Loading...
1983 Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1983 ~ ~ 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 4, 1983 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: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Absent: Edwards (arrived at 7:33 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82-46 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEP~4IT (CONTINI3ED FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, ].983) - 7600 49TH AVENUE NORTH - RICF~RD KROHN, PETITIONER The petitioner was not present. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Gundershauq to table this case until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Edwards >~otion carried. 4. PL/~HNING CASE 83-1 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 8641 33RD AVENUE NORTH - ABE PASNO, PETITIONER. Mr. Pasno was present and was accompanied by Mr. Denny Chuba who was the contractor for the proposed project. He stated they were adding on a double garage to the residence with kind of a portico on the front. He stated they were asking for a variance to enclose the porch at the entrance. He said they may also request permission to enclose the garage addition at a later time. The variance is necessary because they wish to enclose the entrance and this places the structure 1 foot 3 inches into the setback. He added that the city line between Crystal and New Hope runs next to Mr. Pasno's prcperty. He added that apparently Crystal has different setback requirements than New Hope because even with the additio~ Mr. Pasno's house would not appear to have a different setback than the neighbors living in Crystal. He presented a photograph of the site, showing where the line was. Co.nu~issioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Pasno needed the variance to have an enclosed walkway, if it were left open, it would not need a variance. He further confirmed that the setback variance would extend across the front, not jus~ in the area of the vestibule. Mr. Chuba confirmed that if they enclose the garage and enclose the vestibule, this was when they would need the variance. He added that the proposal would also allow all of tke family cars to be parked inside the garage. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the addition would match the existing house as far as color, tex- ture and exterior materials used. Mr. Chuba stated they were adding the new garage to the east and wish to enclose t})e new porch. The new garage will be 22' x 36'. The existing garage will be converted to a fsmily room. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the portico on the front, if enclosed, would not have any heat, but would have a door. There was no one present in regard to this case.. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommendinq approval of the variance rec~uested in Case 83-1 at 8641 33rd .Avenue North, with the stipulation that the roof lines, siding~ and color match the exist- inq house. The variance would apply ~o the entire front of the house. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 5. PLAN~.~ING CASE 83-2 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES - 9201/9205 29TH AVENUE NORTH - L. A. AND JEAN BEISNER, PETITIONERS. Mrs. Beisner stated they were the owners of the existing duplex at the above address. She stated they were requesting the re-platting into a zero lot line plat to allow them to re-finance each side of the unit separately. ~ this time they do not intend to sell the units. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos, Mrs. Beisner stated the units conform to all FHA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JANUARY 4, 1983 5. specs for twin homes. They are considered t9 be single family units but are attached by the common wall. Commissioner Bartos confirmed with the City Manager that all easement requirements had been met. The Chairman noted that the variance was only for setback, not for lot size. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat for 9201/9205 2~th Avenue North, as requested in Case 83-2. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None ' Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 83 - 3 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-O TO B-2 WITH VARIANCES - 7550 BASS L~KE ROAD - A. C. CARLSON, PETITIONER The City Manager distributed site plans for the commissioners to review. Mr. Carlson stated he was requesting a rezoning from R-O to B-2 for the property at 7550 Bass Lake Road. He said that since he had applied for the rezoning he had met with has architect and they had re-designed the square footage and he now feels they have adequate parking for the site. The City Manager stated that when ne had prepared his notes he had not yet reviewed the plan as pre- sented to the commissioners. The parking provided now meets code for 6,000 square feet. There is no variance required for parking spaces. The Chairman asked if there were any other variances required? The City Manager said there was a variance needed for the lot size and there might also be a variance required because buildings over 5,000 square feet require one bay, 75' x 10'f for trucks. It is pos- sable this could be worked out. Commissioner Edwards asked about parking in front? The Manager stated that there was no problem with this in a B-2 zone. The Chairman commented that the Comprehensive Plan of the city had been revised in recent years and that during this process all parcels in the city had been reviewed as to whether their zoning had been appropriate. The city does nou just rezone property for a particular use. In order for the commission to recommend a rezoning it must be proved that the area has changed substantially to justify a change in zoning, or that the original zoning had been in error. It is up to the petitioner to prove to the Commission/Council that a rezoning was .justified. He suggested that the petitioner speak to one of these criteria. Mr. Carlson said that it had been his understanding that the biggest concern of the city had been about traffic. It was his opinion that his business would not generate as much traffic in one day as there would be from an office building. The propeEty is now zoned to accommodate an office building. In his business two dozen customers a day was good business. He d~d not feel traffic would be a problem. Part of the building would be used for office space. The Chairman stated that the property had a zoning, and that the commission had to be shown that either this original zoning was a mistake, or that the area had changed sufficiently to justify a rezoning. Mr. Carlson stated that the property was ~ordered by commercial on one side, on the ot~er side there is an office building and behind it is not single family zoning. Right next door to the site is com- mercial property. The City Manager stated that Mr. Carlson had appeared before the Council and at that time the Council had stated that he should meet with the city's Building Official and himself and consider any options for the property and speak to the zoning. Staff had felt that the only thing that would fit for Mr. Carlson's needs would be a rezoning to B-2. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron the City Manager ~eviewed the B-2 zone use list and indicated many of the permitted uses in a B-2 zone. However, he added that Code stated a maximum size of 3500 square feet for a building. The text would have to be changed to include a larger building. If the text were changed all of the e~isting retail outlets would also qualify for larger buildings. He added that there was virtually no land remaining in New Hope that was zoned B-2. Commissioner Gustafson asked what the next zone was that would accommodate a larger building. The answer was the B-4 which accommodated shopping centers. PI~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY 4, 1983 6. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether it was not possible to grant a variance in this case to allow the business? The City Manager stated it was. his understanding it was not possible, that there would have to be a text change. He has found no other examples of such variances being granted. He could research the issue further. In response to a question from the Chairman about the text change, the City Manager stated that it was an ordinance that would have to be changed, the change would have to be published and the Council would have to give final approval to the change. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that if the ordinance text were changed, any.of the other business in a B-2 zone could also benefit. The Chairman said there were two very important issues involved. You could not tie a rezoning to a par- ticular use, it was to the land and it was permanent and secondly, changing the text o~ the nearly sacred ordinance which opens up any change of text to any B-2 site'. He felt the limits were there for a good reason. He felt a change of text had to be considered very, very carefully. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the R-O zone was designed as a type of buffer zone between residen- tial and other zones. He noted that other requests/uses had been turned down for this property. In answer to a question it was noted that Taco Bell was zoned B-3. Discussion followed about the proposal and whether there was a possibility of granting a variance on the size of the building, as an option to rezoning. Diseussion then followed between Mr. Carlson and Commission Gundershaug in regard to the size of the building proposed (6,000 square feet) and the fact that the Ordinance allowed only 3500 square feet in a B-2 zone and whether Mr. Carlson was "locked in" to a building of that size. Mr. Carlson noted that a building of 6,000 square feet was not large in his line of business. He noted that with that size of building they had been able to provide the required number of parking spaces. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he was concerned about future uses of the building/site if the property was zoned B-2 which would cause traffic or parking problems. Commissioner ~tenchyn asked whether Mr. Carlson had explored other areas for the ~usiness? Mr. Carlson responded that he had rented the property in Crystal for 20 years. He has been looking for another site for the past five or six years. Rent is getting prohibitive, and a person cannot'afford to rent space for his type of business. He felt his business would be an asset to the community and he did not intend to put up a "junky" building, in response to a question regarding his time schedule, Mr. Carlson said his present lease was up in April. He felt he might be behind schedule now. Commissioner Gulenchyn expressed cQncern about traffic in that area and the difficulty of getting in and out of the site. Mr. Carlson indicated that there was a great deal more traffic at his present location than originally also. However~ all of their business would not be at high traffic times. Chairman Cameron stated that personally, he felt New Hope would like to have his business in the city. However, this was not the basis for which the Commission could act. They had to look at the long term good of the city. There were three choices open to the commission at this meeting: !. They could approve and pa~s the recommendation onto Council. 2. They could deny the request and forward the recommendation to Council. 3. They could table the request if there is some possibility that Mr. Carlson could gather additional data and reach a compromise on his plans. Commissioner Gustafson said he didn't have a problem with the rezoning but did have a problem with a text change. Discussion followed between the commissioners in regard to the questions of rezoning, a possible text change, the size of the building and whether there was any chance that the commission could approve a variance for the size of the building. The Chairman noted that, in his opinion, they were proposing too much building for the small piece of property. There was also the question of how long the business would operate on that property. Mr. Carlson asked how large a building could be put on the site if the zoning remained R-O~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~'4 - JANUARY 4, 1983 6. The City Manager stated there was no retail sales allowed in an R-O district. There is a restriction to three stories on the height of the building. There appears to be no limiting factor in the ordi- nance in regard to parking requirements. Commissioner Edwards stated that his biggest concern was traffic and where the delivery trucks were going to.deliver? He would have to assume that semis would come in occasionally, at least. Mr. Carlson said they had maybe two truck deliveries a month. Commissioner Edwards questioned what would happen if in ten years or so, the occupant changed and some wholesaler came in that had deliveries every day, how would trucks get in and out of the site? The City Manager noted thatone option that had been considered had been for a Conditional Use Permit. This had been rejected primarily based on the fact that it would be a very specific change for a speci- fic person. Staff had felt this was a poor option. Mr. John Rohe, Administrator of St. Raphael's asked what uses were permitted in an R-O district? The City Manager stated it could be residential, or could be office, i.e. doctor's offices, veterinary clinic, etc. Mr. Robe said that the church's concern was what the ultimate use of the property would be. He stated They had trouble with semis now, parking in the church lot over night, etc. He also expressed concern about the downhill ~id on Bass Lake Road. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt that the concensus of the Commission was that they were not willing to consider either a change in the zoning, or a change in text. He asked Mr. Carlson whether he would prefer a motion to table this case until February to allow him to consider alternatives, the Commission would be willing to do this. Mr. Carlson noted that with his time table he might have to do something else. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the Commission would have to review construction plans? The answer was "yes". He asked Mr. Carlson what he would do if the April deadline came and went, what would he do? He questioned whether all of this could be legitimately done in 90 days. Mr. Carlson said he did not know ,what he would do, he could perhaps get a month's extension on his lease. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending approval of the zone change from R-O to B-2 as re- quested for 7550 Bass Lake Road, in Case 83-3. Commissioner Friedrich second. Chairman Cameron noted that in his ten years on the Commission, they had changed zoning very few times and had always insisted on.a case being made. Neither of the criteria had been met in this request. He felt a 6,000 square foot building on this small site and on this busy street was something he could not even consider approving. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he would not have a problem with the B-2 if there was a definite proposal for the site. Commissioner Edwards stated he would prefer to look at something solid and concrete, 30 days from now. He was not prepared to vote to change zoning or the text at a moment's notice. Commissioner Bartos said he was a bit uneasy about rezoning from R-O to B-2. He felt it might be like opening up a Pandora's Box. He felt the Commission should use good judgment in determining what the ultimate use of the property would be. Voting in favor: None Voting against: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Abstain: Gustafson Motion denied. Commissioner Bartos made a motion tabling Case 83-3 until the meeting of February 1, 1983. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenehyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. Mr. Carlson asked what type of business or building the commission would prefer on this si~e? The Chairman stated that the Commission could not recommend a type of business or building, they could only react to a specific proposal as presented to them. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JANUARY 4, 1983 7. PLANNING CASE 83-4 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 5635 WISCONSIN AVENUE NORTH - VERNON STUHRv PETITIONER Mr. Stuhr stated he would like tke variance so he could keep the stairway in his backyard. Instead of two feet, he is only four inches from the line. His neighbor is not objecting to the encroach- ment. He presented a letter from his neighbor. Chairman Cameron stated there were a couple of problems. He noted that Mr. Stuhr was a long time resident, and asked why he had not gotten a building permit, and checked out these things then? Mr. Stuhr ~tated that several years ago they had a wooden staircase that had been removed. They had wanted to have a fire escape from the catwalk. The staircase was done as an afterthought after the room construction. He had not realized it was that extensive a thing. - Commissioner Bartos confirmed that that the stairs were 6" from the lot line. The Chairman stated that the commission's concern in grantiug a variance was that a hardship had to be shown. A variance has to have some reason. The fact that it is there is not a reason. Mr. Stuhr said that at this point the hardship would be in having to remove the stairs. He was not capable of handling that big a project. If it had to be moved, it would be a hazard to him. If the stairs were moved over, you would step right into the pool. He didn't see where it was harming anyone, and made the side of the house look better. In response ~o a question from Commissioner Guienchyn, Mr. Stuhr said there had been a staircase before to their flat top deck, quite a few years ago. Commissioner Bartos asked whether Mr. Stuhr had any plans for the future, as to turning the addition into an apartment? Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that in the R-1 district, apartments were not allowed. Mr. Stuhr stated it was just a family room. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, M~. Stuhr said they could reach the family room both from inside the house and from the outside stairs. It is just an open room with two windows and a door. In answer to a question from the Chairman as to why they wished the outside stairs, Mr. Stuhr said it was primarily as a fire escape.' Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed with Mr. Stuhr that the staircase was anchored in 42" of cement. Mr. Art Grapentine, 5619 Wisconsin Avenue North, said he could not see any rhyme or reason why the staircase had been put in. He noted that there were also a couple of arch ways that are out to the pro- perty line. This was all done after the construction. If people are going to start building out to the line how are they going to sEop the next one? Maybe he would like to push his wall out too, he would like no see someone stop him, if they let this one go through. His point is that if you have rules, you have to follow them or you are going to have one mess. This was done without a building permit. The City Manager noted that the cat walk was a permitted encroachment. !4r. Stuhr noted that only the stair case was overhanging the setback. He said the catwalk had been there for years. The stairwsy had been installed last summer. He said he had taken out a permit for the upstairs addition. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented on the fa~t that the staircase encroached into the easement, that the work had been done without a permit, and his feeling that it might have been intended as a future apart- ment. He also noted that the next door neighbor had no objections to this encroachment. He felt it was difficult to rationalize this variance request. However, he did feel it would be a hardship to take it out and move it. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending approval of the variance at 5635 Wisconsin Avenue, as requested in Case 83-4. Co~mmissioner Edwards second. Chairman Cameron stated he tended to agree with Commissioner Gulenchyn, he was not convinced that there was a need for the stairway. However, there was still room between the houses for e~ergency vehicles if it were necessary for them to get in. He stated he was really bothered by this request. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Gustafson, Edwards Voting against: Friedrich, C~neron, Gundershaug Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 JANUARY 4, 1983 3. Planning Case 82-46 was removed from the table. The City Manager noted that staff.had not heard from Mr. Krohn. He stated that Council had been pri- marily concerned abou'c the side yard. They had felt that perhaps the Planning Commission had not given enough weight to the sideyard screening and what was required by Ordinance and whether Russian Olives were adequate screening. Council would like the Planning Commission to require more. Chairman Cameron stated he had gone back and re-read the minutes and he thought that the screening re- quirement was for wood, metal, deciduous trees, or evergreens, and Russian Olives are cer.tainly decidu- ous trees. He had not been confused by the ordinance. He had been quite willing to accept Russian Olives as screening. He asked whether anyone else had been confused? Discussion followed about deciduous trees and whether Russian Olives fit that classification. It was the concensus of the Corm~ission that they had not been confused when they approved the Russian Olives as screening for the sideyard. Chairman Cameron expressed the feeling that perhaps this cage should be reviewed by Design and Review at their next regular meeting because of the many concerns involved. He requested that Mr. Krohn be invited to the next D and R meetin~ to review it with the committee. He noted that his o%~n concern was the front of the building and the landscaping in the front. The City Manager stated staff would try and reach Mr. Krohno Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the commission/council really had to be that concerned about the east side of the site? The requirement for screening was in the ordinance but was it practical? The Manager noted that there was a concern because of the single family residence to the east, but added that' apparently that owner did not care about more screening. Co~mmissioner Edwards noted that Mr. Jacobwith was also a life time tenant only. Commissioner Gulenchyn moved to table Case 82-46 until the meeting of February 1; 1983. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. COM~MITTEE REPORTS 8.There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 9.There was no report from the Land Use ~ommittee. 10. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Brief discussion regarding the issues that were upcoming for consideration by this don~mittee, and how this might be handled. NEW BUSINESS 11. The Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 1982 were accepted as printed. 12. The Council minutes of December 7, were reviewed. The minutes of December 27th, had not been as yet distributed to the Commission. 13. The City Manager stated that at Council direction, the city was going to delay making appointments to commissions until a notice could be published informing the community of the vacancies. The Council will make the reappointments to commissions at their meeting of January 10, 1983. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommendin~ that Robert Cameron be Chairman, and Paul Gustafson be Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1983. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: F~iedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Motion carried. 14. Discussion followed about Cable TV and its progress in New Hope, the penalties for not obtaining a building permit, the Welcome to New Hope signs, and the proposed five year capital improvement Plan. 16. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker, SeCretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, February i, 1983 at the City Hall, 4401 Xy~on Avenue North. The meeting was called to orde~ by Vice Chairman Gustafson at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Friedrich, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Gulenchyn (excused), Bartos (excused), Cameron (excused), Edwards (excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. P~%NNING CASE 82-46 - (CONTINUED FR°M DECEMBER 13, 1982) - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7600 49TH AVENUE NORTH - RICHARD KROHN, PETITIONER The petitioner was not present. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug to table Case 82-46 until later in the meeting. CoMmissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Gu3enchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards k~!~ion carried. 4. P Lr~NNiNG CASE 83-3 - (CONTINUED FR~ JANUARY 4, 1983) - REQUEST FOR R~ZONING WITH VARIANCES AT 7550 BASS LAKE RO~D - A. C. CARLSON, PETITIONER Mr. Carlson stated that Mr. Tom O'Connell, President of Benson-O~th, would speak to this request. Mr. O'Connell stated they were working with Mr. Carlson to find a new space for his business. They propose a building of approximately 6,000 square feet on a lot containing between 35,000 and 36,000 square feet. That is the net developable area. There is an additional 7500 square feet cn the lot which is dedicated as a driveway easement. It was his understanding that this was to serve the exist- ing multiple resident units and serve for vehicular traffic of an emergency nature. They were requesting the lot be rezoned to B-2 with two variances -- one for lot size, and one for the size of the building, 6,000 square feet instead of 3,500 square feet. The lot is currently R-O and it was their opinion that the R-O zone which was meant to be transitional was inappropriate for that site, because it is the only undeveloped site of the R-O zoned properties. He could not come up with a reasonable development for the site that would fit into the R-O zone. Development would be economically hard pressed to be successful. The other complication of the R-O zoning, is the site of Taco Bell which he believed had been zoned B-.3, although the zoning map still says it is R-O. I~ is a high traffic generating business. There is an R-O zone to the west, with the B-3 to the east, it really restricts the development of the site in question. He added that the A. C. Carlson proposal called for a one story retail furniture business for the site. It was his understanding that a furniture would fit into a B-3 zone, but that a B-2 zone would impact mo're clearly on future use. Referring to the expressed concerns from the previous Planning meet- ing regarding future use of the site, he noted that he did not feel he could predict what trends, traf- fic patterns, and uses would be ten years from now and that there may be changes in ordinances and zon- ing to accommodate needs at that time. He felt that the only constant in his business, was change. He had at Mr. Carlson's direction also researched other sites available for the business in New Hope. There were three such sites, two were not for sale, and the third was not economically feasible. He noted that the easement on the property reduced the size to where a variance was needed. He felt there were some hardships, on the site. commissioner Gustafson noted that the hardships had been created by the previous owner. Mr. O'Connell stated that the request for a B-2 zoning was upon the recommendation of staff and that he felt it would sPeak pest to future use of the site. The B-2' would restrict the site from future high volume uses. The City manager reviewed the B-2 use list for the Commissioners. commissioner Gustafson noted that the Taco Bell site was still zoned R-O. The City Manager stated that it was technically still zoned R-O, the city had been ordered by Court to allow them to operate as though it were a B-3 zone. In response to a request from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Carlson said they would still like to have a 6,000 square fcot building on the site. This was approximately 17% of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 1, 1983 Co~missioner Gustafson confirmed that the pe~nitted size of a building in this zone was 3500 square ~--~ feet, and that they were requesting a'variance for the size of the building, as well as the size of the lot, which is 35,374 square feet instead of the 43,000 square feet required by code. Co~missioner Gundershaug stated that he felt a lot of the commissioners were bothered by the size of the building. He asked whether Mr. Carlson could get by with a 5,000 square foot building? Mr. Carlson said this could be a possibility, but he would prefer the 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that the request for 6,000 square feet was what the Commission had to react to, unless Mr. Carlson were to propose something else. Com~.issioner Friedrich expressed concern about the change to B-2 zoning° The City Manager stated that the zoning on the Taco Bell site still stands as R-O. If Taco Bell were to go out of business, the building on the site would require extensive remodeling to be considered for an R-O use. In response to a questicn from Co~missioner Gundershaug~ it was noted ~hat there were no green area re- quirements for this zone. Discussion then held regarding the driveway access to the a?arzment building. It was noted that this site would share a co~7,on drivewav %~zsh the office building to the ~.~est. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that actual construction plans would return to the Design and Review Committee and the Planning Commission. In answer to questions, Mr. Carlson stated that be had signed a purchase agreement for the property, subject to his o~taining the rezoning. Discussion followed regarding the rezoning, the variances requested, and the city's position should the proposal not be approved after the zoning were changed. t~ ~ tile rezoning could be contingent upon Mr. Carlson=s purchasing the property. The City Manager noted -mae The city would not change the ordinance until tile actual purc.hase had been completed. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion reco~endinq approval of the rczoning from R-O to B-2 at 7550 Bass . Lake Road, contingent upon the sale of the property to Mi[. Carlson for bis store. Commissioner Gunder- shaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich,Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. Discussion then followed regarding the requested variances -- in lot size and building size. The City Manager ~equested that the Commission act on the two variances, separately. Commissioner Gustafson stated he felt that the real issue with the variances was the building size. Co~nissioner Gundershaug said he strongly objected to the 67000 square foot building on this site. Ne was not as concerned with the variance requested for lot size. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending .approval of the variance requested for reduced lot size at 7550 Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. Commissioner Gustafson stated he had exactly the sa~e concerns as Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the size of the proposed-building. Re felt it was too much building for the site. Co~missioner Gustafson made a motion recommending denial of the variance requested for building size at 7550 Bass Lake Road. Co~-nissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Gulenohyn, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Motion carried. PLA~MNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - FEBRUARY 1, 1983 4. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed for Mr. Carlson that the Comar~ission had recommended approval of the requested rezoning, and the variance for lot size. They had recommended denial for the variance on building size because they felt the building as. proposed at this meeting was too large. He noted that the City Council would act on these requests at their meeting on March 14, 1983. 5. PLANING CASE 83 - 5 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEP~MIT AND A~ENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT AT 9400 36TH AVENrJE NORTH - ARCHIE'S STANDARD, PETITIONER Archie Mosher and Tom Oestreich were both present. Mr. Mosher stated he operated a small locksmith business out of a truck at 9400 36th Avenue North. He said phone calls come to the station and he goes out on calls to different locations. He was applying for the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to continue to operate this business. Mr. Oestreich seid that he was requesting the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit he had obtained to operate the bait shop at the same location. At the time he had applied for this permit, he had esti- mated the value of the stock to be about $1500. The stock value now totals $3,000 to $3,200. He also was requesting permission for the sale of rods and reels. At the time he applied for the original Condi- tional Use Permit, he had not planned to sell rods and reel~. Co~r~issioner Gustafson asked whether he was aiming to be a full line sports shop? Mr. Oestreich said they were handling all of the tackle related to fishing. They did not sell motors. ih response to a questior~ re~a£ding the amounL of space iN ~he ~lation used for the retai~ sales, the City Hanager stated that there was no problem with this -- this was well within code. Commissioner Gustafson asked how this ma~.ter had come up? Mr. ~estreich said that the city inspector had come to inspect in regard to the Conditional Use Permit and had noted that there was more inventory on hand than had been originally proposed and also that he was selling rods and reels. He did not know he had to have permits to add sale items. The in- spector informed them they had to amend the permit and apply for one for the locksmith operation. in response to questions Mr, Mosher said the locksmith business did not take much space in the station. They had three key machines and the key board. The area used within hhe station was abouh half hhe size of one of the tables in ~he Council Chamber. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there were no other businesses operating out. of the station that were not related to the primary business~automobile service station. It was noted that once in a while they wi!l fix a lawn mower or other small machine. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that'~he petitioners recognized tha~ if they went into any other type of business, other than those mentioned at this meeting, they would have to get permission from the Commission/City. He further noted that, in his opinion, the servicing of gas engines did come under the form of related business. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager stated that there w~s no pro- blem in regard to parking on the site, it might be a little tight, but parking does meet code. Mr. Mosher said he took the locksmith truck home with him at night. In answer to questions he stated, he did not intend to carry a large stock of locks, and that he did not intend to go into the alarm business. The City Manager stated that at this time the inspectors had found no violations in regard to signs. Mr. MoaNer stated he had not realized that he had to have a conditional Use Permit for the locksmith business. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with Mr. Mosher that he did not intend to stock/sell any trapping supplies, guns or bows and arrows. The City Manager sta.ted that there had been no complaints in regard to these businesses operating from the service station. In reponse to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager stated that the retail sales space used in the station was about 24% of the floor space. Even considering the locksmith business, the to- total would come under 30%. There were no problems with this part of the operation. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion approvin__g Case 83-5, to allow the locksmith and bait shop to exist within the requirements of the Conditional Use, deleting any previous limitations in terms of inventory in dollar level and restrictions on any type of fishing supplies, and allowing the locksmith shop tq live within the total allowable space for sales, u~ to 50% of the floor area. Commissioner Gundershaug second. PLANNING COS5MiSSION MINUTES - 4 - FEBRUARY 1, 1983 5. The City Manager noted that any change in design of the sa]es area would change the conditions of the permit and the petitioner would have to return to the Commission/City for approval° Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Gu!enchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Moumon carried. 3. The petitioner in Case 82-46 was still nor present. The City Manager indicated that the petitioner had presented an alternative landscaping and fencing plan no the staff. He had not spoken to him. C?~3~_~per_Gunders~auq.~3__f}_~z~- nabi~~ c%se 827~__~ti~. ~._m_~eL~t.A~g~__~_t_,__l~.~ . ~?m3.'.3_- sioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None '~ Absent: Gulenchyn, Bartos, C~eron, Edwards Motion carried. Brief ~iscuss~on about the problems on the site of Case 82-46 and ~he proposal for the fencing and landscaping. Also disc~ssed was whetheu slats were really dealrable i~ the fence, it was noted that ldcobwith ;(~ the e~su ~-.t {hitc~ted [:~ the : as% ne ..:n~ld _.rcfc~ g~n to f~qci~:~. iOHHi'PPEE REPORTS 6. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 8. There was no report grom the Codes and Standards Co~ihtee. NEW ~S~NBSS 9. The Planning Commission minutes of January 4, 1983 were accepte~RpR!nte~_. The Council minutes of January 10, 1983 were reviewed. ti. Brief discussion regarding the applications for the Planhing Commission. Co~issioner Gustafson suggested that the Commission interview the candidates at the end of the meeting on Merch 1, ].983. 14. The meeting was atjourned by unanimous consent et 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, March 1, 1983 at the New Hope 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: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 82-46 - (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 13, 1982) - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 4900 49TH AVENUE NORTH - RICHARD KROHN, PETITIONERi Mr. Krohn was present and stated that the basic plan was the same as had been presented before. He now intends to slat the fence on both sides the entire way back and across the front. He will also put in the shrubs that had been indicated before, as well as additional landscaping. The City Manager distributed site plans indicating the landscaping to the Commissioners. Mr. Krohn stated that he would like to request that the gate area, along the drive, not be slatted so that there would be visibility for the police in checking the site. He also stated that the neighbor to the east, would prefer that there not be slats in the fence next to his property. Mr. Krohn pro- posed that he no~ slat the fence for the first 60 feet along the blacktop on that side, and instead install some trees in that area. He proposes to put six Colorado Blue Spruce in that area if he can eliminate the slats in the fence. He added that if and when, the property to the east does change, he could add the slats at that tim~ if it is desired. Commissioner Gustafson'confirmed that it was at the request of the neighbor to the east, that he was proposing to not slat the fence on the east side. He further confirmed that it was his intention to place six trees in the 60 foot area. Mr. Krohn said he would stripe the lot, designating the parking area. The semi parking will be at the rear of the lot behind the building. This area will have crushed rock, and not striped. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Krohn said that he would put 48" spruce trees along the east side. He added that there were the same three tenants in the 'building as noted at earlier meetings, and that the only trucks that would be in front would be when they were going in or out of the garage. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 7600 - 49th in Case 82-46, including Alternates A and B, specifically allowing the petitioner to eliminate the slats on the east fence and the gate area, for security reasons, and also to add in the first 60 feet six 48" Colorado Blue Spruce, consistent with the New Hope City guidelines, that the asphalt area in the front be striped according to the dimensiohs on the site plan, that the area in the back of the site have crushed rock, and that the area in the back of the site be designated as "truck parking". Commis- sioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Abstain: Edwards Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 83-6 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 4073 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH - HAROLD H. JOHNSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Johnson stated that he had purchased the double bungalow at the address. They plan to move into the one unit. They are proposing to build a storage building in the back. He noted that there was nearly two acres of property on the combined double bungalow site. He added that they would like to build the storage structure to store several items, i.e. power boat, yard maintenance items, camping equipment and canoes, and as one of his hobbies is woodworking, he would like to have space in the structure to' do that type of thing. He is requesting that he be allowed to build the structure out in the rear area. He proposes to put it back along the lot line because he felt it would be the least conspicuous because there would be trees behind it. The area is large and he proposes to landscape it, and at the rear, where there is a type of knoll he hopes to develop some type of orchard. In the area behind the two doubles he would like to put in some evergreens along the low area. He has already completely sodded the area. Chairman Cameron stated that for the record, he felt it should be straightened out as to whether the proposed structure is a storage facility or a second garage. Given the size and the fact that Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 MARCH 1, 1983 4. Johnson did not plan to store motor vehicles in it, and that there will not be a driveway to the build- ing he felt the Commission had to look at it as an accessory building. He add that there were, of course, codes that applied to accessory buildings also and he felt the commission should talk to the structure being an accessory building. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the outside of the structure, materials and trim, shingles on the roof will match the existing structure as closely as possible. He further confirmed that the uses of the accessory building would not be for any form of business, only storage of personal equipment and that the shop work would be for his own personal use, not for resale to anyone else. It was noted that the proposed building was 68 feet oversized when considered as an accessory building. :, Commissioner Gustafson asked what requirements there were than made it necessary for the structure to be this large? Mr. Johnson said that when he first proposed the building, he had not been aware of the 900 square feet, and he had just happened to pick some round numbers. If the size were reduced to 900 square feet this would not cause a problem for him. He felt he did need more than the size a single car garage would be. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that a variance would not be required if the structure, as an accessory building, were 900 square feet or less. The City Manager noted this was true. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the height of the structure would not exceed 15 feet as limite~ by code. The City Manager noted that it appeared that the structure would be at or under 15 feet in height. He added that there were Setback requirements that had to be followed if the building were to be over 120 square feet. Under that figure, the building could be located anywhere on the site. Mr. Johnson does meet the setback requirements as the building is proposed. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that if the proposed building were under 900 square feet and did meet setback requir~uents, that Mr. Johnson would not have had to appear in front of the Planning Commission. The City Manager stated that if the structure is an accessory building and under 900 square feet, a Con- ditional Use is not needed. If the structure is considered as a second garage, then a variance in size would be required. Discussion between Commissioner Gustafson and Mr. Johnson determined . that Mr. Johnson did not intend to construct a driveway to the second building, and that the building would be used only for storage of personal items and for the woodworking hobby. The City Manager noted that if Mr. Johnson were to every wish to install a driveway, he would be re- quired to return to the Planning Commission and City Council because a variance would be required for any driveway less than nine feet wide. Mr. Johnson said he proposed to move the boat into and out of the building with a small garden tractor, not a regular vehicle. It is a 16 foot power boat. Mr. Johnson said he was willing to reduce the size of the structure to 900 square feet to meet the city's approval. Commissioner Gustafson said it would not be a matter of Planning Commission apProval if the structure met code requirements. Chairman Cameron asked what the foundation or footing of the structure would be? Mr. Johnson said it would be concrete with a block structure around the concrete. He felt it would re- quire 3-4 courses of block toward the back to guarantee that it would be level. He will not have water and sewer in the structure, but would have electricity. Chairman Cameron noted that the large size of the structure was a concern, and that the city had to be sure that it was only going to be used for the uses stated, and would not be converted to housing.at a later date. Commissioner Bartos stated' this was his concern also, that some day they would want to convert it to living space. Chairman Cameron stated that he did not feel the Commission would have to act on this if Mr. Johnson would withdraw his request for a variance and stated that he would re-submit these plans to obtain a building permit within the city ordinance. Mr. Johnson confirmed that if he submitted a plan for less than 900 square feet in requesting a building permit for an accessory building, then he could go ahead. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH 1, 1983 4. The City Manager stated that he would like a motion from the Planning Commission stating that they had determined that the proposed structure was an accessory building. He noted that there was some disagree- ment with the Building Inspector as to whether it was a garage or an accessory building. Council wil~l still review it on the 14th. If they review it and determine that it is a garage, then Mr. Johnson will have to return. He requested that the Planning Commission clarify what the proposed structure was. Commissioner Bartos asked what the difference was between a garageand an accessory building. The City Manager stated that a garage was" ..... intended for and used for the storage of private passen- ger vehicles of residents on the premises and in which no business or industry is carried on ..... " For all practical purposes it is an accessory building. It will be set 100 feet back from the street. The Chairman asked whether anyone on the Commission felt, or wanted to make a case for the proposed building being a garage? Concensus seemed to be that it was an accessory building. He asked for a motion stating this fact. Mr. Johnson stated he would withdraw his request for a variance and resubmit plans for an accessory build- ing that would come within the restrictions of the City Ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt that inasmuch as there were citizens present in regard to this request, they should be allowed to comment. Chairman Cameron suggested to Mr. Johnson that, regardless of what happened with the building, it would be nice if he met with the neighbors and told them what he was planning to do. Mr. Johnson said that he had prepared a package for the neighbors and had delivered it to them. He said they wanted to be good neighbors, and he was not trying to hurt anyone. Chairman Cameron opened up the meeting to public comment, noting they would be part of the public record. Mrs. Joyce Foss, 9208 40% Avenue North, said she represented several neighbors who were concerned. She presented a petition with 48 signatures objecting to the structure. She asked whether anyone could come in and construct a building like this in the rearyard? Petition attached to official record copy. The City Manager stated that a structure could not occupy more than 25% of the rearyard, and could not exceed 15 feet in height, and must be constructed at least five feet from the lot line, and be less than 900 square feet, if it were to be considered an accessory building. Mrs. Foss noted that the two acres were mainly in the width, and it was right in the middle of the neighborhood. To her, a garage or an accessory building appeared the same. The building would be the same size. Those were mainly the objections. They were also concerned that the building could turn into something else. The Chairman noted that New Hope had a great many rules and ordinances and he did not think this would be a legitimate concern at this state, but the building could be there 30 years and this was of course what the Planning Commission tried to watch out for, but obviously without plumbing it could not be converted without the city finding out about the plans. Mrs. Jan Bursey,'9216 40% Avenue North, asked whether the building could possibly be put on the other lot line so it was not in their back yard? She said then they would see 22' instea~ of 40'. The Chairman said it could not be moved that way. The structure could only be moved into Lot 3. Mrs. Bursey noted that there was bad soil there. She would prefer the structure on the other side of the lot. Mrs. Bursey and Mr. Johnson reviewed the plan and her suggested location for the structure. Mr. Carl Foss said his biggest concern is the two overhead garage doors. Mr. Johnson might use it just for storage, but what if he sold the property and someone else had another use for the property. He was worried about what a building that size could be potentially. This was his main concern. Mary Gwin-Lenth clarified that an accessory building could occupy 25% of the rear yard and that .there was no question that 900 square feet was less than 25% of the rear yard. The City Manager answered "yes", in his and the Building Official's opinion, 900 square feet did not come anywhere near 25%.. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion declaring the the requested building be considered an accessory. building, based on the design and construction of the building, because no driveway could be constructed to the building, that there was no way to gain access to the building from the street, and based on the petitioner's indication that the building would be less than a size requiring any variances. Commissioner Bartos second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH 1, 1983 4. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None ~-~ Abstain: Gustafson Motion carried. Chairman Cameron asked whether it would be necessary for Mr. Johnson to attend the City Council meeting? The City Manager said he would like the City Council to review the case. He intended to direct the Building Official to treat it as an accessory building. The Chairman said he was concerned about the neighbors, and that there would be no way to notify them if PC 83-6 were going to be considered on Monday evening the 14th. He was concerned that no one think there was any "sleight of hand" in this case. The City Manager stated that probably in an effort to keep everything above board, the matter should be reviewed by the City Council on the 14th. The Chairman i.nformed Mr. Johnson that his request would be on the Council agenda on the 14th, and that the City Council would then give him their wisdom. 5. PLANNING CASE 83-7 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 4240 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH - HOLY TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PETITIONER Mr. Stan Thom represented the church. He stated that the church was requesting an extension of their existing Conditional Use Permit to allow them to build an addition to the church which consists of a fellowship hall. They are also requesting a variance in the number of parking stalls required, and construction approval. The addition will match all existing exterior materials as closely as possible. The addition will be approximately 3300 square feet. They propose to have the existing accessory build- on the property, moved within one year. They propose landscaping shrubbery along the north property line to be used as a parking lot screen and also along the west property line where it adjoins the street. They are adding several large trees, some Blue Spruce and some Junipers and three sugar maples. There will be a total addition of about 160 plants, including wood chip mulch. The building will be used for small receptions, youth gatherings and Sunday School classes. ~lese are ~ currently being held in the small structure to the east of the site. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the building would be used for youth meetings, small receptions, Ladies Aid, Sunday School, etc. and that they are proposing to add 20 some parking stalls to the exist- ing parking stalls. He further confirmed that there would be 16 additional parking stalls for future parking, if needed. Mr. Thom stated that there would not be any activities in the Fellowship Hall at the same time that church services were being conducted. He said there will be 67 parking spaces, plus one handicapped. In answer to questions from Co~nissioner Gundershaug,Mr. Thom said that the existing accessory building wculd be removed from the site in a year's time. The building is presently being used for Sunday School classes and some storage for activity groups in the church. The parking lot will be s~riped as indicated on the building plans, they will be adding curbing along the east end of the parking. The curb will be concrete and the curb along the north side will be asphalt. The driveway has been increased four feet. They are proposing a metal facia, of anondyzed aluminum to match as closely as possible the copper on the church. There will be no additional signs, no outside refuse storage, no rooftop equipment other than the exhaust fans, which are not visible. Mr. Thom noted he would like to include as an alternative, the use of copper, but he felt this would probably be price prohibitive. In answer to questions regarding the proposed landscaping, Mr. Thom said that along Gettysburg there would be 26 honeysuckle bushes and wood chips. To the north there would be 100 honeysuckle bushes and wood chips. The bushes will be three feet on th~ center. He indicated he had seen the landscaping ordi- nance of the City of New Hope. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Thom said that on a peak Sunday, they presently used about 90% of their parking lot. They did not anticip.ate a large influx of members, all at once. There will be an outside light on the new addition, doubleheaded spot light on the front, and are propos- to move the existing roof mounted spotlight to the end of the new addition to light up the parking lot. They will be aimed down to the parking lot. There will also be .two lights on the east side of the build- ing. Rev. Bittorf, from the church, said he had spoken to Dan Bauer of Crystal Free Church, across the street, ~ in regard to scheduling. He said that Crystal Free Church was basically on the half hour and Holy Tri- nity was on the hour. Holy Trinity has only one service on Sunday and they don't anticipate increasing this. As far as the parking was concerned, he felt that the existing parking had been quite adequate. He added that they did have a good understanding with Crystal Free in regard to any potential problems. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MARCH 1, 1983 5. Chairman. Cameron confirmed that the two churches had an on-going good relationship. Commissioner Friedrich asked whether Mr. Thom thought the proposed building would ever be used for gatherings such as wedding receptions. Mr. Thom said he would doubt that there would be receptions other than small receptions. There would never be any liquor Served either. He added that the seating capacity of the church is 207. In an- swer to questions he stated that the entrances are now marked "one way" and that they also intended to paint an arrow on the asphalt indicating the direction. Chairman Cameron noted that city ordinance required screening of parking areas from residential zones° He asked whether they had considered exchanging the proposed honeysuckle for crab trees? Mr. Thom said he had thought originally of using Russian Olives. Chairman Cameron stated he was afraid that the honeysuckle shrub was too low to provide adequate screen- ing. He felt ten or twelve crab along that area would be a nicer effect and more in keeping with the screening requirement. Mr. Thom said that he felt that the crab trees would compare in cost to the proposed honeysuckle bushes. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the Amended Conditional Use, Variance ~n Parking, and Construction Approval for 4240 Gettysburg, as requested in Case 83-7, with~the under- standing that if the need arises, the additional parking would be put in. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edward~ Voting against: None' Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. Design review held one meeting in February. 7. There was no report from Land Use Committee. 8. There was no report from Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 9. The Planning Commission minutes of 1 February 1983 were accepted as printed. 10. The Council Minutes of February 14, were reviewed. Commissioner Gustafson commen~ed on the procedure followed when he had applied for the Planninq Commis- sion, referring to the interview by the Commission and the subsequent recommendation to the City Coun- cil of candidates. He noted that it appeared to him that the Council did not have as much faith in the abilities of the Planning Commission to send forth good members to them, or it deems that on same basis they have to control all items in front of the city. He felt this was a sad state of affairs. Chairman Cameron stated that as long as Commissioner Gustafson had brought this up. As he read the minutes, the one word that had struck him was "control". He had not been there for the discussion but it appeared to him that no one had objected to the City Council controlling the Planning Commission. As far as he knew the Planning Commission was the only one that was mandated by law, the others are crea- tures of the council. The Planning Commission is required by law and the idea was that Planning Commis- sion was independent citizens, insulated from the politicians and now the politicians feel they need more control. He said he guessed that one word bothered him. As a matter of principle this worries him. In his twelve years on the Commission, and as far as he knew even before that; the Commission had inter- viewed applicants individually and he was not so sure that the Council would have the same criteria as the Commission does when talking to applicants. He has no ideas what their criteria are. Referring to a statement that '[ ..... as a politician the councilmember was closer to the needs of the people than the Commission was ..... ", it was Dr. Cameron's feeling that one of the Commission's roles was to look at the long term view, and maybe be unpopular. Maybe an insulated, non elected, Planning Commission might have a role. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt the Commission should have a direct input into the selection bf members. He felt that the Commission in the past had strived to find people with interest, expertise, and the time to regularly attend meetings. Chairman Cameron asked whether the Commission had to accept anyone that is appointed by the Council? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH 1, 1983 10. The City Manager stated that it Was understanding from reading up on the issue that the answe~ was "yes" Commissioner Gulenchyn stated that he felt'that the independence of the Planning Commission was good and would allow the Council an opinion that it could use in making its decision. The more independent the Commission was from the Council in how it is set up, he felt the better the input would be for the Coun- cil in making its decisions. If you keep forming personnel until it hones in until they are exactly as what any Council is~ conservative Council, conservative Commission, you have eliminated a lot of the in- dependent opinion of citizens from different areas~ Commissioner Bartos said he agreed with CommissioneH Gulenchyn. He did not feel that any of the members of the Commission had any particular political asperations. He felt this was one area that the Council had;to get an independent opinion. He did not feel they should clone a commission. He felt that pre- vious intervie~, as conducted by the Planning Commission, had been very'profeSsional. Chairman Cameron noted he felt the psychology of the issue was important. He felt that loyalties would tend to be with the Council rather than with the responsibilities of the Commission. He said, he was not sure what the intention had been. Commissioner Gulenchyn said that it was the intention that bothered him. He interpreted it to mean that Council felt the Commission should be more in tune with the Council's thinking. He felt that the inde- pendence, even on the Commission itself, was healthy. It was the intention that really bothered him. Chairman Cameron said he was not aware that there had been any problem, os that this Commission had not been doing what was expected. He felt the Planning Commission had always concentrated on balance in conducting interviews, judging expertise, geographical area, etc. Commissioner Edwards said that perhaps tke Council did not realize that the PlanniDg Commission had to be here, by State law. Maybe they have forgotten this, that the Commission should remain autonomous. Commissioner Bartos wondered whether perhaps Council wanted them to all resign so they could appoint a whole new group. The City Manager stated that it was his feeling at the Council meeting when this was discussed that it was purely a matter of consistency and that no thoughts had been expressed that there was a need to conkrot or ~o bring the Commission under control. Following the discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission that the Chairman would write a let- ter to the Council expressing the Commission's concerns. 11. Commissioner Gustafson commented that as a citizen of the City of New Hope, in reqard to the Green River Ordinance, he would have appreciated some form of public notice so that he could have attended a public meeting in regard to that ordinance so that no quick action could be taken on removing an ordinance that had been on the books for so long. He asked how many people had attended that particu- lar meeting to speak about this ordinance? The City Manager said that other than the cable people, he did not think anyone had spoken either for or against the ordinance. He added that legal counsel had been pushing for either abolishment of the ordinance or having it continue as is. He felt that watering down the ordinance would make it difficult to.defend, should it be challenged. The City Manager stated that the rationale had been that the ordi- nance could be reinstated if it became necessary. Any homeowner can put up a sign On his property stating "no solicitation". An additional ordinance will make it a misdemeanor ~o ignore such a sign. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city was going to make these signs available? Comment was made that it did not seem right for an ordinance to be changed simply because one group wanted it changed. The City Manager noted that he felt that the ordinance would probably be reinstated, depending upon the citizen comment that results. 12. The city Manager stated that there might be some upcoming activity in the city this spring including a shopping center changing hands, street projects om 62nd Avenue and 42nd Avenue, a storm sewer project at 59th/Gettysburg, and a new church in the city. 13. The meetinq was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~yce Boeddeker, Secret ry NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION Regarding the variance request for building an oversized storage st=ucture on the property of Harold H. Johnson at 4073 Gettysburg North, Lot 4, Block 1 Gordon's Lakeview Terrace, 3rd. addition; We the undersigned, owning property adjcent to the said property and other property owners in the neighborhood, request that the variance be denied. · The structure 44' X 22' would be located to close to the property line of concerned neighbors. · The size of the structure would be as large as many of the exsisting homes in the neighborhood. · The size of the building would be so unslightly as to destroy the current appeal of the neighborhood. · Providing a variance to this individaul could possibily encourage the request for variance for similar structures which would further detract form the park-like setting of the area. NAME ADDRESS NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION Regarding the variance request for building an oversized storage structure on the property of Harold H. Johnson at 4073 Gettysburg North, Lot 4~ Block 1 Gordon's Lakeview Terrace, 3rd. addition; We the undersigned, owning property adjcent to the said property and other property owners in the neighborhood, request that the variance be denied. The structure 44' X 22~ would be located to close to the property line of concerned neighbors. The size of the structure would be as large as many of the exsisting homes in the neighborhood. ® The size of the building would be so unslightly as to destroy the current appeal of the neighborhood. Providing a variance to this individaul could possibily encourage the request for variance for similar structures which would further detract form the park-like setting of the area. NEW HOPE PLANNING CO~ISSION Regarding the variance request for building an oversized storage structure on the property of Harold H. Johnson at 4073 Gettysburg North, Lot 4, Block 1 Gordon's Lakeview Terrace, 3rd. addition; We the undersigned, owning property adjcent to the said property and other property owners in the neighborhood, request that the variance be denied. The structure 44' X 22' would be located too close to the property line of concerned neighbors. The size of the structure would be as large as many of the exsisting homes in the neighborhood. ~ The size of the building would be so unslightly as to destroy the current appeal of the neighborhood. Providing a variance to this individaul could possibily encourage the request for variance for similar structures which would further detract form the park-like setting of the area. NAME ADD_RE S S NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION Regarding the variance request for building an oversized storage structure on the property of Harold H. Johnson at 4073 Gettysburg North, Lot 4, Block 1 Gordon's Lakeview Terrace, 3rd. addition; We the undersigned, owning property adjcent to the said property and other property owners in the neighborhood, request that the variance be denied. The structure 44' X 22' would be located to close to the property line of concerned neighbors. The size of the structure would be as large as many of the exsisting homes in the neighborhood. ® The size of the building would be so unslightly as to destroy the current appeal of the neighborhood. ® Providing a variance to this individaul could possibily encourage the request for variance for similar structures which would further detract form the park-like setting of the area. NAME ADD_RE S S " " " " II 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 5, 1983 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. The City Manager issued the Oath of Office to the two new Planning Commissioners, Kenneth Anderson and Richard Dunn. 3. ROLL CALL WAS THEN TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Dunn, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson,Edwards, Gulenchyn Absent: Gundershaug PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. PLANNING CASE 83-9 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES IN SIDE AND REAR SETBACK AT 6025 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH - THOMAS GAGNON, PETITIONER. Mr. Gagnon stated he was requesting the variances to allow him to construct an addition to his home. According to the Building Inspector the home was positioned in a somewhat irregular way. Commissioner Gustafson asked why Mr. Gagnon was proposing to place the addition into the backyard? Mr. Gagnon said there was an existing deck and they would like this deck to be accessible from the door in the kitchen. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson he stated that the distance from the existing house to the corner of~the proposed addition, closest to the deck, was slx feet. The addition would be approximately sixteen feet to the northwest corner of the back yard, and about five feet to the side yeard. It was pointed out that because the addition was a living area, it should be ten feet from the side yard. A garage could be five feet from the lot line. Mr. Gagnon noted he had been told the setback was only five feet if the dwelling on the neighbor's property was a garage. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether it would be possible for the petitioner to move the addition for- ward on the lot and bring the back of the addition even with the rear of the house? Mr. Gagnon said it was possible, had been discussed, but was not their first choice. He said that moving the addition six feet toward the front, it would make it impossible to open up the present room into the addition, becasue of the fireplace wall. CommissioDer Gustafson confirmed that there was a beauty shop in the basement. Mr. Gagnon said there was, and that his wife renews her Conditional Use Permit and license but is now employed outside the house. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the addition in terms of the upstairs was for a family room and in terms of the downstairs had nothing to do with expanding the beauty shop. Mr. Gagnon stated that he proposed to install a gable, and match the hip roof to the proposed gable. Three sides of the dwelling would be stucco and he would put new bri=k across the entire front of the house so it would all match. He also plans to put on a new roof. Commissioner Gustafson noted that with a gable roof on the addition, it might a likely choice to move the addition up six feat to match up with the back yard. He asked if this would be a problem to Mr. Gagnon? Mr. Gagnon answered "no", they had considered this. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked what the sideyard measurement would be if the addition were moved up six feet. Mr. Gagnon said he would guess eight feet, and the rear yard measurement would then be 22 feet. In answer to a question regarding possibly making the addition smaller, Mr. Gagnon said they wished to have as large an addition as would be allowed. This was why he had asked for the maximum. Commissioner Edwards asked whether Mr. Gagnon would be opposed to obtaining a survey of the property, so that the exact dimensions could be determined as to the encroachments? The Chairman said he was concerned about the precise measurements of the addition and the proposed encroachments. He said the commission had to react to a definite proposal with exact measurements. Commissioner Edwards asked about the distance to the rear lot line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - APRIL 5, 1983 4. Mr. Gagnon said it was thirty feet, he had measured this himself but he had assumed that the fence was on the lot line. Chairman Cameron asked why the petitioner needed the extra 800 feet in the basement? Mr. Gagnon replied that the way the lot was situated a crawl space would not work too well. He also had brothers who were builders and he could put in the basement space without too much extra cost. He felt he would utilize the space as best he could. They were thinking in terms of a rec room with a fire place, and he would like to install an energy efficient furnace and move the laundry room to the new area. They did not plan to have living quarters in the basement, just storage and the things al- ready mentioned. Commissioner Bartos expressed a need for drawings showing precise measurement. Chairman Cameron stated that the concern of the Planning Commission had to be for the long term use of the property. He noted that he felt such a large rearyard variance would take away the green space that city code had provided for. The Commission could only respond to an actual proposal. He indicated he felt that the Commission could probably go for a variance that would take the addition to the rear of the house with' a narrower addition that would not require such a large side variance. He noted that there was room toward the front of the house. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 83-9 until the meeting of May 3, 1983. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Votin~ in favor: Anderson, Dunn, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Motion carried. Absent: Gunder shaug Motion c~rried. Mr. Gagnon asked whether he should have a survey and finished blueprint? The City Manager stated that the plans should be reviewed by Doug Sandstad before the next meeting and that the City/Commission would want to a plan with firm dimensions. 5. PLANNING CASE 83 - 10 - REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT AT 2901 LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH - ROSS PROPERTIES, PETITIONER Mr. Tom Ryan of Ryan Construction Company and Mr. Mike Ross, of Ross Properties, represented the peti- tioner. Plans were distributed for the Commissioners to review. Mr. Ryan stated they were requesting approval for a building to be constructed on Louisiana Avenue for Shirt Works. He added that since the Design and Review meeting, they had made the suggested changes. The owner had not as yet decided on what type of block he wished for the building. Mr. Ryan said the building would be an 18,000 square foot, two story office/warehouse. They employ ap- proximately 30 people. There will be 6,000 square feet of office. They have met with the inspectors and have made the changes suggested by Design and Review. In response To questions from Commissioner Edwards, he stated that the building would take up 16% of the lot, and the percentage of blacktop would be 20%. He added that the total lot size included the pond at the rear of the property. The rooftop equipment will be screened and the cedar wood will be sealed. The parking lot will be en- tirely paved with a continuos curb. The parking lot will be striped and the visitor's parking area will be marked. The refuse area will be oustide, in the northwest corner, and will be screened. They are providing 58 parking stalls. There will be security lighting. Commissioner Edwards asked about the screenIng of the visitor's parking lot, noting that this was a code requirement. Mr. Ryan said that Design and Review had s~,ggested a hedge, but that they would prefer something other than a hedge, preferably a tree. Commissioner Edwards stated that code required a continuous screen. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Ryan said they would prefer to put three Colorado Blue Spruce in the southeast corner. He noted that the parking lot was a number of feet below the crown of the road. If the Commission says so, they would go along with a hedge. He was sure they could reach agreement with city staff. They. were trying to design low maintenance landscaping. Chairman Cameron said that the screen/hedge did not necessarily have to be of a privet type, but some type of green bushes. Commissioner Edwards noted the petitioner needed a continuous solid hedge/screen that lights would not penetrate. Following further discussion Mr. Ryan agreed that they would have an answer to the landscaping problem before appearing at the City Council meeting on April 11. ~he driveways will be 24 feet in width. There is one sign proposed now, they may wish to secure a variance for the sign to allow for the name of more than one company. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that they would come back to the Commission in regard to any signs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - APRIL 5, 1983 5. Commissioner Edwards noted that city staff had urged him to recom~end that the entire drainage plan be reviewed by the City Engineer because of the pond, and potential high water levels. The City Manager stated that there were three point~ that had not been included in his notes to the commission that were important. They were that there should be directional signs at the north entrance, that the lights on the north should be hooded, and the fact noted that the back of the site would be seeded, with the other three sides sodded. Mr. Ryan indicated that these three items had been included in the final plans as presented. Mrs. Louise Kranz, 3043 Louisiana Avenue, asked what the petitioner would do on their side as far as view? Mr. Ryan stated they would be viewing the office area. He gave Mrs. Kranz a site plan to review. Mrs. Kranz also asked about the number of trucks that would be in and out of the site. Mr. Ross said that this would be the office/warehouse facility for a retail company - Shirt Works. There will be some semi trucks coming, but not on a regular basis, he would estimate once or twice a week. in the morning hours, but not early morning. There will be very little customer traffic. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Ross said that this site would be the office/ warehouse facility for a retail company which consists of a number of imprinted sports ware stores in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota. They will be acting as a distribution center for the re- tail outlets. Some of the imprinting o~ the tee shirts will be done at this site, but most of this operation will be done at the stores. At the present time they are located on Olson Memorial Highway. In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos, Mr. Ross said that 90% of the shipments would go out by UPS. Commissioner Anderson asked about the provision of only one handicapped parking site. Mr. Ryan said there was one in the visitors parking area and one in the employee area. Discussion between Mr. Ryan and Commissioner Anderson regarding the drainage proposal, elevations of the north parking lot and the direction the wa~er would drain. Mr. Ryan stated that the drainage was not intended to run into the Kranz property. The Chairman stated that he was sure the City Engineer will not allow the drainage to flow in the wrong direction. The City Manager stated that this was why staff wished the City Engineer to review the plans. There were no further comments. Commissioner Edwards made $ motion recommending approval of the Building Permit requested for 290] Louisiana Avenue North, in Case 83-10 with the stipulation that the visitor's parking area would be screened from the street and the residents with Colorado Blue Spruce, and this shown on the plan by the time of the City Council meeting on April 11,1983. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Dunn, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards, Gulenchyn Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 83-11 - REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT FOR B-3 ZONE - 6101 WEST BROADWAY - SCOTTY'S CONVENi- ENCE STORES, iNC., PETITIONER. Mr. Cory Gordon, lawyer for the petitioner was present. He stated that they were requesting two things, .a Conditional Use Permit and a text change in the ordinance.to allow that Conditional Use Permit. The property involved used to be an Apco station and is now being converted to a convenience store that sells gasoline. The property is now zoned B-3 which restricts the space for accessory uses to 50%. They are requesting that this be changed to "up to 85" when there is no auto service conducted at the station/store. This would allow the retail store to expand. 'He'noted that, in his opinion, it would seem that this ordinance restriction came into being when most of the gas stations were service stations. This is no longer the case. There are 14 gas stations in New Hope, and only seven of them do any service type work. Therefore, they would be talking about only seven gas stations that would be affected by this ordinance text change. In recent years a lot of retail merchandisers have abandoned the service aspect of their stations. Brief discussion in regard to the service aspect of stations, the types and amounts of merchandise now sold in stations and the effect on the city if all stations stopped giving service. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - APRIL 5, 1983 6. Chairman Cameron noted that the ordinances were enacted for good reason, and that the city does not change them lightly or because a particular person has a reason to request a change. The ordinances ~-~ are to protect the entire city. The City Manager stated that city staff feels that this proposed change would be a radical departure from the original ordinance and would like a professional planner to look at this entire issue. Also to be reviewed is what is a "primary" and what is an "accessory use". They would look at the concept of the text change also and its long term effects. Chairman Cameron asked whether the planner would also look at the area in which this particular station is located. The Manager stated that there was another case on the agenda involving a zoning change in this area. Staff felt that both cases and the impact on the entire area should be reviewed by the planner. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Gordon said that they would naturally like the issue to be determined as soon as possible, primarily because of the approaching summer season, they did under- stand that this would be a careful process. Thirty days would still be within their time frame. If the table were to be 60 days it would be more difficult for them, but they would cooperate in any way they could with the planner and city staff. Chairman Cameron asked ~r. Gordon why the petitioner had purchased the property when they couldn't do what they wished with the property? Mr. Gordon stated that originally they ha~ not realized that they would have to reclrest an ordin~.nce change in erder to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Discussion then followed between Mr. Gordon and Commissioner Anderson regarding the facade and any pro- posed expansion or remodeling. Mr. Gordon indicated they would upgrade, add landscaping, etc. but there were no plans for expansion of the structure itself. Commissioner Anderson confirmed with Mr. Gordon that they were requesting a change in the ordinance text to allow the expansion up to 85% of the floor space for accessory sales. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 83-11 for 60 days. Commissioner Edwards second. ''~ The City Manager stated that he had an appointment with the Planning Consultant on Wednesday and it was possible that the case could be back before the Commission in 30 days. The Chairman said if this happened, the case could be removed from the table. Voting in favor: Anderson, Dunn, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 83 - 12 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM B-3 to I-1 AT 6066 AND 6100 WEST BROADWAY - HOWARD BEAL, PETITIONER. Mr.Beal stated in he would like to have the zoning changed to I-1 from B-3. He felt that in the long run the light industrial zoning would help him. He would like to make improvements on the site. He presently has ten employees, but has had as many as twenty. In answer to questions he said that the property had been for sale but no longer was. He has been able to obtain re-financing and now wishes ~o stay there and improve his property. The use has been grand- fathered in on that site. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that any violations of the Fire Code would have to be handled separately, as the change in zone would not affect any fire code problems he might have. Mr. Beal said that in his opinion the property should already have been zoned I-1. The property had been commercial when he purchased it in 1958. In those days, the strip zoned commercial covered this type of thing. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Beal if he had been aware that several years ago every piece of property in the city had been rezoned? He asked why Mr. Beal had not spoken up then? Mr. Beal answered that he had not thought it was necessary because he was grandfathered in. /-~ In response to a request from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager read the list of permitted uses · n the B-3 zone. Following discussion, Commissioner Gustafson indicated that he had not heard anything to indicate to him that the original zoning had been in error, or that conditions had changed sufficiently to warrent a change in the zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5 - APRIL 5, 1983 7. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos, the City Manager stated that any changes necessary at the site, an order to bring the property up to Fire Code, would not affect the non conforming use. Minor changes would not affect the non-conforming status, but major changes would. He then reviewed the permitted uses in an I-1 zone. Mr. Beal commented that when he had purchased the property, there were corn fields in the surrounding area. He added that he would like to do substantial remodeling. As a permitted non conforming use, he could not make any changes. Any major changes would mean he would have to cease operation. Chairman Cameron asked whether the discussion was about only one piece of property. Mr. Beal Said that he owned 3 pieces of property. Two are presently platted together, but could be separated. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he indicated that he was aware that the adja- cent zone was residential. He added that he felt the rezoning was a question of survival for him. Commissioner Gustafson asked how the change in zoning would affect the survival aspect? Mr. Beal stated he had tried to sell the property, had thought the VFW would buy it from him for several months. They found they could not. The Chairman stated that the reason the VFW could not move in, was because the city would not grant them approval to have liquor on the site. The zoning did not affect this. Mr. Beal said that since the VFW had changed their mind, he had'been able to obtain financing and now wished to stay on the property himself. The Chairman asked what the recommendation of city staff was in this case. The Manager stated that this was the other case that staff recommended be reviewed by the professional planner as to the impact on the total area in regard to the rezoning in this area and on the city. Mr. Beal stated that a 60 day delay would not particularly bother him. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 83-12 for 60 days. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Dunn, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Abstain: Edwards Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. The Chairman suggested that Mr. Beal keep in touch with the City Manager in regard to this request. 8. PLANNING CASE 83 - 13 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEPMIT AT 4211 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NORTH - METRO FONE, PETITIONER Mr. Fernkes stated he was one of the owners of Metro Fone. They were requesting a Conditional Use Per- mit to allow the antennas on their roof, and also to allow an antenna of 75 feet in height. He had been contacted by Doug Sandstad of the city staff in regard to the antennas on the roof. He in- dicated that there had been a complaint about them but he did not know the nature of the complaint. He added that they would welcome anyone who stopped in to their business and would try to answer any questions they might have about the operation. He had received on~ telephone call from a gentlemen who had wondered if their equipment was affecting his television set reception. After discussing it, it had been decided that it was not Metro Fone causing the interference. It had been pointed out to him that the initial construction plans had called for a 30 foot antenna on the roof of the building. He recalled that at that time he had indicated that this was what they were going to try. Because of obstructions between their building and the IDS tower there was a clearance requirement for the signal. A 35 foot antenna would not meet this requirement. Most of these things are regulated by the FTC. The structure on the roof is now about 75 feet in height. None of the other equipment exceeds 20 feet in height. Referring to the originai request for construction, Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that in regard to the rooftop equipment, he had implied that it would be screened. Mr. Fernkes said that at that time he thought this requirement referred to the air conditioning equipment on the roof. At that time they had not envisioned the growth of their company and the nature of their business. Twenty years ago they had not thought they would be receiving from a satelite. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that the Commission/city was trying to keep the site from becoming an eyesore. Mr. Fernkes said that the screening from the apartment involved the fencing. It would be impossible to screen the rooftop equipment because of the signal. Commissioner Gulenchy commented that the change in five years was great, and that it now looked like an antenna farm. It was completely different from what had been originally proposed. Commissioner Gustafson left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - APRIL 5, 1983 8. Mr. Fernkes agreed there was a great deal of difference between the original proposal and what is now ~-~ on the site. He stated that they had had not known what this business would bring. They are now involved with four different frequency bands. They are served by the main transmitters at the IDS building. Commissioner GulencHyn stated that the roof did not look like it could hold any more. To him it was an eyesore. Mr. Fernkes asked what the Commission's definition was of an antenna farm. In his industry an antenna farm was a situation such as was in Shoreview where there were tall towers that were constructing for the purposes of rental revenue. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he stated that dishes were parabolic antennas. He indicated that Mr. Sandstad's concern had been that they apply for the Condi- . tional Use Permit to cover what was now on the roof. They did not wish to install any more equipment on the roof. This was one of the reasons they were going to go into an expansion program, into other areas. He felt that he could assure the Commission that they were at the maximum as far as expansion at this site. He noted that the design of antennas constantly changed and they may wish at some time to replace the existing antennas with a new type. Discussion followed between Commissioner Gulenchyn and Mr. Fernkes regarding a fence or screen on the roof to protect the residents of the apartment building from the rooftop view. Mr. Fernkes noted that they were a 1 1/2 story building up against a three story building. The people on the third floor looked down on their roof. He could not comprehend how a fence high enough to screen the roof would ap- pear if it were on the roof. Commissioner ~ulenchyn then expressed concern about traffic generated by the company. Mr. Fernkes said they had more customers than they had five years ago but there is not any overflow and usually had no more than 2 or 3 customers at a time. Most of their service work is handled by UPS. Commissioner Bartos commented that he had been to Metro Fone twice in the last few months and had not seen more than 5wo cars at a time in the lot. Mr. Fernkes again expressed concern about how a fence would look on tbs roof. He appreciated the con- cern about the equipment on the roof. He added tha~ the company had received favorabl~ comments on the general appearance and design of the building. He would also be concerned about the roof supporting such a fence, i.e. 20 feet. In response to a suggestion to install trees on the apartment property, Mr. Fernkes questioned whether this would be possible because of the drainage easement in that area. Commissioner Gulenchyn said he would still like to explore the idea of some screening. Commissioner Bartos stated he felt a fence on the roof would look silly. This might also bring complaints. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Anderson asked how difficult it would be for the petitioner to contact a builder to see if there was some type of screening possible? He noted that it was quite common 5o put screening of that nature on a roof. There was also a chance that a screen might pro~ect the antennas from wind. He felt something should be done to improve the view from the north. The roof is very busy, view could be im- proved. Mr. Fernke questioned whether a screen/fence might mot block even more than was desired. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to table Case 83-13 for 30 days and requested that the petitioner re- turn with a sketch indicating possible screening. Commissioner Gulenchy second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Dunn, Friedrich, Cameron, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Abstain: Bartos, Edwards Absent: Gustafson , Gundershaug Motion carried. Commissioner Bartos commented that the petitioner should be careful not to run the screening up so high that the city got sued for blocking sun or light. Mr. Fernkes asked whether the question of the 75 foot antenna would also be reviewed at the next meeting, and questioned whether anyone had any problem with the antenna height? He questioned whether he should be prepared to answer objections to this height? Chairman Cameron indicated that he, personally, had no problem with the height. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented that he felt the petitioner should be aware that the Commission was interested in what was feasible in regard to screening, and also would like some idea of what the company was looking at for the future. His feeling was that he would be in favor of a Conditional Use Permit for the antenna as it sits right now. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - APRIL 5, 1983 9. PLANNING CASE 83-14 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PE~4IT FOR HOME OCCUPATION - 3725 HILLSBORO AVENUE - JERRY BOWDEN, PETITIONER Mr. Bowden said he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow him to have a small business in the back of his garage. He sharpens scissors and clipper blades. It has been a family business for 80 some years. He is in the process of buying it out from his father who is now seventy. The business had been located in Minneapolis, but the block was torn down and they were given 30 days to find a location. This is when he had moved to his garage. This was in late October. They have very little over-the-counter traffic as 95% of the total work is done by mail or UPS. The actual working floor space is 293 square feet. It is going to be small, no plans to expand the business. He wants to run the business alone and is running it down to where he can handle it alone. He does not intend to have any help, he does not advertise and there is no sign on the house. He stated he'had spoken to his neighbors about the business. He was not aware of any complaints about the business. There are usually no more than three or people there a day, including family members. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron regarding the city's criteria for a home occupation, Mr. Bowden stated he had all home made equipment, no big elaborate machines, including one eight foot stand, polishing wheels, etc. He re-stated that 95% of the work comes by phone or mail. He does not sharpen saw blades. Discussion then covered noise, how much noise, and whether it might disturb the neighbors. Mr. Bowden said that when he first started the business in his home, he turned on all of the machines at once, as well as the tv, and had his wife go outside to listen. She said she only heard the tv. He never has all of the machines on at once when he is working. He normally starts his day about 7:30 a.m. and is actually starting to use machines at 8:00 a.m. or 8:15. He stops work at 3:30 p.m. and does no5 work at night, or on weekends. There are no odors or dust caused by the business. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that there were no signs on the property and that Mr. Bowden planned to changes in the addition because of the business. He expressed concern about potential traffic. Mr. Bowden said that the business had been in the family for four generations and they did not have to advertise. People from all over the United States send them business and have for years. Commissioner Anderson asked whether Mr. Bowden carried any stock or warehoused any supplies? Mr. Bowden stated that the main business was the grinding. He had a few hair clippers left from the down- town operation and some barber scissors. Ninety-five percent of such sales were by mail. Some of the stock has been on the shelf for three years. He does not intend to expand the sales and plans to get out of the sales business entirely. There is no outside storage. Mr. Bowden, in answer to a question, stated that there were no negative comments~when he spoke to the neighbors. He submitted a petition signed by many neighbors stating this. Chairman Cameron expressed concern about noise in the summer, when windows would be open. One of Mr. Bowden's neighbors, who lived across the street, spoke and stated that he found no problems with the home business at all. Mr. Bowden said that his machines were slow and he did not feel they would ever create a noise problem for the neighbors. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occu- pation at 3725 Hillsboro Avenue North, as requested in Case 83-14, with the stipulation that the permit be reviewed by staff annually. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Dunn, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 83-16 - REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT AT 7550 BASS LAKE ROAD - A.C. CARLSON, PETITIONER Mr. Bernard Herman, Architect, represented the petitioner. Plans were distributed to the Commissioners for review. Mr. Herman noted that both A. C. Carlson and Dave Carlson were also present to answer questions. Mr. Herman said they were requesting construction approval for a 6,000 square foot furniture store at 7550 Bass Lake Road. The building will be a basic rectangle. To the east of the site is Taco Bell, to the north is multiple family residential, and to the west is an office building. There is a 30 foot driveway easement from Bass Lake Road back to the apartments. She will share the driveway to the west. There will be three parking areas, three spaces in the front, another ten to the west, and to the rear there will be approximately 16 spaces for a total of 37. There will be one loading dock at the northwest rear corner. The landscape indicates where the shrubs, etc. are to be located. The green areas will be sodded. There will be a sign at the curb indicating two way traffic, the roof top equipment will be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - APRIL 5, 1983 ' 10. There will be a dumpster enclosure to the rear, and will be constructed out of redwood, and will be six feet in.height with gates. The landscaping plan was discussed at Design and Review. There had been some discussion at that meeting in regard to a possible hedge to be in front of the building. In the final topography, they have 16-18 inches of berm so there is a raised elevation of the sodded area. We then developed two clusters of planting in each of the corners of the yard area which they prefer to do rather than a hedge. It will be a single story block building. The block will be split face, with a rough texture and is scored. The window and the entrance have redwood siding over them in a canopy treatment. The window glass will be bronze tinted glass and the frames will be bronze aluminum. The facia metal and trim is also bronze, pre-finished material to match. The block and all material will be finished, either painted or stained. The City Manager noted that there were some things not covered at Design and Review. There was concern ~ about snow removal and also truck traffic and whether Mr. Carlson will have the right to use the Dooley property for a turn around. Everything else has been covered adequately. Mr. Herman said that they had verbal authorization and approval by the owners of the building in regard to the shared driveway. This written approval is presently being written up by their attorney who is out of town. This approval should be available for the Council meeting on the llth. In regard to the snow removal, it has been discussed and the only answer is that there are some green areas for storage of moderate snow, but for abundant snow it would have to be hauled out. The Chairman stated there was a concern that parking' spaces would be used for snow storage. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the turn radius back to the apartments had been corrected? The City Manager stated that the city had ordered the Crystal Towers Management Company to submit a plan to them in thirty days to correct this radius. This is their problem not Mr. Carlson's. There is very little that affects Mr. Carlson's property. The staff information is that they will comply. In answer to a question from the Chairman regarding the problem, the Manager stated that the 28 foot radius was too tight for emergency vehicles to gain entrance and maneuver. They need fifty feet. A small por- tion of the radius will be on Mr. Carlson's property. The building will be sprinkled. An an agreement will be worked out in regard to common usage of the pave- ment area for truck traffic. In answer to a question Mr. Herman stated that the largest semi would be approximately 55 feet. This size vehicle will not be a common truck on the site. Chairman Cameron asked where service vehicles would be parked on the site? Mr. Carlson said that they no longer had any service trucks, they would have two delivery trucks that would be stored outside. The City Manager noted that this zone does not require screening for these trucks to be stored on site. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the parking lot would be curbed and striped. There is a ground sign that will be located at the curb cut. This sign has not as yet been designed. There will be a wall sign stating A. C. Carlson. Both signs will meet the city sign code. Discussion then followed about the front landscaping, the 150 feet of front, and the number of trees to be planted. The lack of deciduous trees was noted, and concern expressed for the life of spruce trees, because of the spray and salt from Bass Lake Road. Mr. Herman noted that there was an established character on the street because of existing landscaping. If the Commission wished for the addition of deciduous trees they would do so. Concensus of the commission seemed to be that additional landscaping should be provided. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the proposed plans met all codes and no variances were required. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Edwards made a motion approving the Building Permit at 7550 Bass Lake Road, requested in Case 83-16, with the stipulation that before the Co.uncil meeting on the llth at least three more, deci- duous, hearty boulevard type trees are added to the landscape plan and that a written agreement with the adjoining property owner in regard To truck movement and traffic on the shared blacktop is. provided. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Dunn, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards, Gulenchyn Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug, Gustafson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - APRIL 5, 1983 COMMITTEE REPORTS i1. Design and Review reported they had held one meeting. 12. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 13. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 14. The Planning Commission minutes of March 1, 1983 were accepted as printed. 15. The Council minutes of March 14, and 28th, 1983 were reviewed by the City Manager. 16. Lengthy discussion held regarding the Council/Planning Commission relationship. Concensus was that the Commissioners felt it would be advisable to have a meeting with the Council to discuss mutual concerns. It was also suggested that this meeting have an informal agenda with items listed for dis- cussion. 18. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ce Boeddeker, Secretary COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 18, 1983 Page 1 A joint meeting of the New Hope City Council and the Planning Commission was held at the New Hope city hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said city, on Monday, April 19, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. The following councilmembers were present: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson The following councilmembers were absent: None The following planning commissioners were present: Anderson, Cameron, Dunn, Edwards, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gundershaug, Gustafson. (Edwards arrived later during the meeting.) The following planning commissioners were absent: Bartos The discussion items for the meeting were as follows: a). Duties and responsibilities of both the Planning Commission and the City Council under state Municipal Planning and Development Laws b). Changing of procedures for selectiong new Planning Commission members c). Is the Council's intent to "control" the Planning Commission?-What does "control" mean? d).Suggestions by Council and Planning Commission for improving operation and performance of Planning Commission. e). Does the Council need the minutes of the Planning Commission before con- sidering the Planning Cases. The mayor noted that the city manager had distributed copies of the state law and informa- tion from the League of Minnesota Cities handbook regarding duties and obligations of the Planning Commission under the state law and powers of the Council as far as regula- ting the commission. City Manager Donahue commented that this material should clear up any questions as to the Council's authority and the Commission's responsibility under the law. Discussion then turned to changing of procedures for selecting new Planning Commission members. Planning Commission Chairman Cameron stated that the Planning Commission had been per- turbed as to the way things happened, rather than what happened. He said after many, many years of working in a certain way, all of a sudden you read in the Council minutes that the procedures are to be changed. There was no communication, no checking, nothing. It was done. Obviously the Council can do that; there is no doubt there. A number of the commissioners felt that it was really very poor management, communication, whatever you want to call it. It seemed rather arbitrary to do this without even checking. There was no great hurry to get this done at one meeting. There was no communication from Council that they were even considering a change. Dr. Cameron said that they were even concerned, in reading the minutes, as to the rationale that, if the Council selected the membership without any input from the Planning Commission, the Commission would be more in tune with the wishes of the Council; the idea being that, apparently, since the city Council was elected, the Council was closer to the people than the Planning Commission who were just mere citizens. Dr. Cameron commented that, at the next meeting of the Council, there were all kinds of discussion about rules and procedures for running the commissions, rotating chairs, rotating terms, all these sor~ of things, again, without any input from the Planning Commission. He said he did not know about input from the other commissions, nor did he know about'the concerns with the other commissions. The Planning Commissioners were really very perturbed; they donate their time; they have nothing to get out of it. A number of the commissioners felt this was very poor administration or management, just the fact that there was no input from the Plan° ning Commission. The commissioners were not sure what was being questioned, if the Council was unhappy with the Planning Commission, things that had been done or not done, procedures that had been followed. There was no way to get a feel for this. All they saw was what was in the minutes. There was never any other communication. Page 2 Council/Planning Cox~nission Meeting April 18, 1983 Dr. Cameron than stated that the commissioners had asked him to write a memo to Council, which he did about a month ago. He said he has received no response to that memo. He con- cluded that this was the Planning Commission's position and why they felt it appropriate to sit down together to lay out the concerns. The mayor stated that it had been his responsibility to contact Dr. Cameron concerning his letter but that he had not had time to do so. Then a week ago, it had been decided to hold this m~eting. The mayor concluded that it was his fault Dr. Cameron had not been contacted. Councilmamber Daly also pointed out that, at the Council meeting when the councilmembers first had knowledge of this letter, all of the councilmembers did not get the letter. Some of the members wanted to discuss it, but two or three of the councilmembers asked, "what letter?" For this reason, the discussion was postponed for two weeks so that all council- members could get.a copy of it to read. Discussion followed concerning the distribution of the letter from Dr. Cameron. Councilmember Williamson stated that she had felt for a long time that the Council was some- what confused about what the commissions are doing, what their responsibilities are, what terms of offices are. Oftentimes, questions will come up for which CoUncil does not know the answer. She said she felt it was confusing to the Council to have the varied terms, etc. She thought it would be helpful for all concerned to have consistency so that perhaps all of the commissions would have two or three year terms. She said she also felt that each commission should have its own by-laws, so that everyone on the commission and on the Council would have information as to what the commission is to do, what terms of offices are, etc. She said she thought it was her request for discussion of this matter that had started the Council talking about the commissions. The interviewing of applicants issue was perhaps the beginning of this discussion because the other commissions do not interview their respective members. It was felt that this was one way to start, with the Council doing the interviewing for all of the commissions. Councilmember Gustafson commented that he thought the Council had sent forward two exception- ally fine candidates, candidates who he was sure, had the Planning Commission done the inter- viewing, the commission also would have f~rwarded to the Council for approval. The point that Dr. Cameron made, and that he thought all of the commissioners had in terms of sensi- tivity to the Planning Commission, is that if there is going to be a change, because of a problem, or whatever reason, there should be at least some dialogue before the fact, rather than reading about it in the minutes. The mayor commented that the issues that Councilmember Williamson had referred to were really in the infancy discussion by the Council. He said that, as to the chirmanship of the commis- sions, if a person is reelected by his peers for several years, he did not see a problem with that. First of all, you have to find someone willing to take on the job and to carry the burden. There was nothing that was unanimous on the part of the Council, just an item that was being discussed. He noted that a few years back the Council had been concerned with the reorganization of the commissions under the Citizens Advisory Commission which had prompted the get together at that time. The mayor then stated that, in speaking for the Council, the Council holds everyone of the commissioners in the highest regard, both as individuals and as professionals. There has never been any question about that. Secondly, the Council does rely extremely heavily on the recommendations from the Planning Commission. The legwork and the weeding-out that is done by the Planning Commission help tremendously. Council does rely heavily on the recom- mendations. There is no problem with that. The mayor continued that, if there was a problem, it was that perhaps it was time to instill some continuity. The Council had always appointed the other commission members, except for the Planning Commission. Personally, he had not expected such a strong reaction. He had not thought it was that big of a deal, but he did not know whether the rest of the councilmembers felt that way or not. He noted that Dr. Cameron had made a comment in his letter that the Planning Commission was not fearful of this particular Council, but the concern was with future councils. The mayor said he appreciated that and noted that never has the City Council appointed anyone to any commission because of their political posture. Council does not want to get involved in that sort of thing. Politics have never entered into the appointment process. Dr. Cameron said this had been the concern. Ail we saw was "reflect the Council", and the ~-- Planning Commission did not know what was meant by that. Page 3 Council/Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1983 Councilmember Daly said that it should also be understood that appointments will not be given out as a reward for some kind of a campaign effort or reward; that is a total mis- understanding of the Council's intentions. He said while he can see where there might be such concerns, Council had not given any thought along those lines. When the word control came up, which is a key word that bothered a lot of people and maybe it is an inappro- priate word, consistency is what was being aimed for. At that time Council was faced with several openings, on the Liquor Commission, one or two on the Citizens Advisory Commission and one on the Planning Commission. There were two candidates for the Plano ning Commission and the Council did not want to send one of the candidates away. In- stead, Council took the opportunity to expand by one. None of the other issues raised by Councilmember Williamson have been acted on; these are still discussion issues--as far as term, chair, consecutive terms. The only thing acted upon was the appointment process because of the number of openings existing at that time. There was no intention or thought of campaign rewards or anything along those lines. Councilmember Williamson stated that she felt badly that some communication as to the rea~ son for the change had not gone forward to the Planning Commission. She said the only reason any changes were requested was for the sake of consistency. She personally had no complaints as to the job done by the Planning Commission. The work that is done by the Commission, the background available and the knowledge available is much appreciated. What Council is doing is no reflection whatsoever on the commission. Councilmember Enck said that he did not know of any organization that he had ever belonged to that had appointed its own members, except in the New Orleans area where they appoint Park Commission members. Cronyism tends to be built in, and this is one of the concerns that he has. There could be the capacity to perpetuate the status quo as opposed to the capacity for making changes if changes are necessary. If you have strong leadership, and maybe some weak members, the leader then makes the choices as to who the appointees will be. Councilmember Enck said he thought that would be inappropriate for any organization. This was getting back to where it ought to be, and it was an abandonment of the Council's responsibility a number of years ago. He said that was a reflection as to how the Council felt about the commission at that time and many of those members are still on the commis- sion. If these members were to change, and there wasn't some consistency in the appoint- ment process, then there could be a potential for abuse. There is also the responsibility of an elected official when an appointmemt is to be made as to being fair and equitable. This is why he encouraged Council to change the appointment procedure for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gustafson said that, in terms of clarifying what the Planning Commission has done in the past, it has simply forwarded on to the City Council a reaommendation as to the candidates. The Planning Commission has never appointed any one individual to the Planning Commission by itself. Quietly, on the record, without the candidate being pre- sent at the Planning Commission meeting, the commission has decided who, out of the group of individuals, they thought was best suited to a planning commission seat. Those same people, he thought, went forward and were, in fact, interviewed by the City Council, and were appointed by the City Council. Ail the Planning Commission did was to do a prelimin- n~ry review, or initial screening. The Planning Commission has never appointed anybody; it has just sent forward a recommendation. It was noted that Council had not conducted any interviews. Councilmember Enck commented that Council had just carried out the Planning Commission recommendations as to appointments. In not going through the interview process, he thought that Council had abandoned some of its responsibility. The Planning Commission recommenda- tions were passed without discussion. Question was then raised by Commissioner Gundershaug as to whether, in the future, all appointments would be handled strictly by the Council, or would the Planning Commission have some input. Councilmember Enck said that his thought was that Council would do the interviewing of, and make the decisio~ as to who would receive the appointment. This is the way he would perceive it, The mayor said that a compromise could be that the Council could interview and send two people before the Planning Commission for its recommendation with the Council making the final decision. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that one of the things that the commission finds out earlier in the interview process is whether a person actually has the time to give to the commission, not that the time factor has been that great in the last few years, but during the time the commission was working on the comprehensive plan it was. Page 4 Council/Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1983 Commissioner Anderson made the following observations: The Council needs to exercise ~-~ control; that is the Council's responsibility. By the same token, there really are some special skills and attitudes that are crucial to being successful on the Planning Commis- sion or the other commissions. He said he thought the Planning Commissioners could dis- cover those skills easier than the Council could because the commissioners know the work involved in the planning process. Commissioner Anderson then asked whether it might be possible to have a joint interview between two or three commissioners and two or three members of the Council. He said he could see definite needs for inputs from both groups in the selection process. Sometimes sitting on the Planning Commission can be a hot spot. Commissioner Anderson continued that another thought is that a lot of organizations will assign someone from the group to pay attention to a certain commission. He thought it would be appropriate if a Councilmember were also a Planning Commission member. He said this should strengthen the communications between the two groups. Dr. Cameron responded that he did not think it was a good idea to have a Council person also serving on the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission and the Council are intended to be independent. When the case appears before the City Council, there should be no ties. If a Council person sat through the planning process, that person almost becomes an advocate at the Council level. There is merit in keeping the two bodies en- tirely separate. The Planning Commission's charge is different from the City Council's charge. The Planning Commission should look at things independently. Whatever recommenda- tions are made should come out of the wisdom of the people who vote on the matter. That does not mean that the Planning Commission expects the City Council to approve everytime, or to ask the same kind of question, because the Council concerns ought to be different. He said he saw it as a two-stage process with each body having its own role to play. He was not concerned when the Council brings up embarrassing questions which the Planning Commission should have asked. There are some things that slip by.. The Planning Commis- sion also reads the Council minutes and feels that there are some things that slip by the Council. He said he did not see any problem with the City Council and the Planning Commission not always agreeing. The Planning Commission is independent; the recommenda- tion~is sent to Council as the Commission sees it. The City Council then has the respon- sibility of making the final decision. The two bodies are independent and they should each do their own thing. The mayor agreed that the two bodies should operate independently. He noted that when Councilmembers attended the commission meeting, that commission tends to become almost non-functional because they do not really make an independent decision, but instead look to the Councilmember for direction. The mayor thought that it was ~ery critical that especially the Council and the Planning Commission operate independently. The more in- dependently the Planning Commission operates, the more likely are good decisions. The Planning Commission should never align their decisions with what they think the Council would like for a recommendation. The City functions well with the two separate entities. Councilmember Williamson said that she had been frustrated with lack of communication between the Planning Commission and the Council. Dr. Cameron inquired as to what kind of communication Councilmember Williamson would like tO see, Councilmember Williamson replied that, for instance~ there were some of the Commission members that she hadn't met, and she did not think this made for a good relationship. She said she also thought that sometimes the Commission members might feel that the information reflected in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting did not really reflect the way, or the strength, of some of the points that the commissioners wanted to make. She thought the commissioners then might like to feel free to visit the Council meeting to reiterate those points. Also at a time when the Council has a question about something the Plan- ning Commission is doing, the Council should be comfortable in inquiring about the matter. She said she did not feel that this type of relationship existed at this time. The mayor said that, while this was an idea that sounded good, when a Planning Commission member comes to the Council meeting, all of a sudden that person becomes a lobbyist for the Planning Commission point of view and vice versa. He explained that there would be the same conflict if a Councilmember attended the Planning Commission meeting. Dr. Cameron said that the record of the Planning Commission is passed onto the City Council; that is all that should be passed on. There should not be any personal input. -~ Page 5 Council/Planning Commission Meeting . April 18, 1983 Commissioner Gustafson stated that the city manager was the connection between the Council and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug said that the feeling he has had for the last two years is. that a lot of things that the Planning Commission has felt strongly about has slipped by the Council. He said a month ago the Planning Commission had denied part of a case and passed the rest of it; the A. C. Carlson case is a good example. He asked whether the Council received the same set of minutes as were given to the Planning Commission. It was clarified that the Council does get the. same set of minutes and that these minutes are distributed to the Councilmembers together with the balance of the agenda material. Commissioner Gundershaug said that the minutes seem always abbreviated, which they have to be, he was sure. The mayor commented that perhaps someone in the Planning Commission could write a synopsis of the Planning Commission meeting: why, the feelings one way or the other, covering items that are not in the official minutes. Dr. Cameron commented that whoever was to do that writing would have a lot of power. The minutes are good enough the way they are except for the occasional time that something happens and the Commissioners wonder if Council even looked at the minutes. He noted that Design and Review spends a great deal of time; the Planning Commission spends fifteen to twenty minutes on one point and then when it goes to Council, Council appears to ignore the Planning Commission; this happens very rarely. Most of the time there is good communi- cation. The Commission does adequate spade work; sometimes the Commission does overlook something that the Council catches. That is fine; that is the two stage process. He said he does not see where anything has to be done because misunderstandings are not fre- quent. Councilmember Daly said that he thought he had a pretty good idea as to what the Commission was saying in their minutes, who spoke out on an issue, what is the thinking. Someone speaking against an issue will come out repeatedly in the Planning Commission minutes about that case. The minutes give a good idea as to What the individual members of the Planning Commission are thinking. As far as too much communication, he would be totally against the Council having one of its members on any commission. He thought it would be totally improper. The Council has to remain separate. He said he knows that when you are the Planning Commission, you tend to be offended when the Council doesn't go in accord- ance with the Planning Commission recommendation, noting that he had been a member of the Planning Commission and had felt the same way. He then elaborated on the two bodies arriving at opposite conclusion and the fact that the Council had the responsibility of the decision as to lawsuits, etc, That type of concern does not come up at Planning Commission. At the Council level, the Councilmembers can either be sued as individuals or as a city. This is one big difference. He then spoke about the splitting of a duplex lot sometime back when the Council and the Commission had differed. He said at that time he had to weigh his pro-zero lot line feelings against what he was hearing from reading the minutes of the Planning Commission. There were two very strong opposites to deal with in making a decision in that case. He said he also knew that there were not that many lots left in New Hope, so there was not too much to worry about precedent setting. He said he came down stronger on the side of zero lot lines than the fact that there wasn't a garage or that there wasn't enough space to make two individual lots. The City permitted that construction of that double bungalow somewhere along the line. Councilmember Daly continued that he always looks heavily at the minutes of the Planning Commission and that he thought the communication was good as far as a commissioner speaking out. If that commissioner does not speak out, then he does not know what that person is thinking. There is still plenty in the minutes to get a drift of what the Commission is thinking. Now sometimes the Council is not going to agree, and he knows what the Planning Commission is saying about the Council although that kind of thing does not get in the minutes. He noted that he had been on both sides and that he can sympa- thize and understand. At the bottom line, he must still vote his conscience while weighing the factors considered by the Planning Commission. Council would not be doing its job if it just rubberstamped the Planning Commission recommendation, nor should the Planning Commission opinions and minutes be ignored. It has to be a blending of these things to draw a conclusion. Commissioner Gulenchyn spoke about the decision making process and the involvement of all the people on the Commission and Council. It would be a poor decision not to have both bodies involved no matter what the leadership change might be. It would be poor not to have a strong input from the Planning Commission along with the Council. Commissioner Gulenchyn continued that, in the three years that he has been on the Planning Commission, just in the last probably year and one-half, you can see the change in the relationship. The more he thought about it the more concrete he felt about the change. He said he has had a very strong feeling of respect for the people with whom he has worked on the Planning Commission. The City of New Hope would be at a loss not to have these people, the independent decisions and the input into the City. The personality Pfge 6 Council/Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1983 change has been a drifting of the two bodies in the last 1% years. He said he would recommend that the leadership ~f the Council and the Commission make sure that these people who are on it right now, especially with the changes that are happening in the City, keep it going as it was. The experience will help. The diversions or personalities and objectivities should not be stifled, but there should still be a melding to a common cause. To change the independence between the two bodies would be a mistake. The mayor spoke on the desirability of the Council staying totally independent of any of the commissions, or any of the departments or other organizations within the city. He noted problems in other cities where this separation is not maintained. Communication, yes; but interference, no. Dr. Cameron again stated that he did not think that there was a need for better on-going communication s. If the Council decides that there ought to be a review of the commis- sions, why not say that there will be a committee on commissions. Before the Council comes to concensus on a number of these things, the Council should see what the commis- sions think. Dr. Cameron said that he had no feel for the Advisory Commission or the Liquor Commission, nor did he know what they do. He would hesitate to give any advice about the other commissions. He said it would seem that, before the Council starts tH pull all this together, and if consistency is one of the goals, the Council would want to hear from the people on the commissions first, before rotating of chairs, etc. is consi- dered. He said it would be better to communicate and involve these people before Council arrives at a concensus, rather than telling them after the fact. He said he did not think that most of the commissioners would mind going to a few extra meetings for this kind of communication. If the commission is doing some things that the City Council would like to change or adjust, then you owe it to the commissioners first to talk to them, than talk about it in public. Councilmember Enck said he did not hear Dr. Cameron really disagreeing with what is in the Council Minutes. He said the commissions have been asked to review their by-laws, update if necessary, and present to staff for review and recommendation to Council. Council- member Enck said, that to him, this says the Planning Commission should review and say what items should be changed or updated. That would be discussed with staff or any pro- fessional that might be necessary. Then it comes to Council for consideration. It may have been tacky for the City Council to debate whether or not they think there ought to be ~-. some changes. If it is not done at the Council Chamber, then where can it be done? The Council minutes of the meeting where rotation of chair had been considered was re- ferenced by Dr. Cameron. Discussion followed concerning Council having a feel for all of the commissions and the ability of the Council to interview and place a person with the appropriate commission. Councilmember Enck said that it appeared that no one was taking offense at the Council looking at the issues, but rather in the manner in which it was being done. He said he did not hear the Planning Commission taking exception to whether or not the chairs should be rotated, or whether terms ought to be changed, but that the Commission should have had some earlier communication before a decision was made. Councilmember Enck then stated that the only way the Council can get into these issues is at a public meeting. If these are brought up and they get into the minutes, and if the minutes conclude with the request for the commissions to review their by-laws, he did not think too much should be built in- to this. How is the Council expected to communicate other than discussing at a meeting with the Planning Commission getting a copy of all the Council minutes? Commissioner Gustafson said that he thought the sequence of events was rather poor. The Planning Commission had made some comments in their minutes regarding appointments. The next s~t of minutes from the Council questions length of terms, rotation of leadership of Planning Commission. Ail of a sudden there are new appointees without anything in the minutes about what was discussed or whether Council had a conversation with the appointees or not. He then suggested that a participative management approach be used, such as to first ask the Planning Commission to review the procedures for nomination and to get back to the Council within a certain time frame with input as to how the Commission felt about it. Then if the Planning Commission saw that the Council gave consideration to the Planning Commission input although Council arrived at a different conclusion, there would not be a negative reaction. The negative reaction comes, in most cases, when it appears that Council has not considered the Planning Commission concerns. Commissioner Edwards said that it had appeared to him that the Council thought the Planning Commission did not discuss such things as rotating chairmanship or other things which they ought to do. He said this had been discussed at least once a year; the issue comes up. The discussion may be brief, but it is talked about. Page 7 Council/Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1983 Councilmember Enck commented that he had never seen in the Planning Commission minutes any discussion about rotating the chairmanship of the Commission. Dr. Cameron noted that officers were elected every year. Councilmember Enck agreed that officers were elected every year, but again said that he had never seen any discussion as to whether or not the chair should be rotated. Dr. Cameron said that the Commission had not been sure what rotation meant--monthly? Councilmember Enck replied that the point is that Council must do all of this at an open meeting. The Planning Commission has the capacity for some additional discussions so that Council can have that input. Dr. Cameron noted that the council minutes contained the words: "concensus" and "agreement". The fact that the minutes indicated that the Council had reached concensus and agreement is what had concerned the Planning Commission. Councilmember Williamson said that her questions dealt with the fact that she had no idea how the other Councilmembers felt about the commissions. She said she thought it was time that the Council did talk about the commissions, what they do, what they are involved in, what their terms are, etc., so they had some way of knowing what is going on. Mayor Erickson agreed that Councilmember Williamson had had these concerns and did bring them up at a public meeting. The concerns were discussed. The main problem is the word, "concensus". He then stated that the final outcome was that staff was to get input from the commissions. Councilmember Enck commented that if the issues had been discussed without involving the appointment process, the perception might be different. He said he agreed that there ought be a significant separation between the Planning Commission and the Council. He did not really see any communication problem. He said he thought the Council and the Commission did have a great deal of communication other than through the minutes. Council should learn from the discussion that prompted the meeting tonight that, if Council is going to consider other than the status quo, Council should be more discreet or patient before it proceeds. Council should ask what are the long term ripples. Are there talents that should be tapped to provide discussion before the fact? Dr. Cameron agreed that Council should be more sensitive to the fact that the way some of the things appear in minutes are not really the way it was. This Council discussion could have been ended with a plan for gaining input from the commissions. Council could have said these are items that are of concern to the Council rather than having a "concensus" and "agreement". Council might have invited a representative from the Commission, or the city manager might have written a memo concerning the matter° Mayor Erickson stated that there was no problem with the Planning Commission. He noted that there had been discussion about rotating the chairmanship of the Advisory Commission° Councilmember Daly said that the discussion relating to interviewing of the applicants for Planning Commission came up because of all the openings on the various commissions and that there was never any intention of getting into appointments as political favors. Mayor Erickson commented that they had never had so many qualified people applying for appointment to the commissions. Dr. Cameron pointed out that the Commission had been trying to get female members on the Commission and that they were also concerned with maintaining a geographic balance. He commented that the Commission does not know what the Council's criteria are for Planning Commissioners. Ail of a sudden the Council decided that the appointment process should be changed without any explanation other than "control" and "consistency". Then the Planning Commission has to be suspicious as to why Council would tinker with it. The previous way of doing things has produced good results. What suddenly had changed to have Council tam- per with that process? Councilmember Witliamson stated that Council had no difficulty with what the Commission was doing. The discussions were not a matter of criticism of any of the commissions. Council had all these candidates so they decided to interview all of them. It is unfor- tunate that this was done without at least informing the Planning Commission of it. Page 8 Council/Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1983 Dr. Cameron then stated it had been a serious matter and that some of the co=~issioners had considered resigning over it. Councilmember Daly said that he thought Council was guilty of poor protocol at the very least. He commented that there was an advantage with Council interviewing the applicants so that the talents could be blended. If someone were better suited for a commission other than the one in which they had expressed an interest, Council was in the position to see this and adjust accordingly. He said he was not aware of complaints from the other com- missions, that they were not allowed to interview, but he did think there should be fair- ness within the system. "Consistency" is the word that came forth that night, but un- fortunately the word "control" was the word that got blown out of proportion. It was not intended that way~ it was intended to mean that everyone should be on an equal basis as to the appointment process. It was not to imply control of the members of the commis- sions. He concluded that the Council was still looking for input from the commissions. Mayor 'Erickson commented that it was healthy to bring differences out in the open as was being done at this meeting. Dr. Cameron replied that the Planning Commission really had had no idea what was bothering the Council to start all this discussion. Commissioner Anderson said that it was his understanding that all Planning Commission members were appointed for a fixed term and that, unless there is a real problem, and if that person wishes to be reappointed, he would be reappointed. Dr. Cameron replied that that is how it has always worked to date. Commissioner Anderson then asked, if there was an opening where someone new was needed for the Planning Commission, whether the Council agrees to a joint meeting to handle the interview process. He said that he did not mean that the entire commission would partici- pate, but perhaps a couple of the members would. Councilmember Enck commented that this was one of the things that the Planning Commission might address when preparing their recommendations. The Commission might also want to look at the issue of whether a member should be automatically reappointed. Are they really doing their homework or simply providing a political base for themselves? The membership should be scrutinized prior to reappointment. He thought the Planning Com- mission should also address this issue. Mayor Erickson stated that he would still rather see the Planning Commission interview the applicants independently of the Council. He thinks each full body should be concerned with the interviewing process so that everyone has a chance to voice an opinion. He noted that sometimes the Council uses a rating system to come to a concensus. He said it had never happened, to his knowledge, where anyone had received an appointment to the Planning Commission because they were a friend of a commissioner or a councilmember. He commented that the Council does not wang to give up its legal right to have a strong influence as to who is appointed to the Planning Commission, not for any motive other than the quality of the appointee. Dr. Cameron said that he had no difficulty with the way the Council has it set up now, with the Council picking the people. His concern was with the way the Council made the change. He said he thought Council now understood why he had been upset. He suggested that this issue be left to percolate. Council will be looking at other commission issues and maybe some other good ideas will come out, rather than trying to arrive at a concensus tonight. He did not think that there would be any vacancies for a while. Councilmember Daly asked whether the Planning Commission members should be receiving more information with their agenda materials. He asked whether the Planning Commission re- ceived the City Notes, or the manager's comments to the City Council. City Manager Donahue said that these items were not given to the Planning Commission. A lot of his comments reflect the Planning Commission thoughts. The City Notes are primarily for the city employees. Dr. Cameron noted that the Commissioners were supplied with the case reports prepared by staff. He did not think that the Planning Commission needed any further information. He said the Planning Commission was not anxious to get involved in all the other city activities. . Page 9 Council/Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1983 Discussion followed concerning a city appreciation night with Councilmember Daly saying he wanted it to be made clear that the work of the Planning Commission is appreciated. Councilmember Williamson stated that she wanted to let Mr. Ken Anderson know that she was in favor of a joint interviewing process. Councilmember Otten suggested that the Planning Commission send forward their comments and suggestions on this area and that Council continue to talk about it. By the time there is another Planning Commission opening, there should be a solution. Dr. Cameron said that, in the future, chances are there would be just one opening on one commission rather than many openings. Discussion followed as to whether joint meetings of the Commission and Council should be scheduled quarterly or annually, Dr. Cameron commented that all members of the Council and Commission were busy people and meetings should not be scheduled just to meet. Councilmember Daly again stated that the Council was Still waiting to hear from all the commissions for input on all the issues, what should be reorganized, etc. He suggested that the commissioners get a copy of Councilmember Williamson's suggestions which were brought up on March 14, 1983. The joint meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. bmitted, Betty Pouliotc~/ ' City Clerk-Treasurer ~ PI2~R~NG COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 3, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, was held on Tuesday, May 3, 1983 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Assistant Chairman Gustafson. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, .Edwards Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron (all excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PI~NNING CASE 8~-9 (TABLED FROM APRIL 5, 1983) - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES IN SETBACK AT 6025 SUMTER PLACE - THOMAS GAGNON, PETITIONER. The Manager stated that Mr. Gagnon had requested a postponement of this case until the June meeting because of a death in the family. Motion by Gustafson, second by Gundershaug to table Case 83-9 until the meeting of June 7, 1983. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 83 - 8 REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STIPULATIONS - 9300 51st AVENUE NORTH - CANDACE AND WILLIAM MUNSINGER, PETITIONERS. The City Manager requested that the Commission table this request until after consideration of Case 83-21. Motion bv Commissioner Edwards, Second by Commissioner Friedrich to table Case 83-8 until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: D~nn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion carried. 