Loading...
1981 Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 6, 1981 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: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Wheelock, Gustafson Iexcused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-1 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES AT 2701-05 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH - BENSON-ORTH, PETITITIONER Mr. Robert Orth was present. He stated they were requesting sign plan approval for their multi-tenant building at Nevada Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. They are proposing two signs for the south exposure, facing Medicine Lake Road. The space at the southwest corner is not leased at this time. There is an- other tenant on the northeast side of the building - Worthington Service - who is in the process of mov- ing in at this time who will require a sign. The northwest quadrant has not as yet been leased° M_r. Orth referred to the sign indicated on the plans - Checker Machine - with letters 18 inches high and approximately 50 square feet ~n area. They would like the other signs to be installed in a similar manner. They intend one yard sign, 4' x 8', for identification purposes. This is to be located at the southeast corner of the property. It will be six feet in height. This is only to identify the four tenants. Chairman Cameron noted that a multi-tenant building required a uniform sign plan and confirmed with Mr. Orth that future tenants would conform to such a plan, and be within the restrictions of the City Sign Ordinance o Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that Mr. Orth was proposing that the other tenants would use the same type of letters and size of letters on their signs as are on the Checker Machine sign now on the build- ing. He further noted that they would be allowed four wall signs only. In response to questions from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Orth stated that Worthingto~ Service would like to have their sign exposure on Nevada Avenue. He did not know whether they intended to have a sign over their entrance also. The Chairman noted that they would not be allowed an additional sign except for small address on window or similar type. Mr. Orth stated there was no tenant as yet for the northwest corner but they ~uld like to have that sign set up as the Checker Mac,ne sign is. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the sign plan would include lettering as on the Checker Machine sign, that they would be the same size and type, that Worthington Service and the tenant on the northwest would have wall signage on the east face of the building and will not be allowed any signs over their. entrances. The signage on the .east side would require a variance. He noted that the tenants on the west side would not be allowed signs over their entrances. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that it would be important that Mr. Orth convey to any future tenants that their signs must conform to these sign restrictions. In answer to questons from Commissoner Gundershaug, Mr. Orth stated that the sign for Worthington would be/On the east face, in their portion of the quadrant. The sign for the tenant in the northwest quadre~nt wo~ld be the same as the Checker sign, above the entrance. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the City/Planning Commission would like to see all of th~ signs uni- form as to size and letters on this building. Commissioner ~ maoe a motion recommending approval of the sign. plan for the building at 2701-15 Nevada Avenue, as requested in Case 81-1, with the following sti~u!ations: 1. That a variance be approved for the Worthington sign on the east side. 2. That the lettering for future signs on the building would be the same size and type of letters as those on the Checker Machine sign. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Gustafson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSIC~ MINUTES - 2 - ~ANUARY 6, 1981 4. PLANNING CASE 81 - 2 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 7301 40TH AVENUE - FRANK DAHLEN, PETITIONER Mr. Dahlen stated they were requesting the variance to allow them to build a 24' x 14' addition to their house for a family room. They would also like to construct a basement below the addition which w~uld be connected to their existing basement. The addition would come ~o within seven feet of their property line. There is s redwood fence at the property line. Discussion between Mr. Gulenchyn and Mr. Dahlen regarding the fact that the Dahlen's rearyard was next to the neighbor's sideyard, that the bedrooms were on the east side of the dwelling and that the ex- terior texture and roof w~uld match the existing house. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the purpose of the addition was for a family room and that it would open up into the kitchen area. Mr. Dahlen stated they had talked to some of the neighbors and they had no objections to the addition. C~mm~ssioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommendinq a~roval of the variance requested in Case 81-2 for 7301 40th Avenue North, with the condition that the roof tine and exterior finish match the existin~ house as to texture and color. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchynt Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock~ Gustafson Motion carried. 5o PLANNING CASE 81 - 3 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 9400 36THAVENUE NORTH - THOMAS OESTRIECH, PETITIONER Mr. Oestreich stated that his family owned and operated Archie's Standard at' County 918 and 36th Avenue. During the last year they had rearranged the front, removed the pumps on .the side and added a small ad- dition to the building. They would like to start a small bait shop to keep the business going and pro- vide additional income. The bait shops that had been in the area have now gone out of business. They have had many people inquire about places to buy bait. Their whole family is enthusiastic about fishing and thought this would be a good business. They require a Conditional Use Permit for the bait shop. They feel there is enough room for parking and that there should be no traffic problems. They would ~lso like a permit to allow them a sand point for a well, because City water cannot be used for minnows. A sand point would allow them to circulate about 150 gallons in a tank. Trying to install filters and backstops for filters, etc. to use City water would be a great expense. They have arranged to be supplied with bait and tackle and feel this business would help not only them, but also bring more business to the shopping center~ He felt the area could use a bait shop. Mr. Oestreich stated that they were also requesting some flexibility in signage. The addition faces ~18 and they would like a sign saying only "BAIT" on that side with maybe a picture of a Crappie to identify that the Standard Station sold bait. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed with Mr. Oestreich that the proposed use would not constitute more than 30% of t~he 1°t area or 50% of the floor area in the building. The bait shop would use only about 15% of the gross floor space° Mr. Oestreich noted that the area for parking had been increased with the removal of the pumps. There is also room for parking behind the station. However, He did not look for a great rush of people coming to purchase minnows. He added that bait shop customers would use the front door of the station as there will be no separate entrance. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gulenchyn, 5~. Oestreich stated that he fe!t'most of the busi- ness for bait would be between 6:00 o.m. and 7:00 a.m. The greatest rush for gasoline is between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. People going fishing are probably going to go early or after dinner at night~ He did not think the business would ~cause an.y rush or t~affic. ~hey will operate their customary hours. He said they were aware that they were going to have to keep the front area open for traffic and would use the back for parking which they have not done much in the past. Mr. Oestreich stated that the business would be small and that he would not require deliveries of bait or tackle more than two or three times a week. He noted they would like to have 18" letters, with perhaps a foot and a half t~tween the letters. The sign would say "BAIT" with maybe a picture of a crappie about two feet by three feet. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that the allowable signage would be only nine square feet, since there is not a separate entrance. He noted that the site was somewhat in a dip. Mr. Oestreich said he did not feel the sign would detract from the area, and that a freeway sign would be more expense than they cared to spend. He felt the business would depend partly on word of mouth. He noted that on weekends a number of people inquire about sources to purchase bait. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1981 5. In answer to questions from~ Commissioner Gulenchyn he said they would line the parking area and that there was room for 15 cars. He stated he had talked to the Owners of Ole Piper and the cleaner and ~hey had no objections. The people-at the dairy Store are nou owners and did not have a specific opinion. Chairman Cameron asked whether the bait shop would be open year round and if Mr. Oes=reich had any idea how many additional cars it might bright to the Site? He answered that he felt there would be at most 15 cars a day at the bait shod - this volume would make them very happy. The bait shop wOuld be open the same hours as 'the station --6:00 a.m. to !0:00 p.mo He restated he felt that the bait shop business would be early in the day. The City Manager said that the City Council would have to make the decision about the s~ld point for wauer. Discussion then centered on the sign as requested by F~. Oestreich. He again said he would like to have 18" letters because the sign would be low to the ground. He would like to have a foot and a half between the letters. The Chairman noted that this sign, if granted, would be the only sign allowed by the City. In answer to questions from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Oestreich stated they had considered a separate entrance but did not feel a common entrance wDuld be a problem. He noted that the bait shop would have the Same employees as the station. They would handle WOrms, grumbs, minnows, and basic tackle supplies. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked where they might expand if the bUSiness called for this? Mr. Oestrick said that one alternative would be to expand into the third stall, where the carwash now was. The car w~sh was not proving to be profitable and he felt that when/if it broke down again and required major repair, they would cease .operating it. . Discussion Continued in regard to the proposed sign and the need for exact dimensions and type before approval could be given. The Commission was unwilling to approve an unknown. The Chairm~ confirmed that they planned no signs indicating "Bait" on the front of the station. The City Manager said that nine square feet was what was allowed by ordinance. There were no restric- tions in regard to the wall sign but the variance would be for the Overall size. Chairman Cameron informed Mr. Oes~reich that he must have an exact plan for the proposed sign before the Council meeting, giving dimensions, type of letters, etc. if the sign were to be approved. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion Aven---~ue ~ recommendin a -__~.. .. h, as requested in c~=~-~'~u~ng ap royal of the Cond~-~ ~- s__UD3ect to a deli 'tnl e si~~=~~~i_ subject to an~ ~ Per~ at 9600 36th lett~~~~~ented toth~~ .~-~--- ..... or the traffic situ~ __ ~± ~o inches. Comm~ ~ ~ u~e ~lt. Council on he 17~. n and _ ~----~oner oar~os~-~, unat included a Voting in favor: Gulench!rn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Gustafson Motion carried. --=~~~T x~oN~D ~ PE~=T, CO~s~ucT~0N ~u~ CONCE~ ~--E~T~ON¢-------~ __ ~VCNu¢ NO~T~EN--~Op~ VO~ EnDE~ ~OOS~N~, ~NCU-- - Colonel RObert Nolte was present. He stated that since his appearance previously before the City Council VOA had received approval of their application to HUD for 106 units. He noted that the VOA had been °peratin~ in Minneapolis for about 85 years. They sponsor a lot of different activities, including four nursing homes in tile Tw~] City area. They also have two elderly high rises located at Grant/Nicollete in Minneapolis. They are anxious to make this facility fit the city's needs. to tour any of the facilities in the area to see that they operate first class He invited the Commission is largest operator of non-profit housing in the United States. facilities. The VOA is Mr. Pat Conroy, Housing Coordinauor for the VOA, outlined the proposal. It would contain 106 units, 105 one bedroom, and one two bedroom for the caretaker. Each unit will have kitchen facili%ies but there will also be a congregate dining room. They anticipate the residents will eat one meal a day in this dining room. ~here will also be a small library, space have tried to mesign a facility that will be attractive for arts anJ craf~ and community room. They and still shay wi=nih the budget restrictions. They want the nicest building they possibly can build. He said the VOA felt this was an ideal location because it is close to shopping, bus service, recreation, parks and City management they feel it is one of the better locations around. Hall. From the standpoint of The Chairman commented uhat the Metropolitan Council rated it the best site in the state. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JANUARY 6, 1981 6o F~r. Conroy said they w~re requesting a rezoning, variances and a Conditional Use Permit, if the site is rezoned to R-4~ It will be roughly a four million dollar development. ~ The Chairman stated that the Commission would proceed in a workable manner to review the plan,'noting it was his understanding that the VOA would present working drawings and a landscape plan at a later date. He stated the first decision was whether the proposal met the requirements of the city's Comprekensive Plan for this area. The City Manager reviewed the Comprehensive Plan as it applied t? this site. He noted that there were three options in regard to the zoning. The first, PUD, was not practical since the center shopping area was not ready. It could be zoned R-4 which would require a Conditional Use Permit or R-5, the new elder- 'ly, which would require variances in height and in density. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and the City Manager regarding the restrictions of each zone -- R-4 and R-5 -- and which would be the best zoning for this property. Mr. Conroy stated he felt perhaps the R-5 would be the best for their purposes. He said they had a good deal of flexibility in development as long as they stayed within the allowable budget. Essentially they were working with two HUD programs -- one a rent subsidy program and the other the loan for construction. There is only so much money available. There are safety standards and building standards they must meet as a condition of the loan. HUD doesn't get into the design aspects of the building as long as it stays within budget restrictions. VOA has full say on design as long as they meet the minimum property standards. HUD had requested the VOA go with 106 units. From a management standpoint they have to have enough units to administer services economically -- meals, activities, quality management, etc -- this is usually 100 ~its. Discussion continued regarding the two zones and the benefits and disadvantages of both. Cameron noted he felt more comfortable with R-5 and Edwards expressed his concerns about the green area and the amount of open space that would be on the site. Mr. Conroy noted that with the elderly if there were facilities within the building, they had found the residents did not make a great deal of use of the outdoors. He felt most units would have only one resident and most of them would not drive. There were lounges planned for each floor and laundromats ~.~ for every other floor. This tended to be where residents would congregate. There is a lot of space for recreation and activities within the building. 'Commissioner Edwards again expressed his concerns about the density and open space feeling that the em- phasis was with the number of units on the site in question and economics not the size of the site in relation to the number of units. Mr. Conroy answered that density rules are not always based on housing for the elderly. If this were a family project or even a luxury elderly or a unit with a mixture of elderly and family, the density would be much more important because of the higher intensity of use of the open area. The City Manager asked %fnether they had any figures on other suburban areas in regard to what is permitted in density for the elderly? A representative from Bor-Son stated he had worked on at least 65 elderly projects~ 35 of them in the Twin Cities area. He noted they had started with 50-60 units per acre and in one of the most recent, had 100 units per acre. This was unusually high density but they have found there is no adverse effect. In building housing for the elderly, you work with design of the units rather than density. F~ty=slxty'units~per acre are not uncommon and are quite adequate~ With the elderly it is the inside facilities that are important. It i~ a passive type of service that is provided. You do not get the outside activity with the elderly. Chairman Cameron asked how elderly was elderly? Mr. Conroy stated there were three different stales: 65-75, 75-85, over 85. In filling up a building you try to get a mix. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Conroy stated they had tried to purchase the site for the car wash and also to purchase some land from Nystrom. The carwash site is. unavailable and the Nystrom property is tied up with their financing. They had tried to purchase this land until about three weeks ago but had decided they had to go forward and proceeded with their plans. Mr. Nystrom could not get the final sign-off from his mortgage company. They had also informally discussed the possible purchase of a ~.~ strip of land from K-Mart that would allow them to have more space. Because of their budget constraints however, they felt they would only have a little more parking space and would have to cut some place in the construction/finishing area. The Chairman commented that he was concerned about the size of the site. He felt the building was going to be there a long time and they should not start out with a crowded site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5 - JANUARY 6, 1981 6. During a.discussio~ in regard to the height of the building and the possible alternative of spreading the building out more if more land were acquired, Mr. Conroy stated that to shorten the building and spread it out would create safety and security problems. Units had to be "X" number of feet from an exit and extending the building would require additional exits and additional security problems. He said that to have fewer than 100 units in a building caused problems with the operating services. You have to start ~k3king trade-offs on quality of management, etc. when a development is small. The key to a successful fa- cility is the long term management viability. To build smaller buildings with fewer units you start com- promosing your management. It has to operate based on the rental income coming in. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that the R-5 zone was the proper designation for the site. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he had no problem with the height variance but the density was a concern. He asked if they had talked to K-Mart in regard to leasing some land for parking? He was con- cerned that there be sufficient room for parking and landscaping. Mr. Conroy said that 52 spaces were, he felt, more than adequate even for staff since the greater majority of people would not drive. Colonel Nolte commented that, at Loring Towers where he lived, there was a patio that was very seldom used by the residents because the "conditions" were never right. He felt he was the only one who ever used it. Once it gets near sunset the elderly go inside. The elderly like to have open land around and look out the window at it, but they don't really use it. Extra land would be nice, but they can function without it. ~ Discussion continued about the necessary parking spaces, how many staff cars there would be and the cars that would require parking when there were special events at the high rise. Mr. Nolte stated there were 208 units.at Loring Towers and Hhey had 46 parking spaces. It was seldom they were all used. The gentlemen from Bor-Son noted that he had had occasion to check ordinance requirements in the area for percentage required for parking in elderly complexes. He had found it to ~e generally 25% but that most often only about 17% of the parking space provided was used. Commissioner Gundershaug referred to the Design and Review meeting where the suggestion had been made to flip the plan over with access toward the K-Mart lot. He asked whether they had discussed leasing parking space from K-Mart? Mr. Conroy said they had discussed this possibility but had not talked directly to K-Mart in regard to leasing parking space from them. Chairman Cameron asked what the time commitment was for the project? Mr. Conroy stated they had submitted a Request for Conditional Commitment to HUD. HUD will go over this and then issue the Conditional Commitment which will outline what they have to do to get it built. They will probably issue this in the next 60 days. VOA then has to prepare final %~rking papers, get appro- val and permits, submit this to HUD. It is about 120 days then before they can start construction. He thought it would be August 1st, or September 1st, before they could begin. The City Manager stated that in talking with people, 60 units per acre seemed to be a more realistic figure than the 43 per acre required in the New Hope Code. The site is close to the park. and there is a considerable amount of open space around the site. From every indication, the predictions for the next forty years are that things are going to become a lot more dense than they are now. / Coionel Nolte asked to comment on the questions raised regarding constructing a smaller building. He felt that as far as going under 100 units, the National Board of VOA would not approve because of budget considerations. They felt they could not operate a smaller facility and maintain their reputation for quality. He felt they might scratch the plans if forced to cut the building size. They would not want to do a poor job of running the facility. Commissioner Edwards asked whether they would consider picking up a little more land for parking for special events', i.e~ a piece from K-Mart? Mr. Nolte said it could be considered, even after the facilty was built, if the land were available. Given the choice, they would prefer more land but they had reached the point now there they could not de- lay any longer with their plans. The land would have to be at a reasonable figure. He would dislike hindering their time table by waiting to acquire additional land now. Mr. Conroy commented that. if its possible to have a long term lease with K-Mart for additional parking~ this was something they could explore, without taking money from the construction budget. Mr. Nolte commented that he thought there must be someone at K-Mart who would be willing to lease the land if they did not need it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '- 6 - JANUARY 6, 1981 In answer to a question from the City Manager regarding the car wash site, Mr. Conroy stated that the site was for sale but the price was astronomical since it was based on income potential. The City Manager noted there would be no problem getting the R-5 Zoning District approved by C~uncil. It could be on the agenda on the 12th of January. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioners would be back before the Commission wi~ complete plans to obtain construction approval. Discussion then covered the possibility of flipping the building, the traffic flow problems that might result if this were done and the need for sufficient landscaping between the site and the K-Mart lot if the building were left as now proposed. Concensus seemed to be that the building should not be flipped. Chairman Cameron reminded the petitioners that the City of New Hope had a very strict Sign Ordinance that must be adhered to. Mr. Conroy noted that they could provide screening to block off the lot and in regard to the parking, where refuse would be stored, and details regarding fencing type and .location, they would pledge to work with staff. He stated the building would be sprinkled. He said they would be engaging a local engineer and landscape architect to help them accommodate the Minnesota climate. Commissioner Gundershaug commented on the Manager's~statements regarding the closeness of the park to the site and that fact that New Hope perhaps did require too much in density. He agreed with these statements. Mr. Conroy again pledged to w~rk with staff in regard to these-items of concern. Commissioner Edwards stated that, inasmuch as the Planning Commission had determined that the proposed elderly high-rise did fit into the City's Comprehensive Plan, he recommended approval of Case 81-4, for a rezoning to R-5, a variance in height to a maximum of seven stories and a density of 106 units for this particular site, with the understanding that the petitioners will return to the Planning Commission/ Council at a future time to obtain construction approval. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Gustafson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. Design and Review Committee met once during December to review Case 81-4. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 10~ The Council Minutes were reviewed by the City Manager. He stated that the air conditioner cases had been denied, the Conditional Use Permit for the machine shop had been approved with restrictions, and Hewitt Peterson~had dropped his request for code interpretation as they were moving to another building. He noted that City Ordinance had restrictions on landscaping at intersections. He said there had recently been several cour~ cases where cities had been held liable, with very large settlements, for obstructions at/intersections that caused poor visibility. Council had previously instructed staff to look into this. They are now requesting Planning Commission and staff to review the ordinance so a determination c~n be made by spring as to just what restrictions should be enforced. The Chairman referred the subject of intersection visibility to the Codes and Standards Committee for immediate dispatch. The Manager said that the petitioner for the ice cream store had misunderstood the need for an alternate parking plan. Council was concerned and tabled the case until this problem could be solved and the pe- titioner came back to Council. 11. The Co~ission minutes of December 2, 1980 were approved as printed. 12. Election of officers for the Planning Commission was the next item of business. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending the appointment of Dr. Cameron as Chairman and Commis- sioner Gustafson as Vice Chairman for the Year 1981. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ - 7 - JANUARY 6, 1981 12. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Gustafson' Motion carried. 13. The City Manager noted that there is supposedly going to be a vacancy on the City Council. Applica- tions have been received from citizens interested in both the Council position and the Planning Commis- .sion vacancy. The Manager suggested that it might be a good idea for the Planning Commission to wait until the Council position had been filled so that they might have more candidates to choose from. The Chairman announced that the candidates for the Planning Commission vacancy would be invited to the meeting of February 3, 1981. The Commission could talk to these candidates for a few minutes at the end of the regular meeting. 16. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Febru- ary 3, 1981 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The me~tlng was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m~ 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN Present: Wheelock, Bartosj Cameron, Gustafson~ Gundershaug, Edwards- Absent: Gulenchyn (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-5 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7550 BASS LAKE ROAD 4 CRYSTAL TOWERS MANAGEMENT, PETITIONER Mr. Ira Sklader represented Crystal Towers° He was accompanied by Steve Finkel- stein, Apartment Manager. Mr. Skladsr stated that they had a sign in the same location for 11 years. He distributed photographs of the new sign. They had decided to replace the sign with a new one and contacted a sign company. They were then contacted by Doug Sandstad of the city saying the sign was illegal. The Chairman asked whether they had been informed as to why the sign was illegal it was an off-premise sign. Mr. Sklader said it was a 3' x 5' sign, located in the identical spot that a sign had been for 11 years and up to this time no one had said a word about the locatlond The City Manager stated that the original sign had been ihstalled under the old Ordinance which did not exactly prohibit off-premise signs. The sign was non-conform~ lng and when changed came under the provislons of the current ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr~ Sklader that neither the old sign or the new sign was located on the Crystal Towers property. He then read for the record a letter that had been received from Paul Rosenthal~ of the firm of Rosenthal and Beseres, Ltd., the owner of .the property at 7550 Bass Lake Road which stated that they would not permit this sign until the problem of the roadway and the turning radius was solved on the road going into the apartments. Commisioner Gustafson stated that barring any other considerations, unless the peti- tioner had the approval of the property owner where the sign was located, which was contingent upon agreement of the other items, that neither the Planning Commiss'i~n or the Council had any right to allow them to keep any unauthorized sign on the property. Mr. Sklader said the owner knew they had a sign on his property but that they had a problem with the city regarding the access. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the owner of the property had not, in fact~ given Crystal Towers written permission to retain the sign on their property° Mr. Sklader said there was no written permission, but that the sign had been there for 11 years. Mr. Finkelstein stated he felt the owner was more interested in resolving the driveway problem than having them remove the sign. In answer to questions from the Commissioners, the City Manager stated that there is a very serious problem on the site. The City has written at least three times to the Crystal Towers management and he had-made several phone calls to the management that had not been returned, in an attempt to discuss/solve this problem. The present turn- ing radius of the access to the apartments will not handle the city's fire rigs. If the problem is not solved, the city will have no alternative but to cease using the entrance from Bass Lake Road and use only the north entrance to the complex~ They feel the access from Bass Lake Road is unsafe. The c~ty has tried for over two years to work this out with the management and has not gotten anywhere. The Chairman asked what it would take to make the access safe? Th~ Manager noted that. the turning radius at the corner had to be increased Which probably require some change in the parking on the south end of the apartment lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2u FEBRUARY 3~ 1981 3. Mr. Sklader said he had received one letter from the city, in November, and had ~ not received any telephone calls° He felt the city wanted the problem solved but did not want to pay for anything. The chairman confirmed with Mr. Sklader that he h~d received a letter from the city in November. He questioned why they had not done anything regarding the problem as yet? He felt Mro Sklader was confusing the issue. The city has asked them to widen the radius. Mr. Sklader said this was beside the point. Didn't the city have an obligation also? He said the one thing he was aware of was that they wanted a road right through the property. o The City Manager said that if the driveway went straight though the property it could be a worse problem since the grade would need to be changed and then the apart- ment could lose some space by the garages° Chairman Cameron asked how much it would cost Mr. Sklader to remove the sign? He replied, not much. The Chairman noted that the Planning Commission had several choices. They could table the variance request until the petitioner had worked cut a satisfactory solu- tion to the driveway problem that was agreeable to the property owner and the city. They could also deny the request for a sign variance at this meeting. He added that if Mr. Rosenthal did agree to the sign being on his property, the sign would still be illegal and the city would have to grant a variance for an off-premise sign. Mr. Sklader asked whether if Mr~ Rosenthal gave him a letter granting permission if he would still have a problem? He ats.o questioned the need for the city to be satis-- fied on the roadway and stated he felt he was being pushed against the wall and it was a type of blackmail° The City Manager stated there were two radius' involved. There needs to be at least 35 feet on the Rosenthal property and 50 feet on the Crystal Towers property. Chairman Cameron asked whet~er Mr. Sklader had consulted an engineer about this problem? Mr. Sklader said no, they wanted to consult their blacktop people~ He felt there was no need to consult an engineer. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Sklader had been provided with specs re- garding what the radius was supposed to be by the city. He asked the City Manager if, should the access/radius problem fail to be solved, would the city write the management of the apartments a letter stating that the city would no longer give them fire coverage from the Bass Lake Road access~ but only from the north entrance? The City Manager noted that this would probably be the next step. Commissioner Gustafson said he thought the City of New Hope, Mr. Rosenthal and the owners of Crystal Towers al1 had something at stake here. He noted that since Mro Sklader had a set of specs, it wculd seem to him that the~ should be able to con- tact some asphalt people and make some type of decision regarding the required change. He felt the variance request could be held up for 30 days to allow them to research this. He felt the other problems were far more serious~ however, than the location of the sign. Mr. Sklader said he felt the City of New Hope was responsible. Where were they when the complex was built (1969-70)? The City Manager responded that the apartment had legal access from the north. The owners of the Bass Lake frontage and the apartment project did not have a definite answer as to the south access at the time of the apartment approval since the devel- opment for this parcel was not set. The access was to be solved as part of the de- velopment plan. The city does not have a problem, the apartment has the problem ~ since it is the safety and protection of their renters that is at stake° Chairman Cameron asked what would happen if the road were closed? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - FEBRUARY 3, 1981 3. The Manager noted that the emergency ~ccess to the building would be limited and the building now has a lot of other problems. There would be a considerable time lag for emergency protection. The lack of access from Bass Lake Road would also have some major problems for the police. Commissioner Bartos moted that 35 feet of radius was not much room for a r~g to swing into the site. The Manager noted that this was the minimum radius required. Commissioner Bartos commented on the reduced access if there were any snow or ice ~- would not be much leeway on either side of the entrance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 81-5 until the meeting of March 3, ~o give the petitioner, the owners of the property, and the city an opportunity to discuss plans to solve the problems of the access and turning radius. He felt an agreement should be reached with a deadline of June 1, 1981 for actual completion of the work. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion Carried 4. PLANNING CASE 81-6 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT THE NEVADA AVENUE CUL-DU-SAC - BLAINE CAREY, PETITIONER Mr. Carey stated-that he had developed the majority of the area at Louisiana Avenue and Nevada Avenuel He has a purchase agreement for the lot he wishes to divide. He is asking for approval of this division~ so that the sale of the front portion of the lot could be completed. The west end of. the lot has a remnant of an earlier ease- ment that provides a-title problem. There is a utility easement to the immediate west of the plat. He noted that Witcher had shown some interest in buying the property next to their lot (new Lot 2) . Mr. Carey was asking for the sub-division even though there would not be any street access to Lot 2. Commissioner Bartos asked w~ether Witcher would purchase the lot with no access? Mr. Carey said they had not signed a purchase agreement yet. There would have to be an extension of the easement to gain access to Log 2. In answer to a question regarding whether there would be room enough for a building on the west side of the wetland, Mr. Carey said there might be. The best use of the property would be to tie it to the property to the west° The City Manager asked what the chances were of getting the easement now on the west end of Witcher's lot extended another 12 feet and make it available for access to the new Lot 2? He stated there was no way you could develop the 2 1/2 acres without access. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the Manager noted that the middle section of the proposed lot was a required ponding area. The city needed it for pond- ing area and he was not certain that t'he DNR would let anyone touch this pohding area anyway. Commissioner Bartos asked Mr. Carey how close to the ponding area you could develop? Mr. Carey said there was solid soil about four feet down. The City Manager stated that as far as the city was concerned development could go right up to the wetland, but the DNR might have some problems with this. In response to questions from the Chairman regarding Witcher's purchase of this pro- perty, Mr. Carey said there was a 50/50 chance - Wit6her did not want a building there. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Carey had a sale for the proposed Lot One, and that the buyer did not need all the land on the original lot. He questioned the en~ croaehment and its affect on the title. Commissioner Edwards asked what type of encroachment there was to the west? The City Manager described the background of this area and the controversy of the easement, noting the two houses on the hill and stating that at one time there had been access at approximately Nevada Avenue. This had eventually changed and they started coming in from Louisiana Avenue° There had been a fight between the property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- FEBRUARY 3, 1981 4. owners as the lots on Louisiana were developed~ but as far as the city was concerned the problem of access to the .two lots with homes had been solved when Witcher pro- vided the easement to the south and then purchased the lots with the homes. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the easement at the southwest corner was basicall~''~ a roadway. The chairman said it ran up the line. Commissioner Gundershaug said he found this a problem. He was concerned about access to the lot in the future if Witcher did not purchase that portion. Commissioner Edwards asked why the easement was not on the proposed plat? Mr. Carey stated that to obtain a mortgage there had to be clear title on the property. He felt that since there was not much property left for industrial development in New Hope the parcel would be picked up -- then the problem would be solved. Commissioner Gustafson noted that Lot 2, had the problem. By splitting the parcel down the middle they had gotten rid of the problem only temporarily. The city con- cern is for Lot 2. Would there be a problem in obtaining an easement from Witcher or another owner to extend this easement 12 feet to satisfy our requirements and pre- vent a landlocked lot? Commissioner Gustafson asked how long it would sake to ge~ a 12 foot easement from Witcher? The City Manager noted that he worst possibility was that someday the access would be condemned. To build on the lot, access had to be obtained -- either by getting an easement from the owner or by condemning the property for a road. The City Manager added that the city did not have the Droblem -- the lot does because of the lack of access, the city cannot permit any development on the lot unless it is tied to another buildable lot. One problem that exi.sts is that if the ~resent parcel is divided, the assessments would be divided. If the landlocksd parcel later went tax forfeit, it is difficult, if not impossible, to recover the assessment. Commissioner Gustafson asked,if in the Manager's opinion~ this was a buildable lot? The Manager replied that at this time it was probably not but land was getting scarce. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending ap__pr~val of the preliminary plat as re- quested in Case 81-6. Commissioner Wheeiock second. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern about the easement. He asked Mr.Carey if there were not an easement problem with the potential six month delay for a title clearance, would he be appearing before the Commission? Mr. Carey stated that a prudent buyer would not purchase a lot with a title cloud on it. Commissioner Edwards noted that this was a registration process and was puzzled about why there could not be legal access to the lot? There was no specific reply given. Voting in favor: Wheelock~ Bartos, Cameron, Cundershaug~ Edwards Voting against: Gustafson Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 81-7 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL AT 4108 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - SIGNCRAFTERS, PETITIONER Mr. Charles Peugh represented Signcrafters~ Me stated they were requesting approval for the sign plan because ~t was a two tenant buildinq. They already have a permit for one sign. The signs w~ll be small, illuminated, of approximately 12 §qaure feet. The letters will be only 6% inches high and all other dimensions will meet the Sign Ordinance criteria. The City Manager noted that the dimensions of the signs as proposed were well under the provisions of the Sign Ordinance~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- FEBRUARY 3, 1981 5. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the sign plan as re- quested in Case 81-7 for 4108 Quebec Avenue North. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn ~ Motion carried COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. There was no report from the Desig~ and Review Committee° 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 8. There was mo report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 9. The City Manager reviewed the Council Minutes of January 12, and January 26, 1981. He noted that the ice cream store had received final approval subject to completion of parking lot striping. However, since that time a question has been raised as to the ownership of the dairy store. In another action the Council had decided to drop the legal action on Sinclair and settle the case. Sinclair will be able to have ground signs the same as at the sta- tion on West Broadway. The sign will be 5' x 8' with letters of a size exceeding ordinance restrictions. The highway sign on #18 will be that originally Droposed, which is under size but over the letter restriction° One problem for the city now is that there are many signs now past the amortization period. The case was dropped on the basis of the' potential cost because of the request that the city be required to cover Sinclair's legal costs. However, the next person who is told to conform to the ordinance will obviously contest also. This is where it now sits. Council did not specifically say what will happen now. This item will probably be on the agenda on Monday, February 9th, uo ask "where do we really want to go". The simple way wouid be to either remove or broaden the letter height res- trictions -- the problem is the letter size allowed on the signs. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the city did not gain anything from this. The City Manager answered that the letter said simply that they will drop the counter suit against us, if we let them have the signs as noted and the city will pay $6,000 toward Sinclair's legal fees~ Commissioner Gustafson asked whether ~his agreemen~ was on the advice of Counsel? The Manager stated that the problem was the exposure. Two things entered in, the chance of losing the $100,000 and if New Hope should carry the constitutional issue of the letter size restriction. The Chairman asked whether the Manager thought the Council would g!ve some direction at their next meeting? The Manager stated he hoped so. The city is now sitting on about 30 signs that should be resolved. Commissioner Gustafson asked how many signs had been brought into ccnformance with the Ordinance. The answer was quit9 a few. He noted that perhaps the Planning Com- mission should get out of the ordinance business. Chairman Cameron noted that no one could win this one. It depended only on how much we were going to lose. Chairman Cameron then asked about the amendment to the garbage ordinance and how this came to be considered by Council without first being considered by Planning Commission~ The Manager noted that the problem was safety on the arterial streets as well as the cost of enforcement as it related to the restrictions of the ordinance° PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 - FEBRUARY 3~ 1981 9. Discussion followed regarding the garbage ordinance and the time spent on drafting it. Chairman Cameron commented that the Planning Commission had spent 18 months and many many hours, studying the issue, consulting with garbage haulers, etc. in drafting this ordinance and then when it comes time to change the ordinance, the Council doesn't even see fit to ask the Planning Commission whether they had any thoughts regarding the change. The Manager stated it had been brought up as a result of the Council request for comments on ordinances that should be amended prior to a new codification of ordi- nances. The cans are now allowed to be placed on the curb the evening before pickup. The amendment has been adopted. The Chairman commented that he got the feeling that the Planning Commission was just available to do a lot of the leg work for Council, but after that they tended to for- get about them° Chairman Cameron then asked about the problem of sight lines at corners and whether this was in effect, a Planning Commission concern? The Manager said this was, since it was a zoning problem. The Chairman then asked whether garbage was a Planning Commission concern and the Manager answered it was legally not, but that did not mean that they did not have a legitimate concern. Commissioner Gustafson commented that by the same token, in regard to the letter size on signs, the Council might just as well tie the cord around their own necks, instead of sending the ordinances back to the Planning Commission for the third time. The City Manager noted that it was all a matter of perspective. Chairman Cameron did not appear concerned about the sign case settlement while he was upset about the garbage. Paul was the other way° The.problem is how strong someone feels about a given issue~ 10. Commissioner Gundershaug corrected the minutes of January 6, 1981. He noted that Commissioner Gulenchyn had made the motion recommending approval of Case 81-1 and that he had seconded it. The minutes were then accepted as corrected. 11. The Chairman noted that the candidates for the opening on the Planning Commission would be invited to attend the meeting on March 3, 1981. 13. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~0yce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 3, 1981 i. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 3, 1981 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, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PL~NNING CASE 81-5 (CONTINUED FROM 2-3~81) REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7550 BASS LAKE ROAD - CRYSTAL TOWERS PROGPJ~4, PETITIONER. Mr. Ira Sklader and Mr. Steve Finkelstein represented Crystal Towers. Mr. Sklader stated that Crystal To~rs was willing to go ahead and pay for the cost of the road. He had talked to the City Manager on Monday in regard to some conditions they were requesting. The City Manager had indicated there would be no problem with these conditions° They w~re: 1) they would lose one parking space when the road was fixed and they did not wish to be told later they had to find another parking space. The City Manager, in response to a question from the Chairman, stated it was his understanding that they would still have a couple of more parking spaces than required. 2) They were also requesting another sign on the Crystal Towers property. 3) They have a sign on their King's Manor property - 4215,4309,4425 Rhode Island - they wish to move, and also want a sign at the other entrance. Mr. Sklader said he was requesting these signs now, 'so he would not need to make an additional appear- ance before the Planning Commission. Chairman Cameron commented that if the City Manager had agreed to these conditions, the additional signs must be in conformance with the city Cede. The Manager said this was so. ~. Sklader stated they had received a letter from Paul Rosenthal, the owner of the vacant lot where the requested sign is located. He noted that Crystal Towers had agreed to pay up to $50.00 in legal costs toward obtaining a legal description of the easement as well as the cost of the road. The Chairman read the letter as presented by Mr. Sklader. He noted the stipulation for a written agree- ment. He asked what this meant? Mr. Sklader said they would require a legal description and a meeting between the City Manager, Mr. Rosen- thal and himself would probably be necessary. He had already consulted a survey company for the legal description. The City Manager stated that he felt that if the Planning Commission and Council a~proved this agreement, it would simply mean an exchange of letters stating what would be done. Com~missioner Gustafson asked what the completion date would be for the improved driveway? Fir. Sklader stated they could begin anytime ~s far as he was concerned. He thought the work itself might take about a week. M~. Finkelstein noted that this type of work was usually controlled by a starting period based on the weather and temperature conditions. He thought this starting date might be mid-April or early May. Commissioner Gustafson asked if the petitioners felt a June 1st, completion date would be satisfactory? Mr. Sklader said this should be no problem. Commissioner Gustafson stated that in regard to the additional signage requested, this issue would pro- bably not be addressed by the Planning Commission if the signs met code. For this reason the Commis- sion would not include these signs as part of the moti°n. ~ Mr. Sklader said that the City Manager had stated the signs would be in conformance. Commissioner Gustafson noted that if they were not in conformance, then the petitioner'would have a problem. 3. There was no citizen comment in regard to this planning case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending ~pproval of the siqn variance at 7550 Bass Lake Road, as requested in Case 81-5, subject to the stipulation that the additional driveway work that had been re- quested by the city and agreed to b_y the petitioner, would be qom~l~ted b~y June 1, 1981 and stating that the Planning Commission recognizes that the loss of one parking ~space because of the road work would not be a problem. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 81-8 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SECOND BUSINESS AT 4200 WINNETKA AVENUE - MOBIL OIL STATION - EDWIN PETERSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Peterson distributed photographs of the area of his station that he is using for retail sales of food items. He stated that all of the items for sale ,g;ere wrapped and similar to the types of items found in vending machines. However, they are on open shelves. He has 200 square feet in the sales area. The Sanitarian has already inspected the area. He gave the letter from~ the Sanitarian to the chairman. Commissioner Gustafson asked approximately how much of the 200 square feet would be devoted to food stuff sales? Mr. Peterson said it ~ould be no greater than 50% of the building. He added that 'there is parking on the site, the area is striped but it will be re-striped in the spring. There will be no additional signage. In answer to a question from the chairman, Mr. Peterson said he had no plans to expand the types of items he will sell, with the possible exception of perhap~ requesting the sale of 3.2 beer. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager stated that the Conditional Use Permit could be gr~mnted limiting the sales to certain types of items. Mr. Peterson said that the only reason they were requesting this permit was that this is the current trend in service stations -- combining retail sales with gasoline sales. Everyone is looking for addi- tional sources of income. He said this was not limited to Minnesota but was true in the wt~le country. This is a method to allow them to shay in business. Ih has proved successful. He added that they had a person in the sales room at all times. In response to a question from the Mana- ger he noted that his business comes from people who drive into the station for gasoline or service. He does not have any people driving ~n and parking to just shop at the store. There has not been a parking problem to date. Commissioner Gulenchyn questioned the signs and any proposed signs? Mr. Peterson said they might at some time put a sign in the window, but this would be all. In response to questions regarding the hours of operation, Mr. Peterson said they were presently open from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sunday. He does not see any possibility of his operating after midnight. In regard to tt~ possibility of future beer sales, it was noted that this would require a separate li- cense, but would probably not violate any zoning restrictions. The Manager said this was a Council permit. The Liquor Commission did not have to act on such a request. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Peterson stated he leased ~he station and an- ticipated that Mobil would .be in Minnesota for quite a while. There was no citizen comment in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 4200 Winnetka Avenue, as requested in Case 81-8, subject to the fact that retail sales be limited to food stuffs, including dairy products and at some future time, if allowed by the ~ ~ouncil, 3.2 carry out beer. That the hours of operation be within 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight and the lot of the station be striped for_t~rking no later than June 1, 1981. Commissioner Gulench3[n second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 81-9 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN AT 3109 LOUISIANA AVENUE - NATIONAL BEAUTY, PETITIONER Mr. Roger Parkin represented National Beauty. He stated that he had talked to Doug Sandstad of the city staff about this plan. He does not plan any additional signs other than the ones included in the plan. tie will place sign according to city requirements, tie noted that Mr. Sandstad had indicated that the logo PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 - MARCH 3, 1981 5. planned for the end of the sign might be larger than the Commission might approve. Mr. Parkin stated that the logo would be of quarter inch masonite fastened to the sign itself and %ould be done with a silk screen process. It is a two sided sign. The logo would be about a 30 inch circle. It will be a free standing sign with 4' x 4' posts set into concrete with a pl~mter. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that this would be the only sign on the site, other than number addresses. Mr, Parkin said there would be nothing on the building, either for National Beauty or another tenant. He said he was also a tenant. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the proposed plans met' with the approval of the o%mer of the building? The owner of the building, Mike Hicks, 3109 Louisi~na, said he had agreed to the sign plan and had signed a statement that this sign would be the only sign for both tenants of the building. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Parkin ~uld have the authority from Mr. Hicks to act as his Agent before the City Council in regard to the proposed sign. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the proposed sign would serve both 3109 and 3113 Louisiana Avenue. There was no one present in regard to this case. Discussion followed in regard to the end cap, logo, and whether this would be in effect a third sign, and whether the logo would require a variance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the sign plan for 3109-3113 Louisiana Ave- nue as proposed by the petitioner ~d the o~er of the building, including a~oroval of a variance in sign size to allow the application of the proposed logo on the end cap. of the sign as it faces the street. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: ~eelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that because of the wording of the motion, only the petitioner need at- tend the Council ~leeting on tile 9th. 6. PLA~NNING CASE 81-10 - REQUEST FOR VARIAINCE IN PA~KING, SETBACKS~GREEN AREAAT THESOO~HWEST CORNER OF BASS LAKE ROAD/INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY ~NORTHLAND ~CHANICAL CONTRACTORS, tNC. PETITIONER Mr. Richard Tieva said he was one of the owners, t{e stated they were requesqing variances in parking lot setback on the side and front because of the funny shape of the lot. The front setback is needed be- cause the Code calls for 75 feet from residential property. He felt this shouldn't apply in this case because Bass Lake Road was about six lanes wide at this spot. The other variance, in the green area, is necessary because of the poor soil and the fact ~%hey were trying to make the building economically feasible. The land to the south he believed is to be owned by the city and wilt remain natural and will add to the green area around 'the site. Chairman Cameron requested that the petitioner describe the proposed building and the lot.for the record. Mr. Tieva said the building would be similar to the Twin City Acoustics building and will not be used for zetail trade. They propose s simple concrete structure. The building will be occupied partially by the petitioner. There will be no outside storage. They plan to occupy about one third of the building. Chairman Cameron asked why they then could not build a smaller building? Mr. Tieva stated that the lot cost, the required soil restoration costs and the cost of bringing water and sewer into the site was also a factor. It is necessary to build a building this size for economic reasons. The water must come across Bass Lake Road. In answer to questions from Commissioner G~mdershaug, Mr. Tieva said the building would be two stories on the back side. He had not talked to the County about the curb cut proposed for Bass Lake Road but he noted that the City Planner had ~dicated they would never get permission for this. They will use access from International Parkway. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager indicated they would require two parking Spaces for the warehouse and in the office area they needed one space for every 200 feet, plus three spaces and the warehouse one space for each 1000 feet plus employee parking. The way he fi- gured it, they had two extra spaces for employees in the warehouse space. Mr. Tieva said they had sufficient parking spaces, but were short on green area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH 3, 1981 6. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner considered Bass Lake Road the front of the structure. He noted that the ordinanced required 75 feet in setback for the building and 20 feet from the start of the parking lot to the property line. They showed only 10. The other problem ~as the parking in the front of the building. M~. Tieva said that they were trying to get as much building on the lot as possible. They were hindered because of the soil and were attempting to make construction economically feasible. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that they had not provided any parking lot setback on the south property line -- this should be ten feet according to ordinance. He stated that in his opinion, the big problem was the reduction in green area. He felt that basically this was too big a building for the lot. He questioned whether something else might not be better for that site than an office/warehouse. He did not feel the Commission had ever granted such a large variance in green area. Discussion followed between Mr. Tieva and the Commissioners regarding possible changes to the proposal that would ensure adequate parking, as well as reduce the green, area variance and upgrade landscaping. The setback variances were also discussed in relation 'to the undersized lot and the size of the building as proposed. Question was raised as to whetker the building could be re-positioned on the lot. Commissioner Gundershaug also commented on the fact that there were single family residences directly across Bass Lake Road from this site. Mr. Tieva restated his feeling that the setback on Bass Lake Road was unnecessary since the roadway was so wide in front of the residential area. He commented again on the high cost of bringing wa~er and sewer into the site. They were meeting the normal setbacks for industrial zoning. Commissioner Gustafson asked what the setback would need to be if the building were moved from south to north, with no parking in the front? He also asked what the view would be to the residents, if the park- in front were removed? Mr. Tieva said it Would be more decorative than the back of the building. Considerable discussion followed about the possibility of moving the building to the north, eliminating the front parking and increasing the landscaping toward Bass Lake Road and the possibility of a variance being granted on the Bass Lake Road side. The Chairman noted he would be willing to vote for perhaps a ten foot variance on the north, but he did feel they were proposing too much building for the site. He also asked if front parking would, not prove to be messy, inasmuch as there would not be a curb cut from Bass Lake Road. In regard to the site at the south of this lot, the Manager noted that this property was not as yet owned by the New Hope. Commissioner Bartos said he didn't think the city had ever granted an 11% variance in green area. The Chairman stated that the Commission was willing to work with the petitioner, but that the building was too large. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern that the parking spaces as indicated met size requirements of the City Code. He also questioned whether there would be any room at all for a semi to maneuver in the area of the loading docks as proposed. It just apperared to him to be too much building for the site, The Chairman questioned how a truck would get out of the loading dock area once it got in? Co~missioner Gustafson asked whether the property to the south of Rosewood was fillable ]_and? The City Manager said there were four separate problems: 1. First of all the City needed "x" number of feet of storage there - this could be changed. 2. RoseWood has indicated they wanted to keep this area natural as part of their apartment project -- this was one of their sales points. 3. Even if the city did say the area could be dredged, the DNR and the Corps of Engineers might object to it. 4. The outlet must be kept open. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the property line itself fell on the equivalent of the land that could not be touched, or was there land in between? In answer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Tieva stated that the cost of the land, the cost of land restoration and the cost of getting sewer and water into the site,'made it economically im- possible to construct a smaller building. He added that he had a purchase agreement with Sun Oil and their permission to request the variances. PLANNING COF~MISSION MINUTES - 5 - MARCH 3, 1981 6. Commissioner Edwards con~ented that the costs of the land upgrade were considerations when the cost of property was determined. This was directly related to the value of the land. Chairman Cameron stated there were a couple of choices open to the Commission. They could vote on the project at this meeting and pass it on to Council. It would be sent forward to Council even if the Com- mission denied the request or the request could be tabled to allow the petitioner to go back and revise his proposal. Mr. Tieva said he would prefer a table. The City Manager indicated the Commission should table the case for one month. If Mr. Tieva were not ready st that time, he should call the City and the case could be tabled again. Mr. Nordness, Vice President of Rosewood Corporation, commented that they still own. ed the l~d to the south of the property in ~aestion. He stated that Rosewood had tried to, and still continued to work with the City of New Hope by complying with almost all of the code restrictions of the City. He agreed wi~h the Commission mem3oers that the petitioner was requesting way too many variances. If Rosewood had to comply with Codes, the petitioner should have to do the same. Mr. De~mis Holland, 8716 Bass Lake Road, stated he got excited when he saw proposals calling for variances in setback, green space and almost everything, that close to ,~nere he lived. He felt the Commission was asking the ~ight questions about this proposal and he hoped they stayed with it. Parking space was not green area and variances to allow, parking in the front of the building should not be granted. The City Manager asked Mr. Holland what he felt the reaction of the neighbors would be if the petitioner followed up on the suggestion to eliminate the parking toward Bass Lake Road and reduced the setbacks ~ut limited the area to green space and landscaping? Mr. Holland replied he felt this would be a big improvement. There was no more citizen comment. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion tabling Case 8l-ll until the meeting'of'April 7, 1981. Commis~' sioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: ~R]eelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 81-11 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SETBACK AT 3551 WISCONSIN AVENUE - ~klENNETH KLINE, PETITIONER Mr. Kline stated he was requesting a variance in setback from 35 feet to 25 feet on the 36th Avenue side of the property to allow him to construct another garage. He intends to remodel his existing garage in- to living space. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the exterior materials of the garage and roof would match the existing house. He asked what the driveway treatment would be? Mr. KlJne said that the driveway between the house and the old garage would be removed. He will be building a new entr~ay, closets and a reading area for the children. The new garage will be used only for personal use, no home occupation. The remodeled portion will be a library ~d the space between the old and new garage would be all enclosed. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the variance in setback as requested in Case 81-tl at 3551 Wisconsin Avenue, subject to the roofing and siding materials and color being the same as the existing house. Comn~issioner Gulench~ second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gm~dershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Mr. Kline stated 'that he had a conflict for the Monday meeting and ~ndered whether he must attend? The Chairman indicated that someone must. The Manager stated that his appearance before Council could be delayed for two weeks if he wished. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether, because this seemed to be a straight-forward case, it could not be sent forward to Council even without an appearance by Mr.. Kline, and considered. If the Co%~cil had questions they wished answered, the case could then be brought back on the March 23rd, agenda? It was indicated that this was possible. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH 3, 1981 8. PLA_NNING CASE '81-12 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN AT 7181 42ND A~IENUE NORTH - ATTRACTA SIGN COMPANY, PETITIONER Mrs. Louise Sterner represented Attracta Sign Company. She noted that they were requesting approval of a sign for a multi-tenant building. The sign meets the square foot requirements. The sign will be for George's Cafe and the Frosty Boy ice cream store. She indicated the old sign ~uld be removed. The new sign will probably be within about three feet of the old location because there is power in the ex- isting pole. Mrs. Sterner said the owner of the Frosty Boy had changed their plans for the facia since she had sub- mitted the application. They are now requesting an additional eight square feet on the sign. Instead of non-illuminated letters, they would rather go with a total ilttuninated section. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the total sign would then be 75 square feet. Mrs. Sterner clarified that there was now no restriction on letter size for the sign. The height of the pole to the top of the sign would be 20 feet and the revised wall sign will be 30 square feet. Con%missioner Gustafson confirmed that this fell within the required 15%. There was no one present concerning this case. Co~nunissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the sign plan for 7181 42nd Avenue North as requested in Case 81-12. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gu]enchyn, Bartos, C~meron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. CO~4ITTEE REPORTS 9. There was no report from the Design and Review Co~unittee. / 10. There was no repor~ from :khe Land Use com~.ittee. 11. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Con~mittee. Chairman Gustafson noted that there would be a Coms~ittee meeting on Monday, March 9, at 7:30 p.m. at his home. Items reviewed would be the Sign Ordinance and the intersection visibility problem. The City Manager noted that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Sinclair, stating that a trademark was a logo. Sinclair has still not signed their agreement with the city. If they don't sign, with this ruling, they could go to their full-sized signs. The Manager stated that the Cou~cil wished the Commission to review the overall size of signs to determine if the permitted sizes were reasonable. Discussion followed regarding the Sign Ordinance, the removal of the letter size restriction} the possi- bility of giving people a choice of having an overall size restriction or a letter size restriction, as well as the fact that the Sign Ordinance had been an almost ten year bathle. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked whether the overall dimension was not the issue, since if this size was con- trolled they could not put too many large letters on it anyway? ConYnissioner Gustafson noted that in determining the overall size to be allowed, there was a point at which standard sized signs, used by companies in other areas, would be permitted, and he felt they could get an awfully large piece of print on these signs. Conunissioner Gustafson then asked whether there was any information available indicating what the univer- sal. sizes v~ere for national companies? He was looking for a reasonable solution and this solution could perhaps be based on what the normal standard signs available were, i.e. a standard size of 50 square feet. If the ordinance were then restricted to 50 square feet the city could get control, they would get the people to come in and in turn ~euld be able to get the smallest size of the standard available signs, and no special manufacturing would be required. Discussion then centered on how this information could be obtained as to standard' sizes of signs available to major companies. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that perhaps restrictions should be centered on overall size. Commissioner Gustafson asked the Manager whether the Supreme Court ruling precluded th~m from revising the City definition of "logo" to fit our ordinance? Is this definition the only definition -- that a trademark equals a logo? Is there nothing the city can do to re-write the definition so the City ordi- nance takes precedence? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - MARCH 3, 1981 11. The Manager stated 'that they would: 1) have a hard time working around it, 2) that it doesn't really make any difference since with the letter size restriction removed, the size was not a problem, 3) he really didn't think the Council members were interested in messing around with size. NEW BUSINESS 12. The City Manager reviewed the Council meetings of February 8, 16, 23, 1981. He noted that in regard to the VOA Elderly Project, the Council had said they will try and pick up the carwash site and this will be paid for out. of tax increment funds and the building will be limited to five stories. He noted that early next week the City will have the tax increment plan put together. This then has to go before Planning Commission and there will need to be a meeting of the Planning Commission on the 17th March to consider this issue. Chairman Cameron asked what the Commission will be considering on the 17th? The Manager said that it will be the tax increment plan -- what are the specifics of the proposal and how does the financial projection work out. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the city could actually buy this property now? He also asked about the VOA time schedule. The Manager noted that the only problem with the time schedule would be if the City had to go to condem- nation. This program (202) is funded only year by year and there was no guarantee that the funds would be reallocated to the VOA. Secondly, the interest rates could chang~ and since the project is now at the high end of the f~nding it would become unaffordable. This is why it is important to go this year. There is a maximum of 120 days to go through the condemnation if it was not contested. / Comment was made that it would have been a lot simpler to go ahead with the seven story building. Discussion followed about the possible construction and whether the building would fit on the property if the building is spread out? The Manager noted that the actual construction plans would be back before the Commission at a later date. He felt the only variance required would be for the fifth story on the building. 13. The Co~nission minutes of February 3, 1981 were accepted as printed. 14. The Chairman reminded the Commissioners of the meeting on March t7th, stressing the need for a quorem. 15. Harold Troup, Gale Friedrich and Dick Dunn wmre present as candidates for the opening on the Planning Commission. Each gentlemen gave a brief resume of their background, and reasons for desiring appoint- ment to the Co~nission. The Commissioners then discussed with them various areas ~f concern. These included: their interest in the community and serving the com~unity; whether they had any conflicts of interest; whether they had any major complaints or concerns in regard to city o~>erations; what persona']_ experience they had that would influence their serving the Commission; their interest in specific commit- tee work within the Con%mission structure, their ability attend regular meetings, as well extra meetings as required; and their reactions to the Commissioners and the possibility of worklng with them. Following the interviews, the candidates left and the Co~mission members discussed their qualifications for appointment. Following discussion, it was the concensus of the members that Mr. Gale Friedrich be appointe~J to the opening on the Planning Commission. Mr. Troup was to be informed that the Commission will consider him for the next appointment if another opening occurs in the near future. 17. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/Joyee Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING C(luAv~SSICN ~t5~UTES APRIL 7, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Cc~uissi~n was h~ld on Tuesday, April 7, 1981 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. TD~ City Manager issued the Oath of Office to Mr~ Gale Friedrich, 4781 Zealand Nc~ih, the new ~ - ~ missioner. 2. ROLL~ CALL ~ TAKF/g: Present: Freidrich, Wheelock,Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gustafson (arrived at 8:16 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLASHING CASE 81-10 (CONTI~3ED FROM 3-3-81) CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES - BASS LAEE ROAD - NORI'HLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, PETITIONER The City Manager stated that the City had received a letter frc~ the petiticmer stating they w~re with- drawing their project at this time. No further Cc~mnission action was necessary. 4. PL~NNLNG CASE 81-13 - REQUEST FOR CC~DITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 3601 WINNETKA AVf2~GE NORI~ - UNION ' 76 STATION - DUANq~ PALM, PETITIONER Mr. Palm stated he was requesting the Conditional Use Permit to all~ him to sell the s~ type of items that he now sold frcm vending machines -- pop, cigarettes, wrapped snack foods -- off the shelf. He~ is looking at this because of the advent of the new Super America station across the street and be- cause it is hard for a strictly gasoline station to be profitable now, as it has been in the past. Ccrmmissioner Gulenchyn asked about the amount of space the proposed sales would require? Mr. Palm stated that he had 331 square feet in the station sales area and he felt that evil if he added shelves,, he would not use more than 33 square feet for this portion of the business. He has ~pace now where the vending machines are located. He does not anticipate he would use even that tach space. Commissioner Gulenchyn cGnfirmed the types of its~s he would sell at the station. Mr. Palm said that at the present time ha had licenses to sell cigarettes, pop and wrapped candy/snack it~rs in %~nding machines. He also has a coffee dispenser. He is not interested in selling any perish- able items. In answer to a question frc~ Cc~auissioner Gulenchyn regarding- hours of operation, Mr. Palm stated he hoped that these sales would increase his operation. He is planning on opening at 6:30 in the morn- ing and closing at 9:00 at night, Y~nday through Friday. He will be open Saturday and Sunday frc~ 8:00 in the morning until 6:00 at night. Cc~raissioner Gundershaug asked whether there was adequate parking? F~. Palm stated he felt that conservatively he could park 30 cars around the perimeter, without park- ing by the building. However, he does not plan to do anything to draw in traffic for shopping. He is not planning any additional signs, other than inside the station or inside the pumps. He is not asking for additien~l signage now. He said he had talked to i~sdiate neighbors and t_b~y had expressed no reservations. In answer to a question frcm the Chairman about the addition of the e~ployees, Mr. Palm said that not at first, but perhaps in th~ future he ~Duld add a cashier for the station. In response to a question frc~ Cc~missioner Friedrich regarding inspecti~ for sanitation, the City Manager stated that th~ operation would be covered by a semi-annual inspection and an inspection would be done before he actually begins selling. There was no one present in regard to this case. Cc~mmissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recc~mending approval of the Conditional Use Permit as re~?e?ted in Case 81-13 for 3601 Winnetka Avenue. Cc~mnissioner Wheelock second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheeleck, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Fotion carried PLANNING CO~IMISSI~ M/NUTES 2o · - APRIL 7, 1981 5. PLANNING CASE' 81-14 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN AT BASS LAKE RDAD/~IC~AL PARE~A~ - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIflNER Mr. Gary Nordness and Mr. Tcm Chandler represented Rosewood. .Mr. Nordness presented an illustratic~ for the Cc~anission showing the location of the proposed signs and the type of signs that would be in- stalled. He stated that they had designed their sign criteria around the graphics on the building. There will be one sign by each entry on the sides of the building and on the front (which faces away frc~ Bass Lake Road). The signs will be placed on either side of the entry depending upon the tenant's wishes. At the present time they have two signed leases for the building. One tenant wishes to n~e his present sign to this site. They are proposing a maxmuum size of 16 x 3 feet, which is under Code They are also requesting a variance to allow the one tenant to place his sign on the west side of the building, rather than on the south side by the entry door. The variance is necessary because the sign is required by Code to be by the door. This sign would be around the corner frc~ the door. The tenant will want only numbers over the door. They intend a maximum of eight signs on the building, depending- upon leasing arrangemants. They are also requesting a ground sign for identification of the building. THis would be located at the main entry and installed according to setback requirements. In answer to a question fr~u Cc~xaissioner Gulenchyn the City Manager noted that everything in the sign plan met the Ordinance requirements except for the variance for the sign around the corner frc~ the one entrance. Dimensions are well under the City sign criteria, even in tenus of total signageo Ccranissioner Gulenchyn asked about the material of the signs proposed. Mr. Nordness stated they would use either a flat metal background or a box sign, that might be illumi- nated. Rosewood will approve all signs proposed by tenants to keep them within the esthetics of t_he building. Materials used will be either plexi-glass or painted metalic material. There will be no signs facing B a~s Lake Road° The identification sign will be on the southeast corner of the 'lot and the size will be within the Code] Criteria. Ccranissioner Gundershaug asked about the tenant who was planning to move his present sign to the new building. Discussion followed regarding this sign, w'nether it met code, and whether or not the subse- quent signs would coordinate with this sign. Mr. Chandler said that this tePmnt had just purchased a sign for $2,000 and wanted to move it to this location. The sign will fit the overall sign proposal° Cc~missioner Gundershaug confirmed that all future signs would coordinate with the proposed sign~ He was concerned about a "hodgepodge" effect. There was no one present in regard to this case. Chairman Cameron stated that he assumed that Rosewood realized that once a cc~prehensive sign plan had been approved for a multi-tenant building, all signs had to be within that plan. Mr. Nordness said he was aware of this. C~xaissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recc~uending approval of the Sign Plan requested in Case 81-14 at 5701-73 International Parkway and recommending approval of the variance allowing one sign on the west side of the building rather than over the entrance on the southwest end of the building and approving the ground siqn as proposed. Conraissioner Friedrich second° Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelook, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edw-azds Voting against: None Absent: ~ustafson Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 81-15- REQUEST FOR VAR/ANCE FOR SIGN AND FOR BUS SHELTER AT ST. THERESE HOME - BASS LAKE ROAD~qINNE1/<A- RICHARD LUE~IG~ PETITIC~ER. Mr. Ludwig stated he was requesbing two variances. One was to allow them to retain the letters now on the wall/fence identifying the hc~e and the other is to allow th~u to construct a bus shelter on th~ Winnetka side of the building. The proble~ with the sign is that it is too close to the street. He statad they thought that MIC would construct the shelter, but if not, St. Therese would° Even if they build it, it will be similar to the ones that MTC constructs. There is a three foot wall on the Bass Lake Road side of the property. The white letters on the wall are about 10 inches high and ide/ltify the hcme and the care center. Most of the sign has been there since 1968. ID 1977 the sign identifying the residence was added. He had not been aware that this was contrary, to Code. PLANNING COF~ISSION MINU~$ 3. APRIL 7, 1981 6. Ccn~nissioner Gulenchyn stated he did not feel the existing.sign was distrac~ng. He did not feel it looked unattractive. He did not feel it was designed to increase th~ business. He did not see another solution to the problem. Mr. Ludwig statad he felt a sign 25 feet behind the wall would be bard to see. He felt the sign was strictly identification in nature. Cc~missioner Bartos said he felt re~Dving the sign and leaving the faded brick exposed would be more visible than th~ sign itself. Mr. Ludwig said the sign mostly showed the elderly people where to turn into the residence. There were no citizen cc~ments regarding the sign. ~ Mr. Ludwig then explained that they wish to construct a bus shelter on Winnetka. They had intended to in- stall it but M~C had been interested and indicatsd they might ccnstruct the shelter. Ccmm/ssioner Gundershaug asked how soon St. Therese would know ~hether MIC would install the shelter as well as ha~e the details of the construction? Mr. Ludwig said it would probably be a lighted shelter, with no advertising and a bench along the back and along the side. It would probably be constructed of bronze anondized aluminum. [/i asked about maintenance of the shelter and who would be responsible for this? The Chairman the Mr. Ludwig said that if St. Therese built the. shelter, they would maintain it. He assumed that if MIC did the construction, they would assume maintenance. If ~C did not install the shelter, they would probably contract with Columbia Equipment Company. The City Manager noted that if M~C put up the shelber, they would maintain it and if t_hey did would not need a variance. A private corporation needed a variance. Chairman Cameron expressed concern about the appearance of the shelter, and the exact locatic~, as well as who would own and maintain it. He did not feel cc~afortable with approving the request until these questions were answered. Mr. Ludwig said there was an MIC marker now, and be would propose to put the shelter close to that mar- ker. In answer to a question frum Cc~issioner Gundershaug, he felt that MIC would let th~ know about the shelter within the month. Cc~missioner Gundershaug also was concerned about approving something until there was more information. He preferred to table this part of the rquest. He did not want to approve a variance without knowing what they were approving. Chairman Cameron conf~ with the City F~nager that the M1C was allowed to install shetle~s pretty ~ach where they pleased. The Manager said the City bad to approve the permit and if it is on a County road, the County mast ap- prove. He noted that there were two additional shelters approved for New Hope and have been for alaDst three years. MIC is about tw~ years bel%ind in installation of the shelters. There was no one present in regard to the proposed bus shelter. C.c~missioner Gulenchyn made a motion recoumending approval of the sign variance requested for St. Therese H~m~, 8000 Bass Lake Road, and tabling the request for construction approval of the bus shelter until the meeting of May- 5, 1981 to allow time to collect more data on the construction, in Case 81-15. Com- missioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Fria~lrich, Wheelock, Gdlenchyn, Bartos, Cam~rc~, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gustafsc~ Motion carried. 