Loading...
1982 Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARy 5~ 1982 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, January ~ 1982 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Char/man Cameron at ~30 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug~ Edward~ Absent: Wheelock, Friedrich PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82-1 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 3510 WINNETKA AVENuE NORTH - METZ BAKING COMPANY, PETITIONER Mr. Bob Connell represented the petitioner. He stated that Metz Baking Company had leased the former bakery and purchased the baking equipment in August and since that time had done extensive remodeling and refurbishing work on the bakery. They are asking for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a store in which they will sell bakery products that either day old or in the form or surplus or irregular goods. This is a practice that they have used throught their other area bakeriesl Commissioner Gustafson asked if they had provided a layout. Mr. Connell explained the proposal using a small illustration of the site. He noted that when the building had been built it had been planned with a store in mind. There is a center door and windows on both sides. He presented a sketch indicat- ing the type of shelf arrangement they propose. They would stock and merchandise the products as at a bakery department in a supermarket. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the retail store would be contained to the 30' x 36' area and in- quired about the hours of operation of the store. Mr. Connell said he thought the hours would be from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson he said they would like to have a sign on the building but it would be installed in accordance with city code. He noted he did no= know what the code required but the sign would comply with the city code. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the volume they expected for the store and how parking would be handled? Mr. Connell said they operated other stores that had the volume of business they anticipated that this s~ore would have, with only four or five parking spaces and have had no problems. The customer flow is slow around the middle of the day. There is activity in the morning and again from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. They will be open on Saturdays, the same hours. Saturday is a good day for a store. The bakery will no~ operate on Saturday but will be in operation on Sundays. Commissioner Gustafson noted that in looking at the site it appeared that there might be sufficient space to add additional parking spaces if they were needed. He asked if providing such additional spaces, at staff direction, was agreeable to Mr. Connell. He responded that he felt this would be no problem, Commissioner Gundershaug asked how many employees there would be at any one time. The response was no more than two in the store. He did not know about the bakery operation, Commissioner Gundershaug said he would like to know how many spaces there were and how many of them were used by both the bakery and the store? Mr. Connell said he did not have these answers, he was sorry. He added that this facility was strictly a production facility. The product was shipped to the bakery in Roseville and their other agencies, It is picked up there by trucks. They do not have sales people operating from this facility~ Commissioner Gundershaug said there would still be the employees who are making the product ~= would this be twenty, or forty, or what? Mr. Connell did not have this information. He noted that the production employees worked from after night until 8:00 or 9:00 in the-morning and that there was another shift starting about 3:00 in the aftef~ noon. There are no= a large number of people at any one tir~, Commissioner Gundershaug said he felt Mr. Connell should be prepared to answer these questions w~e~ he appeared before the City Council. The Chairman asked if they ever had special sales that would attract an unusually large number of People9 Mr. Connell said they occasionally had sales, and it was conceivable they might have a large sale~ bu~ that they were aware that the city had restrictions about such sales and they would go by code if they PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JANUARY 5, 1982 3. did wish to have such events. There might be an occasion when they might ask for such permission. They have not done so at their other outlets. The Chairman noted that this was a busy street and that there was single family housing across the street. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that the City of Crystal had bee~ no- tified of the public hearing and that there had been no complaints about the bakery operation in the last six months. In answer to questions from Commissioner Bartos, Mr. Connell said they had bakery outlets on ~ighway #12 near wayzata, two in St. Paul, one in Champlain, Burnsville and south Minneapolis, Co~unissioner Bartos noted he was concerned about parking and the busy street with traffic coming out of the driveway being a hazardous situation. Discussion followed between Mr. Connell and the Chairman regarding the two entrances, the truck traffic on the site and the width of the drives. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending appro~aI of the Conditional Use Permit requested for 3510 Winnetka Avenue North, in Case 82-1, subject to the petitioner's agreeing to live within the Sign Ordinance of the City and subject to review of the parking situation by staff in June of 1982 and again on the annual anniversary date thereafter, to determine if adequate parking facilities exist on the site. The petitioner understands that if it is found that parking is inadequate, he will be asked to appear again before the Planning Commission and Council to explain his plans to provide additional ~arki ing. Commissioner Gulenchyn second.. voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Friedrich Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 82-2 - REQUEST FOR REZONINGAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5550 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - WINCHELL'S DONUT HOUSE, PETITIONER Mr. Michael, District Supervisor, represented the petitioner. He stated they were requesting the re- zoning and conditional use permit to allow them to construct a drive through lane with a service win- dow at their facility at 55th/Winnetka. They feel that this would expedite service and pick up busi- ness, particularly at this time of the year. Chairman Cameron commented that the current zoning on this site is B-2 which does not provide for any drive up windows. He said the Commission first must consider whether or not they feel there is any merit in a drive-through window, before considering the request for rezoning. Commissioner Edwards asked whether there would be any other changes on the building itself other than the drive-through? Mr. Ansara said there would be no changes other than the drive-through lane, service window and the display window. There wilt still be 12 parking spaces on the site. In answer to a question regarding additional signage, Mr. Ansara said there should be four more signs -- one as you enter on the right, one as you go up toward the drive-through, the exit sign on Bass Lake Road and a "drive through" sign added to the existing sign if this would meet with code. He noted he understood that any signs that might go on Bass Lake Road had to be approved by Hennepin County. He added that he felt the only way they could control traffic would be through signage, unless they were to hire a security guard. Commissioner Edwards asked if there would be any additional exterior lighting? Mr. Ansara said he felt the only additional light would be underneath the service window. The building is well lit all around now. He saw no reason for more lighting, unless it was requested by the City. Discussion then covered the curbing and whether there %~uld be continuous curb'around the drive area. There will be no ma3or changes at the east side of the building. It is blacktop there now. Mr. Ansara noted that they have a snow removal company now that hauls the snow away from the site. Deliveries are made at 2:00 in the morning and there is not too much business then. He Could foresee no traffic tieup. Commissioner Edwards expressed his concerns over the landscaping between the drive and the property line and the rest of the site~ Mr. Ansara said no change was planned. They will replace the tree that was removed. He added that if landscaping has died, it will be replaced. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY 5, 1982 4. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding the signs, he said the directional signs would be 2'2%" x 2'1%". They will be placed at eye level as you drive through the site. Plans for these signs should be forthcoming shortly. Chairman Cameron asked how customers in automobiles will know what is available? Mr. Ansara stated there will be a menu/price board and a display window with donuts in it. Chairman Cameron confirmed that there would be stacking room for five cars at the proposed drive-through. In response to questions, Mr. Ansara said there would be an enclosed dumpster at the rear of the proper- ty. It is blocked in. He said that the anticipated number of employees would be four at any one time. He said Winchell's has had experience with drive-through windows in Cleveland and california but this is the first one in this area. There are many in California. He would anticipate this might increase business 1% - 3%, especially at this time of the year. However, there is nothing to compare to in cold climates. In warm climates they do very well. He did not know the exact figures. For the most part, drive-throughs have been included in new structures, not added to existing ones. The drive-through would pose no hindrance to a motor home or camper. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be continuous curbing. He questioned how this might affect the dumpster and deliveries? Mr. Ansara said there was a ramp to facilitate the deliveries at the rear. They could unload right at the back door. Their trucks are a trailer type but not semis. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if they planned any additional landscaping. He did not think too good a job had been done in caring for the landscaping originally installed. Mr. Ansara said they would replace landscaping that did not look as it should. They would then put it on a regular maintenance program. He said they would update the landscaping when the weather is warm. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the landscaping would be replaced and maintained to the satisfac- tion of the city. Mr. Ansara said that the home base of the company is outside of Los Angeles. He intends to be in New Hope for at least a year. This division now operates out of Chicago and he expects to be here for a while. The building is owned by Winchells, the property is leased. The manager of the store is respon- sible for the maintainance of the property. Chairman Cameron stated he was unimpressed with the landscaping as presented and felt that Winchells could do a better job. Mr. Ansara said that he did have additional landscaping plans coming. Discussion continued between him and the Chairman. Commissioner Bartos expressed his concern over traffic control, particularly with people going south on Winnetka and attempting to turn into Winchells. He also felt that removing the snow from the site was very important° In response to a question from CommissionerGundershaug, the City Manager stated that a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through window could not be issued in a B-2 zone unless the Code were changed. Mrs. Barb Sukey, 5540 Winnetka, asked where the traffic would go when it goes behind the shop. She was also unhappy about the 2:00 a.m. deliveries. She said there was enough noise now that they did not sleep well. Where were they going to dump the traffic? She added she had been through all of this be- fore. Had talked to the city and called the police. She is very concerned and feels she has rights too. I~ the traffic goes around the back of the building, she will be very unhappy. It will just encourage noise. She was not happy with Winchells at all. The fence is broken and she has to take sleeping pills to sleep. Mr. Ansara expressed his concern for Mrs. Sukey's inconvenience and the noise. He will re-schedule the deliveries. He said there was a new manager now. The Chairman asked whether the noise was mostly from cars? Mrs. Sukey said it was kids in cars at night, laughing, etc. Someone will blow a horn. She was not happy. The shrubs are not being taken care of. She has not had a good relationship with Winchells. Mr. Sukey said he agreed with everything his wife had said. Lights shine into the house. He thought it would be a good idea to rebuild the sound barrier. He added that lowering the light 5" would help. It is hard to be waked up at night with someone signing Happy Birghday. Mrs. Sukey c~mmented that she had not wanted a concrete wall originally, but she was now sorry. The drive up window will cause more noise in her opinion and it makes her very unhappy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JANUARY 5, 1982 4. Mr. Sukey repeated that they were not happy. ~_~ Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the height of the fence was a maximum height but the City Mana- ger noted that the Commission had the authority to change it. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether ~it would be possible to limit the use of the drive-through to cer- tain hours.and install a gate or chain to keep people from using it late at night? Mr. Ansara said he thought this could be done. He felt 8:00 or 9:00 at night until 5:00 in the morn- ing. He added that he had been unaware of any complaints from next door. ~ommissioner Gustafson said he was concerned with what the neighbors had to put up with. Chairman Cameron noted that he felt the petitioner was aware of the Commission's concerns in regard to the drive-through window. The rezoning still had to be considered. According to the ordinance, the zoning must be changed to accommodate the drive-through window. A B-2 zone is a more extensive auto- mobile zone. Zoning is the one way that the city has to control use of property. Once the property is rezoned it is there forever. The Planning Commission has to be convinced that either a mistake had been made in the original zoning or that there had been sufficient change in the area to justify a rezoning. Economics is not a condition. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked if the city had anyone with expertise toward the building of a sound barrier? The Chairman noted that he was not sure this was a reasonable case for a sound engineer. He wanted the petitioner to be aware that there was no guaranty that there would be a rezoning. Commissioner Gundershaug felt the consideration should be split in two. He personally could see some merit in a rezoning because it would also give the city a handle in controlling the operation. Commissioner Gulenchyn said he was against the rezoning because of the possible potential for additional noise but he could see where it would also be good for business. Mr. Ansara asked wehther it was not possible that the drive-through would expedite some of the traffic, rather than its remaining on the lot creating noise. ~-,~ Co~missioner Gulenchyn felt the drive-through had its merits except for the noise. Commissioner Bartos said he was not totally convinced about the drive in. Chairman Cameron stated he felt that B-3 was too much, right next to a residential zone° Commissioner Gustafson did not object to the B-3zone if the design of the property was situated correctly with consideration given to the neighbors. Con,missioner Gundershaug said he would be in favor of the B-3 with some strong regulations, including a sound barrier. He also felt he would have to see a lot more landscaping on the Rite. Commissioner Edwards stated he had similar feeling about the rezoning and was not particularly concerned about it. He felt there could be enough controls of the parcel. He felt it was unfortunate that the boundary was on a residential district.' Chairman Cameron informed the petitioner that he must address the rezoning issue, either the zone was wrong in the first place or sufficient changes had occurred in the area to justify the rezoning. The petitioner must make this case. He then asked how long it might take the petitioner to complete this? He suggested he might wish to consult an attorney. He should also meet again with Design and Review be- fore he appeared at the Planning Commission again. Mr. Ansara said he felt 30 days would be sufficient. Co~missioner Gundershaug made a motion tabling. Case 82-2 until the meeting of February 2, 1982. Commis- sioner Gulenchyn, second.. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Friedrich Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 82-3 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT/CONSTRUCTION kPPROVAL/VARIANCES AT NEVADA AVENUE/36TH - ED REILLY, PETITIONER Mr. Phillip Johnson represented the petitioner. He stated they propose to construct a 14,400 foot building on the site after it is platted. They have reviewed the traffic and parking with the De- sign and Review Committee. This first building will provide 43% green area. The parking is adequate according to Design and Review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JANUARY 5, 1982 5. He added that Design and Review had been concerned with trash storage. The company will retain some trash for recycling and it will all be stored inside. The owner had attempted to pick up some addi- tional property but had not been successful. Chairman Cameron stated that there were three items to be considered in the one case. He felt they should be discussed one at a time -- the preliminary plat, the construction approval and the variances. In response to questions it was determined that the owner of the property had done the platting. Mr. Reilly had approached them to purchase the lot for his building. ' Chairman Cameron confirmed that there was no possibility of picking up 10 more feet. In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos, Mr. Johnson said that the other parcel was buildable property with additional work. He added that there was a purchase agreement for Lot 2 as he u~derstood it. The other purchaser is limited by the soil conditions of the property and cannot lose as much as ten feet. Discussion followed about the wetlands on the proposed plat between Mr. Johnson and Commissioner Bartos. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron as to what they would do if the city did not give con- struction approval for the plan as proposed for Lot 3, Mr. Johnson said they would be back to "square one". The Chairman said he did not know how the city could approve a building that was oversized for a lot be- for the land was platted. Mr. Johnson noted that an agreement had been made on the property based on different requirements and a quick reading of the City Code. It was assumed that the building would fit on the site as planned, with- in setbacks. A closer examination of the ordinance and in fact, of the plan for the building brought about the need for variances. Commissioners Bartos noted that the building is too big for 'the lot. There were only two things to do, make the lot bigger or the building smaller. Discussion then centered on the building construction approval. The building as proposed will be 120' x 120', or 14,400 square feet. It will be constructed with an interior steel frame with masonry walls and a colored metal roof. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that there will be 1,760 square feet of office space. There are 43 park- ing spaces required, with 45 provided. Eleven spaces are provided for the office and 32 for the manu- facturing employees. The parking is all together. The entire parking and driveway area will be paved. There will be curbing around the parking area except at the west end of the lot where the future expan- sion would be. The City Engineer may request some kind of temporary curbing at a later time. Refuse will be kept inside. There will be exterior lighting consisting of one fixture over the truck area, one on the back and one on the north to illuminate the parking area. The parking area in the front will be marked as "visitor parking only". There will be no rooftop equipment. The sod 'line will extend 10-30 feet to the west. Beyond this the area will be seeded up to the point that it runs into the railroad property. There will be a blending of the railroad property long grasses and this property. In response to questions from Commissioner Edwards it was noted that there would be a maximum of 25 employees on three shifts. They did not feel there would be a problem with parking spaces even at shift change. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding the area marked for future expansion, Mr. Reilly said this would be designed mainly for storage purposes. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that they were requesting variances on the sideyard setback to allow the the driveway to be located only five feet off the lot line and also to allow the mechanical equipment in the sideyard. Commissioner Gustafson asked what type of operation the business was? Mr. Johnson said it was a precision machine company. He confirmed that the roof would be steel. The building will be steel frame construction, masonry walls but the masonry walls will not be load bearing. There is an overhang by the vestibule. Chairman cameron stated he was bothered by a brand new building wi~hparking in front. He asked for justification for putting 12 spaces in front. Mr. Johnson said that the way the building was laid out on the lot, plus the desire to save the area · for future expansion, was because of soil conditions. It was felt that visitors would then be closer to the office area. Mr. Reilly said there were probably five salesmen that would call at the office° Dr. Cameron's concern was also in regard to the single family residences across the street. He would prefer that they look at green grass, some berms and tall trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES w 6 - JANUARY 5, 1982 5. Mr. Johnson noted that the property across was Crystal. This property fronts on 35th Avenue as it comes in to Nevada for about 60 feet. The southern portion is a part of the school property and is playground,~-~ located about 15 feet above the roadway. Chairman Cameron responded that regardless, school kids did not loke to look at factories with cars parked in front of them either. Here we have a brand new building and they fill up the front with asphalt. Discussion then covered the variances a~ requested° Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the variances requested are sideyard - 15'instead of 20',on the north, 5'instead of 10'. The lot is too narrow for the size of the building they propose. The other variance is for mechanica~ equipment location. Commissioner Gundershaug said it was his feeling that with a brand new building they should have been able to design it for the lot. He would not be in favor of the variances. Chairman Cameron confirmed that City Code did not permit mechanical equipment in the sideyard and this would also require a variance. He asked why they had not placed the equipment on the roof? Mr. Johnson replied that they felt the equipment would be easier to maintain in the sideyard. He added that it was his understanding that the variances they required were for the equipment in the sideyard, the sideyard setback of 15' rather than 20', and the 5' rather than the 10' by the driveway. It was his understanding that the ordinance provided_for the parking in front of the building. The Chairman confirmed that this was so. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Johnson said there was a berm in the front and that it would be planted according to the requirements of the ordinance. The berm is approximately 107 feet long. Commissioner Bartos thought the shrubbery looked kind of sparse on the berm. Mr. Johnson said there were two honey locusts, three Montana Mugho pines, 11 Euonymus, and 42 barhery bushes proposed. The Euonymus is a large shrub growing to about 10 feet and the Mugho pines are a large evergreen. ~. Discussion continued between Mr. Johnson and Commissioner Bartos and the Chairman regarding the landscap- ing as proposed, including the amount ~quired, and the proper spacing of plantings, etc. The Chairman stated he felt there should be a great deal more landscaping, especially when they were requesting so many variances. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there were 12 stalls for visitor parking, that the front lot will be marked "visitor parking only",that handicapped parking would be provided. He asked the City Manager if the planting ordinance made specific recommendations? The City Manager said there were three different dimensions: one says trees cannot be more than 40 feet apart. On shrubs there is a three or four foot distance requirement, depending on the type of shrub and they must be in two rows so there was a staggered effect. Comznissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending denial of the preliminary plat as requested in Case 82-3, until such time as the construction plans that are propo.sed for the site be consistent with the plat size. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Gulenchyn, Edwards Absent: Wheelock, Friedrich Motion carried. Mr. Johnson asked whether this precipated the other two issues. The City Manager noted that it was his understanding that the denial was based on the need to bring the two elements together. He said the Council will have the option of doing whatever it wants on Monday. 6. PLANNING CASE 82-4 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PEP~MIT AND VARI~qCES AT 34TH/INDEPENDENCE -- BEAUTIFUL SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH, PETITIONER ~ Allan Esterberg, Co-Chairman of the Building Committee for Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church was present.' He was accompanied by Vernon Gunderman the senior pastor, Curt Pohl the Chairman of the congregation and the architect Darrel LeBarron. Mr. LeBarron made the presentation. He stated they had been retained by the church last spring. The firm is now initiating working drawings but they would like to do this with some confidence. The original building was built in 1962, fronting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - JANUARY 5, 1982 6. on Highway #18. This is considered the front. In 1977 an addition wasput on the north side which added education and fellowship space. The existing space today is 13,000 square feet, on about 174,000 square feet of land. The proposed addition is for worship and a narthex for gathering. It is about 7100 square feet for a worship addition that would seat about 482 people, with a potential of set ups making the seating 524. The combined buildings would then be about 20,430 square feet. A little parking has been removed from the original, but additional parking has been provided. Even with the proposed additional parking they would have 1/2 green space and 1/2 building and bituminous on the site. There will be 92 spaces on the north and 74 to the south with 15 along #18. They thought that about 106 stalls were required by code. They are proposzng a New curb cut on 33rd. It was his understanding that this curb cut had been approved earlier by the city but the option had never been used by the church. They recognize they are in a residential zone. It was their feeling that to continue to use only the exit on 34th Avenue would be too restrictive with the building expansion. They recognize that there is a problem with the existing driveway width. The other area of concern had been height. They propose a steeple on the roof, but no bell is proposed. The original height of the building was within the code limits. The City Manager stated that there was no problem with height in terms of the code. The steeple was permitted by code. Mr. LeBarron stated that prior to their appearance before the Planning Commission the church had invited the neighbors in for coffee and discussion of their plans. Mr. LeBarron noted that the steeple height bad been one of the concerns at the neighborhood meeting, as well as a concern that once the second curb cut was opened, the lot might be used as a short cut or speed- way by cars going through the neighborhood. One neighbor had been concerned whether the construction would cause major ground movement that might affect her swimming pool. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern over the width of the drive by the new parking area, as had been noted also at the Design and Review meeting. He added that the biggest question of Design and Review concerned the parking lot on the east side of the property and the screening. Mr. LeBarron said that presently there exists a fence which would be continued to cover the entire side. It was their feeling it was preferable to have the parking at the rear of the residential lots rather than at the residence side yards. They were also concerned that the existing green area to the south would be the last space left in the event of a desire for a future expansion for an educational building. Lengthy discussion followed between Commissioner Gustafson and the architect regarding the green space, the proposed expansion and alternate parking areas, ad well as the most cost effective construction, in regard to removing bituminous and relocating parking. Suggestion was made to reposition the parking along ~18. Commissioner Edwards noted that he would rather see additional parking along #18 also. Mr. LeBarron noted that this would then completely surround the building with asphalt. He felt that with the proposed configuration, they would preserve the largest piece of green, In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards, it was noted that the heaviest use of the facility would be at Christmas and Easter. Those were the times when they might seat 524 in the sanctuary. Part of the intent of the addition was to be able to house all worshippers at one service or at most two. Mr. LeBarron stated that they wished to work closely with the staff in regard to parking and landscaping. He felt the landscaping now on 34th should be duplicated on 33rd. The entire east property line is an opaque fence and the entire west property line has an approximately 12 foot high hedge of Russian Olive. Commissioner Gundershaug'asked about the fence on the east lot line and whether it was directly on the property line. The answer was "yes". He asked whether a gate or something could be installed in the parking lot to cut down the use of the parking lot as a raceway? Commissioner Edwards concurred with this suggestion. ~ Mr. LeBarron said he felt this was an excellent suggestion. He asked about the width of the curb cut to 34th Avenue, and was informed that a driveway for two way traffic must be 24 feet wide. The City Manager noted that in his opinion it might be preferable to divide the parking in the middle, rather than by the end. He added that there was no green area requirement for this zone. Mrs. Lynn Andries, 3341 Hillsboro, said that her concern was with the traffic. The cars drag now. she was concerned about the straight shot through the parking lot. She wondered if they would have some type of chain to prevent this. This is her concern. There is also no stop sign at 33rd/Hillsboro. She ~aid other neighbors she had talked to were also concerned with the traffic. She said there was now no landscaping on the east boundary. She felt the lot should be blocked off other than for church services. She felt if the lot was split, the cars would just go around the church and come out again. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8.- JANUARY 5, 1982 6. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted his main concern was with the traffic and the safety of children. Mr. John Rothstein, 3401 Independence, stated that his concern was that they open the other curb cut. If they do not, he will have even more traffic past his house than he does now. He felt that a rumble strip and a gate would pretty much take care of the problem in the parking lot. Karen Swan, 3317 Hillsboro, stated she lived directly east of the fence. The sanctuary as proposed will be directly behind her back yard. She said she would like to see some shrubbery beside the fence. They will be losing the present openness and will feel more closed in between the parking lot and fence. Commissioner Bartos said his concern was the landscaping and keeping the parking lot from becoming an Indy 500. Commissioner Gulenchyn went along with those statements. He felt it was a matter of controlling the traffic and adding shrubbery. Commissioner Edwards said he had a tough time with this particular project. He wondered where the land- scaping would go? There did not seem to be any room. He would also stop the traffic from going right through the parking lot, and though it should go around the west side of the building. The architect said there was five feet between the parking lot and the fence. Discussion followed be- tween the architect and Mrs. Swan about the possibility of some shrubbery being planted that would be visible from her lot. The architect said they want to work with both the staff and the neighbors. They would like to bid the pro3ect in February or March but would not begin actual construction until actual load limits were off in May, with conclusion in Fall of 1982. Discussion between the architect and the commissioners regarding the height of the fence (6 feet) the possibility of putting landscaping against the fence for the neighbor's view, the straight through traf- fic and the possibility of repositioning the parking to split the traffic and the need for screening on the east. Commissioner Gustafson said he felt strongly that additional parking should be along #18 and the building moved uo the east. The architect was concerned that the parking lot remain as is. He felt the entry and its esthetics as is, were important. He felt it was important also for the handicapped entrance, since there were many handi- capped members of the congregation. He felt that it was important for the entrance to be in the morning suiT. Commissioner Gundershaug said his main concern was the parking lot on Sunday night and after, so that it did not become a race track. He was also concerned with all of the parking on the east. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variances at Beautiful Savior Church in Case 82-4 with the stipulation that additional landscaping be provided along the entire eastern parking lot and that traffic be restricted in the parking lot other than during church services, with entrance only at the 34th Avenue side. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Ca~ron, Gundershaug Voting against: Gustafson, Edwards Absent: Wheelock, Friedrich Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 82-5 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7179 42ND AVENUE NORTH - GEORGE SVOLOPOULOS, PETITIONER Mr.Bob Wendt, owner of the Frosty Boy, represented Mr. Svolopoulos. He stated they now have a track record as far as volume at certain hours of the day. With the cafe closing in the summer months at 3:00 p.m., they feel that the parking does not create a problem with their busy time, which is 6:00 p.m. to 1t:00 p.m. Commissioner Gustafson asked about parking considerations, noting that previously they had looked for a place for overflow parking. They had not been able to arrange parking at the dairy store and he did not see where they had any overflow parking space. Mr. Wendt said this was correct. The only thing they had been able to arrange was for the employees to park at the bowling alley. He said they had been open from April until the first part of September. They had experienced no problems. There had always been adequate parking, since the volume of customers was in the evening hours when the cafe was closed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager said there had been no traffic pro- blems that he was aware of. He added that there were two concerns, one was what the actual volume was, and whether the new operators of the cafe were in agreement with the closing of the cafe at 3:00 p.m. He said it was also his understanding that'~the operators of the cafe required 15 spaces° PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - JANUARY 5, 1982 7. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Wendt that there was a signed agreement with the new opera- tors of the cafe that they would close at 3:00 p.m. The new operator said there was no such agreement, if they have to close, they will. It was noted that the purchase agreement specified a 3:00 p.m. closing. In response to a question from the CommOn, Mr. Wendt said there was no other option for extra parking. They had approached the apartment property to purchase s~me extra land hut their land was needed for the apartment building, even though the owner had been willing to sell to them. He understood that the Superette had been sold to Tom Thumb hut that it was presently vacant. Commissioner Gustafson asked if they had contacted the Vlckers people? They had not. The City Manager said that the land at the rear of the station was now vacant. Mr. Wendt said this was worth pUrsuing. However, most of the employees are temporary and do not drive to work. Employees can park at the bowling alley. Commissioner Gustafson stated that parking was the real concern. He felt they should explore the park- ing at Vickers before they appeared before the City Council. He confirmed that Mr. Wendt understood that if staff determined at a later time that parking was a problem, he might be asked to close. Mr. Wendt said "yes", they had received approval in the same manner before. The Chairm~n commented that Commissioner Gustafson had raised some good points that had to be signed, sealed, and delivered before Planning Commission approval. He asked about the possibility of a table to allow them to contact Vickers and get a signed statement from them and the restaurant that they will close at 3:00 p.m. during the summer months. He asked if this seemed reasonable? Mr. Wendt said "no". Mr. Harvey Light stated that the ice cream store on Bass Lake Road was a very busy site and he had never seen more than t0 cars in that lot. He said he had never seen anyone park in front of the superette from the Frosty Boy store. A citizen commented that he had never experienced any problem with parking at the Frosty Boy. He had been in and out of there within five minutes. The present operator of George's stated that if there were only 20 spaces to park, George could only ac- count for five for the Frosty Boy. Mr. Svolopoulos stated that he had operated the restaurant last summer and the ice cream store had opened at 11:00 a.m. and he had seen only two or three people come for ice cream while the store was open. The business did not pick up until after 5:00 p.m., that's why they went broke, there was no business. The operator asked why he wanted to open again if there wasno business, that was silly? Mr. Svolopoulos replied it was building and he had to pay the rent. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 82-5 until the meeting of February 2, 1982. Commis- sioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Friedrich Motion carried. Mr. Wendt asked if he could proceed before the City Council before the Planning Commission met again? He would like to open the store in March. The Chairman questioned what would be acomplished by this? He noted that the next Planning Commission meeting would be on February 2, 1982. The answer was "no", the Commission had the right to review as needed and make a recommendation before the petition went to the Council. 8. PLANNING CASE 82-6 REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 7605 49TH AVENUE NORTH - BRUCE AND MARSHAPINNEY, PETITIONERS Mr. Pinney said he had a 3/4 acre lot at 49th/Quebec which he would like to split to create another lot. The lot is hard to keep up and the kids in the area seem to feel it is a dumping ground. He would like to split it and sell it for a single family residence. Commissioner Bartos asked whether he would consider an easement on the west of Quebec to provide addess to the rest of the lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 m JANUARY 5, 1982 8. Mr. Pinney said the lots further down the block were landlocked. The Chairman noted that for some reason those lots had been created as large lots. When the City went /-~ through the Comprehensive ~lanning process some concern had been expressed by those owners that they might want to sell off a portion of their lots. One of the suggestions had been to run a road or alley down the middle. Approval of this plat would practically guarantee landlocking. F~r. Pinney noted that there was a house down the block with a swimming pool in the backyard and a road could not go through this. He questioned whether there would be room for beth a road easement and ano- . ther lot -- where there was enough footage. The Chairman noted that there could be a narrow street, since the lots were 330 feet deep. The City Manager said a road easement could be provided in case anyone wanted to split off at a future date. He asked whether anyone had expressed an interest in splitting their lots? Mr. Pinney said his next door neighbor was Mr. Carlson and he had a very large garden as well as a build- ing. He believed it was the next house over that had the swimming pool. He did not think Mr. Carlson was planning on splitting his lot. The Chairman confirmed that the neighbors had been notified -- as legally required -- 3 lots to the west. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat requested in Case 82-6, at 7605 49th Avenue North. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Friedrich Motion carried. 9. PL~_NNtNG CASE 82-7 REQUEST FOR VAR~CE AT 42ND/WINNETkA - NORTH STAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER Mr. Paul Nahursky represented North Star Financial Services. He stated they were again requesting a variance to allow them to build a second principal building on the site of the New Hope Shopping Center. They had received Planning Commission approval for this building once before, but had the request turned down by the City Council. The Council had expressed concern about the overall site plan. They had reviewed their plans verbally but they now had them on paper. They now have a site plan that is consistant with what they propose. Referring to a memo he had written to the Planning Commission he stated that the site plan included three proposals: 1. The common entrance, as recommended by Hennepin County. This easement would be exclusively on the Winnetka Associates property with an easement from them. It would allow two lanes of traffic in, one lane out, with a three way stop sign at the front entrance of the bank by the New Hope property. Hopefully, this will be accomplished in the spring. They feel this satis- fies the city's concerns as well as those of the County and the two centers. 