5. PLA~ING CASE 83-17 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL/RENTAL ACTIVITY AT 71~9 42ND AVENUE NORTH - LENNY DE MANN, PETITIONER Mr. DeMann was present and gave his address as 41111 133rd Lane, Ham Lake, Minnesota. He said he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow him to operate a video sales/rental facility at the stated address. It is an existing business. He needs the Conditional Use Permit because the property is zoned B-3. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, the hours were stated as being 11 a.m. until 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 12 noon until 5 p.m. on Sunday. He noted that he was leasing the space from George Svolopoulos. Mr. Svolopoulos was not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson asked what hours George was running the cafe. It was stated that they were usually 6 a.m. until 3 p.m. Mr. DeMann said he believed that the cafe was closed by noon on Sunday. Commissioner Gustafson then referred to the parking and asked what volume of traffic Mr. DeMann ex- pected. Mr. DeMann said that he had done a simple count and come up with 124 cars a week. There are usually no more than 3-4 at a time -- 42% of the business is on Saturday or Sunday. Saturday is his biggest day, Sunday is second. The next busiest time is Friday, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. There is 900 square feet total space, with 350 square feet being used for retail sales. The remainder is used for small office and storage. In answer to a question the City Manager noted that there had been no complaints about the parking situation in the past couple of months. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about new signs. Mr. DeMann said that a sign plan had been given to the Inspections Department and that he had seen a copy. of the city Sign Ordinance. He had presented a scale drawing to the city staff. Commissioner Edwards noted that the city already had George's hours of operation on record and he did not think it was necessary to get it again. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 - MAY 3, 1983 5. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendinq approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 83-17, subject to the hours of operation of George's Cafe being as indicated on previous petition, and that the hours of retail activities for this activity being 1I a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Satur- day and 12 noon until 5 p.m. on Sunday. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Fridrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 83-18 - REQUEST FOR REARYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 6132 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH - ROY AND SHARON BEAVERLANDER, PETITIONERS Mr. Beaverlander said he was requesting the variance so that he could construct a 12' x 13' aadition for a bigger dining room at his home. The backyard is all fenced in with a six foot redwood fence. Commissioner Anderson asked what the backyard was used for now? Mr. Beaverlander said it had a picnic table and was used for sitting, the side toward 62nd Avenue was 3ust yard. He said that the siding, etc. on the exterior would match the existing house. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommendinq approval of the variance requested for 6132 Gettys- burg North in Case 83-18. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 83-19 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE-UP WINDOW AT WINNETKA AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD - BURGER KING, PETITIONER Mr. Bill Ranick represented Burger King. He was accompanied by the operators of the restaurant at the above address. He stated they were seeking a Conditional Use Permit to add a drive through facility to the existing restaurant. He added that the company had received approval for such a drive through two years ago. A number of things had caused their not going ahead with the construction at that time° The plans submitted are the same as approved two years ago. He had met with the Design and Review Com- mission and had made the changes on the plan as they had requested. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what kind of stacking they anticipated as far as the drive-up site was concerned? Mr. Ranick said that from the order window to Winnetka, they had from 120-140 feet which would allow a six to seven car stack. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the danger of the car stacking going out on to Winnetka Avenue had always been a concern of the Commission/City and will continue to be. He asked whether Burger King had made any provisions in regard to monitoring the situation to prevent this? Mr. Ranick said that historically they place the order window a certain distance from the pickup win- dow and that the speed of service is the main thing that controls how fast that line moves° Very seldom if ever, do they have more than four to five cars stacked up behind the order station° Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether if it should occur, and cars stack up on Winnetka, would some monitoring be done? The operator of the restaurant noted that they would definitely be aware of any problem because the front of the restaurant faced Winnetka and they could immediately send an employee out to direct traffic if this should happen. The hours of operation for the drive-up window will be the same as they are now for the restaurant. These hours are 10 a.m. ~o 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday, Saturday and Sunday and 10 a.m. until 11 p.m. on.Friday. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that Burger King would re-stripe the parking lot and that there were 18 parking spaces. The island will be concrete, they will add a sign stating no truck parking. The curb will be six inches high. There will be a stop sign at the exit of the drive through ramp, and there will be arrows showing direction of traffic, and a sign stating "do not enter" at one end. There will be a railing protecting pedestrians next to the exit, and it will be tied into the building. As far as landscaping they have added to the interior of the drive lane itself, will be consistent with the other landscaping proposed. It will consist of sod and small bushes. There will be continuous con- crete curb on both sides. Snow will be hauled away and there will be no new signs other than ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 ~ MAY 3, 1983 7. The back of the lot will be closed off with curbing and landscaping. There is also a fence similar to that facing Medicine Lake Road that will run along the back side. This should make it very difficult for anyone to get out of or in to the drive-through lane from the rear. They are not plan- ning any new lighting. The City Manager noted that staff had not had any comments regarding additional lighting being needed. Mr. Ranick noted there would no additional signs but a "drive through cam" would replace existing signage. This change would conform to city code. The dimensions of the parking spaces will be 10' x 20'. There is a 20' drive through space behind this. They intend to go over the existing striping and darken it. They are not moving any of the parking spaces now on the site. Mr. Ranick said they had an agreement with the parkin9 center people in regard to the parking and will re-stripe the portion of the site adjacent to the restaurant. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Burger King would still be agreeable to closing off the entrance from Winnetka if severe problems should develop, as they had agreed to do in the past? The Manager of the'restaurant answered "absolutely", if serious problems develop. He added that the advantage that the windows were in front and they would be able to see immediately if a ~roblem should develop and could send an employee out to direct traffic. Commissioner Bartos noted he had observed congestion in the area because of trucks parking, etc. but if they were to have signage to alleviate this problem, he had no objections to the proposal. The City Manager noted that staff was concerned about the directional signs and that even though they would be painted they felt there might be a need for a stand up sign with an arrow. They thought that perhaps a sign right at the entrance itself would be necessary, next to the curb. Staff wanted agree- ment that if a'pro~lem developed, th~ petitioner would agree to make the changes. Mr. Ranick said this would nOt be a problem. CommissiOner Anderson expressed concern about the sight lines at the corner, and whether the shrubs/fence would inhibit vision? Mr. Ranick stated that nothing that would be place~ in this space would be any higher than the rails that are there now. There would be no increase in height that would block visibility. Commissioner Anderson asked how much vehicle storage there was from the order window back? The answer was 120-140 feet. He said it appeared to him that the traffic flow was backward. Discussion followed between Mr. Anderson and Mr~ Ranick regarding the traffic flow. Commissioner Anderson stated he would really like Burger King to take another look at the traffic flow design, he felt it needed some help. Mr. Ranick stated that it had been their experience that it took the public a week or two to be edu- cated to the direction of the traffic flow but that there would be no problems. He stated that per- haps they could install a sign stating "no left turn". They could not force the public to drive a cer- tain way. Commissioner Gustafson stated he was concerned about potential problems with people coming into the site. Mr. Ranick stated he would be more than glad to sit down with staff and consider these suggestions. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the petitioner was stating that he would be willing, between now and the Council meeting on Monday, to sit down with staff and work out a plan for the entrance and exit to the site. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommendinq approval of the drive through lane requested in CaSe 83-19, subject to an annual review by staff, and that the entrance/exit signs be coordinated with city staff before the Council meeting on May 9, 1983. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Anderson, Friedrich Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 3, 1983 ~ ~ 8. PI~NNING CASE 83 - 20 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION - 4900 VIRGINIA AVENUE NORTH - RICHARD AND JANET DRECHNIK, PETITIONERS Mr. and Mrs. Drechnik stated they were requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to operate a retail new and used clothing store from their basement. They were asking for the permit for a maximum of two years to allow them to determine if it would be profitable to return to New Hope. They had previously had a store in the New Hope Mall and in Minneapolis. They would like to stay in the New Hope area. Financially it was not working for them to be in Minneapolis. He stated he would be open only three days a week by appointment only. He feels he has ample parking for seven cars on his lot. He would see to it that no cars would park on the street either on 49th or on Virginia Avenue. He did not see that this would cause any congestion. Mrs. Drechn±k stated she had taken a traffic count one day between 7:30 and 8:00 on a Friday and there were 113 cars that were driven one way past their house. Mr. Drechnik said that he felt the street was already busy and they would not create any more problems if they had the store in their house. He said that he had spoken to a majority of the neighbors and explained they would only be open three days a week and'by appointment only and that they were asking for a two year permit. They seemed to feel there would be no problem with the business. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mro Drechnik stated he had spoken to the close neigh- bors and had received no negative comments. He did not plan to put any signs outside, and since the customers would have to call him first for directions to the house, he felt he could limit the customers ~o three or four at a time. The customers would get into the basement through the back door. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the driveway was horseshoe shaped and there was also the drive up to the garage. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about three or four customers at a time, and the problems that could result during the r6tation process. He was concerned about the parking. He asked the petitioner what modifications he planned inside the house? Mr. Drechnik said that the basement was already sectioned off. He would be using approximately 300 squar~ feet, with the rest of the space being for the laundry room and for office space. He stated that as far as he knew, the space met city fire codes. The City Manager stated that there were a whole range of things that Mr. Drechnik would have to do as far as complying with code, if he did receive a Conditional Use Permit, before he could conduct a busi- ness in the downstairs. Mr. Drechnik noted that there was one room that could be sectioned off for a changing room if he needed it. The hours of operation would be 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturday, Monday and Thursday. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that they would be dealing with clothes that had been purchased and now wanted to re-sell. Mr. Drechnik stated he had a high standards and would be dealing with strictly designer and brand name clothing. He would not be doing any alterations or customer fitting. He agreed with Commissioner An- derson that his was an unusual request for an R-1 zone. He stressed he wanted only a temporary two year permit and was agreeable to even a three month review by staff. If he could not make it in two years, he would give it up. There would be no outside advertising on the site. Commissioner Anderson noted that it was possible that Mr. Drechnik would have to get involved in some fairly substantial expenses in an effort to remodel the space to bring it up to code. He might have to make a fairly substantial investment. Mr. Drechnik stated that he had not as yet been informed as to what he might have to do to upgrade the facility. If it were too much, he might have to abandon the idea completely. Conumissioner Anderson re-expressed his concerns about the parking on the site and the fact that this business is proposed for a single family residential area~ Commissioner Bartos stated that he would hate to have the petitioner go into this without knowing what the costs would be. He suggested a table until June, so the petitioner could see what would be entailed in bringing the potential sales site up to code. He felt this would save him both time and money. Commissioner Gustafson co~ented that his personal feelings in regard to this type of business in a resi- dential area were quite negative. He added that if the same opinion was held by the remainder of the Commission, he felt to delay the decision would be unfair to the petitioner, if they would then deny the request in another month° There was no one present in regard to'this request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MAY 3, 1983 8. Commissioner Friedrich stated that he agreed with the Chairman that a retail operation in a residential neighborhood wopld have an adverse affect. Commissioner Gundershaug asked the petitioner how he got the clothes to his home? Mr. Drechnik said that people brought clothes to them, but he also picked up some of them himself. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the petitioner already had clothes stored on the site. The answer was yes, there were clothes that they had to liquidate~ as in a garage sale. The City Manager stated that over the weekend there had been a sign up that he had been order to take down. Mr. Drechnik stated he had not been ordered to take the sign down, he had not had an order on this. The sale was conducted only on Friday. He is trying to liquidate stock he now has. He had never received a phone call about the sign. Commissioner Friedrich made a motion to table Case 83-20 until the meeting of June 7, 1983. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos Voting against: Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion failed for lack of a majority. Commissioner Gundershau~- ~ade motion recommendinq denial of the request in Case 83-20. Commissioner Ed- wards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafs°n, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None' Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion failed. 9. PLANNING CASE 83 - 21 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN PARKING AT 5100 COUNTY ROAD ~18 - S. R. HARRIS, PETI- TIONER Mr. Harris said he had trouble with their parking. To relieve this they had taken their employees, which numbered about 15 people who drive to work, and moved them to other parking spaces within the area. This has actually opened up 15 spaces. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Mr. Harris had reached written agreement with other businesses in the area in regard to this shared parking? Mr. Harris said it was verbal. Commissioner Gustafson noted that Mr. Harris' parking spaces as well as the other businesses had had their spaces alloted on the basis of the square footage of the buildings and the use for which they were used. Mr. Harris' employees would then be taking spaces needed at the other building lots. Mr. Harris said that in the past week, there were probably only 4-5 cars on the street that were coming to their company. Using parking spaces at other sites was the only alternative he felt he could come up with. He said he would also like a variance to allow him ten spaces on the street. In terms of his site, he thought the retail sales consisted of about 50/50. They are using the complete building, 20,000 square feet, 10,000 of this was used for retail/wholesale customers; 1400' were for office, and 17,000 warehouse. ' The City Manager stated that code required 1 space±for each 150 feet. This-would mean 47 spaces, but of course the office would add more. Staff had estimated that there should be 67 spaces on the site. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Harris had relocated 15 employees to parking spots on other sites, that there was no more space for expansion on parking on the site, that the green area was now exactly at 35%, and that Mr. Harris would obtain a written agreement with Horowitz and Minnesota Lift to allow his employees to park on their lots. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, it was noted that these two sites were located to the north and to the south. Discussion then covered the fact that there was no door to Mr. Harris building on the north side of the building, on the impracticality of the proposed solution to the parking problem, and the dock area and whether or not this area was used, or could be converted to parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - ' MAY 3, 1983 9. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Harris stated that there were usually only three large trucks at the site in a week. There were UPS trucks there daily. Most of the deliveries . come in before 9 a.m. or after 4 p.m. There is usually not much retail traffic before 11 a.m. The docks are not to be used between the hours of 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. He felt that some of the dock area could be marked for parking. Commissioner Edwards noted that the solution that has supposedly been worked out is fine for the moment, but questioned what would happen if the other buildings went back to higher occupancies and required the parking spaces themselves? Mr. Harris stated that anything could change, life changes, most of the companies however, are just small manufacturing companies. Commissioner Gustafson stated that if the other busineos needs should change, the city would then have to talk to reducing the amount of sales that Mr. Harris currently has on his site. If the variance for parking were rescinded, then Mr. Harris would have to return to the Commission for additional re- view of the needs/problems on the site. There was no one present i~ regard to this request. Discussion followed between Mr. Harris and Commissioner Anderson in regard to the occupancies of the building, and that Mr. Harris was the owner, leasing to the other companies; Mr. Harris' statement that his employees carpooled a lot; the potential traffic on the site, and whether it would not be possible to create an additional parking let for the employees to use. Mr. Harris noted that his hours of operation were 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., 7 days a week. Some of his custo- mers come a long way. He did conduct sales, and special promotions, but it was difficult to predict how often. Commissioner Anderson stated he saw this as a problem, and that one truck in the dock could block off access to the parking. There were no further questions or con~ents. Commissioner Gustafson made a ~aotion recou~ending approval of the parking variances requested in Case 83-21 at 5100 County Road #18, subject to the petitioner presenting written contracts allowing 15 of his employees to park in lots assigned to other bus~inesses in the area, by the time he appeared before the City Council, and that the petitioner understood that he would have twice a year reviews by city staff, that the parking variances would be reviewed as well as the amount of space to be allowed for -- retail sales at that time with the possibility of the approvals being changed. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Friedrich, Edwards Abstain: Bartos Motion carried. 10. PI~.NNING CASE 83 - 8 - REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STIPULATIONS AT 9300 51ST AVENUE NORTH - CANDACE AND WILLIAM MUNSINGER, PETITIONERS Mrs. Munsinger said they had been in business in New Hope for nine years. They had originally asked to operate from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. She said that somehow it had been stated that they had requested only to operate from 6 p.m. until 10 p.m. She felt that there was a misunderstanding. They have been run- ning pre school classes during the day, and she did not ever recall that she asked to operate from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. She did not think that the parking for the school caused a problem at this point. Snap on Tools and Mr. Harris' b~siness were usually closed when they had their heaviest class times. They have had day classes since Day One of their school. Commissioner Gustafson stated that there was no doubt in his mind that the 6 p.m. time was a mis-type as in another place in the minutes there was a comment in regard to classes being held after school. School was out well before six p.m. He could not see that there was any problem. The City Manager stated that the Inspector was operating under the code requirements for a Conditional Use Permit, which state t.hat any change in conditions require a return to the Commission/Council. Con~issioner Gustafson stated that he felt that the minutes contained a typographical error, and that there was no need to have a change approved. Mrs. Munsinger then presented a copy of a resglution (75-20) showing the hours of operation to be pro- posed as 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the minutes should perhaps be reviewed and changed to reflect the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - MAY 3, 1983 10. The City Manager stated that in terms of the school, there was still an existing parking problem. ~ %~is was really the reason that staff had asked f~ithe~Munsinger$ to appear before the Commission. Discussion followed in regard to the two "issues" and whether they should be treated separately. It was felt by Commissioner Anderson that the parking problem was still not solved. It was noted that the parking problem did not have much to do with the Munsinger Gymnastic school, by Mrs. Munsinger, since they usually had only 3 cars because most of the clients came together as they drove long distances. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that they did relate to the problems that were discussed in the preceed- ing case. It was noted that the Inspector looked at the gymnastic school in an attempt to alleviate the crowd- ing on the site. Under terms of a Conditional Use Permit, annual or semi-annu&l reviews are to be con- ducted. Commissioner Gustafson stated that after review of the situation concerning the Munsinger G~,~astic School at 51st Avenue North, he felt that the hours of operation listed in the minutes were in error, and that the hours of operation should be changed to read 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion carried. Commissioner Gustafson asked Mrs. Munsinger if her lease assigned her a set number of parking spaces. She said she did not believe so. It had not been a problem as most of the parents dropped their children off and left. Mrs. Munsinger asked whether it would be necessary for her to attend the Council meeting on the 9th? They have a student who is going to the Olympic trials and they need those days for extra practice during that week. It was noted that her request would go forward to the Council, and if the Council had questions for her, they could table the request until a meeting in June. COMMITTEE REPORTS tl. Design and Review Committee had held one meeting in April. 12. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 13. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 14. The Planning Commission minutes of April 5, 1983 were accepted as printed. 15. The Council Minutes of April 11, 25, and the joint meeting minutes of April 18, were reviewed. 16. The City Manager reported that the consultant had reviewed the requests from both Beal Cabinets and Scotty's Convenience Stores and would have a report ready for the June meeting. Following discussion, the Commission felt it would be preferable to have the Consultant attend the meeting, even though they would receive the recommendations in time to review before that time. The Manager stated that it was required that the two planning cases be back on the agenda in 60 days time, which would be the June meeting. Concern expressed about the need to give the Consultant's recommendations adequate review as well as re-consider the two planning cases at the same meeting. The City Manager stated that if an ordinance change were proposed, it was necessary to have two public meetings after publishing the notice. Commissioner Edwards felt the Commission would need more time, especially in view of the fact that an ordinance change would affect other sites in the city. Commissioner Gustafson felt it would be appropriate to review not only the ordinance and any proposed change but whatever impact it might have on the city. Further discussion in regard to the parking area at the small shopping center at Bass Lake Road and Winnetka, the status of the cable installation in the city, and the fact that the new gas station pro- posed for 42nd Avenue had not materialized. 17. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, · '~ ~ I ~ ,,".,~ Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 7, 1983 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: A~derson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Dunn (excused), Gulenchyn (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS . 3. PLANNING CASE 83 - 9 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK (TABLED FROM MAY 3, 1983) 6025 SUMTER ~LACE - TH©MAS GAGNON, PETITIONER Mr. Gagnon stated he was requesting permission to put a 24' x 34' addition on his house. He noted that when he last appeared before the Planning Commission he had been requested to provide a more accurate plan. He has provided this. He also got a lot survey. He had been requested to modify the original idea. He has reworked the plan and the addition is now toward the front which is what the Commission had recommended. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the addition would be 5.8' from the lot line in the back corner. This is to the existing wall. The overhang would be a little closer to the lot line. The existing overhang is two feet. The addition will match the existing house as far as materials and color. Mr. Gagnon will put on a new roof on the entire house so it will all match. There will be a full base- ment. The addition is only for personal use, and not for any home occupation. Chairman Cameron noted that the case had been before the Commission earlier and the plans had been reviewed at that time also. There was no one present in regard to this case. The Chairman informed Mr. Gagnon that the city had been notifed by its attorney that before any variances, could obtain final approval, the city had to have proof of ownership from the petitioner. He suggested that he work with Mr. Donahue and staff to find out what was the legal requirement. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variance at 6025 Sumter Place, as requested in Case 83 - 9, to allow the petitioner to build within 5.8 feet of the lot line, with the overhang to be no more than 3.8 feet from the lot line. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gun~ershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. The City Manager introduced Alan Brixius from Midwest Planning, who had done the background on the next planning request;for the city. 4. PLANNING CASE 83 - 11 - REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT FOR B-3 ZO~ (TABLED FROM APRIL 5, 1983) SCOTTY'8 CONVENIENCE STORES, INC., PETITIONER Cory Gordon represented Scotty's. He noted that he had been informed that it was possible that the Commission would wish to deal with the text amendment before they dealt with Scotty's. He did have available their detailed plan and their consultant was also in attendance, if they wished to discuss them. He realized this might be putting the "cart before the horse". The Chairman stated that since this proposal was a major and significant change to the code, he felt the Commission must be very careful. He then suggested that the Planning Commission hold a special meeting on the 21st of June, at 7:30 p.m. This will be only a work session for the examination of the text of the Code. He added that he felt it was only fair to Scotty's that the Commission move along as expeditiously as possible. If the Commission could agree on code changes on the 21st, Scotty's might be able to come back to the meeting on July 5th. Commissioner Anderson moved to table Case 83-11 until the meeting of July 5, 1983. Commissioner Gustaf- son second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JUNE 7, 1983 5. PLANNING CASE 83 - 12 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM B-3 to I-1 (TABLED FROM APRIL 5, 1983) - 6066 And 6100 WEST BROADWAY - HOWARD BEAL, PETITIONER ,/~"~. Mr. Beal stated that he was requesting the industrial zoning as a permanent thing. He had previously appeared before the Commission and the request had been tabled to this meeting. The Chairman confirmed, for the record, that Mr. Beal had appeared before the Commission in April and it had been tabled. He had made his case to the Commission at that time. He added that there were only two reasons for the Commission/Council to change a zoning. First was that the conditions in the area had changed, and the second was that a mistake had been made in the original zoning. A petitioner had to prove one of these two reasons. He asked Mr. Beal whether he had anything additional to add that would affect his request? Mr. Beal said he felt the zoning was too restrictive, and different people who had been interested in it had been turned away by the zoning. He ]]as now gone ahead and made contracts to do business during the next year. He plans on staying on the site a long time. He plans on making some improvements. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that Mr. Beal was saying that he was intending to stay in the cabinet busi- ness. He noted that the use on that site was grandfathered in as long as Mr. Beal intended to stay in the same business. Mr. Beal stated he needed to be half way guaranteed that he was not going to be kicked out of there for his operation. He would be putting out a lot of money and he needed to know this. He can't be inter- rupted in the middle. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Beal if he was planning any major structural changes? Mr. Beal said he would like to, but didn't know if he dared. He would like to make improvements. He needed to rearrange things. In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos, he said he was plannmng mainly interior improvements in the building and new equipment. Commissioner Bartos asked whether the city would allow Mr. Beal to make interior improvements and obtain new equipment? Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Mr. Beal could remodel 'the existing building as long as he was ~ "grandfathered" in? The City Manager stated that as long as Mr. Beal operated a cabinet business,he was a legal non-conform- ing use. A change in business would not be permitted. It was his understanding of Code that changes could not be too extensive, and a building expansion or major renovation would not be permitted. Mr. Beal stated that in his opinion to bring everything up to today's Code, no one could spend that much money. Today's Codes are pretty strict. He wants to.feel that he can continue operating. He could not sell the facility with the present zoning. The Chairman stated that the city could not change a zoning just to insure the petitioner's investment. A rezoning is not approved to allow the sale of the property, or to satisfy bankers. The city has to look at the zoning for the entire area. The Commission had requested that the Oznsultant review the zon- ing on the site. It had been their recoP2nendation that the property be rezoned, but to R-4, rather than I-1. An R-4 zone would not allow any business on the property. In his opinion, an I-1 zone is a very heavy zone for that area. Mr. Beal stated that from his point of view that area with its service stations and apartments, the I-1 zone shouldn't make that much difference. The Chairman noted that once Mr. Beal sold the land, he wouldn't care. It was up to the city to restrict what goes on that property. He did not feel that the Commission was willing to rezone the property to I-1. He was not sure they would go so far as R-4 at this meeting. Mr. Beal said he was disappointed, but if can continue to operate without too much alarm, or being bothered, with his spray booth, his shop and the trucks coming and going, he guessed he would be happy with staying as is. Commissioner Gustafson stated that Mr. B~al must understand that the Planning Co~mission could not speak to any health/safety rules or fire codes of the city, nor could they say'that their restrictions would be stayed. All the Commission was speaking to was the zoning. Mr. Beal was grandfathered in to continue operating his cabinet shop. Commissioner Anderson asked whether Mr. Beal was in violation of any City Codes, or under any orders to update his equipment at this time? Mr. Beal said he was not aware of this when he applied for the rezoning, but he has not discovered that he didn't have a Use Permit for the spray booth. Commissioner Andersen asked whether there was anything Mx. Beal wanted to do that he could do with the rezoning that he could not do now? PLANNING COmmISSION MINUTES - 3 - JUNE 7, 1983 5. Mr. Beal said, not really, he just wanted to feel protected. Mr. Brixius noted that the Planner's'recommendation for an R-4 zoning of the property, would incorpor- ate the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. It would not take away the present use. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the Commission and Mr. Beal were aware that he could continue as a non conforming use, unless the fire or health safety people found something wrong. The Commission could not do anything about that. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending denial of the rezoning requested in Case 83-12. Commis- sioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Abstain: Edwards Motion carried. 6. PLANNING COmmISSION CASE 83 - 13 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (TABLED FROM APRIL 5, 1983) - 4211 RHODE ISLAND NORTH - METRO FONE, PETITIONER Mr. Phil Fernkes, one of the owners of Metro Fone, stated that he had been before the Commission pre- viously to request a Conditional Use Permit for equipment that they already had on their roof. At the suggestion of the Commission, had explored the possibility of screening the antenna equipment on the building. He has talked to their architect, and a couple of contractors to get opinions on this pos- sibility. The architect had expressed some concerns about this prospect. Mr. Fernkes had submitted some drawings of how a fence would appear if constructed on the roof of the building. He said that in order to screen the equipment, the fence would have to be 20 feet high. He felt this would detract from the appearance of the building. One of the concerns of the architect and the contractors, was that fencing would have a snow fence affect, which would c~eate an additional weight on the roof that it had not been designed for. This could cause more of a problem than the visual appearance of the equipment. To put a fence just in front of the dishes/antennas would render them virtually useless. A satelite antenna of this type has to really operate in free space. As far as screening, they have been unable to come up with anything that they felt was feasible and would work. Chairman Cameron stated that in his opinion, Mr. Fernkes had done what the Commission had requested him to do -- explore the possibility of screening. In response to a question'from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Fernkes stated he had consulted two contractors, in Owatonna, and an architect named John Kinsell, who had been an associated of the original architect for the building when it had been designed. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that these people had felt there would be a snow load problem if the rooftop equipment were screened, and that there would be electrical interference if it were screened. He further confirmed that Mr. Fernkes was requesting the Conditional Use Permit for existing equipment, not anything additional. Mr. Fernkes stated that if he required, in the.future, any additional equipment he would come beforethe Commission first. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what might happen if a three story building were constructed adjacent to Mr. Fernkes' building? He responded that he felt it would affect the signal. Discussion followed between Commissioner Anderson and Mr. Fernkes about the possiblity of moving some of the equipment on the roof. Mr. Fernkes stated that he felt this would require further support, and the addition of a pylon in the center of the building which would block the open area. Commissioner Anderson stating that he was concerned about the adjacent residential area, noted that the building was well maintained. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Pe~qnit for 4211 Rhode Island North, as requested in Case 83-13. Commissioner Bartos, second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Abstain: Anderson, Edwards Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JUNE 7, 1983 7. PLANNING CASE 83 - 22 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FRONTYARD SETBACK - 8408 EAST MEADOW LAKE ROAD - ROLAND ~ ENGLUND, PETITIONER Mr. Englund stated he was requesting a 5 foot variance in the front setback of his property to allow him to make an addition to the dining area and install a bay window. Chairman Cameron confirmed that he wanted to extend five feet into the front setback, which would make the setback 25 feet. The variance dimension would come to the face of the window. There will be a foundation. He had not discussed the addition with his neighbors. Mr. Everett Krueger, 8408 East Meadow Lake Road, stated he had a petition against the addition. He pre sented the petition. It contained a couple of neighbor's signatures. He said that they felt that if the addition we ~ to the back, they would have no objection. He didn't think they ought to clutter up the front yards with these small little juts, here and there. He didn't think this was a proper thing to do. You have city codes, they should be obeyed. If this gets approved then someone else will come in to request a variance for a garage within ten feet from the curb - he knows someone is going to do this. Its not right. He didn't like this stuff at all. In the front yard, why should the city give people a variance for a little nick in here and there. Chairman Cameron stated that Mr. Krueger should be sure to come to the meeting if the neighbor requests the frontyard variance for the garage. He indicated he would. Mr. John Lloyd, 8412 East Meadow Lake Road, stated he would like to speak in favor of allowing this vari- ance. He lived next door to Mr. Englund. He felt that it was important that the homes along that street have a little different look and as long as an addition fits the house, he felt it was an advantage to the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson, 8416 Meadow Lake Road, noted that there were 9 houses on the street, and four of them had re- ceived variances already, two of them in the front. He had no objection to a four or five foot addition to the front. Commissioner Anderson noted that there is a slight curve to the street, and he felt that plus the land- ~-~ scaping tended to soften the affect of any addition. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the variance in front setback at 8408 East Meadow Lake Road, as requested in Case 83-22. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in fauor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. Chairman Cameron noted that the petitioner would be required to show proof of ownership before he could obtain a building permit. He suggested that it might be wise to have a survey also. 8. PLANNING CASE 83 - 23 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REARYARD SETBACK AT 8412 58TH AVENUE NORTH - RAYMOND DIONNE, PETITIONER Mr. Dionne stated he was requesting a five foot rearyard variance to allow a kitchen/dining room addition to his home. Only one corner of the proposed additio~ would be in the easement area. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that that the exterior of the proposed addition would match in regard to color, texture, and materialsused, and that the roof would match as closely as possible. He also determined that there would be a full basement, and that the addition was only for personal use and that no home occupation was planned. Chairman Cameron confirmed, for the record, that this variance was for a five foot variance into the rearyard setback. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the rearyard variance of five feet, at 8412 58~h Avenue North, as requested in Case 83 - 23. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Frledrich, Barto$, Cameron, G~]stafson, Gundershaug, Edwards ~ Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. PLANNING CO~SMISSION MINUTES 5 JUNE 7, 1983 9. PLANNING CASE 83 - 24 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW SECO:~D DRIVEWAY - 6020 ENSIGN AVENUE NORTH - RICHARD VAN HEEL, PETITIONER Mr. Van Heel said he was asking for a second driveway. They lived on a corner, and still had children at home. The front driveway gets a lot of traffic. He would like to have access to the back yard without cutting through the formal back yard. The driveway would be approximately 16' x 45'. There would be a six inch bu=ma lime rock base and either rock or asphalt surface. Stating that the city had to be very careful about giving permission for second driveways and curb cuts, the Chairman asked the petitioner for a little better rationale for his request, since a second driveway would be a permanent addition to the site. Mr. Van Heel noted that he presently had two vehicles, and a camper, and two children had cars. Rather than park the camper in the front yard he ,would like to put it in the side yard. He still had four children at home who would like private wheels. When the new street went through, he no lor~er had access to his yard. He felt that in a corner lot you did not have access to a sideyard as you did on another lot. Chairman Cameron noted he thought they had better access. Mr. Van Heel said that with the two vehicles and the camper it made it difficult. Would rather not park on the street. The city Manager noted that a camper had to be parked on an improved surface. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the petitioner had any plans to construct a seccnd garage and whe- ther the petitioner had a back door in his garage? The answer was no. The proposed driveway would be five feet off the lot line. Vehicles would be parked on Mr. Van Heel's property not on the city' boulevard. Discussion then covered the possible materials that would be used for the driveway and the fact that if permission for a second curb cut were granted, b~r. Van Heel would have to absorb the entire cost. Commissioner Bartos commented that he did not see any rea% economic hardship in this case at all. A lot of other people have the problem of a lot of vehicles, but if the city started putting two curb cuts on every lot, the city would be one gigantic parking lot. There was no one present in regard to this case. Chairman Cameron said he agreed with Mr. Bartos. The city had allowed very few second ~riveways, mainly because they often led to second garages and additional buildings on the site. in residential areas this is something that the city has watched very carefully. He was not convinced that Mr. Van Heel had proved enough of a hardship to warrant the second driveway. Commissioner Friedrich made a motion recommending denial of the second driveway at 6020 Ensign Avenue, as requested in Case 83-24. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gust~fson, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Anderson, Gundershaug Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 83-25 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT FOR ACCESSORY OUTDOOR PLA~T SALES - 7305 - 42nd AVENUE NORTH - ORVILLE YOUNG, PETITIONER Mr. Young stated that he was trying to purchase the property at 7305 42nd Avenue North. If he were able to complete the purchase he would then bring in plans to the Commission for a new building. The Conditional Use Permit was to allow him to continue selling plants until the 21st of this month (June). Chairman Cameron noted that the petitioner could not request a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory use to a gasoline station, because basically he had to sell gas before he could have a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Young said they were selling gas and oil. They have not made a lot of money on the gas. Chairman Cameron asked how close the petitioner was to closing the deal for the property? Mr. Young said that the company wanted to sell both buildings and they want only one. They have made an offer. His attorney seems to think they can get a deal with them. Chairman Cameron suggested that perhaps the commission could table this request until Mr. Young had a chance to complete his purchase. He confirmed with Mr. Young, that if he did not purchase the property, he would move. PIANNING COP~I$SION MINUTES - 6 - JUNE 7, 1983 10. Mr. Young said that if he did purchase the building, he planned a good size building with a brick front however he would also be asking for a rezoning of the site. The gas pumps would be taken out. The City Manager stated that perhaps the best course of action would be a te×t change, ~ich would in- volve re-writing the ordinance. He felt the Planner would have to be involved in this. Commissioner Edwards made a motion to table Case 83-25 for 60 days. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: Gustafson Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. 11. PLANNING CASE 83 - 26 - ~E~3EST FOR VARIegatE IN SIDEY~,RD SETBACK - 5200 OREGON AVENUE NORTH - I~-RRY A>~D CAROL ADA~%S, PETITIO~ERS Mrs. Adams stated they were requesting permission to build a double garage on the west end of their house. The proposed garage would come within ten feet of the property line. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern with the layout, and noted that the survey was rather sketchy. He asked if the Adams' were sure where their lot actually was located. Mrs. Adams said they had measured from the curb. In answer to a question regarding the property to the south and its possible development, Mrs. Adams noted that supposedly, it was not scheduled for develop- ment and it had been designated park land. The City Manager said it was his understanding that there were no current plans for possible develop- ment but that it has not been designated as park property, and it could be developed in the future. Commissioner Anderson noted that he felt that a garage 10 feet from the lot line would create some dif- ficulties. He asked how they would get on to the street from the garage? Mrs. Adams noted they would go on to Pennsylvania Avenue. Discussion between Commissioner Anderson and the Adams' regarding possible alternatives, such as placing the garage back further, with the Adams' noting that they could not attach the garage to the house if it were moved back further. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mrs. Adams said they had a blueprint, but had not checked with an architect in regard to possible alternative to their proposal.but had talked to a builder in the neighborhood. She was concerned with moving the garage back because of the terracing and the fact that the house already sat back on the lot. She said they had tried to think of other ways, but this was all they could come up with. The Chairman noted that to come within ten feet of the street would be a disadvantage. He suggested that perhaps a professional could come up with another solution to the problem. He added that the Com- mission would like to help them solve the problem, but they were asking too much. Commissioner Edwards commented that he felt it was too much to ask. There would only be ten feet of driveway. A car would not even fit on that amount of space. Cars were supposed to be on the owner's property, not on the city's boulevard. Commissioner Bartos said he was concerned about the lot survey. He suggested that locating the actual lot lines would be a starting point. Mrs. Adams noted that it was 25 feet to the curb. It is accurate to the curb and she was told this was a~c~rate enough. The Chairman noted that the curb could be off, he cautioned that for their protection they should have a survey. The City Manager noted that Code required a 20 foot parking spot. The proposed positioning of the gar- age would not provide that. A second variance might be required. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mrs. Adams said they wished to convert the present garage into a family room. The door of the new garage would be at the end toward the west. Discussion followed between the Chairman and the Adams regarding the advantages of a table for their request. Commissioner Anderson made a motion tabling Case 83-26 until the meeting of Jul.y 5, 1983. Commissioner Friedrich second. ~ P~NING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - JUNE 7, 1983 1t. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE 83 - 27 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL CF PRELI~4INARY PLAT AT 9113 AND 9117 30TH AVENUE NORTH - RICHARD LOSCHEIDER, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards to table this case until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. The City Manager noted that there might be a number of citizens present in regard to Case 83 - 31 - Request for Home Occupation. This request had been withdra.~n. 'If this request were to come up for consideration at a later time, the citizens would be notified. 13. PLANNING CASE 83 - 28 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 4225 GETTYSBURG AVE~UE ~;ORTH - CRYSTAl. FREE CHURCH, PETITIOi~ER Mr. Jim Hagman, Chairman of the Church Building Committee, introduced Rev. Jim Olson, Senior Pastor of the church, and Darrel LeBarron, Architect,to the Commission. Mr. LeBarron distributed photographs of the model, and a reduced set of drawings to the Commissioners. He noted that the church had requested a Conditional Use Permit last fall aha permission for the ad- dition. He noted that concerns had been expressed at that time in regard to the need for increased setback along the north side -- 85' to 100' -and landscaping in the north and'concern for the lawns of the property owners on the north side. In order for the setback to be increased to 100', the ac- tivity center had to be rotated. This is the only conceptual change from the plans submitted earlier. There were eleven considerations that the city had requested of the church: 1. Landscape setback be 50 feet - this will be honored in this building phase, which is the last. 2. Quality landscape update, not just on the addition but on the perimeter. 3. Needed maximum green space - increased parking lot size. 4. Height reduction. At the time of the Design and Review the plan showed 11 feet under ordinance restriction. At this time they are 7 feet under the ordinance maximum. The height will be 59 feet in height. ~ 5. Minimize windows - they have eliminated the windows entirely along the north face. 6. Increase setback - they have achieved 100 feet of setback, but the average setback is much more. 7. They have increased the green space and added a berm. 8. They have letters from the two owners of the homes adjacent in regard to the property line's. 9. The soil report and the conditions determined where the building was placed on the site. 10. This is the last building phase. There could be some exterior remodeling but not any major building change. There may be minor interior remodeling in a few years. 11. There had been a request for an irrigation system to guarantee quality landscaping landscap- ing on the north edge. This has been provided. They are proposing a building of 54,516 square feet. The original building had been 65,000 square feet. There will be 848 spaces in the parking lot, versus the original 789. There will be 35 green space. Using the overlay projector, the architect pointed out where the landscaping will be increased. At the north edge there will be a ten foot earth berm, they plan to stagger evergeens and sumac bushes on top of the berm. They feel that as the trees grow together and the s~mac spreads out there will be a good screen. Plantings will be heavy in the front and along the south side. Design and Review had requested lilac and sumac along the south edge between the trees that are quite open. This will be done. There will be no new entrances to the east, or facing the neighbors. The addition, which is to be a large activity area, will be subdivided into class rooms all opening on to corridors. The activity center will be at the back side. They are bidding out two sizes for the activity center - the plans presented to the Commission and a smaller version in case the cost is too high for the largest version. The exterior materials and brick will match the existing church. There is a small equipment building which will be still within thq setback. PLA~ING COMMISSION MIN73TES 8 JUNE 7, 1983 13. Design and Review had requested that the buses be parked away from the corners of the site and also away'~'"~ from the residences. They will do t~%is. There will be security lighting and also a cavity light in the pocket. In response to a question from Co~nissioner Gundershaug, it was noted that the diagonal parking stalls will be 8'8" and the straight stalls will be 8'5". The old house will be removed from the property. The addition will be lower than the existing building. Discussion then covered the two size alternatives that the church was bidding out and the fact that the Colmmission could not approve something if they did not know what it would contain. It was noted that the size of the gym would be determined by the cost figures resulting from the bids. Also covered was the exact distance that the lilacs and sumac would extend around the curve toward the south - another 100 feet. Discussion in regard to the past traffic problems, with Mr. LeBarron stating that since the ?~reet had been widened, the problems have decreased. Co~missioner Edwards clarified that the area where the house now was located, will have curbs to limit the access after the house is removed and the area is used for parking. He asked whether they had made any provisions for overhang in the driving lanes, from the parking stalls? Commissioner Gnndershaug confirmed that they had met with the residents. Con~issioner Gundershauc made a motion recommending a~rova! of the construction at 4225 Gettysburg North as requested in Case SS - 28. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Bartos, C~meron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Anderson Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. The City Manager noted that because the city was now required to file papers with the county in regard to requested variances, conditional use permits, etc. this was why the city must now require proof of ownership before permits could be granted. ~ 14. PLA~NING CASE 83 - 29 - RE©UEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 3001 LOUISIanA AVEN~E ~iORTH - ROSS PROPER- TIES, PETITIONER Mr. Randy Engle, Robert Kimperie and Jerry Ross represented the petitioner. Mr. Engle, the architect, staned they were requesting approval for building construction plans for an office/warehouse at the above address. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about legal documents that would give cross easements for traffic, etc. with the proposed shared driveway between the three companies. Mr. Engle stated that the o.~er of this property and the other two owners -- B~P Company, 2857 Louisiana Avenue, Louisiana Properties, 2901-07 Louisiana Avenue North -- had already signed a letter indicating their intent. Commissioner Gundershaug said he was concerned about future problems, as well as the cross traffic in- volved with sharing driveways. The City Manager said the city had received this letter but it dealt strictly with the present if any of the companies were to change hands it would not apply. Legitimate crossing easements would have to be drafted. The chairman noted that until the city had a legal document, approved by the city and by the city attorney, the Commission could not proceed. This was very critical to the existence of the building. Mr. Engle noted that he felt that the letter was meant to indicate approval of the parties, legal docu- ments will be provided. If for some reason the project were not to proceed, the owners would have no reason for an agreement. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether the city would be out anything, if approval of the construction plans were g~ven, wi%h the issuance of the building permit being held up until the city had received ~ legal documentation regarding the shared driveway facilities. chairman Cameron asked how quickly a legal easement document could be drawn up? The petitioner said perhaps three weeks. The City Manager noted that the City Council would not hold a meeting the second Monday in July. Mr. Ross stated they would attempt to obtain these documents by the next Council meeting. PLANNING CO:~ISSION MINUTES - 9 - JUNE 7, 1983 14. Commissioner Gundershaug asked if it would be possible to fill the pond more, so they would not need the extra driveway? Mr. Engle said he did not think so, they had already filled the pond some for extra parking space. In talking to the City Engineer, he had indicated that 100 year high point elevation would be raised 1 to 2 feet above what it is now. tlc added that the orientation of the dock toward the west was important for the protection from the wind and sun. It was clarified that the petitioner was not asking for any variances, only construction approval and approval of the cross easements. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the parking entrance had been changed, there will be a "truck entrance" sign and that landscaping would be provided. Mr. Engle stated that the landscaping would include six Norway Maples in the front of the building, they are also plannning a quantity of Black Hills spruce screening one portion of the parking area, as well as 48 shrubs including sand cherries and junipers. They had tried to continue to provide a view of the pond for the neighbors. In response to a question regarding why they had dropped their previous plans, Mr. Ross said they were trying to put the maximum for their needs on the site. The original plan did not satisfy their require- ments, it was a touch lot to build on. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city had approved the drainage? The City Manager said that the City Engineer had looked at the drainage plans -- final plans for the construction must be approved by the City Engineer. Parking in front will be marked for "visitor parking", outside refuse areas will be screened in an area by the loading dock. The enclosure will have lockable gates. Roof top equipment will be painted to match the colors of the building. There will be very limited truck traffic. There will be UPS trucks daily, but as far as semi trucks, there will possibly be four or five a year. There will be no retail traffic. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether a traffic study had been done? He also questioned ~hat type of traffic the other companies that are sharing the driveway would have. lie expressed concern about possi- ble truck traffic. It was noted that under the current ownership there was very little truck traffic -- 95% of the traffic was passenger vehicles. The building will be owned by Ross Properties, and leased to Shirt Works. The~e will be approximately 32-33 employees in this building -- 10-11 in the warehouse and the remainder in the office. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos, Mr. Ross said that Shirt Works was a small chain of imprinted apparel stores. This site will be a distribution center and warehouse for tee shirts and sweatshirts. Commissioner Anderson stated he shared the concern for the dock area and was afraid that any significant amount of semi-truck parking would create problems, tie questioned the site plan, noting it appeared to show a decrease in the elevation. Mr. Engle confirmed this, but stated that they had raised the elevation of the floor and reduced the paving elevation to accommodate this. There will be natural drainage. There will be concrete curb and gutter. It was noted that the elevation as viewed from Louisiana Avenue would not be as drastic as that of the Benson-Orth building. Construction will be of masonry, rip block and smooth, painted, with tinted aluminum frames. The cop- ing will be either pre-finished or painted dark to blend in. Commissioner Edwards asked whether they had considered moving the shipping and receiving docks to some other part of the building? He was concerned with safety with truck traffic. It was noted that it could not be done practically because of the space that they need. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the construction for an office/warehous~ at 3001 Louisiana Avenue North as requested in Case 83 - 29, subject to the city beinc ~rovided with legal cross easements for the driveway from the three properties. Commissioner Gustafson second. The City Manager stated that the petitioner's attorney and the City Attorney would have to be involved in preparing these easements. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Edwards Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSI©:] ~q[?~UTES - 10 - JUNE 7, 1983 15. PLANNING CASE 83 - 30 - REQUEST FOR SIDEYARD VARIANCE - 3530 YUKON AVENUE NORTH - JOSEPH BUSLOVICH, PE'F£TIONER Mr. Buslovich said he was requesting a variance in sideyard setback. Three years ago he had received a variance to construct a garage within 3 feet of the sideyard. He is now requesting an additional nine inches. When he had applied for the variance there was a fence between his yard and the neighbors yard. The fence had been built by the previous owner. He had assumed that the fence was on the property line. He had indicated this layout when he had applied for the permit. One year later he had built the addition to the garage, exactly as he had indicated on the plans. He had tried to comply with the city's ordinances, fie had cut the roof overhang short and installed a gutter to divert the water from his neighbor's property. He presented pictures for the Commissioners to view. He added that city inspectors had been to the site three times during construction. One month ago h~s neighbor had had his property surveyad and it was found that the property line was 1' 1'' toward ]]is property. He is asking for the variance of 2'3" instead of the 3' variance he had received three years ago. He had approached his neighborhood, orally and in letters, asking for a way to accommodate the matter. He had offered to buy the strip of land on which he encroaches. How- ever the neighbor had asked for $6,000 for this property-- 120 square feet of land. He can just not pay this kind of money. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Mr. Buslovich had had his own survey made? Mr. Buslovich said yes, and it was essentially ~he same as the one his neighbor had prepared. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the garage is now 2'3" from the property line. He asked whether any par~ of the building or accessory use encroached on the neighbor's property. Mr. Buslovich s~d yes~ the sidewalk encroached 1']" on the neighbor's lot and also he had built a shed which encroached on the neighbor's property. He had already made arrangements to have the shed removed. He will cut off the sidewalk, he is perfectly willing to cut this. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that the side of the structure was 2'3" from the property line and that the gutter extended another six inches. C~nmissioner Gustafson confirmed that the petitioner was willing to cut the size of the sidewalk and that he would move the shed shortly. Commissioner Anderson raised the question of another solution to the problem -- perhaps the neighbors could get together and resolve the issue so the city would not have to take any action. He asked whe- ther they had explored this? Mr. Buslovich said he had approached his neighbor three times and was rebuffed. He did not see anyway to accommodate. Mrs. Jean Babos stated that they disappoved of the variance. They had also disapproved of the original variance and the addition to begin with. She was sorry he made a mistake, but people had to live with their mistakes. She agreed with Mr. Buslovich that the conflict could not be resolved between the neighbors. The city had an ordinance that there should be so much distance between structures. They object to the variance. Mr. Babos said he believed three feet was too much of a variance, if he has to rip it off, he has to. Mr. Cliff Teresi, 3531 Yukon Avenue North, spoke in opposition to the variance. He thouqht the original 7 foot variance was in excess. The Chairman stated that Mr. Buslovich had been granted a 2 foot variance. The city requirement was only for a five foot easement on the garage side of a development. Mr. Teresi said that granting waivers was strictly wrong, either frontyard waivers or sideyard. If the city was not goinq to enforce their ordinances, they should thro%~ them out. He did not think Mr. 6uslo- vich should infringe on the rights of his neighbor and he thought Mr.Suslovich should buy the land. Mr. Pat O'Meara, 3536 Zealand, said he felt the issue was not who o%rned how much land, but how much land exists between the buildings. They are already close together. Mr. Teresi said he did not believe needing a second garage was a hardship. He did not think you needed a two car garage. The petitioner could have traded homes for much less money. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that the Babos' were owners of the property when the garage was built. Mrs. Babos noted.that they had been not[fed when the original variance had been requested and they had objected at that time. PLANNING CO~KMISSION MINUTES 11 - JUNE 7, 1983 15. Cor~nissioner Gustafson made a motion reco~endina approval of the variance at 3530 Yukon Avenue North - as reqnested in Case 83-30, subject.to the removal of the shed that encroaches on the neighbor's proper- ty and removal of the portion of the sidewalk that encroaches on the neighbor's property. Co~missioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. 13. Planning Case 83 - 27 was removed from the table. The petitioner was still not in attendance. The City Manager recommended passage of this request, because this was only a preliminary plat and the petitioner would be required to return another time anyway. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommendiq~approval of the preliminary plat at 9113 & 9117 30th Avenue North as requested in Case 83-27. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn Motion carried. C05~ITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Committee had held one meeting in May. 19. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. N~ BUSINESS 21. The Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 1983 were corrected by Chairman Cameron. Page 5, Planning Case 83-20 - should read: "Motion passed" The minutes were approved as corrected. 22. The Council minutes of May 9, 1983 and May 23, 1983 were reviewed. 23. Discussion covered the city's new requirement for proof of title. The City Manager said that State law now required that all variances, conditional use permits, etc. had to be filed at the County and proof of ownership had to be presented. Commissioner Edwards commented that this would be a definite hardship to the people requesting only a small variance, as well as an expense -- $100 to $1000. He questioned the attorney's memo. The City Manager requested that Commissioner Edwards write him a memo in regard to this issue. It was also suggested that perhaps New Hope could determine what the other surrounding cities were doing in regard to this. 24. The Chairman announced the meeting on June 21, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. as a work session. The possibility of re-writing the code would be discussed at this time. 25. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Co~ission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, July 5, 1983 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Absent: Gustafson(excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 83 - 11 (TABLED FROM JUNE 7, 1983) REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT FOR B-3 ZONE - 6101 WEST BROADWAY - SC©TTY'S CONVENIENCE STORES, INC. PETITIONER Chairman Cameron noted that the Planning Commission had met with the City Planner and had reviewed the proposed text ordinance on the 21st June, 1983. The Commission would discuss this issue first. The City Manager stated he had passed copies of the proposed ordinance to staff for review. One problem had been the conflict with exterior sales. There will be a slight amendment to the ordinance as printed, which would require that any exterior sales would require a Conditional Use Permit. There was no one present to speak to the proposed change in the ordinance text. The Manager stated that the City Attorney was reviewing the ordinance for the final format and legal wording. He saw no problem with the content of the ordinance amendment. in response to a question from Commissioner Anderson, the City Manager stated that the City Council would review and act on the proposed amendment after the Planning Commission action, it would then go back to the City Attorney for final wording, it will then come back to Council for~ final action, be published and go into affect. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the ordinance,(4.124) in recognition of the need for an ordinance governing convenience store operations in the B-3 district. Com- missioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. Plans were distributed for the proposed changes to the site at 6101 West Broadway. Cory Gordon, Attorney for the petitioner, and Truman Howe and Scott Hanson were present in regard to this case. Mr. Gordon thanked the Commission for the recommendations for an ordinance change and also for the cooperation they had experienced in working with the city. He noted the petitioners had met with Design and Review who had made several suggestions. These sugges- tions have now been incorporated into the plans. They will try to preserve the existing structure, and plan to remove the concrete pad, and the parking spaces will be re-defined and striped. The ramp will be expanded from the driveway, and there will be substantial change in the landscaping. They are proposing a large honeysuckle hedge and will put in some other shrubs and sunburst locusts. There will be aluminum frame windows in the front, and cedar shakes. The basic exterior will be the same. There will be three flood lights on the top. He presented an artist's rendering of the proposal for review. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that they will be meeting the ordinance in regard to number of parking spaces and that they will be striped. The existing curb will be removed and there will be continuous con- crete curbing from the entry way around the parking lot. There will be three floodlights, shielded down. At the southeast elevation the lights will be pointed toward the face of the building, rather than ex- posed to the neighbors. All lights are down lighting. The existing island will be removed. Commissioner Gundershaug reminded the petitioner that there was a city Sign Ordinance that must be com.plled with, that dealt with size of sign as well as size of letters, etc. The existing fence will be painted, and there will be no roof top equipment. Deliveries will be probably three times a week. The hours of operation will be 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. All snow will be hauled away. There will be a sloping handicapped ramp, and a sidewalk around the building. There will be a six inch curb. There will be new siding on the building, new brick veneer and cedar shakes on the roof. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission usually received a landscape schedule. He asked about the number of bushes, etc. that the petitioner was proposing. The honeysuckle b~shes will be planted about two feet apart, about one foot in height, the trees will be 2%" in caliper. The locusts will be placed next to the existing elms. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 JULY 5, 1983 3. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the green area would be fully sodded, as well as the island areas in the front? The answer was "yes", and that maintenance of the landscapped areas would be by the petitioners. Commissioner Edwards then commented that he felt there was too little landscaping provided. He then asked whether they had considered bringing the roof line around the entire building to improve the view for the residents of the rear? He felt more landscaping should be put in the back. It was noted that this could be done if Planning Commission requested. Commissioner Anderson asked about the fuel delivery/service area? It was noted they would remain the same. Commissioner Anderson then noted that the area next to the storage area would be an attractive place for cars to park. He suggested that the curbing be changed to discourage this parking by the ramp. Mr. Howe said he thought that striping that area would help. Commissioner Anderson suggested that instead of having the sidewalk parallel to the store front, it be placed parallel to the island. He felt that even with striping, especially in winter, people might find it convenient to park there temporarily. In response to a question from Commissioner Dunn in regard to existing signage and possible future signage, the petitioner said that any change in signs would conform to the ordinance. Chairman Cameron confirmed that sign approvals were not being given at this meeting. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the construction at 6101 West Broadway, as requested in Case 83 - 11. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Commissioner Edwards made a motion to amend the previous motion to include the extension of the roof line around the building. The amendment failed for lack of a second. Voting on the original motion: Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 83 - 26 - (TABLED FROM JUNE 7, 1983 ) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FRONTYARD SETBACK AT 5200 OP~EGON AVENUE NORTH - LARRY AND CAROL ADAMS, PETITIONERS Mrs. Adams stated that they had now changed their plans to extend out of the front of their house. She noted she would still rather go the other direction. Commissioner Friedrich commented that he liked the present plan better than the last one. He expressed con- cern for the lack of a certified lot survey. Mrs. Adams said that it was her understanding that they did not need one,just an accurate drawing. The Chairman noted that the drawing had to be legal. The city required a legal document showing where the house was located and where the lot boundaries were. They would need this before they would be issued a building permit. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that the exterior materials, and roofing materials would match the exist- ing house as far as texture and color as closely as possible. It was noted that the driveway would be blacktop, and will be continued. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioner was requesting a five foot frontyard variance. Co~issioner Gundershaug confirmed with Mrs. Adams that the roof line of the addition would tie in with the existing house. Commissioner Friedrich made a motion recommendinq approval of the five foot frontyard variance at 5200 Ore-~ gon Avenue, as requested in Case 83 - 26, with the stipulation that a certified lot survey be ~resented be- fore a building permit is issued. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JULY 5, 1983 5. PLANNING CASE 83 - 32 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AT 4201 WINNEKTA AVENUE DONALD HOVRE (SINCLAIR STATION), PETITIONER Mr. Hovre stated that he would like the Conditional Use Permit to allow the two trash trucks and a school bus continue to park behind his station. The owner of the trash trucks (George ) lives in the area. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he stated he had checked the city ordinance in regard to park- ing requirements. Commissioner Friedrich asked whether Mr. Hovre was aware that outside parking areas had to be screened? Mr. Hovre said he had not been, until he received the information from the city. He had been paying the fees to park trucks every year. Russell Delivery service had previously had a permit to park there. He has owned the station for two years. Commissioner Friedrich noted that the ordinance had been changed in 1979. Chairman Cameron stated that when Russell Delivery left the site, then the petitioner had to operate under the new ordinance restrictions. commissioner Friedrich re-stated that such vehicles must be screened from public view in some fashion. He asked exactly where the vehicles would be parked? Mr. Hovre said that he thought they had a real good parking space there now. He didn't think they showed too much. It is more obvious now since the old house was removed. In response to questions he stated he had one plow, which he planned to sell, and a 1/2 ton pickup. He keeps the two trucks in the garage. In response to question regarding the lot striping from Commissioner Friedrich, Mr.Hovre said it had been done as shown. He has not striped yet this year because he was waiting to see what happened tonight. He had talked to Sinclair and they plan to pave the corner and re-surface the blacktop. Commissioner Friedrich asked whether he planned to put in anything like shrubs in the front? Mr. Hovre said he did not know what was going to happen with the lot next to him. In response to question regarding the driveway to the west, and whether he had an agreement with the owners of the shopping center, ~.~. Hovre said it was used by everyone. He has no agreement, he just leases from Sinclair. He did not know if Sinclair had an agreement. He added that ever since he had moved into New Hope, he had parked the trucks there. There has never been a problem. Noise is no problem, no one has complained. George stated that there are 18 wheelers parked in the shopping center lot at night, all night with their motors running. He did not know why the city was discriminating against him personally. Other people did the same. thing he did. Commissioner Friedrich stated that he should not think they were trying to force him out, they just wanted him to comply with the city ordinance. George , owner of the garbage trucks, stated that he had been parking his trucks there for three years and there had never been any problem. Chairman Cameron stated that it was very important to the City of New Hope that ordinances be followed. The The back side of the station can be seen a great distance. The ordinance provides that you can park out- side but it also provides that such parking be screened. He personally did not feel that the Commission could could approve this request. He suggested that the request be tabled to allow Mr. Hovre to come back with a plan for screening the outdoor parking. Mr. Hovre said he did not understand. He felt that the present parking was less visible than anything else. It was noted that the plan presented to the Commission showed parking against the west. There is no fence there. To satisfy the ordinance, Mr. Hovre would have to build a fence around the trucks or provide some type of screening. Mr. Hovre expressed concern about the bus parking for the next school year. He did not have a contract for the bus parking but the school had made plans for the coming year and they are planning parking in this area. Chairman Cameron re-stated that the city does provide for people to park vehicles back there, but they have to be screened. He again suggested a table for a month to allow Mr. Hovre time to talk to city staff and some contractors for advice on kinds of screening. He should look at the costs and then decide whether it was worthwhile to provide fencing/screening to continue parking vehicles there. He had to pre- sent some type of plan to the city for enclosing the area. Mr. Hovre expressed concerns about fencing the whole area, because it was a bad crime area. It was for not only George's protection but for his station as well. The City Manager suggested that Mr. Hovre sit down with Doug Sandstad, the City Inspector, and discuss some solutions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JULY 5, 1983 5. Mr. Hovre said that he felt that a six foot fence would just invite people to drink, smoke marijuana, etc. he felt it would be bad. He did not think it was right that he was being forced to enclose his whole back area just because he parked trucks there. Up to now he had tried to encourage that the fence be torn down. Con,missioner Gundershauq made a motion tabling Case 83-32 until the meeting of August 2, 1983. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 83 - 33 - P~EQUEST FOR SIDEYARD VARIANCE AT 7812 53rd AVENUE NORTH - STEVEN ANDERSON, PETI- TIONER Mr. Anderson stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to build on the side lot line. He has a pie shaped lot, and he would like to build to within one foot of the property line on the north side. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that the garage itself would be one foot from the lot line as proposed, with the overhang extending to the lot line. Mr. Anderson said there would be very little alteration to the driveway, and the exterior materials would be stucco the same as the house, and the roofing materials would match. The structure would be just a gar- age, there would be no second story on the building. Commissioner Friedrich noted for the petitioner and the record that before any variance could be granted, the petitioner would have to provide the city with a survey. He expressed concerns about any building that close to the lot line/noting that in the past the city had granted variances no closer than two feet. Chairman Cameron noted that the proposal would allow no more than six feet between structures. He stated that the reason for restrictions was to allow emergency vehicles to get into rear yards. Mr. Anderson stated that the corners of the two garages almost met, and he thought it would be hard for anything to get back there now. ~ In response to questions about alternative plans, Mr. Anderson said he had been on the site 8 years and this was the nicest addition he could come up with. It was his personal preference, not to move the garage forward, it is also the most economical for him. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dunn, Mr. Anderson said he had spoken to the neighbor and he had no objections. There was no one present in regard to this case. The City Manager stated that there might be easements also on the property line, ie. utility easements, drainage, etc. Commissioner Anderson, stating th~% he could not s,~D~ort qh~ variance, made a motion recommending den~al of the sideyard variance requested in Case 83-33, because there would be an inadequate separation between the buildings. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Cameron, Edwards Voting against: Bartos, Dunn Abstain: Gundershaug Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 83 - 34 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7550 BASS LAKEROAD - A. C. CARLSON[ PETITIONER. David Carlson, represented the petitioner. They are asking permission to install the reader board from their present location to their new sitel The sign is 20 feet across the top, by five feet. It would be installed 16 feet from the ground. The reader board is in the middle of the sign. They require a variance because the ordinance allows a sign no larger than 75 feet. They are requesting a variance of 25 feet. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented about the chan~e in plan, noting that at the petitioner's last appearance ~fore the Commission, they had stated they would not be requesting any additional variances. Mr. Carlson said that had been their oriqinal plan they were ~oing to qo that route, but they had disco- ~ vered that maybe they might be able to use the sign at the new site. Commissioner Gulenchyn said he had a problem with this request, because at the time of their last appear- ance before the Planning Commission, signs had been discussed and the Commission assured that there would be no further variances requested. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JULY 5, 1983 7. Mr. Carlson confirmed that the reader board would be 5' x 12'. In response to a question from the Commission, he stated that at the time of the original application they had thought they would go with the building sign. Commissioner Gulenchyn questioned whether the cost~ would not be about the same to pick up, move and re- install this sign, as they would be in putting a new sign on the building? He asked if these costs had been compared? Commissioner Gulenchyn said he could not see that there was a hardship involved, that would justify the moving of the reader board sign to the new site. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with the City Manager that the petitioner still planned to have a sign on the building. That sign would be 15 square feet. The new sign would still be allowed if it met the ordinance restrictions. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that the petitioner shrink the sign. He felt the variance was too much. Steve Finkelstein, property manager of Crystal Towers, said they had no problem with the sign, but their concern was that they would like to pursue their interest in having some type of identification sign for the apartment building. The sign would not be for advertising, but primarily for identification. They have a number of older people and children and there have been some emergency situations where people did not know how to get into the complex. People seem to have a difficult time finding the property. They would like a sign saying Crystal Towers and an arrow or something similar. It was his understanding that an easement was being worked out between Mr. Carlson and Crystal Towers for the driveway. He was asking whether the Commission/City would allow them to work out an agreement with A. C. Carlson, looking at the ordinance,and designing something and then presenting it to the Commission? Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission/City could only react to a specific plan, but he felt that they would be sympathetic and reasonable to a request for a directional sign. Mr. Finkelstein confirmed that they would have to work out the details with Mr. Carlson. The City Manager said he would also have to work with the Inspections Department of the city. He suggested that Mr. Finkelstein talk to Mr. Sandstad. There were no further comments. Cor~missioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending denial of the sign variance as requested for 7550 Bass Lake Road, in Case 83 - 34, because of the fact that the New Hope Sign Ordinance was for purposes of iden- tification rather than advertising. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Dunn Voting against: None Abstain: Edwards Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 83 - 35 - REQUEST FOR SIDEYARD VARIANCE AT 3204 GETTYSBURG NORTH - CHARLES HORTON, PETITIONER. Mr. Horton stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to construct a three season porch on the back of his house. He was requesting both a rearyard and sideyard variance. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked whether he had explored any other alternatives? Mr. Horton said that any other location did not seem feasible to him. He cannot place the porch to the south because there are windows both up and downstairs at that end. It is a split entry house and the porch would come up to the windows. He proposes to extend the roof line and wall so they mesh together. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the exterior siding would be the same texture, and color as the existing house. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Horton said that the immediate neighbors had ex- pressed no objections to their plan, to his knowledge. Commissioner Anderson commented that the other houses in the area seemed to be quite a distance away. He commented that the city's concern was that the property value of the entire area be preserved. He asked whether there was any way to remove the need for one of the variances? Mr. Herren said that to remove the sideyard variance would involve moving the wall in, and he felt that would look worse. To remove the rearyard variance would shorten the addition approximately five feet. There was no one present in regard to ~bis case. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - JULY 5, 1983 8. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion reco~endinq approval of both the side and rearyard variances at ~ 3204 Gettysburg Avenue, as requested in Case 83 - 35, with the stipulation that the exterior materials and color and the roofing match the existing house as closely as possible. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 83 - 36 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 4741 ZEALAND AVENUE NORTH - HOMEWARD BOUND, INC. PETITIONER. Mr. Glasoe represented Homeward Bound. He stated that when Homeward Bound had begun operation the children were very small. They have the same number of children basically, but they have now become teenagers and require more space. He compared the conditions to an average living room at 5 p.m. containing 16 teenagers, five adults, some physical therapy aids and also wheelchairs. The space is just not adequate. They propose to double the living room area in each house to about 200 square feet. They are requesting that they be allowed to not only increase the living room space in each house but also to roof over the atrium space, which is presently not being used, and provide an activity area. This will allow them to remove the activity area out of the living rooms. They do not plan to add any additional children or staff. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether any of the addition would be visible from the street? Mr. Johnson, the architect for the project, stated that the present roofs are sloped, and that the roof over the atrium would be slightly higher but that there will be no rooftop equipment. For the record, Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there will be no additional patient load, or addi- tional staff, and that the intensity of the development will not increase. There was no one present in regard to this case. Stating that the Commission had found no violation in Section 4.031, with this proposal, Commissioner ~ Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Constru~ tion Approval at 4741 Zealand Avenue North, as requested in Case 83 - 36. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 83 - 37 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 9210 52ND AVENUE NORTH - INDUSTRIAL TOOL/ BOB OLSON, PETITIONERS Mr. Ed Anderson represented the petitioner. He was accompanied by Ed McDonald. The proposed addition will be 10,000 square feet. They are not asking for any variances. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that Design and Review had been concerned with the security lighting. There are lights on the front and on the west. There will be another light were the truck docks are. There is an entrance on the east side, which will be used for an emergency exit only. It was confirmed that the Police Department had no trouble with the lighting as proposed. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Anderson said that there will be new ash trees and plantings along the loading dock area. They have also added landscaping by the front door. He added that they were capable of adding 50 parking spaces, they would like to pave for eight more and keep the rest of the area for future parking. They plan no more than ten additional employees. There are between 25-30 now. Co7mmissioner Gundershaug confirmed for the record that the parking lot addition will be completely curbed and striped, except that the east side will be left open to allow snow removal off of the blacktop. There will be no additional signage. The rooftop equipment will be the same and will be painted to match the building. There will be no outside refuse storage. Commissioner Anderson complimented the petitioner on the way the property was kept up. He suggested that they expand the parking lot out to facilitate large trucks. He felt there was some advantage in having a truck being able to by-pass a loading dock door. Mr. McDonald said that with the new plan there was approximately 30 feet to the loading dock. Commissioner Anderson commented that this would not be adequate for a large semi to maneuver. Mr. Anderson commented that they did not use all of the spaces and it was their opinion that grass was a lot prettier than blacktop. They do also have room for additional building on the end. There was no one present in regard to this request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 JULY 5, 1983 10. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that it was his personal opinion that the future parking would be better to be grass now, rather than blacktop. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommendinq approval of the construction for an addition at 9210 - 52nd Avenue North, as requested in Case 83-37, with the stipulation that if the city staff should deter- mine at a future time that additional parking was required, that it be provided. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 11. PLANNING CASE 83 - 38 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 7601 42ND AVENUE NORTH - NORTHWEST YMCA, PETITIONER Mr. Dick Webster, and Cal Olson, the architect, represented the petitioner. They stated the "Y" was re- questing approval of a variance and construction approval for an addition to the south side of the exist- ing building that would provide two new racketball courts and a multi-purpose room. The same materials will be used, the same brick, and the roof line will be the same. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concerns about the additional parking that would be required with the addition. He asked how they intended to handle this? Mr. Webster said that originally there was adequate parking. They had added 42 parking spaces last year. They now have an agreement with Quebec Plaza and with Sally Distributors to use their parking lots after they are closed. They have not had any problems since then. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager said there had been no complaints lately, and nothing like there used to be. The Building Inspector had noted there still seemed to be some problem at the peak times (4:30 - 8:00). In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Webster stated there are signs stating that after 5 p.m. cars may park at Quebec Plaza - cars parking before 5 p.m. will be towed. There are signs as you enter the building and notice has also bee made in the member newsletter. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern about the landscaping in the frcnt of the "Y" building. Mr. Webster said they would be agreeable to adding.landscaping. They had added 25 trees this spring, mainly along the boulevard and swinging along the south. They have also started planting some Norway pines. Commissioner Gundershaug said he was basically concerned about the front, it was so very bare. He noted that when there was parking right up to the street, the city required screening. He felt a hedge could do wonders to shield the parking areas. He asked whether the petitioners could get a proposal together before they appeared before Council? He restated that he was speaking about low plantings and he would leave it to their good judgment as to type. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Construction Approval at 7601 42nd Avenue North, as requested in Case 83 - 38. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Dunn Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE 83 - 39 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE AT 785~ 42ND AVENUE NORTH - EDWARD PUCOSSI/MR. STEAK, PETITIONER Mr. Pucossi, stated he was requesting the variance because he had had this "dynamite" idea to start serv- ing French Breakfasts. The problem was that people did not know that Mr. Steak had breakfast. The Mr. Steak sign was so deep on the building that from the intersection 5~ou could not see what was written there. He would like to have a sign on the roof, then people who were going on Winnetka to the shopping center and at the intersection could see it and know that they ha~ breakfast. It wouldn't block anyone or damage anything. He would have averv s~mple French breakfast, and be open from 5:30 in the morning. They cannot move the present sign because of the expense. Commissioner Gulenchyn commented that the New Hope Sign Ordinance was not meant to provide advertising to business, but primarily to identify businesses. It sounded to him as if Mr. Pucossi wanted to promote his breakfast business. Why couldn't this message be put on the message board? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - JULY 5, 1983 12. Mr. Pucossi said there wasn't room on this sign. The breakfast business would be completely different from the Mr. Steak business -- a different menu, a different crew, different uniforms, a different image as a matter of fact. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked whether Mr. Pucossi had not, in fact, used the message board to introduce the beer and wine sales? This seemed to be doing well. Mr. Pucossi said yes. Commissioner Gulenchyn said then it seemed to him it might also be adequate to advertise his new French breakfasts. Mr. Pucossi said a new sign on the roof would be better, and a great help to them. He felt it would be difficult to promote the breakfast idea on the existing sign, it would not be spectacular. The proposed sign would not block anything. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Pucossi if he had thought about taking down the front sign and having only the roof sign? Mr. Pucossi said the proposed sign would be able to be seen from both shopping centers, and from the inter- section. The existing sign was the Mr. Steak logo and he could not do that, they would take the franchise away from him. Discussion followed regarding the options open to Mr. Pucossi regarding signage. The City Manager clarified that on the front of the building Mr. Pucossi could have a sign that was no larger than 15% of the front area, discounting windows. Confirming that the proposed sign would be 72 square feet, the Chairman stated that in his opinion, this was too much sign. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending denial of the sign variance as requested in Case 83-39. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Friedrich,Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, ~undershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: Anderson Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. Design and Review held one meeting in June. 13. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 14. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The City Manager stated that the Council had approved hiring Dave Licht, as a Planning Consultant, and also to update the eight areas that needed looking at. It was suggested that a strategy session be held between the Commission and the Planner. NEW BUSINESS 15. The Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 1983 were accepted as printed. 16. The Council Minutes of June 13, and 27, 1983 were reviewed. 17. Brief discussion regarding the future use of St. Jacob's Hall. 18. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 1 - AUGUST 2, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the New Hope city Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, August 2, 1983. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Dunn (excused), Edwards (excused) Anderson (arrived at 8:37 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 83 - 32 (TABLED FROM JULY 5, 1983) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE 4201 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - DONALD HOVRE, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Bartos, Second by Commissioner Friedrich to table this case until the meetinq of September 6, 1983. Mr. Jerome Kelly noted that he had come from St. Paul to attend this meeting and wished to speak to this case. The Chairman indicated that he felt it would be unfair to the petitioner to accept public comment when he was not in attendance. He would allow Mr. Kelly to speak briefly. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Edwards, Anderson Motion carried. Mr. Kelly stated he was one of the partners in the New Hope Mall. He passed out a document for the Commissioners to review. He expressed concern about the fact that people come before the Commission and Council requesting permits for various things and indicate that they have some type of agreement with the owners of the shopping center to share their facilities, i.e. parking spaces, etc. He said he had found this out "after the fact". To this date they had not granted any permission to use parking space to anyone. He requested that such statements be verified and future petitioners be asked to provide a written lease or agreement to use the New Hope Mall facilities. 4. PLANNING CASE 83 - 41 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK - 4048 JORDAN AVENUE NORTH - STEVE AND JULIE VAN VLIET, PETITIONERS. Mr. Van Vliet stated they were requesting permission to allow their air conditioner to remain in their sideyard. He stated they had hired Golden Valley Air Conditioning to install the unit. They had applied for a permit but were unaware that they could not put in in the sideyard. Mrs. Van Vliet said that the installer thought all they had to do was measure and they put it in the spot closest to the furnace, etc. It can not be seen from the street. Neighbors had indicated to her that they were not disturbed by the noise. There is no one behind them. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Golden Valley Heating and Air Conditioning did a lot of work in the city? He asked whether in the future the city would inform applicants for permits of the requirement? The City Manager stated he did not know for sure, but the city assumed the contractor did other work in the city. He indicated that one problem was that people often applied for permits from the clerk, and did not speak to anyone from the Inspections Department. In answer to a question from the Chair- man the City Manager stated that it was the contractor's responsibility to check into city ordinances. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the next door neighbor was present? Mrs. Van Vliet said no, but they had stated that the air conditioner did not bother them - they could not hear it. They received the notice about the request to the Commission. Discussion then covered whether contractors doing work in New Hope had to be bonded, or licensed? or show proof of bonding? The City Manager stated that they must show a Certificate of Insurance to the city, they are licensed by the State, but the city does not issue a contractor's license. Commissioner Gundershaug said that he felt it was the contractor who was responsible for the error, and he should be told to move the unit to the back yard. Mrs. Van Vliet said the contractor had been very cooperative, they paid for the variance. She added that there was a problem with moving it into the back yard, since the contractor would have to go all the way around. The backyard has a patio and a hill. The only place in the backyard for the unit would be on the patio. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - AUGUST 2, 1983 4. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the neighbor owned their home. Mrs. Van Vliet indicated that the swamp was located next to that. The Chairman stated that the position of the city traditionally had been that while the petitioner could live in the house for 40 years, the Commission/City had to protect everyone's rights, but enforcing the ordinances. The ordinance that is involved in this case is the noise ordinance. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendinq approval of the variance requested at 4048 Jordan Avenue North, in Case 83 - 41. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gustafson Voting against: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Dunn, Edwards Motion failed. 5. PLANNING CASE 83 - 42 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAY CARE/GROUP NURSERY IN R-1 ZONE AND TEXT AMENDMENT - 8624 50TH AVENUE - NEW HORIZON CHILDCARE CENTER, PETITIONER. Mrs. Sue Dunkley stated that they had operated a child care center for five years at the Northwest Bap- tist church. Their lease will not be renewed for the coming year. They would like to move the child care facility to another church at 50th/Boone. She presented a letter from Sally Goldberg, State li- censing consultant, indicating that a large percentage of day care centers are located in an R-1 district. The city text has now been changed and they were hoping that they could relocate the facility and remain in New Hope at the church on 50th. They were hoping they could do something that would allow them to have their school in an R-1 district. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, she noted they had received their notice to vacate 30 days ago. She indicated that they had put about $30,000 into the present building, and would do the same to renovate the new building. They would like to move as soon as possible. The Chairman indicated that this request presented the Commission/City with a serious problem. The ordinances were made to stand, and were not lightly changed. The present city ordinances does not provide for this kind of activity in a strictly residential area. He felt the only option for the Commission was to refer this request to the city Planner and ask for help in regard to possible consequences. He felt that it would be best to ask the Planner to review this case as quickly as possible. He stated that there would be a pass-through fee involved, payable by the petitioner, for this review. He asked whether this was agreeable to the petitioner. He suggested the case be tabled. Mrs. Dunkley asked whether there was any way because they were already existing in the R-1 zone that they could just move over into the other church? The answer was "no". Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Bartos to table this case and refer the issue of a text change to the City Planner. Commissioner Bartos second. The Chairman stated that as soon as their was any information, the city staff would contact Mrs. Dunkley. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the approximate amount of the pass through fee, in the event that if it were too large, the petitioner might not want to proceed. Bill Dunktey commented on the fact that they had already paid the city $450 in fees. The City Manager said that now, by city ordinance, all costs are to be paid by the petitioner. He said the $450 was for the Conditional Use Permit and for the Text Change. He said he would get the approxi- mate fee amount from the Planner and notify the petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Edwards Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 83 - 44 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR REARYARD SETBACK AT 3641 BOONE CIRCLE - DON~J~D AND JUDY HOSETH, PETITIONERS Mr. Hoseth stated he was asking permission for a variance in rearyard setback to allow him to construct /~'~ a three season porch. He has an unusual property line. The property is on a cul-du-sac. At one time there was a creek behind the property. This is now filled in. The property does not lend itself to expanding to the rear, without special permission from the city. The porch would be screened and also be glassed in. The proposed addition would affect the 35 setback requirement. He would need to put the addition to within 14 feet of the property line. He added that the outlot was city owned, and stretches 50 feet across to the neighbor's yard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 AUGUST 2, 1983 6. Mr. Hoseth said he had been taking care of the outlot, as far as mowing was concerned. He has an exist- ing shed with an extended roof. It will not be part of the porch, but the overhang will be more than two feet. The rear lot line borders the outlot. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the porch will be only a three season porch, and will have full footings, that the siding will match as to color. The actual material will be as close as possible, as the house has asbestos siding which is no longer available. The roof line will be expanded. He has a turned gable, he is proposing a ranch style roof, but the shingles will match as close as possible. He wants to tie the roofs together. He said he had talked to all of his neighbors and no one had expressed any objections. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendinq approval of the rearyard variance as requested for 3641 Boone Circle, in Case 83 - 44, to within 14 feet of the rear 10t line. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Edwards Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 83 - 45 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES IN AN I-1 ZONE AT 5100 COUNTY ROAD ~18, S. R. HARRIS, PETITIONER Mr. Harris was accompanied by Mr. Dan Share. Mr. Harris stated he had been on the site for 10 years in November. He has filed for a Conditional Use Permit at the request of the city to use the entire area, a portion of which had previously been leased out, for retail sales. Mr. Share stated that Mr. Harris' request for a Conditional Use Permit was tied into the problems with the parking situation at Harris Industries. Prior to this request, there had been a proposal that the parking situation be referred to the City Planner. He thought that it maybe was appropriate to talk to the Planner before the matter of the Conditional Use Permit was addressed. He felt the two issues went "hand in hand". He would also like the opportunity to talk to the Planner. The Chairman said that he felt this was probably what would be recommended by the Commission. The city now has a professional Planning Consultant and he felt that this was an area where the Commission/city needed help. He added that the city now has a pass-through fee ordinance in effect, and that the ac- tual costs involved with the Planner must be borne by the petitioner. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending that Case 83 - 45 be referred to the Planning Consul- tant. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Edwards Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 83 - 47 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-3 to R-O, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 36TH/HILLSBORO - MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending that this request be tabled, and referred to the city's Planning Consultant. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Mr. Jorgenson, in the audience, noted that the notice had indicated the case would be considered at 8:10 p.m. It was not yet that time. The Chairman indicated that if the petitioners appeared by 8:10 p.m. they would be heard. The City Manager stated that he seriously doubted that the petitioners would show up, they were having soma differences. Voting in favor: Anderson, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Friedrich, Gustafson Absent: Dunn, Edwards Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. Design and Review Committee held one meeting. 10. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - AUGUST 2, 1983 11. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 12. The Planning commission minutes of ~uly 5, 1983 were accepted as printed. 13. The Council minutes of July 25, 1983 were not ready for review. 14. The City Manager stated Council had specifically asked the Planning Commission to refer back to the discussions held when the Sign Ordinance was reviewed and approved. They were interested in what the rationale was for determining that there should be only one sign, on the front, on the building instead of the side or rear. Commissioner Gustafson stated that they had not wanted signs on all four sides of every building in the city. They wanted signs in one location, for identification purposes and for identification purposes only. Chairman Cameron said that the sign was supposed to go by the front door, whether the front door was to the front, or to the side. The rationale was to allow just one sign. Commissioner Gustafson said the Committee had figured that the front of the building was where you would want an identification sign. Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that if you allowed side wall signs, you would run the risk of having a neighbor's building block the sign. Chairman Cameron noted that the sign ordinance had received months and months of study before it had been enacted. Chairman Cameron noted that since the Planning Commission only met once a month, it seemed to him an undue waste of time to wait for the Commission to refer a case to the Planner. He wondered why the City Manager could not do this before it reached the Commission? The Manager stated that most of the time, he will. The three cases from this meeting he specifically wanted the Planner to look at. These cases were already in the hopper when the Planner was secured. Chairman C~uneron confirmed that in the future, as soon as something came up that required the services, of the Planner, the City Manager would forward the issue to him. The City Manager distributed copies of a new application for the Planning Con~nission as well as the proposed instructions for the application, for the Commission's review. The new application/instruc- tions will spell out ~xactly~ the procedures the petitioners must follow, as well as the costs that will be involved. Brief discussion in regard to the proposed development at 36th/Hillsboro and how it would be handled, inasmuch as the property had been originally developed using Industrial Revenue Bonds. 17. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~oyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, September 6, 1983 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: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Absent: Anderson (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 83 - 25 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY OUTDOOR SALES - 7305-42ND AVENUENORTH - ORVILLE YOUNG; PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. The City Manager noted that he had written to Mr. Young stating that if he did not contact him, or appear at this meeting, the request would be denied. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gustafson to table Case 83-25 until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 83 - 32 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE - 4201 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - DONALD HOVRE, PETITIONER The petitioner was not in attendance. The City Manager noted that he had also written to Mr. Hovre, stating that if he did not contact him, or appear at this meeting, the request would be denied. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Friedrich to table Case 83 - 32 until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 83 - 40 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR SECOND SIGN - 4800 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - HOUSE OF HOPE CHURCH, PETITIONER The petitioner was represented by Mr. Ben Thompson. He stated that he was Publicity Chairman for the church. He stated they were requesting the second sign because the church's new sign did not allow room for any information except the name of the church and the time of services. The Board of Publicity for the church felt there should be a sign that would communicate a little bit more information to the public - a type of message board. Commissioner Gustafson asked how they had arrived at the size of the sign, why it needed to be that large? Mr. Thompson said they had felt it would be harder to get a sign closer to the street, and wanted this size so it was easily seen from the street. It will be located over 100 feet from the street. He sug- gested that perhaps a five foot circle, rather than the six feet proposed might be sufficient. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Thompson said that the main purpose of the sign would be to communicate events to the parishioners, and perhaps a pleasant "word for the day". Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Thompson, that the sign would in no way impair adequate light or air to any of the neighbors, or cause any congestion on the public street. He further confirmed that the sign would not provide any detriment to the public welfare, and that no one would increase the value of their income potential from the sign. Commissioner Bartos asked exactly where the sign would be located. Mr. Thompson said there were three parking areas. The sign would be located in the middle, by the grass, about 90 feet from the sidewalk. It will be basically, more for the parishioners than the public. The sign will face the street and be seen from Boone Avenue. The outer surface will be of plexi-glass, four inches in depth. The back will open, to allow messages to be put in. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Thompson stated that the ~oard of Publicity of the church would be in charge of maintenance and content of the messages, through the church Council. Chairman Cameron expressed concerns about future upkeep, and whether the reasons for the additional sign had been well thought out. He noted that a second sign had to be justified. He asked whether the plexi- glass would be sturdy enough to withstand young children or vandalism? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 5. The sign will be professionally built. There was no one present in regard to this case. Stating that because the conditions were unique to the use involved, and because the other criteria are in effect met, Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the second sign as requested in Case 83-40, at House of Hope Lutheran Church, 4800 Boone Avenue North. commissioner Bartos Second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, G~ndershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 83 - 42 - REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE CENTER - 8624 50TH AVENUE NORTH - NEW HORIZON DAY CARE; PETITIONER Mrs. Sue Dunkley, represented the petitioner. She stated that they had been at their present location, farther north on Boone, for approximately four years. They would like to move to this church, but have run into the new zoning restrictions. They had met with representatives of the city, as well as the City Planner in regard to this request. They were requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to operate at the new site. Chairman Cameron noted that the problem was that the Zoning Code did not provide for this particular use in the R-1 zone. The city was attempting to deal with this problem. He asked the City Manager what the recommendations of the Planning Consultant had been. The City Manager stated that after reviewing this case, and meeting with the petitioner, the Planner had found that this request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the city, and had recommended that there be a text change. They are recommending two changes, based on the finding that a request for a day care center in an institutional setting, i.e. church, school, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the city: 1) Bring the language of the code up to date to be consistent with the State and County regulations. 2) To allow day care in existing institutions in the R-1 zone, by Conditional Use Permit. In response to a question from the Chairman, the Manager stated that the city now has four day care facilities, as legal non-conforming uses, since they existed before 197S. Com~nissloner Gustafson made a motion recommending acceptance of the text change in the zoning code as reco~ended by the city Planner as it pertains to day care. commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether all church properties were to be screened along the property lines? The City Manager said that technically, according to code, church parking lots must be screened from any residential lots. Mrs. Dunkley, said that they had not discussed possible screening with the church. At the present time there is no screening on the site. They intend to put in fencing around the play area. When people come into the school in the morning, they come in with parents and are signed in to a teacher. They are never allowed outside unsupervised. New Horizon would like to put this play area behind the home on the site. The only home next to the play area would be the home on the site. Mr. Dunkley stated that the architect had sketeched a fenced in play area next to the building . They would put in wood slats or metal slats if required. It was confirmed that the church was in agreement with this fencing, and the concept proposed. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the church had been on the site a long time, and that screening would have been provided on the site had code required it at that time. Discussion followed on the type of fencing. Mrs. Dunkley stated that the State preferred that they have chain link fencing without slatting. This is so the children could see out. Wood fencing would produce slivers which would not be good for children. T~ey could put in metal slats. Mrs. Dunkl~y said she thought the plain chain link fencing was less of a maintenance problem than putting in slats of some type. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 6. Com~issioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioner would consider putting up a hedge along the fence, as a means of screening, or some shrubs to break up the expanse of fence. Chairman Cameron suggested that maybe some shrub plantings, coordinated with the front of the church would be possible to break up the expanse of fence. Mr. Dunkley stated this would be possible. Chairman Cameron confirmed with the petitioner, that when this case appeared before the City Council, they would have a plan for some plantings along the fence, that were according to city code, if the Commission were to authorize approval of the request. It must also be agreeable to the church. Commissioner Bartos agreed with the idea of plantings along the fence, instead of slats in the chain link. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use for a Day Care Center at 8624 -50th Avenue North, as requested in Case 83-42, subject to a complete plan for'screening being developed before apPearance, before the City COuncil. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 83 - 47 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-3 to R-O, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE AND CONSTRUCTI©N APPROVAL - CORNEROF 36TH/HILLSBORO, MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. John Wood, representing the petitioner, stated they were still waiting for the architect to appear. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion tabling Case 83~47'untiI the end of the meeting. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 83 -~48'- REQUEST FOR REARYARD SETBACK VARIANCE ~ 4633 RHODE'ISLAND NORTH - JOSEPH FORRER, SR.,PETITIONER Mr. Forrer was accompanied by Mr. Dooley, his builder. He stated that he was requesting the variance to allow him to build an addition to his garage to within two feet of the lot line. He would like the garage to be 22 feet in width. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the driveway. Mr. Forrer said he would also increase the width of the driveway, but he would not plan to change the curb cut. He will use the garage for two cars instead of one -- there will be no business conducted from the garage. He further stated that his intention was to put a new roof and new siding on the entire house/garage at the time of the addition, so that every- thing would match. Commissioner Gutenchyn asked about the overhang, and whether the garage addition or the overhang would be two feet from the lot line. Mr. Dooley said that the garage would be two feet from the lot line, and that the overhang would extend to the lot line. He noted that the neighbor's lot sloped back from the lot line, so there would be no problem with drainage. The existing gutters and down spouts will be extended. Commissioner Gundershaug said he was concerned about the overhang being at the lot line, and questioned whether Mr. Forrer would consider increasing the width of the garage to only 20 feet? Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that he tended to agree with this. Discussion then followed between the petitioner, Mr. Dooley, and the Commissioners, in regard to the pos- sibility of decreasing the garage width, and the overhang extension and whether it would be preferable to decrease the garage size, or eliminate the overhang. Mr. Dooley said he would prefer to see the petitioner go with a smaller garage and keep the overhang the same as the house -- two feet. Commissioner Gustafson noted that there would be a requirement for a certified lot survey, prior to any building permits being issued so that the city could legally confirm that the proposed addition would only be one foot off the lot line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 8. Commissioner Edwards asked how the petitioner intended to maintain the overhang and the garage? Mr. Dooley noted that at this time the petitioner and his neighbor were good friends. The only pro- blem would be in the future perhaps. Mr. Forrer said that there was an existing fence on the property line now. Commissioner Edwards stated that he felt that this variance was too much to ask, especially in regard to the maintenance aspect. Following further discussion about the difficulties of maintenance if the addition were only one foot from the lot line, Mr. Forrer agreed to a 20 foot width for the addition. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the variance requested in Case 83 - 48. at 4633 Rhode Island North, subject to the .overhanq nOt being any closer than two feet from the lot line, and that the siding and roofing materials match in color and texture the re-surfaced house. Commissioner Friedrichsecond. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. The Chairman informed thepet~tioner that he would need a certified lot survey before building permits would be issued. 9. PLANNING CASE 83 - 49 - REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND ZERO LOT LINE VARIANCE - 9113'17 30TH AVENUENORTH - RICHARD LOSCHEIDER, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the only thing before the Commission at this time was the variance for the zero lot line variance. The preliminary plat had already been considered by the Commission. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the zero lot line variance as requested for 9113-17 30th Avenue North, in Case 83 - 49. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that someone on staff would make the petitioner aware of the forthcoming performance and maintenance standards in. regard to zero lot line homes. The City Manager stated that he would be having a meeting with the Planner within the next week. The Chairman asked what had to be done to get these standards enforced? The Manager said that after the meeting with the Planner, the suggestions would be presented to the Com- mission for review. 10. PLANNING CASE 83 - 50 - REQUEST FOR REARYARD VARIANCE - 9140 34~ AVENUE NORTH - LEROY AND COLLEEN LILLEY, PETITIONERS. Mr. Lilley stated that they were requesting the variance to allow them to build a three season porch at the rear of their home. The addition would be within 15-16 feet of the rear lot line. Mrs. Lilley added that their lot was pie shaped which created problems. Mr. Lilley stated that the porch would not extend any further than the existing deck does now. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the porch would not have a full basement, and there would be no heating in the porch. There will be full windows or doors, and the siding and roofing will match the existing house. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the rearyard variance at 9140 34% Avenue North, as requested in Case 83 - 50, subject to the siding and roof of the addition matching the exist- lng home. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 11. PLANNING CASE 83 - 51 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD - 5832 WEST MEAD~ LAKE ROAD - THOMAS ENGELHE, 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, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards,Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE 83 - 52 - REQUEST FOR REARYARD VARIANCE - 4700 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE - ROGER FECHIqER, PETI- TIONER. Mr. Fechner stated that he was requesting the rearyard variance to allow him to put a 28' x 16' addi- tion, which would include a formal dining room, a three season porch, a revamping of the kitchen area. It would contain a basement area. It is a split entry home, and the above grade portion would be of stud walls, and siding. There will be 42" of block below grade. It was confirmed that the sideyard met code restrictions. Mr. Fechner said that the addition would be 8 inches higher than the existing house would be tied in to the roof line. The siding on the house will be changed to vertical siding. He has vertical siding on the garage he added two years ago. The entire house/garage will match as far as siding, color and roof, as closely as possible. Chairman Cameron noted that he felt this was a lot of house for that lot. In answer to a question from Commissioner Friedrich, Mr. Fechner said there would be a deck on the north side. He said that the deck would not exceed the size of the existing deck. Commissioner Bartos asked what was next to the back yard? Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that the requested variance was for 14 feet. Mr. Fechner said that the backyard met the neighbors yard, and that there was a five foot utility ease- ment at the back. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the 16 foot addition did not include the overhang dimension. If the overhang were included, the addition would be 17 feet. The variance requested is seven feet. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the petitioner intended to put in a new driveway to the storage area in the front. Was this a hard surface. Mr. Fechner said the storage area was a clay area, but he intended to pave this area the fall. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the storage area had to be an approved surface, according to code. Chairman Cameron noted that the city would require a certified lot survey, before building permits would be issued. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the rearyard variance for 4700 Independenc~ Avenue North, as requested in Case 83-52, to allow the petitioner to build, including overhang, within 28 feet of the rear lot line. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gunderhaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich (left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.) Motion carried. 13. PLANNING CASE 83 - 53 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO R~4OVE SCREENING FENCE - 9456 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD - RICH- ARD STEINER, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the petitioner had requested this case be tabled until the meetinq of October 4, 1983. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gulenchyn to table Case 83 - 53 until October 4, 1983. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 3. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to remove Case 83-25 from the table. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. The petitioner was still not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to deny the requestin Case 82-25. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. 4. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to remove Case 83-32 from the table. Commissioner. Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. The petitioner was still not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to deny the request in Case 83-32. Commissioner. Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. 7. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion removing Case 83-47 from the table, Commissioner Gulenchyn second./ Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. Mr. John Wood, Attorney, represented the petitioner. He was accompanied by Paul Noyes, Dr. Steve ~, Dr. Carter Reese, and Hal ~J~, the Architect for the project. The Chairman noted that it might not be necessary for the architect to speak, since the question of the rezoning had to be dealt with first. Mr. Wood stated they were requesting the rezoning to allow construction of a medical/office building on the site. The two dentists would assume approximately 3000 square feet of the proposed building, occupy- ing about 1/4 of the building. They wish the building to allow them to keep their expanding practices in the city. Referring to the recommendation from the City Planner in regard to this site, Mr. Wood said that when the city adopted the Zoning Code in 1979, (4.013) referring to amendments to the code, which should be made in relation to the Comprehensive Plan for the city. He then referred to 4.201, Subd. (5), in regard to the "charge" to the Commission/Council in considering amendments. It was his feeling that this was what the Planner had addressed in his report to the city. Mr. Wood then referred to the "traditional" criteria for a rezoning, a change in the surrounding area, or an original mistake in the zoning. He did not feel substantial change could be demonstrated legi- timately. It seemed to him that the issue was whether this proposal met the Comprehensive Plan. The Chairman noted that the Commission was considering only the rezoning of the property at this time. Referring to the process and time involved in the zoning of the property, and the Comprehensive Plan, the Chairman noted that he felt there should be some reason given for this property to have its zoning changed. Mr. Wood stated that it was his opinion that the proposed rezoning from R-3 to R-o was consistent with the land use plan for that particular district - District #24. It is consistent in that it provides a transitional use, from mid-density housing to low business density. In response to a question from the Chairman as to why the existing zoning had been put on the property, Mr. Wood stated that he felt it might have been because no one had come up with a proposal for the site. This was the first proposal, to his knowledge, that had requested a use in the LB or R-O.zone. Discussion followed regarding proposals that had been made in the past for this property. The Chairman asked the City Manager to review what the City Planner had recommended for this property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 7. The City Manager said that the Planner had met with the petitioner and staff and his recommendation is basically as outlined. He essentially recommended the change in the zoning, based strictly on the inter- pretation of the Comprehensive Plan. They took a different perspective from what the city has histori- cally done. In recommending the rezoning, they looked at the Comprehensive Plan in terms of what it says regarding densities, transition from residential to commercial, and they find no inconsistencies in this proposed zone. They did not judge the case from the perspective that a mistake had been made. The bottom line is that the Planner recommends the rezoning. The Chairman stated that he did not like to abandon the criteria traditionally used for rezoning, because he felt it had served the city and the Commission/Council well for many years in terms of reasons for rezoning. He felt that the Planner's recommended flexibility would open up a lot of possibilities for spot zoning, and felt the city would be under a lot of pressure to zone land to fit a specific "use". He had no problem in his mind in accepting that a mistake had been made four years ago. He felt that R-3 and R-O were almost identical, and he felt it would be most unfortunate to put housing on that site. Commissioner Bartos commented that he thought this zoning made sense and the proposal would make a nice looking piece of property. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what the city would do in regard to the taxincrement district presently on the property? The City Manager stated that it was his understanding that the value was sufficient on the site, so there should be no problem with paying off all of the bonds. Chairman Cameron asked whether the bankers concurred with this opinion? The Manager stated that the City Attorney was presently reviewing this question. Chairman Caraeron stated that he felt that the property should not be rezoned until the particular plan for the site has been accepted. He noted that the petitioner would now have to go before Design and Review with their construction plans, etc. In response to a question regarding approval of the necessary Conditional Use Permit and Construction Approval, the City Manager stated that he felt that one of the petitioner's concerns was the huge expense involved, until they were sure that the City Council would approve the rezoning. Chairman Cameron then suggested that the Commission recommend approval of the rezoning, and pass it on to the Council but ask that Council not final}ze the rezoning until the Commission/Council have had an opportunity to act on the request for Construction Approval, any Variances, and the Conditional Use Permit. In response to a question from Mr. Wood, in regard to the petitioner's previous appearance at Design and Review, Commissioner Gundershaug said that they had met, but that there had been several suggestions made and that the Committee had not heard any more from the petitioners as to what they were now proposing to construct. Corm~issioner Edwards stated that there had been some radical changes suggested at the Design and Review meeting from the original proposal. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommendinq approval of the rezoninq from R-3 to R-O at 36th/Hillsboro as requested in Case 83-47, subject to the final approval of the construction plans and the request for Conditional Use Permit by the Commission/Council. Commissioner Gutenchyn second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Dunn Voting against: Edwards Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. 11. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to remove Case 83-51 from the table. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. The petitioner was still not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson to deny Case 83-51. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 COMMITTEE REPORTS 13. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 14. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 15. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The Chairman suggested that perhaps the Codes and Standards Committee should meet with the Planner and staff in regard to the issues that are presently pending on this committee. The City Manager noted he felt this would be a good idea. NEW BUSINESS 16. The Planning Commission Minutes of August 2, 1983 were accepted as printed. 17. The Council Minutes of August 8, and August 22, 1983 were reviewed briefly. 20. The meetin~ was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~yce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 4, 1983 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Absent: Anderson (arrived at 7:34 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 83 - 47 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 3545 HILLSBORO NORTH - ROBERT NOYES, MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Hal Pierce, the architect for the project, and Mr. Robert Noyes were present in regard to this case. The City Manager stated, for the record, that one of the principals in this proposed building, was his dentist. He added that the proposed project had been initiated prior to his becoming a patient of the dentist. Mr. Pierce stated that since their meeting with the Design and Review Committee there has been a new landscape plan prepared. He presented a contract, indicating the types of landscaping that would be provided, as well as the amounts to be provided. In response to a request from the Chairman, Mr. Pierce stated that they were proposing construction of a dental/medical clinic. The building would be located at 36th and Hillsboro Avenues. Approximately 6500 square feet would be occupied by the two principals in the building, Dr. Reese and Dr. Bo~er. There will be parking spaces for 51 cars. The exterior will be brick, with cedar around the windows with a cedar shake roof. He presented an artist's rendering of the proposed building for review. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Pierce stated that they had increased the landscaping on the north side, bu adding pine trees and had varied some of the boulevard trees. There will be landscaping along the parking area. They will add ivy to the fence on the south side. Discussion then covered the loading area, which will have a 28 foot radius,allowing a truck to unload on the site if necessary. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the depth of the parking stalls, indicating they had been supposed to be increased. Mr. Pierce said they would be 18 feet, which allowed for a two foot overhang. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the trash would be totally enclosed. There will be a sign on the corner of 36th/Hillsboro, but Mr. Pierce stated it had not been ordered as yet, but would comply with the city sign ordinance. Snow will have to be removed from the site in the winter as there is no storage space available for snow. The hours of operation will probably be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., five days a week. They will probably not be open on evenings or Saturdays. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he did not feel the plan showed too much additional landscaping. He personally did not consider ivy to be landscaping. He felt there was a need for a greater amount of landscaping. He noted that Design and Review had requested that there be a greater density of land- scaping around the parking lot. It appeared to him that there were about five small bushes and one tree added. He did not feel this amount would provide the screening that had been requested. Mr. Pierce said that some additional plantings could be added. He did not see this would be much of a problem. Mr. Noyes agreed with Mr. Pierce about the possibility of providing additional landscaping. Mr. Noyes stated that they would like to meet with the Committee again, before finalizing the landscape plan. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the parking lot would be curbed and striped, that there would be lights in the soffits for security, and two site lights, basically on the two islands. These will be "down" lighting. Mr. Pierce stated that the petitioners had met with the neighbors in regard to their proposal on Monday. The neighbors had expressed some concerns about the second exit. It was his understanding that the city had required this second exit. It was noted that the second exit would allow easier access for safety vehicles to the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 4, 1983 3. Commissioner Gustafson asked Mr. Pierce to speak to the type of traffic that could be expected with this new proposal. Mr. Pierce said that there would be a total of five doctors in the building. They would probably have patients coming at about twenty minute intervals. They felt that this would be compatible with the neighborhood traffic. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be no rooftop equipment. Chairman Cameron agreed that there needed to be more landscaping along Hillsboro Avenue. Mr. Pierce noted that there will be a three foot berm on that side, and that the plantings would be on top of that berm. The area will be sodded and sprinklered. Commissioner Anderson asked about the proposed handicapped parking spaces. He felt that the two indi- cated would be the most difficult for a handicapped person to get in or out of. He asked whether they had considered another location for them? Mr. Pierce indicated they could be on the other side. Commissioner Anderson asked that Mr. Pierce look at this possibility, as the proposed spaces could only be entered from the south side. Chairman Cameron said he thought he would be more comfortable if the spaces were at the end of the main drive. Mr. Pierce indicated that he saw no problem with this suggestion. Mr. John Hayes, 3525 Hillsboro Court, stated he was concerned about the second exit. He felt that the traffic had gotten very heavy on Hillsboro, and the office would provide for a lot more traffic on the street. He also felt that the parking lot would provide somewhat of a playground for children for roller skates, etc. He could not see why the second exit was justified. Chairman Cameron stated he thought the reason for the second exit had been clearly stated -- it was to allow safety and emergency vehicles to get into the site. Bonnie Solle, of Hillsboro Court said she felt it was going to be a hazard with a second exit. There was going to be a race track for the children with bikes, etc. She felt it would be a mistake. Chairman Cameron stated that the second exit would not create any additional traffic entering into the street. Another citizen stated she was primarily concerned with the safety. There were 19 small children in the cul-du-sac. Mr. Jeff Solle, 3556 Hillsboro Court, commented that he had been coming to meetings in regard to this property for five years. He stated he was in favor of the proposed building, rather than a six plex. However, he would like a compromise on the entrance and exit. He expressed concern about the traffic on 36th and the potential for accidents. He added again, that the residents were asking for a compromise on the second exit. The City Manager stated that the study requested of the Traffic Engineer, had been just completed. He will present the report at the Council meeting on Tuesday night. At that time the moving of the second exit can be discussed again. The Chairman stated that, in terms of the Planning Commission action, he personally had no great feelings about one or two drives. He felt there had to be an easy way out of the parking lot -- there were many ways this could be accomplished, i.e. a break-away fence to the west. He favored two exits. He did not not see that the south exit would create a hazard on the cul-du-sac. Mr. Hayes said they were concerned about traffic that would use the exit directly opposite from the cul- du-sac. Mr. Pierce noted that the neighbors had asked for a drawing of what could be done with the exits. He had this available. The Chairman said he felt this should wait until thetraffic study was available and for the discussion at the Council meeting. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Construc- tion Approval as requested in Case 83-47, for 3545 Hillsboro North, with the stipulation that additional landscaping be provided for the south, east and west side, over and above the plan presented, commis- sioner Friedrich second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - OCTOBER 4, 1983 3. The Chairman noted that Mr. Noyes had asked that they meet again with Design and Review to discuss the final landscaping proposal. With that understanding, that the petitioner will meet with staff, he felt they could proceed. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Dunn Voting against: Gustafson, Edwards Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 83 - 53 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE EXISTING SCREENING FENCE AT 9456 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD - ROBERT STEINER, PETITIONER Mr. Steve Schmidt represented Mr. Steiner who had been unable to attend the meeting. He stated that it was his understanding that this fence had been a problem for some time. Mr. Steiner, the petitioner, was the owner of the station. There was a city requirement that there be a fence separating the station from the apartment complex adjacent. It was also his understanding that the damage to the fence has been caused by the tenants from the apartment complex. Last year there had been an agreement between Mr. Steiner and the owners of the complex to share the maintenance of the fence. Since that time the apartment complex has been sold and the two parties would like to remove the fence. There is an additional problem in that the city has issued citations because the fence has not been repaired. Mr. Schmidt said that Mr. Steiner had told him that there were other similar areas in the city where such fences were not installed. Mr. Steiner was requesting the variance to allow him to remove the fence, which was completely on his property. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that through October 28, 1983, the petitioner and the then owner of the apartment complex had reached an agreement for the maintenance and repair of the fence, and that since that time the fence had been brought up to a state of complete repair. He further confirmed that additional damage had occurred since November of 1982 and the present time. Commissioner Gustafson asked when the building had been sold. The answer was that they had closed on the building sale in June of 1983. It was noted that apparently the new owner would like to see the fence removed. Commissioner Gustafson commented that it would seem that there had to have been some discussion about the fence and maintenance at the time of sale. He confirmed that it was the desire of both parties, to remove the fence. Mr. John Ward, represented Real Estate Equities. He stated that they had had a discussion with Mr. Stein- er about two months ago asking about the possibility of their agreeing to a variance to remove the fence. They were willing to agree to that variance. He was not aware of any discussion in regard to maintaining the fence. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the driveway backed right up to the property line? Mr. Ward said he believed it did, it is within a foot if not right at the line. Commissioner Bartos expressed concern that if the fence were taken out, a "no man's land" would result between the two properties, with no one taking care of maintenance of the area. Chairman Cameron asked if the petitioner had considered the possibility of a "living" fence. He ques- tioned what would happen if the fence were removed completely, allowing people to drive wherever they wished. He noted he had a lot of sympathy for the petitioner, but he did not see how the Commission could recommend giving a variance to remove the fence. Commissioner Gustafson noted that an obvious solution would be the erection of some type of bumper outside the fence, to prevent cars from damaging it. Chairman Cameron asked whether there was any hope that the apartment owner would share in the cost of a solution to the cars hitting the fence? He commented that the city's insistinq that the ordinance be enforced put the burden on Mr. Steiner. He said he would hope that the petitioner and the owners of the apartment complex could work out some kind of deal to ensure maintenance. He asked whether the two parties would accept a month's table to allow further discussion the matter? It was agreeable. Motion by Co~issioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Edward to table this case, Case 83-53, until the meeting of Noveraber 1, !983. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - OCTOBER 4, 1983 5. PLANNING CASE 83 - 54 - REQUEST FOR FRONT AND REARYARD SETBACK VARIANCES AT 3227 FLAG COURT - RANDY ELAM, PETITIONER. Mr. Elam stated he was requesting the variances to allow him to build a 12' x 28' addition on the back of his home. He needs a variance at one corner. He also needs a variance to allow him to bring the garage out eight feet into the front setback. The addition to the rear will allow him to create a fourth bedroom and a family room and give them larger eating space and a three season porch. The 8' x 20' addition to the front will give him some additional storage area in the garage. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the additional space was for personal storage and would not in- clude any home occupation. In answer to a question regarding why he had positioned the proposed addition where he did, Mr. Elam stated that he felt less than 12 feet for a bedroom would be too small. He added that the entire house will be the same after the additions. He is now 95% sure that he will have all aluminum siding. The roofing materials will also match, and the siding and color will match on the exterior. Discussion followed about the dimension of the overhang, and what the variance would be from the actual overhang. It was confirmed that Mr. Elam was requesting a 6 foot variance at the rear lot line. There ~as no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the front and rear setback variances at 3227 Flag Court, as requested in Case 83 - 54, subject to the dimensions as stated by the petitioner. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 83 - 55 - REQUEST FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 2701 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - P. O. DOTSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Dotson said that he would like the variance to add to his single car garage. His proposed addition would go into the setbeck about 1~ feet. There will be a flat roof on the garage and no extension of the upstairs of the house. The stone front of the house will be extended to the garage addition and there will be two doors. The existing wall, supporting the structure at the south, will remain. There will be a fire door between this and the extension. There will be a hand rail around the roof. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the roof and siding materials and the color will match the existing house. Mr. Dotson repeated that the roof of the addition, will be flat, with a handrail around the edge. The garage will be used only for personal Storage and vehicles. There will be a six inch overhang, which will make the setback 3 feet 10 inches from the lot line. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Dotson said his neighbor had expressed no objec- tions to his plans. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variance as requested for 2701 Quebec Avenue North, in Case 83-55. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 83 - 56 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 3701 WINNETKA AVENU3E NORTH - ALBERT TEDESCO, PETITIONER. Mr. Tedesco stated he would like the preliminary plat so that he could divide the property, and sell the portion that contains the radio station. He said he has no plans at the present time for develop- ment of the remaining property. He simply wanted the property divided. He would then retain the two remaining lots. In answer to a question from Commissioner Sartos, Mr. Tedesco stated he simply wished to divide the property, and sell the lot with the radio station on it. He had no development plans at this time. He noted that he was aware that there was an easement on the north third of Lot #3. This easement was not shown on the preliminary plat. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 OCTOBER 4, 1983 7. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that Mr. Tedesco realized that Lot #3 was non conforming because it is located in the flood plain. Mr. Tedesco said he was primarily concerned with the north lot. Commissioner Bartos stated he felt the easement should be shown on the plat presented to council. He then asked about other utility easements for the property. The City Manager stated he would clear this question up with the Building Official before the Council meeting on the llth. Commissioner Bartos asked whether the ~ity now had any rights to the property? The Manager stated "no", only the easement for the flood plain. Discussion then covered the wetlands on ~he property, and whether any thought had been given to dedicat- ing this portion of the property to the City? The City Manager stated that the city would not care if they acquired the property, since it would be one parcel they would not have to worry about. He added there would be severe restrictions involved, if there were to be future development on the flood plain. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether it would be a buildable lot. He asked Mr. Tedesco what the purpose would be, in keeping this property? He asked whether it would be in the city's best interest to acquire this property? The City Manager stated that the city would not mind having the property, but would really u~ Gain much. He added that the special assessments would have to be paid before the city would think about accepting it -- an amount of approximately $2400. Commissioner Anderson asked how they would get to the towers to the west of the site for maintenance purposes? Mr. Tedesco said they could be reached from the back of the lot where the current radio station is. It was noted that the city already owned the land that the transmitters were located on. Discussion then centered on whether there would be a way to re-align the plat, to eliminate the problem with the proposed Lot #3. Commissioner Anderson asked whether there was a time problem with acting on this case? Mr. Roberts~n answered "yes", they would like to resolve the entire issue within the next 30 days. Commissioner Anderson stated he could not support splitting off Lot ~3. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that it seemed that the concensus of the Commission that perhaps Lots 2 and 3, should be joined. Mr. Robertson said that this was a possibility -- they could add on to Lot 2, and dedicate the rest of Lot 3, to the city. The City Manager stated that he felt that the City Council might be interested in accepting this qift of land, if the special assessments were paid first. Chairman Cameron asked whether it was possible for the petitioner to work out a compromise to avoid the creation of an unbuildabte lot? Commissioner Anderson suggested that the case be tabled until the end of the meeting to allow the peti- tioners to discuss this issue. A resident of 37th Avenue North, expressed concern about the future use of the property. He cuestioned what impact this plat would have on the residents of 37th Avenue North. Mr. Tedesco said it would have no impact at all. The current use - the radio station - will be main- tained as it has been. He said that although he had no immediate plans for development of the new lot, he did not see any point in giving a valuable lot to the new owner of the station. The radio sta- tion will continue as it is, there are no immediate changes contemplated now, for the new lot. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the new Lot 1, would be a buildable lot, but that before anything would be built, the plan would have to come before the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Manager stated that the proposed plats had been sent to the utility companies and Hennepin County for review. Hennepin County had expressed the opinion that the"greatest impact would require that any driveway would have to be located nearest to the north property line, closest to 37th Avenuej~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 1983 7. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 83-56 until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 83 - 57 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 9100 49TH AVENUE NORTH - M.L.B. PROPER- TIES, PETITIONER. Clarence Brandell stated he was the owner of the property between the city parking lot and the office building to the west. He said he would like to build a self service storage facility on the property, just to the east of the office building. Mr. Brandell stated he had held a meeting with the city Fire Marshal, Alan Nelson, in regard to the pro- posed placement of the fire hydrant -- the plat presently shows it located in the swamp. He is in favor of placing it to the south and east, but with required blacktopping within 5 or 10 feet of the hydrant. He also requested that at the northeast part of the building there be an open area, 12 to 14 feet in height, to allow a fire truck to drive through the northeast corner. Mr. Brandell said he would agree to a 14 foot opening at this spot. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there were any requirements for a specific distance between the two buildings? Mr. Brandell said there was to be 30 feet between the buildings, traffic could then flow through there. The Fire Marshal had not indicated any required width, but he would be willing to provide whatever the city required. Commissioner Gund~rshaug confirmed that the section joining the two buildings would be four feet higher than the other buildings. He noted that he would be more in favor of granting a variance to allow two buildings on the site, rather than have this bridge effect on the property. ~ Mr. Brandell stated he would just as soon have two buildings. He confirmed that the distance between the two buildings would be the same - 30 feet. The basic difference between the drawings that the Design and Review Committee had reviewed and the present plan was that the office had ~een attached to the storage building, and the fire hydrant had been moved. Another difference was that the landscaping is now to continue on to the east lot line. Lengthy discussion then centered on the proposed landscaping, and the fact that the intent of the Design and Review Committee had been to provide immediate screening for the residents across the street. The opinion was that 55 lilac bushes were not sufficient to provide this screening in a length of 620 feet. Mr. Brandell said that the hours of operation would be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with other hours by appointment. There will be a gate across the opening that will be locked. There will be no outside re- fuse storage. At this time he did not know about signs, but any signs would comply with the New Hope ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson asked for clarification of the hours of operation. Mr. Brandell said that the Winpark Self Service Storage had hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, and 7:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays and by appointment. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there would at no time be any activity between 11:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. to allow deliveries, etc. Mr. Brandell said that business would not be conducted during those hours, except in an emergency situation. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Brandell was now requestinq a variance to allow him to con- struct to separate buildings on the site. The City Manager stated that Mr. Brandell has originally applied for, and paid fees for a variance. Commissioner Bartos expressed concern about the amount of shrubbery to be provided. He felt there should be continuity with the other buildings in the area. Commissioner Edwards commented that he was thankful that more landscaping was beinq provided to the south,/-~'~ but that he was really disappointed in the quantity proposed. He was displeased with the small number of trees proposed. Mr. Brandell said he felt there was perhaps a misunderstanding. He would like his property to look as nice, if not nicer, than the other property in the area. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gus- tafson, he said he would be willing to double the amount of landscaping proposed. However, he would like to be able to position the trees very carefully. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 - OCTOBER 4, 1983 8. Mr. Brandell said he felt he could have a revised landscaping plan ready before the Council Meeting on the llth. He was personally fond of pine trees, and would be willing to double the lilac hedge. Discussion continued between Mr. Brandell and the Commissioners regarding the number of trees that would be placed on the site, and the size of the proposed trees. Concensus was that there would be 110 lilac bushes, 10 maples and perhaps 40 trees of the pine type. No one was present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the variance for two buildings at 9100 - 49th Avenue North, as well as approval of the proposed construction, as requested in Case 83-57, subject to the removal of the connection between the two buildings, the curbing being extended and continued around the parking area, the relocation of the fire hydrant, and the addition of landscaping to include 55 more lilac bushes, and 40 trees of the evergreen type. Commissioner Bartos second. Mr. Brandell confirmed that he should have the revised landscape for presentation to the City Council on the llth. Voting in favor: Anderson, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Abstain: Friedrich Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 83 - 58 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AT 5149 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - L AND L DISTRIBUTION, PETITIONER. Mr. Rick Giertson, Treasurer of the Company, represented the petitioner. He stated that they had been informed that they needed a Conditional Use Permit to allow the parking outside of trucks. They lease the property from Prudential Insurance Company. It is his understanding that the major problem is the noise being created by the trucks for the neighbors to the south. The trucks are equipped with refrigeration units, and create noise at night as they must be left running. They had recently received a summons for a noise violation. He stated that they were trying to correct the problems. There had been a similar situation during the summer of 1980. At that time they had hired "Intest" to give their recommendations regarding solution of the problem. They had constructed a solid barrier, and had assumed this had taken care of the pro- blem, they now realize it did not. They have now asked Intest back to conduct a study to determine how they can best reduce the noise levels to an acceptable level. He presented a letter from Intest to the Commissioners (attached). He stated that it appears that the sound is going over the fence. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Giertson said that they could not park the vehicles in- side the building, because there was not enough room. They are a tenant of the building, and have three years left to occupay the space. They have tried to correct the situation. Cormnissioner Gustafson asked whether there was any way to convert the power source for the refrigera- tion units. Mr. Giertson said they had asked about this, but because of the belt drive system, electrical units would be just as noisy. The units are now diesel. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with the City Manager, that there are reports/information still pending in regard to this case. He felt the matter should be tabled until November when all the information would be in. The Chairman stated that before the motion, the neighbors would be given an opportunity to speak. Mr. Loren Schulte, representing the Soo Line Railroad, asked whether any proposed fencing or sound barriers would in any way block the vision of the motorists as they approached the tracks? The Chairman said "no", this was one of the internal buildings on the site. Mike Hadenfeldt, 5033 Wisconsin, said they hear the trucks at night, all summer long. They are louder than they should be. Another neighbor (unidentified woman) stated that the noise went over the fence, they also hear the semis coming in and out of the site, as well as the paging system being used at night. She felt it would be impossible to build a fence high enough,the noise bounces off the houses, and you can smell fumes. Bruce Wuollet, 8372 50th Avenue North, said he had been concerned about the problem for five years, and had called about it to complain. You could not sleep because of the noise. He felt that the way the building is being operated was totally illegal, because of the noise. There has to be a permanent solution to this problem, it is an agonizing problem to the neighborhood. Bruce Kaufman, 5017 Wisconsin, stated he felt there was no need to add to a terrible problem. The noise is bad from the refrigeration units, as well as the lack of mufflers on vehicles. He had called the police on more than one occasion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 - OCTOBER 4, 1983 9. Adding more trucks with refrigeration units will just compound the problem. Mr. Brian Weeks, 8316 50th Avenue North, stated he had put together a history of the problems on the site. He presented this to the Commission. He stated that the noise bounced around, and they also got vibrations in addition to the noise, you get a compound volume of noise. He said the noise bounces off the neighbors house and right into their bedroom. He noted that Mr. Giertson had spent a lot of money trying to solve the problem, b~t he questioned whether it was a solvable problem. He felt that the trucks h~d probably doubled in the last five years. Mr. Giertson said that they had nine trucks operating during the summer. Mr. Weeks added that the business was booming which was good for them, but bad for the noise problem. Mrs. Karen Weeks, commented that they were not talking about just a couple of hours -- sometimes they would start loading at four or five in the afternoon, and then the trucks run all evening and night. It is not just for two or three hours, it is more like 12 or 14 hours. Preston McMillan, 5041 Wisconsin, stated he could not add anything, but that he was in agreement with his neighbors, that it was a problem. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 83 - 58, until the meeting November 1, 1983. Commis- sioner Dunn second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. 7. Mo~ion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gustafson to remove Case 83-56 from the table. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. Mr. Robertson stated he would speak for Mr. Tedesco who had to leave the meeting. He stated he had not realized that part of the plat was in the watershed area. He said that they would be willing to add 30 - 40 feet to Lot 2, and donate the balance of Lot #3 to the City of New Hope. This would also give the new owners a little more esthetics, for landscaping along the side, etc. Cormmissioner Gustafson confirmed that the assessments would be paid in full, prior to the donation of the land to the city. Mr. Robertson said he felt they could arrange that. Chairman Cameron commented that he felt this was a most generous and reasonable compromise. He suggested that the Commission act on the motion now, and the petitioner could make the changes, including indicat- ing the easements on the plat before they appear before the City Council on Tuesday. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of simply combining the properties, and not donating the land to the city, what future uses of the property might be, and possible improvements alon~ Winnetka Avenue, as well as possible alternatives to the property use. Mr. Robertson said the actual division, and whether the city retained the land, or a private owner, was not their concern, but that they wished to have the issue decided before completion of the sale of the radio station, in 30 days. Mr. Robertson said they would pay the pending assessments. Discussion continued regarding utility easements required, and whether lots two Jnd three should be com- bined, or whether there should be a division of the properties, with a portion of lot three being do- nated to the city. Also discussed were the advantages to the city of owning this land, versus any possible taxes that might be gained if it were combined with lot two, and what might be built on Lot 1. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the proposed plat was not creating an undersized lot in Lot 2. The City Manager noted that he did not feel this was a problem, but that he would personally check on the lot size requirements before the Council meeting. In response to the concerns expressed by the Commissioners in regard to this proposed plat, and the possible future development of the property, the Chairman commented that the City Council would have the benefit of the Commission's concerns, when they read the minutes of this meeting. They would then also be aware of the reasonableness of Mr. Tedesco's actions, in regard to compromising with the City/Commis- sion in not creating an unbuildable piece of property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 - OCTOBER 4, 1983 7. Chairman Cameron made a motlon recommending approval of the preliminary plat at 9100 49th Avenue North, as requested in Case 83-57, with the understanding that before the City Council meeting, Lot 2 will be expanded to provide more usable property along Winnetka, and Lot 3 will be leqallv ceded to.the City of New Hope. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, GUndershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 11. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 12. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 13. The Planning Commission minutes of September 6, 1983 were approved as printed. 14. The Council minutes of September 12, and September 26, were reviewed. 17. The meeting was adjourned, by unanimous consent at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .~/Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING CC~MISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 1, 1983 at the City Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Dunn Absent: Anderson, Gustafson (arrived at 7:33 p.m.) Edwards (arrived at 7:42 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 83 - 53 (Tabled from October 4, 1983) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE EXISTING FENCE - 9456 Medicine Lake Road, Robert Steiner, Petitioner. The petitioner was not in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Corm~issioner Friedrich to table this case until the end of the meeting. Voting in favor: ~riedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Dunn Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Gustafson, Edwards Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 83 - 58 (Tabled from October 4, 1983) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE - 5149 Winnetka Avenue North - L & L Distribution, Petitioner. Mr. Rick Giertson represented L & L Distribution. He noted that he had previously appeared before the Commission in regard to the Conditional Use, because of noise problems affecting the residents to the south of their site. Mr. Giertson stated they had hired Intest to try and come up with a solution to the noise problem. He had just received their report that day, and he had not had an opportunity to assess and decide what solution would be best. One suggestion had been to put a fiberglass mount over the front of their trailers to drop each individual unit to about seven decibels. A second solution would be to make a moveable plastic shield that would go in front of the trailers as they were loading. He had not as yet had an opportunity to put together a cost estimate on the proposals. He had also contacted Prudential to see if there was a possibility they could park their trucks further to the north. He would like the city to give him enough time to be able to assess the two proposals. The report had indicated there could be a 15-18 decibel drop with using the plastic shield, the clipper unit would have a 6 decibel drop. In answer to a question regarding how many shields would be required, Mr. Giertson said probably two. He noted that the problem was that the employees would have to put the shield into position when it was needed. He requested a table for another month. He then referred to the complaint that had been made against the company by the city. He stated that the complaint indicated 13 trucks on the site. The com- pany only has nine trucks. He has also asked Prudential for permission to post a sign stating that only trucks owned by Ben Franklin and L & L were allowed to park on the site. These are trucks that come to unload at L & L and then park there overnight. They will tell these other truckers that they cannot park on the site, because of the existing noise problem. Supervisors have been instructed to get non company vehicles off the site, but the company does not always immediately realize they are parking there. Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner Gulenchyn to table this Planning Case until the meeting of December 6, 1983. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Dunn Voting against: None Abstain: Edwards Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 83 - 59 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REARYARD SETBACK - 8108 28th Avenue North - Ole/Karen Johnson, Petitioners. Mr. Johnson said he was requesting a seven foot variance from the rearyard setback to allow him to con- struct a three season porch. The porch would be 14' x 16' with a 10' x 14' deck. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that there would be no heat in the porch, and no foundation other than footings. He further confirmed that the siding and roofing would match the existing house as far as color and texture was concerned. Mr. Johnson said there would be jalousie type windows, and that this would be about the only place on the lot that a porch could be built. There was no room in the front. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 1, 1983 5. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Johnson said he had not talked to his neigh- bors about his proposed addition. Mr. Jim Blad, and his wife Leslie Brown were present and expressed concern about the addition. He said they were concerned about any further encroachment by a structure. He felt it was important for the city to maintain their standards and protect their property from any further encroachment. He felt this was the reason the law had been established, as evidenced by the fact that a variance was required. Ms. Brown said they had recently purchased their house, and when they had purchased it had been a con- cern to them that Mr. Johnson's house was set further back on the lot. The house looks close. They were concerned about noise, and lights, etc. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, Ms. Brown said she thought their house was about 55 feet from their rear lot line. Mr. Johnson noted that he had been going to put up a fence between the two properties. Chairman Cameron stated that the rule on setbacks was not a law, but a city regulation which had been adopted to guarantee that adequate space was maintained between lots. It was not an absolute, variances are not terribly unusual, and seven feet into the rearyard is not an extensive variance, in the experi- ence of the Planning Commission, but it does require that if a person wishes to encroach into the setback they must have permission from the Planning Com~ission/Councit. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the deck construction did not require a variance. The City Manager added that an open porch would not require a variance either; it is only an enclosed porch. Commissioner Anderson commented that it seemed to him that the problem might be the closeness of the two buildings -- perhaps there could be some type of screening plantings provided. He asked whether a short recess might provide the neighbors a chance to discuss possible solutions. Mr. Johnson said he was willing to have this request tabled until the end of the meeting. Ms. Brown said she was curious about the type of fence that might be put up. Commissioner Anderson made a motion tabling Case 83-59 until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, ©undershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 83 - 60 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REARYARD SETBACK - 3233 Gettysburg Court - Michael/ Jo Ellen Ostrow, Petitioners. Mr. Ostrow said they wish to put on an addition to their home at the rear. The setback would be 26 feet instead of the required 35 feet. There would only be about seven feet of the addition that would encroach, toward the end. Commissioner Gustafson asked why they had positioned the proposed addition where it is. Mr. Ostrow said there was really no other place to put it. The space is very badly needed. It will be a family room. They had looked for other possibilities, but they really did not exist. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the proposed location would allow them to maintain the windows to the dining room and kitchen. He further confirmed that the addition would match the existing house as it related to color, texture and roofing material. There was no one present in regard to this request. Chairman Cameron noted that the city would require that Mr. Ostrow obtain an accurate lot survey before a building permit could be issued. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variance as requested in Case 83-60, at 3233 Gettysburg Court, subject to the condition that the roof and siding materials match the existing house as far as color and texture. Commissioner Gulenchyn second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 1, 1983 7. PLANNING CASE 83 - 61 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 2900 Nevada Avenue - 2900 Nevada Partners, Petitioners. Mr. Jan Susee, Attorney, represented the petitioners. He was accompanied by the architect and one of the partners. They said they were requesting a building permit for construction of an office/warehouse complex at 2900 Nevada. There are two phases planned. These two phases were so indicated on the plans° Also included were landscape plans. They will preserve the wetlands portion of the site. The building would be occupied by Northland Me- chanical Contractors and Huber, Inc. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the plat itself, and whether anything had been done on the plat? Mr. Susee said they had been discussing this with the City Manager. They are willing to plat the property but they are constrained by time as they desire to get into the ground before winter. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned how the Commission could' approve a construction plan, without knowing what it would be built on. The City Manager said that back in 1981 the Planning Commission and Council had approved a preliminary plat for the involved property. One thing that could be done would be to ask the City Council to grant a variance on the time limit for a final plat. The Code requires 100 days maximum. The property owner is still the same person. Chairman Cameron asked how the Planning Commission could approve plans if the final plat had not been approved? The City Manager suggested that the Commission could review the plans, and if the City Attorney did not approve the route proposed (to grant a variance of the time limit on platting) construction approval could be recommended subject to the platting requirements being met. The Chairman stated he would hate to have the city put into the position of "bad guy", when the peti- tioner had all summer to straighten this out. The City Manager said that the city was partly to blame in not notifying the petitioner ahead of time. The petitioners are not the people who had submitted the original preliminary plat and had thought they could deal with a site description by metes and bounds, which is specifically forbidden by city code. They had not been notified until the past week. · Mr. Susee commented that throughout the planning process, they had been dealing with a piece of property that had been described as having a preliminary plat. They were under the impression that it was platted, until the past week. The original plans were almost identical to what is now being proposed. commissioner Gundershaug Said the second problem he was concerned with was the street, whether there would be an easement, back to the property, or if they had discussed this problem with the city? Mr. Susee said they had discussed this, and that if there had to be a cul-du-sac back there, it would drastically affect the plan and perhaps prohibit it. They were purchasing the property from Witcher, and he was not certain whether anyone had any hold over the adjoining property, that did not belong to Witcher. Depending on the cost of bringing the road up to city standards, he did not think Witcher would have any objections but he did not know about the other property. The city Manager stated that he had spent quite a bit of time conferring about this with the City Plan- ner and the City Attorney. It was his recommendation that the street problem be considered separately because he did not feel that the street should be tied to the construction of the building. Chairman Cameron noted that the Planning Commission had nothing to do with streets. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what would happen to the buildings presently on the site? Mr. Susee said he thought they would be torn down. There is one on the property line which may be moved over, an existing garage will be moved. Commissioner Gundershaug said it was his understanding that the city had to know where it was going to be moved to, and grant city approval. The city Manager said the building would have to be moved, it was on the property line. Commissioner Edwards noted that the survey would show where the building was and where it would be moved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - NOVEMBER 1, 1983 7. Commissioner Gundershaug asked who the outside storage an~ equipment on the site belonged to? Mr. Susee said he thought it belonged to the adjoining property owner, and it will be removed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding Phase II, and when it might be constructed, Mr. Susee said it would be started as soon as they could find a suitable co-owner or tenant. He added that the building will be owner occupied to the extent that control corporations will be occupying the majority of the premises. There will be some space available for rent. Com~issioner Gundershaug confirmed that in regard to the Phase I portion of the construction, the peti- tioner met all codes and restrictions of the city as far as building size and green area, etc. In answer to a question regarding Phase II, and the possible need for variances, the petitioner said they would not request them. Discussion then centered on traffic flow around the building. It was noted that the city code required that the roadway be tarred. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they would be agreeable to tarring the road around to the back, if Phase II were not completed in 18 months? The answer was "yes". The area behind Phase I, will all be seeded, except for the drive around. There will be directional signs to control traffic flow, and at this time they are not contemplating any rooftop equipment. At the present time, there will be no signs on the building, other than identification. The petitioner indicated they were aware of the city's Sign Ordinance. The outside refuse will be screened, and no outside storage is planned on the site. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be a 50 foot radius at the corner of the building. He also noted that Design and Review had been concerned with the area of the Witcher property and had requested that the area be flattened out somewhat. Mr. Susee said they did not have any real objections to this, but that their thoughts were that it was not real likely that a truck would come from that area into the petitioner's area. Security lights have been added to the building on the north and south, there will be concrete curbed, and the asphalt will be striped. Discussion then centered on the proposed landscaping. There will be sod all around the building, and the west side will be sodded. There will also be terracing, (4 steps) and plantings on the terrace. They will add some plantings on the east and west sides of the building. There will be sod between the parking and the holding pond for at least five to ten feet. The building will be of decorative concrete block, similar to the other buildings in the city. Commissioner Edwards asked where exactly the plants would be located in the terrace area? He was con- cerned about soil erosion. He noted that the proposal called for 30 trees in a 350 foot expanse. He felt that 30 feet apart was too great a distance to protect and shelter this area. The architect noted that to the east was the pond. They had purposely faced all of the windows toward the pond. He felt that planting trees between the windows and the pond defeated the purpose of the view. Mr. Susee noted that with the terracing, you would not see very much. The owner was unwilling to spend a lot of money on the back wall. He added that if there was a concern about the plantings, they would prefer that they be more visible to the public. They are looking for a cost effective building, but he did not think that some additional shrubs would be a major concern. Commissioner Anderson asked about the present dwelling on the property. It was noted that this dwelling was a legal non conforming use at this time. He confirmed that anyone on that property would have to cross two easements to get in or out. He expressed concern about this. Mr. Susee stated that there was no way to solve the easement problem unless they could get the road de- dicated. There are two landlocked parcels -- a cul-du-sac would destroy the property's usefulness. Commissioner Anderson stated he had a problem with the building being placed so far south, as it is proposed. He asked whether the building could not be moved farther to the north on the site. The architect noted that the building to the north, was 20 feet from the back property line. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the driveway width, and possible truck traffic. Commissioner Edwards noted that concern about the easements for traffic had been his concern in the past and continued to be. He felt that the business owners were running a tremendous risk, just in the difficulty of getting public safety/emergency vehicles into the site. Commissioner Anderson said they were dealing with something that would be used as a road, you PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 NOVEMBER 1, 1983 7. could call it anything you wished, a private driveway, an easement, whatever, but to the person driv- ing a semi, it would be a road. He felt it should be addressed as a road and that the same types of amenities should be provided as on a road. It should be wide enough so that two t~ucks could pass each other. To him a 24 foot wide driveway to the south, was not wide enough to serve two industrial par- cels. There was no way that a City Engineer would approve this width, if it were a city street. Mr. Susee said that originally thfs property was to have been served from the north. When the city allowed the construction of the major warehouse behind, they cut off that access, and this is why they were left with what n~w exists. Discussion then covered the possibility of the building being moved to the north, to allow more space for the drives. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager stated that the city had always required approval of the concept plan for both phases as far as landscaping, site, green area, etc. Commissioner Gustafson asked about planting materials for the terraced area? Mr. Susee, said they would provide planting if required. They would not propose to do so. Chairman Cameron asked how they would mow the grass if that was put on the terrace? Mr. Susee noted that the terraces would be five feet wide. The leRgth of the terrace area would be 180 feet in the first phase, the second phase would be about 150 feet. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending construction approval at 2900 Nevada, as requested in Case 83-61, with the following stipulations: that the building would be moved five feet to the north~to provide additional drive width on the south side of the building; that additional plantings be added to each level of the terrace; that the south drive be the arc on which the property would be flattened for better access into this property; and that the terrace plantings be some type of ground cover, or low shrubs. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 83 - 62 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL at 5650 International Parkway - Snap On Tools Corporation, Petitioner. John Basler represented Snap On Tools. They requested approval of a 12,000 warehouse facility. He was accompanied by their architect, Robert Cuney, and Gary Nordness of Rosewood Corporation. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioners were requesting no variances, and that the building would be owner occupied. He then asked the Manager about the Waiver of Platting. Mr. Donahue said there would be a variance from the platting requirement and as far as the storm sewer easement, this would be handled by Council action. There will be 39 parking spaces, for 20-25 employees. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they would be agreeable to providing additional parking spaces if the city were to determine the need, rather than provide an excess cf asphalt now. The petitioner agreed. There will be a redwood trash enclosure, no rooftop equipment, concrete curbs and wall bumpers. It was noted that the proposal to leave the corners open to dispose of snow was against city ordinance. They plan to use the storm sewer on the property as a runoff. The building will be pre-cast concrete, both walls and roof. The building will essentially be a fire proof building. The lower section will be textured concrete, with a dark brown tine, and a frieze around the top painted either eggshell or off white. There will be one sign - Snap On Tools Corpora- tion - that will meet city regulations. There will be security lighting on all four sides. The truck entrance will be on the left. There will be a directional sign toward the entrance. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding landscaping, it was noted that sub- stantial changes had been made in the plan. An actual count would be provided, if necessar~ of the plantings proposed. Discussion followed between the petitioner and the Commissioners regarding the quantity of plantings, with the Commissioners suggesting that the number of trees/shrubs proposed be doubled. Commissioner Edwards also suggested that low shrubs be added next to the building. Chairman Cameron suggested that city staff check the landscape plan before the Council meeting. He felt the proposed trees were inadequate. He confirmed with the petitioner that they would provide double the number of trees on the site. PLANNING cOMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - NOV~4BER 1, 1983 8. Referring to the petitioner's plan to leave the corners free of curbing in the parking area, Commissioner Gustafson noted that city~ ordinaBce required continuous curbing around parking areas. The City Manager stated that he was also asking the Planning Commission to pass a variance from the plat- ting ordinance. 5~nere was no one present in regard to this request. Gary Nordness,of Rosewood Corporation, noted that discussions had been held with the city Attorney Bill Corrick, and it had been his recommendation in a letter dated October 21, 1983, that the waiver of plat- ting be approved. It is a clean legal description. A sewer easement agreement is being drafted by Mr. Corrick which will be signed~ The City Manager noted that staff agreed with this approach. Commissioner Gundershau~ made a motion recommending approval of the construction requested for 5650 International Parkway in Case 83-62, as well as approval of the variance from platting, with the stipu- lation that the curbing around the parking area and drives be continuous, that additional landscaping be provided on the north and west sides of the building and that low shrubs be provided along the Horth and west sides of the building, and that the landscaping quantity, as shown on the original plan, be doubled. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 83 - 63 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7600 49th Avenue North - Richard Krohn, Petitioner~ Mr. Krohn stated he was requesting an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to park two small school buses on his property. The buses belong to Calvin Christian School. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city had had any problems with the parking allowed presently under the existing Conditional Use Permit? %~he City Manager stated that he personally had not heard of any problems. He would, however, check with the Building Official on this. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the school buses would be parked where the trucks are parked -- on the paved portion to the north end of the lot. Mr. Krohn noted that the amendment was for two buses -- of a size that held 20-25 passengers. He added that he had not heard of any problems in regard to the present Conditional Use Permit. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershauq regarding the requested landscaping, it was noted that this had been completed. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit at 7600 49th Avenue North, as re~aested in Case 83-63. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None ~otion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 83 - 64 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 5100 County Road ~18 - S. R. Harris, Petitioner. Mr. Dan Share, and Mr. Harris were present in regard to this request. Mr. Share commented on the fact that Snap On Tools would be leaving the premises in question. This would result in the opening up of the loading area for probably 10 more parking spots. In addition to these, some of the spots that had been identified in the report by Mr. Licht would be opened up, so this would provide an additional 15-20 park- ing places. Mr. Harris has also reached agreement with neighboring companies, Horwitz for 7-8 spots and Minnesota Lift for 4-5 spots. With the addition of these parking spots, he felt that Mr. Harris should be afforded the opportunity to operate. There should be up to 95 total parking spaces. Chairman Cameron confirmed that these extra spots would be marked and would be available. Mr. Share noted that the operation is basically a warehouse, when customers come in they place an order and the material is then brought to the front sales area. Mr. Harris has agreed that the warehouse space and storage area will not be open to the public. If a customer wanted to go into those areas, they would be required to be accompanied by ~r. Harris, or one of his employees. Mr. Harris has also agreed that any additional expansion would meet the approval of the Fire Marshal and the Planning Commission. Mr. Harris said he did not have any immediate plans to expand. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 1, 1983 10. Mr. Share added that with the additional parking area now to be available, he believed that Mr. Harris would comply with the concerns of the city. Mr. Harris has also stipulated that the warehouse area would not be open to the public. Chairman Cameron asked the petitioner to speak to the actual square footage that would be involved in each part of the operation. Mr. Share said there would be 8-9,000 square feet in the sales area, and 10,000 square feet in the warehouse area. Chairman Cameron noted that the city had originally approved 1900 square feet for the sales area. He asked what the parking requirements would be for 9,000 square feet. The C~ty Manager stated that retail space required one space for every 150 square feet, which would mean 66 spaces would be necessary. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioner was assuring the Comm~ission that they would have 95 spaces. The City Manager stated that City Code spoke to off-site parking, which is what Mr. Harris was requesting, and that there were very specific requirements in regard to such parking. The parking requirement for the warehouse portion of the operation would be one space for each 1,000 square feet. Mr. Share stated that he felt that with Snap On Tools moving, they do believe that Mr. Harris had a good argument for the granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Gustafson confirmedthat the space presently occupied by Snap On Tools would be occupied by Mr. Harris when Snap On Tools left the premises. Mr. Share said yes, but that the area would not be used for retail sales. In response to a question, regarding other businesses on the site, Mr. Harris said that the Munsinger Gymnastics School was also in the building. However, most of their clients come in after 4:30 p.m. when the business day is practically over. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the space requirements would include parking for all occupants on the site. Mr. Harris said "yes". Commissioner Gustafson then confirmed with the petitioner that only duplicate items would be stored in the warehouse area, and that there would not be any reason for retail customers to be in the warehouse. unless they were accompanied by an employee. Mr. Share stated that there were written agreements with the neighboring businesses that parking spaces would be available for Mr. Harris' customers. In response to a question, the City Manager stated that the petitioner had not recently gone over the proposed plans with the City Planner. He felt the final plans should perhaps be reviewed by staff/Planner. Mr. Share stated that the original plans had been provided to Mr. Sandstad of the city staff. It was noted that the Snap On Tools lease would expire in July. Chairman Cameron expressed his concerns about this request, and stated that he felt the city should not be in a hurry to approve plans. He stated he was also very concerned about Mr. Harris' violations of the City Ordinance, perhaps Mr. Harris operation belonged in a retail area. Commissioner Anderson raised questions about the site plan that had been given to the Commissioners, noting that it appeared to him that there were 57 parking spaces on site. He asked that the City Manager check on whether Horwitz and Minnesota Lift had checked with the city in regard to parking spaces so the Commission could be sure that they met code and whether they could give up these spaces to Mr. Harris. It was Commissioner Anderson's opinion that there was not enough parking being provided. Commissioner Bartos stated he felt there were too many unanswered questions in regard to this request, and he felt that staff should continue to review this case. Commissioner made a motion recommending that Case 83-64 be tabled until the meeting of December 6, 1983. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. The City Manager stated that he would like to petitioner to meet again with the City Planner in about two weeks. He will notify them of the time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - NOVEMBER 1, 1983 5. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second bY commissioner Friedrich to take Case 83-59 off the table. Voting in favor: Anderson, Priedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. Mr. Johnson stated that he had discussed his neighbor's objections to his addition. He has agreed to look at his property from their side of the fence and address their concerns about possible noise and lights affecting their property from his addition into their recreation room. Mr. Johnson said he would consider either a fence or a hedge to alleviate the problem. He questioned whether he could still be on the November 14th, Council agenda, and between this time and then he and the neighbors would get together and hopefully, reach a solution. The Chairman said that the Commission had to act on the request as presented. If they could work out a solution before the Council meeting, Council will hear the case as presented and make a decision. There was no one else present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendinq approval of the variance in rearyard setback at 8108- 28th Avenue North, as requested in Case 83-59, subject to the petitioner's assurance that the addition will match the existing house in terms of siding texture, roofinq materials, and color. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. 3. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug! second by Commissioner Gulenchyn to remove Case 83-53 from the table. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug,Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. The petitioner was still not in attendance. The City Manager requested that this case be tabled for another month. Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Edwards to table Case 83-53 until the meetinq of December 6, 1983. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1t. Design and Review had held one meeting in October. 12. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 13. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The City Manager stated that he, the City Attorney and the Building Official would meet on Wednesday, to discuss recormnendations for code changes. He suggested that in the next two weeks, there would be a joint meeting with Codes and Standards Committee. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Anderson to be a member of the Codes and Standards Committee. Mr. Dunn will become a member of the Design and Review Committee. NEW BUSINESS 14. The Planning Commission Minutes of October 4, 1983 were accepted as printed. 15. The Council Minutes of October 11, and October 24, 1983 were reviewed by the City Manager. 17. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Joy~e Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -1- DECEMBER 6, 1983 1. A regular meeting of the New .Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 6, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. at the New Hope city hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Anderson, Friedrich~ Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug~ Gustafson, Edwards, Dunn Absent: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. ?lanninq Case No. 83-53~.re~uest for variance to eliminate existin~ence b_e_t~en~the ser- vice station at 9456 Medicine-Lake Road and the apartment complex to the north, Robert Steiner, petitioner, was ~nsidered by the Planning Commission. (Tabled from November 1, ~1-983. ) Mr. Robert Steiner, the petitioner was in attendance. Mr. Steiner apologized for not being in attendance at the last meeting. He said that the fence on his property, which is conunercial, is adjacent to an apartment building. It creates a Problem in that the people from the apartment back into the fence when they are turning around. Also the apartment site does not have storage space for snow. The fence is knocked down and abused frequently. Mr. Steiner continued that the new property owner sees that problem and has agreed to taking down the fence. Mr. Steiner clari- fied that he would remove the fence, not the apartment owner, if the city would give Der- mission. Mr. Steiner stated that he thought the problem was that the city did not want to set a pre- cedent by allowing the fence to be removed. He said he has found several places in town where a fence is not provided, so he did not think setting a precedent was a problem. He then asked whether the Planning Commission wanted to know which sites he was referring to. Chairman Cameron replied that he did not think the city had ever given a variance to remove a fence in this type of situation. He said if this request were granted, the Planning Commission would be setting a precedent. Dr. Cameron then stated that at the last meeting the new apartment owner was present and had stated that they would be willing to try to work out something. The ordinance does not require a solid fence. The planning Commission was hoping that something could be worked out such as a living fence, shrubbery, bushes, etc. There would also have to be something installed to prevent the cars from driving over it. The apartment owner had indicated that he was willing to try to work something out with the station owner. ~ Mr. Steiner said he had not been aware of this and indicated that the apartment owner was present at the meeting. He thought the apartment owner also wanted the fence removed. Chairman Cameron responded that removal of the fence would not solve the problem. The or- dinance is written to provide some protection to residents living beside a commercial activity. Mr. Steiner responded that the garages provide screening. Dr. Cameron commented that the ordinance required a fence. Obviously there are some pro- blems because of the closeness of the fence to the driveways and the cars inadvertently backing into the fence. He said this was Mr. Steiner's problem because it was his fence. There are solutions. One would be a steel rail two feet off the ground to protect the fence from the cars. Another would be some kind of shrubbery which would also have to be protected; otherwise, in this kind of weather the cars would be driving over it. This problem was first brought to the attention of the city sometime back. Mr. Steiner replied that this had been an ongoing problem. The previous owner had agreed to fix the fence if he furnished the material. This was done, but now it is back to "square one" because of the tenants lack of concern. He then asked why there were similar situations in town where fences did not exist. The city manager advised that during the 70's the zoning Code did change. In the old code some businesses did not have this requirement for a fence between the commercial and resi- dential property. From 1978 on, this has been a requirement. You can not make a property owner conform to a new code if he built under an old code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 DECEMBER 6, 1983 3. Mr. Steiner replied that his station had been built in 1964. He said he did not put the fence up; he did not know who did. It might have been the apartment owner. Per- haps the fence was not required at the time the station was built. Commissioner Anderson suggested that Mr. Steiner might give a list of the locations with which he was concerned to Mr. Donahue so these sites could be checked. Mr. Anderson commented that there was a very narrow distance from the face of the garage to the edge of the blacktop. It is difficult for a prudent driver to back out of the garage and make a turn, especially in the winter time, and avoid hitting the fence. The fence is right on the property line. Probably what should be done is some kind of a concrete barrier, or a curb of some kind should be placed on the apartment house property line, right at the edge of the blacktop, so that the cars can not back into the fence. If the fence were not there, Mr. Anderson thought you would find that the snowplow people would be pushing snow onto the station site; people would be parking cars there. They might just take over the station land. This would detract both from the looks of the apart- ment complex and the station property. Commissioner Anderson said he thought it would be ideal if a car could come up to the curb without knocking into the fence, whether it would be the type of fence that n~w exists or a living fence. He said he thought a living fence would be the most attractive. Hz said he thought that would be the solution; repairing the fence is not the solution because it would just get knocked down again. He suggested that Mr. Steiner work out some kind of arrangement so that whatever screening is provided is protected from the cars. This should be done. Commissioner Gulenchyn inquired as to whether or not Mr. Steiner had considered using shrubbery or greenery. Has that option been discussed before? That was an option brought up at the last meeting. Mr. Steiner said that this evening is the first he had heard about the living fence o~tion. He said he had been out of town at the last meeting. The word he had gotten was that it had to be a screening fence between the commercial and residential. Mr. Gulenchyn stated that he thought the shrubbery option was not a bad option. Mr. Steiner then asked what would be acceptable as far as shrubbery was concerned. What type and how high? Commissioner Gulenchyn replied that it would have to be a thick type. Commissioner Gustafson interjected that the first thing would have to be a buffer to protect whatever is used for the fencing, either a cement curb or a post and steel bumper for protection. The city code does require the screening. Mr. Gustafson said that Mr. Steiner had a problem with the property owner to the north in terms of damage being done to his property by residents of the other party's apartment building. He continued that he thought the Planning Commission would certainly ask for enforcement of the screening ordinance. Mr. Steiner then has a problem with his neighbor. He again commented that the most important thing is protection for whatever screening is used. Chairman Cameron commented that there has been a lot of conversation regarding this re- quirement. He said that he did not think that the Planning Commission or the Council could tell him to take the fence down. There are solutions to the problem but it is not up to the Planning Commission to solve the problem. The city will insist, as long as the fence is there, that it be maintained. There are relatively cheap screening o~- tions such as Russian Olives which, after a few years, would take care of themselves. The city does insist that there be some kind of screening. Mr. Steiner should give some time and effort to putting it in and making.sure that it is maintained. It is not the purpose of the Planning Commission to give variances for this type of problem. The Planning Commission's purpose is to enforce the ordinance, to be reasonable and if the right conditions exist, to give a variance. He said he was not convinced that there was any basis for a variance or that the screening fence could not be kept in good shape. Chairman Cameron then called for comments from citizens present. None were heard. Motion kY Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Edwards recommending denial of the variance requested under Planning Case No. 83-53. ~ Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gutenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Gustafson, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion declared carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- December 6, 1983 3. Mr. Steiner was then advised that the city Council would be considering this case at its meeting of Monday, December 12, 1983. 4. Planning Case No. 83-58L~equest from L & L Distribution for a conditional use permit to allow outside storage at 5149 Winnetka Avenue, was considered by the Planning Commis- sion. (Tabled from meeting of November 1, 1983). Mr. Rick Giertsen, Treasurer of L & L Distribution represented the petitioner. He said they had obtained another proposal from Intest. He said he also had a drawing of the proposed parking which they hope to be able to get from Honeywell. He said that Infest had tested one of the units that they are proposing to mount on the trailers in the laboratory. He said that the tests show that the sound levels can be moved from 54 to 56 decibels down to 46 to 47 at the apartment. At the Weeks' property line, the sound level will be down to 47 to 48.5 level. This is a theoretical thing, but it should prove out. To be sure of this, it is proposed to mount one unit, test that unit, and if the readings hold true, then to mount the units on the rest of the trailers and, hope- fully, have the problem licked. Mr. Giertsen said this was one phase of the proposal; there are two other elements. They expect to obtain permission from Honeywell to park part of their units in the north- west corner of the Honeywell lot, facing diagonally northwest. This would move the units to the north also channeling the sound northwest. Presently most of the sound is channeled to the east. He said they would also continue doing the diagonal parking which they are presently doing on the east property line of the L & L building facing northeast. The third element they are looking at is to have a sign approximately 100 feet back from Winnetka on the Prudential property stating that there is no overnight parking. Hope- fully this would eliminate the unauthorized parking by trucks that are coming in the morn- ing. This is an alternative to finding out that the trucks are there two or three hours after they are parked. Mr. Giertsen said that they feel that a combination of the three elements should bring them down within the required limits. He said they want to do the testing of the unit to make sure that it will bring down the noise to the required limit. Commissioner Gulenchyn inquired as to whether the parking arrangement had been worked out with Honeywell. Mr. Giertsen said that it would probably take two or three weeks to get the authority. He said they have talked to Honeywell. Honeywell did not see any major problem with it. However, they have to go to their legal staff. He said he was sure that Honeywell would want e~idence of liability insurance and L & L could provide that coverage without any major problem--a hold harmless agreement, that type of thing. Chairman Cameron inquired as to whether an agreement had been made concerning cleaning the snow from those parking spaces. Mr. Giertsen replied that Honeywell and L & L contract with the same snowptower. Pru- dential owns the entire lot. Commissioner Gustafson asked for the name of the person at Honeywell with whom they had dealt. The petitioner said that he did not have the name of that plant manager. He had not talked to him; Harry Miller had contacted that person. Mr. Giertsen said he would obtain that name if Planning Commission wanted it. The Honeywell plant manager had said that as far as L & L parking on the Honeywell site during the light traffic time, he did not have a problem, but he said it did have to be approved by the legal department. Commissioner Gulenchyn said that obtaining this permission from Honeywell was a key part of the proposal. Mr. Giertsen responded that the thought was that they would be able to achieve the sound reduction levels without this parking by putting the clipper on. With four trucks backed up against the loading dock and four trucks parked diagonally northeast on the east boundary line, they will be able to meet the limits because the trucks that are parked north or northeast are not the major source of noise. The major source is the trucks that are parked directly south. He said they felt, instead of just getting down to 49.9, they wo~ld spread the noise to a certain degree. For that reason they were proposing to provide parking further north away from the residents. He said that there had been indications on the earlier proposal that they could meet the limits without off- site parking, but that it would be beneficial to have off-site parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- December 6, 1983 4. Commissioner Gulenchyn then inquired as to whether the petitioner felt that a sign would~'~ stop the overnight parking. Mr. Giertsen said that it would not stop the overnight parking, but it would give them an opportunity to catch some of them as they are coming in. They can loop back through the Honeywell front lot and go out before they really stop and park and come and talk to the night people to find out about parking. Now the L & L employees have to go and tell the truckers they have to move. Mr. Giertsen said they are trying to catch the trucks as early as possible; they will still have to go out if people come and park any- way. If it saves one or two trucks over the course of a week, tha~ would be beneficial. Realistically, the truckers are going to try to park; then they will have to be chased off the site. Upon inquiry, Mr. Giertsen said that it will take about one to two weeks to have the one unit mounted on the truck. If that tests out it will take two to three weeks to order material and another two weeks to install the shields on all the units. He said the total time would be six to eight weeks, certainly by the first of February would be realistic. The trucks are gone sometimes for two or three days so there will be a co- ordination problem to get them to Thermo King to have the shield mounted. Commissioner Gulenchyn then inquired how often the city would be testing the sound level. The city manager said this is done on a complaint basis, not a routine basis. If neces- sary, it could be done on a periodic basis. The city does have a person qualified to do this testing. 'Mr. Giertsen said that his firm would be receptive to having the New Hope people present when Intest is running the initial test with one truck, and again after seven or eight trucks are outfitted. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the trucks that would be parked at Honeywell would be loaded and waiting to leave in the morning. Mr. Giertsen replied that they would be loaded and ready to leave in the morning. Every night so many trucks are loaded and sent out the following morning. Seven trucks teave~-~ on Monday and Thursday. Some of those trucks leave on one, two or three-day runs. The other nights four, five or three trucks might be loaded. They load the trucks up to 10:00 or 11:00 o'clock at night. The first trucks that come in would be taken to the Honeywell lot. The truck and trailer would be left connected. Commissioner Gustafson then inquired whether another site was available if they did not obtain permission from Honeywell for the parking. Giertsen replied that they feel they can get this permission from Honeywell. They do have a decent relationship with Honeywell. A few years ago they obtained permission from Honeywell for temporary parking for a 45 or 60 day period. They did not have a problem with that as long as L & L was able to provide them with evidence of insurance. Commissioner Gustafson said it would solve a lot of the problem if Giertsen had an al- ternate parking site in case the Honeywell parking is not approved. Mr. Giertsen replied that, in order to maintain some type of control, they would like the trucks fairly close to their center. The truckers have to pick up their paper work. They park their personal cars at the center. The Honeywell site is within walking dis- tance. Otherwise there would be a transportation problem. The easiest solution is to have the off-site parking adjacent to the center. Commissioner Friedrich commented that the conversation was mostly on theory. He was not going to vote in favor of anything until he has tests results and can find out what is really happening. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission shared Commissioner Friedrich's concerns. There are two big factors, the sound units and the Honeywell permission. It is difficult for the commission to make any firm commitment until these matters are firmed up. Mr. Giertsen said that he could agree with that position. They have spent $10,000 for the fence which has not worked out. They are now looking at $1,500 to $2,000 per unit, so they are talking about another $10,000 to $16,000. He said he is not overly excited about spending the money if it is not going to work. They already have air shields on the trucks so the fuel savings that will be generated will be minor. It will take a long time to amortize the cost through fuel savings. He said he would rather that his plant was out of that neighborhood so it would not be a problem. They are in a lease which runs about another 2% years. Mr. Giertsen said that he did have to rely on the con- sultants as to sound. He assumes that they are good consultants; they have been recommended. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- December 6~ 1983 4. Theoretically, it has proven out in the test laboratory. The next step is to install a shield and then test it. Then, if the test on the site works out, as did the labora- tory test, they will install the shields. Commissioner Gustafson expressed concerns about the "ifs' in the proposal. He noted that they are talking about being three decibels away from the legal limit. Mr. Giertsen responded that, if you look at it the other way, when they got the cita- tion they were marginally over the legal limit. You are either legal or you are not. He said he could not say that he could get the sound down to 30 decibels. Commissioner Gulenchyn suggested that the case be tabled until there is something more definite to consider, such as the relationship with Honeywell and the test results. Mr. Giertsen said they would have the sign up by the next meeting, and they should have a letter from Honeywell. The initial unit should be tested by then. He said he knew that he had to find some type of a solution. If it looks like the shields will do the job, they will order the shields right away. If that does not work, they would have to look further. He said there is another method. This unit tips up. When you tip it up, you get a further sound reduction because there is a big hole in the middle where there is a breather unit to suck the air in. If you tip it up, you still have the tractor in front of you so that the noise is not going directly south, it is being diverted a little bit. Chairman Cameron then opened the discussion to the floor. Mrs.Karen Weeks inquired as to whether the shields would be built onto the refrigerated units. Mr. Giertsen replied that they would be attached to the front of the Thermo King. It would be permanent. There is a way that you can tip it up to work on the Thermo King. It would be about a three-to-four hour job to take it off the unit. The shields will also pr.ovide some aero-dynamics for the units. There will be sound deadening material inside the shields. Karen Weeks asked how many vehicles would be loading at a time. Mr. Giertsen responded that they had nine loading docks. Door 9 is strictly for flour which comes in during the day. Doors 7 and 8 are blocked and are not really used for loading. Door 6 is not used. Doors 5, 4, 3, and 2 have loading platforms which enable employees to get products in and out of the trailers. These are the primary loading docks. Door 1 is a will-call unit. It has a screen door as door 8. They could load out of 9, but that is at the far end of the warehouse space and would not be practical. Only doors 2, 3, 4 and 5 are practical to use for loading frozen products. Mrs. Karen Weeks then inquired into the testing procedures to be used by Intest. She asked if the neighbors would be aware of when these tests are conducted. Mr. Giertsen stated that he would have a lead time of a week so the neighbors could be informed. He said the tests would probably be in the afternoon from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. so that the units are back on the site. This would be preferable to 6:00 a.m. before the units leave. Mrs. Weeks asked whether testing at this time would also reflect working conditions, etc. Would the tests measure the normal amount of noise? Mr. Giertsen then spoke about the difficulty of running this operation in this neighbor- hood rather than an industrial area. He said they try to keep the operation as painless as possible and would move as soon as they could. Mr. Bruce Kauffman said that the noise was not all from the trucks. It is from moving the trucks, from people talking, the P. A. system going, and the more trucks that come in, the more noise there will be. He said the petitioner admits that they work to 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. That is too late to make any kind of noise according to the other ordinances. One sharp noise will wake a person up. Quite often that is two or three times a night. He then said he did not see how tests made at this time can be valid for summertime. Sound is affected by the acoustics of the terrain, air and so on. Denser air carried sounds better. Maybe the snow absorbs the sound? Mr. Giertsen said that he thought the conditions in the wintertime would probably be more severe in transmitting sound because there isn't the grass. There isn't the heavy air; the air is crisp. There could be deflection from possibly an icy surface on the hill. He said he did not think he would get away with waiting for the summer to do this testing. He then spoke on the laboratory testing procedures. Mr. Giertsen said had they known they were going to have to have this difficulty they would not have located here. PLANNING CO~4ISSION MINUTES -6- December 6, 1983 4. Mr. Preston McMillan, 5041 Wisconsin, said that he was concerned with the proposal to ~ move some of the trucks to the Honeywell site. He did not see that as a s~lu~ion but as spreading the noise. He said he gets quite a bit of vibration with the soundproof wall in place. Mr. Giertsen said that the Honeywell parking would be approximately 300 feet further north. Although it might be spreading the nose out, it would b~-taking it further away from the residences. There also is a compounding effect. If there are several sources of noise close together, this will tend to compound and build the noise level. If you spread the sound out over a greater area, you will not be getting that compounding effect.- Mr. McMillan said that he saw the trucks moving into the Honeywell lot as being more of a problem. Mr. Giertsen responded that most of the trucks would be moved to the Honeywell by 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. most of the time. Mr. McMillan stated there was not. a soundproof wall at the back of his lot. Mrs. Linda Hadenf.eldt, 5033 Wisconsin Avenue, said that the truck noise causes their house to vibrate. In the winter, the windows on the west side of their home vibrate. In the middle of the night they have to get up and hit the window to get it to stop. The springs inside the storm windows tend to vibrate. What is going to happen in the summer when they want the windows open? She said she did not think it would help to move the trucks around. They are still there; they will still cause the vibrating. The loading will still be going on. She said the only thing they could do would be to move into another bedroom which she did not think was fair. This use should not have been so close to residential property. The house vibrates 24 hours a day. Chairman Cameron commented that the Planning Commission is convinced that it is a legi- timate problem. In three years the company will move, which will solve the problem. They are looking for a solution for this interim period. Mrs. Hadenfeldt then asked if the truc~could move in back of the Honeywell building so that the~vibrations would not come into the circle. Mr. Giertsen said they are planning to angle the trucks to the northwest so that the sound does not go directly into the building but between the buildings and down the rail- road tracks to the west. They did not want to transfer the problem to other residential property. He said it might be possible to pull the trucks behind the building and still angle them to the northwest. He is not sure until they start staggering the parking what the screen will do. Then they will determine how the parking setup is working. He said once you have to move a vehiCle, it does not matter whether you move it 100 or 200 feet. If it worked better to put the trucks behind Honeywell, that would not be a problem. Inquiry was made as to where the sound measurements would be taken. Mr. Giertsen said Intest would measure from two locations, at the northwest corner of the townhouses, and the other position would be from the Weeks' residence. He said he did not know if they would measure at the property line or at the house. A person asked if the noise could be measured from their deck. She said she thought the problem was caused because they were up high. Mr. Giertsen said that the test could be done from the hill. Commissioner Edwards asked whether Mr. Giertsen had any other facilities or sites in the metro area. Mr. Giertsen replied that they did not. They are opening a warehouse in Sioux Falls. One of the units from the site will be moving to Sioux Falls. That will decrease the fleet here. Commissioner Edwards then asked whether the petitioner would consider using the same amount of money to move the trucks elsewhere to a more acceptable site. Then they could solve the transportation problem. Mr. Giertsen said that some of the difficulty rises from the fact that the primary source of noise is from the four trucks at the loading docks while they are being loaded. Tha~~'~,~ is the difficulty. If everything is loaded and the trucks are positioned, there shouldn be a problem. PLANNING COM_~ISSION MINUTES -7- December 6~ 1983 4. Commissioner Gulenchyn then asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Giertsen replied that presently customers are served from about 5:00 a.m. until about 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. These customers are from Minneapolis or International Falls or Omaha. The truck usually comes back late in the afternoon. Most of the picking and staging is done in the mid-afternoon and through the evening. The product is put on the truck during the hours that the trucks show up, anywhere from 5:00 to 11:00 or 12:00. It is a difficult problem because of the logistics of the transportation. The units come back at night. He again said they plan to move the business as soon as possible. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he did not think the residents can expect, .as long as these loading docks exist on the building, that a new tenant will make noises go away. The residents will potentially always be faced with people working until 9:00,.10:00 or 11:00 P.m. and with forklift trucks going in and out of different kinds of trucking units. They s~0utd not expect that the problem will disappear in 3 or 4 years because this tenant moves out. Mr. Licht confirmed that the building belonged to Prudential and that there were a con- siderable number of refrigeration units inside the building. He questioned who owned those structures. Mr. Giertsen responded that his company owned the refrigeration structures, If they relocated, they would take those with them. Mr. Licht said he was concerned with whether a similar operation would move in after this tenant left. Mr. Giertsen replied that if it is an active warehouse, there will be some noise. If it were a dead storage type of thing like Ben Franklin, you would not have the noise. Mr. Licht stated that his concern is that the Commission be far sighted enough to advise the landlord about the problem so that the problem is not recreated when this tenant leaves. Co~missioner Friedrich said that he was looking for the city to provide him with test results so that he can be sure that the standards are being met. He asked whether the city would be testing as well as Intest. The city manager advised that this could be done. Chairman Cameron advised that all concerned should be present for the test and the neigh- bors should be invited. Mr. Giertsen commented to the effect that the testing date should be flexible because of the weather. He said he would give the city and Mrs. Weeks a call when the test is sche- duled. It could be the first week of January. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission would feel insecure making any kind of a decision until Giertsen has a commitment from Honeywell for the parking and the testing data is available. He suggested that the matter be tabled until February. Motion__by Commissioner Gulenchyn, second by Commissioner Friedrich to table Planning Case No- 83-58 until the Februar~ mee~in~_~.__ Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Gustafson, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None Motion declared carried. 5. The next item on the agenda was consideration Qf Plannin~ Case No._~3-64,~e__q~est f~o~ a conditional use p~it and parking .variance, 5100 Councy Road ~18, S. R- Harris,~_ Petitioner. The city manager advised that the petitioner had requested a table because his attorney was ill. He requested a month's extension. ~otion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Edwards to table the matter until the January meeting. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrichs, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Gustafson, Edwards, Dunn Voting against: None ~otion declared carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- December 6, 1983 COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. The Design and Review committee reported that they had not met. 7. The Land Use committee reported that they had not met. 8. Commissioner Gustafson reported that the Codes and Standards committee had met and reviewed proposed changes to the zoning code. The city manager then reviewed the proposed changes with the commissioners. The areas covered were principal and accessory uses, zero lot line housing control, parking restructions and space, fencing, storage, proper zoning for day care facilities, group care, size of accessory buildings and other miscellaneous items. a) Mr. Licht said that a principal use in a zone would also be allowed as a secondary business in that zone. As long as there is adequate space and the use is acceptable in that zoning district, that is the criteria by which the acceptability is judged. Control is through what is determined to be acceptable in a zoning district. If a bakery and a bait shop could exist in the same zone, then they could exist in the same building providing that all sanitary conditions and other restrictions were met. Discussion followed concerning how strongly the city could defend the requirement to obtain a conditional use permit under such conditions. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he favored the present system. Question was asked as to how the city would know about the secondary business. Mr. Licht suggested that a licensing procedure be followed. This provides the opportunity to check parking, etc. Upon inquiry, the city manager stated that these changes were being reviewed at this time so that the full Commission would know what was being talked about. The Commission would not be acting. If the Commission wanted to proceed, it would be necessary to have a public hearing first. b) Upon inquiry as to the zero lot line-chasge,the city manager said this was in answer to a Council concern for the need of aesthetic control, how to handle grievances between two owners, etc. The committee agreed with this change subject to the city attorney reviewing the language. c) City Manager Donahue commented that Commissioner Anderson had some recommendations re- garding parking. Commissioner Anderson replied that he had not completed his review but he will be ready within a week or two. The proposed change is to acknowledge the down-sizing of cars and to allow small car spaces. He said in New Hope he would like to see everything be a standard size dimension except that there should be a provision to allow a certain number of small size stalls. Mr. Anderson stated that you really do need full size aisles. He suggested that the Commission should have the option of granting up to 20% small car spaces, with each space to be labeled, "for small car only." He said he also thouqht the present dimension for full size car spaces should be down-sized a little from ~hat they are. He did not think a 20 foot length was realistic with the cars you see today. d) Chairman Cameron inquired as to what the staff was recommending for fencing. The city manager said that no changes were recommended. What we have is workable. Discussion followed whether there needed to be changes in restrictions for fences on corner lots. e) City Manager Donahue stated that the committee recommended the change in regulations for storage in residential districts as shown. f) City Manager Donahue stated that the committee felt that a zone should be determined for day care centers. Mr. David Licht commented that he preferred to see day care centers in residential oriented areas. There would be conflicts in use if they located in industrial areas, but he would not object to the YMCA accommocating a day care cen~er. ~-~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- December 6, 1983 8. g) The city manager then stated that the section on group care facilities was simply a reflection of state law. Mr. Licht commented that, in this regard, state law on group care would override any ordinance provision. This jus't incorporates the state law. It was suggested that the commissioners take this document home and study it. h) City Manager Donahue advised that the committee had also discussed the size of accessory buildings. Currently the code will allow a 900 square foot garage and a 900 square foot accessory building. It will also allow an accessory building up to 120 square feet any- where on the property without regard to setback. The committee felt that 500 square feet for the accessory building should be the maximum size and that any accessory build- ing, regardless of.size, should follow setback requirements. The city manager advised that the document would be redone and then it would go back to Codes and Standards. He stated that the city was currently in the process of recodify- ing the ordinances with everything except the Zoning Code to be redone around the first of the year. The Zoning Code should be updated by March. Then the code will be published. NEW BUSINESS 9.The Planning Commission minutes of November 1, 1983 were reviewed and approved. 10.The council minutes of November November 14 and 28th were reviewed. 11. The city manager advised that the Council had set the objectives for 1984 and reviewed the major objectives. 12. Chairman Cameron then read a letter of resignation from Commissioner Paul Gustafson. Upon inquiry, Mr. Gustafson stated that he was moving out of New Hope. 13. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Re~t full,brai tted, Betty P~liot City Clerk-Treasurer