7. PIANNING CASE 81-16 - REQUEST FOR AM~N~DMf~T TO CONDITICNAL U~ PERMIT AND A~PROVAL ~F ADDITIC~ AT NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER - 5430 BOCNE AVENUE NORTH CHARLES THOMPSON, PETITIC~R. Mr. Charles Thc~pson, Jr. stated they were requesting permission to build a 4000 square foot addition to the old portion of the nursing hcme. The addition will join the two wings, enlarge the lounge area and w~tl provide an enclosed courtyard. Cfmraissioner Gundershaug confirmed ~hat the addition would not add any new empleyees, or any ne~ resi- dent capacity and that the addition would visually match the existing building. He asked about the rooftop equipment on the older portion of the home. Mr. Thc~pson noted-that sc~e of the rooftop %%n/ts would not be retained and that others would be painted brc~a% to ble~d in on the north end of t~he building. A new roof will be put on at tb~ sama t/me. PLANNING COFF~SSICN MINU~ES 4. APPffL 7, 1981 7. Mr. Beckwith of Krause Engineering noted that scme of the ~xhaust equifm~nt nc~ on the roof will be eliminated. C~n~nissioner Gundershaug asked whether the trash compactor on the east side of the building needed to be screened? The City Manager ans~red that if it was visible fron the street, it should be screened° Mr. Beckwith said this would be relatively easy to do frc~a the street side. Ccan~ssioner Gundershaug suggested that before the petitioner appeared before the City Council he have detailed plans for this screening. He noted that he no problems with the basic building and confirn~d that there would be no additional lights except for down type, security lights and a small amount of ad- ditional lighting in the courtyard. The discussion then centered on the parking probl~n on the north side of the hcmeo Mr. Thompson stated they had started a sticker syste~n for the e_~ployees. All enployees are required to cc~e in one entrance. They have removed a couple of visitor parking signs tomake room for employee parking. The City police will start issuing warning tickets next week, for one week, and then issue parking tickets if the problem continues. He noted there were usually empty parking spaces on tbs south side of the building. He added that they were also trying to get State permission to juggle t]~ir shifts, in an attempt to solve the parking probl~ns. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there was usually unused parking available on the south side. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that in one day he had observed from two to t~n cars parked 6n the street. Mr. Thompson said there was a lighted walk way from both parking lots into the employee entrance. They are trying to encourage employees to park in the other lots, informing th~ they will receive parking tickets after a week if they continue to park on the street. Cc~amissioner Gundershaug inquired about the city putting up two hour parking signs around the site. The Manager said that the problem was with the buses getting in and out of Hosterman and with the city's own crews. He has received no complaints from citizens. One factor is that the signs cost $75.D0 a piece to install and also once the s~gns are up, the_re would have to be enforcemanto Cc~anissioner Edwards asked about the possibility of posting "no parking" signs on the street for all times. Another reprsentative from North Ridge stated that on holidays, when there were a large number of visi- tors to the hcme, this would present a problem since there would not be sufficient parking space avail- able. He ~d attempted to talk to the officials at the church about the possibility of using their park- ing lot, but found it difficult to make contact. He had spoken to Dr. Hoover of Epiphany but had been told it would have to be discussed at the church council meeting and he would not have an answer for per- haps 30 days° Mr. Clyde Green, 5406 Zealand, stated that in regard to parking on the street, it seemed to him that it was usually the same enR~loyee cars all the tin~. He felt that the on-street parking caused problems for the school buses. He added that as far as the roof line and the proposed construction he had no problems with that. Discussion continued in regard to the on-street parking, the possibilit/f of installing "no parking" signs and how effective the tickets would be in stopping the on-Street parking. The City Manager noted that he felt that North Ridge was atteanpting to solve the problem internally and by working with the police. He felt that people would not be willing to pay too many $10 tickets. He added that if the parking became a problem again in the future, it could be reviewed. The only reason it had cc~e up now was becat~ge of the proposed construction. Cc~anissioner Gundershaug made a motion recc~anending approval of Ca~ 81-16, amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and construction approval at North Ridge Care Center, subject to the building addition match- ing the existing building, that the rooftop equipment will be painted, and that screening will be pro- ~-~ vided around the trash compactor so that it is not visible frc~ ~Jle street. Connissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. PLANNING CO~WISSION M~NVJ~ES 5. APRIL 7, 1981 8. PLAhEqING CASE 81-17 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PI2%T/REVISED BUILDING/PLANS AT 9213/17 AND 9232/36 29TH AV~gUE NORS~H - RICHARD I.~I.F~TRAND, PETITIONER Mr. Lillestrand stated he was requesting pelmbission to replat Lots 13 and 17, Block 1, of Fleetwood Estates, to allow th~n to construct zero lot line double bungalows so that each side could be sold individually. In answer to a question fr~n the Chairman the Manager noted that the Cc~mission was being asked specifi- cally to approve the preliminary plat. The other item is the change in building plans. The Council will act formally c~ this change but the CGrnttssion could take a look at the proposal if they so desire. The Manager noted further that the plans meet all Code requirements and there are no variances required with th~ plat based on the original platting. Mr. Lillestrand reviewed the proposed buildings. He said that on Lot 13, they will build their Plan B, which is their largest building and that it is bigger than the one originally proposed for this lot These buildings are going to be completed finished, up and down. There will be a fireplace in level. The square footage will be almost 1700 square feet. They have received a Fanny May appraisal that came to $170,000 including th~ lot. Newcc~b and Hanson had been the appraisors. Mr. Archie Nepstad, 9225 29th Avenue North, inquired about the finished size of the proposed building. He requested review of tb~ plan. This was granted. Mr. Lillestrand said they hoped they would be owner-occupied units. He added, in response to questions, that they had a standard FHA agreement for zero lot line doubles, which had been reviewed by their at- torney. CGrmissioner Bartos rode a motion recc~amendinq approval of the plat proposed in Case 18-17. Ccranissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wh~elock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 9. The City Manager then reviewed the status of the %DA Elderly Project for the Commission. He said the present plan is to use tax increment financing to purchase the car wash site to allow the project ~o be spread out more and the height reduced to five stories. Council had felt that seven stories was too high. The VOA was now at the top of their budget. This is why the city had becc~e invol~L=d. Tbs city will buy the carwash to make three parcels available. TP~ carwash cost is estimated at this point at $185,000. In order to bring the whole thing into the tax increment district, it is proposed that the Cituf will also buy the two lots and then sell th~m back to VOA. It is intended that the City would also grade the property and do som~ land work to qualify as a redevelo~x~ent project. VOA would repay the city for the cost of the grading. This would bring all three parcels into the tax incr~nent project. Right now it lOOKs like it would cost the city $397,000. The plan does look feasible at this -time. In order to cover the possibility of additional costs, there will be a hearing on April 27th, j~ regard to the use of CDBG funds, for Year VI, should ~this becGne necessary. It would be possible to have up to $164,000 available. At this point it does not se~ that use of CDBG monies will be necessary. HUD is presently reviewing the revised plan and the VOA intends to be hack before the Planning Commission in May with the new building and sita plans. Chairman Can~ron expressed concern o~r the possible use of the CDBG funds. He was not sure that t~he city should get involved. He felt he would vote against this. The Manager said there were two potential problems with tax increment. One is the interest rate at the tim~ and the Other thing is if a hitch developed in the carwash purchase. The Chairm~n asked when the decision would be made; and when does all of this have to cGne together? The Manager said the first part of July, hopefully in June. The VOA is hoping for HUD approval by the end of May. The approval is only on the new bulding proposed, they have approval for the project. ~ answer, to a question frc~. the' Chairman, ~ Manager said there will be twD hearings On the 27th, one o~ the'VOA taX.i~c~ment project and the other on the cGm~unity development funds. They hope that by the time of the hearing they will know that they don't need this money. The plan is to provide an option for t_he use of Year VI funds, in case there Should be a need. If the funds are not needed, they will be .used for %h~ single family hc~e purchase project as originally desig- nated. There were three hc~es scheduled to be purchased in Year VI. Ccranissioner Wheelock asked about the $100,000 in capitalized interest. The F~a%ager explained. PLANNING ~SION MINUTES 6. APPd]~ 7, 1981 9. In answer to a question regarding possible purcl~sers of the bonds, he noted that anyone could buy them, but they would probably he picked up by a bank. The other cost not discussed.was the $100,000 for ad- ditional building costs. It is hoped that very little of this money will be actually needed. This is the maxiuum it should cost for the design changes and the VOA hopes they can talk HUD into giving th~n a little more money for building costs. This money provides a safety belt~ Commissioner Wheelock asked about the willingness of the carwash owner to sell? The Manager said it would he a friendly condemnation. The owner agrees it is a worthwhile cause -- agree- ment must now be reached on price. Cc~anissioner Bartos asked about the number of rocks given the new design? The Manager stated they were still planning 106 units, with the ne~ layout there %~ould be roc~ for a couple of more units, but HUD razst give approval.. However, the project would then need a density vari- ance I~ngthy discussion then followed about the prospect of using the ccz~nunity develotm~nt funds for this project. Concern was expressed about the original use for these funds and the feeling of the Conrais- sion that they should be left as originally designated. The City Manager briefly reviewed the CDBG process and the uses these funds were for. He noted that the funding was given for c~e year at a tin~. Concensus was that these funds should not be used, and ccmment was made that the building should have been left at seven stories with no city involvement of any type° The Chairman noted that the Cc~mission had been asked to review the tax incre~a~nt project and amendment and make a r~dation on the proposed resolution. Cc~missioner Gundershaug moved to adopt the RESOLUTION RECOM/~ENDING APPROVAL OF NEW HOPE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROJECT 81-1 providing, however, a fourth provision be added, stating that the project should be restricted to tax increment only and that no CDBG funds should be used on the project sin~_ they were better used as originally planned, for purchase of rental units. Cc~nissioner Gulenchyn second. Additional discussion regarding these CDBG funds and the Cc~m~ission's opinion that the funds should re~ain to be used for their original purpose -- the purchase of single family hcm~s for rental to larger families. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafsen, Gund~rshaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. CO~MITI~E REPORTS 10. Design and Review Committee had held one meeting in March, on the North Ridge 'Care Center proposal~ 11. There was no report frc~ the Land Use Conmittee. 12. ChaJ~man Gustafson noted that Codes and Standards had met in regard to intersection sight lines and re- ferred to the memo frcm Commissioner Gulenchyn. It was their recommendation that the ordinance should be enforced at dangerous intersections, upon the recc~mendations of city staff, and police. It was also theLr reconmendation that the public be educated in regard to -hhe dangers of these intersections and their aid be enlisted in identi~ing them, as ~11 as informing the public of the ordinance restrictions. It was hoped that the citizens would take corrective action on the/r own. Th~ Chaimm3n as~ d how this could be enforced? The Manager stated by by discussion, verbal warning, issuance of warning tags, and within a reasonable time, if no action is taken, a tag could be issued, which could ultimately end up in court. He confirmed that the City could not go out and cut down the offending encroachments unless they were on the right-of- way. Cc~nissioner Gustafscn stated that the Cc~nlittee had felt that the Ordinance should not be an~nded, as it was at a minimum level now. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recc~nendin~ that the report frc~ Codes and Standards be passed on to the City Council with the Ccranittee/Ccarmission reconrnendation that Alternate ~3 of the report be adopted, with the public information progrsm started. Ccmmlissioner Edwards second. PLANNING COMMISSIGN MINUTES 7o APRIL 7, 1981 Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafs~n, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None ~btion carried. NEW BUSINESS 13. The minutes of the Council and HRA meetings of March 9, and '23, were reviewed. 14. The Planning Cc~ap/ssion ~nutes of ~rch 3, 1981 were accepted as printed. 15. Discussion was tf~n held on the process involved in petitions for Conditional Use Permits for acces- sory uses, i.e. sales in service stations and similar requests. _~CQncensq_s_ was th_at the or~7~ce__should not be changed, that the review process was good, and that the fee charged, while perhaps a little high for sc~e uses, in the long run was not a large percentage of a business' total incc~ from the accessory use. It was also noted that changing the process might open the city up for more problems. Concensus of the Ccranission was that th~ ordinance should be left as it is. A discussion was then held in regard to bus shelters, and whether the city should establish criteria for future construction of such shelters. Concensus was that this should not be_sent fn ~c~mitte~_at this time but be kept under advisement. 16. Chairman Cameron announced that he was making new cca~ittee assignments. Codes and Standards would continue with Paul Gustafson as Chairman, with Jim Gulenchyn and Terri Whee- lock as members. La~_~_d Use %~uld continue with Bernie Bartos as Chairing] and Jim Edwards as m~mber. _.Desigg._.~and Review wculd continue with Bob Gundershaug as Chairman and Jim Edwa~x~s and Gale Friedrich as m~mbers. Chairman Cameron inquired about the status of 36th Avenue at Bo~ne? 17. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . MAY 5, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, May 5, 1981 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. 2o ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Freidrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gulenchyn (excused), Gustafson (arrived at 7:36 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-15 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BUS SHELTER AT ST. THERESE HOME (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 7,) RICHARD LUDWIG, PETITIONER The City Manager noted that he had heard from the petitioner and that St. Thersse had received word from the Transit Authority that they would be building the bus shelter for them and St. Therese would not be involved. They wou~d like their request withdrawn. NO further action vas necessary. 4. PLANNING CASE 81-18 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCE - SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE - ROSEWOOD COP~PORATION, PETITIONER Mr. Gary Nordness represented Rosewood. He said they were asking for approval of a front parking vari- ance and construction approval of their building. He presented illustrations from the original concept from September 1977 and then showed an illustration of the development to.date and how it compared. He stated they had to position the building to avoid the poor soil on the site. This resulted in the front parking and side variance. They are beyond the requirement for green area on the site. The building will be 28,000~ square feet. He noted that since their meeting with Design and Review, they had changed the front of the building. There is now 64 feet of width for the stalls instead of 62 feet. In response to another concern, they have relocated the fire hydrant so it is 200 feet from the siamese connection. As far as the landscap- ing the trees have been relocated a little more accurately on the plan, ~hev have put a flowering crab in front and the plantings have been spaced according to how they will bush out over a period of time. In regard to the truck docks they have added an additional eight feet oi blacktop along the rear parking area which provides 16 feet of clearance which would accommodate a 65 foot trailer. In regard to the sign criteria, it will be well within the Cit~'ordinance requirements. There will be a sign on the front edge of the property within required setbacks. It will be called the Avtec building. There is room for three additional signs on the building, since the building will only accommodate three tenants. Mro Nordness stated there would be no truck traffic at the front of the building other than perhaps a van from UPS° Chairman Cameron requested that the Corm~ission r~view the actual landscape plan. Discussion followed between the Commission and Mr. Nordness regarding this plan. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the building will be sprinklered and will basically match the other building as far as construction materials. They will be a combination of break off block and broken block. There will be concrete parking around the parking lot, with asphalt curb on the outside curb. Discussion returned to the landscaping plan and whether the parking lot would be screened from the street; it is, and where the sod/seed would be located? In answer to a question about added landscaping, Mr. Nordness stated they had basically spread out the material to allow ample room for growth. All trash will be stored inside and there will be lighting wall packs over the personnel doors and over each dock area. The City Manager noted that this should be adequate. ._ Discussion then centered on the spaces allowed for maneuverability of trucks. Using an illustration, Mr. Nordness noted that with the layout, even if a tractor/trailer were parked straight on into the docks, there would still be 16 feet of clearance. Mr. Nordness stated that their experience in the public ware- house business had shown that the only time you tied up docks for a period of time was with the shifting of material goods. The manufacturer that will be occupying two thirds of the building will be getting most of his shipments with van type delivieries. He felt that even if there were two semi's in the docks at the same time you could still get in and out. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the whole west bay was leased and asked how many trucks would service the bays a day. The owners of Avtec thought seven or eight trucks, of the cartage type, and perhaps two or three semis a day. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the sign plan and Mr. Nordness indicated there was one. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 5, 1981 4. The City Manager said it appeared to meet all city requirements. Mr. Nordness presented a copy of the sign plan to the Commissioners. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed, for the record, that the sign plan as presented to the Commission on May 5, 1981 would be the sign plan for the multi-tenant building being proposed. In response to a question, Mr. Nordness stated that a handicap stall had been added, they had widened the lot and added three stalls. Rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building. Chairman Cameron and Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern about the front landscaping, especially since the petitioner was requesting a variance to allow front parking. The ~]airman questioned the skimpy landscaping, inasmuch as the petitioner knew the City's concern that there be adequate landscaping. Mr. Nordness said they were using the existing trees, of which there are several, there will be a berm which will improve the sight lines. ~ Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt that adding eight trees was not sufficient for a 200' expanse. He commented on the condition of the existing trees and whether they should be even considered. Mr. Nordness said he would re-submit the landscape plan and asked for approval of the construction plan as presented. He indicated that he felt he could double the number of trees. The Chairman commented that he felt the existing trees wouldn't last long and suggested that some deci- duous trees be planted. He suggested that the petitioner's landscape architect review the plan and at least double the trees proposed. Mr. Nordness indicated that they would add at least 8 trees to the front of the site. There was no one present in regard to this planning case° Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the construction with variances as re- quested in Case 81-18 for Rosewood Corporation on Science Center Drive,with the condition that additional plantings be added to the front on the landscape plan and that the sign plan as submitted on May 5, be considered the overall plan for the building. Commissioner ~eelock second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 4. PLAN~ING CASE 81-19 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DRIVE-UP WINDOW AT THE BURCER KING RESTAURANT AT MEDICINE LAKE ROAD/WINNETKA - BURGER KING, PETITIONER Mr. Bill Fassbender represented Burger King. He noted he was the Regional Site Planner for the Corpora- tion. He stated they were requesting the conditional use permit to allow a drive-through lane at the restaurant. He noted that at the Design and Review Committee meeting they had been asked for a landscap- ing plan and a possible curbing plan. He distributed these to the Commission. He noted that originally they had planned to stripe the parking and the employee stalls. He noted that at Design and Review there had been concern expressed about maneurverability. Their charts had indicated a need for 24 feet of turning radius; they have provided 25 feet. In regard to the land- scaping they have added shrubs in the back area and also between the existing Junipers. The two pine trees had been removed at the request of the city because they were blinding the intersection. Chairman Cameron asked about the total parking for Burger King. Mr. Fassbender said the total parking had been eight stalls. This would now be reduced by three with the drive through area. They have an agreement with the shopping center for the use of their parking area. They felt that the drive-through would reduce the percentage of sit down customers by 30-35%. They expect the drive through will increase the business by perhaps 15%. He noted that their lease agreement with the center allowed the use of 50 parking stalls within 150 of the premises. Discussion then centered on the potential traffic problem caused by the exit/entrance to Winnetka Avenue. 5~. Fassbender stated the exit by the restaurant was seldom used as an entrance into the shopping center. There was a~other entrance by the median which was used more often. In answer to questions he noted that there was a 30 foot approach and he felt a customer could still make a turn into the drive through area even if someone were leaving. The ordering location will be at the SW corner and this is 120-160 feet from the street; room for six or seven cars. /-~ Commissioner Gustafson asked if they would be willing to close off this exit? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MAY 5, 1981 4. A representative from Burger King noted that they expect to get ~ lot of business from Winnetka and to make everyone enter the site from the shopping center would defeat the purpose of the drive-through window. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the primary traffic pattern was within the shopping center perimeter. Discussion continued regarding the stacking area by the drive-through window -- 140' from the ordering sign to the street. It was noted that there had not been any problem with stacking at the restaurant on Bass Lake Road. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson regarding an increase in manpower, the petitioner in- dicated that there would probably be an increase in employees -- up to ten additional. It was further noted during the discussion about the overhang that there would be sign noting the height was only S'6", for the benefit of the campers, etc. Discussion then covered the possibilities of controlling the exit into the restaurant from W±r~netka, i.e. signs indicating the entrance was to the restaurant, extending the curb, etc. Commissioner Gundershaug indicated that Design and Review had been concerned that there be continuous curbing, even through the middle. This is now planned with three wheel stops to eliminate the overhang. There will be a continuous fence along the rail and to eliminate any possibility of anyone coming tbacough ~the approach over the guard posts. In response to a question from Com~i.'ssioner Gundershaug, Mr. Fassbender stated that snow woHtd have to be removed from the site. Mr. Fassbendered said that they were adding shrubs that would grow to about two feet in height in the spot where the trees had been removed. Commissioner Bartos commented that his principal concern w-as the traffic on the corner. Commissioner Wheelock said she had a major concern with the parking on the north side of the building on the east end. She said that most people don't stop parking in a spot just because it was striped. She has observed that people park solid to the curb and there was no way to get through. She had recently seen a 18 wheeler parked on the east side blocking the entrance lane. She asked if there was anything proposed to stop people from parking there? Any more cars parked than were allowed by the striping, would block the driveway. Mr. Fassbender stated they could contact Mr. Levy of the shopping center in regard to obtaining "no park- ing"signs. The .representative from Burger King noted that in addition to putting on extra employees for the inside work, they would have people policing the exterior area. If problems a~'_/sein regard to keeping the flow of traffic clear, they would address themselves to solving them. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the hours of operation were 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday and 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Friday. There was no one present in regard to this planning case. Chairman Cameron commented that he felt this request was just on the edge of approval. He felt there was a risk involved with Winnetka and a traffic problem potential caused by a car sticking out into the street. He felt it was quite a risk and that the parking situation was messy and potentially hazardous for the customers. He would like to see the parking in the lot addressed to some degree, before it is approved. The Burger King representative stated it would not happen, the chances of there being 10 cars stacked up were very slim, at most there would be five to seven cars. There will not be any parking/stacking on Winnetka. He added that speed of service will be of primary important. Any problems that arise will be dealth with immediately by Burger King. The Chairman asked if the city had received any complaints of problems with the restaurant? The City Manager said there had been a few years ago in regard to kids hanging around but this had been taken care of apparently since he had no calls now. The Burger King representative said that he felt this was different from a franchise operation because any problems that would arise would be handled immediately. He felt safe in saying that the~e would be no enormous problems. It is a workable type of plan. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the problem relating to the exits is really one of cross traffic, people trying to go south at the same time someone was trying to turn in. There was a potential for rear enders. He referred to the Burger King confidence that there would be no problem and asked whether they would be willing to allow, as a part of the Conditional Use Permit, a period of a year to go by and if city staff determines it appropriate, that portion of the conditional use permit that relates to the entrance to the drive-in would be subject to re-review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If problems have occurred there may be a request to close the entrance off. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 ~ MAY 5, 1981 5. Mr. Fassbender said that if this was the way the city wished to approve it, he had no problems with the ~ requirement. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioner had spoken to the owners of the center about the possibility of re-striping the parking lot of the center, or possibly adding some curbing in the area of the Burger King? It was noted that Mr. Levy was out of town and they had been unable to confer with him. Mr. Bob Levy, son of the attorney for the shopping center, stated that as far as the plans go, they really had no problem with them as long as it didn't result in s~me action on the part of the city to affect the entrance and exit to the shopping center. He was not sure if the talk of striping referred to the Burger . King site or the shopping center itself? The Chairman said that it referred to the shopping cen~er lot. He said3the Commission was concerned about people parking all the way down to the street particularly when there was snow on the lot. Mr. Levy said they were pretty close to the maximum of parking ratio now and it was quite possible some- thing could be done, but they were not open to anything that would result in a reduction of the parking spaces. The Chairman noted that he was not sure they would have to lose any parking, that the problem could per- haps be solved with enforcement, and encouraging customers to park where they were supposed to. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion reco~ending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a drive-in window, as requested in Case 81-19, at the Burger King Restaurant at Winnetka/Medicine Lake Road subject to the hours of operation beinq 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day except Friday when the hours would be 10 a.m. to 11 p.m.. In addition, the petitioner had indicated concurrence with the Planning Commission recommenda- tion that after a period of a year of the driveway use, at the request of the city staff, the Planning Commission would again reconsider this request if traffic problems had developed as a result of the curb cut on Winnetka. In addition, the petition agrees to an extension of the curbing to the. property line at the entrance and exit. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gunder~haug, Edwards t~ Voting against: Wheelock Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 81-20 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL FOR A KINDER CARE LEARNING CENTER AT 36TH/HILLSBORO AVENUE - HAROLD JORGENSON, PETITIONER Mr. Jorgenson presented a petition to the Commission signed by people he had contacted who had no objec- tion to his proposal. He indicated that of the people he had visited in regard to the project, 12 had no objections, some he had not made contact with, there were tm houses on Jordan, three on Gettysburg and one on 36th that expressed no objection but would not sign the petition. Mr. Jorgenson said that a Kinder Care Center was a learning and day care center for nursery age up through 12 years of age° The largest number of children would be through kindergarten. They offer a service also of going to schools to pick up children that require care after school. In response to a question from Co~nissioner Bartos, Mr o ?ederson from Kinder Care answered that they were accredited as a kindergarten on the National and State level. It was not a franchise operation. They also have to and from the school if necessary. It is a parent run company. The headquarters are in Atlanta, Georgia. The training is done out ofcorporate headquarters. Mr. Jorgenson said the building would be all brick, a low profile building. The soffit overhang is alu- minum, the windows are bronze aluminum and maintenance should not be any problem on the building. There will be no sign on 36th or Hillsboro. The only sign would be on the building itself. He presented pic- tures of a similar operation. He noted that he had been dealing with a couple for purchase of the dwell- ing adjacent to the site and they had expressed no objections to this use. There will be shrubs screening the parking lot and a Canada Red tree. He had added more landscaping after the Design and Review meeting. He plans to have a wooden fence. He had questioned immediate neighbors as to their preference for a wood or chain link fence with slats. The present plans are for a wooden fence to his garage and a chain link fence the rest of the way. The Chairman noted that there were two issues to be considered. First was the conditional use permit and whether the proposed use was appropriate for this site? ~ In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug the City Manager noted that the petitioner appear~ to m~et the no policy criteria for a conditional use permit, but that the Commission had to make the deci- sion about the amount of screening, traffic, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MAY 5, 198i 6. Co~zaissioner Gustafson noted that he felt the interpretation w~s appropriate to the site, and was pre- ferable to a rezoning. However, he felt the traffic was a concern. The Chairman indicated that with a Conditional Use Permit, the city would have more control. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the number of employees that would be at the Kinder Care Center and how many parking spaces would be provided? Mr. Pederson said this would vary as far as employees. The facility is planned to accommodate 100 stu- dents during the total day. The number of employees would vary. He said it had been their experience that many of the employees walk to work and that there were rarely more than two cars, plus their van, in the lot. He felt a check of any of their day care centers in the Twin City area would bear this out. He felt they did not have a traffic problem in relation to the day care business, because the children were picked up and dropped off at different times° Mr. Jorgenson said he had called the Regional Director of the day care centers to see if she could tell him about the traffic situation. She had said that with the exception of one of their centers in Chicago, where people had to catch a commuter train, 25% of the children came before 8:00 a.m.; 40% from 8-9 a.m.; and 35% after this. He stated that he had personally done a little research of the traffic at this dor- ner and said that the average waiting time on the south side of Hillsboro was 10.5 seconds. There were five times during the period from 7-8 when he had checked that'there were two cars sitting ~t the s~e time, one time each morning when there were three cars. One time, the cars sat longer because of a bus. He did not think it would be a problem. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Pederson said that the facility was controlled and li- censed by the State of Minnesota and that the State had one of the strictest controls in the nation. He said the van would be under the control and use of the Manager of the facility and would not be stored on the site overnight. The center %.~uld not be open on weekends. There will be security lights in the soffits and this lighting was time clocked so it could be controlled and turned off at certain times. In answer to a question from the Chairman regarding the future use of the buildings should Kinder Care leave the premises, Mr. Jorgenson stated that with some interior remodeling it could be converted to housing. Mr. Jorgenson would own the building and lease it to Kinder Care on a twenty year lease. Following additional discussion the concensus of the Commission was that the Conditional Use was a rea- sonable use for this site. Discussion then followed on the landscaping and fencing. Commissioner Gundershaug said he would like to see the fence continued along the rear of the property. He was concerned with continuity. Mr. Jorgenson found no problem with installing a six foot cedar fence. Mr. Pederston stated that they would fence in the entire play area with a chain link fence. ?~atever was necessary, they would do and would work with the landscaping people. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that Design and Review had also been concerned about the screening for the front of the parking lot and whether there would he a berm. Mr. Pederson said that they would prefer not to have a berm, because it was a temptation for children. Mr. Jorgenson said he planned 11 shrubs in the center of the front that would grow to eight feet, back of the fence on each side of the building planned to put sumak, which also grows to about five feet, at each corner of the front a dwarf ninebark that grows to about 4 feet. The two trees to the front are a Canada Cherry which grows to 18-20 feet. There will be two flowering crabs on the east side and on the west side there would be four varigated dogwood bushes. In regard to the plantings in front of the parking lot, Mr. Jorgenson stated they would start to bush out at about two feet in height and would pro- vide good cover. .. There will be security lighting at the doors and a flood light in the soffit. The outside refuse will be screened and on a cement slab. The fencing will be cedar or redwood. The facility will close at 6 p.m. Mr. Pederson noted that their research had shown that the pick up times for the children was also stag- gered, not more than six cars at any peak time. They have never had any problems with traffic at their centers. He offered to give names and addresses of these facilities. Discussion between Commissioner Gundershaug and Mr. Pederson regarding the traffic patterns ~nvolved with dropping children off and picking them up. Mr. Pederson suggested that the Commissioners check out the existing facilities to observe the traffic. ~. Allan Green, 3548 Hillsboro Court stated he lived adjacent to the property. He would have to look at either a fence or a Kinder Care Center. He expected to have his house appreciate.' When he purchased the house it was sold to him as being a single family neighborhood. There were no two's or four's as there are now. There was an empty lot across the street. He moved in in October and almost immediately they broke ground for the two's and four's, with only one way in and out - - Hillsboro. He felt that with the number of people those houses, with the people on his cul-du-sac and the people around the area, PLANNING COMMISSICN MINUTES 6 MAY 5, 1981 6. Hillsboro is a main drag. He felt the issue affects only the area directly around the center. The two's and four's are bad enough without a Kinder Care Center. He felt there would be a chance of vandalism, people hanging around the center when it was closed, firecrackers, etc. This is a residential area and ~ commercial and residential did not mix and save property values. As long as I live in my house I have to look at it. There will be playground equipment and this will tempt children to climb the fence and get on the equipment and get hurt. No one can guarantee how many cars this would add. They also get a lot of school buses in the area from the high school. He doesn't need a fence in his back yard unless he puts it there. He bought his house so it could appreciate in value. Mr. Roy Linden, 3600 Jordan~ stated that he lived directly across the street. He felt most day care cen- ters were not on corners of streets such as 36th/Jordan. He has personally seen five accidents on that corner. It is too busy a corner for this type of use. Mrs. Sandra Debner, 3201 Hillsboro, stated she drove back and forth on Hillsboro quite regularly. She was concerned also by the resale of the houses and said that she had sat at the intersection for as long as eight minutes waiting to go to the junior high. She objected to the ~acility. Discussion between Mr. Jorgenson and Mrs. Debne~ regarding the amount of time you could sit at the corner. Mr. Bissonette,9121 36th Avenue North, which is three buildings directly east of the site. He was quite fa~Hliar with the traffic on 36th Avenue. He said the primary traffic times were 6:30 to 7:45 aom. and 3:30 to 5:45 p.m. Monday through Friday. He asked Mr. Jorgenson when he had taken his survey -- what days of the week? Mr. Jorgenson answered that it was definitely not on a weekend. Mr. Bissonette Daid he also drives on Hillsboro regularly in giving a lady a ride to work. It sometimes takes longer than 10.5 seconds to cross the intersection. Mr. Jorgenson said that the 10.5 seconds was the average over .a two day period. Mr. ~issonette also commented on the narrow road and the condition of the road due to the construction. He said when he purchased his home it was presented as a residential district and he wants to keep it that way. It is difficult to find a buyer for a home these days and he would not want to take a loss if he had to relocate. His wife is also oppsed to the day care center. There is a day care center at ~ Four Seasons and they didn't need one in this area. Mrs. Bissonette said she had sat in her driveway four or five minutes trying to make a left hand turn. It is a very busy street and she doesn't even let her children play in the front yard. 5~. Green expressed concern that the people dropping children off would use his driveway for a turn around as a cul-du-sac is a perfect place for this. Mr. Jeff Solle, 3556 Hillsboro Court said he lives immediately adjacent to the site. He wanted to speak in support of Harold and his plan. He wanted to say that if Harold said he was going to put in meaning- ful landscaping he would do so. He is a good neighbor. He was concerned about the van that %~uld be going in and out and parked on the lot. HE n~ted~-the reference to Kinder Care as a business and wondered if this fit into the R-2 zone. The Chairman said that the ordinance did deal with the use, and allowed an educational institution as a conditional use. Mr. $olle was also concerned about the noise, etc. of 100 kids, since he was a teacher and dealt with 150 kids during the course of a day. He asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the building and grounds? Mr. Jorgenson said he hoped he would be. Mr. Solle said some of the homes in the area were some of the more expensive homes in New Hope and he won- dered what this would do to their value? He said he was against the proposal. Mrs. Bonnie Salper, 3540 Hillsboro Court, indicated her opposition to the proposal. Mr. Pederson, of Kinder Care, asked to clarify some points. He noted that: 1) if you looked at backyards of any Kinder Care facilities you would see they were better maintained than many private yards; 2) he felt their maintenance program was very strict, they had a fulltime contractual program on the buildings; 3) in regard to the concern about the lease, they were a triple "B" lease, which gave them a strong finan- ~cial rating and they would have a 20 year lease with two five renewal options; 4) they try to blend into the residential area and they do qualify as a school type of program. They would like to be on t~is site. Mrs. Bissonette noted that she had been by the Kinder Care in Blaine and it was her opinion that i, and ~-~ its red dome, did not blend into a residential area. They also had 30 tires in the yard for the childrer to play in. Mr. Pederson noted that the facility in Blaine was located in a commercial area and that the traffic was not caused by the Kinder Care Center. The dome in New Hope would not be red, but brown. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - MAY 5, 1981 6. Mr. Lindgren stated he would like to repeat again, that the problem was the corner itself. Mr. Jorgenson restated that the average time at the intersection, over two days between 7 a.m and 8 a.m. was 10.5 seconds. Some took 2 seconds some took longer. He added in regard to the fence that A1 was against -- there was nothing to prevent Jeff from putting up a fence. This is one of the reasons he'went to wood. Anyene could do this. He expressed surprise at the number of people who had appeared against the project. Since he had contacted as many people as he had, he hadn't wanted to impose upon them to come and speak in his favor. He felt that quite a number of the people in the area did prefer this use to more two's and four's and rental housing, which is what a good deal of the two's and four's in the area were. He also felt that a good many of the people in the area thought that it was not only a good location for a center, but that a center was needed. There were people who needed this service. In re- gard to cars, he knew 36th was busy, everyone present knew 36th was busy. How did anyone know that half of the people driving on 36th would not also be the ones dropping children off? Its potentially very possible that a good share of them would. With the amount of concentrated housing in the area, right across the street, there are easily 20 kids within walking distance of one spot, let alone all the other area. He did not feel that the people living in the cql-du-sac were going to be affected by the traffic. Mr. Jorgenson noted that he had thought long and hard before this proposal. He felt the property most affected by the center would be Mr. Solle, the site that is not yet sold, where the potential tenant had not seem to object to the center, and his own property. It was his feeling it was more preferable to have a use that would be closed by 6 p.m. than more rental housing. Mr. Green has an exi~nsive house, but so did he. The center would ~be"closest to his home. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug the City Manager reviewed the list of permitted uses in the R-2. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and const~ac- tion approval for a Kinder Care Center, as requested in Case 81-20, at 36th/Hillsboro, subject to an annual review of the traffic problems; that the hours of operation would be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Co~mis- sioner G~ndershaug second. Chai~nnan Cameron noted that he intended to vone against the motion, not because of the use, the Kinder Care, but because of the traffic situation and the fact that it was a commercial use in a residential area. He felt the red tower would be inappropriate in that area. Mr. Jorgenson noted that the tower would not be red, it would b~ brown. Commissioner Bartos said the city had been fighting the traffic problems for six or seven years and he felt the resistance of the people was legitimate. Commissioner Edwards said he would also have to vote not, primarily because of the traffic problems. Voting in favor: Gustafson, Wheelock Voting against: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gul~nchyn Motion failed 7. PLANNING CASE 81-21 - REQUEST FOR CONVERSICN OF PARTY ROOM TO EFFICIENCY APARTMENT AT 8005 36TH AVENUE NORTH - SAGE COMPANY, HERSCHEL KAPLAN, PETITIONER Mr. Kaptan stated that originally, in 1968, that had two party rooms at the complex. In recent years they had not been getting the kind of use that had been intended and they felt it was better to provide additional housing. The present party room had been used as a storage room for the last few years. Sev- eral years ago they had converted the other party room into an apartment and it had been rented continually since that time. He noted there were approximately 423 square feet in the room. He distributed copies of the proposed floor plan to the Commissioners. The door would be relocated in order to enlarge the bathroom, ~e kitchen %~uld be enlarged, a closet added and it would have the usual appliances. The City Manager questioned the dimensions, since the drawing scaled off to about 336 square feet. City Code calls for 500 square feet. (Petitioner called on 5-7-81 and indicated about 403 feet) Mr. Kaplan _said there was a little bit more footage than shown on the illustration. He added that be- tween the garages and the open parking, they had almost twice as many spaces as they did cars. With the conversion they would have 121 apartments. They have 120 garages and 111 open spaces. Commissioner Gustafson asked if everyone got a g~rage with their lease. 5~. Kaplan said they had never made this a policy but they tried to encourage the tenants to rent garages. A nn~nber of the tenants were older, and did not have cars or even drive. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager said he was not aware of any park- ing problem on this site. They had converted a party room to an apartment several years ago. PLANNING COMMISSION MIND~fES - 8 - MAY 5~ 1981 7. Co~issioner GUstafson asked Mr. Kaplan to confirm the actual square footage of the proposed apartment before the City Council meeting on May 11, 1981. Mr. Kaplan agreed to do this. The Manager noted that he should contact either Mr. Sandstad or himself. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the current code requiremen't was 500 square feet for an efficiency. The conversion would require a variance. Nancy Erickson, apartment manager of the complex, stated that the party rooms were not really large enough to house a party. First, they were on the third floor with an apartment underneath and are-impractical for parties because of the noise factor. Number t%~, the clientel of the complex is now older and they do not have the same party needs as younger people. They have not advertised the party room for the last seven or eight years. It has been used for dead storage. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the apartment conversion requested at 8005 36th Avenue as requested in Case 81-21 with the variance in size, provided that by the time they appeared before the City Council, the square footage of the space had been determined. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Cameron Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 81-22 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL AT 7901 BASS LAKE ROAD - CHRIS SORENSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Sorenson said he was requesting approval of a sign, 2' x 14', that would go over the bays of the ser- vice station at 7901 Bass Lake Road. There are two businesses now at the site. Commissioner Gustafson asked if the present s~gnage at the gas station was all that will be on the site? Mr. Sorenson said as far as he knew there were to be no changes.~in signs, other than adding his. _~ Commissioner Gustafson asked about his ability to speak for Sinclair. He felt it would be appropriate if Mr. Sorenson could get confirmation from Sinclair that the current signage on the site, plus his sign will be all that is planned and that if there is any future signage, it will come within the ordinance require- ments of the city° Mr. Sorenson said he would get this in writLng. He noted that there was a change in his sign as proposed, as far as the colors. He has to use Sinclair colors. The letters will now be red. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the sign for the second business at 7901 Bass Lake Road, as requested in Case 81-22, subj.ect to the petitioner providing Council notification from Sin- clair that this sig~ and'the current signage and any other future signs will be within code. Commissioner Edwards-second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 81-23 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALE - AT 5520 COUNTY ROAD :'~18 - CHAMPION AUTO SALES, PETITIONER Dean Bilbe, in charge of sales and marketing for Champion Auto, represented the petitioner. They are pro- posing to have a warehous sale, that would be a once a year event. It would be held on a weekend, some- time in the spring. This year they are asking for the sale to be on May 29, 30, 31, which is a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The sale will be on their own location, inside the actual building, in the north- east area of the site. They have dock doors, etc..which would be left open during the hours of the sale. It is possibly that they might put some displays in'the area. They would propose to keep the entire operation on their own property. It will be run on Friday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m; on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and on Sunday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. They will sell all new products, items they have chosen .to eliminate and overstock, i.e. snow tires. There will be no spot lights. They would like .to repeat the sale in future years. Commissioner Friedrich asked how many people they would anticipate at the sale. ~ Mr. Bilbe said quite a few ad they will be advertising. They expect there might be 30-40 vehicles at one time. The parking is on the north side and is adjacent to where they plan to locate the sale -- it will hold about 60 cars. The parking site in the front of the building will hold another 100 cars. Com- missioner Friedrich asked if they had any plans for traffic control? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - MAY 5, 1981 9. Mr. Bilbe said they had not as yet planned on this, but one of the considerations they are making is to have security forces hired and they would be more than happy to direct ~he security force to be traffic controllers in the area if this proved to be a problem. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the hours of operation were: 10-8 Friday, 9 - 8 Saturday; and 10 to 5 on Sunday. Mr. Bilbe said they were asking to be able to repeat the sale on an annual basis, for no more than three days at a time, sometime in the spring. The only signage would be of a temporary type, put up in the morning, and taken down at night. The only exception would be a truck load of oil that would have a sign on the side of the truck. The truck would be parked on the parking lot. This would be the only signage left at night. It would be for the three day period only. There will be no signs outside of their property lines. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with the City Manager that there was no other provision in the City Ordi- nance to provide for such a sale, other than the conditional use permit and that the cost was $150. He asked Mr. Bilbe what he felt they would do if they could only get the permit for this year? Mr. Bilbe said they would hope to be able to have the sale in future years, but would accept a conditional use for only this year. The problem was the time involved in coming before meetings, etc. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit as rec~uested in Case 81-23 for a sale to be held at Champion Auto Store on May 29, 30, 31 and that the hours of operation are limited to 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on the days of the sale. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 81-24 - REQUEST FOR AMA~D~ENT TO PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 4217 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH - JACK HOL~{ES, PETITIONER. Mr. Holmes represented the church. He said they were requesting approval of an addition to be on the back side of the church. It would be 50' x 70' and also the addition of a low roof area for t~ purpose of church offices and pastor's study. The project will cover approximately 11% of the site. The parking requirements as based on the sanctuary seating, will remain the same. The green area is exceeded. The front of the building would be brick to match the existing church. The back side of the building will be painted concrete block to match the brick. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with ~he Manager that the addition did not have to be considered in the parking requirements. The Manager noted that the sanctuary was what was considered. The question was if this addition would be used so as ti increase the parking needs? Mr. Holmes said the addition would be used for educational facilities and an expansion of the day care facility. The sanctuary will not expand into the educational area. This area does not lend itself to that.type of expansion. During discussion about future parking needs, a church representative said that when they sold their property to Youth Investment they had retained 25 feet which could be used in the future for parking if needed. He added that the addition was needed for educational facilities, a fellowship room, and a pos- sible expansion of the day care p~rtion. Such an expansion would probably only involve about 20 children. The nursery will no~ expand. There are no parking problems at this time. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired about any landscaping that would be added to the rear of the building? Mr. Holmes said they were planning to berm, and would be willing to add some landscaping if so desired -- perhaps five or six pine trees. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed his feeling that some landscapin~ was needed to break up the long wall. No one was present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug mad~ a motion recommendin~ approval of Case 81-24, amendment to the conditional use and construction a~proval at 4217 Boone Avenue north, subject to landscaping bein~ ~rovided on the north side of the building. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: GulenchI~n Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - MAY 5, 1981 11. PLANNING CASE 81-25 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCE AT 45TH/XYLON- VOA/BOR-SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER Mr. Allan Moe represented Bor-Son Construction Company. He noted they were submitting the plans for the five story building for approval. He had met with Design and Review on the plans. Commissioner Gundershaug noted they had been concerned with the parking and future expansion space and also the need for additional lighting for the parking lot. Mr. Moe said he had called the architect after the Design and Review meeting with these changes, but he had postponed coming up here until the Monday night Council meeting and so Mr. Moe did not have the re- vised plans for the Com/~ission. Mr. Moe said there would be no problem with the parking or lighting° Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that these were the original plans, not revised. Chairman Cameron asked if they could be held up for a month? Commissioner Edwards asked if there was any chance that the building would go back to the original seven stories? The City Manager noted that there were two problems. The project is at the stage where it is teetering. Everyone wants the five stories but there is a problem with the financing and with HUD. He noted that the Governor's proposal was a flat 8% limit on all levies, and there were two other tax increment projects already in process. There would be nothing left for salaries, emergency services, etc. if all of the money was used up for the three tax increment projects. He noted that if the construction approval was held up for a month, there would not be time to get it back before Council, under deadlines. Bor-Son and VOA have to keep things moving to keep in line with HUD. Mr. Moe said they had determined the other night that they have to proceed, cannot hold back any further. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that Design and Review had felt there was more space needed for parking even if only for expansion parking° Mr. Moe said he felt there would be no problem with providing 36 more spaces. The pole lighting for both the parking lot and the walkways was not a problem. He had indicated the concern over the ~ortico to the architect along with the reco~aendation that it be raised to 12 feet. He did not see any reason it could not be, but the architect had to review it. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be wood fencing and that the rear driveway width would be increased to 24 feet. They are proposing to use aluminum panels on the side of the building. Mr. Moe said he did not feel there would be a problem with providing a walkway to K-Mart° He had mentioned this to the architect. He had also told him that the landscaping by the driveway should be lowered. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the plans as presented were not the final plans. Mr. MOe said these were the preliminary plans that had gone to HUD. HUD had to approve them before they could proceed. He hoped they would be available on Monday night. The Chairman noted that he felt they were back in one of the situations where there was actually no func- tion. for the Commission. They couldn't see the final landscape plans or the drawings and Mr. Moe had no answers for them. The VOA didn't feel it was important enough to send someone to the meeting and he felt the Commission was wasting its time. He felt there were several choices left to them, table the request, accept it as is, or in his case abstain from action, or send it forward to Council with no action, since it was their project from the beginning. Commissioner Gustafson s~id he felt if a motion were to be made it should include approval of all of the changes as recommended by Design and Review that were supposed to be made to the plan. The Chairman said he did not feel it was fair that Design and Review had gone to all the trouble to re- view the plan, take their time, and since then nothing had been done. He felt it was wasted motion. Commissioner Gustafson noted he disagreed. He would make a motion that included all of the concerns as raised by Design and Review. If the plan included anything different from that, and the Council decided they were going to approve it, it would be without Commission recommendation. Commissioner Edwards noted that no matter what, the Commission would be in the middle. Commissioner Gundershaug noted he would make a motion listing all of the changes and trust to the gentle- men from Bor-Son and the Council to act ~n them. Personally he would like to see the project go, although he still felt it should be a seven story building, but he did not want to slow the project down for a month. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 11 - MAY 5, 1981 11. Chairman Cameron said he did not think anyone would want to hold it up. Commissioner Gundershaug agreed, but said he wished them to realize that this is what the Commission thought should be approved and were not just giving them a blank check. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion reco~nending construction approval as requested in Case 81-25 with the.following stipulations: (based on the plans as submitted on 5-5-81) 1. That the additional parking be shown on the plan as expansion if not provided 2. That additional lighting be shown on the ~lan. 3. That the canopy be changed for the front of the building because of the need for emergency vehicles to get close to the building. 4. That wood screening be provided around any outside trash containers. 5. That all driveways be widened to 24 feet. 6. That the paneling between the windows and the band around the bottom and top be made of aluminum. 7. That all rooftop equipment be painted to match the building. 8. That a sidewalk be provided between the rear sidewalk and the K-Mart parking lot. 9. That the landscaping be pulled back at the entrances to provide for greater visibility. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. Design and Review Committee had met on April 21, 1981 13. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 14. Commissioner Gustafson of Codes and Standards con~nented that what the Committee had submitted to the City Council was not within their, or staff agreement on the intersection problem. However, he did not think that you could look at a reduction in sight lines, which were at a minimum of 20' now, and say everything is wonderful now, because it was in conformance. Chairman Cameron said he thought it should be reviewed again with staff, lie requested the Committee do this and then come back with another report. He also requested that they review the procedure for obtain- ing a conditional use for sales in industrial areas and find out if a simpler way could be found that would not be so costly, but would still give the city control of the sales. The City Manager noted that it was intended that the notice for a change would be published, a public hearing held at the next meeting on the change in the ordinance. The notice will be to ~nend the ordi- nance. Discussion followed between Commissioner Gustafson and the Manager regarding the liability problem with sigh~ lines at intersections. ,. 15. The Council minutes of the 13th April were reviewed. There had been some discussion about the whole area of housing requirements and the Council had wanted the Commission to review this, including lot size, housing size, more than one family allowed in single family, etc. There were~two problems. The city gets penalized because of lot size, garage size and minimum housing requirements when the Metropolitan Council reviewed, they lost 5 to !0 points. The point' is that there are not any lots so it isn't going to be a problem. Everyone seems to build larger houses and garages anyway. One area to also consider is how many people can live in a house. With walkouts they could easily be converted to accommodate returning family members, etc. This is not now permitted by or- dinance. 16. The Commission minutes of April 7, 1981 were accepted as printed. lS. The Chairman commented on the report on the Housing Maintenance Code and its completeness. 19. Chairman Cameron asked ~bout the signs at the bait shop at ~18 and 36th and whether the second sign was legal? 20. The meeting was adjOUrned by unanimous consent at 10:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~0yce Boeddeker, Secretary We the undersigned have no objection to the granting of a conditional use permit to Harold Jorgenson for the purpose of building a Kinder Care according to the plans submitted to us. S~aid building to be on the S.E. corner of 36th & Hillsboro. ' Rrefer Brown Prefer to.mot, ~'i Address roo~on oe~±'~ower ronda± hOUsing PLANNING CO,~fISSION MINUTES OUNE 2, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, -4401 Xylon Avenue North on Tuesday, June 2, 1981. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN Present: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: ~%heelock {arrived at 7:54 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-26 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERqIT'AT 6144 WEST BROADWAY % CARDINAL OIL, PETITIONER Mr. Pat Dobec represented Cardinal Oil Company. He stated they were in the process of converting the station to self service and in conjunction with this would like to sell packaged items - candy bars,. cigarettes, g~nn, pop, snack items -- over the counter rather than from vending machines. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that they were going to sell only small snack items, not milk or bread. He asked how much floor space would be used for the sales? Mr. Dobec said there would be about 2S% used for the sales. They will also sell automotive related items. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether they felt these sales would be primarily to their service station customers and if they were going to appeal to additional walk-in customers? Mr. Dobec said they did not expect a great deal of walk-in traffic. ~ey will be catering to the pump · customer. He noted that there was space for three more cars to be parked if this were to be necessary. Commissioner Gustafson asked if they planned any additional signs advertising the particular items they Mr. Dobec said there would be possibly a temporary sign advertising a pop sale, but that they plan no permanent signs. Chairman Cameron c!ar~fied that there will be an employee on duty at all times. He asked what the hours of operation will be? Mr. Dobec said they were presently open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday. They do not a~ticipate changing the hours of operation. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, he stated they would be keeping both islands open. He felt there would be.no problem in the company providing striping at the northeast corner for addi- tional parking. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending aooroval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 81-26 - to allow over the counter sales, subject to the petitioner striping three parking spots at the northeast corner of the lot at 6144 ~est Broadway. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, $~eelock, Gulenchyn, Bastes, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundersh~ug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 4. PI~a~NNIMG CASE 81-27 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 4617 HiLLSBORO AVENUE - HAROLD LUND, PETITIONER Mr. Lund stated he was requesting the varfance to allow him to expand his garage to within ·four feet of the side lot line. He wants to expand his single tuck under garage to a two car garage. In response tb questions from Commissioner Friedrich, he said this would be only a garage expansion, and would not have a second story on top. There would not be a deck on top of the garage either. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Lund that the basic roof lines would match, that the siding would match the ·existing house/garage as to texture and color. Mr. Lund said the north wall of the present garage was cement block and that this wall would not be re- - moved. Mr. Lund noted that the driveway was already in and would not have to be changed. He said he did not think drainage would be a problem because there was a valley between the houses now. In answer to a question from the Chairman he said the neighbors had not objected to his plans. There was no one present in regard to this case. PLANNING COMMISSION MIN~JTES - 2 - JHNE 2, 1981 4. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the 'variance requested in Case 81-27 to allow expansion of the garage at 4617 I-lillsboro Avenue. Com~nissioner Edwards second. V~ting in favor: Friedrich, lqheelock; Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. S. PLANNING CASE 81-28 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN AIR CONDITIONER PLACEMENT - 4601-09 XYLON AVENUE NORTH - ROBERT blIDDLEMIST, PE'FITIONER Mr. Middlemist stated he was requesting permission to install the air conditioners in what the city con- sidered the sideyard, rather than the rearyard. ~e main reason is that he feels it will be more effi- cient. Another reason is that to place them in what the city classifies as the rearyard, would be virtu- ally impossible for the one unit. lte presented pictures of the building and its relation to the neighbor for the Commissioners to review. He also had a letter from the neighbor most involved stating there was no objectiQn to the placement. ~e neighbor that would be affected felt there would be less noise if the air conditioners were installed on the side of the house. This neighbor also has an air conditioner on the side of her home -- this was an existing condition when she purchased the house. The lot is backed up to the school and road on three sides. There is only one neighbor. Discussion followed between the City Manager and Commissioner Gustafson regarding the possibility of con- sidering the present sideyard as a rearyard for this particular site. 'lhe Manager noted that if this were done, there would then need to be a variance on the lot. lie felt it would be easier to grant the variance for the air conditioner. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the variance at 4601-09 Xylon Avenue North, as requested in Case 81-28, which would allow the air conditioners to be installed in the sideyard. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, t~heelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. ' 6. PLANNING CASE 81-29 - REQUEST FOR PEP~qIT/VARI~UNCE AT THE WINNETKA SHOPPING CENTER - ROYAL DEVELOPMENT- PIZZA 'FI~E THEATER, PETITIONERS Mr. Mark Teren, one of the owners of Royal Development, stated he was requesting a variance for a family restaurant -- Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theater - which would have an assortment of games/machines using video tapes, etc.. to be built in the t{innetka Shopping Mall. He presented a 4 1/2 minute video tape to the Commission which illustrated the proposed operation and showed the animated characters that would be in the restaurant. Chairman Cameron asked what exactly the Commission was being requested to review. The City Manager stated that there was no need to get Commission approval for the restaurant if the oper- ation was a restaurant. If the Commission felt that the business was an amusement center then another probiem existed. The variance was required for the amusement devices because City Ordinance allows only six electronic devices in a restaurant. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the division of floor space between the restaurant and the fantasy forest where the games, etc. would be located? Mr. Teren said that the restaurant, kitchen, etc. would use about 75% of the space and the Fantasy Forest 25%. Them intend to lease three bays of the shopping center just to the north of Hardware Hank. In responffe to questions regarding the use of the tokens to operate the machines, and the percentage of business that would be strictly restaurant, versus the playing of machines, Blt. Teren said he felt the restaurant/merchandise business would be about 90%. Tokens for the machines are given with ali food orders, and additional tokens can be purchased, lie felt there would usually be not much drop-in traffio for the games ofily. Mr. Teren said that no one under 18 would be permitted in the facility without an adult. The hours of · operation will be 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. every night except Saturday when they would stay open until midnight.~-'--, They would hope in the future to be able to obtain a wine/beer license. 'D~ey would request this from the city at a later time. In response to a question as to whether he would be interested in the location ~ithout a wine/beer license, Mr. Teren said "yes", they would still proceed with the restaurant. He felt the beer/wine would account for a small percentage of the total beverage sales. PLANiNING COb~IlSSION MINUTES - $ - JUNE 2, 1981 6. Mr. Teren said there wonld be a number of games that would be specifically geared toward the young chil- ( dren. They include the cheese crawl, children's spring type devices, the ball crawl (like swimming on land) children type rides ie small merry go rounds, horses, etc. These would account for 22 of the total 80 games. There will be 14 ski ball machines which is a 14 foot alley type game where you roll balls, and. then 40-50 video games - driving, spaceship, etc. There will be no games of the type usually re- ferred to as pinball machines. Chairman cameron asked how they would enforce the rules in terms of age? Mr. Teren said that everyone under 18 had to be accompanied by an adult. The restaurant will have four managers and at busy times there would always be two on duty. There will also be a host/hostess on duty at the front door greeting all guests. It is a very strict policy that is enforced. If in any way, the restaurant started to become a hang out .the7 would only be doing themselves harm. Everyone who en .... ters will come through the front door. Chairman C~meron confirmed that the policy would be that under 18 year olds would not be admitted, unless with an adult. Mr. Teren said a lot of their business was through groups and they tried to appeal to groups, schools, cub scouts, birthday parties, etc. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Teren said that approximately 90% of their volume would be in the food area of the business, merchandise and beverages. Itc added that the chain has been in ,operation since 1977. Royal Development is franchising in this area. This will be the first restaurant. To date, he know of no Pizza Time theater that has failed. There are 40 nationwide. Commissioner Bartos asked about the precautions that would be taken for noise? Mr. Teren said that all of the games have volume controls. They will insulate the elements so that the game noise does not carry out into the dining room and interfere with the animated characters. They also turn the game volume dow~. In response to a question regarding teenagers (under 18) coming in alone to eat, Mr. Teren said this would not be allowed. 1]ney try to encourage that age group to come with an adult, a coach, teacher, parent. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recom~nending approval of the variance as requested for the restaur- ant at the Winnetka Shopping Center, Case 81-~9. He noted that it was the opinion of the Planning Com- mission that the facility was a restaurant with an accessory entcrtainn~ent use attached; that the variance be granted to allow more than the number of devices allowed by Ordinance; and that the variance be subject to an annual review by staff. This .approval is further based on a single entrance into the restaurant. Commissioner Wheelock second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. PL/uNNING CASE 81-30 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT 'FO CONDITIONAL USE PEPs\lIT AT 4225 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH - CRYSTAL EVANGELICAL f:REE CttURCIt, PETITIONER Mr. James Hagman, Chai~nan of the Church Building Committee introduced Darrel LeBarron from Station 19 Architects. He was also accompanied by Pastor Oison and the Church Business blanager, Mr. Webb. Mr. Hagman noted that the church was experiencing growing pains and they were before the Commission to show them what they were thinking of in t~rms of expansion and to find out if this would be allowed as a condition of their permit. Mr. LeBarfon .stated that it was felt that because of the fact that the church was on the property as a Conditional Use, they felt they should do some long range master planning in regard to expansion of the facility. They have prepared schematics of Phases I through IV. Using the overhead projector, he illus- trated these plans and how they would change the site. He said they were interested in proceeding with Phase I now, bu.t Phase II and III were also possible for immed5ate construction. The existing building is approximately 20,000 square feet on a 12 acre site. It is basically a square, with the lower level an educ,~tional level with a fellowship level to the side. There is a third level that is basically a balcony are overlooking the worship space. The Phase I addition would be 11,000 square Feet and would basically fulfill needs existing now. There is some concern within the church that thc needs should also involve Phase II and III at this time. The petitioner is requesting a reaction to the proposed expansion from the Planning Co~mission and City Council before they proceed with actual building plans. Commissioner Gulenchy asked what the time frame for the expansion as proposed was? PL~24NING CO~IISSION ~IINUTHS - 4 - JUNE 2, 1981 7o Mr. LeBarron said he had originally been contacted in regard to Phase I, which was a chapel addition wit3~-~ some youth education space. The intent had been to start on this in the fall. In reviewing the plans, the church had felt that there was urgent for other facilities and that perhaps Phase II and III should also be considered. Phase IV, which would be the activity center, could be ten years away. However, this particular church family had experienced growth every four years. [{e noted that there were presently 627 parking spaces on tile site. ~le main worship area has a seating capacity of 900. ~ley are proposing 874 parking spaces as a maximum. Colmmissioner Gustafson confirmed that this would be single level parking. Chairman Cameron stated that it was z. little difficult for the Con~ission to react since they normally respond to specific requests. They could give concept approval but would at a later time need to react to specific plans. The city's concerns are the traffic, as generated now and in the future. They were : also concerned about the landscaping as it exists and as it is proposed. It was his opinion that the church had been allowed to get by with very skimpy landscaping and he felt ~hat this time a lot more in the way of trees and screening should be included. He was concerned with the additional traffic and how it would be handled. He asked if the proposals included expanding tile nmnber of people to be served, at regular services. ~r. LeBarron said that this could be expanded at some time -- the long range plans include the possibility of opening up trancepts on the sides of the sanctuary to add 440 seats to the capacity. The church pre- sently has three morning services and one evening service. The expansion of 440 seats would be the maxi- mum, in his opinion. In response to a question about parking spaces, b[r. LeBarron stated that the proposed parking increase would accommodate the increased seating according to Ordinance. However, they do have a need for almost all of the parking they now have. They have explored alternative ways to handle the parking problems, i.e. shuttling people from a parking center. }te said the church family was concerned as to whether the city would allow this expansion -- even the first phase of 11,000 square feet. Chairman Cameron noted that he would hate to see the church forced out of the city but the best interests of the City also had to be considered. Commissioner GundersBaug asked whether anything had been done as far as studying the traffic situation? Had the City received any complaints? The City Manager said he had not received any complaints in the last year. Co~,nissioner Gundershaug noted that traffic and parking had 'to be the city's concerns. He asked whether the possible expansion of seating would be a part of the present plans? Mr. LeBarron said it c~uld possibly be in Phase III. ~r. Hagman noted that there was a period of one hour and ~enty minutes on Sunday mornings when all of the parking would be in use -- because of the overlapping of cars because of two services. He noted that the church had been endeavoring to shift the services times to deal with this problem. Pastor Olson stated they had talked to K-b~art about using their parking lot and they had at that time · given them verbal permission as long as it was at the outer lfmits'of the parking spa~e. Mr. LeBarron said that he did not think that anyone *from the church had perceived the kind of growth they would experience. Mr. Rob Wynne, 9017 44th Circle, asked whether the new facilities would add more use during the nights ~nd on week days? Also whether it would involve more traffic? The architect stated that the first phase involved making more room for the nursery and for toddlers, classrooms for junior and senior high students, more space for the library and mission center. Phase II would be taking care of staff needs -- the same staff but they would be providing proper office space. The addition wo~ld provide additional space ~or the people involved in the church now. He noted that most churches experience their peaks during non-working times. Mr. W}mne sa'id there was an immense traffic problem and people parked cars in their circle and other '~-'~ places than in the parking lot. lle was also concerned about landscaping and did not want to look at a sea of blacktop. Mr. Andrew ~llick, 4419 Independence, said he did not agree with the concept of a potential parking ramp to look at. He didn't like the idea of 2400 cars on the street and was concerned about safety for the children. He felt that landscaping also had to be a key concern. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - S - JUNE 2, 1981 7. 5~. Ron Maxhimer, 4437 Independence, stated he was concerned about the parking and the proposed activity center. He said that right now there is noise from the coffee house, especially during the summer late ~ at night. Chairman Cameron asked whether lie had called Pastor Olson about this? ; He said "no", but he was concerned that they might turn the proposed activity center into a coffee house. It was noted that the church did not'want the coffee house to be a part of the church center. blt. Kubick said there was a considerable amount of off street parking now, and jle was concerned for the · children in the area. During a discussion regarding the green space at the north end of the site, it was noted that the ori§inal ~ construction plans had called for this space to be 50 feet wide, even though the Ordinance calls for 30 feet. It was felt that the city would not ~]low this width to change. Mrs. Melanie Wynno stated she had a very grave concern about the traffic. She said it was a jungle on Sunday morning. She asked about the easement mentioned in the notice sent to tile neighbors. The City Manager said the reference to the easement was silmply part of the legal description of the pro- perty and was the easement for the road. The architect noted that the church occupant load for a week was only 14% in comparison with an office building, for example. Mrs. l%'ynne noted that many of the hours of operakion of the church, however, were the hours when the neighbors were home. ~r~ LeBarron commented that there were 1400 children involved in Christian education in. the church. Mr. Rex Shipman, 4413 Independence, wondered about more trees on the borders of the site. He felt this would help a lot to block off noise and the view. He noted that he would rather see the church on the site, even with the expansion, than for example, a pizza franchise. He asked what the alternatives would be if the church coul~ not expand? The architect noted he felt they might experience some pressure from the congregation in that event to sell and move on. Mr. Shipman noted that if this happened, the alternatives might be worse. He asked if there would be any outside speakers at the church? }lo was told no. blr. Dale Nord, 4433 Independence, asked about the exposed expansion in terms of coverage? Tile answer was that Phase I would involve about 25% more building, with 15% more in Phase II. Mr. Nord was also concerned about the traffic situation. The architect noted that the proposed Phase I and II would accommodate the needs of tile people already in- volved in the church family. He added that the parking right now ~s in excess of ordinance requirements. He felt the potential for parking far exceeded the master plan for growth. Mr. Shipman asked what would be wrong with an additional access to 42nd Avenue? The Chairman noted that the County would not permit this. In response to a question regardin~ a stop light at the corner of 42nd~Gettysburg, tile Chairman stated that several years earlier, there had been quite a push for a signal and the County would not even listen. The City ~anager commented that statistics show that if a Stop liRht were installed, there could be a major nee~fo~ ambulances at the corner. He added that the County would prefer to install a median on 42nd. Commissioner Bartos noted that he didn't think there was an easy answer to the traffic situation. Chairman Camero~ confirmed that all the Planning Commission was being requested to do was to react to the proposed first three phases. The architect said they wished to know if, from the city's point of view, the three phases were possible? Commissioner Gundershau~ noted that he was in favor of the project but felt that the whole north side should be screened, l{e was further concerned abort the landscaping on the entire site and that he would not be in favor of a sea of asphalt. These concerns would be addressed when formal construction p]ans were reviewed. Landscaping will especially be considered. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted he would be ill favor of the expansion project if the traffic could be con- PLANNING CO~IISSION MINUTES - 6 - JUNE 2, 1981 7. trolled and the landscaping was well thought out. He was in favo~ of the general concept. Commissioner Friedrich echoed these feelings.· Commissioner Gustafson cautioned the petitioners that concept approval by the Planning Commission and Council did not guarantee automatic approval of final plans. They, however, were now aware of the con- cerns as expressed by the Commission. He also suggested that in regard to the fifty foot green strip on the north of the site, as well as other landscaping on the site, it might be wise to start now to add to the landscaping and add trees to guarantee that there would be a screen/buffer already when the future expansion was completed, rather thzm waiting ~mtil the expansion was completed to begin the screening. · They should start now to provide this buffer. The Chairman felt that the petitioner~ had the feeling of the commission, and noted that the city did live by the Ordinances and would watch the developments very carefully. It was the Planning Commission's res- ponsibility to look at all the amenities of the development. He felt the city had been remiss at the time of o?iginal construction in allowing the skimpy and meagre landscaping on this site. They will want to review a total landscaping plan for the entire site. He added that he felt the neighbors were asking for some communication with the church in regard to the traffic problems. commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recom~,ending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Per- ~Gettysburg, in Case 8i-30, subject to final construction plans for Phases I, II, III being_ presented to the Co.~mission for revie~q and that these plans would include an app?opri.ate landscape plan. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, l'~heelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None }lot ion carried. CO~[Xi ITTE E REPORTS There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 10. '~ere was no report i'rom the Codes and Standards Committee. NE;~ BUSINESS 11. The Council Minutes of April 27th, May llth, and May 26th, 1981 were reviewed for the Commission by the City Manager. The Chairman asked about getting started on the housing review. The City Manager agreed to prepare a report. The Commission ~tinutes' of May S, 1981 were accepted as printed. 15. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundersbaug, the City Manager noted that there would be a public hearing on July 27th, in regard to awarding the cable tv franchise. There are three companies vying for the franchise. He added that once the franchise was awarded, it would be a maximum of 27 months before all of the conan, unities involved had service. The Joint Cable TV Commission had the authority to award the franchise, with individual communities adopting a confirming ordinance later. The ~ity Manager noted that the signs at Archie's Bait Shop were illegal and that the 5wners had been so informed. Commissioner l~q~eelock asked about the traffic/parking problems at Burger King in the blidland Shopping Center. She expressed concern about the situation. She did not feel they were policing the area as they had agreed to do. IS. The meetin, g was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:0S p.m.' Respectful ly 'submitted, yce Boeddeker; Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 7, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 7, 1981 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Assistant Chairman Gustafson. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gutenchyn Absent: Cameron (excused), Edwards (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PI~ANNING CASE 81-31 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 4149-51 JORDAN AVENUE NORTH - MICH- LITSCH BUILDERS, PETITIONERS Mr. Marvin Michlitsch, 4848 Aquila Avenue North, was present and stated that he was requesting the re- .plat because the cement contractor had not positioned the slab correctly when the home was constructed. It is a zero lot line dwelling. The replat would move the common line two feet, so it would be in the middle of the dwelling. Commissioner Bartos questioned whether this change would affect any drainage or utility easements? The answer was "no". Commissioner Bartos then confirmed that, in fact, by moving the line over two feet it balanced the two lots. He was in favor of this. Commissioner Friedrich asked how far the south lot line was from the dwelling. It was determined to be about 13 feet. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat at 4149-51 Jordan Avenue, as requested in Case 81-31. Co~missioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 81-32 - REQL~ST FOR SIGN PLAN CHANGE AT 4950 COUNTY ROAD #18 - JONLYN COMPANY, PETITIONER Mr. John Anderson stated he was the owner of a small real estate firm at 4978 County Road ~18, and that he would like a larger sign for purposes of exposure. Commissioner Gustafson inquired whether Mr. Anderson was an authorized representative of the owner of the ~ building? Mr. Anderson said he was aware that he must also obtain approval for the additional sign from the owner. He was approving before Planning Commission on the recommendation of staff. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked why Mr. Anderson could not use the building sign as an address? He said he felt the exposure of an additional sign would be minimal. He also commented on the fact that the present building and sign plan made an attractive appearance. Mr. Anderson stated he felt he needed the sign so that people would be able to locate him. This had been a problem. Commissioner Gulenchyn expressed his concern about allowing an additional sign that would destroy the existing coordinated sign plan for the building. Mr. Anderson said he also operated a machine shop in the building and had no problems with that sign but he was running into problems with the real estate office as people would have to circle the build- ing attempting to locate the office. In response to Commissioner Gulenchyn's repeated concerns about destroying the existing sign plan, Mr. Anderson referred to other buildings in the area where there were additional signs for purposes of iden- tification. In response to questions he stated that tke proposed sign would be 3' x 8', of sheet metal, with a plas- tic face. It would be white, with red or black letters. There was a chance that the owner might allow only a 3' x 4' sign. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 JULY 7, 1981 4. Commissioner Gulenchyn expressed his concern that if this sign were allowed, then all the other tenants in the multiple tenant building would also request extra signs and the total sign plan approved would no longer be in effect. In ~]swer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn the City Manager stated that tenants in a multiple tenant building were allowed only one sign, according to code. The maximum signage could be 100 square feet, but one one sign per entrance. He added that this request is for an amendment to the existing sign plan as s~bmitted for this building. · In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Anderson said there was one other exposed entrance to the building and that there were about ten other tenants off the mall. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern that all of these tenants would in turn request additional signage. He felt any amendment to the sign plan should be for the entire building and on a uniform basis. The City looks for uniformity in this particular area. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the petitioner had spoken to the owner of the building about his .proposed sign? Mr. Anderson said "yes", he was for it and would authorize a larger sign but was not sure just what size sign. He did not have fu~l commitment at this time. Mr. Anderson said that the building was operated by ~Dper Midwest Management and they had told him they might possibly have to get together with the owners of the building before he could get an answer as to the permitted sign size. They had not thought there would be a problem with a 3' x 4' sign. Commissioner Bartos noted it was his feeling that this request should be tabled until the Commission could be sure that the owner was in favor of any change in the existing sign plan. 'There was no'one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson informed the petitioner that the City of New Hope and the owner of the building had agreed to a specific sign plan and it is the responsibility of the builder, the owner, the city and the tenants to live up to that sign plan. Until the petitioner had agreement in writing with the o~.~er and could indicate to the Planning Co~mission and Council that he was a duly authorized representa- tive of the owner, the Commission did not feel it was appropriate to act on this request. Mr. Anderson said that the Manager of the building had talked to Jean Coone of the city staff and this was the procedure they had been told to follow. The City Manager stated that this was the only that an approved sign plan could be amended, by an appear- ance before the Plsnning Commission/Council. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the Planning Commission could send Mr. Anderson forward to the City Council with this request along with the Planning Commission action on the request, providing that he would be able to present to the Council on the 13th, a written authorization from the owner that he was in agreement with the proposed sign and that he was the duly authorized representative of the owner. Commissioner Gulenchyn said he felt the owner should come before the Commission with a total plan for the building -- he was concerned that all tenants would request appearance before the Co~ission for ad- ditional signs. He felt this request should be tabled. Commissioner Friedrich made a motion recommending Case 81-32 be tabled until such time that the owner presented a si~n plan for the entire building. Commissioner Gutenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. Commissioner Gustafson stated that in essence what the Commission was asking was that a duly authorized representative of the owner of the building, come forward and propose a complete sign plan for the build- ing that would take care of the petitioner's requested sign as well as all other signs on the building. If there was'only this sign to be considered, fine, but if there were other contingencies, the Commission would like to act on the overall sign plan once and for all. He suggested that the petitioner contact City staff to be rescheduled before the Planning Co~ission when they were ready. 5. PLANNING CASE 81-33 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 9400 36TH AVENUE NORTH - THOMAS ~ESTRIECH, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Commissioner Gundershauqmoved to table Case 81-33 until the end of the meetinq~_ C ~on r B_artos · second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JULY 7, 1981 5. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried 6. PLANNING CASE 81-34 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 3433 HILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH - BEVERLY COOPER, PETITIONER Mrs. Cooper stated that they had a single car garage and'wished to expand it to have room for two cars. They wish to have the garage wide enough to allow a 16 foot door. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the addition would put the garage within one foot of the lot line. Mrs. Cooper said if necessary they would go to a smaller door. They prefer to expand the existing gar- age rather than build a new one in the back. They do not need any additional living space and would not want to remove the single car garage from the structure. They have not contacted a builder as yet, but were waiting until they knew whether they would receive the variance. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mrs. Cooper stated that the present driveway was wide enough and would not need to be changed. She said they had received no objections from their neigh- bors to their plan. The addition will match the existing house as to materials, color and roof line. She added that they did not intend to increase the size of the shed that is presently at the rear of the garage. The City Manager asked whether they knew exactly where the boundaries of their lot were and if they had located the stakes? Mrs. Cooper said they had located the rear stake. Mr. Steven Feldman, 3425 Hillsboro Avenue, noted that his house had only one window facing north. His house is about 3%-4 feet higher than the Coopers'. He did not think the addition would be a major problem since his house is also 10-12 feet from the lot line. He had no objections to the proposed addition but would be concerned if they decided to expand the shed. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending approval of the variance as requested in Case 81-34 - to allow an addition to come within one foot of the lot line. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 81-35- REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 5100 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - OLSON CONCRETE, PETITIONER Mr. Bruce McFadzean, President of Tool Products, represented the petitioner. He said they were requesting approval of a 85' x 283' addition to the south and east side of their building. They are also proposing to put in a paved drive with parking on both sides of the drive, which would give them access to their new shipping area at the southeast side of the proposed addition and allow truck traf- fic to move into the plant from the south end. This would provide two way traffic. The addition would be identical in construction and appearance to the existing building and they are proposing additional land- scaping and shielding along the property line and in the vicinity of the proposed addition. The addition will be used primarily for secondary operations or machining operations performed on the castings they pro- duce. A section will be designated for the new shipping and receiving department and the western most section of the addition will house the mold making operation. There will be one employee entrance and one window panel along the south side of the addition. Noting 'that he had observed open doors, etc. at the site, Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether the addition would also have doors and windows open which allow noise to be heard off the site? Mr. McFadzean said that this should not be a problem because the employee entrance should remain closed. In response't~ questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, he stated they operated 24 hours a day but that normally there was no shipping or delivery traffic after four o'clock. There was occasional carry over. They are anticipating that over a period of time they would employ about 75 additional people. They presently have 290 employees. He felt this addition would be over a one-two year period after completion. He felt that roughly 150 cars would be the maximum parked at one time. They are providing 269 spaces. The building addition will match and blend in with the existing building. The south and west walls will be the same and the parking lot will be curbed. Commissioner Gundershaug mentioned that Design and Review had been concerned with the truck traffic. Dis- cussion followed about the maneuvering room and the possibility that one space could be eliminated to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JULY 7, 1981 7. provide additional maneuvering room. The lighting in the parking lot will be shielded and directed do~- ward. All rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building. There will be outside refuse storage~ Commissioner Gundershaug noted that all outside refuse storage was required by Code to be screened. He asked about the pile of pallets presently stored on the site. Mr. McFadzean said they plan to fence in an area on the northeast side of the new extension and the pallets would be stored there. This would be a restricted access area. He said they would consider the use of wooden fencing instead of chain link fencing. Commissioner Gundershaug said that all outside storage was required to be screened. He then questioned whether the landscaping plkans had b~n changed since the Design and Review meeting. Mr. McFadzean said they had been changed somewhat. Design and Review had suggested a screening hedge, but they preferred to go with spruce trees and have included 6-10 six foot spruce trees. They had consulted a landscape company. They had also been told that it would be possible to remove and then replant the Russian Olives on the site and they intend to do this to increase the density on the west boundary. 'The use of the spruce trees will provide year round coverage which they felt preferable. They will also get some screening help from the hill to the east as it provides a natural break of about six feet. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether 44 trees in a 280 foot space would provide much protection from light and noise. He was worried about protection now not when the trees matured in six-ten years. Mr. McFadzean stated they wanted to do whatever was appropriate. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson he stated that they intended the back area to remain basically the same with more attention given to maintaining the lawn area. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that basically most of the expansion was to the area of the machining operations, that the door to the south would bean employee entrance and that usually the employees come in at the beginning of their shift and leave at the end of the shift. Mr. McFadzean said that the shift starting times were 7 a.mo, 3 p.m. and 11 p.m. and that there was a cafe- teria provided on the site. The employees are allowed to leave the site, but they have only 30 minutes and most do not. ~-'~ Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the addition could be put to the east side of the building? Mr. McFadzean said they basically looked at that area as future expansion although they have no plans at this time. He said the rationale for this particular expansion was to facilitate the flow of their product. Commissioner Bartos expressed the same concern for more trees. He felt this area needed more trees. He was in favor of the.spruce and felt they would provide a much better sound barrier. He felt trees were preferable to a fence. Mr. McFadzean said he was open to such suggestions. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager said there had been some complaints about the Tool Products operation, mostly in the summer time when the doors were open.. He personally had received no complaints in the last year. Mr. McFadzean said that part~-of the building was air conditioned. The casting area could not be. He felt the machining portion of the building should have the doors closed at all times except when shipping was in progress. They would provide accordian type doors for protection. He said he would be willing to abide by restricted hours of operation for shipping -- 6 to 6 with the exception of emergency or rush situations. These occasions would be very rare and it would not entail a lot of noise and would be .of short duration. Typically, even in an emergency situation the trucks would be in place before 6 p.m. and would exit to the north. He repeated that this happened very rarely. Mr. Rich Johanson, 8516 50th Avenue, fe~t the majority of everything about the operation had been satisfac- tory. The noise was not too bad. He noted that when he had moved into his home six yea~s.ago he-had checked'and been told that the area behind the homes was a buffer zone and would not be built upon. The doors are open in the summer and there is some noise at night. He had a big concern about the proposed driveway through the site. He did not see why the shipping and receiving could not be done from the north end. He felt the drive would be directly behind his fence, as well as the cars. There is some noise now at the 11 o'clock shift change and if it were that much closer to his property, the noise would increase. He believed this would drastically hurt property values. He ~-~ had no problem with the building expansion, but would prefer trees to a fence as a buffer. He objected to the driveway and proposed parking -- feeling the noise would be 150' closer to the homes. Mr. Jim Rodberg, 8520 50th Avenue North, said he agreed with Mr. Johanson. He had been shocked to hear of the proposed road. He had no objection to the building addition. He did not see the point in the additional road. He confirmed that the road/parking would be only 26 feet from the residential line. He felt the parking should be to the rear. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JULY 7, 1'981 7. Mr. Gary Carlson, 8524 50th Avenue North, said he had the same concerns -- noise and the property values and the traffic coming so close to the homes. He did not like the idea of an industrial building so close to his property. He said his lot did not butt up to the Tool Products lot. Mr. Arnie Ryan, Vice President of M~nufacturing for Tool Products, asked to address the possible noise and trucking traffic increase. They are not increasing their primary product producing area. The net result is that the amount of work put into the parts will be increased. The proposed addition should provide more of a noise barrier for the more noisy areas of manufacture. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that in driving past the site on the way to the meeting, the doors were all open -- he questioned the use of the air conditioning? He though every door on the east side of the build- ing had been open. Mr. McFadzean said that Commissioner Gundershaug must have observed the shipping area. These doors are closed internally -- there is an air lock -- and there would be no noise from that area. He stated that with the addition, the doors that tended to be open on the southeast --- because this was the area that tended to be hot -- could be completely enclosed. ~rs. Mary Day, 8416 50th, stated the proposed road would be very close to her property. She opposed bring- ing the traffic flow any closer to the houses. Discussion continued between Mr. McFadzean and Commissioners Gulenchyn and Gundershaug regarding the park- ing areas, how many employees would be in the lots at a given time and whether the 43 parking spaces pro- posed for the south side could be moved to another area? This move would could provide a 50 foot buffer. Mr. Ryan said that the area Commissioner Gundershaug proposed for parking was where the hillside was that provided some natural screening. Mr. McFadzean said this area would prove to be the most expensive to use for parking and they considered this area to be used eventually for future expansion. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how many additional parking spaces would be required if the ultimate expan- sion were to square the building off? The City Manager noted that depending on the use, there would be a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 55 spaces required. Discussion continued about this and other aspects of the parking needs and whether it woul~be possible to provide space for future parking rather than providing all spaces now and retaining the green area. Mr. McFadzean said he felt he would prefer to go extra on the screening because of the expense of the park- ing to the rear. He said they hoped to break' ground the end of August and have the addition enclosed by November. Discussion continued about a possible table of the petition and whether this would affect the petitioner's time table, the concerns of the neighbors about the proposed road and whether it would affect property values. Also discussed was traffic flow and what~p%$9~, there were in regard to the flow and the room need for truck maneuvering and parking. Mr. McFadzean stated he understood the neighbor's concerns and he was sympathetic to them, however, he pre- ferred to increase the screening rather than completely move the parking and~change the traffic flow. He would explore limiting the use of the south parking, especially in the dark hours. He felt that even with the normal shift change traffic, they might be talking about only 12 cars in the lot even if there were no restrictions. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the parking spaces under discussion were those proposed for the south side of the building. He noted that he personally would not be in favor of parking on the south side of road. In regard to the landscaping he felt the petitioner should at least double the proposed trees. Discussion continued regarding this request and whether it should be tabled to allow them time to address the expressed concerns, the options of different parking area locations and the possible cost involved in the rear location. Mr. McFadzean said he would be will~g to put as dense a screening in as the landscape architect would re- commend. He said he could have this increased landscaping in writing before the City Council meeting. In response to a suggestion by Mr. Johansen about alternative parking locations, Mr. McFadzean said the area proposed by him was where the steepest grade was located and that it would cause the most probl~ns. Mr. McFadzean noted that he was concerned about a delay in time and had also been under the impression that ~he proposed construction was well under City Codes and setback requirements. He felt it wouid be a hardship to set their timetable back. He felt that totally re-thinking the proposal would be a problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - JULY 7, 1981 7. Commissioner Gundersha~29 made a motion recommending a~Ppr~val o.f the construction of-the Proposed addition at 5100 Boone Avenue - Case 81-35 - subject to the following: 1. Ail outside storage areas be screened. 2. Truck traffic limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 3. Parking lot curbed 4. An additional amount of landscaping to be provided on the south side along prpPerty.lin__e. 5. Truck traffic one wav- enterin~ from the north. 6. That the southerl~ 43 parking spaces be moved with the space remaining green area, that additional parking spaces be p~ovi_ded to the north east of the site and that the total be within 10 spaces of the number required by Code. Commissioner W~e~lock second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, P~eelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 81-36 - REQUEST FOR REZ.ONING FROM R-1 TO R-2 AT 4500 OREGON AVENUE NORTH - MAC W. LUTZ, PETITIO~ER MroLUtz stated he owned the property at 4500 Oregon and was requesting the rezoning to allow him to con- tinue to rent the property to two separate couples. He would like either the rezoning, or a variance to allow him to continue as he has been. The house is a walk-out with mother-in-law facilities in the lower level. It is a three bedroom rambler, on a corner lot. Across the street is a multiple dwelling. It had been pointed out to him that this zoning might act as a buffer between the multiple dwellings and the single family homes~ There is also an existing curb cut on 45th, that he would like to retain for use by the lower unit. Commissioner Bartos confirmed with the City Manager that the Commission could not grant a variance to use the dwelling for two families as this is prohibited by State Law. He commented that the people in the home had not taken very good care of the lawn. The City had to be concern about who was going to take care of the property if the house became a double unit. Mr. Lutz said, that as the o~%er, he would be more than happy to accept responsibility for the upkeep. He felt his only recourse, if he could not continue to rent the house to two couples, would be to either sell the house, which was not likely, or to rent it to three or four singles. He did not think that would be in violation of the Ordinance. He had not been aware of the restrictions preventing renting two couples until this had been pointed out to him by staff. Commissioner Gulenchyn co~ented that he felt that the lot had not been kept up very well. He was concerned about the residents who bought homes, because it was an R-1 zone. Mr. Lutz said he felt that definite improvements had been made in the last few months as far as upkeep o f the yard. He would take responsibility for the maintenance and assign this responsibility to the tenants. Firs. Sylvia Maanum, 4509 Nevada, said she had lived there for six years. She said the backyard of the house was unkempt, there were items stored outside, old cars being repaired. She would object to the rezon- lng based on the fact that this was a single family area. If this lot were rezoned, there was nothing to keep others from requesting the same. She felt they had all purchased their homes because it was a single fancily area. Rezoning would de value the homes. Mr.' Grant Johnson, 4421 Nevada, said he lived three houses north. They had a pretty good view of the rear of the house and the goings on there. He said not too long ago, the police raided the place -- there were six cars there from Crystal and New Hope. It caused quite a disturbance. They had heard that this had happened another time, but had not observed it themselves. He did not know what went on there but he felt it was not a credit to the neighborhood. There was enough transient population with the apartments. He felt that if this were granted, what would prevent someone else from doing the same. Elaine Steen, 4509 Nevada, said they had bought the house because it was zoned single family. She felt it would de-value the property around the house. There was enough traffic now. She was concerned about future homes being sold to be used as duplexes and after a while the area would become like other duplex areas in other cities. She did not want the zoning changed. Mr. Lutz stated he appreciated the comments of the neighbors. He had had no idea of the tenant problems. The previous owner, his brother, had repaired cars but was no longer living there and the last car had been removed three months ago. He did not feel there were excess cars now. He appreciated the city's con cernz as we~l as that of the neighbors. He did not intend to be a landlord permanently, but if he did not sell the house and could not use it for a double, he would have no choice but to rent it to Singles. He requested that he be notified in the event of future problems. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Lutz would take the responsibility for the maintenance of the' yard. He then asked the City Manager if three single persons would be allowed to rent the dwelling? The PLANNING coMMIssION MINUTES - 7 - JULY 7, 1981 8. City Manager answered that four singles would be permitted to rent, under City Code. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he felt that any problems with the tenants that disturbed the neigh- bor hood should be reported to the city. He noted that the issue of housing in the City of New Hope was currently under review by the Commission. He felt that the petitioner and the audience had to recognize · that the issue before the Planning Commission was the proposed rezoning. There was no way that the Com- mission or the City Codicil could guarantee the type of resident that would occupay a single home, a double, or a multiple. 'The zoning related to the property. Neighbors are neighbors and do not directly relate to zoning. Complaints should be directed to theappropriate agency of the City. Mr. Lutz said he would appreciate hearing about any problems. Mrs. Grant Johnson, 4424 Nevada, said that several years ago another dwelling had been rented to singles. There had been many parties, and disturbances. She had received a letter from the City stating there could not be more than one family in a house. The City Manager noted that between 1961 and 1977 City Code allowed five single people to reside in one dwelling. Mrs. Stene said she was not concerned with who lived in the house as long as the zoning remained single family and they took care of the place and minded their own business. She objected to zoning that allowed multiple occupancy. Commissioner Gustafson stated that under the current zoning restrictions of the City of New Hope, four single people could reside in one house. Mr. Lutz commented that he felt one problem was the way the State handled homesteading -- conditions today price a single family out of that particular home. Commissioner Friedrich made a motion recommending approval of the rezoning from R-1 to R-2 at 4500 Oregon as requested in Case 81-36. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Commissioner Gustafson noted in response to a question from the audience, that every person has the right to request that the zoning of their property be changed. Voting in favor: None Voting against: Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, G~ndershaug, Gulenchyn Abstain: Wheelock Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion denied Commissioner Gustafson said he had a concern about this issue, because the Planning Commission had been re- quested'by Council to review the housing options in the City. He was also personally concerned, because of experience in his neighborhood, about permitting four singles to reside in the house. He suggested the pos- sibility of a stay of enforcement for a period not to exceed one year, or until such time that there were changes made to the Zoning Ordinance in regard to housing requirements, multiple usage etc. He asked if this would be permissable and whether such a suggestion could be recommended to Council. The City Manager said he thought this could be recommended to Council. Commissioner Gustafson then asked whether there were any things from a standpoint of health or safety that should be revised now, to comply with City Ordinance? The City Manager noted that he understood that Mr. Lutz had taken care of the immediate problem with the wiring and that he would be required to modify the lower basement windows if the below grade bedrooms were to continue to be used. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion requesting that the City stay enforcement of the zoning restrictions for 4500 Oregon Avenue, for a period of no greater than a year from this date, or less if the Council makes changes in the housing or zoning requirements of the City. This stay of enforcement relates to al- lowing two unrelated couples to reside in the home for the next twelve months. Commissioner Bartos second. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that the stay of enforcement would allow the home to be rented to two cou- ples for a period of not to exceed one yea~, or until the City determined whether any revisions should be made to the Housing Code. The request for rezoning would then be back before the Planning Commission for action, unless Mr. Lutz in the meantime sold the home. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Abstain: Wheelock Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 JULY 7, 1981 9. PLANNING CASE 81-37 - REQUEST FOR ZONING CODE CHANGE AS TO RESTRICTIONS FOR'SIGHT DISTANCES'AT INTBRSEC- SECTIONS - CITY OF NEW HOPE, PETITIONER ~ The City Manager noted that this request was back before the Commission as a result of their recommenda- tion earlier on the sight distances at intersections. Council had preferred to modify the ordinance pro- visions to something that could be lived with and enforced 100%. They had referred the matter to staff. Staff had felt that because of the 15 foot boulevards, the ten foot setback would be adequate and that some plantings or structures would be allowed within that area, provided they were not more than 24" wide within eight feet of the ground. The proposal before the Co~nission is to amend the text to change the length of the sides of the sight triangle to ten feet, and allow some encroachments. Following discussion it was recommended that the last sentence of the proposed amendment "All public ....... i ......... section." be removed from the text. Commissioner Gulenchyn said that it was difficult for him to believe that ten feet was an acceptable sight line. It seemed to him you needed more. He felt that ten feet would provide for some very unsafe inter- sections. Commissioner Gustafson stated that, in his opinion, the City may relieve itself of some culpability in this case by revising down to a ten foot ~in~mum, but in terms of protecting the citizens of New Hope, the revi- sion of the ordinance was very very bad. At twenty feet it was a minimum. As an example, he referred to the intersection at Bass Lake Road/Boone where the fence bad been installed according to Code. He felt this was a very unsafe intersection, particularly at night even with the stop light. At intersections without signals, where there were large trees or hedges, he felt it would be more dangerous. It seemed to him that for the safety of the people of New Hope or anyone traveling through New Hope there should be a sight line at corners of at least 20 feet. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending that the ordinance revision as requested ~n Case 81-37 be denied and that the ordinance be enforced as currently written~ including the statement referring to reasonablness of enforcement. Commissioner ~eelock second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Edwards ~ Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 81-38 - REQUEST FOR REZC~ING FROM B-1 TO R-5 AT 45TH/XYLON AVENUE NORTH - CITY OF NEW HOPE, PETITIONER The City Manager stated that this rezoning was to carry out what had basically already been approved. The rezoning involves the car wash site and will provide for all three parcels to be zoned R-5 to allow the construction of the elderly building to proceed. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the request for rezoning from B-1 to R-5 at 45th/Xylon as requested in Case 81-38. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundersha~g, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. 11. PLkNNING CASE 81-39 - REQUEST FOR ZONING CODE CHANGE TO PROVIDE FOR RENTAL BUSINESS AS A PERMITTED USE IN A B-3 ZONE - GUY ST. MARTIN, PETITIONER Mr. St. Martin, 4804 Lakeland, stated he was requesting that provision for a rental business be added to the B-3 zone. At present the B-3 zone is for auto-oriented business. He is interested in leasing the site at 7100 42nd Avenue North. In answer to questions from Commissioner Wheelock, Mr. St. Martin said ~hat he was presently involved with Broadway Rental and in looking at the area as a whole, there was not any place in New Hope, Plymouth or Maple Grove with rental facilities and a large number of their customers come from these cities. He said he was part owner of Broadway Rental. He did not intend to make any structural changes in the building, the only changes would be in signage and fencing. He intended to rent the basic equipment that homeowners might need, lawn mowers, chain saws, garden tillers, tables, chairs, car repair equipment, small tools, electric drills, cement mixers, small bobcat and items of this type. Co~nissioner Wheelock asked what portion of the outside yard would be for outside storage? Mr. St. Martin said that the sides of the building, and rear would be used. The area facing 42nd Avenue will not be used for storage. He would have a minimum of a three year lease. The normal hours of opera- tion will be from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. six days a week. There would be no Sunday operation unless the demand developed. Commissioner Wheelock asked about the peak traffic times, in view of the already heavy traffic on 42nd Avenue. She also asked about the type of fencing he would use. PLANNING C05~ISSION MINUTES - 9 - JULY 7, 1981 11. Mr. St. Martin said the busiest day would be Saturday and he felt that the busiest hours would be 8-10 a.m. and 4-5:30 p.m. during the summer. Business is slow during the winter. He would prefer to use chain link fencing but there would also have to be some type of screen. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the City did not have a specific zoning text that would cover this type of business. The Commission/City was interested in gaining information from Mr. St. Martin that could be used in devising such a text. He asked if he would have any problem with reaching agreement with the City/ Council/Commission regarding the specific type of items he would have for rental, the location and type of fencing, the screening required, ~]e type of lighting and the surface .requirements and size of rental items? Mr. St. Martin said he did not think he would have a problem with the conditions with the exception of the restriction as to size of the items that could be stored or displayed. Discussion continued regarding the possible requirement for curbing, the need for all signage to conform with the City of New Hope Sign regulations, possible restrictions on the appearance of the building/site, the need for no significant changes to the character of the neighborhood and the restrictions that might be placed on the type of items for rental. Mr. St. Martin said listing individual items might become a problem because of the constantly changing items in demand. He would find no difficulty with having types of classifications or categories listed, and would be willing to work with the City in regard to establishing these classifications. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the petitioner's time table, because the amendment to the text would take some time? The City Manager noted that if the Commission was looking at the business as a principal use, the present public hearing would be sufficient. However, if the use were to be a Conditional Use, the petitioner would have to apply to the City for such permission when the text change was ready. He noted that the petitioner could apply for the Conditional Use smd that the text amendment could be handled at ~he same meeting in August. Mr. St. Martin felt this would be satisfactory. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether there were any Commissioners who had a problem with making ~is a principal use? There was no disagreement with this proposal. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about traffic and'how it would enter the site? He was concerned about any excess traffic on the side street. The City Manager noted that there was a curb cut on the side street and two on 42nd Avenue. Discussion followed in regard to possible traffic flow. Mr. St. Martin said that most of the equipment to be rented would not involve traffic entering the enclosed area, most of it could be handled by hand. In answer to a question from the City Manager in regard to the choice of this particular site, Mr. St. Mar- tin said that generally it was because it was available. He said that the trend was to smaller rental stores, located in residential areas. There will be a maximum of three e~ployees at any one time. Discussion followed on parking space need, the expectations for customer parking needs, the fact there would be no trucks over 12,000 GVW and there would be no crawler type tractors. Mr. St. Martin said he felt that with the location and the type of items to be ren~ed, there would be a maximum of ten cars at one time. In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos he said he believed the total site area to be 140' x 160'. He is waiting for a site plan from Phillips Petroleum. He indicated he would be willing to meet with the Sub Committee of the Planning Commission to review or offer guidance on the types of items for rental, within the next 30 days. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 81-39 until the meeting of August 4, requesting that the petitioner return to review the ~roposed text and that in the interim period the petitioner consult with the Codes and Standards Committee. Con~issioner Bartos second. The City Manager confirmed that it was the concensus of the Commission that this proposed use should be a principal use. voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gutenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. PLAN~ING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - JULY 7, 1981 11. Commissioner Gustafson requested that Mr. St. Martin prepare a category list for the Committee's review, and also list what he felt his needs would be for this particular site. 5. PLANNING CASE 81-33 The petitioner bad still not appeared. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 81-33 until the meeting of August 4. Co~nissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, ~-~eelock, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: ~ameron, Edwards Motion carried COMMITTEE P~PORTS 12. The Design ~nd Review Committee held one meeting on Case 81-35. 13. There was no report from the Land U~e Co~nittee. 14. 'Eaere was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 15. Because of the lateness of the hour, the Chairman stated that the Housing Report would be reviewed and discussed at the meeting of August 4, 1981. 16. The minutes of the Council meetings of June 8th and 22nd were reviewed. 17. The Commission Minutes of June 2, 1981 were accepted as printed. 20. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J6yce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 4, 1981 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, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards Absent: Friedrich (excused), Gundershaug (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-3~ - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN CHANGE (CONTINUED FROM JULY 7,'1980) 4950 COUNTY ROAD #18 - JONLYN COMPANY, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Edwards to table this case until such time as the petitioner requests another ap- ~earance before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gundershaug Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 81-33 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIkNCE (CONTinUED FROM JULY 7, 1981) - 9400 36TH AVENUE NORTH ~ THOMAS OESTREICH, PETITIONER Mr. ~Oestreich stated they had established a bait shop in connection with the service station. He recog- nized that the allowable signage had been discussed at the time he had appeared before the Planning Com- mission earlier. Through an error, the sign now on the chimney had been painted when he was not present. He had received a ticket from city staff for the non-conforming signs. He has now brought the one sign, on the wall, into conformance and was requesting a variance to allow him to keep the sign on the roof that states " ' bait shop". He f~]t that the roof sign -was the only one that was visible from the roadway. He noted that when the park was extended around Medicine Lake there would be more people looking for a place to purchase bait and the roof sign would be important to business. The City Manager asked if the Inspector had stated that the wall sign was now in conformance with City Code? The answer was "yes". In answer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Oestreich said he thought the roof sign was 3' x 4'. It was mounted on the chimney~ Commissioner Gulenchyn commented on the fact that signs had been discussed when Mr. Oestreich had appeared before the Commission earlier, and that the Planning Commission had stressed the need for him to conform to City Code. Chairman Cameron stated that he remembered that signs had been discussed before. He personally was not very kindly disposed to granting the variance. The City had a sign ordinance that most everyone obeyed and the basic philosophy of signs in the city was to give direction, not advertise. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion denyin~ the variance requested in Case 81-33 for a si~n at ~400 36th Avenue North. Conunissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: 'Wheelock, Gu]enchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gundershaug Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 81-39 - REQUEST FOR ZONinG CODE CHANGE TO PROVIDE FOR RENTAL BUSINESS IN R-3 DISTRICT - (CONTINUED FROM JULY 7, 1981) Chairman Cameron referred to the action of the Planning Commission at the meeting of July 7, 1981 in which they had recommended that the B-3 use list be amended to include a rental business. He noted that h~ did not see the connection between such a business and the B-3 Zone, which was auto oriented. Further he did not see how this use could be a principle use in a B-3 Zone. This concerned him, because he felt that onceoa use was defined for a zone, the City would give up a ~reat deal of control and one it was established, the City would have no leverage to control the activity. It was the Chairman's understanding that the petitioner had agreed to meet with the Codes and Standards Committee and he was also afraid this would provide for future headaches for the city because of the PLANNING COMMISSION 2 AUGUST 4, 1981 5. danger of creating an ordinance for a specific use. Commissioner Gustafson noted that one of the items discussed at the July meeting had been the need for a listing of the categories of equipment that might be handled by a rental business. He had received such a list from Mr. St. Martin, via the city, on the 22 or 23 of July. He had talked to Mr. St. Martin by telephone in regard to these categories and possible criteria, etc. He now felt it might be better to back track and treat this business as a Conditional Use. He added that first he felt the Commission should decide whether this was a business that was needed and wanted in New Hope and then decide whether or not this was a business~that should be included in the B-3 Zone, either as a principal use or as a Conditional Use. Discussion followed regarding these questions and the proposed site for the rental operation. Chairman Cameron said he could not believe that anyone could believe that this piece of property should be used for a rental business? He was really concerned about this. Commissioner Bartos said his biggest concern was all of the equipment that would be on the lot, behind the fence. He was also concerned about the neighbor to the north. He felt there was no way the site could be kept orderly. Commissioner Gustafson noted his o~ly concern was the (1)° the Commission first decide whether it was de- sirable to have a rental business in the city, (2) what the appropriate zoning ~hould be, and (3) whether such a business should be as a Conditional Use or a Permitted Use? He noted it was possible that once these questions were answered, the particular site discussed would not be appropriate. However, the original questions had to be answered first. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted he liked the idea of having a rental business in the City, under a Conditional Use Permit, so the City could retain control. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, the City Manager said that if the Committee had not as yet had an opportunity to review the proposed category list, he would suggest the case be tabled. Chairman Cameron'asked if Mr. St. Martin was present? Mr. St. Martin was present ~d stated that he would like an answer at this meeting as to whether or not the Con~nission felt that a rental business was desirable for New Hope. He noted that the site in ~ues- tio~ had'been available and this was why his request had been for adding the use to the B-3 Zone. When Broadway Rental had 'decided to open an outlet in New Hope, they had not intended the operation to be the same size as their Brooklyn Park operation. They want a facility to take care of the needs of the home .owner and small contractor. The category list he had submitted to the city had been to help in adding to the use list so that restrictions could be included in the Zoning Code. He had included all of the items currently available for rental. They did not plan to include all of these items at the proposed location. Mr. St. Martin said he felt B-3 provided easy access to the residential customer and that 80% - 90% of their customers would be from the community, not contractors or heavy business users. In regard to the B-3 being a zone limited to auto oriented business, he felt that a rental business did carry a variety of automotive equipment. He said he was very aware that New Hope was concerned about visual pollution. I was his feeling that if the business were to be permitted, the Code would allow the use only if it were contingent upon its being satisfactory to the surrounding area. Chairman Cameron said he was concerned about providing controls for a particular use, not in trying to design an ordinance that would allow a business in New Hope. Mr. St. Martin said he was aware that rental stores did not always have a very good image. He was still willing to work with the Committee to come up with something that would be workable for the City. In response to the Chairman's statement that it was very likely that the use could not be permitted on this particular site, Mr. St. Martin stated that the type of operation they wished to open would be very similar to the type of traffic that a hardware store would create. He said he would expect to have a fence be a requirement. The Chairman noted that the process of amending the Code could take several months as it involved a.review process that included what was allowed in other communities, as well as the process of changin~ the ordi- nance. In response to a question from St. Martin as to whether the process could be speeded u~ if the business were to be a Conditional Use, the Chairman responded "no". Discussion then centered on the proposed business and the types of items that would be rented, whether or not this was something desirable for New Hope, what the proper zone would be for ~uch a business and the'procedure to be followed if it was determined to be desirable for the City.. It was the concensus of the Commission that a rental business would be desirable for the City, but that there must be concern for protection of residential areas. pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 - AUGUST 4, 1981 5. Mr. St. Martin stated that if they were allowed to have this business in New Hope, it w~uld be a satelite of their Broadway store., The City Manager stated that a logical step'would be to send the matter back to Codes and'Standards to allow them to review the proposed use and what restrictions should be imposed. Following discussion about the business and the appropriate zoning for such a business, it was the. con- census of the Planning ComMission that the use was needed in New Hope but that the Co~mmission did'not agree that the proper zone should be B-3. Chairman Cameron referred the question of amending the Code to allow rental business to Codes and Stan- dards for review with the request that they report back to the Commission as soon as practicable. -- Mr. St. Martin asked for the reasons that the B-3 Zone was inappropriate for this business? The Chairman stated that the B-3 Zone was for automotive services. The rental business did not qualify as that. He added that rental business was a unique activity and that it did belong somewhere, but not in the B-3. 6. PLANNING CASE 81-40 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE WITH VARIANCE FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE AT 5001 HILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH '- ASSOCIATED PARTNERS, PETITIONER F~. Mayer Krupp represented Associated Partners. He stated they had purchased the former Federal Tool building and would operate a plumbing/heating business from the office portion. They hope to rent the other two thirds of the building for warehousing. They are requesting permission to convert a small green area -- 50' x 40'. to outside storage. They intend to screen the area and use it for storage of vehicles, welding machines, etc. so that these items will not become an attractive nuisance to passers by and children. They intend to screen both from #18 and the service road. There is a five foot berm by the parking lot to the west. They will re-locate the trees that are in the green area. They are also willing to add more shrubbery in the area and feel it will be almost impossible to see within the proposed fenced area. They would end up with 33.5% green space rather than the required 35%. They feel it is important to their business to have this fenced yard area. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Associated Partners operated a pl~.bing and heating business and that they propose to use the requested fenced area for storage of vehicles, welders, air compressors, and some building materials. In response to questions Mr. Krup said there would perhaps be 4-5 trucks parked. He confirmed that Associated Partners are the owners of the building. He said they did not need the entire building and hope to rent out the remainder. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson about the number of employees, Mr. Krupp said they had 14 employees that would 'work in this building. This has been a stable number. They have thought of adding two extra offices for two estimators, but do not anticpate any other increase in employees. In response to questions, he said there would be about 15,000 square feet for rental, approximately two- thirds of the building. He added that another reason for using the proposed exterior space for storage was the desire to have it close to the building and the possible need for a ramp into the building. They feel the ramp could be worked out within this area. He said that eight pine trees would have to be re- moved from the green area but they would be willing to put them someplace else. Chairman Cameron stated that unless there were specific landscaping proposals, it was impossible for the Planning Commission to react. They need to know how many, the type of planting, and where they will be located. It is not the Planning Commission's job to plan the landscaping.. Mr. Krupp stated he had not consulted ~ landscape person yet but there would be 16 trees and maybe some high bushes and shrubbery. Corm~issioner Gustafson suggested that the Planning Commission give concept approval to the Conditional Use and Variance requested, subject to the submission of final landscape plans. Planning Commission would then be able to give final approval. Commissioner Edwards said he would prefer to~ table the request until the commission could see the land- scape plans. He asked about the type of materials that would be stored and' the type of trucks that would bring the material to the site? Mr. Krupp said they would use their own trucks. They do not wish to go into the warehousing business. There would be a minimum amount of material stored because they tried to return any excess. The trucks would be of the service type, as large deliveries go directly to the work sites. There are docks to the east of the building. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Krupp repeated that there would be four to five trucks and that the other equipment could not be stored inside because they were gasoline driven air- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 AUGUST 4, 1981 6. compressors and welding machines. It would not be safe to store the gasoline inside. They are afraid that these machines would be attractive nuisances to young people if left unscreened. It was suggested that they fence in the parking area and leave the green space. Mr. Krupp stated this would require more fencing and that they preferred to have the storage located clos- er to the building, especially if they decide they need a ramp into the building. They also felt that the proposed location would be less noticeable. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending concept approval for conversion of the green area into fenced storage, as proposed, reducing the green area to 33.5%, subject to final approval by the Planning Commission of a landscape plan and final approval of the layout and fencing, including t.he ramp location. Commissioner Wheelock second. The City Manager confirmed that the petitioner should appear before the Design and Review Con~nittee for review of their revised plans. The meeting will be on the 18th August. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, gundershaug Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 81-41 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW SECOND GARAGE AT 4649 GETTYSBURG - CLIFF HELLING, PETITIONER. Mr. Helling stated he had revised his request since it had been first submitted. He would now like to position the requested garage at the south ~nd of his backyard. He is requesting the additional garage space so that he can store his antique cars and eliminate the two storage buildings and car trailer that is presently parked in his front yard. He felt this was unsightly. He has checked with some of the neigh- bors. He presented a petition signed by some of them giving approval. He would need the variance to al- low him to position the garage five feet from the property of Mr. Anderson and because of the additional size. Commissioner Wheelock asked how many cars Mr. Helling presently had on his site and how much traffic there would be. He stated that the second garage would be mainly for storage of his antique cars in a safe place. There would be no driveway between the existing garage and the new garage. He had previously been given per- mission for a ~/k space behind his garage. There are presently eight cars on the site, including the fami- ly cars that are driven regularly. The antique cars are used only occasionally and for parades, etc. He does not intend to eliminate the rear door of the garage. In response to questions as to whether he intended to stop at four antique cars, Mr. Helling stated he could not afford more. It was an on-going hobby, he did not intend to stop working on cars. He hoped the cars would provide college money for his children. He indicated he had some problems this summer with vandalism both to his home and to the cars. This is another reason he wishes the garage, to get the cars into a safe building. Renting space off the site would nullify the investment gained from restoring the cars. In answer to questions about what will happen to the garage if he sells off the cars, Mr. Hel!ing said he did not intend to give up the hobby as he has two sons and they work on cars together and he hopes they will continue to. He did not know how the extra garage would affect the future saleability of the house, this ~uld depend on an individual buyer. He did not intend to move in the near future. It war his opinion that the garage would be a nice addition as he had a huge backyard. He felt that the out buildings he had now were much more unsightly. He did not think the extra garage would have a negative affect, there is still a targe free area. The garage would be in the spot they formerly had a swimming pool. There is a five foot fence all around the yard. The garage peak would be 10 feet and the' location for the proposed garage is approximately three feet lower than the base of the fence. Commissioner Wheelock confirmed that the proposed garage would be 20' x 20' on a slab, with no windows, a steel door and that there would be no apron. Mr. Helling noted that he was concerned with the breaking and entering and vandalism that seemed to be on the rise in New Hope. .~--~. Co~missioner Gustafson noted that all of the residents of the city could be victims of attack or break Mr. Helli~g stated that his property had been vandalized three times so far this summer and this caused them a great deal of concern. They tended to sit up and wait for the vandals to come back. PLANNING C09~MiSSION MINUTES - 5 - ' AUGUST 4, 1981 7. Commissioner Bartos commented on the fact that should F~o Helling sell his property a future owner could use the additional space for a car repair business. Mr. Helling qHestioned whether this could be done with the city allowing it? H~ added that he felt the garage would eliminate a lot of the extraneous things now around the house. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he stated he still had two children in school and had no plans to move in the near future. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. He~ling said he had eight cars, four of them family cars. With the new garage he would have only two in front. They were presently attempting to sell one of the family cars. The workshop is not used as a garage. Mr. Jim Huch, 4608 Hillsboro Avenue, stated he lived directly behind Mr. Helling. He was opposed to the garage. He has a rear walk out and a rear living room. His yard is like a park. He had moved to New Hope from St. Louis Park because of the lack of garages and alleys. He did not see how this could even be considered. He did not want to look at it. The Helling backyard has had cars and frames in it. He did not sign the petition approvaing the addition. Chairman Cameron asked if Mr. Huch felt the garage would be more unsightly than the car frames? He said "yes", once the garage was up, it w~uld never come down. The City Manager noted that there had been one other call in opposition. Helen Marsh, 4681 Gettysburg was opposed to the garage. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked how Mr. Helling felt the garage would affect the property? He was concerned a little about the effect on the value of the house behind him. Mr. Helling answered this was a tough question. He felt he had a beautiful back yard. He would not ex- cuse his hobby. He already has a fence you could n6t see through. He considered the fenced backyard to be private. He said it was true he did bring things out into the yard to work on them. In his opinion, a lean to shed and car trailer were more unsightly than a garage. He did not want to have neighbors upset with him~ In terms of Mr. Huch's view, no trees would be eliminated and moving the shed and trailer would give him a d~rect view to the street. In his opinion the garage would help to beautify both the front and back of the property. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there would be no additional driveway because of the proposed garage. ~n answer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, the City Manager said a homeowner was limited to one shed but'there was no restriction on a car trailer. Mr. Fred Niederlogh, 4664 Gettysburg, across the street in the front, stated he would be very much in favor of Mr. Helling putting up a garage and removing the car trailer. This would also eliminate the three cars now in the front yard. He had no objection to the cars because he knew Helling had use for them, but he felt it would improve the view for the neighbors across the street if the garage were built. He added for the record that at no time did Mr. Helling park his cars on the street, he always kept them on his property. Commissioner Wheelock made a motion recommending approval of the variance requested in Case 81-41 for a second garage at 4649 Gettysburg, subject to the condition that u~on completion of the second garage, the car trailer and out buildings were removed. Commissioner Gustafson seconded with the addition that the petitioner agree that the roof line,' color and texture of the garage would match the existing house. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: Gulenchyn Absent: Friedrich, Gundershaug Motion carried. Mr. Huch asked whether there was anything else that could be done to block this? He said there were neigh- bors that had fel~ this could not go through and didn't bother to come. The Chairman informed him that the City Council would meet on Monday night and they will have a hearing similar to that at the Planning Commission meeting. He noted that the variance as requested was to allow additional garage space. Mr. Huch asked if everyone could have a second garage? j The Chairman stated that the City went by total square footage for garages, 90~ feet was permitted. Commissioner Gustafson noted that anything in excess of the 900 feet ha~ to be requested at a public hear- ing and approved by the Planning Commission and Council. The'City Manager noted that Mr. ~uch always had the right to go to court and he. suggested that ~. He~ling check with the development conditions to determine if there is a private covenant forbidding a second gar- age. This would be recorded with the deed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - AUGUST 4, 1981 ' 7. In answer to a question from Mr. Huch, the Chairman stated that anyone who wished to haye garage space in excess of the permitted 900 feet would have to appear before the Planning commission and Council and present a reasonable case for their request. 8. PLAN/qING CASE 81-42 - REQUEST FOR ZONING CODE CHAi~GE TO PE~IT AN AUCTION HOUSE~IN THE B-4 ZONE -·A.A. THOMPSON, PETITIONER Mr. James Thompson stated they were interested in leasing the space in the New Hope Center where the Red Owl store had been, to conduct auctions. He was requesting that the City amend the zoning code to allow this use -- auction house -- in the B-4 Zone. They would have bi-weekly auctions unless the demand was greater. They currently conduct auctions at the Crystal KC Hall weekly. They deal primarily with estates, attornies, estate administrators and buy directly on the open market. In answer to questions from Commissioner Wheelock, he stated that an auction takes up to four hours to run, that there is a three to eight hour period preceding an auction to allow people to ~iew merchandise and that when they were not conducting auctions the premises would not be open. They might occasionally have an antique show on weekends, maybe twice a year. They do not store things over a long period of time but are continually bringing new merchandise in. Most merchandise leaves the site when sold. They do have a delivery service but when something is sold thay expect to have it removed within a reasonable time. They use two 14 foot trucks for deliveries and perhaps once a month a 40 foot jumbo semi might sit in the lot for a day. The trucks would be no larger than ~uld have been on site when Red Owl was the tenant. There would be 10-21 people employed on the premises. The space Qould be locked when there was no busi- ness being conducted and they would not have a guard. He advertises in local papers and in the Minnea- polis Star and the St. Paul papers as well as the yellow'pages. Mr. Thompson said his offices were located at 4090% West Broadway. The ~pace used for the actual auc- tion would be large enough to accon~nodate up to 500 people with storage in the back. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson Mr. Thompson said all the materials sold would be sold from the building, not from the parking lot. The operation would be basically like that run at the Crystal KC Hall. They are mainly not involved with new or surplus merchandise and primarily handle es- tate sales. In response to questions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Thompson said he was interested in moving from the KC Hall because he wished more space and that he had as yet not signed a lease with the center. He would like as long a lease as possible. He would like to have 500 people at an auction but usually there were between 200-500 per sale. The sales attracted all kinds of people and he had not experienced any problem with children. Chairman Cameron co~nented that this was another case of a business desiring location in New Hope, that was not covered by the Code. He stated again that the process involved in amending the ordinance was a lengthy one. He asked Mr. Thompson if he had considered renting space in an industrial area? He felt this was important retail p~operty that should not be tied up to this type of business. Mr. Thompson noted that it was his understanding that retail sales were not allowed in industrial areas. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked if there was a chance the traffic flow would harm the existing businesses? Mr. Thompson said he felt that if you were in business, traffic was your business. Chairman Cameron said he though a business that would be open 12 hours a day, every day, would be better for New Hope than a business open twice a week. Mr. ~ompson said he could be ope~ daily if this would be necessary. Discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding the proposed use and Code change and whether or not this was a good business for the City and whether this· particular location was desirable. The Chairman stated that first the Commission must determine whether this business was wanted or needed in New Hope. Discussion then continued about this subjec~ as well as other auction houses in the metropolitan area, i.e. Quick Auction and Antique Resources, as well as the areas of the communities these auctions were located in. The concensus of the Planning Commission was that New Hope needed an auction house as a business. However~ the majority of the Commission felt that the Red Owl Center was not an appropriate plac____~e for such a busin Chairman Cameron then officially referred the question of amending the Zoning·Code to allow auction houses to the Codes and Standards Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - AUGUST 4, 1981 8. chairman Cameron then asked the City Manager if he would indicate to the City Council that the Planning Commission and the Codes andStandard Committee would like some additional direction from the City Coun- cil on the tw~ proposed Code changes before the Co~ittee invested too much time in reviewing these proposals. Mr. Thompson said all he wanted was a fair shake and that he was willing to spend time with the Committee if this were desired in discussing the proposal for an auction house. He requested that he be informed of the direction the review was taking and the decision on the Code amendment. The Chairman suggested that Mr. Thompson call the City Manager after a period of time to check on the progress. 9. PLANNING CASE 81-43 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7101 3tST AVENUE NORTH - R. L . JOHNSON, PETITIONER Mr. John Duffy represented the petitioner. He stated they were proposing to construct an office/warehouse building at 7101 31st Avenue North. The office space would be in front with the warehouse space in back. They will build into the hill as much as possible and landscape as much as possible to screen from the street. The dock doors are set back into the area between the offices and will be visible only from the north. The construction does not require any variances and the zoning is correct for this use. He was appearing before the Commission be6ause of the size of the project. Mr. Duffy said there would be office space with a mezzanine above and warehouse space. They had found that many tenants preferred to have their office space on a mezzanine. If they chose this, the space below would be for storage. They do not intend to use both the lower portion and the mezzanine as office space. They have provided 261 parking spaces which he believed was according to Code. The City Manager confirmed that either the lower portion or the mezzanine would be used for office space, not both areas. The problem is that parking will limit the number of employees that can be in the building. In response to question, Mr. Duffy stated that the building area of the site would be 39.8%, and the green space 35.6%. There will be security lightin one candle power, around the entire perimeter. The fixtures will be wall mounted. There will be fire doors at grade level, with controlled stairways coming up to them. There will be continuous curbing in the parking area and the rooftop equipment will be screened. In answer to questions from Com~ssioner Edwards he stated that the driveways would be 24' in width, ex- cept by the office where it would be 30' There will be 20' stalls and refuse storage will be inside. The building will be of architectural block, split face. They are attempting to match the Process Display building. There will be a break off block rim with a trim piece at the top of the building. They plan to use earth tones, with darker trim. Commissioner Edwards aksed about a landscape plan? Mr. Duffy said they had a plan drawn by Dundee nursery. There will be quite a bit of landscaping around Mr. Kranz house and around the entryway. The green area will be sodded around the building with hydro mulch 40-50 feet from the building. They intend to leave the three maple trees at the northwest corner of the lot. Mr. Duffy noted that when the cul-du-sac was put in a lot of trees and debris had been piled on the lot. This would be cleaned out. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the parking to theeast would be marked as "visitor parking only". He then inquired about a sign plan? After a brief discussion, Mr. Duffy said they would prefer to address the sign plan at a later time. He noted that the front of the building would be to the east, fo~ setback purposes. Mrs. Kranz, 3043 Lpuisiana, expressed concern about the drainage, noting they had had problems in the past. Mr. Duffy stated that a drainage plan had been submitted to the city. They propose a berm, with~ a swale to the culvert so the flow will go around to the west. The City Manager confirmed that the city will review the drainage plan, stating that final Council ap- proval is always subject to the final approval of any drainage plan, prior to the issuing of a building permit. There were no further comments in regard to this request. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommending a~roval of the construction plans for 7101 31st Avenue, Case 81-43. Commissioner Wheelock second. PLANNING COMMISSI°N MINUTES 8 AUGUST 4, 1981 9. Voting in favor: ~eelock, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Frie~ich, Gundershaug Motion carried. COMMI~EE ~PORTS 10. ~sign and Review met on July 21, 1981. 11. Thee was no report from the Land Use Committee. 12. There was no re~rt from the Codes and Standards Committee. ~t was noted that they did have the two proposed code ~en~ents to review in the near future. OLD BUSI~SS 13. The next item discussed was the review of the housing report as prepared by City staff. The ~air~n commended ~e City Manager on this report. Discussion followed about the housin'g re~rt and what action should be t~en by the Commission. ~e Chai~an noted he felt this was too large an issue for only the Commission to decide. He felt it was worthy of a total community project. He felt a community,de committee should r~view the problems of housing for the future in the City of New Hope. He was concerned that "our children" would have no place to live. He would ~ite the Mayor a letter stating this position and requesting direction. N~ BUSINESS 14. The City Manager reviewed the Council Minutes of July 13th, and 27th. He noted ~at the C©uncil had adopted the £ntersection encroachment revision changing ~e requirement to the 20 foot restriction. 