2. Another concern was the Heise property. This property is still tied up in court. They hope it will be resolved and they can have some future development on the site soon, that will be compatible with the rest of the center. 3. The third concern is the proposed Pizza Hut restaurant which would be a free standing building. There had been concerns about the adequacy of parking space. They felt there was plenty. There had also been concerns expressed about the overall plan for the shopping center at the Council meeting. He then presented illustrations of the proposed changes to the exterior of the center. They will add to the height by four feet, which will hide the mechanical equipment. The extension will match the rest of the building. They plan to use a vertical seam type of metal work. The entrances have been revised and will recede and they will add landscaping° The plans for the interior of the mall include installing quarry tile, accentuating the existing sky lights, hopefully to have raised planters with benches between the planters, small dining tables in t~e center court for snacking, some potted trees and perhaps a plant kiosk. They feel that these changes will bring the center into a contemporary setting and marke%able space. They hope this will turn the tide on the center and provide the basis for the new concept of an outlet mall. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 11 - JANUARY 5, 1982 9. They feel this will be an asset to the community. He hoped this will satisfy in some way the concerns as expressed by the City Council. Discussion between Commissioner Gustafson and Mr. Nahursky regarding the proposed renovation, the explana- tion of the architect's rendering of the proposed remodeling, the type of materials to be used and when they hoped to proceed with their plans? Mr. Nahursky said that within the next week they hoped to go ahead with the drawings. In the next two or three months they would complete construction. They hope for a grand re-opening of the shopping cen- ter before the new school year begins. Commissioner Gustafson asked about tenants and whether they had definite leases at this time. Mr. Nahursky said they had several prospects, no leases. They are waiting until the final plans are pre- pared before signing leases. They have been getting more and more calls from serious tenants. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that they were hoping for completion in 1982. Discussion then centered on the parking problems that might arise if the Pizza Hut were allowed to build on the site. Mr. Nahursky noted that restaurants primarily.Bad their busiest times at lunch or in the evening. He felt the peak would be 6:00 p.m. to S:30 p.m. and they might expect a maximum of 35 cars. At the present time they anticipate that the shopping mall would only be open two evenings a week, with regular hours of 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. They did not see there would be any competition for parking spaces except perhaps at the noon hour. In answer t© questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Nahursky stated that the cross-over was now in place. He said that the attorneys are presently working on the easement agreements for the common driveway. Hopefully, these will be completed within the next month. The City Mangger noted that in regard to code requirements, there were adequate parking places providing the building on the Heise property fits into the plan. Brief discussion about possible development of the Heise property. It was noted that there would be per- haps a one story building proposed for this site. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the remodeling of the New Hope Center was predicated on the build- ing of the Pizza Hut? Mr. Nahursky said that the failure to build the Pizza Hut would jeopardize the center's plans. In terms of the Pizza Hut as a tenant, this was a guaranteed income because of the good lease. They had looked long and hard for a tenant like Pizza Hut. It is the key to the rest of the center. He noted that they are thinking in terms of 14 possible tenants. They have signed no leases as yet. The Chairman noted that he was personally very glad to see the action the Council had taken. He was terribly disapointed that there.were still acres of blacktop on the site. He did not see any greenery any where. Mr. Nahursky said they were asking for the city's help and assistance in this, and would appreciate any comments. They want to work with the city but have to take it one step at a time. Right now the primary focus is to get the variance. They feel they can take up the issue of landscaping when they ask for con- struction approval. The Chairman said he really felt strongly about the landscaping and re-expressed his disappointment in the presentation. The City Manager note~ that all the petitioner was requesting at this time was the variance. They will have to come back before the Commission for construction approval, both for the Pizza Hut and the ex- terior changes to the building. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that Council had asked for a picture of what was to happen to the total mall. He questioned if this was sufficient to get them through the Council? He was concerned that no matter what the Commission did about the Pizza Hut, it w~uld go before Council and they would do the same thing again. Mr. Nahursky stated the building was there. All they are asking is to upgrade the mall and introduce the new concept for the mall. They feel this is an opportunity to break away from the cuththroat atmosphere of the community shopping center approach, which has changed radically in the last five years. They do not want to be dogs fighting over the same bone. They feel this approach and the outlet mall will bring people into New Hope to shop. They are now active managers of the center as well as being owners. Up to this time they have been tied up with leases. This is no longer true and they hope to make the center something that New Hope can be proud of. They feel that it is very important to have some kind of food service on the site. Most food establishments do not want to operate inside a mall. They want their own building, not space inside the center. He wished to emphasize that they were sincere in their efforts to upgrade the mall and make it work. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 12 - JANUARY 5, 1982 Chairman Cameron stated that he felt the idea for an outlet mall was a good one. He had no problems with the Pizza Hut. His conern was that they had not even on paper done anything to upgrade seven acres of blacktop. He felt the city would do all it could to do something about the property. They /-~ need a long range plan. Mr. Kelly, owner of the center, asked to speak. He stated they were a little confused. The Comprehensive Plan for the city had indicated the possibility of three buildings west of the Heise property. He assumed that the Heise property could take a building. When they had appeared before the City Council, they had indicated there should be no free standing buildings on any of the property. Before this time there could not have been any free standing buildings because Red Owl had a covenant against them. Red Owl had also had a covenant that there would be no cross over between the two centers. They had brought in a plan based on the recommendations of Midwest Planning and were told by Council that there should be no free standing buildings. It was difficult for them to talk to an architect when there was still this con- fusion. The Hennepin County Engineer had indicated there should be a cross over, and they had the feeling this was also what the city wanted. When they put in a cross over, someone had blocked it. It is now open however, with traffic flowing through. Perhaps the problem was communication. He was concerned also because they were proposing a building where the planners had recommended a building be. He could understand the business'of trade offs and they wish to continue to work with the City Coun- cil. He then referred to the original plans for the new mall, which the city had helped to build. It had been their understanding when they purchased the mall that there would be a connection between the two. They want to do the best they can. The Chairman noted that in New Hope the Council had the final decision. The Planning Commission could only react to plans. Discussion continued between Mr. Kelly and the members of the Commission regarding the fact that the build- ings needed to be treated individually in regard to the total plan. Mr. Nahursky noted that he felt that the site plan did deal with the overall plan. They were asking for a second building and will hopefully be back before the Commission with actual construction plans. He felt that each building had to be dealt with individually within the total plan. The Chairman repeated his feeling that they needed a total plan for the seven acres. He would like to see nicer entrances, green space and landscaping along Winnetka and 42nd. He thought something could als0/_~ be done about the back end of the property, in terms of bushes and trees. Commissioner Gustafson questioned the possible guarantee to the city, even if the petitioner did come in with a plan they had spent $10,000 on having drafted, that it would completed. He did not feel this a valid request if it did not legally bind them to such a plan. He didn't understand this at all. Would such a complete plan then guarantee them automatic approval of their request? He felt the petitioner had the bucks on the line, if they did not make a go of the center, they would take a big loss. As a Commis- sioner he was not going to sit and make them come up with a master plan that would make him feel good be- cause it was on a piece of paper. Discussion continued between the Chariman and Commissioner Gustafson. Mr. Kelly noted that he felt they could do a better job than was done on the other center. Commissioner Bartos stated he was behind them and was impressed with what they wanted to do and wanted to give them all the backing possible, since New Hope needed the center. The city did not need what was there now. Commissioner Gulenchyn stated that the variance had been approved the last time and the Commission was still back at the same question. ~en this went back to Council what would happen? Commissioner Gundershaug said he had voted for the variance last time and would vote for it again. Even though the variance were granted, the petitioners would have to come back for construction approval and he felt that the city would still have a lot of control over the development at that time. The issue before the meeting was konly the variance for the second principal building. Commissioner Edwards stated he tended to agree on that issue. He had voted for the variance previously and would do so againl He felt the petitioners were between a rock and a hard place. Commissioner Gustafson commented that the petitioner could not possibly go out and spend the kind of money to improve the property now. He questioned whether they would not have to come back to the commis- sion and Council even if they did provide an elaborate plan now? The answer was ~'yes". Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending, approval of the variance request for 42nd/Winnetka ~'~', in Case 82-7. Co~missioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartosf Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards _ Voting against: Cameron Absent: Wheelock, Friedrlch Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 13 - JANUARY 5, 1982 COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. The Design and Review Conunittee had one meeting, on December 23, 1981. 11. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 12. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 13. The City Manager reviewed the minutes of the Council Meetings of December 14th, and 28th. He noted that the City Council had approved the moving of the house from 29th/Nevada to the proposed plat on 49th/Quebec (Case 82-6). 14. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 1, 1981 were approved as printed. 15. The next item of business was election of officers for 1982 for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bartos moved that Robert Cameron and Paul Gustafson be re-elected to the ~ositions of Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, for the year of 1982. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Wheelock, Freidrich Motion carried. 16. Chairman Cameron read a letter of resignation from Commissioner Wheelock. He forwarded this resigna- tion to the City Council via the City Manager. 18. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo~yc~ Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING CO~ISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 2, 1982 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 2, 1982 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Friedrich (arriVed at 7:37 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82-2 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 5, 1982) REQUEST FOR REZONING/CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT AT 5550 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - WINCHELL'S DONUT HOUSE, PETITIONER The Chairman noted that the petitioner had requested a table of this case until the meeting of March 2, 1982. Commissioner Bartos made a motion tablinq Case 82-2 until March 2, 1982. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 82-5 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 5, 1982) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7170-42ND AVENUE NORTH - GEORGE SVOLOPOULOS, PETITIONER Mr. Bob Wendt and Mr. George Svolopoutos were present. Mr. Wendt distributed a letter from the present operators of George's Cafe to the Commissioners. The letter (attached) stated that the cafe would close at 3:00 p.m. during the months that Frosty Boy would be in operation to avoid any parking conflicts.. Mr. Wendt stated they had contacted the Vickers Company in regard to using some of their surplus space at the station across the street and had received a polite, but definite "no". Vickers intends to ex- pand their operation. He added that with the cafe closed he did not feel there would be any parking problem. Commissioner Gustafson commented that his main concern, and he felt of the other Commissioners, was the on-site parking. He asked what other options there were, now that the Vickers station would not let them park? Mr. Wendt said there were no other options, other than the cafe being closed during Frosty Boy's peak hours. From 3:00 p.m. until closing (approximately 11:00 p.m.) they would have exclusive use of the parking lot. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with the City Manager that there had been no complaints in regard to parking last summer when Frosty Boy was open. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos regarding the status of the dairy, store, Mr. Svolo- poulos said no one knew anything, supposedly it had been sold to Tom Thumb. He added in response to another question; that the hours of operation of the Frosty Boy would probably be 12:00 noon to i0:00 p.m., seven days a week. He will perhaps open in March, depending on the weather. He will be closed four to five months a year. Discussion followed on the percentage of customers that might stay on the site to eat. Mr. Wendt said there was one table on the patio in front of the store, but no space for seating inside the store. They did not feel that very many people stayed on the site to eat their ice cream. Sales were conducted from the walk-up window. The Chairman stated, for the record, that a letter had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Guillet, present operators of the cafe, that they would close the cafe at 3:00 p.m. during the months that the Frosty Boy was open. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested four 7170 42nd Avenue North, Case 82-5, subject to the fact that the Planni.n.g Commission gave permission, until the time that the health license came up for renewal again. At this time staf~ will review the pa.rking re~airements on the site and bring the matter in front of the Planning. Commission and City Coun- cil if there is a problem. Commissioner Edwards second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 2, 1982 4. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, B~rtos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Ed%rards Voting against: None Abstain: Friedrich Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. Design and Review held one meeting on Case 82-8. 6. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 7. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. It was noted that there were two items pending for consideration by this committee -- the Auction House and where it might be located, and the Use List for a rental business if it should go into a gas station site. NEW BUSINESS 8. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of January 11, and January 25th, 1982. 9. The Commission Minutes of January 5, 1982 were accepted as printed. 10. Discussion then covered snow plowing in the city and the pattern used for determining the order in which snow is removed, and the time table for Cable TV to be operating in the city. The Manager noted that the entire city should be wired for Cable within 22 months from March 1, 1982. Chairman Cameron stated that in March of 1981 when the last Planning Commission member had been appointed, there had been one candidate placed on a waiting list. He noted that he would contact this gentlemen and see if he were still interested in serving. It was suggested that if he did no~ wish to be a commissioner, a notice could be put into the Post soli- citing candidates for the vacancy. ~-~ 12. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary January 27, 1982 Planning Commission City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota Re: Frosty Boy Store, 7179 42nd Avenue, North Dear Planning Commission Members: By way of introduction, we are Mike and Pat Guillet, Lessee and operators of George's Cafe, located at 7181 42nd Avenue, North. We have agreed to close our cafe at 3:00 p.m. during the months the Frosty Boy Store is in operation to alleviate traffic congestion in the parking lot. Respectfully submitted, Mike Guillet Pat Guillet PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 2, 1982 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 2, 1982 at the City Hall, 4401 Xy!on Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron, 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Gulenchyn (excused), Gustafson (excused), Friedrich (excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82-2 - REQUEST FOR REZONiNG AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5550 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - WINCHELL'S DONUT HOUSE, PETITIONER The City Manager stated that Winchell's had requested a table to the meeting of April 6, 1982 and per- haps even until the May 4th, meeting. Commissioner Edwards made a motion tabling Case 82-2 until April 6, 1982. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 82-~ - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL/SETBACK VARIANCE - AT 2917 _NEVADA AVENUE NORTH - REDSON PROPERTIES, PETITIONER Mr. Adamson of Redson Properties stated that the architect had not arrived and requested this case be tabled until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion tabling Case 82-8 until the end of the meeting. Com~issioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson Motion carried. The City manager noted that the legal notices that had been mailed out specified a particular time for public hearings to start on each planning case. It was too early to consider Case 82-10. The Chairman stated that the Commission would then proceed to handle routine business until-the sche- duled time. COmmITTEE REPORTS 7. Design and Review Committee had met once on, February 16, 1982 to review planning requests from Winchells, Burger Chef and Redson Properties. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 11. The Council Minutes of February 8th, and 12~, were reviewed by the City Manager. He stated that the major discussions at those meetings had involved the issues of housing, liquor and financing. The Council is reviewing the housing report that had been distributed last summer and he did not know what they were going to do about housing at this time. Any major changes in housing approach might in- volve code r~visions. The Chairman asked whether it was possible that Council would handle the housing issue themselves or if some type of community involvement would be solicited and whether the Planning Commission would be in- volved? Th~ Manager responded that at the present time there was no concensus on the Council that the housing issue was a problem or how such a problem would be reviewed. The Manager added that there would be a P'ublic Hearing on March 22, 1982 in regard to the proposed use of CDBG funds for 1982/83. He said the Council was also interested in starting on the project at 49th/ #18. This, of course, also would involve mortgage money being avail, able. He added that it looked as PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MARCH 2, 1982 11. though one row of housing units could be placed around the edge of the property with a cul-du-sac -- perhaps space for 16 doubles. There is a lot of poor soil on the site° The city anticipates about $161,000 in CDBG funds. The utilities and grading alone would come to about $280,000 on this site, so it would be at least a two year project. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PLANNING CASE 82-10 - P~QUEST FOR SETBACK VARI~i~CE AT 3535 WIkq.~ET~A AVENUE NORTH -GETTY REFINING~ND ~%RKETING COMPANY, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. NEW BUSINESS 12. The Planning Commission minutes of February 2, 1982 were accepted as printed. 14. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos regarding the New Hope Center, the City Manager stated that Mr. Kelly was supposedly working on the interior changes and lining up tenants for the center. His attorney had picked up a copy of the Findings of Fact for Denial on the Pizza Hut and he assumed the case would probably be in court at some time. The City Manager then introduced Dan Donahue to the C~mmissioners who had not previously met him.. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PLANNING CASE 82-11 - REQUEST FOR P~EZONING R-1 TO R-5 AT 5520 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER, PETITIONER Mr. Don Forseth, represented North Ridge Care Center. He stated he had been acting as the liaison be- tween North Ridge and the Church of the Epiphany. The property is located at 5520 Boone Avenue North. They presently have an option agreement between North Ridge and the Church of the Epiphany. They have agreed in principal and the attornies had just completed tke paper %~ork. Mr. Thompson had already signed the option. The agreement was now on its way to the church's attorney. The church's attorney had stated he had been working with North Ridge's attorney and did not see why the option could not be accepted as it was prepared. Mr. Forseth stated that, in brief, the plans were to construct housing for the elderly on the church property, if it could be rezoned. The estimated cost of this would be 4% to 5 million dollars. He stated that North Ridge was a community service organization thatpr~vides excellent care for the elderly and also paid taxes to the city. At the present time they have housing for the elderly in connection with the care center of North Ridge. Mr. Thompson's, North Ridge administrator, plan is to convert the existing housing to an intermediate care facility. The people presently living in the apartments would then be moved to the new apartments across the street. The proposed construction would provide an increase of probably 140-150 employees, which would add to the payroll of the area. North Ridge presently has 420 employees. Mr. Forseth noted that Mr. Charles Thompson was also present if the Commissioners had any questions for him. He added that meetings had already been held with John Pope, of Pope Architects and with Jim Beckwith of Krause-Anderson in regard to planning for the proposed addition if approval were received for the rezoning. They would be ready to proceed with plans and specifications. The church had held a meeting on February 21, 1982 at which there had been a 95% affirmative vote to enter into the option agreement with North Ridge and move fc~ward as far as the proposal for sale is con- cerned. John Traw, Jr. Warden of the church, was also present to answer questions from the Commission. It was noted that the church had a purchase agreement on some property in Plymouth and was working with that city in regard to getting the zoning for a church. Mr. Forseth stated that the church property is pretty much surrounded by non residential zoning. The Begin Addition which borders the apartments to the east is the only single family residential. To the south is North Ridge, to the east R-4, to the west I-l, and to the north R-4. The church property is zoned R-1. Commissioner Bartos stated his concern that the if the city rezoned the property, the plans might not proceed because of lack of financing. Mr. Forseth said they were requesting the rezoning on the condition that North Ridge could secure the property from the church. Chairman Cameron asked whether the Commission could legally rezone conditionally? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH 2, 1982 6. The City Manager said "yes". The recommendation could be made to Council for the rezoning, with the understanding that it was conditioned on completion of the purchase. Another option would be to hold up consideration of the rezoning until plans were complete. However, he did not feel this would be good for the petitioner. He assumed they would want some assurance on the rezoning before they spent money ion plans, etc. He said the requested zone is R-5 which is limited to elderly housing. The Manager asked Mr. Forseth whether or not North Ridge had determined that they would ask for Tax Increment Financing? Mr. Forseth said this was a possibility. If it were determined that the existing building could not be used, he felt they might have to go to tax increment financing in order to proceed with their plans. The City Manager said there was no reason that the Commission would not be perfectly within its rights to recommend approval of the rezoning to the Council, based on conditions of completion of the purchase of the property, financing, etc. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos, the City Manager said that R-5 was limited to ~!derly housing. Nothing else could be built in such a zone. Mr. Forseth said that North Ridge would need and only wanted R-5 zoning on the property. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they intended to retain the present church building? Mr. Forseth said, probably not, this had not been decided as yet. Whatever ~s built on the site.would be only used for housing for the elderly. Mr. Thompson said they plan to have the same type of facility that is across the street connected to the nursing home. They would be pretty much self care units. Commissioner Gundershaug said he couldn't vote for an R-5 without qualifications that if plans for the elderly housing did not work out, the property would revert to R-1. Mr. Forseth noted that everything in their plans was conditional upon the church signing the option agree- Chairman Cameron said he felt it was important that the case be moeved along but that the point should be made that a rezoning to R-5 was conditional upon the completion of the proposal. Commissioner Edwards said he had no further questions and was in agreement with a rezoning only to R-5. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos, the City Manager said that it would be possible to recommend rezoning to R-5 based on the concept being approved, with the zoning reverting to R-1 if not. He added that the ordinance changing the zone could simply be held until everything else was in order. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron about the surrounding zones, it was stated that the church property was R-l, to the north and south is R-4, to the east is $-4 and to the west is I-1. Chairman Cameron noted that in effect, the church property was an island of R-1 that consisted of approxi- mately 4% acres. He added that apparently as long as the church had been on the site, no one had ques- tioned the R-1 zone. He was pretty much convinced that a mistake had been made in the original zoning. Commissioner Gundershaug agreed. He said he didn't think that many churches had been sold in the City of New Hope. There was no one present to speak to this request. Commissioner Bartos moved that it was ~le concensus of the Commission that the original zoning for this propert__yq was a mistake, and that it was recommending the requested rezoning from R-1 to R-5 be approved, for 5520 Boone Avenue North (Case 82-11) with the following stipulations: 1. Should the sale of the church property not be finalized, the property would remain R-1. 2. If financing and other considerations for the project were not cOmpleted, the property would remain R-1. It was the further concensus of the Commission that the rezoning was in keeping with the land use ~lan as contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustaf$on Motion carried° PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH 2, 1982 4. Commissioner Gundershaug. made a motion to remove Case 82-8 from the table. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson Motion carried. ~. Reynold Roberts, of Roberts Architects, represented Redson Properties. He stated that his client had built an office/warehouse building on Nevada Avenue in 1979 and has since acquired the adjoining property. Tkey wish to construct another 50,232 square foot building. The structure will cover 26.2% of the site, the green area will be 46.7% of the site and the parking lot and driveway area will total 25.1%. There is a natural pond existing which they inten~ to maintain in a natural state. They feel this natural area will be enhanced by the proposed landscaping. .Mr. Roberts stated that one of the request of Design and Review had been for them to present a plan showing the two properties co~lbined. He presented this. Access will be off the circle at the end of Nevada Avenue. There is an easemen~ across the south end of the property to serve the lot to the west. Redson Properties will rebuild the driveway and move the existing garage and maintain the access to the property to the west. The building will be compatible with the building built in 1979. The only exception is that there will be no second story offices in the new building. The circulation pattern provides access beyond the cir- cle, with a one-way situation exactly the same as the one being used now. Entrance one way, trucks backing into loading docks and then making their way out. Office areas would be along the east side of the building with parking along there, with additional parking on the ~;est side, primarily for employees and staff. Design and Review had also requested a turning radius at all corners consisting of a 50' outside radius and a 27' znslde radius to allow trucks to make the corner. They propose to carry the water line ~o the east and along the eastern edge of the parking and then tie it in to the existin~ line at the north part of the prcperty. The owner is willing to carry the sewer across the south easement before the roadway is built to assure servmce to the west lot. Mr. Adamson, acting for Redson Properties, has agreed to carry any utility line~ necessary through the south easement. Mr. Roberts noted that another question raised by Design and Review had been in relation to trucks per- haps stopping at the first Redson building and then proceeding to the second building. Would there be enough radius to accommodate this? To accomplish this movement, six parking spaces from the original site had been lost. However, when that building had been built, 16 parking spaces had been added at the easterly end of the building. They had removed 14 so they were aetuallytwo spaces over. They will be short four spaces in the total complex. They are proposing 96 spaces on the new site and they will be three over on this site. Chairman Cameron asked if there was space on the first lot to add parking if it became necessary? Mr. Adamson noted that at 'the present time there are about 30 spaces on the first building site that are not used. Mr. Roberts said that another area of concern at Design and Review had been the dumpster area. It will be similar to the location of the dumpster an the first building. They are further collecting water in a catch basin which will empty into the pond. They will make every effort to leave the natural vegeta- tion. He added that they were requesting the variance in sideyard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet. Since the two lots have the same owner, no one will ever see the line. In response mo a question from the Chairman, Mr. Roberts said that the only justification for the vari- ance he could make was because of the jogs in the proposed building construction and in attempting to provide sufficient parking space the variance was necessary. They hoped that this variance would be approved, because there was no street there and there was no one on the other side of the street to be inconvenienced. In answer to a question regarding how the property would be split if it %~ere to be sold, it was noted that the property was already platted into two lots, with an easement into the property line. There are definite property lines. The building exterior will be of textured concrete block and will be almost identical~to the first building. There will be two differences in the exterior. Since there are no second floor offices pro- posed, they have eliminated the second band of textured block. They also made the entrance lobby approxi- mately two stories high. They felt this would enhancethe appearance of the building. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that truck traffic would be marked "one way", and that the rooftop equmpment would be painted to match the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MAR~{ 2, 1982 4. Mr. Roberts said a complete study in regard to signage had been prepared for the first Witcher building. They intend to provide a similar plan for this building. In response to a concern of CommisSioner Gundershaug's, Mr. Adamson confirmed that if it proved neces- sary, they would comply with a city request to provide additional parking on the site of the first warehouse. Lighting will consist of three pole mounted lights to the east of the parking lot, and wall mounted lights on the building exterior. The curbs will be concrete. They intend to sod around the building, combined with rock mulch and plantings° They will seed the area up to the proposed wild section. Co~nissioner Gundershaug noted that he felt the petitioners had done a very good job with their land- scaping. He noted that he wished the petitioner to be aware that some time in the future, with a change in building occupants the 96 proposed parking spaces might not be sufficient and that the city might require th~ to provide more parking. Mr. Roberts answered that more spaces could be provided on th~ first building site. It had been their e×perience that all of the spaces %.ere not now used at the original building. He added that the second building will not have as much office space. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that an easement had been provided to the property to the west and that the petitioner would come back before the Con~ission for approval of the sign plan. He noted that when he had been past the building this week there had been- a trash container outside. He asked whe- ther they were not supposed to be stored inside? He requested that the petitioner investigate the situation. There was no one present in regard to this case. Co~missioner Gundershaug made a motion recon~ending approval of the construction and variance as re- quested in Case 82-8 by Redson Properties, with the stipulation that truck traffic wculd be marked for '~one way" around the building and that addlticnal parking wo~]ld be provided for buildin~ #1 if and when it was requested by the cit~. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Bsrtos~ Cameron, G~3ndershaug, Edwards Vo~ing against: None Absent: 'Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 82-10 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 3535 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - GETTY REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Dave George, Senior Eagineer for Getty Refining Company represented the petitioner. He stated they were requesting the setback variance from 35 feet to 31 feet to enable them to install a free stand- ing canopy over the existing pump island. The canopy would be 24' x 24' The island is self serve and the canopy would give the customer protec- tion from weather and provide for better service. The canopy is pre-engineered and this is the smallest size they can order. If they cannot purchase this canopy and cannot receive a variance, it will involve moving the entire pump island and changing the layout of the station. Short discussion followed regarding this request. There was no one present to speak about the case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending a~proval of the variance at 3535'Winnetka as re- quested in Case 82-10 b~ ~ett~ Re~iqing Com~an~. Commissioner Bartos seccnd. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn~ Gustafson Motion carried. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that also appearing before the Design and Review Committee had been Mr. Johnson of Burger chef. He was requesting a drive-through window for the restaurant. He stated that after looking at the proposed plans and being aware of the existing parking situation at the resta6rant, he and Commissioner Edwards had more or less told the owner they did not think the request could be ap- proved. There was a parking problem now, and he personally felt it would make a horrendous mess if such a drive-through were allowed. The City Manager noted that Burger Chef had postponed their appearance for at least one month. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH 2, 1982 5. Commissioner Edwards commented that such an addition would cause them to lose half of the parking they now have. Short discussion about the problems of this proposal. 10. Chairman commented on the fact that ac the last meeting Terri ~eelock's resignation had been accepted~ He noted that at the time of the last new Co~mission member, Mr. Harcid TrouD had been informed that he would be notified about the next vacancy. Mr. TrouD was in attendance at the meeting and was invited fo~,ard to ask questions he might have in regard to serving on the Planning Co~mmission. Follo%Jing discussion which covered the amount of time involved in being on the Commission, and the in- dividual responsibilities, etc. Mr. Troup asked for time ~o consider accepting the a~pointment. He will consact Chairman Ca~eron before the next Planninq Commission meeting. Cameron noted that the Con,mission's reco~menda~ion for ~he ~ppoin~ent would need ~o be approved by the City Council. Mr. Troup thanked the Commission for their consideration of his application. 15. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /~ ~ ~oyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION M~NUTES APRIL 6, 1982 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, April 6, 1982 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 2. The City Manager administered the Oath of Office to the new Commissioner, Mr. Harold Troup. 3. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Freidrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Tr~up Absent: Gundershaug (excused), Edwards (excused) Chairman Cameron noted that there were two guests at the meeting. He introduced Mrs. Marsha Hinitz, a New Hope resident, who in turn introduced Mr. Tsuneo Asada, from Osaka Japan, a psychologist who is in the country doing research on volunteers in government. They were both welcomed by the Chairman on behalf of the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. PLANNING CASE 82-2 - REZONING/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 2, 1982) - 5520 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - WINCh~LL'S DONUT HOUSE, PETITIONER The City Manager stated that the petitioner had requested that this case be tabled until the meeting of May 4, 1982. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 82-2 until May 4, 1982. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson~ Troup Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug, Edwards Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 82-9 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE ~E~IT/VARIANCE AT 4210 WINNETKA AVENUE - KENNETH JOHNSON, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson tabled Case 82-9 until later in the meeting. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Eriedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Troup Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug, Edwards Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 82-12 -.REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT AT 7912 BASS LAKE ROAD - CAROL/GORDON OLSON, PETITIONERS 'Mrs. Olson stated they were requesting a variance to allow them to display banners to advertise their business, on an occasional basis. She said it was becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with advertising their specials through the salon. They do have two other salons in Minnetonka and in the north Hopkins area. They have used banners at these locations and have found they have had tremen- dous response. She showed the Commissioners an example of the type of banner they would use. They would be placed out- side of the building. They are approximately 2' x 4' They are made of fabric that does not whip around in the wind. They w~uld be tied securely to the outside of the building. They do not hays win- dows that would allow their placement inside. They are used only on occasion, not on a day to day basis. They have several banners - e].ght different ones - that they have used in the other salons. It was their feeling that use of the banners would help their business. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the petitioner was familiar with the fact that the City of New Hope had a Sign Ordinance and that she was familiar with the Sign Ordinance and that it specifically banned the use of banners and this type of advertising. He asked what her rationale was for request- lng the variance from the ordinance? Mrs. Olson replied that the only alternative they would have, without using banners, would be to go to newspaper advertising, which had increased 40% in cost in the last year. She stated they ~re part of a large corporation based in South Dakota. This shop is one of five out of 70 salons/beauty schools that were not allowed to use banners. Tkey have been used in different parts of Minnesota, South Dakota Iowa and Nebraska. The banners are professionally done - are not homemade signs - and the use has hell~ed business. Mrs. Olson said they were to the point of entering the' last year of their lease at the Bass Lake Road location and have not seen the qrowth they have seen in the other two stores. This was one alternative they wanted to try before deciding whether to get rid of ~he location. PLA~ING CO~ISSION MINUTES - 2 ° APRIL 6, 1982 6. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether they attributed the growth in the other two stores to the use of these banners? Mrs. Olson replied "very definitely". At times, with the new store, they have gained 3-15 people per day because of the banners. They average 30 new clients per week in the other two stores. They have had this store 3-4 years and have not experienced the growth that they have in the other two stores. Chairman'Cameron referred to the New Hope Sign Ordinance. He noted that the philosophy was that the city did not look at signage as advertising but more as directional in nature. This was the primary concept on which the ordinance was designed. They have received a number of requests and he felt that city staff had probably turned down more requests than Planning Commission had, similar ~o this. Commissioner Bartos said that he felt they would be opening~up a "Pandora's Box" if they approved the use of banners. The ordinance states that regardless of the size or construction material, it is still a banner. The Commission is trying to keep the city's buildings from looking tacky. He personally was not too impressed with banners. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending denial of Case 82-12. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Troup Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug, Edwards Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 82-13 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINA~CE/REZONING OR ZONING THXT AMENDMENT/VARI- ANCE/CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL ON INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PE- TIONER Mr. Gary Nordness represented Rosewood Corporation. He stated he was requesting 1) an amendment to the I-L Use List to permit a Kinder Care center to be built in that zone; 2) a variance for frontyard park- ing; 3) construction approval for the actual building; 4) a waiver of platting; and 5) a variance in the/''~ number of parking spaces required. ~ The proposed construction would be located on the interior of Science Industry Park, on International Parkway, south of Bass Lake Road and visible from Bass Lake Road. There is another large building lo- cated across the street and the vacant land backs up to the Pheasant Park apartments. He said he felt Kinder Care had made significant changes in the landscaping of the building and had in- creased the parking provided 5o 26,' as a result of the discussion at the Design and Review meeting. The building itself would be 4900 square feet. The parking requirement is based on office occupancy but the Kinder Care operation would normally have between three and four people on the site at a time and the rest would be children. They have increased the width of the site to 152 feet. Following the Design and Review meeting the planting/greenery had been increased from 26 to 91 plants of all variations and sizes. They would be three shy of the normal office use requirement in parking spaces and exceed the school requirement. They have added security lighting as requested by Design and Review. They have curb lined the front of the building including curbing the island and adding green. They have also added a three foot berm at the front of the building. Due to the soil conditions of the land, normal warehouse usage could not be achieved without piling the land. The economics of this would not make such development feasible. Chairman Cameron said that he felt the first thing the Commission should consider was whether or not a rezoning could be justified. The other possibility would be ~o amend the code to allow for day care cen- ters in industrial areas. If the Commission did not see any merit in this, then there really wasn't any reason to proceed with the rest of the case~ The Chairman said he personally could never see a rezoning to an R-3 in an industrial area. He did not think it was morally correct and perhaps not even legally oorrect. He asked if anyone disagreed with this position? Commissioner Bartos said he felt rezoning would be a return to spot zoning which the city had never done. He ¢outd not see this. The Chairman stated for the record that the concensus was that a rezoning was not appropriate. He then asked if the Commission felt the location was appropriate for a day care center? Mr. Nordness stated that he did not wish to have a rezoning, but was primarily asking for consideration of amending the use list in the I-1 zone to provide for day care centers as a Conditional Use. The zon- ing now provided for retail training centers and special training schools. The only zone which allows PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - APRIL 6, 1982 7. day care centers is R-3 and there is very little land left in this zone that would be suitable for a Kinder Care operation. Chairman Cameron asked for rationale as to why this would be a good area for a Kinder Care center. Mr. Nordness stated the site had very good access, located off 918 and Bass Lake Road. It is located close to an area where there were working husbands and wives and it is located in an area where there is reduced traffic in contrast to some of the R-3 areas. In his opinion, the fact that the site is in somewhat of a quiet zone was a plus. There is the area earlier dedicated to the city and behind that are the Pheasant Park apartments. It is ~heir intent to dedicate the land to the east to the city. Chairman Cameron asked for a description of a nol~nal Kinder Care Day. Karen Thorelson, Director of the Kinder Care Center in Maple Grove stated that her particular center opened at 6:15 a.m. by parent request. Normally they would open at 6:30 a.m. They close at 6:30 p.m. Children begin to arrive anywhere from 6:15 until 8:00 a.m. There are very rarely more than three parents in the building at any one time. This unit will be licensed for 99 children. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron regarding whether the children would be picked up and dropped off at the same time, she stated that they were not -- usually arrival and departure times were spread out. They have children from 6 weeks to 12 years_of age at the center. Between 6:15 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. approximately 18 children w~uld come; between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. an additional 8-21; between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. probably another 20. Most of the children at her center are there by 8:00 a.m. There is generally no traffic in the afternoon until 3:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. and then again 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. They have provided 20 parking stalls at her center -- eight of them have never been used to her knowledge. The City Manager asked whether they had a regular class schedule during the day? Ms. Thorelson said they had an infant program that was fairly structured and was primarily a care fund- tion. It did also work with the infants in regard to stimulation and in older babies, language develop- ment. The State of Minnesota describes an infant from six weeks to 16 months. Toddler programs become involved, learning colors, recognizing shapes, etc. Pre-schoolers are introduced to language development, letter recognition, phonics, rote learning of counting. The four year olds have a special reading readiness program that will teach concepts. They also have a private kindergar- ten program with a curriculum used also by some other schools in the country - the Rosemark system. They also have a Latch Key program for before and after school care and are beginning a program called Club Mates in June that is basically set up like an achievement club where they have specific projects working toward receiving a badge. Starting in June the Minnesota schools will have a pilot pro~ect deal- ing with computers. Commissioner Bartos asked about the ratio of adult to child in the various age groups. The answer was that in the Maple Grove Center there were four infants to one staff member; Toddlers were 7 to 1; Pre-schoolers were 10 - 1 and School Age children 15 to 1. These ratios are determined by the State of Minnesota. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson it was stated that maximum staff could be 15-17 including a cook, depending on how the center was licensed. They will serve breakfast, lunch and snacks. There would be deliveries of food and paper supplies. Food is prepared on the site· Generally the people hired would be from the surround area. They have also found that the people using their services generally live within a four mile radius. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked if there would be outside activities? Mr. Nordness said the whole rear yard area would be fenced at the lot line and there would be play equipment. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether, in view of the fact there were other schools in the area, they had done a survey that indicated there was a marketplace for their organization? What do they bring to the City of New Hope that is not already here? Mr. Nordness stated that he and a representative from Montgomery Alabama, as well as Mrs. Donna Golf who heads up this region had done an extensive drive through of the area and had come to the conclusion, based on logistics and the area, that they could definitely be of benefit to the city and the area. In addition to that, he did not believe that, other than the Montessori School, there was another total day care facility such as Kinder Care in the area, other than in-house care. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - APRIL 6, 1982 7. Kinder Care, because of its size and the qualifications of its people, can offer a lot more than a per- son caring for one to three children in the home. They are also in a position to take on much greater liability, which would be of benefit to the people utilizing the services. Chairman Cameron asked about the neighbors to this site. Mr. Nordness stated that the neighbors were the Bass Lake Building, a vacant lot, Post Publishing and the lot backed .up to Pheasant Park Apartments. Across the street there was a business. In the adjacent area there was really nothing close. He added in response to a question~ that if the land were not used for the Kinder Care facility, it would probably not be used ~for anything. The soil conditions would suppor~ a light building like Kinder Care. The only other possible use would be perhaps a four story office building° The economic feasibility of such a building in that location would not be likely. The s~te is within the interior of the Science Industry Park. The City Manager clarified that they would be short parking spaces only if an office building were con- structed. THey have adequate parking spaces for a school. The question had been raised in regard to what use the proposed building could be, in the event the school were to leave. Mr. Nordness noted that additional parking could be added to the rear if it were needed. In response to a request from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager read the Use List for the I-1 zone. Chairman Cameron said he felt the issue was fairly clean. Was it appropriate that the Code be amended to allow for a day care center in the industrial area? Commissioner Gulenchyn stated that their the parcel was laid out and because there was not heavy in- dustrial in the area, he could support the amendment to the Code. He did not feel that was a far out use. Commissioner Gustafson stated he did believe this type of business was of a different nature than the other businesses that would go in the area and he did not think it was a proper use under either a permit- ted or conditional use. Chairman Cameron said he was really torn. H~ felt that there ~as a need in the community for day care centers and he was well aware that there was not a great deal of land in the city for such a center. He could be convinced of granting a Conditional Use if the parcel were right on the edge or closer to, a residential area. In the middle of an industrial area, he felt it verged on spot zoning. He did not feel the ordinance should be amended to accommodate one particular proposal. He did not think the ordinance should be changed. The Commission had to think in terms of the larger consequence. Anything done to the ordinance applied to anyone in the future. There was other industrial land available. He wished they would find another spot in the city for this operation. Mr. Nordness noted that one of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit was that they would be set- ting up the desirable atmosphere by dedicating the remaining portion of the site to the city. To the sideyard of the proposed building was R-3 zoning. He questioned whether anything would ever be built on the remaining property. He felt they were effectSvely taking two sides of the site and creating the de- sired atmosphere. He felt that one of the pluses of the proposal was that in most of the R3 locations left, Kinder Care would rDt go into them. He felt the building also met a need. He felt one of the biggest factors was the minimal amount of traffic. If at some time Kinder Care should vacate the site it could revert to the original zoning and use. It could be utilized as an office, based on the conceptual plan. Commissioner Gulenchyn said that he felt the backup area did gi~e the right effect. He felt the co~u- nity did need a facility like this. He could think of a lot worse situations for the site, including having nothing on it. Mr. Nordness comented that there w~s a natural area adjacent and he felt this was condusive to children. Commissioner Bartos stated he felt that with a Conditional Use Permit, the city would have control of the operation. It is maybe not the most suitable spot for a daycare center but with land in the city being used up he would consider this use for this site. Commissioner Gulenchyn said he felt that Kinder Care was a well established business if the city were go- ing to get a facility of this type. Chairman Cameron commented that this was the second time Kinder Care had come in for approval of an in- appropriate site. Commissioner Bartos said he felt this site was much better than the site proposed a couple of years ago. Commissioner Friedrich said he felt the area should remain industrial. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 -. ~ APRIL 6, 1982 7o Commissioner Troup said he felt there was a need for a day care center in the community. He was con- cerned about creating changes or granting variances to accom~odate special uses in an industrial area. He noted, however, that it did appear to be a much quieter road than normal for an industrial area. He added that his initial thoughts were that the property seemed inappropriate for this use. He asked whether they were being asked to approve the Conditional Use, contingent upon getting the adjacent pro- perty for the city? The Chairman stated that a change in the Code use list would be for ever and ever. He asked the Mana- ger whether if the Commission recommended not changing the use list in the I-1 Zone, was there any reason to proceed with consideration of the other requests? The City Manager said that it seemed to him that they should have on record their feeling about amending the code. They could obviously stop at that point. They could, however, take a look at the building it- self, if they chose to. Chairman Cameron said he was bothered by the fact that there was no representative from the Design and Review Committee present. He would hate for the Commission to try and handle this without them. Commissioner Troup asked whether it was possible to table a vote until the next meeting, without creat- ing more problems and inconveneince? The Chairman said that either way, the Commission would be doing the same thing. If they didn't change the code and Council approved the Conditional Use request, the remainder of the request would be back before the Planning Commission. He said he felt that without the Design and Review Committee's insight it would take the Commission much longer to check out plans, etc. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending denial of the amendment to the code as requested in Case 82-13, adding day care as a Conditional Use in the I-1 zone. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Cameron, Gustafson, Troup Voting against: Gulenchyn, Bartos Absent: Gundershaug, Edwards Motion passed. Mr. Nordness commented that he had discussed in depth with Mr. Gundershaug and Edwards, their concerns at the Design and Review meeting. They dealt primarily with landscaping and security lighting. They had changed the curbing, parking and trash situation. However, he did not know what their reaction was when they had looked at the site. Commissioner Gustafson stated that this didn't address the zoning change. It only addressed what would happen if the site were rezoned. Mr. Nordness asked if this meant he would be unable to go before the City Council? The Chairman noted that the Council would have the Planning Commission recommendion on the Conditional Use and if they wished to change the ordinance they would. They had the final decision. The rest of the request would be tabled by t~e Commission. Commissioner Bartos made a motion to table the remainder of the requests in Case 82-13. Commissioner Gustaf$on second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Troup Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug, Edwards Motion carried. 5. Planning Case 82-9 was removed from the table. The petitioner was still not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson motioned tabling Case 82-9 until the me~ti~g of May 4, 1982. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulench!rn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Troup Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug, Edwards Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - ~RIL 6, 1982 COMMITTEE REPORTS · 8. There was no rep. orr from the Design and Review Committee. 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 10o There was no report from the Codes and Standards C6mmittee. NEW BUSINESS 11. The City Manager stated that Sally Distributors on Nevada Avenue, across from the "Y", was having an official ground breaking on April 12th, at 3:00 p.m. An invitation had been extended to the Planning Commission to attend. 12. The City Manager reviewed the Council Minutes of March 8th, and 22nd, 1982. 13. The Planning Commission Minutes of March 2, 1982 were approved as printed. 14. The City Manager introduced Dan Donahue, City Manager Elect to the Commissioners who had not previously met him. 16. The meeting was ad.j.ourne.d_by u.na.nimous consent at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COI~4ISSION MINHTES 1.~AY 4, 1982 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 4, 1982 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 Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Troup, Friedrich, Cameron, Gustafson, Gnndershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos (excused), Gulenchyn (excused) PUBLIC ~{EARINGS 3. PLANNING CD3E 82-2 P~QUEST FOR REZONING/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (TABLEDFROM 1-5-82)-'5550 WINNETKA AVENUE - WINCHELL"S DONUT HOUSE, PETITIONER Mr. Jack Rose, Director of Construction,.represented Winchells. He stated that they were requesting a rezoning of the property to allow them to construct a drive through window. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that when Wincheli's had appeared before Design and Review two con- cerns had been expressed. They were light shielding and sound shielding to protect the adjacent residential property. Mr. Rose said they propose a solid wood fence to the maximum height allowed by the city. It will be constructed of 2' x 10' cedar. This would be on the south property line. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the lights at the rear of the building. Mr. Rose said that the only lights he was aware of were by the dumpster and by the service door, He said they would be most happy to provide shielding. In answer to a question regarding the height of the proposed fence, he said he believed it would be six feet high, Deliveries ame usually made early in the morning, but occasionally the trucks would get held up. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Rose was authorized to speak for Winchells. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that it would be possible to restrict the deliveries to 7 a,m. to 7 p.m. In response to question, Mr. Rose said the only new signage would be directional and drive-through iden- tification sign~. He did not anticipate any change in the parking. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that at the Design and Review meeting it had been strongly recommended that more landscaping be provided, including more green and sodding toward the front of the building. Mr. Rose said he would be happy to work ~ith the Planning Department to do what was desired.· He ~aid they do plan to sod and plant grass. They will begin by replacing what had been freeze killed. They propose a new 15 gallon flowering dogwood and three new trees to the west. Commissioner Gundershaug said that another proposal had been to sod to the front of the building from the drive in back of the building on the east and install continuous curb. Mr. Rose said the curbing was O.K. with him. Commissioner Gundershaug then asked about space for additional parking at the ~ corner. He noted that that he was disappointed that the concerns as expressed by the Design and Review Committee had not been relayed to Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose noted he had not received any communication since the Design and Review meeting earlier this month. Mrs. Barbara Suchy, ~]o resides adjacent to the site in question, confirmed that the drive-up window would be on the east side with traffic going across the back next to the fence. She stated that it had been her understanding when Winchells went in originally that there would be deliveries but no other traffic in the rear. She also wanted to know what hours the drive-up window would operate? Mr. Rose could not answer that question but he felt thqy would be no later than 10:00 p.m. Mrs. Suchy stated she was very much against having traffic go through there. Mr, Rose said Winchells would install a solid wood fence and shield the lights. This was the only way the cars could go from a drive-up window. In response to a question from Mr. Rose, Mrs. Suchy said she did not think a solid wood fence would help. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - ~AY 4, 1982 3. She added that she had though the original fence would work. In response to a question from Co~nis- sioner Gundershang~ she said that the fence now was about like tissue paper as far as noise control - even though she had requested that type of fencing. ~ Mr. Rose said that, in his opinion, a 2" wood barrier was a prctty effective sound barrier. Mr.~S~chy asked about the rezoning and what this would mean if Winchell's left the site? Chairman Cameron said the B-3 zoning was for auto oriented business. He could not say what. the rezoning would do to his property. The zoning stayed with the property. It could, of course, be requested that the zone be changed again, by following this same procedure. Mr. Suchy asked about the operating times of the drive-~]p window. Co~rm~issioner Gundershaug commented that he felt there had been a lack of communi~ation between the last gentlemen that had represented Winchelis and Mr. Rose. He ~elt the situation had to be resolved so the Planning Commission could know what~ they .were actually being asked to aPProve. Chairman Cameron said he felt Winchells.was asking for quite a bit. He did not think the petitioner had done ~heir homework. He felt thJs request should be tabled for one month. Mr. Rose asked if he could have a copy of the minutes of the Design and Review meeting to review, and reappear later on in the meeting? It was noted that there were not printed minutes from Design and Review meetings, the petitioners usually made their own notes and followed through on the suggestions made before their appearance before the Planning Commission. Chairman Cameron said it was not agreeable to him for t~e petitioner to reappear at the end of the meeting. He felt they should have a landscape plan and come back to the Commission with a more complete proposal. He said he was sure that Commissioner Gundershaug would write to him regarding the concerns of the Design and Review Committee. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion tabling Case 82-2 until the meeting of June 1,'1982, Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Troup, Friedrich, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion carried 4. PLANNING CASE 82-9 - REQ[~ST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT/VARIANCE AT 4210 WINNETKA AVENUE - KENNETH JOHNSON, PETITIONER Mr. Johnson represented. Burger Chef. He was requesting permission to install a drive-through facility On the north side of the building. There would be angle parking along that side. He would still have 42 parking stalls. They now have 128 seats available inside the restaurant. He said he needed the drive-through window to enable him to meet the competition. He plans to remove the sidewalk just east of the window and will put landscaping there. He will eliminate three parking spaces on the north side of the building to accommodate the angle parking. There will be stacking room for au- proximately six cars from the order board to the window. Commissioner Gundershaug commented on the hodgepodge of parking presently existing at the restaurant at noon. Mr. Johnson agreed with this statement but felt that the number of people coming into the restaurant would be considerably less with the drive through. They presently ha~e a large number of take out customers that must come into the restaurant to get their food. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that the wap the Ordinance was written, Mr. Johnson originally needed 200 spaces for a building of this size. For a regular restanrant he would need 68 spaces. He was now down to 42. He felt that if fi~e or six cars were stacked by the drive-through window, the people parked in back would not be able to get out. He added that with cars stacking and a normal winter, resulting in ~piled up snow, the~ would create a mad house. Mr. Johnson ~tated he felt they did an exceptional job with snow removal. The snow is piled by the fence. If there is no parking people would not come in, so he had to have ample parking space.' Discussion followed regarding overflow parking, whethere there was any access to station property for parking (no), and the parking that is currently using space at Mr. Steak. The drive-through window would be on the north side, where the vestibule is now. It would uot protrude past the sidewalk. He presented pictures for the Co~missloners to view of the drive-through at his Apache Store. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MAY 4, 1982 4. There was no one pre.sent in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that he felt they would be creating a Pandora's Box with the drive- through window and with the parking situation. There had been a problem when the addition had be~n put on and he felt a drive-through window would create an even worse situation. Commissioner Gundershauq made a motion recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit as requested in Case 82-9 for 4219 Winnetka Avenue. Commissioner Edwards second. Chairman Cameron said he tended to disagre~.H~ever., he was also concerned about traffic on Winnetka. He felt the problem was Mr. Johnsons. He agreed that if it was a hassle to get in and out of the site, it would be Mr. Johnson's problem.. Mr. Johnson asked if there was anything he could do to help ~s far as getting approval of the drive-through wihdow. It was as if he had to have this. He felt people would go way out of their way to avoid having to get out of their cars. Chairman Cameron said the Commission sympathized with his concerns but they had to look out for the City of New Hope. Mr. Johnson commented on the amount of taxes he paid -- almost $12,000. Mr. Larson commented that New Hope only received 13% of the total tax bill of $12,000. Commissioner Gundershaug said that the matter would still be considered by the City Council on Monday, as they had the final vote. In his opinion, the site was just too narrow for the drive-through. Commissioner Edwards noted that Design and Review had offered some suggestions to Mr~ Johnson. Their biggest concern had been with the parking and the flow of traffic. He felt they would take half a dozen parking stalls out of commission during certain times of the day and they were way under requirements to begin with. Mr. Johnson said that he had enough parking in the beginning. Had the city changed the rules since then? Coramissioner Gundershaug and Harlyn Larson both noted that Mr. Johnson had a received a variance allow- ing fewer parking spaces than required when be hsd come ih for approval of this addition. Commissioner Gundershaug added that as traffic flowed around, with cars stacking, there was no way for the cars parked in the angled spaces to get out of the lot. He questioned whether there would even be room for an emergency vehicle to get on the site. In answer to a question from the Chairman Mr. Johnson said there would be room to pass if cars were in the stacking lane. Chairman Cameron called for a vote. Voting in favor: Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Troup, Friedrich, Gustafson Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion failed for lack of majqrity. 5. PLANNINGCASE 82-13 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE/REZONING OR TEXT AMENDMENT/VARIANCE/CON- STRUCTION APPROVAL (CONTINUED FROM 4-6-82) INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER Mr. Gary Nordness represented the petitioner. He stated they were requesting either a rezoning to R-3 or a text amendment to the ordinance to allow a Conditional Use for a school in the I-t zone, a waiver of platting, and variances to allow front yard parking and the elimination of two. parking stalls, based on the proposed use. Mr. Nordness referred to the Commission's suggestion at the previous meeting to go out and find another site. He said he had toured the city looking for suitable spots. There were two R-3 sites remaining. One of the properties was at 42nd/Boone, where the land is unbuildable, and the other is on Hillsboro, and this land is already slated for the building of quads. In reference to the proposed site, he noted that the green area already dedicated to the city and adjacent to the R-4 Residential, in his opinion, would act as a good buffer zone. In response to a request from the Chairman to discuss the proposed construction plans, Mr. Nordness said the proposed Kinder Care building would be basically a square, with the interior set up so it could be divided into four areas in the future if this were desired. Since the Design and Review meeting they had added 26-shrubs and now propose 91; increased parking from 19 to 25 and increased the width of the lot to 152 feet; added concrete curbing instead of painted curb, and have added flood lights to the exterior of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MAY 4, 1982 5. The landscape as revised after the Design and Review meeting was reviewed. The berm will be three feet,~'~ high and will be sodded. Ail of the green will be sod except for the parking lot. They will screen- the drive. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the drives would be 24 feet wide. Trash will be stored outside but will be screened.. They will install double duty spot lights dropping down on the two corners~ Mr. Nordness said he would put lights on all four corners if so requested. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with Mr. Nordness that the parking lot would have concrete curb sur- rounding it and that the island will be green inside of concrete curb. Signage will consist of one sign on the front of the building, underneath the canopy, 36~' x 100". In response to a question~ Mr. Larson said that the ordinance would allow them two 20' signs and that while the proposed sign was oversized, there would only be one sign rather than two. The fencing will be chain link, wire mesh and will encompass the entire lot on the perimeter. There was no one present in regard to this case. Following discussion, it was the concensus of the Commissioners that it was preferable to change the Code to allow a Conditional Use Permit for the school in the existing zone rather than to change the zoning, and that a public hearing should be set for the Conditional Use. It was felt this would preserve the zoning, avoid spot zoning, and still give the city necessary control over the use. Commissioner Gundershauq made a motion establishinq a Public Hearin%a to be held on June 1, to consider an amendment to the Code to allow a Conditional Use Permit for a Da~ Care/Nursery in the I-1 Zone. Co~missioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Troup, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Gustafson, Edwards Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion carried. Commissioner Gundershaug then made a motion recon~n~endi}]_g approval of the proposed construction, the vari ance and the Waiver of Platting and si~n~ .............. variance ~ioroval in Case 82-13 for a Kinder Care facility on International Parkway. Commissioner Troup second. Voting in favor: Troup, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Gustafson, Edwards Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion carried. 6. PLANNINGCASE 82-~14 - REOUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 5520 ~OONE AVENUE NORTH -CHARLES THOMPSON/ NORTH RIDGE CONGREGATE HOUSING, PETITIONER 'Mr. Bob Pope, of Pope Associates, represented the petitioner. He was acompanied by Ken Shenk, Dan For- syth and chuck Thompson. Mr. Pope presented illustration boards of -what the petitioner proposed for the site. The boards showed the site plan, the elevations, an architect's rendering of the exterior and floor layouts, by floors. Mr. Pope said that the building woulZd be located on Boone Avenue between 55th and 56th Avenues. There is 2.6 acres of land. The building will cover 21% of the site, 53% will be green, and 26% paved. They had originally proposed 154 units. However, Mr. Thompson had been advised that in order to make the project financially feasible, it should contain 180 units. The size of the units as originally pro- posed, will be reduced to allow 180 units. There will be 57 parking spaces within the building, 17 visitor spa~es and 65 employee parking spaces. There will be a 50' setback at Boone, 31' .on the east, 35' on 55th, and t01' on 56th. There will be an eight foot high mercury vapor light at the entrance to the garage, lights at the entrance to the project and lghts at the parking area at the entrance of the building lights by the parking lot and a light by the service entrance. Mr. Pope also showed an illustration of a future skyway connection between this building and the exist- ing nursing home. He stated that at the Design and Review meeting, additional landscaping had been requested. They are adding Colorado Blue Spruce and Black Hills Spruce across the froJt. They will retain the existing spruce trees and will plant new trees at the front of the building to help break up the front facade. In response to a question from Co~issioner Gundershaug; he stated that the addition to the landscaping included 10-1~ spruce trees and 3-4 locsst trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MAY 4, 1982 Mr. Shenk noted that the totals had been changed on the landscape plan. There will be an entrance canopy and a green house and a terrace at the back of the site. The site has a natural slope and they have tried to configure the building to the site and not disturb th~ site any more than is necessary. The lower level will The lower level will house 57 parking spaces, mechanical equipment and one and two bedroom units, en- closed space for trash and an elevator. The first floor' will house the pool, green house, main lounge, lobby area, laundry, day area. The dining area will be on the second level.. There will be a lobby on each floor and on the second level the kitchen. The dining room will open to the outside terrace. The third and fourth floors will each have a lobby at the elevator area and activity rooms. The building will be of masonry and stucco and the windows will be capped with a sun shade. The entire building will be of masonry construction. The one bedroom units will have approximately 676 square feet and the two bedroom units will have approxi- mately 1,090 square feet. Code requires a minimum of 600' for a one bedroom and 750 for a two bedroom unit. They are proposing 180 units. The units will be smaller than originally proposed, but the building size will remain the same. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the proposed building, even with the increased number of units, will still contain only four stories. He also confirmed that the canopy would be 12 feet high to allow for emergency vehicles. He asked how the e×pansion of the number of units would affect the parking situation. Mr. Larson noted that they still exceeded parking requirements, providing when 139 -- 120 were required. It was noted that the additional units would not mean additional employees. Discussion continued about the addition of security lights. They have added a second light at the park- ing lot, plus a decorative light at the entrance. The drives have been increased in width to 24 feet and the parking lot will now be curbed. Discussion then covered the current problem with employee parking on the streets and where the employees would park with the new building. Mr. Forsyth noted that North Ridge was going to stagger shifts on a trial basis, in the hope that'this would eliminate the parking overlap at shift change time. ~Deliveries will be spproximately one a day, consisting mainly of food stuffs. Discussion then covered the possibility of limiting parking on 55th ~venue to at least one side of the street. Chairman Cameron asked whether it would not be better to change the driveway in the service parking lot so that it was straight from the entrance? Mr. Pope said he would check this out. Mr, Shenk said there was a problem with the grade in that area. Commissioner Gustafson asked what care or special arrangements woul~ be made as far as safety precautions to protect the ground level apartments from fumes, etc. from the underground garages. Mr. Pope said there were two exits and an elevator on this level. He said a special wall could be in- stalled between the garage and the apartment units. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether there would not be health or safety concerns on this level?~ Mr. Shenk stated that there could be a vestibule between the units and the garage to guard against fumes. There was no one present in regard to this case. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Thompson what the North Ridge complex would look like 10-20 years from now? How much did they plan to grow or chang? What is the long range future of the complex? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MAY 4, 1982 6. Mr. Thompson said he anticipated the next change would 'be his move inZo the new complex. }{e noted that the possibility of this p~esent expansion had first been meDtioned in ~964. He felt this would be the last expansion as far as he could foresee. Mr. Thompson stated he would like to have the city place a. time limit on parking, particularly for the periods when they have special functions at the home. Chairman Cameron said his concern was cars parked on both sides of the street and the fact that it might be difficutl for emergency vehicles to gain access.. Mr. Larson noted that the only solution was parking on one side of the street only. The Commission had the right to recommend traffic control.. Commissioner Gundershauq made a motion recommendinq a___p~prova! of the construction requested in Case 82-14 with the ~rovision that ~he north side of 55th Avenue, between Boone and Zealand~ ~e__/[Lo~ted "no p_9~kin_g_g at a~ny time____". Cc-~missioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Troup, Friedrich, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion carried. Mr. Larson confirmed that the commission understood that the approval was for the 180 units. 7. PLANNING CASE 82~15 -GARAGE VARIANCE AT 5~04 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - JACK HILi,,'PETYTIONER Mr. Hill stated he had a problem parking family cars. He is proposing to put another garage and another driveway in the back of his lot. He would also need an'other curb cut for the second garage. Eventually he would like to convert the original garage to a family room but cannot afford it at the present time. Commissioner GustafsoD asked whether he intended to close off the attached garage and was answered yes, but that he would like retain the driveway for extra parking space. Ccmmissioner Gustafson asked whether he would only store vehicles in the new garage? Mr. Hill noted that he would need an extra curb cut at the rear. He was requesting the variance because he would have two garages on the same site and he needed the curb cut. He did not intend to use the new garage for the storage of any type of commercial equipment. It will be only for personal vehicles. He added that if was allowed to keep the two garages, it would allow his wife to park her car inside for the first time in 17 years. It was confirmed for the record that the shingles, siding and color of the new garage would match as closely as possible the existing house. The proposed second curb cut will fall within code restrictions. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval, as requested in Case 82-15, of the second gar__a~e and curb cut at 5804 Boone Avenue North, subject to the petitioner's indication'that the roof, siding .a~__d color of t_he garage would match as closely, a.s )3ossible the existing, house. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor; Friedrich, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Troup Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion carried. 