha~ in turn suggested they contact a solar consultant. 'To begin with, they are looking for a passive collector, the greenhouse, to provide room for the future storage they need and also to provide for an air lock for the south wall and entrance. They estimated the total system will save 50% of their heating bill as estimated today. They will need to have 1000 gallons of storage in the basement and will need 156 cubic feet of rock storage. Their house is' not big enough at present to accommodate this. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Carlson stated that the solar collector would run some- where in the neighborhood of $10,000. The greenhouse/solarium will run about $4,500. He stated that sooner or later there will have to be a payoff time for the energy saved and whether it was now or at s~e future time, it would mean that someone else could conceivably heat their house with the fuel he would be saving. He has been looking at various types of installations as he wants the ad- dition to look good for himself and for the neighbors. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that at the present-time they were going to build the greenhouse/so- larium and are laying the plans for the future solar collector. He added that when the plans were comJ plete he would confer with the City Building Inspector for approval. There are still some questions he wants answered before he proceeds with the solar collector project. The variance will give them the ~.~ storage space needed for the solar heating system when they do'proceed. Commissioner Gustafson congratulated ~he petitioner on a well thought out case and made a motion recom- mendiqg approval of the two foot variance at 7930 59% Avenue North as requested in Case 80-51. Commis- sioner Daly second. PL~/qNING CCMMISSION MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 7, 1980 Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. The petitioners in Cases 80-48 and 80-50 were still not in attendance. Commissioner Wheelock made a motion tabling Cases 80-48 and'80-50 until, the meeting of November 5; 1980. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, C~meron, Gustafson~ Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried Mrs. Lou Babos, 3536 Yukon Avenue North, was present and asked to speak regarding the request in Case 80-48. The Chairman stated that the Cc~mission would take a five minute recess to hear her comments, ge noted he felt it would not be fair to the petitioner for the comments to be included in the record. Following the con~nents, the City Manager suggested that Mrs. Babos talk to the neighbor and also con- sult a couple of realtors to see if in their opinion, the variance would create future problems. Cummissioner Gustafson hoted that if there were negative comments as a result, the Planning Commission would like to have these comments when they consider the request on November 5. CC~4ITTEE REPORTS 7. Design and Review Committee held One meeting in September. AnOther meeting had been scheduled but the petitioner had been unable to appear. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. ~9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. They will wait until a decision has been reached in the Sinclair vs. City of New Hope court case before a meeting is scheduled. NEW BUSINESS 10. The Council Minutes of September 8th, and 22nd, were reviewed. 11. The Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1980 were accepted as printed. 12. Discussion was then held on the date for the November meeting. The City Manager noted that it was ille~ gal to hold public meetings on Election Day. The November meeting of the Planning Commission was re-scheduled for Wednesday; November'5, 1980 by unanimous consent. Commissioners Wheelock, Edwards and Gustafson will be unable to attend this meeting. 15. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:07 Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PI2~N~NG C0MM~SSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1980 .. 1. A reguiar meeting of the New Hope Planning Coa~ission was held on Wednesday, November 5, 1980 at the City Nall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The'meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TA~KEN: Present: Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 80-48 (CONTINUED FROM 10-7-80) REQUEST FOR GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 3530 YI/KON AVENUE NORTH - JOSEPH BUSL0VICH, PETITIONER. - Mr. Buslovich stated he had a single garage at this'time. He and his wife both work and they have two cars. He was requesting a setback variance to three feet from the property line to allow him to in- crease the garage to a double. The neighbor's home is ten feet away from the property line and is a two Story home with no windows on the garage side. It was.his feeling that his neighbor was unlikely to chang~ anything to his house on this side. Commissioner Daly confirmed that the wall as proposed would be three feet off the lot line and that the overhang would come right to the lot line. The roof will be the same as the current roof and the ex- terior wall will be exactly the same materials. He had no further questions. Chairman Cameron asked whether Mr. Buslovich had looked at any other possibilities for adding space to his garage? Mr. Buslovich said if there was another way he wOUld be g~ad to do so4 One problem was that he had two trees growing on the same side and could only add on to the back and have two cars, one behind the other. He felt this w~uld damage both his property and his neighbor's. The dri-veway will match up to the garage. Commissioner Da!y made. a motion recommending ~pproval of the variance in setback for 3530 Yukon Avenue North as requested in Case 80-48. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn~ Daly, C~eron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson, Wheelock Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 80-50 (CONTINUED FROM 10-7-80) REQUEST FOR ADDITION SETBACK VARIA~CE AT 7649 48TH AVENUE NORTH - DONNAVAN LYSDAHL, PETITIONER Mrs. Lysdahl stated they were requesting the variance tO 9% feet at the rear to allow them to add a 16' x 16' family room ~t the rear of the house. The rear yard borders park property and the addition would not block-anyone's view. The addition will have a full'basement under it, which will.he used for storage. They also plan to add a fireplace to the room. In answer to a ~aestion from Commissloner Daly, Mrs. Lysdahl stated that the exterior materials willie the same as the house, and the roof line will be the same. Color and roof will'also be the same. They plan a patio door on the east, two windows on the west and the fireplace will be on the south side. No one was present regarding this case. Co~issioner Dalv made a motion recommending approval of the variance at 7649 48th Avenue as requested in Case 80-50. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson, Wheelock Motion carried. 5. PLANNING ~ASE 80-52 - REQUEST FOR AIR CONDITIONER VARIANCE AT 4124-4126 JORDAN AVENUE - RICHARD KAUFF- MAN~ PETITIONER 6. PLANNING CASE ~0-53 - REQUEST FOR AIR COS~ITIONER VARIANCE AT 4167-4169 JORDAN AVENUE - STEVEN KAUFFMAN, PETITIONER · he Chairman noted that because these two cases were similar in request, except for address, they would be considered together. Steven Kauffman stated that he and his father had essentially the same problem. They had had air conditioners installed on the homes and had been personally unaware of the Ordinance requiring that they be installed at the rear of the homes because of the noise factor. In answer to a question he stated he had built the home for a client. He added that when they were notified of the error, the basement of the house had already been finished. It would be terribly expensive to have to move the air conditioners now. It was his understanding that the ordinance was to protect the neighbors from noise. They provided site plans for the Commissioners to review, to illustrate where the air conditioners were located in relation to the adjacent units. Mr. Richard Kauffman stated he would be willing to build a sound shield to protec~ the neighbors from the noise of the air conditioners, if there were a complaint about the noise. He noted that there were fireplaces on both sides of his building. He had anticipated that the air conditioner people would have been aware of the City Ordinance restric- tions in regard to placement. The preliminary work had been done in the winter and they were requesting the variance because the units were already installed. On his lot he said the situation was a little more extreme because he had a full walkout on one unit and a half story on the other side. He had two different elevations and a rather high hill. This crea~ed a little bit of difficulty in re-locating the air conditioners to the rear of the property. Chairman Cameron asked how they could have goofed up so completely? Mr. Kauffman said he had not built other units in New Hope under this Ordinance. He stated that once the problem had been discovered, they had discontinued placing air conditioners on the side. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he answered that he had presumed that the sub-contractors knew the Or- dinance restrictions. He could not know all of the Ordinances. Commissioner Daly confirmed that the building facing north would have a rear yard adjacent to the west. He was concerned with the air conditioners facing bedroom windows° Mr. Steven Kauffm~ said the rooms were bedrooms on his house, but were on the second floor. Mr. Richard Kauffman said his unit~ w~uld be facing dining areas, patios, or living rooms. In answer to a question Steven Kauffman said that both halves of his unit had finished basement ceilings (this is the unit facing south)~ Mro Richard Kauffman said his basements were partially finished but there was a possibility.of getting ~to the wires° Discussion between Commissioner Daly and Richard Kauffman centered on the proposed sound shields, whether they would be permanently installed, the possibility of the inclusion of insulation in the screen; the fact that all of the units were air conditioned which would probably mean that most windows would remain closed, and the fact that future owners could remove the screens, once again leaving the units exposed ..and again creating a noise problem. Commissioner Daly stated his main concern was the noise factor when the air conditions were facing bed- room windows. He was also concerned about screening because of the chance that they would be removed in the 'future. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked for confirmatio~ about the Ordinance and its restrictions regarding rooms facing the air conditioner units. Chairman Cameron stated that the idea of the Ordinance was to protect the neighbors from noise and to direct the sound away from the next door units° Commissioner Gundershaug said he did not honestly see it as such a problem as long as the neighbors did not voice any objections. Co~issioner Daly stated he felt the City also had an obligation to the many people who had installed air conditioners according to the Ordinance restrictions. Chairman commented that the Ordinance was enacted for a good reason and that someone had to prove a case; just because someone had goofed, was no~ a sufficient reason for him to put the burden on the City. The Com~%ission needs to watch out for the integrity of the Ordinance. Additional discussion followed between the Commissioners and the Kauffmans regarding the possibility of screening as a noise buffer, the type of materials/size that wo~ld be used in a screen, the possible use of styrofoam inside the screen to absorb sound and the need to insure that the screen wo~ld remain in place and the effectiveness of a screen in diverting sound. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending approval of the variance as requested at 4124-26 Jordan Avenue North in Case 80-52~ the unit facing north. Commissioner Gutenchyn second. Chairman Cameron stated he ~uld speak against and vote against this variance because he felt absolutely PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 5, 1980 that ho case had been shown, except for the convenience of ~he contz'actor. He added that he did not buy the screening approach. The Commission did not know enough about sound to judge the effectiveness of a acreen. Commissioner Edwards stated he was in agreement with Chairman Cameronand was opposed to the variance. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Gundershaug Voting against~ Cameron~ Edwards Motion carried. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending approval of the variance at 4167-69 Jordan Avenue, the units facing south, as requested in Case 80-53. The variance is subject to a six foot high by eight feet wide sound barrier, with sytrofoam and material suitable for a permanent structure, being installed on the outer side of each of the two units and that this barrier ts subject to the approval of City staff and Cit~ Inspectors in r~gard to Quality. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Gundershaug Voting against: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 80-54 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT ~ND CONDITIONAL USE PEP~IT AT 36TH/HILLSBORO - RICHARD CURRY, PETITIONER Mr. Curry stated that the two lots had been preliminarily approved earlier to pe-~it tw~ four-plexes at the corner of 36th/Hillsboro. The New Hope Ordinance requlres that a four-plex lot be built under a Special Use Permit. They were requesting this permit and a preliminary plat because they had not de- cided to construct the four plexes as zero lot lines~ The reason for this is that in the event that the individual units were sold, there would be exact legal descriptions defined. In reference to a previous suggestion for an association, he noted that an association was absolutely not acceptable to them. He added that in a previous appearance before the City Council it had been recommended that on the north property there be no access off Hillsboro. When he had appeared before Design and Review they had pre- sented a circular driveway, with a berm in the middle. Cross easements would also have been necessary for the driveway. Design and Review had recommended they eliminate the horseshoe and move the drive five feet to the north and add landscaping. They have now designed an alternati%~ p-lan "A". The drivewa.y has been moved, landscaping has been added with pockets of shrubs and more evergreens. They will still remain with the zero lot line approach. They have consulted their attorney and have no problem with creating cross easements and maintaining the driveway. During the meeting with the Design and Review Committee the subject had come up that it may make more sense to face the north building to Hillsboro and have the driveways actually enter on to Hillsboro Avenue. Mr. Curry noted he would like to make a case for the buildings facing Hillsboro. To him it made more sense to have the driveways facing Hillsboro and the rear yards facing toward the open area. He has, be- cause of the lsser expense involved in entering to Hillsboro spent more money on landscaping. A substan- tial amount of landscaping had been added to this alternative. He noted that the advantages of the units facing and exiting to H~llsboro were more than the possible disadvantages of the potential -traffic to the four block stretch of HIllsboro. He felt that logically the danger could not be very great. The drives could be shorter and there would be no need for cross easements. Mr. Curry presented illustrations of the proposal to the Commissioners. The soil has been corrected'for the south building. Discussion held regarding possible exterior treatments to the buildings and the landscaping. The Chairman stated he personally liked the units facing Hillsboro. Discussion regarding the reason for the exit on to Independence as proposed and the determination that it was the Council who had requested there be no exit to Hillsboro because of the potential traffic. The Planning Commission had been concerned with the long drive on the cul-du-sac. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he was in favor of the exit going out to ~illsboro, feeling it cleaned up everything. Commissioner Gundershaug referred to Design and Review and the fact that these buildings were in effect a PUD and the need for plans to illustrate the exact exterior treatment of the two buildings on all four sides. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug the City Manager noted that in the granting of a Conditional Use Permit the Commission had the right to request as much as they wished in regard to the development and exterior treatment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4 - NOVEMBER 5, 1980 7. Mr. Curry stated they would consider the building as presented to Planning Commission as the northern most building and that it would have the appearance as shown. He would then bring in a face sheet for the southern most building for the Planning Commission and staff to review. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt Design and Review would like to see illustrations of all four sides of both of the buildings. Chairman Cameron asked if Mr. Curry could wait a month to allow Design and Review to see the proposals for both buildings? Mr. Curry agreed to do this. Mr. Harold Jorgenson stated his concerns in regard to the placement of the four-plexes and questioned why they had not been backed up to 9187 Mr. Curry said it was because of the soil conditions. He noted that between 918 and Hillsboro there was a pot hole that ran 21 feet of peat. Mr. Jorgenson commented that he felt there should have been more density on the south end. He questioned why~ if the soil conditions were good enough along #18 for doubles, the four-plexes could not have gone there? His concern was that now whatever he put on his property across the street would look at.prac- tically all blacktop. He noted that when he was in for rezoning of the property that he had purchased, either the Planning Commission or Council had given him a bard time and if he had experienced trouble getting doubles across the street from the same commercial center, he could not imagine why four-plexes were alright. Discussion continued between the Commissioners, Mr. Curry and. Mr. Jorgenson regarding this site and the fact that it had been a troublesome site for the City for a long time. Chairman Cameron clarified that Mr. Jorgenson's complaint was in regard to the four-plexes fronting on Millsboro and the driveways exiting to Hillsboro~ The City Manager responded to Mr. Jorgenson that in termsi of blacktop that if there w~re duplexes on the site in question, there would perhaps be even more blacktop visible~ Mro Jorgenson stated there was room for four more doubles on this property, more easily than on other sections~ Mr. Curry noted that this had been discussed with thee City. Council, the HRA at numerous public meetings, and that soil conditions determined the placement of the buildings and there was a desire for as much green area as was possible. Mr. Kauffman stated that it should be considered that the appearance from Hillsboro of front yards would be fax less obstructive than to view only rear yards and the accumulation of things that people stored in their rear yards. Co~issioner Edward stated that he was in favor of the Hillsbor exit approach~ and that his feeling was that the Independence cul-du-sac was foolishness. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit as requested for 36th/Hillsboro in Case 80-54, but not construction approval until the petitioner returned to the Commission with detailed exterior plans of the building in Alternate "B". Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 80-55 - REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE - CITY OF NEW HOPE, PETITIONER The City Manager reviewed the flood plain areas for the Commissioners, noting them as: 1. north end of town by Bass Creek 2. the ditch area in the Science Center 3. the whole Northwood area 4. the pond behind St. Joseph's church 5. the pond on Louisiana Avenue The Ordinance before you should be the final draft as it does meet State and Federal~ideli~es. He noted that he frankly did not feel the Ordinance would ever have an impact on anyone in New Hope because there was virtually nothing left to develop in those area. The only possibilities were the pond behind St. Joseph's and the pond on Louisiana. The amended Ordinance made modifications to the section in the Zoning Code in response to Federal and p!~a/qNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 ~ NO%~MBER 5, 1980 8o State regulations. The Ordinance is primarily a definitional type of thing. The Ordinance does three things: 1) provides definitions 'that were not in the original ordinance; 2) sets specifically the purpose of.the flood plain; spells out the rules and what this does is basically to bring it back to the Federal 100 year flood profile. There are no buildings in the flood plain. There are two houses, one'the second one down on Gettysburg in the north end, and one on the west end, north side of Northwood Pond that have the lower block of the basement at the flood plain level. The City should never have any problems in terms of the Ordinance. There are a list of permitted uses included in the Ordinance, ~.e. recreation uses, public utilities, agriculture, residential such as lawns and gardents. Conditional uses are also included in the Ordinance. The Ordinance does everything that the State and Federal Government want. He recommended strongly that this be added to the Zoning Code. He does not expect the Ordinance will ever really be used but it does keep the citizens eligible for flood insurance at reduced rates, etc. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending adoption of the amendment to the Code as it relates to the Flood Plains, a.s.r~uested in Case 80~55. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheeiock, Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 80-56 ~ REQUEST FOR REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PEP~IT AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7510 BASS LAKE ROAD - PAUL ROSENTHAL, PETITIONER Mr~ Rosenthal co~ented on the fact that proposals such as his sometimes brought visions of undesirable buildings, poor maintenance, etc. His purpose in asking for the rezoning was to build exactly what he said he would build and unless he was able to obtain financing and unless he got the building permit he would not require the rezoning. He stated that he felt there many good reasons to support a rezoning and a Conditional Use Permit. He had attempted to position the structure to the rear as much as possible and they are trying to assist the City, as much as possible, with the access for emergency vehicles to the apartments nqrth of his pro- perty. He was not entirely sure how this would affect the northeast corner of the site. He stated he was a partner in the office building to the west and was committed to 15 years as a tenant in the building. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that the rationale for rezon~ng had to be the primary point of discussion at this time. He asked what the decision had been at the City Council meeting in regard to the shared driveway to the apartment. The City Manager indicated Council had agreed on a solution that the existing access should be ~mproved rather than have a new access between the two buildings. They propose providing greater radius a~ the corners to allow for turning° Mr. Rosentha! stated that the property had been for sale for 15 years. His group had purchased it and constructed an office building on the west half. Since that time there had been a lot of office develop- ment in New Hope. He did not feel the remaining lot is suitable for anything resembling an office build- ing that would give an economic return. As it Ks presently zoned, he felt the lot would sit there a long time. Ne noted that to the east was a Taco Bell, a six plex to the west and behind 200 units of multiples. He felt his kind of business fulfilled a community need because cars were getting more expensive and had to be kept longer. This would be a necessary servlce. He didn't think everyone could afford to go to a $5.50, car wash. The proposed construction would be different from anything he was aware of in the Twin Cities. It would be a drive in, back out, type of situation. The lot is ideal for this becaus~ th~ openings would be facing south. It would have heated floors and heated bays and would be energy efficient, at least as far as these things could go. By developing it they remove the possibility in the future of someone coming in and pushing for a fast food outlet. There was a lot of traffic on Bass Lake Road and this is why he wants to be there. The amount of traffic that he Would add he feels would be zero. He would draw from ~he existing traffic. He intends to design the facility so it would provide adequate stacking area for cars wanting to-get to the work area. If the R-O zoning had been appropriate, he felt the property would have sold and developed sooner than it had. He referred to several other new office buildings in New Hope, nothing he felt there was no longer a need for additional office space, since some of these faci- lities were not completely occupied. Mr. Rosenthal noted that, in his opinion, the stated purpose for R-O in the Ordinance did not seem to ' fit in with this site. He quoted from the Ordinance. He noted that the majority of uses on Bass Lake Road fell into the B-3 category. He stated his proposed use would be shielded quite well from residential and he did not see that it would detract from the property next door or their office property or the Taco Bell or the church. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - NOVEMBER 5, 1980 Another reason for the rezoning was that he wants to build a business there. Chairman Cameron stated he felt the Commission had to consider the rezoning request independently of. the' request for a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that within the last couple of years the City had completely rezoned the City in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He felt that any rezoning re- quest had to be to be compatible with this Comprehensive Plan. He asked the City Manager to fill the Commission in on this section of the City and what the Comprehensive Plan called for. Mr. Larson referred to the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. In the case of the sections along Bass Lake Road, there were islands of New Hope in the midst of Crystal. These are isolated uses affected by what happens in Crystal. The original LB zoning was changed to R-0, which was essentially the same use and is a transitional zone. He noted that the reason for the restaurant on the corner was that it had originally been zoned GB. The Taco Bell was there as a non-conforming use and should it ever be destroyed or burn down~ it could not be rebuilt. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the request was to rezone the ~-O to B-3 and the R~O was designed as a type of buffer district between the residential and the heavier co~Lercial. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the rezoning would take away the buffer and that once the zoning was changed to B-3, the City could not limit the use and it°would definitely destroy the buffer zone. Mr. Rosenthal commented that the property in question was between a multiple, an office building, a Taco Bell~ and questioned what they were buffering from? Co~issioner Gulenchy referred to the B-3 use list ~nd stated it was hard for him to consider a car wash, with the amount of traffic that might go through there at certain times, as a suitable use. Mr'. Rosenthal commented that there were a lot of uses that he and his partners would not want on that spot either. He noted he would not want the razoning unless his proposed plans were to be finalized. Com~issioner Gundershaug noted that once the site was a B-3 it would always be a B-3. If the use ceased to exist, it did not automatically go back to being an R-O. In answer to a question from Commissioner Daly~ Mro Rosenthal stated that an office building on the site would not be economically feasible. Commissioner Daly shared the same concerns expressed by other Commissioners and noted there was the possi- bility of at some future time ending up with a used car lot there if it were rezoned. The Commission had to look into the future, there were no guarantees about the petitioner remaining in control of the location. He felt it would be opening up a Pandora's Box and he would personally like to see an office building there. He further felt a car wash would not be a good use to be located across from the church. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of a rezonlng to B-3, then a rezoning back to R-O, making the carwash a non-conforming use, which would prevent future undesirable development. Concensus of the Commission seemed to be that this would be playing games and not the function of the Commission} as well as possible legal involvements in such an action. Commissioner Daly commented that he felt rezon~ng would be doing a dis-service to New Hope and its citi- zens that are located on Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending that the rezoning request at 7510 Bass Lake Road, re- quested in Case 80-56, be denied. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson, Wheelock Motion carried. The City Manager noted that the Commission had acted only on the rezoning, they should table the request for the Conditional Use Permit until after the Council meeting. Conunissioner Gundershaug tabled the Conditional Use Permit requested'in Case 80-56 until after the City Council had acted on the request for a rezonin~. Co~missioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron~ Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against~ None Absent~ Wheelock~ Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ? - NOVEMBER 5, 1980 PLANNING CASE 80-57 - REQUEST FOR CODE INTERPRETAION OF SECTION 4.144 (5) - HEWITT PETERSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Ronald Groth, Attorney, represented Hewitt Peterson. He noted that Mr. Peterson had built the build- ing and had occupied it since January 1978..~e occupied the front portion and conducts his real estate busines~ as well as his Shaiee business from this location, In conjunction with the Shaklee business he has approximately four meetings a month. Those meetings range in size from 5-6 people up to 50 people. The primary purpose is a sales type meeting, to explain sales techniques for selling Shaklee products, and to acquaint them with new products as well as to point out and demonstrate new products and give them new ways to sell the products and to exchange ideas. He felt this was the same type of things that takes place in any sales meeting. The meetings are always conducted during the evenings or on weekends, it is at a time when the rest of the building is not ~n heavy use, He noted that approximately two weeks ago they had been informed by City staff that the use of the build- ing for these sales meetings constituted a training schooland required a Conditional Use Permit and t_hat the use should cease immediately. It was the petitioner's feeling that this building had been designed specifically with this use in mind, that final approval had been received by the City and it was laid out similar to other warehouse bays with offices attached and the warehouse bay space is ladi out with carpeting, a raised stage, a sound system, a fire exit system with two doors for people to get out and has ceiling tile installed. It is laid out for such a purpose and ther had been City officials in and out on several occasions and this had never come UP before. He noted he had trouble understanding that what they were doing was any dif- ferent that what was done in any other business in New Hope.. He stated he did not find a clear defi- nition of a training school in the Ordinance. It did not seem to him that it was designed to have people stop having training meetings. A training school should be something like a driver's training school and that should require a permit. He stated that he did not feel this was the type of use that would require a license or permit. He noted his conversation with the City Manager and stated he had been told they had three options. 1. to ignore the regulation and be cited 2. to apply for a permit - which they felt 'was inappropriate because they don~t think they should have to do this 3. request a code interpretation. Mr. Peterson sold his interest in the building a year ago and the purchasers inquired into the need for permits and received a letter dated 7-24-79 from the City stating no special or conditional uses were required. The Chairman noted that the lette~ received pertained to ~he building itself, not the activities con- ducted in it. Mr. Groth stated it was their understanding that the City should be aware of what was being conducted. The Chairman said had they asked permission for the use in the building the City would have been aware. The City could not request a Conditional Use for every bay in the City. He noted that there was a gym- nastics school located in an industrial area in the City but they had come in and asked for a permit to conduct the school. Mr, Groth stated that he felt the construction of the building should have indicated the use -- it would have been a very fancy warehouse. The Chairman noted that it must have been designed then for school/meeting types of activiies and a permit should have been obtained. Mr. Groth said it was designed in the same way that an office bulding would include a large conference room. Chairman Cameron asked whether these people would be considered as ~nployees of Mr. Peterson? Mr. Groth said no~ not in the sense that they had withholding taken from their checks, etc. but it de- pended on th~ interpretation of the word employee. They are commissioned workers. Chairman Cameron confirmed that they were not employees in the Federal Tax definition. He further inquired ~nether the people attending the sessions were always the same, or constantly changing. Mr. Groth said they werenot necessarily always the same people. There might be a slight overlap -- some regulars and some new. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented on the definition of a school, referring to a dictionary definition as # ..... an institution for instruction in a skill or a business ..... "and ". ..... to make proficient PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8 - NOVES~ER 5, 1980 10. with specialized instructions and practice .... '~ It satisfied those in his mind. ~_~ Mr. Groth commented that he felt the surrounding businesses would also come under this category, since they had people out on the road and they occasionally gather them together for sales meetings etc. Discussion continued between the Commissioners and Mr. Groth regarding the definition of school versus sales meetings and practices. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that in his opinion, the operation should be classified as a training school. This was based partially on definition and also his knowledge of the Shaklee operation and reflected the kind of traffic it generated. He felt it needed a permit. Mr. Groth referred to the traffic and noted that the meetings were conducted in evenings and on week- ends and thus traffic was the the same problem. Chairman Cameron stated that the City had the right to at least question the amount of traffic and the hours of operation. The City had a right to know that if this is a school the hours of operation and the potential traffic. The Ordinance said it was all right to have a training school but if in an area where the zoning does not allow the use, the City wants to know about it in order to control and in the event of any special health and safety requirements~ the City wan=s to be able to guarantee they are followed. This is why the Commission had been asked to address this request. Commissioner Gundershaug stated h~ felt one thing of concern was the larger numbers of participants. This is again one of the intents of the Ordinance. Fifty people could mean 50 cars. Maybe the other office buildings did not want these cars parking there and driving in the area? Mro Groth coranented that there was more than adequate parking. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that the area was set up so that construction had to provide so many parking spaces on the site dependent upon the use that would be in the building. Most office/warehouse buildings were not intended to have one bay used for suck a use. The parking then is directly related the size of the building on the basis of the-use -- warehous, not necessarily school. ~_~ Mr~ Peterson requested that they let them'oeprate and if they violated any Ordinances, then cite them. He requested they be allowed to operate without a permit. Discussion continued between the attorney and the Commission regarding the use and whether it should be allowed and whether it was the City's right to request a permit for the operation, as well as the simi- larities between'a school and a regular sales meeting. The City Manager referred to the reason the Ordinance had been developed and included in the Code. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what undue hardship it would put on the p~titioner to comply with the Ordinance and the City's interpretation that they were conducting a training school? Mr. Groth said he ~elt it was just one more thing and regulation that they didn't want to subject them- selves to. People are becoming fed up with regulations and red tape and having their lives subject =o rules and regulations every time they turn around. Mr. Peterson questioned why he should be singled out to be required to have a permit. They do not want to start the process of applying for a permi% because they feel it is just one more thing they should not have to subject ~hemselves to. Chairman Cameron asked if there were any final arguments. Mr. Groth referred to the comment that no one wanted to pick on them, but said if they were required to obtain a permit they would interpret it as the City picking oK them and that they have s~ngled Mr. Peterson out° Commissioner Daly stated the City had to be concerned for the safety of the people involved. The City had an obligation regardless of the definition and he felt this was a very real reason for requiring a Conditional Use Permit° Chairman Cameron stated that, in in his opinion, the fact that they had constructed special facilities for the operation and were not just using one of the bays of the warehouse was a significant factor and that it was a specialized facility for this activity. In answer to a question from Commissioner Daly as to who pays for the training, Mr. Groth stated that it was Mr. Peterson's job to motivate the people. He in turn would get a larger cut of the pie if they do wello No fee was charged for the training. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9 - NO~EMBER 5, 1980 Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion stating that the Planning Commission Code interpretation was that the o~eration was a training school, because reqular meetings are held on the site and that their ~ortion of the building had been desiqned specifically for this training and that they had complied with the City and State life and safety codes. Voting in favor~ Gulenchyn, Daly, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. Design and Review had held one meeting in October. 12. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 13. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. It was noted that there were some items pending for this committee to review. NEW BUSINESS 14. The City Manager reviewe~ the Council minutes of October 14th and 27th. He noted that of interest to the Commission was that F~. Rosenthal'had appeared before the Council in regard to the access to the property. A letter will be sent to the apartment owners to attempt to get them to cooperate in solving the access problems. The other item of interest was that Rosewood had been given a limited occupancy permit pending a review of their alarm system and determination as to whether it required a more sophisticated system. Chairman Cameron aske~ about the Council review of Ordinances and possible changes. The City Manager ~oted that the New~letter had requested co~ent from citizens regarding potential ordinance changes. One of the requests had been to allow garbage cans on the curb. Council had recommended that this ordi- nance be amended. Discussion followed regarding this issue. Chairman Cameron was convinced that the Ordinance was good now and he was concerned that the Co~cil had committed themselves to change without the Commission being involved. The City Manager noted that if the Planning Commission wa~.interested they should send such comments forward to the Council. 15. The Commission Minutes of October 7, 1980 were accepted as printed. 17. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:09 p.m~ Respectfully submitted, PLANNING COF~ISSION MINUTES ~ ~!~ DECEMBER 2, 1980 1.A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, December 2, 1980 at the City ~Hatl, 4401 Xylon Avenue North .... The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by. Chairman Cameron.' 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Wheelock, Daly, Bartos, Cs.meron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gulenchyn (excused) PUBLIC ~EARINGS 3. Pt~NNING CASE 80-58 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7181 42nd AVENUE NORTH - BH PROPERTIES, ROBERT WENDT D3~D HARVEY LIGHT, PETITIONERS ~5r. Wendt and Mr. Light were both present. They stated they wished the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to open a soft ice cream franchise operation at 7181 42nd Avenue North, next to George's Cafe. Mr. Wendt said there w~uld be no inside seating as it would be a walk-up type of business. He felt it .would benefit the community as it would be for the younger people as well as the older people. Mr. Light stated they would Share the parking facilities with George's Cafe and the DEQ Superette next door. The soft top would be located next to the DEQ. He felt the traffic would be minimal due to the hours of operation. The Cafe usually closes between 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. and the ice cream pri~e business would be between 5:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. He thought they would probably open up about 10:00 a.m. It is similar to a Baskin Robbins type of operation only they do have a drive-up facility. Customers do not actually stay there but pick up sundaes, bulk ice cream, etc. They plan to have some seating facilities outside by installing two or three cement tables in case anyone wants to eat on the premises. Mr. Wendt noted that George felt it might complement the Cafe business. Mr. Light stated in answer to a question from the Chairman that he had consulted City Ordinances in regard to the Conditional Use Permit and had discussed this with Doug Sandstad and the City Manager. Mr. Wendt stated that he did not think there would be more than 10-12 cars per hour at peak times and that the traffic would be in and out. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Wendt said their hours would be roughly from 10:00 ~. t~ 10:60 p.m. or 10:30. They did not want to be open any later~ He felt that some time after 6:00 p.m. would be their prime business time° At the present time the cafe is open from 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Mr. Wendt felt that the balance of t]~.a business would be of a walk-up type. Discussion regarding the traffic and parking situation. Mr. Wendt stated they would share the parking spaces with George'-s Cafe and the DEQ Superetteo In regard to probable changes 'to the site, Mr. Light stated they might extend the marquee to six ~eet or might ~Lnock out the existing wall ~nd put in some different windows and go back into the building six feet to provide adequate room for the outside seating. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the only products would be ice cream type products. He then asked what the petitioner's options would be if, after a year of operation~ there developed a traffic problem on the site? Mr. Light stated they feel there will be adequate parking, otherwise they would not be interested in investing their money. However, they had also investigated the area behind the cafe, which belongs to the apartment building. The apartment o%~er had indicated they would sell approximately 40 feet, that stretches out to the road behind the DEQ, if they wish to buy it. This would provide overflow parking. The City Manager noted that the petitioner should k~ aware that the apart~ent complex might not have enough land to sell and still be in accord with the city greenspace requirements. He noted that accord- ing to Ordinance, each housing unit had to have 4000 square feet of lot provided. In answer to a question from Commission Gustafson, Mr. Wendt stated that the property was owned by George Svolopulos, of the Cafe. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that George was in agreement with the plans for parking as stated by the petitioner. Mr. Svolopulos was present and stated he was in agreement with the proposed plans. The Chairman commented that he felt that any approval of the Conditional Use Permit should include an annual review by staff in regard to hours of operation and any traffic/parking problems. He felt it would not take too many additional cars per day to create a potentially hazardous situation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 - ~i~ DECEMBER 2, 1980 3. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use.Permit.for 7181 42nd Avenue North, as requested in Case 80-58, subject to annual review by staff in regard to potential traf- fic or congestion hazards that might exist on the site, and that the petitioners, by thetime'of the City Council meeting, determine what potential land is available at the rear of the. site~'for over-flow parking in terms of Ordinance requirements and have some kind of basic outline of.a potential plan if, in fact, Cit~ staff determines next year that there is a congestion or traffic problem on the site. Commissioner Gundershaug second. In answer to a question from Co~issioner Edwards regarding potential signs, Commissioner Gustafson stated that the petitioner had already indicated he was aware of the City's Sign Ordinance and its res- trictions~ Voting in favor: Wheelock, Daty, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion passed. The Chairman confirmed that the Commission was no_t. appr~ing__~ signs and that the ~etitioner was aware that he must check with the City staff before installing any signs. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION 80-59 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 3837 HILLSBORO AVENUE - BETTY AND MYRON KJOS, PETITIONERS Mr. Xjos stated he was requesting the sideyard variance to allow him to add another stall to his garage. He presently has a single garage. The lot is pie shaped which creates the setback problem. He would also like to add a screened porch, as well as re-side a~d re-insulate the exterior of the house. He needs to be able to put his van inside in winter and he also has a boat he would like to keep inside. The garage will be 13' x 36~ and there will be a 12~ x 12' screen porch that would cut in behind the existing garage. The total garage space would still come under the Ordinan'ce restrictions of the City° In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Kjos stated he planned to use the additional space for storage and for his own personal vehicles. There will be no home occupation. The additional depth is to allow room for storage of the boat which takes 28 feet. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that upon completion, the exterior would have the same type of roof, siding and color as on the house. Mr. Kjos presented an illustration of the proposed addition for the Commissioner's review. ~?j'~issi_ o_~..~usta_ f~n mad__e_~__motio_n r___?~o~m_~_~ro_~_~_ [~]~e si~ va~i~nc~.~_~.~ re~3~..gi~ 3837 Hl~lsDoro Avenue in C,~se 80-59, subject ~o 't}']s J?oof, c©.'I_or and uiding being co!~istent t]~ro'ughou, t the house. Co~u~'aissioner Ed~ards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Daly, Bartos, C~eron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Ed%.~ards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchlzn Motion carried. 5. PIniONING CASE 80-60 - RE___QUEST FOR VARIkNCE AT 4069 FLAG AVENUE NOR~{ - ROBERT .LAUREL, PETITIONER Mr. Laurel was. present and stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to encroach into the rear- yard setback, allowing him to construct an addition which would give him a larger eating area in the kitchen and also a dining room. The addition would extend into the setback by 12 feet. The kitchen would be enlarged eight feet to the kitchen and dining room would be connected. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the roof and siding materials would match the existing house in terms of basic color and texture. Mr. Laurel stated that one of the reasons for the addition was to allow them to replace the rear siding which was cracked. He thought they would probably replace all of the roofing. Commissioner Gustafson said he wished the petitioner to understand that he was not being directed to replace the whole roof, but that the Commission wished it to match the house. Mr. Laurel said he understod this. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the rearyard variance at 3069 Flag Avenue North, as requested ii] Case 80-60, st~ject to the roofing and siding materials being the same as the h~use in terms of color and texture. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 DECEMBER 2, 1980 6. PLANNING CASE 80-61 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REAR SETBACK~AND FOR OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 4606 ~BOONE AVENUE NORTH - ROBERT YUNKER, PETITIONER Mr. Yunker stated they had lived at this address for 14 years and they are very crowded. He had a lot of hobbies, three cars and four snowmobiles plus trailer and did not have room for all of this in his present garage. He had already received a permit and construction had been started on a 26' x 24' foot addition on the rear of the garage. He was now requesting a variance on garage size in order to allow him to eliminate the wall dividing the garage that had been included in the original plans. He was also requesting a two foot variance into the rearyard setback. He had discovered that with the wall, he could not get a!l~the vehicles into the garage as he wished. If the space were just one area it will hold four cars. The need for the two foot setback was not discovered until after he had received the building permit and started construction. Chairman Cameron commented on the fact that when completed, the garage would be larger than Mr. Yunker's house. Mr. Yunker confirmed this fact. He added that he did intent to remain in New Hope for some time. Commissioner Gustafson asked what Mr~ Yunker considered his hobbyto be? Mr. Yunker stated there was no commercial use intended. He already had a business in New Hope. He liked to fiddle around with repairs, the snowmobiles were always in need of repair and he wanted to get ail of his equipment inside. He noted that the work was being done by a professional. They were also adding a deck on the rear but this did not fit into the variance .need. Commissioner Gustafson ~ade a motion reco~ending approval of the variances at 4606 Boone Avenue North, as requested in Case 80-61, a rearyard variance of two feet and a variance for oversized gara~ sub- ject to the roofing and siding materials being consistent with the exterior of the~existing home. Com- missioner Daly second. voting in favor: ~gneeloQk, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 80-62 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 2865 VALLE VISTA - CHARLES AND'MARIE DO~S, PETITIONERS The City Manager noted that the petitioner had come in to take out a permit for a garage and no longer needed a variance, t~ suggested the Commission should officially deny the request, to clear the record. Commissioper Edwards made a motion reco~mending demia! of the variance requested in Case 80--62. Com- missioner Gundershaug second. %~ting in favor: Wheelock, Daly~ Bartos, Ca~eron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 80-63 - P~QUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEP2~IT AT 4633 h~VADA AVENUE NO~{ -RICKB©NN, PE'~ITI~NER Mr. Bonn stated he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow him to continue the business in his garage, it was a metal stamping parts business and he does hand assembly, flattening of pieces, puts small parts in boxes and files little burrs off the edges. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he stated he drove a truck and did this work in addition. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether he did all of the work himself? Mr. Bonn stated that he had a neighbor kid helping him until he had been info,ned this was not allowed. Otherwise the ~rk was done by himself and his girlfriend. The size of the parts was small. He noted that he has two drill presses but he does not operate them. The work is all hand work. The truck is his own and is a one ton truck. It is parked on the site. He did not anticipate any changes in the size of the parts. In ~nswer to questions regarding the time of day he worked in the garage, Mr. Bonn stated that the helper had to be home by ten and he would close up by 9:30 p.m. He added that it is all hand work except for a file. There was no noise from the machines. He stated that his girlfriend was not paid for her help. He removes the trash in his own truck and takes it to his dad's company for disposal. The trash consists of boxes, etc., nothing metal. The only changes he has made to the garage are to insulate and to add heat. The truck is too large to fit into the garage so it has to stay outside. He has made no struc- tural changes other than work benches. The garage is heated by a gas heater. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that Mr. Bonn does not use any grinder or any type of machine that would create noise. He asked if he had personally received any complaints from the neighbors? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUPES - 4 -- DECEMBER 2, 1980 8. Mr. Bonn stated that none of the neighbors had ever come up and talked to him about the operation. Commissioner Daly determined that there was no smoke, or discharges caused by the work and that Mr. Bonn had not received any complaints from neighbors, In response to a question from the City manager, Mr. Bonn stated there were no ~tor driven machine~ only hand tools. In answer to questions from the Chairman~ Mr~ Bonn stated there were no truck deliveries othe~ th~ from his own truck, that hQ had lived in the house for seven months, and intended to ~e there least two or three y~ars. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what hours he intended to work in the garage? Mr~ Bonn stated he usually started about 3:30 p.m, and continued until 10~00 p.m~ However, the work some~ times came in spurts, more one time than another. He did not feel that the amount of the %~rk he would do would change in regard to type or size. He noted again it was hand work and he was doing this in o~ der to make enough money to eventually get out of the garage to a place where he could ~se mach~nes~ There is no traffic generated from the Mr. Merle Mattson, 4624 Nevada, stated that this was a residential area and he did not believe he ~hould have this type of business in a residential area~ There were plenty of cpen ~uildings around he could rent.° Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Mattson how hQ knew ther~ was a:business operating ~rom the hQuse? Mr. Mattson said there was no problem knowing in the summer, because the garage door was always open, There were many nights when the petitioner was in the garage late at night. Mr. Mattson would get up in the middle of the night and he could see people in the garage. There was also packing material in the garage. He agreed i~ was not very noisy. He didn't really object to it, except the running of a commercial business ~n a residential area. Chairman Cameron stated that the City Ordinance provided criteria for home occupations. He asked if Mr. Mattson would have known about the business if the garage door had been down all summer? Mr. Matson replied, probably not. C~airman Cameron asked if there was any other kind of impact on the neighborhood, other than being abl~ to see he was working in his garage? Mr. Richard Bonn, stated he was the father of the petitioner, and had been trying to help his son get started. He noted that it was impossible for his to pay for a home at $600 a month and ~lso be able to afford to rent additional space. He said originally they had the material hauled in by truck. ~hey now have pruchased a truck and there are no deliveries other than from Rick's own ~ruck. He does have some packing material in the garage. He has insulated the garage and covered the window. While he has a drill press, he has done no drill press work and is only trying to get started. He felt there was no noise involved and that this was the way he had started, and many other people. He felt this was the right way~ Mr° Mattson asked why Rick could not use ~r. Bonn senior's shop to work? Mr. Bonn replied this was between he and his son and union shop problems, The Chairman noted that questions should be directed to the petitioner. Mr. Jerry Pollock, 4625 Nevada, stated he did not ]]ave any qualms about someone working in his garage, His only concern was that last summer when the garage door was open there was noise. There was not noise from equipment but it was from voices joking and laughing. It was the fact that there were two or three people in the garage until maybe ~wo in the morning. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he said he had never talked to Mr. Bonn about the problem. Mr. Jim Hagen, 4617 Nevada, commented that sometimes operations started small and then grew. They could mushroom. He felt most of the people in the neighborhood felt this work should not be in a residential area. Mr. P. Dobbin, 4632 Nevada, agreed with what the other gentlemen had said. It was a residential area and he would like to keep it that way. Mr. Bonn, Jr. asked for permission to com~ent. The chairman granted this~ Mr. Bonn stated that Mr. Dobbin's son had a run a commercial business in the front yard during the summer. Mr. Dobbin replied this was only for about three weeks. Mr. Howard Nivens, 4701 Nevada, stated he thought he had seen a forklift in the driveway° Mr. Bonn said PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5'- DECEMBER 2, 1980 8. not at his house, Mr. Niven's other concern was the children in the neighborhood and asked about the door being kept closed in the summer. He further questioned whether insurance covered the chance that a child might get hurt. ' Mr. Bonn said that if anyone had come up to h~ and told him that he was bothering, he would have shut the door right away. Since the time of the complaint to the City, the doors had been closed. Mr. Bonn, Sr. stated the insurance was adequate and' they %~ould air condition the. garage so the door could remain closed. Mr. Bernard Lang, 4608 Oregon, stated he lived behind the petitioner. He had heard no noise, and did not know about the business until he got the letter from the City. He asked about a set time for the busi- ness to exist, expressing concern that it might mushroom. He did not want to see commercial activity mov- ing into the neighborhood. Commissioner Gustafson then confirmed with Mr. Bonn that the home occupation as proposed, has required no exterior or interior changes to the dwelling other than insulation; that there are no special mechani- cal requirements; that Mr. Bonn's truck is and will be the only truck coming back and forth to the house~ that the business will have only employees who are members of the household; that no more than 20% of the gross floor space of the house and not exceeding 300 square feet is related to the business: (Mr. Bonn noted that he used only half of the garage other than for his own personal tools); that the activity in the garage is not involved with any direct sale from the garage; that they did not envision the use of any. machines other than ~:e that on the site; that he would live up 'to all safety code provisions of the City of New Hope and the State of Minnesota. The Chairman asked whether there was any oil or solven involved in the wo:~k? Tke answer was "no". He did not store any flammable liquids. In response to a questio~ from the City Manager stated he planned to use the drill presses in the future at another site, but did not now. He further stated he did not leave the garage door open when he was not in the garage. Co~nissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Bonn that he would live up to the terms of noise pollution con- trols in the City of New Hope and will, in fact, keep the garage door'closed. Commissioner Daly stated that he felt that a com_~unity must first be a place to live. The Co~ission had heard that the operation does not create noise and yet they had also heard that ~he people in ~he opera- ation are apparently disturbing so,ac of the neighborhood. If the petitioner could close the door and air condition he though tiiis should be part of a conditional use. He felt most of the interference and the noise was coming from the talking in the open garage and he did not think that should be permitted in a neighborhood when people were sleeping. Chairman Cameron noted there could be a co~mai~ment that he v~uld not %~rk after 10:00 p.m. in consider- ation of the neighbors. He asked Mr. Bonn to con~ent on this. Mr. Bonn stated that any noise coming from his house would be from his personal life, not from the busi- ness. He added that he actually did not ~]ink the nei~hb0rs were comp!~ining about the %~rk, but were complaining about his friends stopping over, the sound of motorcycles, cars, etc. The Chairman noted that the Commission would have to take his word that the noise was from his personal life, and that all neighborhoods had this problem. He asked that Mr. Bonn give the Commission a com- mitment that he would stop working at a reasonable hour at night, so this was on the record. Mr. Bonn said he would do this. Commissioner Gustafson co~nented that if, in fact, the noise problem was solved he felt it was i~atSrihl what time he worked in his garage. He felt it was inappropriate to have all people involved sitting with a clock and saying that because it was 10:05 p.m. even though they could not hear anything, the light was on, and question what he was doing. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 80-63 appeared to him to meet all the requirements of a home occupation and a permitted use and consistent with the discussion of the meeting in regard to machines, activities to be performed, and the petitioner's desire to live within the requirements of the noise pollution controls and the life and safety codes and storage requirements, he made a motion for approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 4633 Nevada Avenue North, subject to annual review by staff. Co~uissioner Bartos second. Commissioner Daly asked the mover of the motion to include the requirement that the garage, door be closed d~ring the operation of the business. Commissioner Gustafson and Commissioner Bartos agreed to this be- iD.g included. Commissioner Wheelock stated she felt the amendment difficult to support. She felt the Commission had 61- DECEMBER 2, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8. gone a little beyond the bounds of reason. There were many individuals in many neighborhoods 9~o con- duct many different types of home occupations in their garages and on their private property. She felt ~--~ they were being unreasonably restrictive. She thought they had listed to all of the comments of the neighbors but bad obviously been unable to find any violation of the permitted uses for a home occupation and asked Commissioner Daly to reconsider the stipulation that the garage door be closed. She felt the petitioner was now aware of the neighbor's objections and commented on ~dle fact that the neighbors had not previously informed him about this concern. Co~5~±ssioner Daly stated he felt the primary purpose of a residential neigh_boyhood was to live in and to relax. He felt that auyt~e ,leu permitted a business to functJ_on it mu~ be secondary to that. The peace and quiet must be respected. ~t has been zoned resident{al for a reason, this is why he wanted the amend- ment. This is the primary concern -- the neighbors have been P~thered by vocal noises. Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: Wheelock, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gutenchyn Motion carried. 9. PLANN~G CASE 80-64 - REQL~ST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLaiN AT 5401 BOONE AVENUE NOR'i~ - HARRY KIRSCHBAUM, PET IT IO~ R Mr. Kirscb~aum stated he was requesting approval of the sign plan for their building at 5401 Boone Avenue° There were tw~ occupants in the building. The sign will be installed within the guidelines of the City of New Hope ordinance° Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Kirschbaum that the letters would be only 8" in height. Mr. Kirschbaum said the sign would be painted and would be in conformance with City Ordinances. It will be a stationery sign, painted on both sides. Conumissioner Gustafson confirmed that this sign would be the only one on the premises with the possible exception of directional signs. Mr. Kirschba~ stated the sign will definitely be i~stalled according to Code. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the sign plan as requested in Case 80-64 at 540]. Boone Avenue, subjecu to the letter size not exceeding 8" in height. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: G~lenchyn Motion carried. COM~ITTEE ~EPORTS 10. There was no report from the Land Use Conmittee. 11. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 12. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. NEW BUSINESS 13. The C}~ty Manager reviewed the Council Minutes for the Commission. He noted that the Council had tabled consideration of PC 80-52 and 80-53 because the petitioners did not appear. The petitioner in Case 80-53 has now decided to move the air conditioner and the variance will not be required. The request for rezon- ing for a car wash had been recommended for denial. 14. The Co~mission minutes of November 5, 1980 were accepted as presented. 15. The City Manager noted that studies had shown that a signal was warranted at 36th/Boone. He added that the condition of 36th Avenue had been studied and discussed and it was possible that a decision would be made as to how to correct the problem by the end Of January. 16. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ "~. oeddeker, Secretary