15. The ~mmission Minutes of July 7, 1981 were accepted as printed. 17. Co~issioner Gus~fson questioned the size of ~e trees that had been planted at Bass ~ke Road/Gettysbu] He felt they were less than the min~n rqquirement. The Manager stated he would have this checked out. 18. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 1. A regular ?~eting of the 'Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held at the City Hall, 4401 xylon Avenue'North, New Hope, Minnesota on ~aesday, September 1, 1981. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN Present: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos (excused), Gustafson (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-32 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN CHANGE (CONTINUED FROM JULY 7, 1981) - 4950 COUNTY ROAD ~18 - JONLYN COMPANY, PETITIONER The City Manager stated that staff had finally reached the petitioner, who was attempting to contact the owner of the property, and he had requested a table of Case 81-32 until the meeting of October 6, 1981. Commissioner Edwards made a motion tabling Case 81-32 until the meeting of October 6, 1981. Commissione~ Friedrich, second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 81-40 - REQUEST FOR SCREENING FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE - 5001 NILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH - ASSO- CIATED PARTNERS, PETITIONER Mayer Krupp represented the petitioner. He and the City Manager distributed updated landscape plans to the Commissioners. Mr. Krupp stated they were just finishing up the remodeling of the office space at the site. They had been requested to return to the Commission with detailed landscaping plans at the meeting in August. They had requested Dundee prepare a plan that illustrated all of the plantings. The existing trees are Ash, 4 or 5 inches in diameter and they propose to retain the existing trees on the top of the berm and double up and add some shrubs - Cottoneaster - also on the berm which are supposed to bush out and grow' to about eight feet. · They had determined that the ramp would not work out very well in the enclosed area and had removed it and placed it at the rear. They are planning to replant the pine trees from the berm. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug Mr. Krupp stated that the gate size would be 12 feet. They intend to use a type of security fence - chain link with wooden slats. They will not use the plastic strips. ~%ere will be no truck traffic, except for their own pickup trucks, in the storage Commissioner Gundershaug expressed satisfaction with the landscape plans as revised. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the landscape plan as submitted for. 5001 Hillsboro Avenue North - Case 81-40 - subject to the slats in 'the security fenc. in.g bei~g..made of wood. Commissioner Friedri~b second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, G~undershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: . Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 81-44 - REqUEST FOR APPROVALOF PRELIMINARY PLATATQUEBEC AVENUE, SOUTH OF 42ND - RALPH DEJARLAIS,'PETITIONER Mr. DeJarlais stated he was requesting permission, to replat the Old Dutch property to allow a warehouse ' to be built on the parcel. They would keep the bottom portion of the property to be deeded to the YMCA with the City retaining an easement on the property. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the plat would meet all the minimum size requirements for lots and that the petitioner was aware that there was no access to the south lot. He asked if the YMCA was aware cf their intention to deed the property to them? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - SEPTEMBER 1, 1~81 ' 5. Mr. DeJarlai~ .said that he had spoken with YMCA representatiyes and that the proposal is presently being reviewed by their, attorney. C6~nissioner Edwards further noted that a ~en fo~t NSP easement wo~ld be_ required on the east of the property and that .the City would require an easement across the proposed Lot'l. The City Manager noted that there should be no problem with the proposal for easement access to the south lot for City maintenance purposes. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommendinq approval of the preliminary plat on Quebec Avenue, south of 42nd, as requested in Case 81-44, subject to the granting of two easements, one to NSP and the other to the City of New Hope.' Commissioner Gundershaug second. voting in favor: Freidrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 6, PLANNING CASE 81-45 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING FROM R-1 to R-2 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BOONE AND MEDICINE L~2<E ROAD - J~S ROBINSON, PETITIONER Mr. James Robinson stated he was the contract purchaser of the property. He is requesting the rezoning of the single family lots into four zero lot line lots. Chairman Cameron asked him if he had any preliminary justification for this request? Mr. Robinson said the property has been a problem for some time because of drainage problems and the utility easement across the center. The rezoning and the new plat seemed to him to be the best solution he could come up with for solving the problems.' Chairman C~meron said that in order for the Commission to recommend a rezoning, the criteria for a re- zoning had to be met -- either that a mistake had been made in the original zoning, or that a significant change had occurred in the area to justify the rezoning. The reasons for a rezoning could not be merely economic. The Chairman requested that Mr. Robinson address this concern° Mr. Robinson said he was not sure he could but that the rezoning would be one way of solving a problem. Commissioner Edwards commented on the need to determine whether or not the rezoning would be justified before the Commission addressed the request for a preliminary plat. He felt it was necessary to determine whether the rezoning would be beneficial to the community. He felt the petitioner must answer how and why t~is rezoning would be desirable. Mr. Robinson noted that he guessed he ~ad not addressed this ~roblem~ The Chairman noted that the City had recently completed work-on a Comprehensive Plan for the City and at that time the existing zoning had been determined to be correct. A petitioner had to give some justi- fication why the zoning should be changed· He requested that the petitioner explain a little bit about the drainage problem for the Commissioners. Mr. Robinson said there was a culvert under Medicine Lake Road that occasionally blocked up because of debris being dumped into the vacant lots and that this had caused problems. The City had always had a management problem because of this and Mr. Robinson had received several calls regarding cleaning up the lots. In answer to a question .from the Chairman regarding why it was preferable to build four zero lot line home units rather than three single family homes, he stated that the drainage easement ran right through the middle of one of the lots. By building on the ends, they could avoid the poor soil. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the shape of the lots and confirmed that the present proposal was for one dwelling.to exit on to Boone and the other to exit on to Medicine Lake Road. Mr. Robinson stated that the shapes were a result of the square footage requirements of the City. They would actually prefer a differently shaped lot. Chairman Cameron stated that the rezoning should be discuDsed first. Mr. Robinson stated that all of the surrounding property had be~ndeveloped. These lots have not been PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES - 3 - SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 6. developed b~cause of the drainage problems and he had thought this proposal would better solve the pro- blem than another. With four units you could spread the cost of the land and the utility problems and maintai~ a.higher quality unit. The four units would be zero lot line and would be' sold to individual owners. He does not o~ra any rental property and does not care to. M~.. Barry Wold, 8533 27th Place, stated his property abutted 1 1/2 of the lots. He was against the re- zoning. He had put a substantial investment into his home. He understood the drainage problems and felt the City had been ~elpful in solving somD of these problems. He noted that the traffic was horrendous on that corner. He said the owner who abutted the rest of the property, had been unable to attend the meeting, felt that if a driveway were any closer to the corner than their driveway it would be hazardous. They felt three single family homes would be perfectly adequate - going from three homes to four would increase the traffic. He questioned the proposed setback of the homes - 30 feet - when he thought that the City requirement for setback was 50 feet. He was also afraid the homes would be sold to renters rather than owners. He added that if the proposed widening of Medicine Lake Road went through the one home would be only 15 feet from the roadway. It was Mr. Wotd's impression that the drainage area served at least 17 homes and he felt that all of the owners agreed with him that the property should not be rezoned. Mr. Sol Bernick, 2725 Aquila Avenue North, stated that he felt that virtually all of the neighbors were in opposition to the multiple zoning. He noted that this was not the first time this had come up, about ten years ago there had been an attempt to convert the property to duplexes. Mr. Bernick added that the Comprehensive Plan had taken a lot of work and it had left the property zoned R-1 instead of changing it to R-2. He felt the property was more suitable to single family dwellings. He was concerned about multiple families or single people moving in to the dwellings. Mrs. Gordon Tiedens, 8517 27th Place, noted that the traffic was atrocious on the corner now. She was also afraid of the drainage. She agreed with previous comments. Chairman Cameron asked whether the City Engineer had looked at the proposed plans? The City Manager noted that there was a problem that could be handled in one of two ways. A 15', pipe could be installed to handle the run off or the grade could be changed. You would always have the pro- blem of the blocking of the culvert. Mr. George Robinson, owner of the property, stated that the lots had never been proposed for anything at all in the past. Mr. Dick Hathaway, 8520 Medicine Lake Road, said he had been a resident for 18 years and felt that the - biggest problem for anyone was the drainage problem in, the area. He felt that a good deal of ~%e problem today was caused by the engineering of Golden Valley. He was concerned abou~ what type of drainage they were planning, regardless of how many homes would be placed on the site? He was concerned also about driveway positions. However, he felt that something should be done about the property as it was nothing but a mud hole now. Mr. Wold stated he did not want to mislead anyone. The drainage problem %~s there but they did not feel this was the major problem. They did not feel there should be multiple dwellings on the property. They had no objection to single family homes. Mr. Steven Quist, 8525 27th Place, stated he and his wife were in agreement with the other statements. He felt the congestion at the corner was bad. They were .against multiple family units. Mr. James Robinson said he had discussed his proposal with the Traffic Department of Hennepin County. They had indicated they were not, at this time, requiring any additional right-of-way. They had requested that one driveway exit on to Boone rather than Medicine Lake Road and ~at the n~mber of exits on to Medi- cine Lake Road be reduced by having the two proposed units share a common driveway (Lots 3 and 4). He felt the residentS' concerns were valid and they had gone over all of th~se concerns when considering the proposal. He stated that if they were to build single fancily homes they would have to access into the turn lane and it would cost about $10,000 for a 15" pipe to handle the drainage. He felt that proposal was a simple solution but it would cost a lot of money. He added that because of the drainage problem there had never been a sewer/water stub put into the corner lot. To do this now will cost $2500 -- a lot more than if it had been done originally. The proposed units would be owner-occupied. He felt a single family house could also be rented. He felt that by spread- ing the cost of the utilities, they could build a better quality house. Chairman Cameron suggested that the Commission had found in the past that sometimes ah informal meeting with the neibhbors, over coffee, with discussion about concerns and proposals was effective and might al- lay some of the neighbor's fears. Mr. Robinson answered that he had discussed this proposal ~i~h Mr. Wold, Mr. Smith.and Mr. Zuehl. He felt they were the people most affected as the adjoining property owners. In response to questions from the Co~issioners, the City Manager noted that single family homes had to PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES 4 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 6. to have access to Medicine Lake Road and that the setback requirement for both Boone and Medicine Lake Road was 50 feet. This might cause a problem also because the lots were only 125 feet deeD. A variance could be reciuested. I~ answer to a qu~stio~ from the Chairman regarding the proposal to place homes 30 feet back, Mr. Robin- son said the only way they could be positioned further back would be to go into more extensive drainage work. The ditch is now about 12 feet down from Medicine Lake Road. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding the correction of the drainage easement~ Mr. Robinson said it would take a lot of money to correct this. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending denial of the rezoning requested in Case 81-45. Com- missioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson · Motion carried. The City Manager stated that the request for preliminary plat should be tabled until after the City Coun~ cil had acted on the rezoning request. Commissioner Edwards made a motion tabling the. r.e.quest for a preliminary plat in Case 81=45. Commission- er Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, 'Gus tafson Motion carried. 7. PI2LNNING CASE 81-46 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO SIGN PLAN AT WINNETKA MALL '- PIZZAi'TIME TH~LATER, PETITIONER Mr. Erick Segal represented the petitioner. He stated they were proposing to install a 17'3" x 7:3" sign on the front of one of the three bays they were 'converting into the Pizza Time Theater. They were re- questing the variance because the sign exceeded the !00 square feet allowed and because they propose to extend the sign intc. the block facade. The City Manager confirmed that !00 square feet was the maximum allowed by Code. There is no longer a~ restriction on letter size and a wall sign was not covered by letter size anyway. Mr. Segal said the sign WOuld be 125 square feet. ~e amendment is reqUired'because the sign is differ- ent from those proposed by the original developer in the comprehensive sign plan for the center. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, the City Manager noted that a letter had been re- ceived from Mr. Dan Shak, representing the owners of the Center, giving approval for this change in sign plan. In response .to questions from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. segal said the sign would be plastic, smooth faced, with back lighting. Commissioner Gulenchyn then confirmed that each of the three store fronts if rented separately would be allowed up to 100 square feet for a sign. F~. Segal said that if the sign were approved this would be the only sign the business would request. In response to a question from the Commissioners, the City Manager noted that Lund's, Hardware Hank and the bank had all received variances for signs in the past. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that because of past variances to the sign plan as originally proposed and because one sign ~uld ~eplace the possible three signs allowed for the space, he was in favor of grant- J_ng the sign amendment/variance. The Chairman agreed with this, he had no objections° Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the proposed sign plan in Case 81-46 including permission to drop the sign into the brick area and granting the additional square footage -- 126 square feet rather t~han i00 square feet. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Freidrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards . Voting against: None Absen=: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 8. PLANNING CASE 81-47 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES AT 7117 BASS LAKE ROAD - TOTAL PETROLEUM, INC., PETITIONER 9. PLANNING CASE 81-48 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES AT 7231 42ND AVENUE NORTH - TOTAL PETROLEUM, INC., PETITIONER Chairman Cameron stated that these two requests were identical but for different locations. He felt it would be possible to consider them together, with separate motions as to action on the requests. Mr. Louis Auerbach represented Total Petroleum. He stated.they were requesting the Conditional Use Per- mits to allow them to sell candy, potato chips, gum and pop o~er the counter in the two stations. At the present time there is a blocked in area where the cashiers work. They intend to knock this wall down, put in a counter, and have people come inside to pay for their gasoline and also to pay for any retail items purchased. In answer to questions from Commissioner Wheelock, Mr. Auerbach said they expected that a good share of the retail businesS would come from regular, gasoline customers. They would hope to also draw new cus- ~ tomers. The stations are both open 24 hours a day. In response to questions Mr. Auerbach said that there would be about 192 square feet used for the sales area. He did not anticipate that that the addition of the sales would affect the traffic situation. Mr. Auerbach said that of the 72 stations he works with he had never had any problem with ~arking. There was sufficient parking space at these two stations. Commissioner Wheelock asked whether the petitioner intended to advertise the addition of retail items for sale? Mr. Auerbach said they planned no formal advertising but would probably have a sign on the inside wall or something like that. Chairman Cameron asked how many parking spaces there were at each station? Mr. Roger Chancelor, Supervisor for stations in this area, stated that the sales were basically impulse items. They did not anticipate that people would drive in, park and come to shop. They expect customers to purchase items when they go in to pay for gas. He said the station on Bass Lake Road has at least ten parking spaces and the one on 42nd Avenue had more than ten. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager said that both stations were very well main- tained and the only question in regard to parking was the degree of business there would be over and above the gasoline business. Mr. Gastuch, 4209 Nevada confirmed which stations were being discussed. He stated he lived right behind the 42nd Avenue Metro Station and that they were constantly having to pick up trash, pop cans, etc. every morning, from Paros and the dairy store. He questioned whether adding this type of sales would also lead to the same situation regarding trash? He was also concerned that it would become a hangout for kids. It seemd to him that there were plenty of places to shop for these items now. Mr. Chancelor noted that Total Petroleum had an image to maintain and their stations were kept clean. 8. Commissioner Wheelock made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested for 7117 Bass Lake Road, in Case 81-47. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 9. Commissioner Wheeloc~'made a ,notion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested for 7231 42nd Avenue North, in Case 81-48. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting. against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. Chail~an Cameron suggested that the petitioners try to do something to encourage their customers not to litter. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTEs - 6 - SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 10. PLANNING CASE 81-49 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCE ON QUEBEC AVENUE, SOUTH OF42ND AVENUE NORTH - SALLY DISTRIBUTORS, PETITIONER .~r. Tom O'Connell of Benson Orth represented the petitioner. He was accompanied by Joe and Bruce Kane from Sally Distributors. Mr. O'Connell stated that the site in question was on Quebec Avenue, east of the YMCA and was the same site as discussed in Case 81-44. TSqey are requesting construction approval and a variance in frontyard setback on the cui-du-sac. He noted that since their meeting with the Design and Review Committee, the northeast corner interior truck ramp had been eliminated. They have also spread additional landscaping in the form of low shrubs to be mixed in with the trees, particularly in the driveway area. They have noted the future easement, in regard to the ponding area access, on the site plan. In regard to exterio~ treatment, Mr. O'Connell stated that the owner had a preference for a tilt up panel (Fab Con), treated in a multi-tone color, in decorator or embossed paint, in the Sa~ly logo. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that they had cut the building back to accommodate the truck area in the rear by putting in a jog in the building. He questioned how the square footage was the same with this proposed change? M_r. O'Connell stated there will be 42,000 feet in the warehouse area and 4,800 in the office area. They have added a 10' x 200' area at the south side of the building to accommodate for the area eliminated for the trucks. Discussi6n then centered on the number of parking spaces to be provided. Mr. O'Connell stated there would be 64 spaces. ~Co~missioner Gundershaug noted that if they did not provide more spaces now, it would be necessary to indicate on the plan, where expansion parking could be located if needed. The City Manager noted that the petitioner had provided enough parking based on the square footage, but they also were required to provide one space for every employee on the maximum shift of the warehouse, which should be 84 spaces. ~-~ Mr. O'Connell said there was a grassy area to the south that could be converted to parking. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that this area be indicated on the plans before the petitioner appeared before the City Council. Ne then confirmed that there would be three truck docks at the northeast corner of the site. Discussion centered on .the truck maneuvering room. Mr. O'Connell said the space had been. designed to accommodate 65 foot trucks but they did not anticipate trucks this large. The trucks could head in and go all the way to the east to make a right hand turn to the dock. The alternative would be for the trucks to back in. Mr. Kane said that their trucks were not of the lon~ variety and they did not feel there would be a problem. Mr. O'Connell stated they had concluded that an area 125' x 115' was more than adequate for truck maneu- vering by ali. architectural standards. There will be an 8' x 8' refuse enclosure, constructed of color clad materials of a weatherall material, with a restricted entrance. The exterior lighting will be do%a% lighting,on the building,ali around the building with two lights on each corner, one in the middle of the front~ and lighting across the south side. The rooftop equipment will be painted to match the facia of the building. Commissioner Gundersh~ug referred t° the additional landscaping requested by Design and Review to screen the parking areas. He noted that he did n@t see anything indicated for the south parking lot. There had been a little more ~rovided by the~driveway: Mr. O'Connel! stated that the street cul-du-sac was at this point, it was tb~r feeling that with the YMCA nature area, the parking would be adequately s~reened. Commissioner Gundershaug said he was looking for some additional screening toward the street -- iea hedge type of screen. Mr. O'Connell said he saw no problem in providing this. The area around the building will be sodded in front and to the north with seeding to the south. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the pa~king lot %~uld be curbed and striped and that'there would be handicapped parking provided. He noted this should be indicated on the plans before the Council met. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 10. Mr. Warren Webb, 4103 Oregon Avenue, asked whether there would be any sh_~ubbery planted toward the tracks? Mr. O'Conner said "no" but that the low cut grass would be maintained on the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Webb then asked ~out the south line of the property and what type of business Sally Distributors was? Mr. Kane answered that Sally Distributors was a mail order distribution house, supplying all 50 states. It was further noted that the existing fence on the east side would be maintained. There will be no fence by the tracks. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the construction with variance for front setback and parking, as reauested.in Case 81-49 by Sally Distributors. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, .Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 11. PLANNinG CASE 81-50 - REQUEST FOR REZONING B-1 to B-2 at 7914 BASS LAKE ROAD - OSBORNE PROPERTIES, PETITIONER M~. Kenneth Parke, represented the petitioner. He said they were requestin~ a rezoning from B-1 to B-2 because they found the B-1 too restrictive in obtaining businesses to lease space in the convenience center.' At the present time they have a printer who is interested in the property but the zoning dSes not permit this use. Co~nissioner Edwards asked the petitioner to present reasons that would justify a rezoning, other than purely economic. He noted that in this case, as in the previous case, a case had to be made that either the area had changed since the original zoning, or that a mistake had been made in the original zoning. Mr. Parke said he was not sure he could address those issues. He fe.lt.that the printing establishment would generate less traffic than the cleaner had. Chairman Cameron noted that the zoning would go with the entire piece of property, not just the one space. The Commission had to be very careful in a rezoning. Just because the petitioner could not rent a property, there was no reason for the city to grant a rezoning, which would be forever. Mr. Parke commented on the need to have tenants on a property and the fact that he felt there would be a return to the city in the form of real estate taxes. F~. Smith of Osborne Properties, felt that a printer would provide additional community services. The community had not supported the previous businesses on the site. He felt that~a printer might prove to be of some benefit to the City. Chairman Cameron restated that the zoning of a property was foreVer, not just for a temporary business. He felt it should not be too difficult for the petitioner to present justification for the change in zon- ing if they had done their homework. Mr. Smith said they had considered applying for a Conditional Use Permit but had been informed they must rezone. Commissioner Edwards commented that he was having a tough time with this case because the Commission could not assume conclusions for the petitioner. Chairman Cameron asked whether it would upset the petitioner's plans if this request were tabled for one month? This would allow them time to prepare a better case. Commissioner Gulench~n commented that he felt the Code was restrictive in regard to this particular cen- ter. He wouldnot want to rezone, however~ just because the petitioner had a renter for the property. Chairman Cameron stated again that he felt a case could be made for a rezoning, but he did not feel the Commission should make the case for the petitioner. Mr. Smith asked for a short recess. The Chairman granted this recess and stated that the Commission wou!~ proceed with the rest of the agenda. COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. Design and Review Committee held one meeting on August 20, 1981.. 13. T~aere was no report from the Land Use Comndttee. PLANNING COMMIS~I~ MINUTES 8 SE~EMBER 1, 1981 14. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The Chairman noted that this cOmmittee did have a charge from the City Council to review the possible addition of Auction Houses and Rental Equipment establishments to the City Code. ~ NEW BUSINESS 15. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of August 10th and 24th for the Commission. The City Manager then noted that the VOA elderly project should be starting withi~ the next two weeks. He stated that be'cause of the recent changes in interest rates, it was necessary for the Planning Com- mission to re-affirm that~they felt the project was a good project and they were in favor of the in- crease in the bend issue from $432,000 to $500,000. Discussion followed regarding the increased cost of the project and the cost involved in reducing the height of the building. Suggestion was made that the building go back to seven stories. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion indicating that the Planning Commission still considered the VOA elderly project to be worthwhile, and recommending that the City proceed.withthe bond issue. Com- missioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson Motion carried. 11. Discussion then resumed on Case 81-50 - Rezoning from B-1 to B-2 at 7914 Bas~ Lake Road. Mr. Smith apologized to the Commissioners for being unprepared. He. stated he had thought that the re- zoning would be just a formality. He added that as business people, economics had to be considered. They had found that with the B-1 Zone the center had not been as viable as it could be. It was their opinion that changing the zoning to B-2 would allow them to have more healthy businesses in the center, that might also be more useful to the co~unity. It was their feeling that the surrounding areas, the donut business, the two services stations and the grocery store were all conducive to changing the zoning of this site: ~hey felt that the change would then facilitate a successful business. ~-~ Mr. Parke noted that St. Therese Home had expressed no objections to the proposed rezoning. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Edwards stated he had no real problem with changing the'zoning, but that he was disap- pointed that a n~uch better case had not been presented by the petitioner for the rezoning. He knew how much work had gone into the revision of the City's Comprehensive Plan, both by the Commission and the City staff and they had felt the existing zoning was valid. He was opposed to the process that was be- ing observed in this case. He would prefer to table the request until the October meeting. Chairman Cameron said this was his feeling also. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he was not against the rezoning and felt that by tabling the request the Commission would be just belaboring the issue. He asked.if the petitioner intende~ to update the property at all, if they did receive the rezoning? He had noted that there was usually standing water in the driveway and the tar was breaking up in the parking lot, etc. Mr. Parke stated that this was a tenant maintained center. They would attempt to see that things were updated. In an~er to a question from the Chairman regarding any problems experienced by the City in regard to this center, the City Manager noted that the sign plan as presented had never been implemented. He wished the petitioner to realize that there would be no permit issued for a new business sign until th~ sign plan was updated. Mr. Smith noted that the sign criteria had'been submitted to the prospective tenant. The City Manager noted that the parking lot had dropped and it should not be.~oo difficult to correct the problem. The Chairman suggested that the petitioner take a look at these problems and see if they could be solved. He felt that the Commission had been very reasonable in their treatment of the request. ~-~ Commissioner Edwards said he would still prefer to table this issue until next month to allow the peti- tioner time to present a reasonable request for the rezoning wi~h justification~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 1t. Commissioner Edwards made a motion to table Case 81-50 until the meeting of October 6, 1981. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recom~endinq approval of the rezoning from B-1 tO B~2as re-- quested in Case 81-50 at 7914 Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Wheelock second. Voting in favor: 'Friedrich, Wheelock, Gulenchy~, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson 'Motion carried. 16. The Commission minutes of August 4, 1981 were accepted as printed. 17. Chairman Cameron inquired about the status of the traffic signal at 36th/Boone. The City Manager noted that the warrents were not there and there would not be a sign at this time. 19. .The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:24 Respectfully submitted, oyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 6, 1~81 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon AVenue North, New Hope, F~nnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairm~n Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Friedrlch, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gulenchyn (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-32 - REQUEST FOR SI~N PLAN CHANGE (CONTINUED FROM JULY 7, 1981) - 4950 COUNT~ ROAD #18 - JON LYN COMPANY, PETITIONER The City Manager noted that the petitioner had as yet been unable to get in touch with the owner of the property. He had requested an indefinite table. Commissioner Wheetock made a metion to table Case 81-32 until such time as the petitioner requested another appearance before the Commission. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 81-51 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 42ND/WINNETKA - ROGER LANOUE, PETITIONER Mr. Lanoue stated he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow him to sell frozen shrimp from a refrigerated truck in the parking lot of the New Hope Mall. He stated that the shrimp ~was quick frozen right on the boat and they transported them in a freezer truck. They had been Federally in- spected and approved and had been State inspected and approved by the Department of Agriculture. He said they w~uld like to sell next Thursday, Friday and Saturday at the mall. They plan to be here year around. It is not just a one shot deal. They operate from different locations around the metro- politan area, on different weekends. It would possibly be once a month or every six weeks that they would like to operate from the New Hope Mall. Co~uissioner Gustafson asked whether they would have a definite schedule to operate out of the Mall? Mr. Lanoue said they would put a definite schedule before them if this is what the Commission would like. He could set definite dates. He has already received permission from the owner of the Center to sell the shrimp. Commissioner Gustafson commented that the Commission had to react to a definite proposal -- how often, how many days each time, etc. H~ asked exactly what the petitioner was requesting? Mr. Lanoue said he would like to sell at the center every six weeks. They would not be one o~ the opera- tions that are here today, gone tomorrow. He owned a business in Brooklyn Park where he also sold shrimp. He stood behind his product, and w~s proud of his product. They have received A+ ratings from Federal and State inspectors as far as the product %~s concerned. He would like to set up a sale at the New Hope Mail every six weeks. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Lanoue said they would operate out of one re- frigerated truck. He and his wife would be the only employees. There would be a cash register on the back of the truck. The truck is not actually a semi, it is a straight type truck, and the gross weight is 27,000 pounds. At the end of the day the truck would leave. It was stored at home. He had no con- nection with any other business in the mall. He further stated that he would plan to park the truck close to the street, where he would not interfere with traffic flow in the center itself, or with traffic on Winnetk~ Avenue. He felt there was plenty of space available for parking the truck. He stated they were presently operating from five other locations -- i.e. his grocery store, liquor stores, other grocery stores. In answer to questions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Lanoue said he would pay rent to Mr. Kelly for park- ing on the lot. He has written authorization from Mr. Kelly that would allo%~ him to sell shrimp. He has submitted his insurance coverage on both t-he truck and the business to Mr. Kelly to prove he had sufficient insurance coverage. He would not need to hook up to any electricity. The truck is a self contained unit, hooked up to a die'al from the truck. He has a trash container but there is not much ~-rash. His package is already package. They have a sample case to show the customer their product. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - OCTOBER 6, 1981 4. The hours of operation of the sale are usually from 10 a.m. until about 7 p.m. in the evening, both winter and summer. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Lanoue said that he advertised in local papers, and had a sign on his truck. Mr. Kelly had said he would put up advertising on his sign at the Mall. Chairman Cameron stated he felt there was a technical problem with the Ordinance. The city could issue a Conditional Use Permit only as an accessory use to another use in the center. The city ordinance did not provide for this specific use. Discussion followed on this issue. The City Manager noted that this depended upon the Commission's interpretation of the ordinance. The Chairman said he was in a quandry as to whether this was a legitimate use under the ordinance and whether the Commission could or should permit such a use. He felt that Mr. Lanoue had a rather tenuous arrangement with the Center. Mr. Lanoue noted he was constantly looking for new areas. He is presently selling at five locations inm cluding his own store. It was possible to saturate an area and then he would look for a new spot° Commissioner Gustafson stated he agreed with the discussion stating the principal use is not the shop- ping center, but a business in the shopping center itself. He felt that according to Code, it would probably be inappropriate to approve this particular type of sale. Commissioner Bartos commented that it would be a vehicle to bring some additional trade into the center. Mr. Lanoue said that as they had operated 'from other centers, they had never been a deterrent to busi- ness. They have never left a mess and have been beneficial to the other businesses. They have sold all around the metropolitan area. They have helped to draw people in to shopping areas. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he did not feel this use fit with the ordinance and he was not sure that this center was the place for this type of operation. The Chairman stated that the ordinance speaks to control. When Mr. Lanoue took the truck away from the site, he felt the city had no real control. Mr. Lanoue asked whether ~is control would not be basically the responsibility of the landlord/owner of the center itself? Mr. Richard Kline, Executive Secretary of the Association of Food Dealers in Greater Minneapolis~ asked to address the Commission. He stated that the Association was in favor of free enterprise, but they had some concerns. When a food dealer was licensed by a city, the consumer is protected, usually by advertising ordinances, unit pric- ing, packaging controls, that included the name of the manufacturer and location. Would this type of control be required? There is also a concern about accurate weights and measures, what kind of scale is used. He noted he did not know anythingabout this operation. He believed that retailers were re- quired to see the scale and what the weight was. In regard to refrigeration he knew that stores were required to maintain adequate temperatures in their coolers. Would a truck be able to maintain these same, safe, refrigeration standards? Stores are also inspected and controlled in regard to sanitation of both the facility and the food handlers themselves, as well as the health of the food'handlers. Also, could sanitation and bacteria be monitored and was the vehicle used for any other purpose than hauling food? These were questions in his mind and he felt that if the city could monitor these things in the same way that they monitor food stores, they would then not have these concerns. In response to a question, the City Manager said there was no ordinance restriction on weight. This is no different than in a retail store. In terms of licensing and freezing and sanitation,-therew~re definite requirements° Mr. Lanoue noted that in Brooklyn Center the Health Inspector came out every morning to inspect his truck in regard to temperature, packaging, and everything else. He bought a Toledo Scale just to pack- age the shrimp. He would be more than happy to have any of the inspectors inspect his truck or his product at any time, at any time of the day. He had been inspected by both the Federal and State Depart- ments of Agriculture. In response to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager stated that in addition to a Conditional Use Permit, the operation would require a food handlers license. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding truck noise, Mr o Lanoue said the truck it- self would be shut off. The refrigeration unit was barely audible. He added that he had submitted all of his business cards, menu cards and inspection reports to the City Hall when he had applied for the Conditional Use Permit. The Chairman noted that the responsibility of the Commission was to determine whether or not the request met the conditions for a Conditional Use Permit and as far as the zoning restrictions of the city w~re concerned. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - OCTOBER 6, 1981 4. There were no comments from the audience regarding this request. Commissioner Gustafsonmade a motion recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 81-51 on the basis that in review of the City ordinance it is the Commission's interpretation that this business did not come under the bounds of an accessory use as they relate to .s~ecific uses in the .shopping center itself and not to the shopping center unit as a totality. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in Favor: Friedrich, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Wheelock, Bartos Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 81-52 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 4700 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE NORTH - ROGER AND JANICE FECHNER Mr. Fechner stated he currently had a two stall garage but wanted to add on a 15' x 22' addition to the south end of this garage. It will be used for storage and to allow him to do some woodworking as a hobby. He would like the variance to allow him to extend into the setback from the street. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Fechner did not intend to operate any type of business from the additional space. He also confirmed that the siding and texture of the addition would match the existing garage. Mr. Fechner stated that the present intent was to use aluminum siding on the addition, unless they de- cided to change the entire exterior in the spring. Commissioner GustafsOn confirmed that the roof would match up as closely as possible in regard to shin- gles, and the roof line would continue. Commissioner Gustafson then asked whether Mr. Fechner had considered extending the garage toward the front and changing the position of the driveway? Mr. Fechner replied that the present roof line of the garage is at a right angle to the house. Consider- ations had been given to putting the addition on the back of the unit ~ut not to the front, primarily be- cause of the way the entryway to the house was set up, It is a split entry and is adjacent to the front door of the current garage. The current garage extends over the entry and the roof line actually takes in the foyer of the entryway of the house. In answer to questions from the Chairman in regard to how he had determined what size th~ addition should be, Mr. Fechner said he had wanted maximum space but wanted to still stay a reasonable distance from the street. There will be an eight foot door in the 15 foot addition. The driveway will extend off from the existing driveway but will not go all the way to the street -- it will just be a flairing off of the existing drive. He said they had lived in the house for three years and intended to stay there for a considerable length of time. The City Manager noted that the garage size would fall within the 900 feet requirement in the City ordi- nance. Mr. Fechner stated that the entire basement area of his house had been finished off for living space cause it had been only a two bedroom home originally. He, therefore, had no space left for storage or for a home workshop. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the variance requested in Case 81-52, sub- j.ect to the petitioner having the same color and texture on the siding of the garage addition as on the house and garage and that the roof line would be a continuation of the existing roof and that the roofing materials would match as closely as possible in color and texture to the existing roof. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Friedr·ich, Wheelock, 'Bartos, Cameron, Gustafs0n, Gundershaug, Edwards · Voting against: None .~ .... Absent: Gulenchyn .' Motion carried · 'i'~.~ ~ ~{r. Fechner asked whether he would be allowed to change the siding of the house? He was told that the Commission's concern was thatthe house, garage and the new addition would all match as to exterior finish, color and texture when the work was completed. 6. PLANNING CASE 81-53 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 3801 XYLON AVENUE NORTH - JAY AND CARA CLINE, PETITIONERS Mr. Cline stated they were requestlingthe variance in front setback to allow them to extend their garage -to within 26 feet of the lot line instead of the required 30 feet. They have worked with an architect in regard to remodeling their home. They are still in the drawing stages, but this was the first step. They wish to expand the garage area for additional storaae. PLANNING COMMISSION 4 OCTOBER 6, 1981 Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Cline had no connection with the Shaklee Company and that the addition was not being proposed to be used fo~ a home occupation but would be strictly for the Cline's own purposes. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the addition would have continuous siding of a color and texture matching the existing house? Mr. Cline said they were planning on extending to the beck also, to increase their living space. Chairman Cameron confirmed that they were planning to also add to the rear of the house. Commissioner Gustafson clarified with Mr. Cline that the variance as requested would be the only variance required and that the remainder of the remodeling ~uld require only a building pe,rmit. He asked whether there would be continuity of exterior finish on the total house? Mr. Cline said "yes". At this time they did not whether they would replace the siding completely, or try and match what was there now. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the four foot variance in front setback at 3801 xylon Avenue North, as recuested in Case 81-53, subject to the fact that the petitioner has indi- cated he has no need for ~ varianca on the sidevard setback~ that the extension into the front setback will, in fact, have continuity with the siding materials of the house in reqard to color and texture when the addition is completed, and that the roofing materials will also match as far as color and texture, as closely as possible to the existing roof. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 81-54 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 3609 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH - DANIEL GALLAGHER, PETITIONER Mr. Galiagher stated that he presently had a single stall garage and wished to add another stall. He is requesting a variance to allow him to extend-the garage four feet into the front setback. They wish to add a mud room and some storage space at the rear of the garage, and this is the reason for extending to the front. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the reason for the addition was for personal use and that there would be no home occupation involved. Mr. Gallagher stated that the siding of the addition will match in color a~d texture the existing garage and house. The roof line will also be an extension of the existing roo'f line. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendin~ ~pproval of the variance in front setback as requested in Case 81-54, ~t 3609 Gettysburg Northz Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting aga~--nst: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 81-55 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN VARIANCE/PLAN CHANGE AT 9418 36TH AVENUE NORTH - MARC AND GAIL BIONDICH, PETITIONERS Mr. Biondich stated that he and his wife operated two businesses out of one space in the Poste Haste Shopping Center. The businesses were Pilgrim Launderers and Dry Cleaners and the Sunburst Shoppe, which is a gift shop and craft boutique. The dry cleaner is only a drop off and pickup operation. There is no processing done on the premises. He stated that he is the 6th owner of this particular' space. ~he dry cleaning is still a major part of the business but it is not a growth part of the business. They have taken what had been established pre- viously in the sapce - a gift shop - but had completely redone what other people had done and are now also dealing in hand crafted items both from the area and the whole state. Pilgrim Cleaners is the main lease holder of the space. When the Biondich's took over the space the busi~ ness was in foreclosure proceedings. Mr. Biondich said he was asking for the variance so that he could have the wooden sign, along with the windows and awning, which he feels will create the affect they desire. He felt that exceptions have ready been made in regard to signage at the center -- PDQ and Ole Piper have a lot of signs, Radio Shack PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t 5 - OCTOBER 6, 1981 8. and Stretch and Sew have more than one sign, and the dentist has a sign on some sort of a board on the boulevard. The Chairman noted that the dentist had received permission for his sign. The Chairman then stated that because the requested sign had not been a part of the original plan~ ~t had to be incorporated into the total plan. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that what Mr. Biondich needed was an amendment to the original sign plan. It was necessary to have written permission for this amendment from the owner of the Center in order to amend the plan. This authorization, Mr. Biondich had received. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether, with the addition of the proposed sign, the total signage of the space would exceed 15% of the wall area of the business? Mr. Biondich said he did not know. His sign was 4' x 5' and the other sign was 5' x 12'. The City Manager stated that there was no problem with the total signage. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the.siqn plan.as .reqUested in Case 81-55 at 9418 36th Avenue North, to allow the Sunburst Shop~e to have a'watt siqn'as indicated in documents presented to the Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 81-56 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7202 42nd AVENUE NORTH - GAS HUT, INC., PETITIONER Mr. Arthur Smith represented the petitioner. He stated he was the General Manager of Gas Hut, Inc. They are a self service gasoline operation, with four stations in the midwest. Their home office KS in Minnea- polis. Their intent is to buy the Metro 500 on 42nd Avenue, bulldoze the existing structure and construct a new facility. He distributed pictures illustrating the proposed structure. They are requesting con- struction approval and require no variances. They would like the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to sell convenience items, i.e. candy, pop, chips, etc. over the counter. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what the hours of operation would be? The answer was approximately 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. They would have one to three employees, depending upon the time of the day and the amount of business. The refuse containers will be indented into the berm at the rear with timbers on three sides. Mr. Smith said he did not believe they had planned doors, but this could be included. The City Manager stated that refuse enclosures were required to be screened from the street. Mr. Smith stated they would put a gate on the enclosure. He added that the only lighting would be under the canopy. In answer to ~uestions from Commissioner Gundershaug about delivery of convenience items, Mr. Smith said he would expect maybe three deliveries a week. They only had a small cooler and two or three visual doors. They plan to have one sign with an additional cigarette sign. The sign will be the same sign that is presently on the station across the street from the proposed new construction. In answer to further questions he noted that they had discussed their plans for landscaping with the neighbor to the rear of the site. The landscaping meets city code. The neighbor seemed to be concerned with young people walking through her proper~y. They plan a three foot high berm with many bushes, that when they are full grown, will provide a wall that will be difficutl to walk through. If it became a real problem they could provide a fence, but they preferred the berm and the plantings° The shrubbery is of the three foot variety and the berm will be three feet high. With this, their site would be nine to ten feet higher than the neighbor's.property. In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the proposal for using decorative rock on the site, and the neighbor to the rear's reaction, Mr. Smith noted that she had objected to the rock, preferring grass, but they were afraid that grass would not grow on the site. Discussion then centered on the cur~b cuts. The City Manager noted that the ordinance required that any new development would have to come within the 40 foot setback. 9. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that they had a letter from Hennepin County expressing their preference for only one curb cut on 42nd and one on Nevada. Mr. White stated this was contrary to what he had been told by the County. Commissioner Gundershaug said that it was a suggestion, not a requirement (letter dated 9/29/81) o Further discussion followed regarding the width of the driveways (plan to use the existing drives), the fact that the service lanes will run north and south, whether it would be possible to make the driveways one way traffic, and whether both entrances would handle two way traffic. Mr. Smith stated that it usually happened that once the flow started, the other cars follow. They hope that the traffic would enter from 42nd. He felt if you marked the drives "one way" you were apt to create even more confusion. The islands .face north and south and 80% of the traffic would be from 42nd. In respons~ to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the shrubs on the corner, Mr. Smith said they were a low growing variety and would perhaps be only a foot or so high. The shrubs would be two or three feet maximum in height and anyone could see over this. He noted that they have also pur- chased the station across the street, which they will operate until the new building is ready to open. They. then intend to sell the other station for a non-petroleum use° Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he personally was glad to see the two sites being cleaned up. He asked when they hoped to begin construction? Mr. Smith said he was not sure if it would be before spring. They were reluctant to have a half completed building sit until spring° Commissioner Gustafson asked how many cars could stack up before they would extend into the street? The architect for Gas Hut, Inc. said there could be six cars in a line before you got to the entrance. Three cars could be handled easily under th9 canopy. He said they had positioned the building so as not to get the building =oo close to the neighbor and to give themselves room for backup. It is 50 feet to the first pump from the street. Mr. Smith noted they had provided space on the edges of the site for the cars to pull in. This was one of their major concerns, getting cars in and out as cleanly as possible. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos, Mr. Smith said the height of the canopy would be13'6"o ±n answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. White stated h~ felt they really needed the curb ~-~ cut that was closest to the corner on Nevada. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the construction approval and Conditional Use Permit as requested for 7202 42nd Avenue North, in Case 81-56. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Wheelock, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Gustafson Absent: Gulenchyn Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. Design and Review Committee met once during the month of September. 1i. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 12. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committe'e. NEW BUSINESS 13. The City Manager reviewed the Council meetings of September 14 and 28, 1981, noting that Archi~'s Standard had approved for their signage and would perhaps be beck before the Commission for approval of a locksmith operation. He noted that much discussion and no decision had'been made in regard to wine and beer for C~nck E° Cheese. The meeting of the 28th, had been primarily on the 1982 Budget. 14. The ~lanninq Commission minutes of SeDtember 1, 1981 were apDroved as printed° 15. In response to a question from Commissioner Wheelock regard plans for Medicine Lake Road as referred to in the minutes of 9/14/81, the Manager noted that there were long range plans for Medicine Lake Road improve- ments, but Golden Valley could not come to an agreement with the County and the three communities involved could not agree. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos regarding the signals proposed for 36th/Boone, the Manager noted that the warrents were not there and it appeared the citizens did not want a signal° 17. The meetinG was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 Respectfully submitted, yc~eBoeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1981 1. A regular meeting of 'the Planning CoMmission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, November 3, 1981 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p-m. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN 2. Present: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Wheelock PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-57 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL AT 7701 42ND 'AVENUE NORTH - ECONOMY TOOL AND MANUFACTURING, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Chairman Cameron noted that 'the Coramission would wait ten minutes for the petitioner to appear, meanwhile proceeding'with the agenda. He welcomed three students from North Hennepin Community College wh© were in the audience. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 5. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 6. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 7. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of October 13th, and 26th. 8. The Planning Commission minutes of October 6, 1981 were accepte~ 10. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the continued on-street parking at NOrth Ridge. The petitioner in Case 81-57 had still not appeared. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 81-57. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock Motion carried. The meeting was a.djourned by unanimous consent at 7:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ogoyce Boeddeker, SeCretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 1981 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 1, 1981 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Gustafson at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Friedrich Absent: Wheelock, Cameron PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 81-57 (CONTINUED FROM 11-3-81) REQL~ST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL AT 7701 42ND AVENUE NORT~ - ECONOMY TOOL AND MANUFACTURING COMPkNY, PETITIONER Ms. Margaret Hilger, represented Economy Tool. She stated she was secretary to Mr. Archer, owner of the property. She said they were requestin~ a sign on the building for Economy Tool Company. There is a sign for Universal Color Lab, the front tenant, on the building now. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Ms. Hilger that the Universal sign were not temporary signs, even though they were painted on the windows. He further confirmed that Ms. Hilger was secretary to Mr. Ar- cher, owner of the property. Commissioner Gustafson then stated that in his opinion, since the Universal Color Lab signs were perma- nent signs, a variance was required in addition to the requested change in sign plan. He confirmed with the City Manager that this variance could be added to the original request with no problem. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented on the fact that the signs for Economy Tool and Drill Pipe would be difficult to identify. He asked whether there were any plans for additional signs on the front of the ~xilding? Ms. Hilger said that Archer Investments owned the building. Economy Tool leases the rear portion of the building. UCL has been located in the front portion of the building for over a year. She said she was not aware of any plans to add signs on the front of the building. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the sign plan as requested including ap- proval of a variance to allow the existing signage on the windows to continue, until such time as the tenant leaves the building.. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Friedrich Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Cameron Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 81-58 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VA~RIANCE AT 8717 30TH AVENUE NORTH - SUKHENDEU NATH, PETITIONER Mr. Nath stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to add to his single car garage. He wishes to extend the garage to have space for two cars. The addition, as proposed, would be only two feet from the side lot line. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Nath was the owner of the property but did not live there at the present time. Mr. Nath responded that he did not live at this location because he needed more garage space. He added that the additional space would be only for personal use and storage of cars. There will be no home occupation. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Nath stated that the siding on the garage would match in texture and color the existing house/garage and that the roofing materials would also match as closely as possible. Mr. Natch said he wanted the result to be esthetically good. He added that he had talked with his neighbor who had expressed no objections to the addition. 0 In response to a question from Commissioner Friedrich, Mr. Nath said he thought the neighbor's dwelling was now about 15 feet from his lot line. Commissioner Bartos asked whether the driveway would be widened? The response was that the driveway already wouldaccommodate a double garage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - DECEMBER 1, 1981 4. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the proposed addition would come to within two feet of the proper- ty line. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the variance 'requested in Case 81-58, to allow the addition to extend to within two feet of the lot line, subject to the exterior materials matching the house and existinq ~ara~e as far as color, texture, and roofing materials. CommissiOner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershauq, Edwards, Friedrich Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Cameron~. Motion carried. 5. PIJ~NNING CASE 81-59 - P~EQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AT THENORTH END OFTHE NEVADA AVENUE CUL- DU-SAC - REDSCN PROPERTIES, PETITIONERS Mr. Jean Adamson represented Redson Properties.- He stated they were re~desting the plat to allow them to combine two pieces of property at the end of Nevada Avenue for the purpose of constructing another building. Commissioner Bartos asked whether the petitioner had ever gotten control of the land to the west? Mr. Adamson said "no", there was still a house on that property° He added that the existing garage would have to be moved, as it is over the property line~ Commissioner Bartos asked about the utility easements and their need? Mr. Adamson said they, Redson Properties, were the owners of the property where the easements were lo- cated. In answer to further questions, he stated that they planned to construct an offic~/~-arehouse similar to the one in the Witcher Addition. Commissioner Bartos asked where the access would ~e? Mr. Adamson said there was a thirty foot easement all along the property. It is blacktopped and has curb and gutter on both sides. The sewer and water are already in. This easement can handle truck traffic. The City Manager noted that one problem was that they would need a larger utility easement, since there is now only a construction easement on the property. Mr. Adamson said he felt this would be no problem, since the area in question would be located under the proposed parking lot. The City Manager noted that the water line went all the way up to 31st Avenue. Lot "c" is where the driveway easement for the west lot is located. The City Manager then confirmed that the petitioner was certain they could get a building on the property~ in spite of the soil problems, and that they intended to move the old house. Mr. Adamson said they hoped to move the house before the end of the year. Commissioner Edwards asked about the easement at the end of the cul-du-sac and who would be responsible for its maintenance? Mr. Adamson said they were as the owners of the property. Commissioner Edwards asked whether there had been any talk or consideration of extending the cul-du-sa¢ back to the other property? He asked the Manager if the cul-du-sac could be extended? The City Manager said the city was not particularly concerned as long as they got the easement. They had no problem with the situation. He said the cul-du-sac could be extended. The only problem would be whether the radius would permit a turn around. The worst thing that could happen would be if someone purchased the building and did not maintain the access. Discussion then covered the houses on the property, the fact that they also had right of easement and the fact that the one garage would be moved. The drive will also be moved to the other property. Commissioner Edwards asked whether there was any way to do away with the easements? The City Manager said that obviously, if it were decided that the easement should be a public road, the city could condemn it. He was not sure what would be served by this, in the long run° PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - DECEMBER 1, 1981 5. Commissioner Edwards said his one concern would be the safety of the workers of the future buildings if the easements were not maintained and public safety vehicles could not gain access. The City Manager said that under the city's Maintenance Ordinance there was a provision that parking lots and access ways had to be maintained in a passable condition. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked whether one of the city's large fire trucks could make the corner? T~e answer was "yes". Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there was not a safety problem in the view of the city. The City Manager asked Mr. Adamson how they intended to gain access to the west property after the build- ing was constructed? Mr. Adamson then presented a preliminary site plan for the Commissioners to review. This plan illustrated the proposed location of the building and driveway. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending ~pproval of the Preliminary Plat as requestedinCase 81-59, at the north end of the Nevada Avenue cul-du-sac, subject to the ~rovision of additional utitit~ easements. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Friedrich Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Cameron Motion carried. 6. This planning case had been withdrawn prior to the meeting. 7. PI~ANNING CASE 81-61 - REQUEST FOR VARLANCE FOR SECOND PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON LOT'- NORTH~ST CORNER OF 42ND/WINNETKA - ANTI,ER CORPORATION, PETITIONER Mr. Jim Winters represented Antler Corporation. He stated they were requesting approval of a second prin- cipal building on the same property as the New Hope Shopping Mall. The building would be located direct- ly north of the service station on the northwest corner of 42nd/Winnetka. The building would be a Pizza Hut restaurant. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the building would be a normal, free standing, Pizza Hut type of building. Mr. Winter said it would be similar to other Pizza Huts, but that the exterior treatment would be a lit- tle different. The exterior will be rough sawn cedar and a little bit different in design. There is a building similar to that proposed located in Maplewood. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug about the actual building construction, ~. Winter said he did not believe either the building or the proposed parking space would require any variances. Commenting that he felt the use of the property at the Center was a concern to the Commission and Council, Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the owner of the center was in agreement with the proposal? Mr. Jerome Kelly, owner of the New Hope Center, came forward Ho answer questions from the Corm~issioners in regard to the future of the Center at the request of Commissioner Gustafson. Mr. Kelly said he had purchased the Center five years ago. When the new Center was built to the north, it had attracted some of their tenants. They are now faced, out of necessity, with bringing in new business. They have traveled the country over to try and determine how they could best do this. They now feel they have an exciting idea. Outlet retailing is a new concept that has taken hold throughout the country. It has proved successful. They intend to remodel the Mall to try to bring it into the 80's~ They think that the Pizza Hut, which will be located where the city's Commercial Core Guidelines indicated a building could be built, will add to the center. The building will have a cedar exterior which will also fit into the center. They also plan to develop the rest of the property according to these guidelines (Heise property). They will also remodel the exterior of the center and upgrade the landscaping, etc~ Commissioner Gustafson asked about the petitioner's option for the property containing the Heise house? Mr. Kelly said the dispute should be settled this month. In regard to the remodeling time table, he noted they were in the process of hiring an architect now. He added that he had talked to several people' about renting space in the center but had not as yet signed any leases. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Kelly said there about 24 malls, similar to that proposed, throughout the country. He did not have the names of all those facilities, but could provide PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - DECEMBER 1, 1981 7. the names before the Council meeting. Discussion then covered particular centers that had proved s~ccessful and the types of outlets that~ were included i.e. clock store, shoe outlet', Winona Knitting Mills- paper factory, tent/sporting good~~' etc. Some locations of this type of outlet mall were in Reading, Pennsylvania; Jacksonville, Florida; and Orlando, Florida. Commissioner Gustafson noted that in the past, the Commission and Council had discussed with the two shopping center owners, the possibility and advisability of having a connecting drive between the two centers. He asked Mr. Kelly if they had given any consideration to this? Mr. Kelly noted that the Commercial Guidelines of the city had suggested that this would be desirable. He said he had appeared at a meeting on Monday and agreed to this type of access. He would do this to- morrow morning if the other center owners were in agreement. ° It was noted that a representative of the other center was in attendance. Mr. Dan Schak of Winnetka Associates said that such a drive/access had been discussed. Their feeling was that it would probably be desirable for both sides. He said he would expect that it would be done. Commissioner Bartos asked whether the petitioner felt that there would be enough business to support two pizza places? Mr. Bill Farrell of Pizza Hut, stated he had 20 Pizza Hut outlets and the answer was ',yes". Otherwise they would not have petitioned for the variance. They feel they will provide something different from the theater stYle pizza place and that they would get their share of the business. They feel it is a plus. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, it was stated that Pizza Hut would lease the build- ing from the Antler Corporation on a long term lease. Mr. Winter presented pictures of the Maplew~od Pizza Hut for the Commissioners to view. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with. the Manager that Pizza Hut would have to reappear before the Plan- ning commission with actual construction plans. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards, the City Manager stated that as far as remodeling of the center was concerned, the interior could be done without Planning Commission approval, but if the exterior remodeling exceeded $10,000 it would be necessary for them to receive P~anning Commission review. Discussion then covered the remodeling of the mall and whether the entire mall would be converted 'to the factory outlet concept, the possible upgrading of the exterior of the center/grounds and addition of some landscaping. Mr. Kelly said they hoped to convince Banks to remain in the mall. They feel they have a terrific idea in regard to converting the mall to an outlet mall. The City Manager asked whether there would be specific parking places set aside for Pizza Hut? The answer was that they plan 20 some spaces for Pizza Hut, with the remainder of the parking to be shared with the center. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there would not be a drive up window at Pizza Hut. Discussion then turned to the possible timetable for the drive through between the two centers. Mr. Schak said that based on the coversations of Monday's meeting he felt it coutd be very soon -- per- haps by year's end. They would remove the barriers they had installed to control traffic between the two centers. He added that, in the opinion of the City Inspector, spring would be a good time to in- stall a permanent driveway. He believed that Mr, Kelly was in agreement with this. Commissioner Gundershaug said that.he felt that the drive through was a very important issue. Mr. Schak sai~ he felt the two Center owners would have to get together, pull out the stakes, haul in some crushed rock and in the spring blacktop the drive. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he was sure both the Planning Commission and the City Council wished the two parties would have a meeting of minds and put the crossway in. In addition, he felt that the Planning Commission and Council wished them both all the luck in the world in being successful and that they would be able to exist side by side. Mr. Schak stated they wished to be good neighbors to Mr. Kelly. He then asked if, since they have a rather long frontage on Winnetka, if they might also be allowed sometime in the future to construCt a free standing building on their property? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - DECEMBER 1, 1981 7. Commissioner Gustafson stated that each and every case would have to stand on its own merits. Any additional construction would have to come in as a variance request to the Planning Commission. The City Manager noted that, in the concept studies, there had been a couple of more sites indicated as possible building locations. However, since the original mall had been proposed, the concept of the mall and the buildings had changed. Any proposals ~uld have to be considered on their individual merits. The original plan had, however, provided some potential for additional free standing buildings. Commissioner Gustafson said that while the concept studies had provided room for such possible develop- ment, he was sure that neither the Planning Commission nor Council would approve anything that would provide a potential for a string of development along Winnetka Avenue. Commissioner Edwards asked what the addition of the Pizza Hut building would do to the existing parking situation at the New Hope Mall? Mr. Winters said it should not affect it at all. Commissioner Gustafson stated he thought tt~t both the Planning Commission and the Council would be in- terested in seeing the list of malls that presently had the same concept as Mr. Kelly was proposing for the New Hope Mall. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of Case 81~61~ variance'to'allow a.seoond free standing, principal buildinq on the site of the New Hope Mall ~ ?2nd/Winnetka. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Friedrich Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Cameron Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 81-62 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCE OF STEP LOCATION AT 8810 60TH AVENUE NORTH - DUANE REHNKE, PETITIC~ER Mr. Rehnke said they were requesting the variance to allow them to retain steps located on the west side of their garage, on their property. There is about a 6% foot drop and it has been difficult to keep grass or anything else there, because it always washed out. His boys had been building a project in the back yard when he was out of town. When he returned they had framed in the steps with railroad ties and poured the concrete. It looks very nice, but unfortunately the steps are very close to the lot llne. At the time he had not realized this would be a problem. Mr. Rehnke said that the City Engineer, Mark Hanson, had stopped by to look at the steps to make sure they did not interfere with drainage. He had not found them to be a problem in ~egard to the possible eroding of the property next door. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether he had talked to the neighbor and if they had any objections to the encroachment. The neighbor was present and stated that she thought the fence was on the lot line. Her only concern was about t%" to 2" that was between the Rehnke steps and her property. She questioned whether, in time, rain dripping from the roof would erode that ground area and give her the same problem that the Rehnke's had. She did not want this to happen. In answer to questions from Commissioner Bartos, Mr. Rehnke said that there was a gable roof on that side of the house and that he had gutters carrying the water down the side of the building. Discussi~ followed regarding the possibility of installing crushed rock in the space to help maintain the soil. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Rehnke would reach agreement with his neighbor regarding the disposition of the questionable space by the steps and present the agreement in writing to the Council at their meeting on the 14th December. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the variance requested inCase 8t-62,~'at .... 8810 60th Avenue North, to allow the steps to encroach into the sideyard setback, subject to a written agreement from the ne~tdoor neighbor in terms of workin~ out the potential drainaqe problem ~in the-2!! area between the ste~s and the fence, prior to the ~titioner's a~earance before the Ci~¥'Council on the 14th December. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartis, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Friedrich Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Cameron Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - DECEMBER 1, 1981 9. PLANNING CASE 81-63 - REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT AT 4311-4461 WINNETKA NORTH - WINNETKA ASSOCIATES, PETITIONER Mr. Dan Schak represented the petitioners. He stated they were asking for a change in the sign plan for the center for two specific sites -- Store ~14 (next to the bank) and Store #3 (Gustasons). The sign for Store #14 is two feet wider than permitted according to the original plan (14' instead of 12') The basic problem at Store ~3., is that the owner has a long name. His store front is actually 18 feet wide and he would like his sign to be 15' long. This would make the percentage of the store front in signage 2O%. Discussion followed about the front of the center, the wide expanse of wall, the number of vacancies presently in the center, and the advisability of changing the entire sign plan as proposed, versus re- ceiving a variance for the two spaces in question. It was noted that the first tenant at Store #14 had received a permit for his sign and that the second tenant had gone by the same size° Commissioner Gustafson commented that the sign plan as it had been originally approved should have ~een monitored by the owners of the center. ~lr. Schak stated tha.t as nearly as they cout~ tell, the store had opened and put up their sign at just about the time they had purchased the center from Mr. Nystrom. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Schak that he had no problem with amending the sign plan to allow one 14 foot sign at Store #14 and one 15 foot sign at Store #3. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager noted that apparently the only sign that has not been acted on that was not in compliance was the sign for the barber shop. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion reco~mendinq approval of the modified amendment to the sig~ plan as requested bY W~nnetka Associates in Case 81-63, altowinq an increase in length to 14' at Store ~14 and to 15' in lenath at Store ~3. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting ih favor: Gulench~ Bartos, Gustafs~n, Gundershau~, Edwards, Priedricl'~ Votinq against: None Absent: Wheelock, Cameron Motion carried. Discussion followed regarding snow plowing and removal at the Winnetka Mall, the tenants in the center, and the safety hazards of piling the snow too high. Mr. Schak asked .about the suggestion of several years ago of having a joint entrance from Winnetka into the two centers. The City Manager noted that the problem was with the County and that any impetus for such an entrance would have to come from the County. CO~4MITTEE REPORTS 10. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 11. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 12. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 13. The City Manager reviewed the Council meetings of November 9th, and 23rd. 14. The Planning Cormmission minutes of November 3, 1981 were approved as printed. 15. There were no comments from citizens present. 17. The City Manager stated that the Council %~uld be conducting a public hearing on Monday, December 7th0 in regard to liquor in the city. All present license~hotders and potential license holders were invited to give public comment, as well as representatives of churches, "Y", etc. The Planning Co~mission was also invited to attend and give comment° In answer to a question, the city Manager stated that by law the city could have 18 licenses. There are presently three on-sal% licenses issued. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - DECEMBER 1, 1981 17. Discussion held about the problems that exist now in regard 5o the liquor licenses and their loca- tions, any police problems, and the fact that they are, in the opinion of the city, being run in a responsible manner by their owners, in most cases. The Sunshine Factory has done a very good job of policing itself, and changing procedures to accommodate greater control. The Manager noted that in spite of the problems, the record of the establishments in New Hope was better than those in neigh- boring communities. The Planning Commission did not take any specific action in regard to the liquor question. 18. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:58 p.mo Respectfully submitted, /Jo~yce Boeddeker Secretary