7a. The Chairman noted that there was one additional case to be considered that was not included on the printed agenda. An unusual case had arise. Mr. Larson reminded the Commission that earlier in the year, Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church had been before them to get approval of a revision to the Conditional Use to allow expansion of the church. They were to come back to the Commission with final building plans. There had been three questions raised at the earlier hearing. They were: 1) drainage on the site; 2) the traffic control through the parking lot; 3) the landscaping on the east side of the lot. The church had come in to the city offices for a building permit on Friday. They would like to get started now. The practica], problem is that the people on the east had been promised they would be noti- fied when the issue was discussed again, even though there was no legal requirement to send notices. One suggestion had been that the church go ahead with the site work and foundation work, sUbject of fina[ approval of the plans. Commissioner Troup confirmed that a commitment had been made to the neighbors that they would be noti- fied about the hearing on the construction plans. PL~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 MAY 4, 1982 7a. Chairman Cameron agreed that~a definite commitment had bee]~ made to the neighbors that they would be notified about final plans. It was his feeling that if the Commission would agree to look at the plans, and saw no problem with them, Commission could recommend to Council that the church be permitted to begin the site and foundation work with a public hearing on the final construction and landscape plans to be held on June 1, 1982. This would be at the church's risk. He added that this did~ of course, put an obligation on the church to be reasonable with their neighbors ~%en it came to trees and landscaping. Mr. Larson cautioned the Commission, that the one caveat ~n the previous discussion had been a question of money, and how much money would be available for landscaping. He wanted them to be very sure of exactly what they were approving now, on the chance that changes might result in insufficient f~ands for the recommended landscaping. 7a. PLANNING CASE 82-16 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL OF'ADDITION AT BEAUTIFUL SAVIOR LUTHEi~N CHURCH - INDEPENDENCE/34 TH AVENUE In response to a question from Co~nissioner Edwards, Mr. Larson stated that the Commission had pre- viously approved the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, a Variance in parking, with construction plans to be considered at a later time. Chairman Cameron said he felt the Commission should briefly review the church's proposals at this meet- lng. The church could then meet with the Design and Review Committee at their regular meeting and re- appear before the Commission on June 1, after the neighbors had been notified. Mr. John Helbezg, Co-Chairman of the church building committee represented the church. He was accom- panied by Pastor Gunderman and other members of the committee. It was noted that the first concern expressed at the earlier meeting had been the ~anger that the park- ing lot could become a raceway. They have provided an island in the lot and there will be rumble bars in the lot and a swinging gate at the south end of the parking lot. Commissioner Gundershaug asked when the gate would be open, would it be only on Sunday, or after a certain time or what? The Chairman said he thought they had agreed that the g~te would be open during any activity at the church but would be Rept closed at all other times. It would be the church's respomsibi!ity to see that the gate was opened and closed. Discussion then covered the area that needed additional landscaping and the height of the fence. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with the church representative that the landscaping would be planted immediately, this year, when the construction was completed. Mr. Larson noted that the drainage plan was basically what the engineer had asked for but that the engi- neer had not seen the actual plans as yet. Chairman Cameron noted that if the Commission could have the church's agreement that between now and June 1, that they would contact neighbors, have a final set of plans reviewed by Design and Review and return to the Planning Commission for approval of the final plans and the final landscape plans, he felt the Commission could recommend the issuing of a permit for the foundation and footings. He added that if the Commission was not satisfied with the final landscape plkans, they would be asking for more trees. Commissioner Gustafson asked at whose risk the construction would proceed? Mr. Larson said it would depend upon how the motion was phrased. It was obviously the church's risk. Chairman Cameron said he did not see that there would be any problem with this.' Commissioner Troup made a motion recommending that Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church be granted an exca- vation and foundation permit, conting.e~? u~on their being able to satisfz the neighbors on t]~e land- scaping, and the review of the final construction plans will proceed on June 1. Commissioner Gunder- shaug second. Voting in favor: Troup, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Gustafson Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion carried. PI~ANNING CO~L~ISSION MINUTES - 8 - [~Y 4, 1982 COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. The Design and Review Committee met once in April. 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Chairman Cam 10. There was no report from the Codes a~d Stsndards Committee. Chaiz~nan Cameron requested that thev meet before the June l, meeting to review the language for the p~oposed addition to the Code ~n regar~ to ~he Conditional Use Permit for a school in 'the I-1 ?.one. Larson noted that the wording needed to be in to staff early the next week so notice could be given. NEW BUSINESS 11o The Council minutes of Apr]]. 12th, and 26th, were reviewed by Mr. Larson. 12. The Commission minutes of April 6, ].982 were accepted as printed. ]3. There were no comsaents from citizens, cormnissioners~ or staff. 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:27 Respectfully submitted, c/~oyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 1, 1982 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on Tuesday, June t, 1982. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Freidrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Troup PUBLIC HEARING~ 3. PLANNING CASE 82-2 (CONTINUED FROM 5-4-82) REQUEST FOR REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5550 WINNETKA AVENUE - WINC~ELL's DONUT HOUSE, PETITIONER Mr. Jack Rose, Director of Construction, represented the petitioner. He stated he had attempted to answer all of the concerns as expressed at the last meeting and at the Design and Review Committee meeting. This included adding two parking spaces, concrete curbing, removing the asphalt on the east side and replacing it with sod, screening the trash enclosure, adding a gate and striping the parking lot. Deliveries will be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and the hours for the drive up window will be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The lawn will be trimmed and edged as needed and they have arranged for maintenance to be handled by a local landscape company on a w~ekly basis. They are proposing a two inch thick, solid cedar fence, as high as allowed by code, dropping down as it nears the street to allow for visibility. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that they would be installing concrete curbing along the grass and the apron, that the trash enclosure would be of concrete block with an overhead gate, because of snow. Deliveries will be between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and the drive-up window will operate from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr. Rose said they have added four new trees and will have a local landscaping company responsible for .site maintenance. There will be no new signs added other than direction. They will put "drive through" on the full sign, as shown on the plans. There will be diagonal striping for parking. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Rose said the landscape company will mow, etc. once a week and will be a full service landscape company. Mrs. Barbara Suchy, 5540 Winnetka, stated she still wished to voice her objections to the drive-up wlno dow. Chairman Cameron asked her if there was anything further she felt Winchell's could do to resolve the problem? She replied: "just.not have the drive-up window"° Mr. Suchy said he felt the fence should be higher than it is now. The noise still comes in the bedroom window. He also wished to object to the proposed drive up window. Mr. Rose confirmed that the existing f~nce would be replaced. Chairman Cameron asked what a realistic height would be for the wooden fence? Harlyn Larson said it would depend on tbs construction -- the higher the fence the more foundation would be required -- higher than eight feet would be a wall. Mr. Suchy said they will have people blowing horns. Mr. Rose said he did not think this would be the case, there will be a signal that will ring until the attendant turns it off. He added that the lights will be directed down. There will be only a service light on the rear door. Commissioner Gustafson asked how much more expensive a ten foot fence would be? Mr. Rose said it would probably be twice the cost of the proposed fence. It is their expectation that the peak hours of the drive through will be 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Mrs. Suchy commented that when the gas station was there they had no trouble at all. If the city changes the ordinance, who knows what will move in, if Winchell's leaves.. PLANNING OOMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - ' JUNE 1, 1982 3. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked how much more fence the Suchys thought would adequately block out noise? Mr. Suchy said at least two feet higher than the existing fence° Mr. Rose noted that there was a six foot fence there now. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented that two more feet seemed reasonable to him. Mr. Suchy asked what was going to be done along their side of the fence? This had never been kept up. Mr. Rose commented that he would not be able to move the fence location, it is on the lot lineo Discussion followed regarding possible landscaplng on the Suchy side of the fence that might help in controlling noise. Also discussed was the fact that there was only four feet between the Suchy house and the lot line and the fact that this also contributed to the problem. Mr. Rose commented that they might be able to install some tall skinny bushes of some type° Commissioner Gulenchyn asked how much of the fence would block out the lights? Mr. Suchy said about half of the length. Harlyn Larson said there seemed to be a dispute about the fence. If the existing fence is only six feet high and the people want it only two feet higher, it seems logical to increase it to eight feet. The Chairman suggested that before this issue was discussed by the City Council there should be some specific dimensions prepared regarding the fence. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the rezoning from B-2. to B-3, ~r~nting a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-up window and a~roval of the construction for Case 82-2, with the sti~ulations that the fence be either eight or ten~ (depending on what the existing he.ight is) feet in height to protect the residents; that some additional trees be ~laced adjacent to the house to provide additional noise bufferinq~; that deliveries be made between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and that the drive-up win- ~--~ dow be in operation from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. onlv. He would further like to see a contract ~resented to Council, stipulating that maintenance of the property is beinQ undertaken. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup Motion declared. Harlyn Larson suggested that the petitioner meet with the neighbors and the maintenance people before the City Council meeting on June 14tho 4. PLANNING CASE 82-16 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 34TH/INDEPENDENCE AVENUE - BEAUTIFUL SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH, PETITIONER Mr. John Helberg represented the petitioner. He stated that they had satisfied all of the concerns as expressed by the Planning Commission and Design and Review Committee at their earlier meetings. They have also met with the neighbors personally that had expressed concerns° In regard to concerns of the neighbors, he stated that the Schuhs, 3301 Hillsboro, had requested no fence on the'ir property line. The Thompsons, 8317 33rd Place, had requested a fence and no trees. A third neighbor - the Swans, 3317 Hillsboro,had requested two additional trees. The locations for these two trees have already been staked. They had requested Eastern Hackberry trees. Another concern had been expressed by a neighbor farther down the street in regard to rushing water com- ing across the property line. The plan now has provisions for a catch basin to pick up the water out of the parking lot and direct it toward County Road #18o There was one additional neighbor who they had met with, who had been concerned with traffic in the park- ing lot. They will proyide rumble bumps, the lot will be gated and an island will be provided at the end of the parking lot to divert traffic. Since that time they had also met with the Design and Review Committee. They also had some suggestions and concerns: 1. They requested to know the color of the gate -- it will be painted dark brown and will be the same color as the flashing on the building. 2. They were concerned about roof top equipment. They have elected not to air condition the facility and so there will be no additional rooftop equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JUNE 1, 1982 4. 3. They will provide a redwood enclosure:around the refuse area. 4. Security lighting will be added -- two low non glare ballard type lights on the south of the · building. These are indicated on the plan. 5. The last concern of the Committee had been hedging. They had wrestled with this for a long time and finally consulted their architect. It was his opinion that it was his responsibility to point out that in his experience most communities decide not to provide hedging because of safety factors -- pedestrians walking out from behind the hedge, cars driving out from behind the hedge, etc. The architect had strongly recommended that they not install hedge unless it were demanded by the City. Mr. He]berg said that they felt they had a very nice piece of pro- perty and that it will look good. Commissioner Gundershaug.confirmed that the addition would match the existing building as far as the brick and roofing. Mr. Helberg noted they had been able to match the different brick colors and it was their hope that you would be unable to tell there was an addition on the church. He added that the gate will be closed and locked and open only when the lot was in use. Sunday morning and Wednesday evenings were very high traf- fic times for the church. The south island will be sodded and landscaped with shrubs. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the concern of Design and Review had been that there be some type of low shrub at the north end -- not necessarily a hedge.-- just something low to break up the long sea of blacktop. He still felt very strongly that this should be included. He felt that otherwise the petitioner had met all of the concerns of.D~sign and Review. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that there would be no rooftop equipment added. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of Case 82-16 with the provision that som~ additional low shrubs be added to the north side of the parking lot. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 87-17 - REQUEST FOR ZONING CODE 'AMENDMENT TO PERMIT DAY CARE/GROUP NURSERY AS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN LI ZONE - CITY OF NEW HOPE, PETITIONER Harlyn Larson noted that this request had been referred to the Commission from the City Council. It had been on the agenda at the May meeting, at which time the Commission had determined that a Conditional Use rather than a rezoning, was the appropriate way to handle the child care in industrial areas concern. Some discussion had been held with the Codes and Standards Committee in regard to standards that might be used. It had been indicated that it was thought that the R-3 standards would be adequate and the no- tice had been published accordingly. The standards that are now proposed for the Conditional Use for a daycare center in the industrial area would be: (a) No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. (b)The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet. (c) Adequa%e off-street parking and access is provided in cgmpliance with Section 4.037 of this Ordinance. (d)Adequate off-stree~ loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Section 4.037 of this Ordinance. (e) The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accoramodate the traffic which will be generated. (f)Ail signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Section 4.038 of this Ordinance. (g)The provisions of Section 4.201 (5) of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (h)'The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare, Public Welfare Manual ll 3130 as adopted, amended and/or changed are satisfactorily met. (i) A written indication of preliminary, pending or final license approval from the regulatory wel- fare agency is supplied to the city. Also necessary would be approval from the State Department of Public Welfare and a license from the state. The action needed at this meeting, if the Commission decides to go ahead with the action, is to recOmmend to the Council that the Ordinance be amended. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city had experience indicating that these standards would be adequate for the proposed use? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JUNE 1, 1982 5. Mr. Larson stated that the only other time this had been a question was for the proposed day care cen- ter on 36th Avenue. At that time the Commission had determined that the standards were adequate. This proposal had been eventually turned down by Council because of problems with the proposal by the neighbor~ Commissioner Gustafson noted that Codes and Standards had met in executive session and since these pro~ posed criteria had been reviewed now as well as at the time of the earlier proposal, they saw no reason to change anything that was recommended by staff, both now and previously. They recommend that the com~ mission proceed as long as Council feels that day care/group nursery institutions are appropriate ~n an industrial zone and that these standards adequately protects the city. There was no one present in regard to this case. Chairman Cameron noted that he had given this issue quite a bit of thought in the last couple of weeks and he has changed his mind that this was an appropriate place for a Kinder Care operation. He feels this would be changing the Ordinance to provide conditions to accommodate one profit making company. He does not feel they should change the code or that this was an appropriate use for industrial land in New Hope. Commissioner Bartos commented that with two people working in many of the young families, he could see a real need for this type of facility to accommodate working parents. He felt there was a definite need. Discussion followed about the number of day care facilities in the city and whether there was a scarcity of openings for children needing care. Commissioner Bartos commented that he felt that the petitioner must have made a study and researched the need for proposing to spend this amount of money. Commissioner Gustafson asked what advantages there were to Rosewood or the petitioner in regard to the borrowing of money or in IRB bonds? Was the interest rate sufficiently different from commercial bor- rowing? Mr. Larson said there would probably be a 5% to 6% factor in this case. He added that anyone could come in and ask for this, wehther it was a Kinder Care or not. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented on the information received by the Commission from the petitioner regarding the suitability of the land for an industrial development. He felt that if this were the case and since R-3 borders one edge of the property, they would not be changing that much in the middle of an industrial zone. He still tended to support the change. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending an amendment to the zoning code test as outlined by Mr. Larson. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, GRstafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Cameron, Edwards Absent: Troup Motion declared carried. Commissioner Gustafson asked the Chairman for a concensus vote of the Planning Commissioners as to the Kinder Care project itself, because if the zoning code text has to be amended in order to protect the city, he felt they were doing the right thing in passing the amendment. However, he would like to at least pass on to the City Council how the Planning Commission felt about the project. Chairman Cameron asked if the vote on 82-13 would not accomplish this? 6. PLANNING CA~E 82-13 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOK DAY CARE/GROUP NURSERY ON I~ERNATIONAL PARKWAY - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Gary Nordness represented Rosewood. He stated they were requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow the Kinder Care operation in the LI zone. He noted that in going over the past discussions he felt they had more than complied with either I-1 or R-3 zoning. The green area ratio coverage is 74% of the land area. They have increased the frontage from 122 to 152 square feet. They now have 91 trees and shrubs. They provided for the flood lights, curbing, and everything the city has requested. In ad- ditibn to that they had found out last week that there had never been an easement granted and that the 'storm sewer ran right through the middle of the property. They were working with Mr. Corrick to grant this easement to the city now. He also stated that the soil on the site was impervious to heavy loads and the only way it could be built on would be to use piling and this would be economically unfeasible. He added that he felt it was a good use for the site, especially sin~e the site was bordered on one side by R-3, on another by land dedicated to the city for ponding area and by the land that is p~oposed to be dedicated to the city in the future. He felt it was a good use, that Kinder Care offered a lot more than some of the other centers. He had scoured the City of New Hope and there was no other property to build a Kinder Care on. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Nordness said the only other Site for a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JUNE 1, 1982 6. Kinder Care was on 49th/#18 and that site was unbuildable. Commissioner Gustafson also confirmed that, in Mr. Nordness opinion, a one story building was the best use for this property° Mr. Nor~ness. said that based on their ~rack record, and the fact that he had done a survey for a possi- ble office building, it was not a good site because it is: 1) directly over the sewer line and 2) because it is an interior site, it is not economically a good spot for an office building. The~ should be located on corners or on an access road. The sewer line concern was new since the easement and line had only been found recently. The Kinder Care building was just north of the line and con~ struction could continue. Commissioner Gustafson asked which direction the sewer line passed? Mr. Nordness said rightinto the pending area. In answer to a question regarding the buildability of' Lot 3, he said this would be a problem. It would support a small building of perhaps 10,000 square feet, but as far as building a spec building there was "no way" they could use it. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Kinder Care felt there was a need for this type of facility in the New Hope/Plymouth area. Mr. Nordness said there was a significant amount of labor force here -- there is definitely a need. Kinder Care provides a lot for the children. There was no one present in regard to this request° Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendinq denial of the Conditional Use for day care/group nur- sery requested in 82-13, on the basis that the overall sociological impa,ct and economic impact to the community isn't clearly there. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Gundershaug Absent: Troup Motion declared carried. 7. PLAA~ING CASE 82-18 - R~QUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL FOOD SERVICE AT THE SERVICE STATION AT 6113 WEST BROADWAY - PETER M. JOHNSON, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Edwards to table this case until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, ~artos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup Motion declared carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 82-19 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE AT 5001 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - FRANK J. $CHARFER, LAKESIDE LTD., PETITIONER. Harlyn Larson informed the Commission that since the report had been prepared, the city had received a new site plan that indicated the proposed parking. Frank Scharfer and Bruce Hilden represented Lakeside. Mr. Scharfer stated they were applying for a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to have outside storage of hazardous wastes, which consisted of barrels of thinners. The barrels are capped and are 55 gallon hazardous waste drums. They are hoping that within a month and a half or two month, the barrels will be removed since they are working with a hazardous waste removal company to get the material into one of their dumps. They had been requested by Bruce Wilson of the State Pollution Agency to store them in this area. They are also requesting pallet storage on the northwest side in back of the building. The reason they need this is that they work with a lot of different sized pallets and in order to separate 'and return them tQ the vendors, they need a small area to do the separation. Mr. Scharfer noted that there had been some question in regard to the number of parking spaces they had. When the new parking let had been added they had provided spaces of 10' x 20' The code specifies 9' x 20'. By changing the size of the spaces and adding the two storage areas, including the turning radius, they actually gain two parking spaces. There are 204 spaces including handicapped spaces. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the gate in the back area and whether it was left open at all times? Mr.Scharfer said it was left open during {he day for parking but was locked at night. The hazardous storage area is locked at all times. There is a six foot high cyclOne fence around this area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - JUNE 1, 1982 Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the material stored in the barrels was not a hazard to the employee cars tha~ were parked in the area. He f.urther inquired how many employees there were on the site, not- ing that he had passed the site some days when it appeared there were cars parked all up and down the street. It appeared they were for this building. Mr'. Scharfer said.that the Fire Marshal had also b~en to the site. He added that the~people say ~ey ' park in the street so they can get out faster after work. He had showed the Fire Marshal that there was adequate parking space on the site. Until a week and a half earlier, they had not know it was their res~ ponsibility to keep the cars off the street. They are trying to keep the cars parked in the lots. There are empty spaces in the back lot even when everyone was at work. There are 275 employees on all shifts. In response to a question regarding shift breakdown, he stated there is one area that works four 10 hour days, another that w~rks five 8 hour days and a temporary shift that works until midnight. He added that they do have the spaces available. They are now putting pressure on the employees to park their cars in the lot. Mr. Scharfer added that according to the Building Inspector, the spaces provided are according to code. This is a peak production period for them. Their business is basically an assembly operation where they buy components and assemble them, i.e. advertising signs for the major breweries. They do have a couple of other small operations where they manufacture industrial membranes and a toy and game line. The major business is the advertising signs. Mr. Larson asked whether if they get approval for the disposal of their hazardous waste, that would take care of the concerns of both the State and local Fire Marshal? Mr. Scharfer said "yes" within two months they hope to have 90% of the barrels removed° Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the hazardous waste will be always stored in the enclosure in the back and that even if the barrels were not removed there would be adequate parking space available for all employees. The main gate to the area for parking will be open from 6 a.m. to 4730 p.m. unless there is a second shift, when it would be locked at midnight. Discussion between commissioner Gustafso~ and Mr. Scharfer in regard to the upkeep of the plant and ground~ and the need for additional maintenance. In response to a question from the Chairman re~arding the storage of waste, Mr. Scharfer said that all thinners were considered to be hazardous; also some of the industrial adhesives were hazardous. He added that the material stored was not hazardous in terms of its being explosive. They are storing the material as requested by Bruce Wilson and the Fire Marshal. Chairman Cameron expressed his concern a~ut vandalism and what would happen if one of the barrels broke? Mr. Scharfer said if this happened, they would clean it up and if necessary remove any dirt that had been affected. If they get the permit they will have to put in a solid curb to prevent leaks from running. Mr. Larson said that both the State and local officials had been working with the petitioner. .Actual de- tails of this are not an issue that the Commission must be concerned with. Commissioner Bartos asked about the storage of pallets? He also thought the yard needed cleaning up. Mr. Scharfe~ said the pallets would be behind the building and in the general fenced area. Commissioner Gulenchyn expressed his concern over the overall appearance of the site. It seemed to him that it did not have to be such an eyesore around the perimeters. That is one of the more disappointing areas in the city. If it is not caused by the nature of the business, what does cause it? Commissioner Gustafson said that both the parking lot and the facility were in need of cleaning up. Mr. Scharfer said the area would be swept up and the area would be cleaned up. The owner of the building is Prudential. They control what will be done as far as plantings on the grounds, etc. Commissioner Edwards asked about the missing slats on the fence in back. Mr. Scharfer said they would be replaced if it were requested by the city. Commissioner Edwards, replied "OK, it is re~ested". ~ Mr. Joe Greenstein, 3917 33rd Place North, asked whether anything had been done to find out if the chemi- cals stored would be dangerous in the heat of the summer or if they were left in direct sunlight in the afternoon. PLANNING COMMISSICN MINUTES D 7 - JUNE 1, 1982 8. Mr. Scharfer stated they were not hazardous to that extent. This is material that is often stored outside. Mr. Greenstein questioned why the ma%erial should not be stored in an enclosed structure, that is properly ventilated? The Chairman noted that the petitioner was doing as they had been asked to by the State Pollution Agency -- they are the pros. Commissioner Gustafson stated that when he referred to the primary fencing in his motion, he was speaking of the fencing around the hazardous waste site and the secondary fencing was the security fencing around and in back of the building. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for outside stor- age at 5001 Boone Avenue North, as requested in Case 82-19, subject to the primary fencing area being closed and locked at all times except when items are being withdrawn or put into the storage area; at which time the individual there will lock and unlock the gate; that the secondary storage area be open from 6 a.m. until ~..p.m. when there is no second shift present on the site. If a second shift exists, then the secon- dary area will be allowed to be open until 12 midnight. The petitioner has indicated that he will replace all broken and missing slats in the fence around the back and also indicated that he is planning to sweep the parking lot and do general type maintenance/cleanup of the area. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup Motion declared carried. Chairman Cameron noted that the city was glad to see a successful business on the site but hoped that the petitioner would follow through on eliminating the parking from the street, as well as cleaning up the property. Mr. Scharfer noted he agreed with the Commission about this and would certainly try to comply with the Commission/City. 9. PLANNING CASE 82-20 - ~_~_QUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 8833 31ST AVEN~ NORTH - JOEL OLSON, PETITIONER Mr. Olson stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to expand his single car attached garage to as much as he could - up to the property line. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that it was the rear of the garage that was only five feet from the pro- perty line and that the furthest extension of the roof is what would be at the property line. Mr. Olson r~olied he understood he could go only to the property line, including any overhang. Because he operates two small cars he feels this addition will be sufficient for his needs. He added that at the front of the 'garage there is 22 feet between his garage and the neighbor's house. He added that the roof line will be a continuation of the current roof line and that the roofing materials and siding will match as far as color and texture, as closely as possible. He would like to extend the garage right up to the line or perhaps up to six inches from the line. He had not planned exactly, as he was not sure he would be granted the variance. Commissioner Edwards asked whether he had considered any other options as far as adding on to the garage, i.e. adding a stall at the back of the existing garage? Mr. Olson said he had considered other options but felt adding to the side was the best way. Commissioner Edwards said he tended to agree with this but he was concerned with maintenance and noise for the living area of the neighbor's house. Mr. Olson said he had discussed this with the neighbor who had told him he would help him build the addi- tion. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Olson intended to use the garage only for personal storage and his two vehicles -- that there will be no home occupation. Ca-missioner Gundershaug confirmed that Mr. Olson realized he could not extend the addition over the lot line, even the overhang must extend no further than the actual lot line. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variance at 8833 31st Avenue North as requested in Case 82-20, sub3ect to the roof line, shingles and siding matching that on the cur- rent dwelling in color and texture; that the furthest projection of the garage will be no ~reater than five feet from the present wall, or if upon survey the distance to the lot line is less than five feet, that lesser distance. Commissioner Friedrich second. Mr. Olson asked if the survey revealed he had more than five feet, whether he would have ~o return to the Commission? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - JUNE L, 1982 9. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the Commission Was granting him five feet, or less. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: Gutenchyn, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Troup Motion declared carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 82-21 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 4042 OREGON AVENUE NORTH - FREDERICK STARKE, PETI TIONER Mr. Starke stated he was requesting a variance to within two feet of the side lot line. He is requesting this variance to enable him to save a tree in his garage. He wishes to build a detached garage becaUse to construct an attached garage would be cost prohibitive. This would probably cost him about $15,000 and he would also lose two windows. The neighbor's garage would line up with the front of his. His garage would be two feet deeper than the neighbors. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Olson said he thought the house behind him" was perhaps 40-45 feet back from the lot line. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the structure,'roofing materials and siding would match as closely as possible in regard to color and texture. Mr. Starke noted that the house had been constructed in 1955 and he would try to match materials as closely as possible. He will be building five feet from the tree. He hopes this will allow him to save the tree. The driveway will stay the same but he will make the approach larger. The garage will be used only for storage of cars and personal items -- no home occupation. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending approval of the variance in setback requested at 4042 Oregon in Case 82-21, subject to the fact that the foundation would be two feet from the side lot line and the roofing and siding materials would match the existing house in regard to color and texture, as closely as possible. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Friedrich ~sent: Troup Motion declared carried. 11. PLANNING CASE 82-22 - REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT/HEIGHT VARIANCE/CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 3230 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - NORTHWEST CABLEVISION, PETITIONER. Mr. James Behling represented the petitioner. Mr. Larson handed out revised site plans to the Commissioners, noting that there had been a hedge added in front of the parking lot; there is an expansion of the building shown and the earth station is five instead of seven meters. Mr. Beh!ing said they were requesting an approval of one of the four facilities that will be serving the northwest suburbs. The proposal also includes a studio. This site will serve Robbinsdale, Crystal, Golden Valley and New Hope. The studio will be for production of community programming, hopefully, by people of the community. Also included will be a business office and the electronic wizardry that goes into bring- ing up to 220 channels into the area. They are requesting the text amendment to permit the use in an industrial area, a height variance for the antenna and construction approval for the building. The building itself will be a 3,000 square foot building that faces toward Winnetka~ There will be a green space for a good 2/3 of the frontage including landscaping and ten maple trees. They have moved the park- ing to the north side of the building. The other elements include an ear'th station with a five meter disc. This would be a little more than 15 feet in diameter. The tower is for bringing in the signals from Shoreview. The antenna will not affect standard television antennas, or ham radio operators. This is not for purposes of transmitting any signals but only for receiving. The signals they will receive will be'the local broad- cast channels. ~ Chairman Cameron stated he felt the different issues should be 'separated for consideration. The first issue is the proposed code amendment to permit the studio in an industrial area. He confirmed that the code did permit an antenna farm. He asked Mr. Behling to give justification for the code amendment and the need for the facility to be on this particular site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - JUNE 1, 1982 11. Mr. Behling noted that the studio w3uld not be the kind or size that would be found at a broadcast tele- vision station. This production studio is not designed with a studio audience in mind. It is for fairly light traffic type of production and would include perhaps up to half a dozen,on average,persons--some of whom would be in front of the camera and some behind the camera. The purpose is not for general production of commercial programming, it is specifically to produce programming for and by and from the community. He continued that this site was very attractive for them because it was on a street that was Well knownt access would be easy for the people of the four co,unities served. Also it is a site that is centrally located as a base from which to string cable. All of the programming would be processed from this build- ing to the four communities. The advantage of this particular site is its central location. He said they had looked at quite a number of sites in this area and also in Golden Valley. One factor that had to be considered was how far you could string cable and boost the power as you go along before you finally begin to diminish the quality of the signal. The central location is also very important because of the nature of any interference. There are two types of interference that w~re concerned about -- one would be electrical that with interfere with the antennas on the tower and the other would be microwave. The micro waves would interfere with reception of the satellite signals. They foumd some sites in Golden Valley had a great deal of microwave traffic and signals emanating from the IDS Tower that caused recep- tion problems. This particular area, because of its geographic location is essentially free of microwave interference. This is one of the prime factors of locating one of their "head in" facilities -- the abi- lity to receive signals from the satelite without interference. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked about the antenna and the dish. He asked if the 150 foot height was a mini- mum or a maximum height for the antenna? Mr. Behling said that the 150 foot tower was what had been proposed in the original Northern Cablevision proposal to the nine communities. It is at 150 feet because, according to their engineers, this would be the optimum height to receive the signals clearly from the Shoreview transmission towers. As such, this is an optimum. Other heights might work, but not necessarily as well. He added that the tower could be 100 feet and still get the type of reception they desired. The 150 feet had been requested because this was the figure in the original proposal. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this particular site had been tested and that they could get by ~ith a 100 foot tower. Mr. Behling said the main facility is in Brooklyn Park. It has three dishes and more of the electronic equipment. There will be one tower of 134 feet at that location. Discussion followed about the height of the tower and a comparison to other sites/structures. It was noted that the radio towers on Winnetka are perhaps 200'-250' and that the Shoreview towers were over 1000'. Commissioner Edwards noted that a 150 foot tower would be equivalent to about a 15 story building. Mr. Behting ~aid they would be happy to put up a 100 foot tower. Chairman Cameron confirmed that a 100 foot tower would be sufficient and the city would not be held res- ponsible by the cable company for any poor reception, etc. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Behling stated that the tower would be self-sup- porting. At a 100' height, the width of the legs would be 13-14 feet at the base and 4-5 feet apart at the top. In response to a question regarding the possibility of their falling, Mr. Behling noted they were not de- signed to fall but if so, would fall within themselves. They are not the type of tower that is designed to sway in the wind. There will be no guide wires. Chairman Cameron asked why they just gouldn't run the cable from Shoreviewo Behling replied that a minor problem would be Stanley Hubbard from KSTP. More important they cannot go into cities without the franchise and the financial factor would be prohibitive. The tower has to be as close to the studio as possible. It has to be close to the electronic equipment -- the "head in". The engineers say that as you run the signal away from the tower, they lose strength and this in turn affects quality. They prefer the tower right next to the studio but not more than 200-300 feet away° In response to questions from the Chairman regarding the possiblity of locating the facility next to the radio towers on Winnetka, Mr. Behling said the potential sites had been researched by a company called Com Search. He felt it was unlikely they could have a satelite dish among the radio towers. These were different kinds of signals and all the metal would provide a problem in receiving signals.. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Behling that there would be no electrical transmissions from the proposed facility. The cable will be strung according to individual city code. The franchise that was awarded by the nine communities called for the stringing of cable according to city regulations. It also specifies stringing the cable underground, where utilities were underground, and above ground, in areas where utilities were overhead. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - .JUNE 1, 1982 11. Mr. Larson noted that there ~as rDordinance requirement in the City of New Hope for underground. The franchise did require underground where other utilities were underground or where they would be changed Commissioner Gustafson asked Mr. Behling if he believed, in terms of changing the regulations, that this request for a zoning change was in the best interests of the City of New Hope? Mr. Behling said he did. This was not based just on a revenue basis. The City was a real partner in this type of system in terms of the services that are involved. The company is also involved in provid- ing security to schools, city halls, fire departments, etc. if this is desired. There are some things that are provided in the franchise, including security service and free monitoring to public buildings. Just how this applies they are still working on. They do not wish to be in competition with current se- curity system comPanies but would rather be in cooperation with them. Commissioner Gulenchyn stated he did not have a big problem with the studio or a dish but was concerned about the impact of the antenna on the community. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the City of Crystal had been notified of the proposed construction. The citizens were in turn notified by the City of Crystal. Discussion continued between the Commissioners and Mr. Behling regardinq the possible impact of the anten- na tower on the area and the height required to provide maximum reception. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Harlyn Larson noted that as part of their franchise Northern had agreed that they would put in these four facilities to serve the cities to the fullest with the best reception to the level that the public wanted to have. Originally one was not scheduled for New Hope but they were not able to find a site in Golden Valley and consequently, were looking in New Hope. Mr. Behling noted they had been looking for a site for a good four months. Chairman Cameron asked why they could not go into an industrial area, rather than locate on a busy street? Mr. Behling noted that the factors involved included being able to receive the satelite signals,'the cen- tral location to the four communities. They were also worried about microwave interference. The street makes access easier for people to reach the studio. Chairman Cameron asked what their time ~able for completion was? Mr Behling said they hoped to begin delivering service to people by late summer. They began to string cable in March. Commissioner Gundershaug said he thought they should look into one of the sites to the east of this one. Chairman Can~ron said he would also like hear what the neighbors had to say? Anthony Duran, 8001 33rd Avenue North, asked where the tower would be located on the property. Mr. Behling said the building would be pretty much in the center of the site. The tower would be located in the back corner. There will be a six foot wooden fence and maple trees. He added that the back side of the property fell off quite a bit, perhaps 20 feet. Mr. Du~an asked why they couldn't put the tower at the lowest point? Mr. Larson replied that the top of the tower would have to be at the same height. If they placed the tower 20 feet lower, it would have to be 20 feet higher. In response to questions from Mr. Duran in regard to the power of the signals, Mr. Behling said there would be no concentration, the signal is in the air any way. The same would be true of the antenna. Mr. Joe Greenstein, 7917 33rd Place North, asked about problems from pirates in the area. He wondered if the proposed tower/reception would interfere with the reception of citizens who had signed up for HBO service? Mr. Behling said it would not interfere in any way, but that HBO would be more expensive than cable service° Brief discussion followed regarding the costs of installation and monthly fees for HBO versus what cable will cost. Cathy Hanson, 7916 32nd Avenue, asked if there would be a fence around the antenna. ~ Mr. Behling said there would be an eight foot wooden fence. It will be totally enclosed with trees in front of the fence. Mr. Greenstein suggested that the petitioner look into placing their entire facility in the area of the radio station/towers. PLANNING COMMISSION MINuTES - 11 o JUNE 1, 1982 11. Yvonne Wiley, 3261 Winnetka, asked about the view from across Winnetka and how far from the street the fence would be? The answer was the fence would be 55 feet back. Parking will be on the north side of the building. The view from Winnetka would be landscaping and maple trees in front of the fence. Mr. Duran confirmed that there would be no radiation danger from this facility and that it would not af- fect normal television reception. Mr. Curt Hanson, 7916 32nd Avenue, asked whether any study had been made or consideration given to what the tower would do to property values, and if not, why not? Mr. Behling said they had some 300 or so cable systems around the country and he was not aware that there had ever been any indication of a property value decline. Mr. Hanson asked whether anyone had thought about the "attractive nuisance" factor of the antenna? They have an extremely quiet neighborhood. The area is good. What kind of rif rafwill the tower bring to the neighborhood? Mr. Behling said security would be provided. The tower will be right next to the building and there would be people there at all times. He asked what kinds o~ problems the city had had with the other towers? Mr. Greenstein referred to the "noodle factory" and the concern about the noise and polluction that might cause. He noted a study had been made at that time which stated Winnetka exceeded noise pollution stan- dards. How many employees would there be? He was afraid the facility would create more noise and con- fusion for the residents. Mr. Behling replied that there would be 4-6 employees between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with one or two more people to supervise program production. There would usually be a maximum of 7-8 people for any one production. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Larson read the list of permitted uses for an industrial zone as listed in'the city code. ~rs. Hanson stated she was opposed to the antenna. It will be an eyesore and an attractive nuisance. Chairman Cameron stated he was concerned about the neighbors receiving notice. He wondered if there was some way the petitioner could meet with the neighbors during the next month and try and let them know what was planned for the site -- just to make them aware? He felt that the Commission was concerned about the impact but he was also concerned about the people living across from the tower. He felt the issue should be tabled until July 6th. Mr. Behling asked if there was any way the Commission could meet an extra time? The New Hope site is one of four key sites in the system. The~e is a time problem. He was also aware of neighborhood concern. Mr. Larson noted that there was another concern, depending on what the Commission does. The petitioner has not as yet applied for a hearing on the Conditional Use Permit. This could not be held until the July meeting. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission/City always got blamed for any time bind. He felt there was no reason that the petitioner could not have been in in February. He felt it was only reasonable to give the neighbors a chance to have a clear understanding of the proposal. Discussion then covered the building and the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the parking in front of the building would be marked "visitor park- ing'' and there would be primarily only one vehicle stored on the site. He noted that this did create one more problem, since outside storage had to be screened. Mr. Behling noted this would be a service vehicle, used to store cable and would not be left any one place for protracted periods. Mr. Beck noted that the mobile vehicle would be on the site only when in use, otherwise it would be parked in Brooklyn Park. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the exact type of fen6e proposed. Mr. Beck stated there would be a wooden fence on the west side and north and also on the extremely southern side. The chain link fence would go all along the east side° In response to a question regarding parking spaces, ~. Larson no~ed the number of parking sites provided exceeded ordinance requirements so there should be no problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 12 ~ JUNE 1, 1982 11. Co~missioner Gundershaug stated he would like to see the parking moved back two spaces, which would'pro- vide more green in front. He also ~elt they need quite a bit more landscaping° He did not feel 10 trees in 180 was sufficient. Discusison continued in regard to landscaping and the need to soften the fence as it faces Winnetka° Feeling of Commissioners was that the proposed ten trees were not going to do a lot for the site. In response to a question from the Chairman, it was the concensus of the Commission, that they were in favor of amending the code to allow the studio in this zone. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Larson if variances were necessary for the height of the antenna, and the out- side storage? He answered that the outside storage was apparently OK and the height question would be taken covered by the Conditional Use Permit process. A public hearing is necessary on the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending the code be amended to provide fora television studi~ as a permitted use in the industrial zone as outlined in the case report. Commissioner Gustafson~seCond. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup ~Iotion declared carried. Mr. Larson noted that the petitioner should be advised to apply for the Conditional Use Permit and also provide revised construction plans. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt it was really important that the petitioner talk to the people in the neighbo~ood as well as city staff and perhaps staff from Crystal. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending that consideration of the constructionplans~ and anten- na height be tabled until the meeting of July 6, 1982. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None /-~ Absent: Troup Motion declared carried. 7. Case 82-18 was removed from the table. The petitioner was still not in attendance. Motion by Co~nissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Edwards to table Case 82-18 until the meeting of July 6, 1982. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None D~sent: Troup Motion declared carried. COMMITTEE P~PORTS 12. Design and Review met once, on May 25, 1982. 13. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 14. Codes and Standards had held one executive session. NEW BUSINESS 15. Harlyn Larson reviewed the Council minutes of May 10th and 24th, 1982. He noted that at the May 24th, meeting Council had decided not to change the ordinance to allow second occupancy apartments in single family dwellings. The people with existing apartments will be given until the first of the year to com- ply with code. 16. The Commission minutes of May 4, 1982 were approved as printed. 17. Chairman Cameron asked about the handling of hazardous waste and storage. Mr. Larson noted that this was regulated by the State, with enforcement by the city. 18. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:38 p%m. Respectfully submittedv ddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 1982 1. A special meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 22, 1982 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called tO order at 7:31 p.m. by Acting Chairman Gustafson. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Troup, Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug~ Edwards Absent~ Gulenchyn (excused), Cameron (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82-23 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT 'AT'3225 'WINPARK DRIVE DRIVE - STORER .CABLE COMMISSION, PETITIONER. Mr. James Behling and Mr. Grady Beck represented the petitioner. Mr. Behling stated that at the meeting on the 1st of June, there had been several residents of Crystal who had expressed concern about various aspects of the proposal. Among their concerns had been the height of the tower, the possible affects of radiation, electrical interference, etc. There had ~lso been questions about other possible sites - i.e. near the radio towers on Winnetka -- the lot to the northeast of the KTCR towers. Mr. Behling and their engineer had visited that site the next day and it had been the engineer's opinion that therewas no way Northern Cablevision could locate their tower on the site. There were two reasons: 1) These are the transmitting towers for KTCR and 2) there would also be other radiation that would affect the transmission of the television signals. In trying to address the concerns of the people in attendance at the meeting on June 1st, they had ex- plored other sites. They were subsequently able to work out an arrangement for the purchase of the lot directly to the east of that originally proposed (Lot 4, Block 1 Pazandak Addition) which is where they now propose to locate. This lot although lower than the original site, will allow them a clear view to the north and northeast, which is the way the antenna must face -- toward the Shoreview towers° It was the engineer's judgment that since this site would look east and northeast, the company could get by with only a 100 foot tower. They had then commissioned different plans to transfer the proposed studio/ tower development to Lot 4. Mr. Behling had then personally attempted to call on every resident on Winnetka Avenue and on 33rd and 32nd, as well as the street above Winnetka, to talk to them about their concerns. He had explained to · them what Northern was doing, where they were going and why. He had encouraged them to attend this meet- ing to express any concerns they might still have. Apparently there were none, since no one had appeared~ In response to a question as to whether the Crystal residents had received notice of this meeting, it was noted that New Hope had sent a notice to the City of Crystal and Mr. Behling sai~ he also knew from speaking to the residents that they had received notices. Mr. Behling said the present proposal is for the same studio as proposed on June 1st, with a 100 foot tower. Only the lot is different, the construction will be the same. Another factor in this site is that the project will not front across from any single family residences in Crystal. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with Mr. Behling that they had added parking spaces to the original plan. He further confirmed that the tower would be only 100' in height. In response to a question as to whether a 75 foot tower would be sufficient, F~. Behling said "no". He added that the company presently has over 300 stations and that the lowest tower is 100' in height. One 100 foot tower is presently located in St. Louis Park. He added that the reception will be as good as with a 150 foot tower because theg could face ~o the northeast and Shoreview. The building itself will be the same size as reviewed on June 1st, it is just on a different lot. In answer to questions regarding the fence, Mr. Beck said it would be of vertical boards, that would be offset. A question was raised about the vehicles that might be stored on the site. Mr. Behling stated that they would be service vehicles only. They would leave on service calls in the morning, return at the end of the day and be parked on the site at night behind the screening fence. The main facility will be at Brooklyn Park where most of the activity will take place. There will be no outside storage for more than 24 hours. Employees will also park in the rear lot. In answer to a question from Conumissioner Gustafson regarding this proposal for parking of vehicles, Mr° Larson said there should be no problem with this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE~ - 2 - JUNE 22, 1982 3. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson regarding this proposal for parking of vehicles, Mr. Larson said there should be no problem with this. Mr. Beck said there should be no more than two or three of the service vans, of'the econo-van type,. parked on the site at any one time. He added that the actual installation to the homes will be done by outside contractors, especially in the beginning. They have found this to be more efficient for them to use outside contractors° Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that these contractors would take care of their own equipment and the storage of their vehicles at some other site. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there will be concrete curb around the parki~ng lot and that the driveway would be 24 feet wide. There will be no outside refuse storage and no rooftop equipment. Mr. Beck said there would be a sign on the front of the building indicating the name of the facility. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that thepetitioner was aware of the New Hope Sign Ordinance and its restrictions regarding ~ign size. Mr. Beck stated they had also increased the lands~aRing for the site, as indicated on the plans as pre- sented on page two. Mr. Larson confirmed that only 17 spaces were required by ordinance -- 25 are proposed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Behling said they did not anticipate that there would ever be a time when they would need to accommodate a large number of cars on this site.' Com~issioner Gundershaug confirmed that the entire green area would be either sodded or seeded. Mr. Beck stated that there would be sod and seed, with rock in the areas where drainage might be a pro- blem. He felt the drainage direction had already been established with the platting. There will be no terracing -- they did not feel this was necessary. ~There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson stated he felt that the motion for this proposal should be in two parts. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending ap~rova!'ofthe Conditional use'Permit as reqUested in Case 82-23'for the 100 foot antenna height. Commissioner Friedrlch~second. Voting in favor: Troup, Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn~ Cameron Motion carried. Commissioner Gundershaug. made a motion recommending construction ~approval.~of'the studio~ with a i00<foot ~ower, as requested in Case 82-23 at 3225 Winpark Drive. CommiSsioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Troup, Friedrich, Bartos~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion carried. Commissioner Gustafson noted that this case would be considered by City Council on June 28, 1982. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 5. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 6. Design and Review Committee had held one meeting on June 22, 1982. NEW BUSINESS 7. The Planning Commission minutes of June 1, 1982 were accepted as printed. 8. In commenting on the Council minutes of June 14, Mr. Larson noted that the Council had voted down the requested ordinance amendment for Kinder Care. 10. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent .at 7:48 p,m. Respectfully submitted, pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES jULy 6, 1982 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 6, 1982 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 Chairman Cameron. 2o ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Troup, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, ~undershaug, Edwards Absent: Fried[rich, Gulenchyn (arrived at 7:33 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82-18 - (CONTINUED FROM 6-1-82) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES AT 6113 WEST BROADWAY, PETER M. JOHNSON, PETITIONER Mr. Peter Johnson was in attendance and stated that he was requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to sell bread, pop, milk, potato chips and candy in his gas station. Chairman Cameron asked him for a reason to justify this permit? Mr. Johnson said that today in the gas business, you could not make it alone on gasoline. Everybody was going into food sales. He already has milk and has a State license fo~ this. The Health Depart- ment had been out as had the State and the station had passed both health inspections. Co~issioner Gustafson asked exactly how much floor space would be assigned to the retail sales? Mr° Johnson said about one-third. He added that he sold to people other than just gas customers and he felt he had adequate parking spaces for the salesportion. They had a very large lot. He had striped parking. He felt a good third of the business would relate to retail sales. Conmnissioner Gustafson confirmed that the sales wOuld be basically pop, bread, potato chips and candy. The hours of operation are 6 a.m. until 11 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Sunday. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Johnson said h~ had four actual striped spaces reserved for the retail sales area. In response to questions from Commissioner Gu~dershaug, Mr. Johnson stated that he did not run the repair operation and that he felt there would be four to five vacant spaces at any one time. He did not plan any additional signs. He presently had one large sign and the credit card signs. Mr. Larson read a letter from Don Frank, State Legislator, reco~mmending Mr. Johnson to the city as. a de- sirable addition to the business community. In response to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Larson stated that there had been no problems as a re- 'sult of allowing retail sales of convenience foods in service stations. The stations seem to be opera- ting as they said they would. Mr. Johnson said he had purchased the station about 2 1/2 months ago. Comment was made that the appear- ance of the station had improved since that time. Mr. George Floyd, 7620 61st Avenue North, stated that since Mr. Johnson had purchased the station, it had been cleaned up, and flowers had been planted. He was in support of the request for a Conditional Use Permit° Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendinq approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Retail Sales at 6113 West Broadway, as requested in Case 82-18, subject to the hours of operation as indicated by the petitioner and the types of food stuffs he had outlined. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Tr0up, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 82-24 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 8710 BASS LAKE ROAD - -- VERNON AND HELEN YOUNGQUIST, PETITIONERS Mr. Youngquist stated he now had a storage shed on his property that he would like to tear down and build a larger one to store his trailer, boat, and law~.equipment. The shed he has now is in had shape and he felt that it would improve his property to replace it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JULY 6, 1982 4. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson,~ir. Youngquist stated that the siding, color, texture and roof will match as much as possible the existing house. The structure will have a garage type door to accommodate a trailerand the lawnmower. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the shed would be used for storage of personal property only and not a home occupation. Mr. Youngquist said the structure would have either two 8 foot doors or perhaps one 16 foot door. It will look like a garage. His equipment was too large to go through a service type of door. In ~nswer to questions from the Chairman, he stated that he had lived in the house since 1945 when Ne~ Hope was still a township. He intended to live there as long as the "Good Lord" allowed him to. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Youngquist stated that there was a~out 100 feet between the existing garage and the proposed shed. There was no one present in regard ~o this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion' recommendi.n~ app~Rval Of the variancefor a s~.c~nd ~a~a~e at 8710 Bass Lake Road, as requested in Case 82-24, subject to the removal of the existing shed, that the Fro- posed building match the house as closely as possible in regard tosi'd~ng, ~o'lor, texture 'and roofing materials. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Troup, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 82-25 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF REARYARD SETBACKAT 9111-61ST'CIRCLE - DONALD P. KREKELBERG, PETITIONER Mr. Larson noted that the porch on the site had been started. A permit had been issued for this by the city. He was not sure exactly how that had happened. He added that the addition does have walls and therefore, does not meet the definition of an open porch. Mr. Krekelberg said his wife had gone in to the office to get the permit for the porch. In the process it had been discovered that they were 6nly 40 feet from the lot line. The lot is pie shaped. They had been told that they needed a variance for the windows b~t that they could go ahead and build the porch, so they did. It had been his understanding that they could build a porch with screens, but if it had windows a variance was needed. The porch is 12' x 18' and they are seven feet short of the lot line. They will install whatever kind of windows they are allowed. He would like to put in a sliding glass door if he could. It will not be heated and he was not even sure if he would put in electricity. Commissioner Gustafson ~sked if the porch was on full scale footings? Mr. Krekelberg said it was on columns. It was POSt and column type of construction and there was no basement. They have not yet decided ~nat type of windows they will install. The siding will be the same as the house. The roof will be different from the house but the house shingles are bad and he will, hope- fully, put the same new shingles on the house next year. The house is 17 years old and he could not match the original shingles. He stated that he had talked with his neighbors about the porch and that the one that had come over had said it looked very nice. There is no house located directly behind his porch. There was no one present in regard to this request. Com~issioner Gustafso~ commented that because of the shape of the lot, etc. he would make a motion recom- m~ending approval of the variance to permit the rearyard encorachment a~ 9111 61st Circle No~th', as re- quested in Case 82-25. Commissioner Troup second. Voting in favor: Troup, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None · Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. 6o PLANNING CASE 82-26 - REQS~ST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH REARYARD VARIANCE AT 8740-49TH AVENUE NORTH - R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Johnson stated that his client, Bob Gereau, wished to expand his ~resent building and had pur- chased the lot in question to combine with his present property. There is about 35 feet of poor soil in the center of the new lot. The most useable portion of the lot is to the north, as it slopes down the hill toward 49th along Boone. In order to make the building as useful as possible they are asking for a variance along the north side of the ~roperty. Mr. Johnson's company is the fee owner for the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 JULY 6, 1982 6. building to the north and they have no objection to the variance. They had built the original facility for Mr. Gereau 12 years ago. The owner now needs more space. At the present time he only needs about 4,000 square of the new space. He has another company that he expects will take 10,000 square feet. There will be some additional space available that will be leased. He hopes to, in the future, expand into the entire building. That was the reason for attaching the two structures. The reason they are requesting the variance is because of poor soil. In answer to questions from the Chairman regarding the soil in the center of the lot, Mr. Johnson said that to build on the site, the soil woul have to either be excavated and replaced or piled to about 75 feet. If they excavated it would involve taking out 3'6 feet and putting sand in. This would obvi- ously be very expgnsive. This is why the lot hadn't been developed before. This was why Mr. Johnson's company had not purchased the site originally. Mr. Johnson noted that the owner of the building, Bob Gereau had purchased the corner land. In answer to questions about the si~e of the proposed addition from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Johnson stated that the building would be approximately 20,000 square feet. The original building is 16,000 square feet. The reason for the "L" shape was to attach the new building to the existing building. They would like to install three overhead doors, 8' x 8'. This is what is on the other facility. The addition will match as closely as possible if ~they can match the brick on the existing building. Co~missioner Edwards confirmed that the owner would occupy part of the building and lease the remainder. He reminded Mr. Johnson that he should be sure the owner realized that any additional signs had to be installed according to City Code. Mr. Johnson said there would be 100 parking spots -- this is the number they were required to provide. The entire parking lot will be blacktopped. .The island will be six feet wide. Ther9 will be concrete curbs around the entire parking lot. The west curb cut will be removed. The entire green area will be sodded around the building. In response to questions about the refuse storage Mr. Johnson said there was outside storage now. It was noted that the plans indicated inside storage in the new facility. Commissioner Edwards noted that any outside storage had to be screened according to City Code. Roof- top equipment also had to be either screened or painted to match the building. There will be no security lighting along the north side but there is security lighting at the present time along the west side. There is parking lot lighting ~roposed. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the police had no problem with the lack of security lighting on the north side. There are presently 45 people working for the company. They would prefer to reserve 18 stalls for fu{ure parking and this would leave 82 stalls provided now. There is enough green space to provide additional parking spaces in the future. · Mr. Johnson said he did not know how many employees the proposed tenant had. He noted that even if addi- tional parking stalls were added in the future, they would still comply with the green area requirement Commissioner Edwards noted that one major concern of Design and Review had been the truck docks and how trucks would get in and out of the facility. He stated he was disappointed that more had not been done to handle the maneuvering of vehicles. He asked whether there had been any discussion about this? Mr. Johnson said that the owner felt the three doors were sufficient. He used only straight trucks, not semi trucks. The engineer had gone back to the owner about this concern after the Design and Review meeting. Commissioner Edwards commented that Mr. Gereau might not always own the building. Mr. Johnson said it was difficult to argue with the owner. He did not have an answer for this problem. It had been hard to convince him of this. Co~maissioner Edwards then asked about the landscaping. Five trees have been added to the site of the existing facility. In the new area they will provide a berm to the south and along Boone it will be bermed in two different areas -- in front of the building -- and in the parking lot area. Co~m~issioner Edwards asked how much of the building would be visible from Boone Avenue? Mr. Johnson said not much. The building is 16 feet high and probably only eight feet will show -- at the most 10 feet. As the 10t drops to the south, more will be visible. PLANNING CO~MISSION MINUTES - 4 - JULY 6, 1982 6. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that they were requesting the variance because of poor soil on the site. Mro Johnson replied that the soil would have to be removed up to 19 feet deep on the southeast corner if'~-~ they moved the "L" forward. He added he was not aware of any proposed changes to the existing building other than the removal of the drive and the addition ~f the six trees and putting in the concrete curb. The parking lot will be striped. The existing parking lot will be re-striped but not re-blacktopped. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city saw soil samples when a builder repOrts a soil problem. M~. Larson said "yes" they did. There was no requirement for this but for the footings, if ther~ were an actual soil problem thepetitioner would bring them in. Mr~ Johnson said the soil borings were available. He would have no problem in submitting them to either the Inspection Department or to the Council. Chairman Cameron said this was a major variance for the City of New Hope -- to give that mu~h parking -- since they usually fight to keep parking behind buildings. He was concerned about all the blacktop on the corner with adjacent residences. .He felt it really had to be justified that there was a reason for this. Mr. Lafson noted that he had not seen the specific borings for this site but ~at he did know that there had been at least two buildings that had ~ooked at the site, drew tentative plans, and then backed off because of soil problems. Con~nissioner Bartos, noting that he lived directly across the stree said he was concerned about the type of manufacturing that would go into the building. Mr. Johnson said the owner had a turning and milling machine business. He was not a punch presser. Cormmissioner Bartos said his primary concern was the no~se factor. In the summertime it got hot and the doors would be left open and the neighbors then had to ~isten to the noise all night long. Mr. Johnson said the existing building was air conditioned and that the new addition would also be air conditioned. He added that the parking lot lights would be on standards but he did not know the actual height. He assumed they would be 12 - 14 feet high. They will be set up so that the light cone is di- rected to the parking lot, not on to the street. Co~issioner Bartos then asked about the l~ldscaping and the height of the berm on 49th. He was also con- cerned that there not be a sea of blacktop. He was concerned that the berm be high enough so that the lights of the cars would not shine into the residences. Mr. Johnson said he did not think the berm along 49th would be as high because of the width of the green 'area (50 feet). They will make it as high as pOssible but they must be able to maintain it. CoIamissioner Bartos was also concerned about where the snow would be stored? In answer to a question from Co~issioner Gundershaug, Mr. Johnson said that the berm would be no more than six feet high but probably would be four feet high. Mr. Larson noted that any more than a 4/1 slope could not be maintained. With 50 feet of green, four feet would probably be the maximum height possible. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented that he felt there were a lot of unknowns in this case. They were not sure about the type of business, whether the parking would be adequate and whether the truck maneuvering spa~e would be large enough. Mr. Johnson responded that there would be more room on the site than there was now. He re-stated that -the owner had stated he did not use semi-trucks. He added that the owner had been at this location for 12 years and hoped to some day use the entire building. This was the reason for the addition, rather than construct a free standing building. Commissioner Bartos stated he felt that three trees and four shrubs was not much landscaping for 150 feet. He thought the trees would look like toothpicks. It looked a little sparce to him. He would like to see a revised landscape plan presented. 'Mr. Johnson noted that Dundee nursery had prepared the plans. Cor~nissioner Bartos said he felt it was minimum landscaping. The City Manager stated he had met with the owner of Bob's which is located directly west of this facility. He had absolutely no objections to the construction as long as the drivewDy was removed on the west side. He claimed that the driveway encroached on his property. Mr. Dan Rudolph, 8616 49th Avenue, stated he was concerned about the unknowns and about the huge parking lot facing his home. He was also concerned'about the amount of traffic that would be created and the PLANNING COMMISSION MIN~ES ~ 5 - JULY 6, 1982 6. possibility of large trucks on the street. The parking lot was his main concern. Much of the landscap- ing on the business to the north had been good. He was disappointed in the parking lot. Mr. Leo Solstad, 8709 49th Avenue, asked about the future parking spaces and where they would be? He asked if the end of the parking lot was within city code restrictions regarding setbacks? Mr. Johnson answered "yes". Mr. Solstad said he would like to see the last row of parking spaces removed and possibly a wall put in. He also commented on the snow removal and the fact it had been pushed on to 49th fn the past. This is something he would' personally follow up on. He said the shop was not air conditioned because the shop doors were often left open. Mr. Johnson said he did not know about the doors being open but he did know for sure that the building was air conditioned. Mr. Larson cormmented that the building had to be 75 feet back from the residential area. Mr. Johnson said all that was required was 20 feet for parking setback. Mr. Donald Caton, 8717 49th Avenue North, stated that he. agreed with the statements already made. He found it incredible that no one seemed to know what was going into the building. He felt it was highly essential that people knew what was going to go on inside the building. Chairman Cameron responded that the city had no control of the business as long as the use met all of the restrictions of the city zoning codes. The building could be sold ~ year from now. The city can- not control what type of operation it is. IQ has rules about noise and traffic but it cannot prohibit a particular type of business from going into a facility° This was true of any commercial building in the city. Mr. Johnson stated, in defense of the owner, that he does do turning and millwork. When he was on the site there had been no punch press or brake or shearer or anything of that nature. He added that they could do more landscaping on the berm to the south. Personally, he would rather see a be~ and trees than a fence. This was, however, his preference. They could certainly landscape more. The Chairman noted that the trees looked about 24 feet apart. ~He felt the Commission would like to see some lo~er screening for headlights and to help with the noise buffer. He felt there were about 1/3 the number of trees/shrubs there should be. He suggested that before the pet%tioner appear before Council the landscaping should be changed and increased, particularly in front of the parking lot and on the corner. He added that the Commission would call to the Council's attention, the promise had been made to increase the landscaping. Commissioner Gundershaug said his main concern was that there be a lot more landscaping on the south side. Chairman Cameron said he felt the Commission generally agreed that the Boone Avenue landscaping looked OK. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that they were talking about adding shrubbery and increasing the amount of low growing shrubbery -- something that will work now to fill in between and underneath the trees. - Com~issioner Edwards made a motion reco~mendinq approval of the rearyard variance and the construction re- quested in 82-26, for the northwest corner of Boone/49th Avenue, provided that the exterior of the addition match the existinq building. Also approval of providing oqly 82 ~ng stalls with expansion space to 100 stalls if needed, that the driveway and curb cut on the 'west side of the building would be removed, that rooftop equipment would be screened or painted to match the buildinq and that approximately a four foot berm and substantially more landscaping be provided on the south side. Con~issioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Troup, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Bartos, Gundershaug Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 82-27 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO PERMIT SCREENING REMOVAL AT 9456 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD ' RICH- ARD AND ROBERT STEINER, PETITIONERS Mr. Thomas Roe represented the petitioners. The property in question is located at Medicine Lake Road " and County Road ~18 and is owned by Richard and Robert S~einer. Mr. Roe stated he had been the Steiner attorney since they had received the citation from the city for not repairing the fence. He stated that a little less than a year ago, Mr. Steiner had contacted the owners of the apartment building about some damage done to the fence. He got no response from the owner. He had then received the citation from the city. The matter was continued for a year by the court, pending resolution of the matter. He had also PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - JULY 6, 1982 7. contacted the apartment owner and been told they were not going to take any part in it because it was the Steiner's problem. Around November or December'they had decided to repair the fence and try and go after the apartment owners for help. Before this had been done the snows came. The plowing done by the apartment people had caused considerably more damage to the fence. He presented pictures of the fence showing the supposed affect of the snow on the fence. He once again tried to contact the apartment owners to get their cooperation in seeking a variance and received no response. They were, therefore, requesting the variance to remove the fence, which doesn't seem to be serving any purpose and is an eyesore.. In his opinion, the fence was an advantage for the apartment and since they did not seem to want it' or need it, and since it seemed to be used only for target practice it didn't seem to be doing anyone any good. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Roe said the fence sat just inside the property line. The blacktopping of the apartments goes to the lot line. The fence is on their propert~ be twelve inches. Mr. Steiner said the fence had originally been put up j~intly by Texaco and the apartment owners. Mr. Steiner said that after he received the citation he called Mr. Keller and told him they would be will- ing to-fix the fence up if they would sh~re the cost and if they would assume maintenance. They refused. They felt this would j~st be an on-going problem for them. Mr. Keller had then called him later and said if they (Steiners) would furnish the wood, the apartment would furnish the labor. That never happened either. He had asked Mr. Keller who would be responsible for the upkeep? Mr. Keller said they would not. ,Vir. Steiner said this was now an issue with him. He was willing to pay his share of costs but he felt the apar.tment owner should share the responsibility of maintemance. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the fence was, in'fact 12 years old. He asked what type of mainten- ance there had been when Texaco owned the station? Mr. Steiner'said that originally the fence had been put up by Texaco and the apartment owners. The pro- blems had started when the apartment complex was sold. Commissioner Gustafson commented that in terms of the transaction between Mr. Steiner and the City of New~ Hope, he could not see how the City of. New Hope could interfere itself into who pays what or to try and force that issue? Mr. Roe stated that he had talked to both the City Attorney and the City Inspector Jean Coone. One of them had suggested that they try for this variance -- they had thought this might be the best solution. · Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the apartment owner was present and commented that he could support staying this request for a month to allow some type of agreement to be reached between the two owners. If it were not reached then, in his opinion, he could see the fence apparently did not mean any- thing to either of them-and then the fence could come down. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented that he could not see how, if the fence were put back up, it would not get damaged again. It seemed almost impossible. He raised the question of perhaps screening with other materials i.e. Russian Olives set back farther on the lot. He felt if you took everything out, cars would be parking and backing all over the station property. · Mr. Steiner commented that there was already snow piled on his property from the apartment site. Discussion centered on possible alternatives, i.e. signs indicating "no parking" and the distance frOm the lot line that parking was allowed. . Mr. Larson said the apartment complex had'been developed under the old ordinance when there had been no restriction as far as'parking setback. It was a legal, non conforming, use. Mr. Steiner agreed it would be a continual problem. In terms of solving the problem he would be willing to plant something to keep parkers off his property. Perhaps he could put up some kind of curb. He did not think it was his total responsibility to maintain the fence. In his opinion, the apartments were com- mercial too. · Mr. Roe commented that the fence was provided by the commercial owner, but it was not the commercial owner that was 'tearing it down. Mr. Steiner said it was certainly no one from his side of the fence tearing it down. Discussion continued with the Chairman commenting that he did not fe~l it was the responsibility of the Conunission/City to arbitrate the matter. He understood the problem but He was not sure it was the city's roll to solve it. Mr. Steiner asked whether it was possible that the plan'of the city was in error in allowing the parking to be so close to his property? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - JULY 6' 1982 7. The Chairman replied "no", two wrongs did not make a right. The fence was Mr. Steiner's responsibility. Mr. Carl Keller, 1255 Josephine Road, Roseville, Minnesota presented photographs of sections of the fence that his staff had repaired. He commented that they had made these repairs two years ago and their side of the fence was still up. He suggested that the fence damage could be partly children stealing boards for their own construction purposes. He said he did not doubt that there were areas where their people had backed up against the fence or that they had pushed snow against the fence. He said the owners were appreciative of the fence and would like to see it remain. He felt that Mr. Steiner thought the apartment people were stealing the boards, he felt this would be easier to do from the station side of the fence. Discussion continued. The Chairman stated that it seemed to him that both owners were reasonable people and perhaps if the city gave them a month they could come up~ with some t'ype of agreement and the variance would not be needed. CoImmissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 82-27 for 30 days until the meeting of August 3, 1982. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Troup, Gu!enchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundersha~g, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 82-28 REQUEST FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR RADIO ANTENNA/TOWER AT 8500 33RD'AVENUE NORTH - STEPHEN AND NANCY SERBER, PETITIONERS Mr. Serber used overlays to present his proposal to the Commission. He stated he had lived in this house since December of 1980. He is an amateur radio operator. Before moving to this property he had an antenna at his other home. He is requesting permission to expand his antenna system to allow him to experiment with different types of antenna systems. He proposes to go to a 60 foot height limit and would like to extend the antenna along the edge of the property line -- 20 feet in the air. The property is zoned single family a~ in that zone he would be allowed to extend an antenna 20 feet over the roof line with an antenna attached to the roof. It was his understanding that he could go up to 35 feet in height with a free standing antenna. In his opinion, a 35 foot antenna would be less desirable in terms 'of interference and visual impact. He is proposing both an antenna and support tower. ·It would be installed only in the backyard. The antenna and tower would be within the required setbacks. Be is requesting permission for the antenna arm to extend along the side property line, but 20 feet in ~_he air on the east side of the house. The antenna would have a turning radius of 14 feet to allow the antenna to turn. ~]e tower would be in the corner toward the back. The proposed antenna/tower would be a 'free standing structure with a base set in 1 1/2 cubic yards of concrete with the required footings. The tower will be of galvanized steel, made of six 8' sections. At about 45 feet in height there will be nested into the tower a sheet metal base. At 50 feet there would be the first antenna. This is the one with the 14 foot turning radius. At approximately 55 feet there would be a second antenna with about a 9 1/2 foot turning radius for transmission of high frequency ranges. He is requesting a li£tle bit of allowance with his request for 60 feet, to give him the option of possibly operating on different frequen- cies. He re-stated that the Ordinance did not prohibit an antenna, merely controlled the height. In his opinion, the variance should be granted because amateur radio was a benefit to the community. In respect to the height proposed, he felt the higher antenna would be more desirable than the height allowed by code~ It would also be more effective form and enhance his hobby. He presente~ photographs of his house and yard indicating a tall tree in front of his property which extends over the house. He also presented pictures of the side of the house/property where the proposed antenna would be located. He noted that there were also trees surrounding the house which would help to absorb much of the radio frequency energy he would be transmitting. He stated there w~re power lines stretching across the property line at the rear and if the antenna were installed at the lower height more of the energy he would transmit would be absorbed by those power lines and as a result extend into the houses and'increase the possibility of interference pro- blems. By raising the antenna you would reduce the radiated energy at the ground level and at levels below the antenna and as a result the energy going in to the trees and houses would be greatly reduced. He was trying to minimize the affect of the radio for the neighbors and also minimize the visual impact. In terms of safety he did not feel the 60 foot antenna would be any less safe than a 35 foot antenna. He would carry insurance and it would be built to specifications under supervision of the building inspec- tors. He would be very concerned about safety since he had to live under it also. The system would be grounded to reduce static build up. The tower/anteD~a would not affect TV reception for the neighbors. As a licensed radio station he is bound by the Federal Communications Act and the Federal Con~unications system was very concerned about the problems of interference and were always helpful in solving any pro- blems. He did not believe that his proposal would in'any way damage any property values in the neigh- borhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTEs - 8 - JULY 6, 1982 8. Commissioner Gustafson asked for confirmation of the allowable height for an antenna of this type. Mr. Larson replied that the present City Ordinance restricted an antenna to 20 feet above the roof line. The antenna did not have to be attached to the roof but could be located anyplace within setback require- ments. Commissioner Gustafson referred to this regulation ~nd noted that it could be possible, within the Code, to have a free standing 45 foot in height towe~, depending upon the height of the roof. He then commented on Mr. Serber's statement that neighbors that had any problems could contact an agency fo~ assistance. He stated that now, without any tower/antenna, the neighbors had no problem. Commissioner Gustafson then confirmed thut in Mr. Serber's opinion, the higher the tower/antenna would create fewer transmission types of problems than a lower tower. In response to questions, Mr. Tower stated he had never had a tower at this site but that parts of the tower were in his rearyard on the ground. He'had been operating his radio out of his car. He said he did not feel the antenna/tower would have any adverse affect onthe property values of the neighborhood. He added that he had never had any problems with children attempting to climb the tower since he has owned it - 1969 - in the other locations it has been installed. Commissioner Bartos expressed concerns about possible interference for neighbor's television reception. Mr. Serber responded that he was allowed to have a tower/antenna by Code, he was requesting a variance for the height. He maintained that the higher tower would create less interference. In response to a question from the Chairman regarding hours of operation of the station being restricted, i.e. to after 11 p.m., Mr. Serber said he would find this unacceptable. Mr. Ed Kutensky, 3350 Boone Circle, stated that the antenna/tower was not going to help his view one bit. He would have to look at the tower and it wouldn't help his property values. The picture on his TV now is beautiful. Mr. Serber has a hobby, he has a hobby too - he plays golf -- and he didn't feel Mr. Ser- ber's hobby should affect him where he lives. Could he put a green in Mr. Serber's backyard? He didn't want any of this in his area. He has lived there for 15 years and hadn't had any problems except with a ham operator a few blocks away. Now there is nothing in the.area and he doesn't want to see it back in. The Chairman noted that the city had received two letters'from neighbors that should be noted in the re- cords. One was from Darrell Anderson, , Stating he had no objection to the antenna height unless it caused interference with his'TV reseption. Another letter from David Fruehauf, 3341 Yukon Avenue North, requesting that the Planning Commission reject the variance request, siting several reasons. Commissioner Gulenchyn stated he had been in the area and had difficulty imagining what a 60 foot ~ntenna would look like. From an esthetic point of view he felt he would be upset if it were to go next door to him, unless there was some great need or benefit as a result of the antenna. This was his personal feel- ing. He had a problem with this request. Commissioner Gundershaug asked Mr. Serber what he would do if he did not get the variance for the 60 foot tower? Mr. Serber said he would still put up a tower. Commissioner Gundershaug said he tended to feel that if the tower was up 15 feet higher it would be less visual than if it were lower. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the antenna extension would not go o%er the property line but would as proposed, in fact, go to the property line. He further confirmed that the peak of Mr. Serber's roof line was presently between 20 and 25 feet in height, so that the Commission was being asked to grant an approximately 15 foot variance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recon~endinq .approvalof the height v~riance for an antenna at 8500 33rd Avenue North as requested in Case 82-28. He stated that he did so assuming that the jud_~nent of the petitioner that the height will lessen interference was correct and because he did not believe that the additional fifteen feet in height was that bad a trade off for lack of interference with the rest of the neighborhood's TV reception. CommissionerGundershaug second. Commissioner Edwards stated that he felt that if there were goin~ to be a tower anyway, he did not feel the 15 feet was that crucial. The Chairman said he would vote against it because he did not want to be a party to this type of variance.' He was uncomfortable with it. co~missioner Troup asked what the reasons were for the 35 foot maximum height for antennas? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 JULY 6, 1982 8. Mr. Larson again noted that the 35 feet apparently came from the old Ordinance. He noted that the current Ordinance allowed a height of 20 feet over the roof. This was an attempt to relate the towers to the area. Commissioner Gundershaug said he wished to amend the motion to include the reguirement for some type. o.f screening at the base of the tower. Commissioner Gustafson second. Chairman Cameron asked if, since there appeared to be agreement on this amendment anyone objected to sim- ply adding the requirement to the motion. No objection was made and it was included. yotin~gon the amended motion. Voting in favor: Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Troup, Gulenchyn~ 'Bartos, Cameron Absent: Friedrich Motion denied. 8a. PLANNING CASE 82-29 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 4606 and 4612 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - ROBERT YUNKER AND MARTIN KVASNIK, PETITIONERS The City Manager noted that there was one more case to be considered by the Planning Commission. It was a variance for the construction of a concrete apron between two sites. There had initially been some confusion on the part of staff as to whether a variance was necessary. He had now decided that the re- quest did require a variance. Two homeowners want the apron between their two houses along the side of each house. Mr. Yunker wishes to park a recreational vehicle on the slab and this involves a second vari- ance. He was also asking the Commission to waive the requirement of a ten day notice. All of the neigh- bors had received notices prior to the meeting and the petitioner had a petition from immediate neighbors expressing no opposition to their plans. Both petitioners are seeking counsel from their attornies to make sure that proper easements are obtained. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommendinq approval of the sideyard variance at 4606 and 4612 Boone Avenue as 3_~equested in Case 82-29, for construction of a concrete apron between the two houses and also ap~_oval of the variance to allow a recreational vehicle to be parked within three feet of the property line. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Troup, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 10. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. tl. The Design and Review Committee had held one meeting. NEW BUSINESS 12. The Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Jun% 22, 1982 were ac~ep:ted .as print.ed. 13. The Council Minutes of June 14th and 28th were reviewed. 14. The Chairman stated he wished to introduce one additional resolution to the Ccmlmission. "I move a resolution expressing the Planning Commission's appreciation to Harlyn Larson for his firm but gentle guidance over the years. He has been a most worthy Manager to the City of New Hope and we will miss him. We wish Harlyn and his family the very best as they undertake ~heir new life" Unanimously approved with applause. 16. The me~in~ ~as adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 1982 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North on Tuesday, August 3, 1982. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN Present: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Edwards Absent: Troup, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug (all excused) Th~ City Manager noted that there was a change in the printed agenda. In Case 82-27 the petitioner had requested that their case be tabled until the meeting of September 6, 1982 and there would be one additional agenda item - Case 82 - 34 - North Ridge Care Center, who would make a presentation. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82-27 (CONTINUED FROM 7-6-82) REOUEST FOR VARIANCE - SCREENING REMOVAL - 9456 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD - RICHARD AND R~ERT ~TEINER,PETITIONERS. Commissioner Edwards made a motion tablinq Case 82-27 until the meeting of September 6, 1982. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson, Troup, Gundershaug Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 82 - 30 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCES IN SETBACK, LOT UNDER 7,000 SOUARE FEET AND GARAGE - 5614 5618 RHODE ISLAND - NANCY AND MERTON OMTVEDT, PETITIONERS The City Manager noted that the petitioner was asking for an opinion as to whether the requested variances would be feasible. The Chairman stated that in a case of this type, the Commission was quite willing to discuss the mattertas long as the petitioner was aware that they were making absolute- ly no promises that the variances as requested would be granted at the time of final p~atting proposal. Mr. Omtvedt stated that the property was presently a double bungalow. It had an exist- ing party wall with two separate dwelling units. They would like to separate the pro- perty at the common wall(front to back on the site). This would give them two separate lots. However, the lots would be undersized. He added that he understood that City Ordinance required that each single family unit have a garage. If the property were split, only one unit would have a garage, the other side would have only a cement drive. The second variance would be to allow them to forego the garage requirement. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that both sides of the dwelling were'presently rented and that the petitioner was attempting to sell the property. Mr. Omtvedt said they had had the property up for sale for almost a year and haven't had any concrete offers. The zoning was such that it could be used for almost anything, even an office building. He felt that since it was in a residential area, the neighbors might prefer that it remain residential. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Omtvedt said that to put a garage in the back yard would take most of the space. Either that, or a garage would have to be attached to the side of the building. He felt this would detract from the building since windows would be lost, etc. Commissioner Gulenchyn stated that no matter how the lot was divided it looked very small. He felt the yard was small now. He also referred to the lack of green on the site. He thought it might be better for the two units to share the garage. The lot was too small when divided. Commissioner Gulenchyn then questioned whether the only reason for the proposed lot split was' to enable the petitioner to sell the°two sides of the dwelling separately? Mr. Omtvedt said this was true. It was still not unmanageable for them to own the pro- perty, but it would, according to real estate people, sell more quickly if it were di- vided. The price would be considerably less. He added that there was plenty of space in the rear to install a storage building. PLANNI'NG COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - AUGUST 3, 1982 4. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards, the petitioner said he was asking $119,000 for the property as it is. If the units were separate, he felt one could sold for $55,00 and one for $60,000. In answer to questions regarding the reasons he had come before the Planning Commis- sion with this request, Mr. Omtvedt said the platting costs would be about $600 and he didn't think it feasible to spend the money if the Planning Commission were not going to be in favor of the plan. This was the reason he was asking.for an opinion. Commissioner Frledrich said he was really skeptical about the case with four variances required. He said he felt this was a lot of variances. The Chairman stated he felt thatpretty much summed up ~he feeling of the Commission. He felt there were too many variances being requested and they were too great. He said the normal lot size for a double dwelling was 14,000 square feet. The building itself would be almost 20% under Code requirements. The lot was too small to begin with. Commissioner Edwards said he was in favor of the concept but that the lot seemed too small. He personally would have a tough time going along with the proposal and the variances. He liked the approach but felt the site was just. too tight. The Chairman commented that the petitioner now had the benefit of the Commission's feel ing on the situation. He stated that this request would be on the agenda of the City Council on August 9, 1982 for their reaction. 5. PLANNING CASE 82-31 - REOUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH A PARKING VARIANCE AT 3101 LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH - PADDOCK LABORATORIES, PETITIONER Mr. Dave Clark, Architect, represented the petitioner. He stated that Bruce Paddock, President of the company and Ray Rausch of Krause/Anderson were also present to answer any questions. He said that Paddock was a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. They handle about 80-85 different products and their operation is highly regulated by the food and drug administration. They are proposing ~ 65,000 square foot building. They are requesting a variance from the number of parking stalls required. The code requires 42 stalls and they feel 15-20 are ali. that are needed. ~hey would like to show that they could add the additional spaces at any time they were required to. He noted that the plans indicate an area of possible future expansion. He said that even if the company were to proceed with expansion they would be only two spaces short of the Code requirements. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that all of the parking lots would be blacktopped, with concrete curb in the front and either rolled bituminous or precase curb at the rear. There will be rooftop equipment but it will be painted to match the building. There will be security lighting in the parking lot and wall mounted lights on the back of the build- ing. Because the company handles small amounts of controlled substances, they will have an electronic security system. There will be one door on the north side that will be elec- tronically monitored Trash will be handled inside of the building for the most part. There will be an out- side enclosure with a six foot fence. Commissioner Edwards inquired as to how the chemicals were handled and their type. Mr. Clark said the chemicals were used only for testing purposes and were kept in a three foot wide locked cabinet. They did not keep large quantities. They were used only in a controlled area. The building will be of concrete block and will be bermed on the north and east sides toward the residential areas. The building will be basic block with a decorative, painted epoxy finish. They had spent a little bit of extra effort on the front entrance and on the landscaping toward the front and to the north side. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding a possible time table for future expansion, it was noted that it could be from one to five years. They hope they will need to expand, but could not be definite as to when. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - AUGUST 3, 1982 5o There will be one sign on the building and possibly one more will be requested. Discussion then centered on the proposed landscaping and whether it had been c hanged since the Design and Review meeting. There will be berms toward the front of the property, evergreens and junipers toward the walk, with clumps of trees at the corners. They had also added a clump of trees toward the rear of the building. Commissioner Edwards noted that at the Design and Review meeting there had been talk of adding extensive and larger trees. He asked where they were on the plan? The architect noted that the site was fairly well sealed off with the existing trees around the property. They had added three locusts. Commissioner Edwards said this was one of his concerns. He felt people would look at a solid wall of concrete block. It was his personal feeling that more trees were needed to break up the front of the building~ Mr. Clark said they had felt the berming would reduce the impact toward the residential area. They prefer to clump trees rather than ~pread them out singly. The green area will be sodded at the front and back area will be seeded. In response to further questions, it was noted that the requirement was for 42 parking spaces. They would like to provide 24 at this time, which is about ten more than they currently require. They would provide space for future parking expansion. There will be only one shift at this time. Approximately 2/3 of the building will be air condi- tioned. The warehouse area will not be air conditioned. Truck traffic will go around the back. They presently use a van and cars with some light truck traffic. No large semis are used. The Chairman stated he had some real concerns about the lack of landscaping. Almost everything proposed is going to be covered by the first snow. He was personally sur- prised that the owner was satisfied. He felt the three proposed locusts would look like orphans. The Chairman added that the Commission ~uld table the case to allow for a plan revision, or if the petitioner wished to agree to adding another dozen or so trees to the plan, before they appeared at Council, the request could be forwarded to Council now. In response to questions from Commissioner Friedrich, it was stated there were presently 15 employees at maximum production. They felt they would add another 8-10 employees be- fore they would have to consider an additional shift. Commissioner Friedrich commented that he felt that since they were asking to cut the parking requirements almost in half, there should be some type of offset in regard to the landscaping. He agreed there should be more. Commissioner Gulenchyn felt the same way about the lack of trees. He stated he would definitely like to see more trees added before they proceed to the Council review. In answer to a question from the Architect, the Chairman said he thought 1/2 dozen four foot pine and spruce trees and 1/2 dozen more locusts would do a lot for the site. Commissioner Edwards said there was plenty of room to add more trees. The Chairman confirmed that the Commission had the petitioner's agreement to provide the extra trees/landscaping before the Council meeting on August 9, 1982. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommending approval of t~e variance in parking re- quested in Case 82-31 at 3101 Louisiana Avenue and also approval of the proposed con- struction, providinq that the future parking is noted on the plan, and with the stipu- lation that the landscaping plan will be redone with the addition of at least 12 trees. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - AUGUST 3, 1982 5. The City Manager stated that there was an additional issue that must be considered. There was the matter of the easement for the driveway at the northeast corner of the property. Originally the developer had owned both properties and there was the com- mon driveway. They are now selling the one piece to Paddock. The driveway cuts into this parcel and it. may present a future concern. He stated that,as a~ matter ~f record, the Commission should determine what the petitioner would do about this problem. Mr. Clark said that the situation would require either the granting of an easement for their property, or the relocating of the driveways. At this point there have been no discussions on the matter. It will be taken care of before the finish of construction. It is an owner problem. 6. PLANNING CASE 82-32 - REQUEST FOR FRONTYARD FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 4164 ENSIGN AVENUE NORTH - DUANE HOFF, PETITIONER Mr. Hoff stated he had built a fence parallel to County Road #9, which was eight feet high at the back and side of the house. His intention had been to put a four foot high fence from the front of the house, west to the sight triangle and across the corner on the property. Once he got the eight foot fence up, he had looked at the effects on noise and since they were favorable and he had some extra building materials, he installed a temporary fence, consisting of a five foot section and a six foot section. It was his understanding that the City Ordinance was not clear on the type of fencing allowed in front yards. He was requesting a variance for the height of the fence and also a variance to allow a wooden fence in the front yard. The City Manager noted that the Council, on July 26, 1982, had taken action changing the Ordinance to allow a fence of any material in the front yard, up to four feet in height. Mr. Hoff said that he felt the addition of the fence was esthetically pleasing and ef- fectively screened him from noise on 42nd Avenue. Commissioner Gu]enchyn confirmed that the eight foot high s~de fence was OK. He state he had looked at the situation and personally felt that in this case, with the traffic on 42nd Avenue, and since the fence didn't interfere with sight lines, it really could not be a problem. The Chairman asked Mr. Hoff if he really felt that the fence made a difference in the noise level at the house? Mr. Hoff replied that it cut down a great deal on the tire noise they heard. There Was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gulenchv.n..made a motion recommendinq approval of the variance in heigh~ for a frontyard fence at 4164 Ensiqn, as proposed. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Edward~ Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. HLANNiNG CASE 82-33 - REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE IN DRAINAGE PLAN - 7101 31ST AVENUE NORTH - R. JOHNSON, CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER Mr. John Duffy represented the petitioner. He stated they were requesting approval of a change in their drainage plan. They have taken out the catch basin, because in dis- cussion of the situation with the City Engineer, it had been decided there was a poten- tial problem in maintenance. They have cut a swale through the area, and added 'berming and as much landscaping as possible. There was a catch basin in the street. Mr. Dully said they had tried to berm and landscape as much as possible. He ~nderstood that their plans are still not acceptable to some of the neighbors. He noted that they had been told by the City to provide as "much as possible in the way of landscaping". According to the City Engineer, what was reasonable was a 4 to 1 slope. According to the City Council it was a six feet per fifty feet slope. They graded to this and have also ~odded the entire berm. To insure maintenance they installed a lawn sprinkling system. They feel they have done everything possible to be considered PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - AUGUST 3, 1982 "adequate and reasonable". Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Duffy understood that when they had received ap- proval from the Planning Commission they had been given approval for a specific land- scape plan. Mr. Duffy stated that the landscape had shown only trees and shrubbery. According to the "minutes" the drainage plan had been left to be determined by the petitioner, with the City Engineer and the Design Engineer. The drainage plan had been submitted to the City, after the Planning and Council meetings. The Chairman noted that this was true, as far as the drainage. The Planning Commission did not normally get involved in drainage but berming came under the heading of land- scaping. Discussion followed between the Chairman, Mr. Duffy and the Commissioners in regard to the original presentation versus the revised plan. Mr. Dully commented that, in his opinion, a three foot berm, in 150 feet was essentially ~nothing. It was his fault that the berm had not originally been drawn higher. They had attempted to come up with something to screen the building and gone back to the "minutes" where it had been stated landscaping should be "as much as possible". This would be a 4/1 slope or six feet in fifty feet. They could not achieve this in every case -- most of the berm is a 5/1 slope. Mr. Duffy noted that there had been a hill on the site originally, which in many cases had been higher than what was there now. In answer to a question from Commissioner Friedrich, Mr. Duffy said they had taken the dirt for the berm, from the site. Commissioner Guelnchyn confirmed that the reason for the change in the drainage plan had been a potential for problems of maintenance in the original plan. Mr. Duffy stated that the last time they had appeared before the City, the drainage pro- blem had been noted. Mr. R. Johnson had been told by the City/Planning Commission that he was responsible for taking care of any drainage problems, and to leave it up to the Design Engineer and the City Engineer to decide how. In looking at the alternatives, the easiest way seemed to be to cut the swale and run i~ to the street catch basin. He had taken this suggestion to Mark Hanson, City Engi- neer, who said he agreed with this and told him to submit a new plan. This had been submitted on June 28th, and this was as far as they had gotten. The City Manager noted that he had received a letter from Mark Hanson, City Engineer, in which he stated there was adequate grading, however, something might have to be done to eliminate some low areas that do exist. The low area, in particular, is at the cor- ner of the Kranz property. Mr. Duffy stated he was not aware of this report but that the petitioner would take care of the problem. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that when the petitioner had picked up the building per- mit, it had been approved by the City Engineer. He asked why the plan had not been changed before now? Mr. 'Duffy replied that when they had appeared before the Planning Commission/Council they had not even had the drainage plan prepared. He quoted from the "minutes" in which it was stated that "Kranz had mentioned the drainage problem and they (R.Johnson) had been told they could get a building permit if they fixed the problem. This they did. The plans for the drainage are dated quite a while after these meetings. The Chairman noted that there was concern about the size of the berms. Mr. Duffy stated that at the Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 1981 it had been stated that they should build the berms as "high as possible". The decision as to the exact height had been made about the middle of September. The dirt for the berm was from the large hill that had been on the property originally. The present height is not too different from the original grade. Mrs. Kranz, 3043 Louisiana Avenue, said she had thought the land was going to be left relatively flat. She asked Mr. Duffy why the hill was there? She said he had said it was because they didn't know what to do with the dirt. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6 - AUGUST 3, 1982 7. Mr. Duffy said he had talked to Mrs. Kranz about the berms and the only thing she wanted dDne was for the hills to be removed. There had been no discussion about alter- natives, as far as she was concerned. He had replied that he could only check with th~''~ city and the Engineer as to what was considered a "reasonable slope". They had tried to landscape to screen the building and the nei!ghbors were still not happy. The Chairman asked if any other neighbors had complained and the answer was "no". Mrs. Kranz said she was the only neighbor, the others were across the street. The Chairman noted that they could still see the building. Mr. Robert Johnson stated that some of the design and changes developed in 1977-78 when they had purchased the 40 acres. He stated that the Planning Commission could read in the "minutes" that there had been opposition from the people in Crystal (across the street) about their plans for development. One of their concerns had been to "hide" their view of the building. They had done this as best they could and attempted to hide the parking lot also. It had been stated at that time, they would build the hill as high as possible and hi~ the parking lot as much as possible. They had tried to do this. They kept the trees on the north side of the property for additional protection. They have bermed, land- scaped, sodded and sprinkled in trying to protect the residents as best they could. The owners of the building are happy with the results. He also felt there was an improve- ment from the original empty lot that had been the site of motorcycle riding and other trouble. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented on the fact that they hadn't let the people in the area know that they were going to build a 17' berm. He felt this was not an insignificant part of the landscape plan. Mr. Dully replied that most of the berm was 8-10 feet in height -- only one part 17' The Chairman commented that if the City Engineer said the drainage was adequate then the Planning Commission had to accept his judgement° The City Manager stated there were a couple of low spots. Mrs Duffy replied they would be taken care of. · The City Manager stated that the Code calls for the City En~'ineer to approve the drain- age plan. The Planning Commission and Council must approve the landscape plan. The Chairman noted that the Commission had been presented with an accomplished fact. In his opinion, Mr. Johnson had done the best he could to make the site as attractive as possible. He felt it was as nice in appearance as possible. He was, however, bothered by the fact the plan had been changed after original approval. Discussion continued between the Commissioners regarding the present elevation, the change in plans and what the options were now, realistically. The Manager noted that in the past, berms had been considered landscaping in a majority of cases. Commissioner Gulenchyq made a motion recommending ~ap~rovat of the chanqe in landscape plan for 7101 31st Avenue North, as requested in Case 82-33. Commissioner Friedrich second. Additional discussion followed regarding alternatives to the present situation, with the Chairman asking what would satisfy Mrs. Kranz? She replied that she thought the building was pretty and she did not want the hill or the kids sliding down the hill. It was noted that it was unusual for someone to prefer looking at a building rather than landscaping. Mr. Duffy commented that six weeks ago they had tried to get approval for this change ~_~ from the city. Doug Sandstad had suggested they check with the City Engineer, who had suggested they submit a second plan to the city for approval. This they did on June Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed, with Mrs. Kranz, that the only thing she would be hap- py with was to have the ground flat. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - AUGUST 3, 1982 7. Mr. Johnson stated that if Mrs. Kranz were concerned about kids sliding into her yard, the next thing could be to put up a four foot fence to prevent this. He added that, because of the natural difference in grade, Mrs. Kranz was not looking at 17 feet of hill from her first floor level, only about six feet -- certainly no more than she had been looking at originally. The City Manager stated that ~he original plan had called for a significant number of Plantings. Mr. Duffy said these will be planted. They still have to pick up'an occupancy permit. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Cameron, Edwards Voting against: Friedrich Absent: Troup, Bartosl Gustafson, Gunderha~g Motion carried. 7a. PLANNING CASE 82-34 - NORTH RIDGE.CARE CENTER The City Manager stated that this was a rather complex case and what the Planning Com- mission was being asked to approve at this time the concept of a plan which included a redevelopment plan, a redevelopment project and tax increment financing for the rede- velopment project° Mr, Don Forseth represented North Ridge Care Center. He stated that their original plan had called for tax increment financing. They had thought that the church site would be sufficient for their needs. The numbers did not work out. They subseq~ently~had held meetings with financial consultants,city representatives, and the city attorney to de- termine how they could best make the whole project work. There were two possible ways this could be done. 1. The possibility that some of 'the increased cost of construction could be put into the cost of the soil preparation. 2. The second way would be through a new Minnesota program, where they handle it by using a tax rate reduction program designed to assist people who are de- veloping low ~ncome housing. The Dorsey firm anticipates that there might be a problem with Option #1. They are now looking at the soil provision as far as tax increment financing is concerned, but also the interest reduction program, In addition to the tax increment financing proposal there is also the 200 unit congre- gate housing proposal in which IRB's are concerned. Total construction costs come to about $7,300,000. The nursing home revenue bond proposal would be used to convert the present congregate housing units to 167 Nursing beds. This would add approximately one million to a mil- ' lion and a half dollars to the valuation of the building. The City Manager stated that the city staff had recommended the utilization of the new Minnesota Law. The Chairman confirmed that the Planning Commission was being asked to approve the con- cept only, at this meeting. The Manager Stated that this was a complex project and they had not as yet determined how they were going to handle the bookwork, but had decided to go ahead and recommend the project as proposed in 02 above. The project would include $685,000 for remodeling, $115,000 for SAC charges and fees, $10,400 for demolishing the building, and $85,000 for soil construction. The difference between this total, minus expenses, and the original $2,000,000 is what will be included in the tax increment reduction. North Ridge will then come out of it with a dollar sum that will permit them to build. The most significant thing tonight was the tax incre- ment financing. It was a new program. Commissioner Edwards asked if there were any changes in the building construction that had previously been approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' 8 - AUGUST 3, 1982 7a. Mr. Forseth said they were trying to work around poor soil and if there were any changes they would be back before the Commission. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommendinq.'ap.proval of Case 82-34 for Redevelop- ment Plan 82-1; Redevelopment Project 82-1; and Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried~ COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 10o The Design and Review Committee had held one meeting during July. NEW BUSINESS 11o The Planning Commission Minutes of July 6~ 1982 were approved as printed. 12. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of July 12th, and July 26th, 1982. 16. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 7, 1982 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, September 7, 1982. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Friedrich, Cameron, Edwards, Troup, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Bartos and Gulenchyn (both excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS. 3. Planning Case No. 82-14, Change in Construction Plans, 5430 Boone Avenue, Charles Thom~sgn,_~etitioner. Mr. Bob Pope, architect for the North Ridge Congregate Housing project, explained the project to the Planning Commission. The first sketch revie~ed was that of a site plan showing the location of the ~ project in relation to the general area~ He said that the site consisted of 5.88 acres. There will be 182,488 square feet of gross building area on four floors. The lower level of the building is a park- ing level consisting of 31,154 square feet. He said that the area ratio to site area is .834. The build- ing ground coverage is 19% of the site. The green area of the site is 39%, and the bituminous paved area coverage is 20%. Nr. Pope continued that the plan provides for 72 spaces of underground parking, one to 2.7 apartments. There are 83 employee parking spaces on 'site, and sixteen visitor parking spaces with a total of 171 parking spaces provided. The architect then stated that, on the first and second floors, they wi-Il have 36 one-bedroom units per floor, five~two-bedroom units per floor and eight efficiency units per floor. The third and fourth floors are slightly different. On these two floors there will be six two-bedroom units per floor, 36 one-bedroom and 8 efficiency units per floor. There will be a total of 198 units in the project on the floor floors. Mr. Pope then displayed a larger landscape and site plan. He noted that the building was four ~tor~es in height, plus the underground parking. The underground parking comes in off 56th Avenue. There is a two story kitchen and activities area. The site plan also shows a connecting link between the existing nursing home and the proposed building. This connection is at grade. Mr. Pope stated that they have moved the building as far to the south as possible in order to provide the connection to the existing facility so as to facilitate the maintenance and care from the nursing home. The architect continued that an access off Boone was provided for the main entrance. The sixteen visitor parking spots are near the front entrance to the building. The 83 on-surface parking spaces are to the back of the building$ these are for emp!oyee parking~ Mr. Pope then noted that 55th Avenue had been interrupted and a cul-de-sac shown for turnaround. I,Ir. Pope reviewed the landscaping saying that they will save as many of the mature trees on the site as possible. The existing trees will be supplemented with Marshal seedless ash, little leaf lindens, locusts, Norway Maples, crimson king maples, Colorado blue spruce, Black Hill spruce, Russian olives, American arborvitae, globe arborvitae, juniper, mock orange and buckthorn. Quantity-wise, there are twelve of the ash, four of the lindens, eight of the locusts, three maple, seven maple, fifteen Colorado spruce, six Black Hill spruce~ five Russian olives and 8, 10, 30 and 12 of the smaller ground cover type plantings at the entrances. Mr. Pope then presented the plan for the lower level parking which has ~he entrance off 56th Avenue. The parking is at 90~ with 72. total spaces. There will be an enclosed trash compartment, elevators, stairs, storage, and mechanical equipment space in the lower level. Typical floor plans 'For the building were then displayed. Mr. Pope pointed out the laundry aFeas, main lobby and lounge, elevator access, activity room and party room on the first floor, as well as the green house area in connection with the connecting link. He commented that living units were stacked. The open area for the lobby becomes a lounge on the third and fourth floor. The connection to the nursing home is made only at the first floor level. The elevations of the building were then reviewed. Mr. Pope pointed out that they had brick at the corners of the building and at the main entrance. The main facade of the building is brick up to the second floor level, a course around the first floor of the building. Above that is a stucco treatment with a prefabricated metal canopy over each apartment window which will add both energy efficiency and shading for the window as well as architectural decor. There will be a canopy over the'entrance. The same exterior treatment would extend around the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 3. Cont'd) Mr. Pope commented that the floor plan for the units had not changed since the earlier presentation. Upon inquiry, Mr. Pope said that the one-bedroom units were 650 square feet and the two-bedroom units 850 square feet approximately. The efficiency unit is 468 square feet. ~ The artist's rendering of the building was then displayed. Commissioner Cameron inquired as to whether a site plan was available'of the original presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pope then displayed the original site plan. Upon inquiry as to how the new proposal differs from the earlier presentation, Mr. Pope said that the building has been moved to the south. A wing has been added and a connecting link is proposed at ground level between the existing building and the proposed congregate housing. The purpose of moving the building was to avoid poor soil and, secondly, to-bring the building closer to the existing building because the people working in the nursing home will also be supporting the people in the congregate care units. Commissioner Cameron said that ht eas having trouble understanding how, within a few months, such a radically different design had to be developed. Mr. Pope inquired as to what was meant by a radically different design. Commissioner Cameron replied that at the time of the first presentation, the Commission had asked about connecting the building. At that time the Commission was told that there was no reason for connecting the buildings. Now it is so important to connect the buildings that the City is being asked to give up a major street in New Hope. Why was this not known six months ago when the first plan was presented? Mr. Pope replied that, at that time, they had mentioned to the Planning Commission that a skyway connec- tion between the buildings was under consideration. Commissioner Cameron noted that the skyway had been proposed for sometime in the future. He also asked whether they had not been aware of the soil conditions six months ago. Mr. Pope clarified that the connecting link was the primary consideration in moving the proposed building to the south. Commissioner Cameron then inquired as to how the concept had changed to require a link now when it was ~ not necessary ~arlier. ~. Mary Jane Thompson said that she does a majority of the planning with the residents. After it appeared that the project would be a reality, she went to all the people living at North Ridge and asked each of them what they wanted, what they did not want, and what they wanted changed in the inside of the building. Almost unanimously the residents said that they wanted to be sure they could get. from one section 'of the nursing home to the other without going outside. Many of them take part in activities. Commissioner Cameron inquired as to why this information had not been gathered at the beginning. Ms. Thompson responded that this came to light while talking about kitchen cupboards, bathrooms, spacious dining rooms and such detail.s. Commissioner Cameron said that he did not feel that this was' simply an amended plan; it was a significant, totally different plan. He then inquired as to when the plans had been finalized. Responsive comment was that the plans had been finalized today. Commissioner Cameron noted that the Commission had not had a chance to properly review the plans and that they do have a legal obligation to do the planning; they do not intend to give up that responsibility. He then suggested that the matter be tabled for one month so that there would be a chance to go through Design and Review and to follow the standard planning process. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Friedrich to table Planning Case No. 82-14 for one month, until the vacation of the street issue has been solved and Design and Review has had the opportunity to review the site plan. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Troup, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion declared carried. Mr. Pope was advised to contact the city manager relative to establishing a meeting with the Design and Review Committee. ~--~' 4. Planning £~ Nh. ~-~: V~rianc~-54~ Winnetka Avenue-Berrie T~maszewski. Petitioner. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 September 7, 1982 4. Cont'd) Mr. Michael Tomaszewski made the presentation. He said he wanted to put up a fence which was about six feet high and 18 feet long, and six feet off the front of the property. He said he wanted, this fence to provide privacy from Winnetka. .Commissioner Cameron pointed out that the fence had already been constructed and now approval was being sought. Upon inquiry as to how the neighbors felt about the fence, Mr. Tomaszewski replied that the neighbors on both sides do not object if the fence stays as it is right now, does not extend across the entire front. The neighbors can see the traffic as they are pUlling out. Question was raised as to whether there was room for snow piling° Mr. Tomaszewski indicated that there was room. The Commission asked whether a living fence of evergreens had been considered. Mr. Tomaszewski said that he ~ould like to incorporate some low bushes around the fence. He said he thought the wood and the greenery would be more attractive than a full hedge. No one appeared in regard to this Planning Case. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug to recommend ~pproval of Plannit§ Case No. 82-35~ variance in fence height for the property at 5434 Winnetka Avenue, with the understanding that the approval is for the fence as it now exists (18 feet in length and six feet high). Voting in favor: Friedrich, Troup, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion declared carried. 5. Planning Case No. 82-37, Preliminary Plat and Variances~ 5614-5618 Rhode Island, Merton Omtvedt~ Petitioner. Mr. Omtvedt was present and explained that his request had been before Council about a month ago for purpose of obtaining approval as to concept only. Since that time, he has had a surveyor prepare a preliminary plat of the property and is seeking division of the property into a zero lot line plat f~r the double bungalow. This would divide the propert~ approximately down the center of the lot. The center line of the property is also very nearly the center line of the house. Mr. Omtvedt noted that the building is about 20 years old. A common wall divides the two units; it was built as two separate units. Mr. Omtvedt commented that he had discussed the size of the lot with the Council and tha~ the Council had taken action before on a building and lot of similar size. This other lot was on.Winnetka, so this is not a new situation. Mr. Omtvedt then offered to answer questions. Commissioner Gustafson inquired as to whether Mr. Omtvedt intended to add a garage for the one unit° Mr. Omtvedt said that he had discussed this with Council, and Council had stated that they were really looking for lower cost housing for people. If the addition of a garage was required, it would increase the cost of the property. Mr. Omtvedt said that Council felt that, the fact that this building was built before garages were required, they would not require a garage at this time. Commissioner Gustafson inquired as to th~ uses of the surrounding properties. Responsive comment was that the property in question is in the corner of New Hope. In front of it, between it and the Bass Lake Road, is a twelve unit apartment building; directly to the east is an office building with a parking lot all the way around; north is Crystal with single family dwellings and across the street are single family dwellings. It would not be.out of keeping with the area. Upon further inquiry, Mr. Omtvedt said that there was a garage for one side. The garage was built after the dwelling. It was built to house an electrical business operating from the site. lie stated that there were two separate entrances to the double bungalow. There are cement driveways, one on each side. The entrance for the north unit is from'the d~veway angle, and the other entrance is from the street angle. There is a boulevard tree for each side. Commissioner Cameron commented that one of the lots would be 4,970 squ~re feet and the other 5,053 square feet. The minimum lot size for a zero lot line piece of property is 7,000 square feet. These lots are approximately 30% lesso Mr. Omtvedt commented that t~is was one of the variances that he was seeking. Commissioner Cameron peinted out the need for justification before a variance can be granted; normally there is some hardship involved. He asked Mr. Omtvedt to explain what the hardship is. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 September 7, 1982 5. Cont'd) Mr. Omtvedt replied that they have been trying to sell ~he property, and it is up for sale at this time. In talking with their real estate people, they feel it would be much more salable and desirable for the people in the area to have a less expensive, two family situation. They have not been able to sell it as a single property. The double bungalow is not a money making situation. However, it is not a tre- mendously large hardship either at this particular time. Commissioner Cameron inquired as to whether Mr. Omtvedt was 'fairly sure that Council would approve this planning case. Mr. Omtvedt replied that his impression was that Council was in favor of what he was trying to accomplish. Low cost housing was one of the considerations. It was in a suitable area. This lot was similar to a double bungalow lot in the 5700 block on Winnetka. Commissioner Cameron spoke in opposition to creating lots which were 37 feet and 38 feet wide. Most of the city had to stay with the minimum lot size requirement. The area would be 30% less than the minimum s~t by ordinance. He would need good justification for such lots. Discussion held as to the ~urrent rental. It was stated that one side rents for $475 per month with the garage, and the other side rents for $300. The one side has been rented to the same people for a con- siderable length of time; they have not seen fit to increase the rent on that side. The building has been up for sale for $119,900. Commissioner Edwards inquired as to the proposed value of the two units if they were separated. Mr. Omtvedt replied that it would be from$55,000 to $59,000 for the small unit and from $65,000 to $69,000 for the larger one. Commissioner Edwards stated that he did not understand how this would bring lower cost housing to the city. For someone to go and finance each of these units, you would be looking at considerably higher payments than the rent, probably in the neighborhood of twice as high, just for principal and interest. He did not understand how this would be more affordable housing in the city. Mr. Omtvedt replied that it would be two private homes. Normally, the total amount would not be financed. With interest coming down, and the fact that the buyer would not be trying to qualify for a large amount, a younger couple would probably be able to get into this property. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the house was currently occupied by two separate families and that one family uses the garage while the other does not. Mr. Omtvedt responded that, at the time this building was built, like the doubles on Oregon at 38th, and on Winnetka just north of St. Therese, garages were not required. The buildings are approximately 20 years old. The ordinance has changed since then. Now you would not be allowed, to build that type of building on that size lot. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that the only thing that would change would be that, rather than a single owner, there would be two separate owners for the building. Mr. Omtvedt replied that that was correct; there never has been only one family occupying this house. It was always designed for a two family dwelling. Discussion then turned to the zoning request, next item on the agenda. Mr. Omtvedt ~aid that, as far as he was concerned, the zoning did not need to be changed. The city felt that the change was a necessity. If the property is divided into two, single family homes, they did not want the zoning to be such that commercial would be allowed. It is now R-O. If it is, in fact, divided into the two separate parcels, Mr. Omtvedt waid he would then be agreable to the rezoning. The rezoning would follow the actual platting and be contingent upon it. No one other than the petitioner appeared in regard to the Planning Case. Commissioner Gustafson commented that, in reviewing the situation, he did not see where the city would actually get any change in approving this request from what it has at this time. The lot and building exists whether it is rented to two separate parties or if there are two individually owned dwellings. Motion was made by Commissioner Gustafson ~ecommendinq approval of Planninq Case No. 82-37, preliminary plat with variances, as proposed by the p6titioner. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Friedrich. Voting in favor: GustafsonFriedrich Voting against: Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Troup ~-~ Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn ~tion declared lost. Mr. Omtvedt was then advised that his request would appear on the Council agenda of September 13 with the Planning Commission recommendation for denial. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 September 7, 1982 6. Planning Case~No. 82-36, Rezonin§, 5614-5618 Rhode Island Avenue, City of New Hope, Petitioner Commissioner Cameron commented that the city has proposed rezoning the Omtvedt property from R-O to R-2 if the preliminary plat and variances' were approved. No one offered any comments° Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner~Gundershaug for approval of rezoninj_Q of the ~rt~ at 5614________~5618 Rhode Island from R-O tO R-2.as requested by the---~ity under Plans~-~-~e No. 82-36, subject to the approval of Planning Case No. 82-37 by the City Council. Voting in favor: Friedrichs, Troup, Cameron, Gundershaug, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos and Gulenchyn Motion declared carried. ~ 7. Ptanninq Case No. 82-38, Variance-8501 28th Avenue, William Sheppard, Petitioner. Mr. Sheppard said that his intent is to construct a three season porch on the Zealand side of the property. Due to the position of the house on the lot, a variance is needed for setback. (The porch will be approximately It feet 8 inches from the side yard; 20 feet |s required). Commissioner Gustafson inquired as to exactly what kind of construction would go into the three season porch. Mr. Sheppard replied that 'the other windows in the house are crank out.windows. He does not think that he will use crank out windows on the porch. The siding, roof line and shingles will match up with the materials on the existing house as to color and texture. He said he would try to make it look exactly like the existing structure. The three season porch will not have a basement. It will be insulated, but it will not be heated. It will not have any new electricity added. No one appeared in'regard to this planning case. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Edwards to recommend a_lzp_Eo__val of Case 82-38 for variance in setback for a three season porch as requested by the petitioner, with the stipulation that the exterior material match as to color and texture. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Troup, Cameron, Gundershaug, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gulenchyn Motion declared carried. 8. ~_lztnning Cas_e_~No. 82-39, variance~ traffic plan and amendment to conditional use~ Crystal Evanqelical ~e_~.~, 42nd and County Road 18. Mr. Doug Sandstad, Staff representative, presented three letters from neighbors objecting to the proposed addition to the church. It was noted that all three letters were from unidentified persons. Mr. Jim Hagman, chairman of the building committee of Crystal Evangelical Free Church, introduced Darrell LeBarron. architect, and Dick Wolsfeld, traffic consultant. Mr. Hagman then turned the presentation over to Mr. LeBarron. Mr. LeBarron commented that a year ago they had been before the Commission showing a plan for an educa- tional building to the edge and to the north of the existing building. At that time the charge was to relieve the educational needs of the church family. He said at that time they were under the under- standing that a $700,000 project was their maximum capability in these economic times. Following that approval for an amended conditional use for that education expansion, they were charged by the church family to fulfill other needs of the church, which prioritized, along with the education needs, a worship addition. He showed the plan that was approved last year and advised that since those plans were developed, the church has conducted a stewardship drive. This was completed early this year; the fundraiser was in excess of $2,000,000. In a survey, a vast majority of the 1200 to 1300 families favored staying on the site with an addition for worship space. Mr. LeBanron then showed a site plan setting out the parking. Ei'ght hundred seventy-one parking stalls are shown on the configuration. He said that the parking had been adjusted following input from the traffic planner, review by Design and Review and also the informal neighborhood review. The parking has been pulled back from the property line. The configuration presented tonight only has about twelve less parking spaces than the first plan. He said they felt the 871 spaces was a maximum at this time. Mr. LeBarron stated that the revised plan includes the deletion of the residence down on the southeast corner. He said that if they are allowed to change the building coverage from 20,000 to 45,000, its ratio to the twelve acre site would be 8.5% coverage at the final building phase. He commented that PLANNING CO).~ISSION MINUTES Page6 September 7, 1982 8. (cont'd) most residential coverage on 1/4 acre or 1/3 acre site is 16 to 20%, build{ng to land. ' Mr. LeBarron noted that he had made the presentation for Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church within the last~--~. year. Its building coverage is about 12%. He said, from his personal opinion, the building cover for Crystal Free would be a light one. The green space should be subject to scrutiny. The parking has been cut back to a reasonable amount of parking so that there remains 34% Df green space. Beautiful Savior · green space was about 43 to 45%. Mr. LeBarron said that, even though the church with the new worship space would have a separate education hour, it would choose not to be locked into that situation. Parking is calculated as if there were to be simultaneous education and worship hour, which is the case now. With the added space they could have two worship hours in the morning, rather than three in the morning. The educational hour would be in the middle of the two worship hours. Mr. LeBarron said they are reserving 261 car spaces for educational purposes. The education need is figured at 20 square feet per occupant and one car per seven occupants. This also includes one car per three classrooms for instructors and a nursery library. Ten spaces are also reserved for the office space. There would be 600 spaces over ana. above these 271 stalls. The worship space would be developed at one car per three occupants. A slide of the proposed addition was then shown. He said there would be room for 1200 in the main floor worship space and 500 plus in the balcony. A maximum setback will be maintained on the north side. The requirement is 50 feet; this is 85. A fifty-foot green space will be maintained as agreed upon in 1975-76. Another reason for sliding the building down was to use the main entry without the need for a secondary entry on that side. He also mentioned the need to maintain mechanical vents. Mr. LeBarron then stated that the existing worship space would be subdivided for offices and adult edu- cational assembly rooms. The balcony will wrap around to the side. There will be a three story elevator installed in the passage. Mr. LeBarron further explained how the lower level would be arranged. A new kitchan and a good activity/ multipurpose room will be provided. Mr. LeBarron said that the neighbors had been concerned with elevations. He stated that the berm along the north side is at 940. The existing building is 64 feet above grade at the back side; the ordinance is~65 feet. He said he had expressed to the neighbors that his intent would be to hold the new building 15 feet lower than the existing building. The elevation at the back side could be about 30 feet above grade at. the back corner. He again stated that the addition goes off the north side; it is stepped in height from the existing building,and material and siding are matched. The berm on the north side is the 50 foot green area setback, elevation 940. The balcony corridor is at 940. Mr. Dick Wolsfetd, traffic engineer, addressed the parking and traffic issue. He noted that currently they have an 8:30 service, a lO:O0 o'clock service andan 11:30 service; the peak service being the lO:O0 o'clock service. The congestion exists today mainly as the 8:30 service lets out and people are coming to the 10:00 o'clock service. The traffic backs up onto the Rickford Road, actually past the inter- change with County Road 18. There is a significant amount of congestion on site as people are dropping off passengers. There is a significant amount of delay entering and leaving the site. Another concern of the neighbors to the north is the people that are cutting to the north to exit from the site. Mr. Dick Wolsfeld said he has assessed the problem as stemming from some conflicts between vehicle move- ments on the site. Vehicles are crossing each other, which causes delay. The second part of the problem is that, as people are dropping passengers off near the front door of the church, the flow of traffic is interrupted and is causing congestion. There is also a problem in the ability of the street to handle the number of vehicles that are trying to exit the church. He said his goal is to minimize those con- flicts, the interruptions in flow and to increase the exit capacity. Mr. Wolsfeld continued that the first principle involved is to achieve a counterclockwise movement to eliminate the need for vehicles to cross. He also wants to eliminate cars entering, crossing cars ~eaving the site. Mr. Wolsfeld continued that he had looked at various alternatives, such as another drive at the north which would have violated the 50 foot strip the church has promised to keep as a green area. He also looked at the possibility of increasing the capacity by adding a lane on Gettysburg for the entire length from the exit and using essentially the existing flow. The third alternative picked up the concept of trying to create a separate drop off area so that people could enter the parking lot and those that did want to drop off passengers could do so at another spot. He said he then came up with a composite plan. Mr. Wolsfeld noted that the first thing tO be accomplished is to provide for a one-way, counterclockwise, traffic flow on the site; enter the church site; circulate around and come back out. Secondly, a drop-off area is to be created about 50 feet to 60 feet away from the existing front door. You would pull out of the main stream of traffic to drop passengers off. They could then walk, without any further conflicts, into the front door of the church. He said they are also suggesting that Gettysburg be widened to four lanes. Those coming from the east would have a lane of traffic, and those coming from the west would havu a lane of traffic. Two lanes can then move northbound and access the site. In terms of exit, they want to create the same concept by adding a right turn lane for the entire length from the exit down to Rockford Road. Gettysburg would be tapered back to the existing street width just north of the exit. Mr. Wolsfeld said they are suggesting that no access be allowed from the west, east or south into the one parking area. Therefore, only people living in the neighborhood would enter the parking lot under normal operations. If PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 September 7, 1982 8. ~cont' d) the reserved parking lot is full, then access would be opened to the other parking areas. Mr. Wolsfeld stated that he felt the needs of the church could be met on the present site by adding the auxiliary land on Gettysburg, and providing a functional drop-off area and a counterclockwise, one-way flow of traffic. All of the additional right of way required for the roadway widening would be provided fr6m the church side. Mr. Wolsfeld said that they are also requesting permission to take advantage of the downsizing of'vehicles. He said that in 1980, some 82% of cars sold in the U. S. were either compacts or subcompacts. Today, if you counted-cars in a parking lot, you would probably come up with between 30 and 35%. As old vehicles continued to be retired and new vehicles take their place, the percent of compact cars in a parking lot will increase. The widest vehicle made today is about 6'1", the longest is about 17½ feet. That compares to 19.4 foot cars in the 60's. They were also 6.7 or 6.8 feet in width. Mr. Wolsfeld said that they want to take advantage of that change and go with an ~ foot stall width. He thought, from hie perspective, this was a reasonable request. Upon inquiry, Mr. Wolsfeld responded that the new sanctuary would have an entrance from the lower level, and then they would maintain the existing entrance. It would not have a separate entrance on this side. Commissioner Cameron inquired as to the national standards for car sizes, he said he understood that the size of garages has been reduced two feet. Have the traffic people also made adjustments in parking lots and lanes? Mr. Wolsfeld replied that they had changed the standards. The problem is, who sets the national standards. The institute of Transportation Engineers, which is a wsrld-wide association of traffic engineers, has lowered that down to an ~ foot by 60 foot stall for 90 parking. Most of the shopping center associa- tions have similarly downsized that dimension to 8.5 to 8.8 stall Width. Mr. Wolsfeld noted that he is presently working on the Rosedale lot which has a parking problem during the Christmas season. By downsizing the spaces they can immediately add about 500 spaces. By 1990 they will be able to add over 1,000 spaces. Commissioner Cameron inquired as to why diagonal parking was not proposed. Mr. Wolsfeld said that the refinement of the plan does call for diagonal parking in three of the b~ys. · He said that the bay width could go from 60 to 52 foot bay width with an ~ foot stall. There is a relationship between the width of the driving aisle and the width of the parking stall. He said they have opted to keep generous aisles but to go down to an ~ foot stall. The 871 stalls assumes that the ~ foot width stall will be allowed. They would gain about 50 parking spaces by going from a nine foot width down to ~. Mr. Doug Sandstad clarified that three parking variances were required. First, the driving aisles are narrower than city ordinance presently allows. Second, the stalls would be ~ feet instead of 9 fee~. The third variance would relate to the.length of the stall. They are requesting 18', 8" as opposed to 20 feet. ~He said he did not know how many parking stalls would be available given a 9 foot by 20 foot requirement. Mr. Wolsfeld clarified that the northeast lot is to be as currently striped. There is actually an overhang for the car. Question was raised as to whether there would be room for snow storage. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired as to the number of spaces needed to meet ordinance. Mr. Wolsfeld said that 600 parking stalls would be needed to accommodate 1800 people. They have 871 shown. There would then be 271 spaces for education and 600 for assembly or worship space. .Mr. Doug Sandstad said that he would estimate that the ordinance would require approximately 900 to 9i0 spaces for the building, and those spaces would be standard size spaces. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that there would then be a variance of about 25 spaces° Inquiry was then made as to whether tile exit lane width had been modified. Mr. LeBarron replied that they had alt been changed to 24 feet. He also said that he had mentioned to the building committee that certain pieces might be curbed and landscaped as opposed to painting, if that was required by the city. The landscaping would help a great deal in setting up the area. Question was asked as to how the north lot would be monitored. PLANNING CO~qISSION MINUTES Pa§e 8 September 7, 1982 8. (cont'd) Responsive comment was that there would be three monitors, with one person monitoring the north lot. One drive will be marked "entrance" and the other will be strictly an exit. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired as to the peak number of cars that might be on the site with the pro- posed new building. Can all those cars be accommodated? The traffic planner replied that there could be from 600 to 700 cars ~n and off the site during the peak time. He said with the proposed traffic flow changes, he thought the problem would be solved. Upon inquiry as to what the cars Would do if the parking lots were full, the planner said that if they attract an overflow, they will have to change the times of services. If they have a 100 car overflow, they will have 300 people overflowing in the building also. The cars, he would guess, would either start parking in the aisles or try to find a place to park on some street in the neighborhood. If they are prohibiting turns to the north, the cars will head south on Gettysburg. If there is no parking, a lot of people would go back home. The turn will be prohibited by traffic control personnel. The cars will be directed to go back to the south. Mr. Wolsfeld said that their feeling is that if they provide better traffic access and people are coming from the west or the east, and you set up that flow, doubling the capacity will improve the operation so that people will not try to cut to the north to find a shortcut. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired as to how the snow would be handled. Mr. Wolsfeld said that they will start by pushing snow on the site. If the site can no longer handle it, they will haul the snow away, which they have done in the past. Chairman Cameron noted that the issues under consideration were the parking variances, the traffic plan and the amendment to the conditional use, not the landscaping or construction plans. He pointed out, however, that if the variances were to be approved, the Commission would expect additional landscaping, etc. Commissioner Gustafson asked for a restatement as to the number of people that would be accommodated in the sanctuary and the number of services planned. Mr. LeBarron said that 1200 people will fit into the sanctuary plus another 532 in the balcony or about 1800 total seats. Mr. LeBarron advised that currently, there were three services in the morning and one in the evening. There is a concern for the person that has to deliver four services on a Sunday. A second concern is that the congregation at this time is operating under an uncomfortable situation in terms of combined worship and education hours. The church family is not being brought together the way that it should be. ~-" Mr. Bruce Webb, business administrator for the church, stated that now the first service is fairly comfortable, the second service is overcrowded and people are being turned away. The third service attendance is down to 500 or 600 people. He said the church anticipates that it will continue to grow. To try to handle that, they want to provide more seating and cut back to two services in the morning and one in the evening. The evening service traditionally has from 600 to 900 people. Commissioner Gustafson inquired about anticipated future attendance asking whether 4000 would be served in the future. Mr. Bruce Webb noted that they could accommodate more than 4000 with the addition. The evening service could also be filled. There would be two, daytime services, plus the evening service. Further discussion followed as to the anticipated growth and further expansion. Mr. Webb said that this addition is all that is expected to be done on this site. They expected the addi- tion to accommodate the congregation for the next six to ten years. Question was raised as to the possibility of using off-site parking facilities if the lot becomes full. Mr. Webb stated that they had attempted this last year. The church had received permission from Four Seasons Shopping Center to park on their lot and then ride a shuttle 'to the church. He had also checked with K-Mart. K-Mart had declined, but Four Seasons agreed to the parking. The shuttle bus had been tried on a limited basis. It ran for one hour; there were not many participants. If they were to do this again, they would maybe try a nicer coach, more publicity and longer hours, over a two or. three-hour period. Discussion was then opened to the floor. Mr. Rex Shipman, 4413 Independence, expressed concern with the massive plan and the impact on the resi- dential neighborhood to the north. He said that in six years the church would again need more space. Then what would be done with the existing facility, etc.? He suggested that the church go buy open land and be ready for 20 years or more. The church was too big of a business, church and educational facili- ties, for the size of the site. ~-~ The architect then addressed the issue of future growth. He noted that a task force had been formed to study Maple Grove for a sister church to be available for split~off in the years to come. The church is trying to address three or five years from now. Chairman Cameron inquired as to who would pay for the widening of Gettysburg. A church representative replied that the church would pay for the street widening. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 September 7, 1982 8. (cont'd) Commissioner ~undershaug inquired as to whether the parking lot would be monitored at night. Fir. Webb commented that they had not had .a problem on the parking lot. There is an evening' custodian that works approximately four nights a week. He is in the building up until midnight or later. There is some lights provided. The New Hope Police also patrol periodically. Chairman Cameron inquired as to the asphalt coverage on the site if this addition is approved. Mr. LeBarron replied that there would be about 7½ acres ~f asphalt. Chairman Cameron again expressed disappointment with the last landscaping provided and noted that the commission would be very careful to assure that a lot of good size and quality trees and shrubs are provided if this proposal goes ahead. He also noted the problem with the parking and screening of the buses on tile site and said that these items would be considered during the review of construction plans. No further comments were heand. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards recommending approval of Planning Case No. 82-39~_~c_c~ce of traffic plan with variances for drive'width and ~ace sizes and a~-~t to the conditional use permit. Voting in favor: Edwards, Friedrich, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Troup Absent: Bartos, GUlenchyn Motion declared carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 10. There was no repor$ from Codes and Standards. ll. There was no formal report from Design and Review. Discussion followed as to when the Design and Review would be available 'to consider the North Ridge proposal. It was agreed that a special meeting could be called. NEW BUSINESS. 12. The Planning Commission minutes of August 3, 1982 were approved as printed. 13. The Council minutes of the meeting of August 9th were noted. 14. Mr. Doflg Sandstad updated the Commission as to the status of the berm on the R. Johnson project at 31st and Louisiana. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired as to why "No Parking" signs had not been installed on one side of 55th Avenue as it abuts North Ridge. He asked that staff check into this. Chairman Cameron noted that the school district has to close one more junior high school. One of the things taken into account in making such a determination is ease of access to the school, (Hosterman as it relates to the possible vacation of 55th.) Commissioner Gustafson sa~d that in the Council minutes there was a comment relative to the hours of operation of Burger King. He said that as he recalled, the..Planning Commission had required that Burger King close at 1:00 a.m. Now they are staying open until 3:00 a.m. or later. There was no action to stay enforcement of closing hours. Council apparently did not discuss this particular issue, --the approved hours of operation.' He asked that staff clarify this matter. Commissioner Gustafson expressed approval of the change in parking from front to rear for the apartments' across from the golf cour§e. This is a definite 'improvement to the appearance from the Bass Lake Road. 15. There were no announcements. 16. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:32 p.m. 'C i~t~-~<l ~/~ k_ T r e a s Jre r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1982 A. A regular meeting of the New Hope'Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 5, 1982 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. B. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Troup (excused), Friedrich (excused), Gulenchyn (excused), Gustafson (excused) C. PUBLIC HF~RINGS The City Manager stated he would like to add one additional case to the agenda. The case ',,as 82-27 which involved a variance as requested by R. J. Steiner for 9456 Medicine Lake Road. The Chairman stated there was no objection to this addition. 1. PLANNING CASE 82-40 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND LOT SIZE AND SETBACK VARIANCES AT 2853 AND 2857 FI~AG AVENUE NORTH - KIUMARS HEK~LAT, PETITIONER Mr. Mike Pirzadeh represented the petitioner. He stated they were requesting the preliminary plat to enable them to sell both sides of a double dwelling. They wished a zero lot line plat. They re- quired the variances because one lot would be 104 feet smaller than code requirement. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that the petitioner met all of the other criteria for a zero lot line plat. The Manager said this was correct. Commissioner Bartos stated that inasmuch as the Commission had done this in the past, he had no pro- blem with this request. In answer to a question from Con~issioner Gunders~aug regarding potential problems with these zero lot line homes in regard to exterior color treatments, the City ~Ianager stated that the existing code did not address this issue. He said it was his intention to investigate the possibility of a change in the code to handle this potential problem. Short discussion followed. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Edwards inquired about the easements on the two lots of the plat and ~nether they had been provided for? The City Manager stated that normally all plats are sent to the utility companies before they are con- sidered by the Planning Commission so they can voice any concerns they m~ght have. Commissioner Edwards inquired about sewer and water connections and whether easements were needed? Mr. Jim Parker, surveyor of the property, said that the original lots were designed to be separate. There are two separate sewer connections. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the request for preliminary plat with variances at 2853-57 Flag Avenue in Case 82-40. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Can~eron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: ~ne Absent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson Motion carried. 2. PLANNING CASE 82-41 - ~EQUEST FOR SETBACK V~IANCE AT 4075 ENSIGN AVENUE - RALPH LIGHLITER, PETITIONER. Mr. Lighliter stated he would like to put a three season porch on the back of his "L Shaped" rambler. He plans to install Mon-Ray windows. The porch will be 12' x 16'. The addition would be only 25 feet from the lot line instead of the required 35 feet. This porch is part of a larger remodelling plan he is involved in. He is also putting an addition oD the front of the house. 'l~e porc~ will be uninsu- lated and unheated. In ~esponse to a question from the Chairman, he stated that he had talked to the neighbors and they had expressed no objections. He added that the porch would be screened to the ground and would go down to the wood patio. The Chairman asked how difficult it %~uld be to convert the porch to living space? PLANNING COmmISSION MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 5, 1982 Mr. Lichliter said the windows wo~ld have ~o be changed. The porch, as proposed, will have indoor- outdoor carpeting and will be finished with redwood on the inside. In response to a further question from the Chairman, he stated that the exterior will be the same as the siding on the house right now. It will match. The shed roof will be tied into the house. The present garage is being moved forward 17 feet. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending the variance in setback at 4075 Ensign Avenue as requested in Case 82-41. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson Motion carried. 3. PLANNING CASE 82-42 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE AT 7724 W!NPARK DRIVE - GATEWAY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that he was requesting that the Commission table this case. The petitioner had called on 10/5/82 to info~n him that there has been a major corporate change over in the company. They now plan to be out of this building by the 1st of December. Gateway Communications is a subsi- diary of Storer Cable and they were planning to fence off the back area and pave it and put in park- ing and outside storage. This has all changed. They now will be vacating the building. The primary purpose of the Conditional Use was to allow them to store equipment and trucks inside. Apparently ~ they have been storing this equipment outside. The Manager had suggested to them that the Commission table the request to allow them to straighten out what was happening within the company. They might have to come back in November to obtain the Conditional Use for one month. It was his understanding that they would be moving out of New Hope. The Chairman stated he was concerned abo'ut Fire C©de regulations and that the petitioner not be creat- ing a hazardous situation even for the time they would be in New Hope. The Manager responded that the Fire Marshal did not see any major problems. He suggested that the Commission table this case until the 1st of December. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Edwards to table Case 82-42 until the meeting of December 7, 1982. Commissioner ~artos second. Commissioner Edwards noted that the company seemed to have stuff everywhere on'the site. The Manager noted he would talk to the company attorney, who had contacted him about the case, re- garding cleaning up the site. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug,~ Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson Motion carried. 3a. PLANNING CASE 82-27 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 9456 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD - R. STEINER, PETITIONER The City Manager said he was requested that the Commission dismiss this request. He has been assured by the petitioner that the fence would be put up. They will be given l]ntil November 1, before the property will be inspected again. If the fence is not up at that time, they will be cited. The Manager added that he had received correspondence stating that the two parties involved had reached agreement. Keller Managerment was apparently to pick up 'the materials on 10/6/82 and will put the fence back in good shape. Commissioner Gunder~shaug made a motion recor~nending dismissal of Case 82-27. Commiss_~oner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchy~, Gustafson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - OCTOBER 5, 1982 C. 3b. Discussion then covered the request from Crystal Free Church regarding the widened road in front of the church. The Manager stated that, in his opinion, this was not a Planning Commission matter. It would be pretty much up to the City Engineer and Council. He added that the church must come back before.the Planning Commission with their complete construction package. Commissioner Gundershaug stated his concern that the church not think it was their prerogative that everything else they wanted was approved. The Manager said that the Council approved only the concept approval and had stressed that this was not final construction approval. Chairman Cameron asked whether city would not get a lot of questions from citizens, if next week equipment moved in and started to widen the road, when the Planning Commission/Council had not as yet approved final construction plans? The Manager said that the very least the ch%~ch would have to do would get construction approval from the Council and that the City Engineer would have to approve the road plans. Building permits would not be issued until the City Engineer had checked off the proposal. In response to questions, the cost would be about 20% more for the road widening if the city did the work, in contrast to the church contracting the job. The road would have to meet city standards. D. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 5. The Chairman stated that he had talked with the Chairman of Codes and Standards and informed him that the City Council had requested that the Planning Commission study three issues: the issue of permit- ting retail sales in an I-1 zone; evaluate the zoning ordinance as it pertains to fencing, and evalu- ate the zoning ordinance as it relates to the size of parking stalls and the width of parking stalls. He had advised Paul that he felt a member of Design and Review should sit in when the issue of the parking stalls was discussed because this had been an issue for that committee on a number of occa- sions. Mr. Gustafson will be calling a meeting of this committee shortly. 6. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. E. NEW BUSINESS 7. The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of 9-7-82 and 9-21-82 were reviewed and accepte~ as printed. 8. The Council minutes of 8-23-82 and 9-13-82 were reviewed. F. ADDITIONAL 9. The City Manager stated that it would be necessary for the Commission to determine an alternate meet- ing date for the November meeting because the schedul~ meeting falls on Election Day. Following discussion it was the concensus of the Commission that the meeting should be held on 1 November 1982 at 7:30 p.m. 10. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEmbER 1, 1982 A regular meeting of the Planning commission was held on Monday, November 1, 1982 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. I. The meeting was called to order by Assistant Chairman Gustafson at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Freidrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Troup, Bartos, Cameron (excused) PL~LIC HEARINGS 2. PLANNING CASE 82-43 - REQUEST FOR REARYARD AND SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCES AT 6000 ENSIGN AVENUE - NAOMI NYGAARD, PETITIONER Mrs. Nygaard was present and stated that she was requesting the variances to allow her to convert her attached single garage into a family room, add a mud room and build a double attached garage. Co~-.-~issioner Gustafson confirmed that the existing driveway would be removed and replaced with sod and that the porch would be enclosed with screens and perhaps windows. He further confirmed that the sid- in? of the new porch and garage would match as closely as possible the color and texture of the exist- in~ house. The roof and shingles will also match as closely as possible. He noted that two variances were required, one to the rearyard and one to the sideyard. He asked wh~~ the garage could not be positioned back far enough to meet code? Mrs. Nygaard replied that she felt it would take up too much of the back yard and that there were slid- ing doors coming off the kitchen area into the porch and that also putting the garage back further would obstruct the porch and kitchen window. In reference to the proposed sideyard setback of only ten feet to the lot line and driveway, Commissioner Gus tafscn confirmed that there were only two cars in the family and there would not be two or three cars parked on the driveway. The City Manager noted that there could be no vehicles parked on the apron of the driveway, as this was considered part of the roadway. He felt one of the conditions of the variance would have to be that there would be no parking on the apron. Cars would have to park at the curb or in the garage. You could not park on the right-of-way or roadway in the City of New Hope. ~s. Nygaard confirmed that no cars would be allowed to legally park on the apron portion of a driveway. Cor~issioner Gustafson noted that he felt this was a point that Mrs. Nygaard must be aware of, that any parking on the driveway could lead to her being ticketed for parking illegally. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mrs. Nygaard said she had not been aware that this would be a problem with the short driveway. She further stated that she had thought about changing the plan but had not been able to come up with a different plan. They hope to start construction right away. Cor~-.issioner Gundershaug re-stated that by parking a car in the short driveway, they would be in viola2 of city ordinances. The City Manager noted that if the existing driveway were removed, it would be the responsibility of the petitioner to replace the curbing on Ensign Avenue. There was no one present in regard to this case. Co~n-~issioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of the setback variances at 6000 Ensign Avenue North, as requested in Case 82-43, subject to the petitioner replacing the existing curb cut on Ensign, and subject to the materials, texture and color of the siding and roofing matching as closely as possib]~ the existing house° Also that the petitioner had been advised that because of city ordinance, no cars could legally be parked on the ten foot driveway, on the petitioner's property from the garage to the back of the boulevard. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None · Absent: Troup, Bartos, Cameron Motion carried. PLAN~IING COMMISSION ~.IINUTES - 2 - NOVEMBER 1, 1982 4. PLA~ING CASE 82-44 - REQUEST FOR REARYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 9017 44TH CIRCLE - ROBERT WYNNE, PETITIONER' Mr. Wynne stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to come within 21 feet of the rear lot line. They have an existing deck that they wish to convert to a three season porch. The porch would be extended another three feet to include the present stair area. There are no neighbors to the rear, it is church property. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn regarding the exact distance from the proposed porch to the lot line, it was confirmed by Mr. Wynne that as the deck was now positioned, there were 21 feet to the lot line. He will extend the porch area three more feet. It will be a three season porch that would not be heated. Commissioner Gu~.enchyn confirmed that the porch would match in color, texture and materials those on the existing house and addition. Mr. Wynne said that the roof would simply be extended over the three season porch. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending approval of the variance as requested for 9017 - 44th Circle, in Case 82-44, as stated, with the stipulation that the petitioner would match the siding, roof lines, color and texture as closely as possible to the existing dwelling. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards voting against: None Absent: Troup, Bartos, Cameron Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 82-45 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, PARKINGAND LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 5420 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER, PETITIONER The City Manager stated he wculd like the Com~mission to consider the preliminary plat at this time, although he was unable to furnish the most current plat plan. The City Attorney had requested, because of the complexities of this project, that the petitioner plat the entire project into one plat. This was currently being done, but the copies had not been available for this meeting. The Manager stated he was requesting that the Commission act on the plat at this meeting, either to ap- prove or deny,with the customary stipulations such as easements, particularly storm sewer easements. Tile petitioner has a time problem in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the plat would be subject to city staff, City Engineer, and City Attorney review and approval before it was passed on to the City. Council for approval. The Manager said he expected to see the final plat this week. He also requested that the Co~ission review the proposed cul-du-sac and give comments in regard to its size. Mr. Robert Pope, Architect~ represented North Ridge. He presented a handout regarding the parking on the site for the commission's review, as well as a graphic illustrating the proposed layout. He re- capped the parking plan. There will be 66 parking spaces in the final layout in the underground parking area. This .will give a total of 312 parking spaces. There will be 14 spaces for reserve parking. Two spaces had been picked up in the basement. It was his belief that the parking provided now met code. He noted that the final plat will include the parking space dimensions. The driveways will be 24 feet in width and the aisles also 24 feet wide. There are 13 proposed spaces that are undersized. They would be 8' x 18'. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the reserve parking would be on the north end of the site. He also noted that the Design and Review Co~nittee had been concerned about the amount of landscaping to be provided. Mr. Pope stated that the original plan had included 74 trees, with a total of 154 trees and shrubs. Th~s has been updated and there will now be 68 new trees~ 26 existing trees to be relocated on the site and a total of 188 trees and shrubs. In response to a question from Co~nissioner Gundershaug, M~. Pope said that the landscaping as proposed would include Marshal Ash trees, Linden trees, Crimson Maple, Black Hills Spruce, Russian Olives as well as Arborvitae, Barberry and Mock Orange in the quantities as indicated on the plan. They have also added trees in front of the existing parking. He indicated that if the existing trees could not be re- located successfully for some reason, they would be replaced with new nursery stock. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether any consideration had been made to making the cul-du-sac larger? He noted that they were right at the minimum now and that city Maintenance people had indicated that it might be difficult to plow and maintain. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - NOVEMBER 1, 1982 5. Mr. Pope indicated that they wer~ concerned with increasing the size of the paved area and would get to the point where paving touched paving. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug it was indicated that the diameter of the cul- du-sac was 120 feet, with the paved area being 90' in diameter. The City Manager stated that the Building Official had indicated that the cul-du-sac did meet code if the diameter were 100 feet. Mr. Pope said it would not be a problem to increase the diameter to 100 feet. The City Manager said that the Platting Ordinance of the city indicated that a cul-du-sac should have a 50 foot radius. Mr. Pope said they could take another four feet off the green area. The City Manager noted that the City Engineer had indicatod that normal engineering indicated a cul-du- sac should be at least 46 feet. Commissioner Gustafson asked what the problems were according to the maintenance department of the city? The Manager replied that the city wished the petitioner to be aware of the fact that the city might not always be able to do the best job of street plowing because of the cul-du-sac's small size and the difficulty in turning equipment around. It was their feeling that the cul-du-sac was too small to turn properly. Commissioner Gustafson indicated that it should be made clear to the petitioner that the cul-du-sac could be a potential problem. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about potential drainage problems. The Manager stated that the City Engineer was discussing this with the Surveyor and he might require an easement to the ridgeway for the storm sewer because of these potential drainage problems. Since this may be a concern, this is why the city wished to ask for easements. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the easements would be indicated on the final plat. The Manager stated that this type of easement could be completed in the future. It need not be shown on the plat but that the city must have assurances from the petitioner that the city had this easement, if needed at any time in the future. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the parking and landscape plan as pre- sented for 5430 Boone in Case 82-45. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Bartos, Cameron Motion passed. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat for 5430 Boon~, as requested in Case 82-45, subject to easements being provided as requested by the city as related to drainage and utilities. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedri~h, Gulenchyn, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Bartos, Cameron Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 82-46 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7600 49TH AVENUE NORTH - RICHARD KROHN, PETITIONER. Mr. Krohn, 4060 Trenton Lane, Plymouth stated he was the owner of the property. He is requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to park his tractors at the location. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Krohn stated they also wished the Conditional Use Permit to include permission to repair commercial vehicles (installing engine replacements ) and the outdoor parking of at least two commercial vehicles and the storage of materials and equipment for chain link fencing. Mr. Krohn stated he had owned the property since 1979. In the past they had rented it to other tenants. They now feel they can afford to take over the building, with a tenant. His business is the trucking PL~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 -. NOVEMBER !, 1982 6. company -- parking of the traQtors on the site. The tenant - C J's Automotive would do the truck and car repair inside the building. The third use would be the outside storage of fencing materials for a third party. Mr. Krohn said he had four tractors, no trailers, that would be parked on the site, unless there were a customer's tractor there for repair. He has been in the trucking business in New Hope for 14 years, renting space on Boone Avenue. He felt the storage of the fencing materials would probably take less than one third of the rear space~ C J's Automotive will be the tenant of the building. He will do the car/truck repairs inside the building. Ct%tis Sorenspn, owner of C J's Automotive said he now had four signed accounts. He has been in operation at this location for 1 1/2 months, it is zoned for major car repair and minor truck repair. He needed the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to do major truck repair (transmissions and replace~ent Of large engines). He stated that Mr. Kro.hn's trucks would be on the site mostly on weekends. Another trucking company (Russell Delivery) who was one of his accounts, would park two trucks at night. Otherwise the only trucks would be those in for repair. Commissioner Gulenchyn expressed concern about the unknowns.as far as the actual space each business would occupay on the site. He said he wanted a full understanding of the businesses that would be on the site. Using a diagram, ~. Krohn indicated the areas of the site that would be used by each business. Discus- sion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Krohn. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, it was indicated that the fence storage operation would take approximately 15' x 145' for outside storage; 15' x 100' for storage of wire, and 15' x 60' for storage of fittings. There would also be a bobca~ and truck with mixer for the fencing operation. There will be no office on the site. M~. Krohn said his office for his trucking company was located in his home. Russell Delivery would be parking two, 2-ton trucks. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, it was noted that the building could accommodat~ five trucks inside. In regard to doing major overhaul of trucks, you could get three in at a time. r£he trucks would stay inside the building until the work were completed. Mr. Sorenson indicated he contracted with a towing company if a broken down truck were to be brought to the site for repair. He felt that most of the repair would be of diesel cars. At the present ~ime the business was approximately 75% car repair and 25% truck repair. He has another facility on Bass Lake Road. He will have only one mechanic working at this location. Discussion then centered on the fencing of the entire site. It was indicated by conmlissioners that at the present time, there was a lot of material apparently stored on the site. Mr. _~rohn said that the existing fence had slats shielding the apartment building. The fence was slatted 1dp to the area of the garages. Discussion continued about the fencing/screening and what was proposed for the future. It was noted that the site was now an eyesore for residents. Co~uissioner Gundershaug noted that City Ordinance required that all outside storage areas must be screened. Co-u~issioner Gustafson confirmed that the east side Was basically screened now and the west side, toward the apartments was screened. Mr. F~ohn indicated that there was fencing along the west side of the building. The other fencing did not have privacy slats -- they extended only to the garage area of the apartments. The driveway cannot see anything through the fence, now. Security lights are located on the building, directed do%~n. Mr. Krohn's trucks will leave the site at about 5 a.m. and would not come in after 10 p.m. If it were after 10 p.m. his trucks %~uld be on the road overnight. They cannot get into the site until 5 a.m. or 7 a.m. Discussion continued about the wire storage and the trucks and tractor for this part of the operation. Commissioner Gustafson indicated that the owner had to speak to and be responsible for the entire pro~ · perty. If a tenant had more vehicles than allowed, it ,would be the owner's problem. The City Manager indicated that the City Ordinance did not limit the number of vehicles that could be on the site in this zone. He added that one other point might be some potential problems with too many vehicles because of gas storage, etc. Mr. Sorenson indicated he had beenworking with the Building Inspector and Fire Marshal on this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 NOVEMBER 1, 1982 6. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, regarding the front of the building, Mr. Krohn said he planned to replace the Shrubbery that had been destroyed from the driveway going west, and between the two driveways. There presently are two trees in front of the building. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether if, in view of the unanswered questions regarding the exact loca- tions for ~%e storage of equipment and vehicle parking, there would be a problem if the Commission tabled this request to allow the petitioner to prepare a plan that would designate exactly where and what was being stored? The Commission would ~'equest a stay of enforcement until the petitioner re-ap- peared before the Planning Commission in December. Mr. Krohn said he could handle this. Commissioner Gustafson also expressed concerns about the possible debris that might accumulate from the car/truck repair. Mr. Sorenson said he did not allow this debris to accumulate. If a part came off a car/truck it was thrown away. In regard to trucks, almost everything you removed had a core deposit and must be returned when replaced. He said that the only thing city code prohibited him from doing on the site now, was pull- ing an engine out of a tractor and repairing it. He stated he would not have any vehicles sitting on the site to be used for potential parts. Suggestion was made that additional trees should be planted to enhance the screening between the resi- dential area and site. Mr. Krob3] said that during the summer the existing trees provided leaf coverage as a screen. The whole west side of the lot was trees. Commissioner Gustafson said he would like to see a very definite plan that showed exactly what would be located where, storage and parking and where there would be screen and landscaping. Commissioner Gundershaug said he felt it would also be mandatory that quite a bit of landscaping should be added to the site. There will be no additional signs on the property. The City Manager indicated that this zoning did not require specific green space to be provided. Commissioner Gulenchyn indicated that one of the criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit was that the use would not create any adverse affects on the adjacent properties, including noise and dust. Mr. A1 Miller stated they were the owners, managers and operators of the apartment to the west of this property. They had spent a great deal of money to upgrade the apartments. He wished it to b~ a matter of record that they were interested in the site and that they did worry about the noise and dust and the possibility of many trucks driving through the area. They were attempting to make it a quality place to live. He was also concerned about dropping heavy fencing at 5 a.m. in the morning or anything else that would make it an undesirable place to live. He was concerned about the possibility of late hours and large vehicles. He stated he was very pleased that the Commission went into these issues as they did. Commissioner Gustafson indicated he felt the case should be tabled until the meeting in December to allow the petitioner to specifically define what he was requesting and indicate where materials/vehicles would be stored and how many vehicles would be on the site. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion tabling the request in Case 82-45 until the meeting, of December 7, 1982. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Bartos, cameron Motion carried. Mr. Krohn asked if he could get an exact listing of what the Commission was requesting they do? The City Manager stated he should contact Doug Sandstad after Monday of next week and he would help lay out a plan. COM~ITTEE REPORTS 7. Design and Review Committee held one meeting in October. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 9. Commissioner Gustafson indicated that the Codes and Standards Committee would hold a short meeting imme- diately following the adjournment of the Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING C05~ISSION MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 1, 1982 NEW BUSINESS 10. The Planning Commission Minutes of October 5, 1982 were approved as printed. 11. Council Minutes of October 12, 1982 were reviewed briefly. 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /JoyceBoeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1982 i. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, December 7, 1982 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos (excused), Gulenchyn (excused), Troup, Friedrich PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82 - 42 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 5, 1982) REOUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7724 WINPARK DRIVE - GATEWAY COmmUNICATIONS, PETITIONER Mr. H. W. Galloway represented the petitioner. He stated that as of 5:00 p.m. on this date, the com- pany had made arrangements to rent another warehouse in Brooklyn Center. Commissioner Cameron confirmed that Mr. Galloway was saying that the company was no longer interested in proceeding with this request. The City Manager stated that the petitioner was aware that the fee could not be returned. He added tkat the Commission should simply deny the request to clear the record, it could not be withdrawn. Cor~is$ioner Gustafson made a motion recommending denial of Planning Case 82-42. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Vosing against: None Absent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 82-46 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 2, 1982) - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7600 - 49TH AVENUE NORTH - C.J-'S AUTOMOTIVE AND RICHARD KROHN, PETITIONERS. Mr. Krohn and Mr. Sorenson were both present. Mr. Krohn distributed copies of the proposed plat layout to the commissioners. He noted that when he had appeared before the Commission in October they had been concerned about the west property line of the site. There are 15 existing trees on this border. The west side fence is stripped, and 60 feet of the length of the building, the fence is stripDed now. He proposes to add two extra trees in the green area in front, plus an evergreen clump at the corner° Along the east boundary, he plans to put in between 15-20 trees, they will be the same type as on the west boundary - Russian Olives. In the front yard they will put two ash trees. He stated he had spoken to the neighbor to the east, who had said he would prefer to look at trees/bushes than strips in the fencing. Another concern of the commission had been a potential dust problem. There will be three operations on the site, Russell Delivery with two trucks, Northwest Delivery with four trucks and CJ's Automotive. It was his feeling that the trucks would leave in the morning and return in the evening,. basically at the same time the other traffic was going up and down the road. He did not feel they could do much about the dust from the road. Mr. Krohn stated that when he had appeared in October, there had been four potential tenants for the site -- one, Twin City Fencing was planning to store equipment/supplies out of doors. This tenant is no longer on the site but has moved. There will be only the three tenants. For the record, Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Krohn was proposing 15-20 Russian Olives for the east side of the property. It was noted that city code required 1%" diameter. There are two trees proposed for the front of' the building. The Commissioners noted that Colorado Blue Spruce grew well in New Hope and would be desirable for these tree~. The evergreen requirement is 3-4 feet in height ac- cording to code. The missing hedge on the left side will be replaced with barberry to match the hedge on the other side. Code requirement for shrubs is 24"-30" in height for balled shrubs. Discussion then followed regardin~ the asphalt and whether it was striped to designate the parking stalls. Mr. Krohn said it was not now striped, but this could be done. The parking at the rear would not be striped, since it is crushed rock. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the neighbor to the east had requested plant material rather than slats in the fence. The Manager noted that a green belt could be substituted for required screening, providing it consisted of evergreen or deciduous trees or large shrubs that provided an effective screen. Following discussion it was determined that the Russian Olives as proposed, might be sufficient. Mr. Krohn said the blacktop was mainly for parking cars, employees or visitors. Any truck parking PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1982 would be at the rear on the crushed rock.~ Mr. Krohn said he did no~ allow truck parking on the blacktop any more. Any trucks in the front driveway would be either waiting to get into CJ's Automotive or pre~. paring to leave. Trucks will not be able to park in this area except for access to the garage.. The fencing to the west would be left as is, with slats the length of the building.. There will be three tenants on the site: C.J..!s Automotive; Russell Dellveryr Northwest Delivery. As indicated on the site plan, parking spaces 1-13 will be for C.~J. 's Automotive and 14-21 will be for truck parking. Stating that the site was at its maximum use right now, the Chairman confirmed that there will be only the three tenants. Mr. Krohn stated that should one of the tenants leave, he would look for a similar type tenant. In answer to a question-regarding city control of use of the site, .the Manager stated that the city could not control who the owner rented to, but there were controls involved in the Conditional Use Permit. Approval of the request could be conditional to a yearly review of the situation by staff. Commissioner Gustafso~ confirmed that there will be no outside storage of fencing materials/equipment, and that this port±on of the original request could be removed from consideration. Co~missioner Gustafscn made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use permit at 7600 49th Avenue North as requested in Case 82-46, t~ allow truck repair and outdoor storace of vehicles, subject to the petitioner ex~mininq the landscape plan as discussed at this meetinq_, subject to the petitioner reviewing the striping for spaces 1-13 for personal cars and the area to be designated as truck_parking_ at the rear of the lot. Subject also to 'the petitioner's agreement that semi-trucks, except when enter- ing or leaving the garage., will be parked at the rear of the garaqe and requesting an annual review by staff. Com~nissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None L£~.sent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos Motion carried. Con%~issioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be no new signs on the site. PLANNING CASE 82 - 48 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEPJAIT 'TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES AND A VARIANCE IN PARKING AT 7800 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD - ROBERT L. WiNBERG, PETITIONER. Mr. Dave Cardinel, manager of the station, represented the petitioner. He stated they wished to remove the vending machines and sell cigarettes, candy, and pop over the counter. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, he added that they would like to sell small cartons of milk, white and choclate, orange juice and sandwiches to be heated. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that they would have a full range of snack foods - no large quantities of milk, or bread, etc. in answer to a question Mr. Cardinel said he ~hought there were 13 parking spaces on %h~ site. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the city counted ten. He asked whether the p~titioner would have any problem with striping the parking spaces? The answer was "no, he didn't think there would be". He didn't think there were any problems with parking now. The station has an agreement with Tom Thumb to use their excess parking if they get too crowded. This is an informal agreement they have had for years~ In turn, they do snow plowing for Tom Thumb. It was noted that the standard size for parking spaces was 9' by 20', Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the petitioner would agree to striping the lot to show designated parking spaces for ten vehicles, that the striping on the north property line, between you and the con= venience store be inside the pr6perty line by three feet. The answer was "yes". In answer to another question, he stated that no more than 50% of the station would be used for such retail sales. Mr. Cardir, el stated that they expect the blacktop to be replaced in the spring by ~moco, and that he felt striping at this time would be a waste. Co~nissioner Gustafson said he would hold in abeyance the striping until the 1 June 1983. The City Manager stated that the manager of the station should ask Doug Sandstad about the size of the spaces as required by the city when they are ready to stripe. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - DECEMBER 7, 1982 5. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Cardinel was authorized to speak for the owner of the station, and petitioner, Mr. Winberg. Chairman Cameron commented on the fact that the station seems to love signs. He wished the manager to be aware and be reminded that they were expected to obey all of the ordinance restrictions in regard to signage. He requested that city staff prepare a paragraph of any past problems in regard to the signs on the site, before the Council meeting on the 13th. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and parking variance for 7800 Medicine Lake Road, as requested in Case 82-48, subject to the petitioner placing ten striped spaces on the asphalt, that the striping ~- completed by June 1, 1983 and that the petitioner utilize the expertise of the city inspector in desiqnating which'areas will be striped. COmmissioner Edward second. The City Manager noted that the city was in the process of reviewing the required size for parking stalls, and that these sizes may be downsized. There could be more than 10 spaces on the site if the dimensions were downsized by spring. Voting in favor: Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 8. Codes and Standards had met and held discussions in regard to retail sales in industrial areas. Follow- ing these meetings and the review it was their feeling that the city ordinance was a good ordinance and that the existing ordinance allowed some room for interpretation in regard to repair on the site that would allow for so~e additional usages in the industrial zone, including retail sales. Discussion held regarding the usage problem. It was noted that this had been apparently a sore point with some people in the city, the fact that retail sales could not be made in an industrial are~, and this was why Council had requested its review. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion that the Commission pass on to the City Council, the document that the City Manager and Curt Wilson have prepared, and indicating thst the matter has been studied and that the recommendation is that there be no change in the existing ordinance. However, an interpretation should be made at a future time as to additional types of repair or sale of re-manufactured items that could be allowed in an industrial zone. It should be indicated to the Council that the Commission had a meeting of the minds that when and if an issue comes up, in regard to repair or re-manufacturing or allowing the sale of such items on the site, the Commission would consider such requests. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 9. The Planning Commission minutes of November 2, 1982 were approved as printed. 10. The City Manager reviewed the C6uncil minutes of November 8th, and 22nd, 1982. 13. The meetinq was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary