The URL can be used to link to this page

1984 PlanningPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 3, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 3, 1984 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Dunn Absent: Edwards PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 83-64 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES IN I-1 ZONE AND PARKING VARI- ANCE - 5100 COUNTY ROAD ~18 - S. R. HARRIS, PETITIONER. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Sheran, his attorney. Mr. Sheran said he had forwarded a brief outline of the available parking to the City Manager, based on the current square footage of the operation and the proposed expansion. He had previously been in- formed by Mr. Harris that additional spaces would be made available by Horwitz or Minnesota Lift Truck and he now understood that these spaces were no longer available. He has not been able to contact those people directly to confirm this. He added that apparently the site had been expanded from approximately 1,451 square feet of office space to 8,800 square feet of retail space. There are approximately 19,000 square feet in total on the Harris site, with an additional 14,000 at Snap On Tools, and an additional 1,904 square feet of office space for Snap On Tools. He noted that the code required one space for each 150 feet of public sales, in operations that involved at least 50% retail sales, and one space for each 500 square feet of storage area, and one space for each employee on the maximum shift, whichever is appropriate. He said they were complying with the 8 spaces required, and he felt the could provide one space for each employee on shift. Referring to 4.144 indi- cates that a process operation, which they believe this one is, falls within 4.144 because they meet re- the requirements for the application of a Conditional Use in a retail area. We believe that the acess to a main street is adequate for the safety and welfare of the surrounding community and area, and they agree to limit the retail operations to the current site and operate within the hours directed by this Commission, and they would fully comply with any signage requirements. He noted that he had had exten- sive conversations with Mr. Sandstad and Mr. Donahue of the city. He was requesting some additional time to have an expert review the site and give a second opinion as to the appropriateness of any condi- tional Use Permit. They have also considered putting a traffic counter on the site. He would like to conduct an independent study into the feasibility of leasing parking spaces from the adjacent area. He stated that Mr. Harris was out of state on business and will not return until the 8th January 1984. Chairman Cameron asked that Mr. Sheran state specifically what it was he was asking from the Commission and the city. Mr. Sheran said he was asking to have this matter tabled until such time as they could obtain an expert opinion and conduct an independent analysis of the availability of parking and the appropriateness of the requested Conditional Use. They would also like to give a response to the preliminary response they had received from the city, regarding their request. Referring to the confusion that exists regarding the available parking spaces, Commissioner Gulenchyn asked Mr. Sheran to clarify what they were planning on doing to acquire more parking space, and what they planned to do in regard to the retail sales area, and why they felt there was no impact on the area from the retail sales. Mr. Sheran said that it had been his experience that it was always very easy to park on the site. They would hope also to keep the retail sales operation where it is. Commissioner Gulenchyn confirmed that this retail space now exceeded 8,000 square feet. He asked whether Mr. Harris intended to go back to the 1900 square foot original retail space? Mr. Sheran said that perhaps they could do this, but they would need time to keep Mr. Harris in business at least. He referred to the possibility of the Snap On Tool area being vacated. Chairman Cameron asked if he didn't think the owner would want to try and rent this space when it was vacated? Mr. Sheran said that Mr. Harris wanted to be a good neighbor, and if necessary he would comply with what- ever findings the Commission/City established as a requisite. When Snap On Tools vacated the area there would be an additional 3-4-5 spaces available from the truck area. Commissioner Gulenchyn noted that the city was talking about large numbers of parking spaces needed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JANUARY 3, 1984 3. Commissioner Gu%enchyn commented that he thought 148 parkinq spaces were required, and only 57 were beinq provided. He felt 5-6-7 spaces here and there were certainly not goinq to make up the spaces that are lacking. Mr. Sheran said that a lot depended upon how the commission treated the area that was beinq vacated by Snap On Tools. In response to a question from Commissioner Gulenchyn regarding the parkinq places now being used by Snap On Tools, Mr. Sheran said that one of their plans was to use these spaces. It was his understanding that Mr. Harris owned that building. He felt that if they utilized these spaces, they would be close. Commissioner Gulenchyn said that he had been up to the site twice, and he was only able to get up the hill and try to make a "U" turn to turn around. He could not get back. At that time there was a con- struction truck that could not get back to the street. It was his opinion that the parkinq situation was a tremendous nuisance. He felt that any time you went there, there seemed to be a tremendous park- ing problem. Mr. Sheran said maybe this was a peak holiday period for sales, when Commissioner Gulenchy~ had visited the site. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked what would happen if there had been a fire, beyond where they had all been jammed up. If cars couldn't get out, no one could get through -- one of the conditions of receiving a Conditional Use Permit was that the operation would not cause any traffic hazards in the surrounding area. What if the buildings to the back were burning, or someone had a problem, you couldn't even get through there. Mr. Sheran said that he felt that it was the finding that it did not meet state inspection standards, or the safety/fire code provisions, they could broaden or open up the entrances. They could take this into consideration. Commissioner Gulenchyn asked whether there had been some drastic change in the number of mandatory park- ing spots for the site? ~ Commissioner Bartos commented that the potential vacated property did not really have any bearing on th~ Conditional Use Permit requested in this case. Chairman Cameron stated he failed to see where this had any bearing either. He asked what would happen to the vacated building if Mr. Harris took their parking spaces? ~Fnatever the building were used for, a certain number of parking spaces would be required. Mr. Sheran said he would encourage Mr. Harris to keep his retail operation in the current space. The City Manager stated that the major issue before the commission was the Conditional Use Permit for the increased retail sales on the site. The parking issue is really irrelevant until the issue of the Condi- tional Use Permit is solved. Mr. Sheran said he felt they were a candidate for the Conditional Use Permit. They believe that they probably comply with the New Hope Code Section 4.136. The other code applicable is 4.144. Commissioner Gulenchyn again commented on the f~ct that the impact of the parking/traffic on the area from the business now being conducted on the site is rather tremendous. What is going to change that problem? There are many times when there is considerable congestion. Mr. Sheran said that what they would plan to do would have someone inspect the premises from Mr. Harris' standpoint and make those types of recommendations. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Sheran about the "processed operation" he indicated the business could be classified as? Mr. Sheran said they felt it came under the "processed operation" to the extent that the fabric came out on rolls and was cut in accordance with the directions of the customer. Chairman Cameron asked what it was that their proposed expert could tell the commission/city that they did not already know about the problems on the site? Mr. Sheran said he thought they could perhaps give a second opinion as to the adequacy of the parking. He could perhaps come up with some cost efficient ways of handling the parking problems. ~ Chairman Cameron noted that there has always been a problem there, because of the parking. Mr. Sheran said that Mr. Harris had not been given an opportunity to have his expert speak. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY 3, 1984 3. In response to a question regarding a proposed traffic count, Mr. Sheran said he would like to know him- self how many cars go in and out of the site since he has not ever had a problem parking there. Chairman Cameron stated that they were still dealing with the City Code that stated exactly how many parking spaces were required for the site. Commissioner Gundershaug asked why, if Mr. Harris' business was increasing so much, he just didn't lease some space at the New Hope Outlet Mall for the retail operation? Mr. Sheran said he was not aware of this space, he could suggest it to Mr. Harris. Co~nissioner Gundershaug commented that no matter what time you went past the site, or down ~18, there were always cars parked on the street. Until the petitioner could provide the spaces, on site, for parking, he would vote "no" on any request for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Anderson commented that this matter had been before the Commission for a long time, and the petitioner was now asking for additional time for additional study. He asked how much time they were requesting? Mr. Sheran said he felt he could get a report to Mr. Harris this month, and inquire into the availability of someone to take a look at the site and available alternatives. He thought he would be able to report to the com~nission at their next meeting - February 7, 1984 - if they could get their expert in to look at the site. Commissioner Anderson asked whether Mr. Harris had permission for any retail sales on the site? Mr. Sheran said that prior to the publishing of the 1979 Code, Mr. Harris was using part of the premises for retail sales. The City Manager said that the building was constructed in 1973. Plans showed that a little less than 2000 square feet was to be used as a showroom. No mention was made of any retail sales. Shortly there- after it was noted that Mr. Harris had a sign out in front indicating retail sales. After several years of negotiating with the city, the city essentially approved the retail sales area of under 2,000 square feet, with the parking to remain the same -- 26 spaces. When the building was added on to in 1979, there was to be more parking provided. The Council has approved up to 2,000 square feet of retail sales but nothing more than that. As a result of other code violations, etc. Mr. Harris had been informed that he would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for the increased sales. At this time there are approximately 8800 square feet being used for retail sales. This entire issue has been before the city for over a year. Discussion followed between Commissioner Anderson and Mr. Sheran regarding the street designations Mr. Sheran had referred to, and whether Mr. Harris could revert back to the original sales space for his operation, as well as possible alternatives to the problem of retail sales. Commissioner Anderson noted that he had asked the City Manager to prepare a report in regard to the parking on site, and the requirements for other sites, and how it related to using adjacent parking. The City Manager stated that the Building Official, Doug Sandstad, would respond to this request. Mr. Sandstad said that if the sales area were reduced to 2,000 square feet, and they were able to gain ten spaces from either Snap On Tools, or Munsinger Gymnastics, they would be almost where they should be as far as required parking spaces - 57 spaces. There are 15 spaces that have been allotted to the gymnastics school. Technically they would be a few short. This was based on no occupant in the Snap On Tools bay. Any warehouse or storage use would require additional space Commissioner Anderson noted that it was his belief that off site parking would not really apply in this case because of the distance from the site to the parking spaces. Mr. Sandstad stated that he had talked to the adjacent property owners in May of 1983 and none of them had indicated that they had any spare parking spaces. The only property within the 300 foot limit of the ordinance, was that property to the south owned by Mike Merz, and the Precision Engineering site, but neither of those owners had indicated any surplus of parking spaces. Parking is a problem now in that area. He noted that if the building were built today, 115 spaces would be necessary, not counting space for trucks. Chairman Cameron stated that he wanted Mr. Sheran to state for the record that if given an extra month, he will do everything possible to bring in all of the data necessary, expert opinion, traffic count, etc. to present to the commission, so the Commission can make a decision at the February meeting. He added that this would probably be the last table that this Commission will grant. He added that at the next meeting he hoped they could agree on the facts -- that they would be provided a piece of paper that showed the exact size of the building, site, the purpose to be used, and the number of parking spaces to be provided, so that there is absolutely no room for misunderstanding on exactly what Mr. Harris is requesting, as well as how many parking spaces would be available off site. PLANNING cOMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JAN~3ARY 3, 1984 3. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion tabling Case 83 - 64 until the meeting of February 7, 1984. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Dunn Voting against: Anderson Absent: Edwards Motion carried. The Chairman noted that in the packet given to the Commissioeers for the November 1, 1983 meeting, there was a complete history of the Harris case. He requested that the Commissioners review this material. COMMITTEEREPORTS 4. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 5. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 6. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The City Manager noted that there were a number of items that would be coming before the Codes and Standards Co~ittee in the near future. Chairman Cameron stated that he had asked Commissioner Gulenchyn to assume the Chairmanship of the Codes and Standards Committee. He had accepted. NEW BUSINESS 7. The Planning Commission Minutes of December 6, 1983 were approved as printed. 8. The Council Minutes of December 27, 1983 were reviewed. 9. Discussion between the Commissioners as to whether they would be involved in the process of selecting /-~'< a new Planning Commissioner. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending that the Council be notified that the Planning Commis- sion offered its assistance in the selection of a new Commissioner. Commissioner Dunn second. Voting in favor:. Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Dunn Voting against: None Abstain: Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug Motion carried. 11. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /Jo~ce Boeddeker, Secretary PI2~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, February 7, 1984 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, Gundershaug, Edwards A~sent: Dunn, Anderson (arrived at 7:36 p.m.) The City Manager then issued the Oath of Office to the three co~issioners re-appointed by the Council on January 9, 1984. They were: Commissioners, Friedrich, Bartos, Gundershaug. PUBLIC HEARING 3. PLANNING CASE 83 - 64 - (TABLED FROM JANUARY 3, 1984) - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AT 5100 COUNTY ROAD #18 - S. R. HARRIS, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the petitioner's representative had met with staff in January, but since that time he had not been contacted by them, as to what their plans were. The petitioner had been informed that if they intended to request withdrawal of their request to the Planning Commission this request, in writing, had to be in the Manager's Office by the afternoon of February 7, 1984. This had not been done. He added that since Planning Commission had indicated at the January meeting that this m~tter must be resolved by the February meeting, it was his recommendation that the Cor~mission make a recommendation that the request be denied, and sent back to staff for Findings of Fact for Denial. Following discussion;the Chairman commented that it was his feeling that Mr. Harris had been granted adequate time for a hearing on this request and to present his case, which seemed to have changed since the original request. He had also been warned that he should be ready to speak to the issue at this meeting. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending denial of Planning Case 83-64, with a further recommen- dation that this case be sent back to staff for Findings of Fact for Denial. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Dunn Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 5. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 6. Commissioner Gulenchyn reported that the Codes and Standards Committee had met with staff to review the proposed revisions to the New Hope Code,(proposals attached). The City Manager reviewed the proposed revisions to the Code as presented to the Commissioners. He noted that most of the changes were simply terminology changes. The changes included: 4.022 (23) - provides for a document to be issued to the petitioner, upon approval, for a Conditional Use Permit 4.022 (39) - change of term "mobile home" to "manufactured housing" according to State Law. 4.033 (9) - refers to 9.300 Noise Ordinance 4.033 (121 - change in terminology to further define open sale lots. 4.034 (3) - adds R-5 to table with same criteria as R-4 4.034 (5) - language change to exempt only detached porches from Setback requirement 4.035 (3) - language change to clarify that "usable open space" excludes front yards 4.036 (4) g (2) - changes seatinq requirement from "22" to "18" in assembly type buildings This would in turn mean that additional parking spaces would be required. This is a 22% change. 4.041 and 4.042 - eliminates requirement for special districts to be shown on zoning maps 4.034(6) - correct language that refers to GI property - should be I-2 4.036(4)h (10) - revised to allow only one driveway or one access in the R-1 district 4.154 (4) - Council has adopted a new Day Care Ordinance that essentially adopts the State require- ments as they are applicable to YMCA type facilities (YMCA only facility in New Hope that would apply) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 7, 1984 6. Convenience Gas/Grocery/Food Addition of definitions for the following: Combination Retail Facility and Self Service Automobile Service Station; Convenience Gas Facility; Convenience Grocery Facility. Clarification of definitions of Principal/Accessory Uses. Suggested revision includes definition of Principal Use - to include provision that a principal use can be either permitted or conditional. Concern expressed by the Commission that the city not lose control of the number of accessory businesses that would be permitted, as well as whether parking requirements would also have to be updated, with the addition of accessory uses. The members of the Codes and Standards Committee stated they were concerned also, with the city's legal position in enforcing these requirements. Also included were definitions for Principal Building and Shopping Center. 4~036 (10) - Pa~king Requirements Amendments allow for smaller parking spaces, the provision that permits could be issued to allow special sections to accommodate small sized cars, and marked as such, and additions to 4.036 (h) regarding off-street parking regulations. Following discussion, the Planning Commission recommended the addition of the following: (i) Provision shall be made in the parking area for adequate snow storage or removal to ensure that the required number of spaces are available an all times during the year. 4.03 - Addition of Subdivision 4.032 (3) (i) Satellite Dishes Restricts location of such dishes, as well as size, and the requirement for a building permit before installation, they may not be located in an easement. 4.02 Section 2 amended to include definitions for Satellite Dish and Satellite Dish Height 4.032.3 Accessory Buildings Amendment and modifications of code, to provide for allowed location, size, percentage of yard such building can occupy, and limiting to one accessory building per lot. 4.035.8(f)- Zero Lot Line Developments Includes amendments to outline performance standards that should be included in the maintenance agreements. Additions to Section 4.022 defining, Lot, Base; Lot, Unit; and Quadraminium 4.035 Addition of material defining lot sizes, and the subdivision of two family dwellings, town- houses, and quadraminiums. These amendments to insure that such subdivision will not prove to be detrimental to the existing neighborhood. The maintenance agreement in such developments must be filed with the city. Concern expressed in regard to existing units of this type. Suggestion made to include these restrictions in the Maintenance Code section of the City Code. Feeling of Commission was that language should be added to specify that all parties would have to agree with the restrictions at point of sale, with existing units. 4.02 Subd.4.022 ~roup Care Facilities Addition of language and definition to comply with State Law. Commercial Storage in Residential Districts Recommendation is for no change - storage of this type is still not allowed. 4.144(10) Amendment to code to establish criteria for Solid Waste Transfer Stations. This amendment incorporates the County criteria for such facilities. Included in the amendment are a traffic analysis, environmental review, and the requirement for a public hearing. Discussion followed regarding possible sites in New Hope, whether or not the city had much control over where such sites could be located, and the size/weight of the trucks that would be operating out of the site should it be established. P~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 - FEBRUARY 7, 1984 6. 4.144 Recommendation was made that the language in this section needs to be cleaned up. Commissioner Edwards left the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion recommending approval of the zoning updates as attached, as amended. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Dunn, Edwards Motion carried. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a momion recommending approval of the adoption of the criteria developed to cover large energy recovery projects. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting agains5: None Absent: Dunn, Edwards Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 7. The Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 1984 were accepted as printed. 8. The Council minutes of January 9, and 23, 1984 were reviewed. 9. The Chairman read a letter from Commissioner Richard Dunn, resigning from the Commission. The letter will be forwarded to the City Council for acceptance. 11. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J~Yce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 6, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning'Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, March 6, 1984 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: Anderson, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS ~R 3. PLANNING CASE 83-58 (TABLED FROM DECEMB 6, 1983) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5149 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - L & L DISTRIBUTION, PETITIONER Mr. Rick Gjertsen represented the petitioner. He stated that they had had a lot of problems in attempt- to solve the noise problem. They have been able to control noise at the Weeks residence to a level of .43 decibels by putting the new "clipper" unit on one unit. In doing this, they created a greater pro- blem for the residents of the condos. The people from "Intest" had stated they felt if they sealed the sides better. They did this for some tests, but it caused difficulties in the maintenance of the "clipper" unit. In turn, this caused the sound to increase at the Weeks residence from .43 to .46. At the condos it was .51 - .54. It appears that their approach of controlling the sound at the source is not going to be possible. They will have to order a "clipper" unit which is different, and probably construct some type of partition in between the condos to the southeast and the source of the noise. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city had done any testing? The City Manager stated that the city had done some testing the previous week. The sound was OK at the Weeks residence, but not at the condos. The tests had indicated that the noise level was within an acceptable range. He noted that there had not been any complaints about noise from the condos. Mr. Gjertsen said that the new "clipper" unit would enclose a Model 50, which is what most of their trucks were. In response to a question from the Chairman as to where the permanent barriers would be located, Mr. Gjertsen said he had not as yet talked to their landlords in regard to this. They would have to be located some place that would not ~ock access for trailer trucks. Discussion then c~vered fhe possible height of a barrier, the distance of the residence above the park- ing lot, and possible materials to be used in the construction of the barrier. Commissioner Bartos asked what the proposed wall would do in regard to "restriction of air"? Mr. Gjertsen said that the wall would probably be 40-50 feet away from the trucks, probably at the south- ern boundary of the parking lot. Chairman Cameron commented on the fact that the wall should not be an eyesore and should be esthetically pleasing to the eye. Mr. Gjertsen said he had talked about the cosmetic aspects of the wall with Doug Sandstad of city staff. Responding to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Gjertsen said that their lease had three more years to run. Commissioner Anderson referred to past complaints about trucks pulling in and out, and the fact that in the summer there seemed to be a PA system used to contact drivers. He asked whether this issue had been addressed, or if they had done anything to mitigate this problem with sound. Mr. Gjertsen said they had posted a sign indicating that parking was permitted only with a permit in the area for overnight parking. The sign was located 80-100 feet off Winnetka. They have also indicated on their purchase orders that overnight parking will not be permitted. The PA system is basically a summertime problem, and they have not resolved this as yet. Commissioner Anderson commented that he thought this type of sound might tend to wake people up. He asked what sort of compliance he has had in regard to truck movements in and out? Mr. Gjertsen said he could not say that it had been 100% successful. Truck traffic is lower in the winter months. As the volume grows, they will have the real proof of the success. One problem is that they do not have control of the truckers, most of them are independents. They have talked to the manufacturers. Another problem is that a trucker may be making a "one time only" delivery. Control would be better if they could put up a barrier at the Winnetka entrance. L and L does not receive at night so they would rather not have the trucks in. They felt it would be advantageous to restrict the traffic. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they had explored the p~ssibility of any off-site parking? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MARCH 6, 1984 3. Mr. Gjertsen said they had not, because the real problem is when the merchandise was going in the truck. The noise of trucks coming in and out is not as bad, but it is the thermal king units that create all night noise. He felt that the highest decibel readings would come from the thermal kings. Chairman Cameron noted that perhaps the best solution would be a 15 foot wall. He asked what the time line would be for a possible solution of the problem. Mr. Gjertsen said that he hoped to get the new "clipper" unit within the next two weeks, try the temporary solution, add insulation, and do sound testings. They would then approach Prudential about the potential of building a wall. He would hope that they could have the testing done within a two to three week period and determine if this would meet the problem with the condis. If these units meet the requirements, and if a barrier would do the job they would order the six other units and construct the barrier. They would need footings of poured concrete which would require waiting until the frost restrictions were off. He felt they could be completed by May 15. Chairman Cameron asked whether city staff had any feelings as to whether the wall would work? The City Manager stated that Doug Sandstad was optimistic that things could be worked out. Mr. Gjertsen stated that Mr. Sandstad was also qualified to do sound testing and.they would want him to test, as well as Intest. Karen Weeks, 8316 50th Avenue North, asked whether Intest had indicated what direction the sound waves might go off the top of the wall? Mr. Gjertsen said they had not as yet discussed this since they had hoped that the last test would show that they had solved the problem at the source. They now feel they must include a barrier, and are suggesting a temporary barrier first, to test the sound level and direction before they install a p~r- manent barrier. This issue will be considered. Mrs. Weeks said that she felt this was a matter that had to be discussed. Chairman Cameron said that he hoped that the next time the petitioner was before Planning Commission a ~ solution would have been found. Discussion followed in regard to a table of this request, and how much time was needed for the petition to find a solution to the problem. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion tabling Case 83-58 until the meeting of May 8, 1984. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 83 - 64 - REQUEST'FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5100 COUNTY ROAD #18, S. R. HARRIS, PETITIONER Mr. Dan Shera~ represented the petitioner. Mr. Donahue distributed a revised resolution dealing with the "Findings of Fact for Denial" to the Com- missioners. Mr. Sheran stated that he was requesting that he be allowed to respond to that document. They had re- ceived the original document on 3-5-84. Chairman Cameron noted that the document in question had not been "served" on the petitioner. It was a Planning Commission document, requested by the Commission. Mr. Sheran stated that during the past month, Mr. Harris had been engaged in fact finding in regard to some of the questions such as; the availability of parking, use of the retail establishment, the pos- sibility of slots, the general traffic and that sort of thing. The response and data are being re-com- piled at this time. Chairman Cameron noted that that was all very nice, but that the petitioner and the Planning Commission had had a date on February 7th, and that when Mr. Sheran had represented Mr. Harris at the January meet- ing he had been informed that February 7th,was the final time to present the case, and no one had show~ up on February 7th. The Commission does not want to open this up again. The petitioner had their chance.~-~ Mr. Sheran noted that they had spoken to the City Council. Chairman Cameron said this was fine, but that they were not the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 MARCH 6, 1984 4. Mr. Sheren stated that it had been their understanding that they would have an opportunity to share their fact finding results from the past month. However, they were mistaken in the sense that there was no bi-lateral attempt to exchange information. Chairman Cameron said that he felt that if they had shown up at the Planning Commission on February 7th, and had some new data and had wanted to continue the dialogue with the Planning Commission, they would have been very receptive, as they had been month after month. He did not know how many times their case had been on the agenda and either no one showed up or at the last minute called and said they were not ready. They. had agreed in January that on the 7th February, they would make a decision. They had dealt with this case and all the facts up to that point for at least a year and a half. The Chairman asked the City Manager to report to the Commission on the "Findings of Fact" briefly that the city staff had come up with. Mr. Donahue noted that the Commissioners had been given a copy of the "Findings of Fact", there were now a few changes that he would read for the record. Page 1 - Procedural History WHEREAS, S. R. Harris Industries ....................... on-street and 13 off-street parking spaces in privately owned parking lots adjacent to petitioner's lot ......... ..... Case 83-45 and which was administratively merged into Planninq Case 83-64, and Page 3, 6th paragraph WHEREAS, petitioner has ................................................ 10 on-street parking spaces and 13 off-street parking spaces in private parking lots adjacent to petitioner's site. That petitioner has not obtained any long term commitments in the form of a lease for use of adjacent private parking lots, but has received letters from a tenant of one lot indicating that 5 spaces are available and an owner of a second lot indicating 8 spaces are available to petitioner, however both commitments are uni- laterally terminable at the will of the respective parties. Page 5, Addition of Paragraph 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to New Hope Code Section 4.036 (10) (q) it is appropriate and reason- able to calculate petitioner's parking spaces for retail sales on a square footage basis due to the fact that petitioner's primary use of the building is retail sales requiring off-street parking spaces for customers, the large area devoted to retail sales, peti- tioner's practice of newspaper advertising fabric warehouse sales directed towards draw- ing to the site the public at large and the large volume of customers that do personally visit the site to shop all of which require off-street parking spaces at the subject site in excess of the number of petitioner's employees on its maximum shift and which can be provided for only by using a square foot basis for calculating said spaces as allowed by Section 4~036 (10) (q), and Page 8, Parking Variance Paragraph 4 WHEREAS, the .................................. and 13 off-street parking spaces in privately owned parking lots adjacent to petitioner's lot would not ............. Paragraph 5 1. The requested variance would ................................ lots. The letters petitioner has received for the 13 off-street spaces are unilaterally terminable at the will of the parties. They are inadequate to support petitioner's representation that said off-street spaces will relieve parking congestion on petitioner's site due to the uncer- tainty as to the length of time said spaces will be available to petitioner. In fact, the letter from Horwitz, Inc. expressly states the spaces are available on a short term basis. The City Manager noted that the resolution for "Findings of Fact for Denial" was developed by city staff, which included the City Manager, the city Planner, and the firm of Corrick and Sondrall. The resolution makes the recommendation that all three requests be denied, based on the facts as gathered. Commissioner Anderson noted that the petitioner had appeared before the City Council after the last Planning Commission and wondered what the Council expected of the Commission? Chairman Cameron said he felt that there had been parallel activities, he felt that the job of the Planning Commission was to follow through officially on the request before the Planning Commission. The Commission had taken action to request city staff to prepare findings for denial. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to re-affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, ~nd adopt by reference the resolution, as amended on 3-6-84, as a reason for denyin~ the Conditional Use Permit and Variance as requested in Planning Cases 83-21, 83-45, and 83-64 and recom- mend denial to the City Council. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Bartos~ Cameron, G~ndershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 - MARCH 6, 1984 5. PLANNING CASE 84 - 1 REQUEST FOR REZONING, PUD AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 8615 BASS LAKE ROAD - CHARLES THOMPSON, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the petitioner had requested this case be tabled until the meeting of April 3, 1984. There have been some changes in the plans, that it felt should be reviewed again by the Design and Review Committee. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards to table Case 84-1 until the meeting of April 3, 1984. Voting in favor: Anderson, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn Motion carried. There were several citizens in the audience in regard to this case. The Chairman informed them that this case, 84-1, would be heard on April 3, 1984 and that new notices would not be mailed. 6. PLANNING CASE 84 - 2 - REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 4201 BOONE AVENUE - FRED PETERSON, PETITIONER Mr. Peterson stated he had been working for five years at the above site, doing Counseling. He had re- signed from the Youth Investment Foundation on January 15, 1984. He felt it was necessary for the programs to stay with the base, and was in the process of attempting to purchase the property. He is now connected with the NHI Ministries. He wished to know the feelings of the Commission/Council/city about his continuing at that site, before completing the purchase. He would also like to expand the services to include working with families as well as young people. Chairman Cameron noted that the city was concerned with the use of the property in relation to traffic, and to any new kinds of uses on the site. Mr. Peterson said that the church will again share their parking with them, and that up to this time it has not been a problem to share this parking. They do not project any increase in traffic. The kids would not drive, but their parents would. ~At the present time some of the staff has lived in the up- stairs of the house. Because they feel they need a little more privacy for the counseling services, they would like to turn the upper level into one on one and family counseling rooms. Chairman Cameron confirmed that at the time of the change, no one would be living in the upstairs, and that the property will continue to serve essentially the same function as it presently does. Mr. Peterson added that there would be no significant changes in the exterior of the structure. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the hours of operation would change? Mr. Peterson said they might have a little more activity during the day, but they did not anticipate any significant change in the evening hours. There are four parking spaces on their site, and the re- mainder of the parking is on the church site. Mr. Peterson said there was a possibility that they might wish a sign, but they were aware that the city had a sign ordinance that must be adhered to. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed for the record that the property was now zoned R-l, and that the peti- tioner did not propose any change in zoning. Mr. Peterson said they were committed to making no changes that would take away the residential status for possible re-sale. It was noted that the city had no record of any complaints regarding the present operation. The City Manager requested that any motion include reference to the conditions imposed in the Conditional Use Permit, granted in 1980. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the changes requested in Case 84-2 for the Conditional Use Permit at 4201 Boone, subject to: annual review by staff, perpetual parking agreement with the church for use of their lot, that the property would revert to single family use if the present use should be changed, and that there will be no signs, other than perhaps to irdic~te the entrance. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Gulenchyn Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 - MARCH 6, 1984 COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. The Design and Review Committee met once during the month of February. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 10. The Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 1984 were accepted as printed. 11. The Council Minutes of February 13 and 27, 1984 were reviewed. 12. The Chairman stated that he had met with the Mayor in regard to filling Planning Commission vacancies. It had been decided that since applicants had been advertised for, the Council would probably proceed with appointments and let attrition take its course as far as the size of the Commission was concerned. 13. The Chairman stated that Commissioner Gulenchyn was resigning from the Commission effective March 6, 1984, as he was moving out of New Hope. The City Manager stated that the City Council intended to interview applicants for the Planning Com- mission on Monday, preceding the regular Council meeting. Any Planning Commission members were welcome to sit in on the interviews. The Chairman, following brief discussion, indicated that he would not appoint a representative to at- tend that review process, since the Commission had not been requested to attend. 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ Joyce Boeddeker Secretary RESOLUTION CONSIDERING PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST DESIGNATED AS PLANNING CASE NO. 83-21 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RETAIL SALES DESIGNATED AS PLANNING CASES 83-45 AND 83-64 AT S.R. HARRIS INDUSTRIES, 5100 NORTH COUNTY ROAD 18, AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF ALL THREE REQUESTS WHEREAS, Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes authorized the City Council with the aid and assistance of the City Planning Commission to carry on municipal planning activities which guide future development and improvement of the community, and WHEREAS, Section 462.357 provides specific authorization as planning relates to zoning and land use and authorizes the City to adopt a Comprehensive Plan and ordinances establishing uses within different zoning districts, and WHEREAS, the City in 1960 approved a Comprehensive Municipal Plan, and enacted a zoning ordinance and established permitted and conditional uses for individual districts and is attempting to plan and guide future develop- ment of the community, and WHEREAS, the New Hope City Council, after several years of study and numerous hearings, acting upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission adopted a revised Comprehensive Municipal Plan on the 22nd day of May, 1978, pursuant to M.S. § 462.355, and WHEREAS, again after long study and numerous hearings, the City Council on June 11, 1979, adopted zoning ordinance 79-11 to implement the revised Comprehensive Plan, said ordinance being Sections 4.011 through 4.372 of the City Code, and PROCEDURAL HISTORY WHEREAS, S.R. Harris Industries (hereinafter petitioner) has petitioned the City for a parking variance for 10 on-street and 13 off-street parking spaces in privately owned parking lots adjacent to petitioner's lot designated as Planning Case 83-21, and a conditional use permit to allow retail sales of products manufac- tured or processed on-site in an "I-1" Limited Industrial zoning district designated as Planning Case 83-45 and which was administratively merged into Planning Case 83-64, and WHEREAS, pursuant to duly mailed and published notices the petition for a parking variance was considered at a meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission on May 3, 1983, with all interested persons given the opportunity to be heard who wished to be heard, and WHEREAS, the New Hope Planning Commission by unanimous vote recommended that the City Council approve the petition for the parking variance, and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on May 23, 1983 the New Hope City Council heard all persons interested who wished to be heard on the parking variance request, and WHEREAS, the City Council had before it at said public hearing the Comprehensive Plan, the New Hope Zoning Code 79-11, minutes of the May 3, 1983 Planning Commission meeting, findings and comments from City staff, the minutes and recollection of the Council meeting of May 9, 1983, at which questions were raised concerning petitioner's overuse of the property, petitioner's development of retail sales without a conditional use permit from the City and traffic and parking problems generated at the site, comments by petitioner, members of the Council and interested citizens who were present, and WHEREAS, the New Hope City Council at the public hearing of May 23, 1983 referred the requested parking variance to City staff for review by a planner and traffic planner and directed staff to inform petitioner, who was notified but not present at said hearing, to submit an application for a conditional use permit for its retail sales operation as required by New Hope City Code Section 4.144(6), and WHEREAS, petitioner did submit its application for a conditional use permit on June 15, 1983, and WHEREAS, pursuant to duly mailed and published notices the petition for a conditional use permit to allow retail sales in an "I-1" Limited Industrial zoning district was considered at a public hearing before the New Hope Planning Commission on March 6, 1984, with all interested persons given the opportunity to be heard, who wished to be heard, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission had before it the Comprehensive Plan, the New Hope Zoning Code 79-11, the August 24, 1983 planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., minutes and recollections of the Planning Commission meetings of May 5, 1983, August 2, 1983, November 1, 1983, December 6, 1983, January 3, 1984 and February 7, 1984, minutes of the City Council meetings of May 9, 1983, l~ay 23, 1983, and February 14, 1984, the findings and comments of City staff, the comments of petitioner and members of the Planning Commission, together with familiarity with the site in question and its zoning history, and WHEREAS, petitioner's site consists of a warehouse/office building with total gross floor space of 35,117 square feet, 57 on-site parking spaces and "green area" equaling 35% of the total lot area, and WHEREAS, petitioner's requested conditional use permit for on-site retail sales would result in the following allocations of square foot usage at the subject site: -2- 1. retail sales by petitioner - 8,142 square feet 2. warehouse/industrial use by petitioner - 9,486 square feet 3. office use by petitioner - 1,451 square feet 4. warehouse use by Snap-On Tools - 8,644 square feet 5. office use by Snap-On Tools - 2,496 square feet 6. gymnastic training use by Munsinger - 4,898 square feet 7. Total square footage - 35,117 square feet WHEREAS, New Hope City Code Section 4.036(10) requires 112 on-site parking spaces to support the various uses at petitioner's site as proposed within its requested conditional use permit, and WHEREAS, the disparity between the number of existing parking spaces as opposed to the number of required parking spaces has resulted from petitioner's own unauthorized development of its site. WHEREAS, in 1978 the petitioner requested that the City approve a building addition designated by Planning Case 78-53 fncreasing the square footage of the petitioner's building from 19,079 square feet to its existing 35,117 square feet. Within said request petitioner represented by its construction blueprints that the building use would be for office and warehouse resulting in parking requirements of 57 spaces. Further, petitioner's representative at the June 6, 1978 meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission represented that all parking requirements associated with the addition were met. WHEREAS, in 1980 petitioner requested that the City approve a change in site plans involving its loading docks designated as Planning Case 80-06, and at a meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission on March 4, 1980 petitioner was questioned regarding the parking congestion observed at its site by Commissioner Gundershaug. Petitioner represented at said meeting that the 57 on-site parking spaces would be adequate to service all existing and future uses of its property within the requirements of the New Hope City ordinances. WHEREAS, petitioner has presently developed a portion of its property into an unauthorized retail sales operation; that said use in an "I-1" zoning district requires a conditional use permit. That petitioner made its development prior to requesting or obtaining a conditional use permit; that petitioner's 57 on-site parking spaces are inadequate to service the parking demand generated by petitioner's retail sales use and has resulted in petitioner's request for a parking variance allowing for 10 on-street parking spaces and 13 off-street parking spaces in private parking lots adjacent to petitioner's site. That petitioner has not obtained any long term commitments in the form of a lease for use of adjacent private parking lots, but has received letters from a tenant of one lot indicating that 5 spaces are available and an owner of a second lot indicating 8 spaces are available to petitioner, however both commitments are unilaterally terminable at the will of the respective parties. WHEREAS, petitioner's primary use of its allocated space is for the sale of fabric and thread to the public at large. Petitioner manufactures the thread on-site. Ail fabric is purchased by petitioner from distributors or manufacturers - 3- in large rolls or "bolts" for resale on the subject site. Petitioner does not treat or change the fabric in any way prior to sale. Petitioner does "size down" or cut quantities of fabric from rolls or bolts at the direction of purchasers. Petitioner represents this sizing down or cutting of fabric as processing said fabric. A substantial portion of the warehouse space is utilized by petitioner for storage of fabric resold on-site, and CONDITIONAL USE WHEREAS, New Hope Code Section 4.144(6) permits as a conditional use in an "I-1" zoning district retail sales of products manufactured or processed on-site if the following conditions or standards are met: a. Ail sales are conducted in a clearly defined space meeting all requirements for retail sales. b. The building where such use is located is one having access to at least a collector level street, without the necessity of using residential streets. c. Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. d. Ail signing and information or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Section 4.038 of the Code. e. The provisions of Section 4.201(5) of the Code are considered and satisfactorily met. WHEREAS, as it relates to New Hope Code Section 4.144(6)(e) above, New Hope Code Section 4.201(5)(a) requires a proposed conditional use to be considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Land Use Plan and found to be consistent with the policies and provisions of said Plan. WHEREAS, the official City Comprehensive Land Use Plan requires land use development to comply with the following stated policies and goals: 1. Land Use Goal - Prevent over-intensification of land use development, in other words, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.), 2. Land Use Policy - Ensure that intensification of land use activity and development is accompanied by sufficient corresponding increases in related supportive and service facilities such as off- street parking. 3. Industrial Policy - Give due consideration to all potential physical implications and services and facility demands (i .e., traffic generation, sewer and water demands, etc.) of any proposed industrial development. - 4- 4. Transportation Goal - Provide sufficient off-street parking to meet the demands of all types of land uses. 5. Transportation Policy - Eliminate and prevent any on-street parking which conflicts with moving traffic or creates hazards and ensure that any new development or expansion of existing development includes adequate off-street parking. WHEREAS, as it relates to New Hope Code Section 4.144(6)(e), New Hope Code Section 4.201(5)(G) requires that nuisance characteristics generated by a conditional use will not have an adverse affect upon existing and future development of adjacent land, and WHEREAS, as it relates to New Hope Code Section 4.144(6)(a), New Hope Code Section 4.036(10)(q) requires that a retail sales business with 50% or more of gross floor area devoted to warehouse and/or industry shall have at least eight (8) spaces or one (1) space for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one (1) space for each five hundred (500) square feet of storage area; or at least eight (8) spaces or one (1) space for each employee on the maximum shift whichever is appropriate, and WHEREAS, pursuant to New Hope Code Section 4.036(10)(q) it is appropriate and reasonable to calculate petitioner's parking spaces for retail sales on a square footage basis due to the fact that petitioner's primary use of the building is retail sales requiring off-street parking spaces for customers, the large area devoted to retail sales, petitioner's practice of newspaper advertising fabric warehouse sales directed towards drawing to the site the public at large and the large volume of customers that do personally visit the site to shop all of which require off-street parking spaces at the subject site in excess of the number of petitioner's employees on its maximum shift and which can be provided for only by using a square foot basis for calculating said spaces as allowed by Section 4.036(10)(q), and WHEREAS, New Hope Code Section 4.036(10)(M) requires that office building shall have three (3) spaces plus at least one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area, and WHEREAS, New Hope Code Section 4.036(10)(W) requires that schools for gymnastic training shall have one and one-half (1-1/2) parking spaces for every two (2) pupils at student capacity, unless it can be demonstrated that a differing amount of parking is required by that activity. WHEREAS, Petitioner has not presented any evidence to establish that it has met the requirements and standard, z set forth for its requested conditional use permit, and WHEREAS, the presented evidence does support a conclusion that petitioner cannot meet and is in violation of every aforementioned standard for granting its requested conditional use permit as follows: - 5- 1. the proposed conditional use is contrary to the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan in violation of the standards set forth in New Hope Code Sections 4.144(6)(e) and 4.201(5)(a). a. Violation of Land Use Goal - petitioner's expansion of retail sales has resulted in over-intensification of use without the provision for supportive levels of off-street parking. The proposed conditional use would require 112 off-street parking spaces per New Hope Code Section 4.036(10). The site can support only 57 off-street parking spaces and therefore fails to have a sufficient level of supportive facilities required by said goal. b. Violation of Land Use Policy - petitioner has already expanded without City approval its retail sales operation to the level requested within the conditional use petition. By doing so, petitioner has violated the land use policy of ensuring that land use development will be accompanied by corresponding increases in supportive off-street parking in that petitioner cannot provide sufficient increases for off-street parking either by expansion of its own facility or through procurement of spaces in adjacent off-street parking lots. c. Violation of Industrial Policy - the physical implications of petitioner's expanded retail sales operation has had considerable impact on the adjacent land uses. Specifically, said expansion has caused increased parking congestion both on and off site. This has resulted in traffic congestion and conflicts between petitioner's customers as well as other industrial traffic in the area. Complaints have been registered by adjacent property owners alleging concern for traffic congestion caused by on-street parking and use of their parking areas by vehicles associated with petitioner' s operation. d. Violation of Transportation Goal and Policy - Petitioner's failure to provide sufficient off-street parking has resulted in a hazardous traffic condition caused by conflict with moving traffic. Observations of petitioner's site show that parking problems associated with petitioner's operation cause constant on-street parking, frequent parking in driveways and firelanes, blocking access to fire hydrants, backing out onto the City streets and cars circling the site searching for parking places. The parking and traffic congestion has also been observed to be so great at times as to potentially prevent access by emergency vehicles. 2. The proposed conditional use will generate nuisance characteristics that will adversely affect the existing and future development of adjacent land in violation of the standards set forth in New Hope Code Section 4.144(6)(e) and 4.201(5)(g). Specifically, the on-street parking caused by petitioner's inadequacy of parking facilities has - 6- generated parking and traffic congestion to nuisance levels. The traffic congestion has already affected the adjacent land uses evidenced by complaints from Precision Engineering that vehicles associated with petitioner's operation have used the former's parking area to turn around. Other complaints concerning traffic congestion caused by on-street parking have been registered by property owners due south and directly across from petitioner and southeast of petitioner's site. The existing traffic condition generated by petitioner's expansion of retail sales has created potentially hazardous traffic conflicts that have interfered with the daily traffic of other area industrial uses adjacent to petitioner's site. 3. The petitioner's on-site parking capacity is inadequate, incapable of expansion and therefore in violation of the parking requirements and standards for retail sales required by New Hope Code Sections 4.144(6)(a) and 4.036(10). Given the square foot allocations to the uses proposed within the conditional use request, petitioner would need 112 on-site parking spaces per 4.036(10), itemized as follows: a. 8,142 square feet of retail sales - 49 spaces per 4.035(10)(q), b. 9,486 square feet of warehouse connected with retail sales - 18 spaces per 4.036(10)(q) c. 3,947 square feet of office space - 21 spaces per 4.036(10)(M) d. 8,644 square feet of warehouse space - 13 spaces per 4.036(10)(cc) e. 4,898 square feet devoted to a gymnastic school - 11 spaces per 4.036(10) (W) 112 Total spaces Petitioner's site can accommodate only 57 on-site parking spaces. Expansion of on-site parking is not feasible because petitioner's "green area" has already been reduced to its minimum level of 35%. Also, petitioner has failed to obtain any long term written commitments for off-street parking spaces at adjacent parking lots to petitioner's site. 4. Petitioner has represented that the only on-site processing done to its fabric before sale is cutting said fabric to lengths or quantities desired by its purchaser. The fabric is not treated or altered in any other way by petitioner, and petitioner claims that cutting of fabric constitutes sufficient on-site processing to meet the requirements of New Hope Code Section 4.144(6) permitting retail sales of said fabric by conditional use. Petitioner has never requested a conditional use permit for retail sales per Section 4.144(6), nor has the City administratively interpreted the on-site processing requirement of said ordinance as it relates to petitioner's operation. No evidence has been presented as to whether petitioner's cutting procedure constitutes a sufficient degree of required on-site processing permitting retail sales as a conditional use. However, due to the fact that petitioner cannot and is not in compliance with the aforementioned standards for granting a conditional use permit, no conclusion is reached as to whether fabric is sufficiently processed on-site by petitioner as required by Section 4.144(6). - 7- PARKING VARIANCE WHEREAS, the New Hope Planning Commission has reconsidered its recommendation for approval of petitioner's requested parking variance in light of subsequently developed facts regarding on-site parking inadequacies generated by petitioner's development of retail sales, and WHEREAS, New Hope Code Section 4.213 provides that a variance, including an on-street parking variance as requested by petitioner shall be granted if the variance will not violate the following standards: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion of the public street. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the Code. WHEREAS, the requested variance for 10 on-street and 13 off-street parking spaces in privately owned parking lots adjacent to petitioner's lot would not satisfy three out of four standards as set forth by New Hope Code Section 4.213 as follows: 1. The requested variance would unreasonably increase congestion in the public street. The parking congestion on-site is grossly inadequate. Allowing 10 on-street parking spaces would still leave petitioner 49 parking spaces short of the required number. Petitioner cannot expand his on-site parking and still maintain a minimum "green area" of 35% nor has he obtained sufficient commit- ments for parking in other adjacent off-street parking lots. The letters petitioner has received for the 13 off-street spaces are unilaterally terminable at the will of the parties. They are inadequate to support petitioner's representation that said off-street spaces will relieve parking congestion on petitioner's site due to the uncertainty as to the length of time said spaces will be available to petitioner. In fact, the letter from Horwitz, Inc. expressly states the spaces are available on a short term basis. 2. Granting the variance would endanger the public safety. Traffic and parking congestion would not be eliminated by a variance for 10 off-street parking spaces. Petitioner would continue to be 49 parking spaces short. Observations of petitioner's site reveal that fire lanes are used for parking, fire hydrants are blocked, traffic on the public streets is increased by cars circling petitioner's site in search of parking and access by fire and emergency vehicles is potentially impaired by parking congestion. These conditions would not be alleviated by granting petitioner's requested variance. - 8- 3. The existing conditions at petitioner's site do not conform and are contrary to the intent of the New Hope zoning ordinance. Specifically, petitioner has overused its site beyond its size and capacity. Granting a variance for parking will not rectify petitioner's overuse and there- fore would not promote the spirit or intent of the New Hope zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, the petitioner does not allege that a non-economic hardship exists with regard to the use of its property; there is nothing unique to the shape of or topographical character of the petitioner's site necessitating a need for its requested variance, and WHEREAS, enforcement of the City's parking requirements set forth in New Hope Code Section 4.036 would not place an undue hardship on petitioner's site that another lot within the same zoning district would not have if developed in the same manner as petitioner, and WHEREAS, petitioner can only claim an economic hardship resulting from the fact that the unauthorized development of the site beyond its capacity has resulted in petitioner's need for a parking variance, and WHEREAS, said development by petitioner requires prior City approval by conditional use permit and that petitioner has failed to obtain prior approval preventing any discussion or review by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the New Hope Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings in support of its recommendation to the New Hope City Council: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The above recitals are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. That 8,142 square feet of petitioner's site is devoted to retail sales of fabric and thread. 3. That retail sales is permitted only as a conditional use on petitioner's site pursuant to New Hope Code Section 4. 144(6), and that petitioner has failed to obtain from the City a conditional use permit for said retail sales. 4. That New Hope Code Section 4.144(6) sets forth certain standards which must be met before a conditional use permit will be granted. Those standards are as follows: a. The product for sale must be manufactured or processed on- site, -9- b. all requirements for retail sales must be met, c. the conditional use must be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Land Use Plan, d. the nuisance characteristics generated by the conditional use must not have an adverse effect upon existing or future development of adjacent land uses. 5. That the foregoing standards for a conditional use permit as set forth in New Hope Code Section 4.144(6) are not met as they relate to petitioner's proposed conditional use. The basis for this finding is as follows: a. Petitioner cannot supply adequate off street parking required for retail sales by New Hope Code Sections 4.144(6)(a) and 4.036(10). Said ordinances call for 112 off street parking spaces. Petitioner's site has the capacity for only 57 spaces. b. Petitioner's inability to provide adequate off-street parking renders its proposed conditional use inconsistent with the Land Use and Transportation Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, Petitioner's retail sales has resulted in an over-intensification of land use not accompanied by sufficient levels of supportive on-site parking. As a result parking demands have not been met causing the necessity for on-street parking, which in turn is responsible for hazardous parking congestion and traffic conflict between petitioner's customers as well as other industrial traffic using the area. c. Petitioner's inability to provide adequate off-street parking renders its proposed conditional use inconsistent with the Industrial policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Consideration must be given to the physical implications generated by the parking and traffic congestion caused by inadequate off-street parking facilities of petitioner's development. Observations of petitioner's site by City Staff has revealed that the parking congestion caused by petitioner's development has interfered with other industrial traffic, resulted in blocked fire lanes and hydrants and potentially impedes access by emergency vehicles. Those are nuisance characteristics generated by petitioner's development having an adverse affect upon existing and future development of adjacent land uses also in violation of the standards set forth in New Hope Code Sections 4.144(6)(e) and 4.201(5) (g). - 10 - 6. That New Hope Code Section 4.213 sets forth certain standards which must be met before a variance will be granted. Those standards are as follows: a. the variance shall not unreasonably increase congestion in the public street, b. the variance shall not endanger the public safety, c. the variance shall not be contrary to the intent of the New Hope zoning ordinance. 7. That the foregoing standards for a variance as set forth in New Hope Code Section 4.213 are not met as they relate to petitioner's requested parking variance. 8. That the petitioner's site does not suffer from a non-economic hardship due to its shape or topographical character that creates an undue hardship for petitioner that another lot or parcel in the same district would not have if developed in the same manner. 9. That the only hardship claimed by petitioner is economic hardship, and that said hardship has resulted from petitioner's development of its parcel without required City approval per New Hope Code Section 4.144 (6). 10. That the traffic congestion and conflict generated by the inadequate parking facilities of the petitioner's development seriously jeopardize the health, safety and public welfare of the New Hope community as well as the integrity of the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. THEREFORE, the New Hope Planning Commission does hereby rescind its May 3, 1983 approval of the parking variance designated as Planning Case 83-21, and does hereby recommend DENIAL of the parking variance designated as Planning Case 83-21 and the conditional use permit for retail sales designated as Planning Cases 83-45 and 83-64. ~'~ ' !~{'/?/~J~' , Chairman - 11 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, April 3, 1984 at the New Hope City Hall. The City Manager issued the Oath of Office to the two new Planning Commissioners, Theodore Kolander and Terry Lutts. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards, Lutts Anderson arrived at 7:34 p.m. Absent: Gundershaug (excused) ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 84 - 1 (TABLED FROM MARCH 6, 1984) - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-4, PUD AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL FOR SEVEN APARTMENT BUILDINGS AT 8515 BASS LAKE ROAD - CHARLES THO~iPSON, SR., PETITIONER. The petitioner was represented by Don F6rseth of the North Ridge Development Company. He stated that the petitioner was requesting a rezoning from R-1 to R-4 to allow construction of seven apartment build- ings on the corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone. He compared this request to that of March 1982 when North Ridge asked to rezone the property.of the church to allow construction of their new addition to senior citizen housing. He indicated that the use of the property had altered, and that the church had decided to sell, and move to Maple Grove to a site that would provide larger educational facilities. The 80 units proposed in the project would be valued at 2.6 - 3 million dollars. The existing building will be removed from t~e site. Their original plan had been to leave it and convert it to another use, but they had decided it would look cluttered and they are now proposing all apartments on the site. They would like to develop a complex that is something a little unique, something with character and something to sit between the residential areas and the apartments. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the building now on the site wilt be torn down. In response to questions, Mr. Forseth said that maintenance of the project, lawn, snow removal, etc. would be contracted from North Ridge. All equipment would be stored at North Ridge. Mr. Forseth introduced Bob Pope, of Pope and Associates, the architect of the project. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the plans before the Commission were the same ones that had been re- viewed by Design and Review? Mr. Pope used graphics to explain the project as proposed. There will be six 12 unit buildings and one 8 unit building. They will contain a mix of one and two bedroom units. There will be no efficiency units or three bedroom units. The buildings will be three stories in height. He added that the site was approximately 4.89 acres; the building will cover 54,000+ square feet; the blacktop surface will be 66,000+ square feet, and their will be approximately 48,000 square feet of landscaped open area (does not include the green areas around the perimeter of the site. There will be one trash collector for each unit, and any signage will comply (at the entrances) with city code regarding signs. It was Mr. Pope's feeling that there was adequate access for emergency vehi- cles on the site. There will be decorative type lighting around the parking areas, as well as landscape type lighting throughout the site, by walkways, etc. At the entrances to the garages, there will be shielded wall lights. Landscaping around the perimeter will consist of large %rees (2%" width) deciduous trees, to shield the adjacent properties. They also left existing trees to add to the screening effect. Mr. Pope referred to another site plan which indicated the grading of the site, the fact'that there will be internal storm drainage, and utilities around the'roadway, which is a loop through the project. An easement will be provided for the utilities. The front entrances will serve six units, with detached garages also at the front. Each building will have a central laundry room and a meter room. A vestibule will be provided for visitors will a call indi- cator to each apartment. The buildings will be heated and air conditioned with temperature controls for each tenant. They have tried to use a residential type of design, with gabled or pitch type roofs, dormers at the front, and a break in the garage roof.to add interest. The exterior will be wood frame construction, cedar siding, stained in natural earth tones. The rear of the building will carry through the same design features, and will include balconies~. Chairman Cameron stated that in a Planned Unit Development, the city can allow some concessions to a project, while in turn gaining some additional control of the development. In the case of a PUD you PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - APRIL 3, 1984 3. consider the total project. He added that of course the second issue for the Commission to consider was the rezoning. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the plans as presented were the same as presented to Design and Re- view. Mr. Alan Brixius (Planning Consultant) said that there were some minor changes from that meeting. These changes included additional lighting, additional landscaping and they had also addressed the Committees concern about traffic visibility at the corners, by changing the landscaping at the corner. The build- ing layout is the same. The parking has been changed -- now shows 9' x 20' stalls. Commissioner Edwards asked about a schedule of the types of trees, sizes, etc. that would also give the quantities of each type proposed. Mr. Pope said they had not provided this as yet, but could do so. He was advised that this should be prepared for the presentation to the City Council. Commissioner Edwards then confirmed that the parking areas were all black topped with connecting curbing, that the lights would be shielded both on the site, and toward the adjacent residential areas.' Mr. Pope stated they intend to use low intensity fixtures, that should not be objectionable to either the people on site or people walking through. The trash containers will be screened. Commissioner Edwards noted that the enclosures would be required to have a gate or door. Mr. Pope stated that all of the maintenance type equipment would be stored at North Ridge Care Center. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern as to what might happen, if one or more of the buildings were sold to someone else, who did-not choose to have this type of maintenance agreement. In response to questions, Mr. Pope said that there will be two meter rooms and two laundry rooms per building, that each unit would be heated separately, and have their own hot water. There will be no rooftop equipment. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Pope said that the buildings would be security type, with a phone in the vestibule to allow visitors to call tenants to be let into the building. He said they had not as yet decided how the units would be labeled. Commissioner Edwards noted he felt this must be addressed, and should be very carefully considered. He also expressed his concerns, that this was the only opportunity the Planning Commission had to review this entire project, and he was concerned that details be addressed. He had hoped there would be a more finished, or polished, presentation. He asked whether there would be any loading/unloading areas in the front of the buildings? Mr. Pope said there was an area in front of each building, open enough for a truck or vehicle to unload or load, but a truck might block a vehicle that was trying to back out. He felt it would be extremely difficult to move the buildings back to provide a larger loading/unloading area, because of the parking that must be provided. In response to further questions, Mr. Pope indicated that he felt that the drives and turning radius' were adequate for maneuvering. He confirmed that the parking areas would all be blacktopped, with tile spaces striped. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding the proposed landscaping around the site, Mr. Pope indicated they intended to use blue spruce, black hills spruce, marshal ash in an attempt to provide year round screening. In the area facing Bass Lake Road, they will use fencing and arborvitae. Mr. Pope said that he felt these types of trees would be able to wlthstand the salt from the road, and added that as long as North Ridge was involved with the project, the site will be maintained.and land- scaping replaced as necessary. Commissioner Edwards asked about the layout of the landscaping adjacent to Bass Lake Road and Boone, and the type of fencing that was proposed? Mr. Pope said they had broken up the landscaping, using plantings and fencing,to provide more i~terest. As to the kind of fence, he felt that a board on board fence was the basic screening fence, he would not like to see a fence higher than four feet -- he thought that head lights were about 30" high and a four foot fence would adequately screen them. Discussion followed about the fencing, and the need to have a definite plan presented, and Mr. Pope noted that he could commit to the fence being four feet high, of redwood, board on board type. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ - 3 ~ ~ ~ APRIL 3, 1984 3. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the fencing would be only in front of the parking stalls, not continuous, and would be broken up with evergreen plantings. Commissioner Friedrich asked about the parking on the south side of the lot, and the height of the park- ing area in relation to the apartments. The answer was that the parking area was higher (elevation 9.06 to 8.98 at apartments) and Corm~issioner Friedrich indicated he thought more landscaping should be added in this area. Mr. Pope indicated that the same detail could be added as they propose at Boone and Bass Lake Road to screen residents from lights. Commissioner Edwards stated that he felt that any parking area next to a residence should be screened. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Pope was corm~itting that the same treatment as proposed for the Bass- Lake Road and Boone areas, would follow along the parking perimeter. Mr. Pope said they would like to eliminate it next to the garages on the other site. Mr. Forseth added that there would be no problem in putting in screening where there were apartments. CommissionerEdwards noted that a written document was necessary to provide for the operating and mainten- ance agreement for the site. The City Manager said there would actually be two documents. One would be the maintenance agreement in which the developer promises the city they will maintain site, plow drives, etc. to certain standards, which would be backed by a bond or cash escrow account. There would also be a PUD Agreement, filed with the County, stating exactly what was required. They will both be drafted by the City Attorney. Mr. Brixius stated that this would be a binding contract between the developer and the city. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that all walkways and pathways would be lighted, and that all buildings would have lights for security purposes. Commissioner Friedrich asked whether the County had approved the two curb cuts? Mr. Pope ~aid there were two curb cuts now, and they did not anticipate any problems with the County and that Doug Sandstad agreed with this. There has not been a traffic study conducted. Commissioner Friedrich asked what materials would be used around the refuse areas? Mr. Pope said they would be the same as the fencing around the perimeter. In answer to an expressed con- cern about access for emergency vehicles, Mr. Pope said that the drives would be 24' wide. The buildings will all be sprinklered and the Fire Marshal would go along with not having access to all buildings. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that snow would be removed from the site, and that this would be part of the maintenance agreement. He further stated that the city would like there to be a stipulation that the garages would be available to tenants on a "No Fee" basis and that there will be no renting of gar- ages to outside parties. Commissioner Anderson asked about the proposed' slope at the south property line as it appeared to be around 1 to 1. Mr. Pope said they hope to achieve a 1 to 3 if possible. It if were not possible then there would pro- bably have to be some terracing with railroad ties. Commissioner Anderson asked how this would be maintained? Mr. Pope said it would not be left as a slope that could not be maintained. Chairman Cameron stated he hoped the petitioner would have an answer to this problem, before they made their presentation to the City Council. Commissioner Anderson asked about the grade from Boone Avenue, as it appeared to him to be high. Mr. Pope said this was a 7% grade. Discussion then covered the possible traffic problems, the difficulty of turning left on to Bass Lake Road and the fact that the driveway as proposed would become blocked with 3-4 cars. Commissioner Anderson noted that he felt it might be more effective to move the curb cut/driveway to the east, to line up with the main drive at the east side of the site, and provide a "T" intersection. The Planner said that the code requirements specified a 24' wide driveway. Mr. Pope said he felt the curb cut could be moved, to within five feet of the property line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - APRIL 3, 1984 3. Commissioner Anderson expressed concerns about the trash areas at the corner of Boone and Bass Lake Road. He questioned how garbage trucks were going to get in and out of that area? Chairman Cameron said he was also concerned'about the traffic situation on a prime traffic corner and the prospect of a garbage truck having to back up 400' to get out Of the site. He asked whether the trash areas could not be moved closer to the center of the building. He added that he felt the peti- tioner would cut the screening problems in half, if the trash areas were moved together. Commissioner Anderson asked about the 8 unit building, and the 14' drive for an emergency vehicle to gain access. He noted that he felt a one to one slope seemed to him almost impossible to allow anything - to get back there. Mr. P6pe noted that if emerger~y.vehi61es ~ould not gain access, it would have to be from the adjacent property. Commissioner Bartos asked about the laundry rooms. It was noted that there were two laundry rooms for each building, on the first floor. There would be two entrances for each building. The hot water costs would be off the house meter and pro-rated among the tenants. Chairman Cameron. again expressed concerns about the proposed maintenance agreement with North Ridge, and the fact that the situation could change as to ownership 10-12 years down the road and would the agree- ment remain. Mr. Brixius stated that if this happened, the complex would have to contract with priyate maintenance people, but that the developer/owner would also be contracting with the city. Chairman Cameron then expressed his concern about the lack of storage space on site for maintenance equip- ment, paint, cleaning supplies, etc. -- where would these items'be stored? He was concerned that the utility rooms might become a depository for these items. Mr. Forseth stated that if at any time North Ridge failed to continue the maintenance of the site, the owner would have to contract with an independent contractor. Commissioner Bartos confirmed that the petitioner did not intend to have a maintenance person or caretakel on the site. Commissioner Kolander asked whether the tenants would not have a place to call for occasional repairs? Mr. Forseth answered that North Ridge had a 24 hour security and maintenance department. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that the meter rooms would become storage closets. Chairman Cameron asked why the petitioner could not provide one more garage to act as the complex main- tenance unit? He said he really felt some space should be provided for on-site storage of maintenance equipment. Mr. Forseth said he had no objection to this. He thought it was an excellent idea. Mr. Pope said he felt they could make it workJ In response to a question from the Chairman regarding financing, Mr. Forseth said it had not as yet been put together. Commissioner Kolander confirmed that each unit would have their own heating/cooling system and tenants would control their own. In response to questions regarding proposed handicapped parking, and units for the handicapped, Mr. Pope stated there would be one handicapped unit for each building. Commissioner Lutts referred to intended development proposals and questioned what might come up where the stated intentions would change? Mr. Pope said that what was shown on the development drawings, is what the developer is committed to, under the conditions of the PUD. Chairman Cameron confirmed this, stating the petitioner was committed, with no equivocation. Mr. Brixius suggested that all revisions and suggestions made at the Commission meeting be part of the plan before the Council meeting. Commissioner Edwards commented on the fact that the Planning Commission would not get another chance to review this proposed development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - APRIL 3, 1984 3. Mr. Brixius stated that it would not be unreasonable for the Commission to request that this proposal be sent back to Design and Review again, before final approval of the project. The City Manager noted that the minutes from this meeting and the Commissioner's comments, as well as the record of the City Council meeting will be incorporated by the City Attorney when he drafts the agreement between the developer and the city. Mr. Vernon Cassibo, 8512 Bass Lake Road, stated that he was concerned about the entryway onto Bass Lake Road, He felt there were going to be problems with the driveway in its proposed location. He said he had to sit in his driveway many times for more than a minute to gain access to Bass Lake Road. He also wondered what type of apartment complex was proposed -- would it be low income or subsidized? He was informed that it would be a first class complex that everyone could be proud of. Mr. Steve Moss, 8520 Bass Lake Road, stated he had lived in his home for nine years. He felt that the real question was whether the zoning should be changed. He had purchased his home when there was a house on the property. He has children 5 and 7 years old, and he is concerned about their safety. He cannot even let his children play on the sidewalk because of the traffic. This complex will create a lot of traffic. It was a residential area and he didn't like the idea of looking out his window at a parking lot. He felt that the developer had good intentions, but that it was too many units and would be too much traffic. He would like to ask Mr. Thompson if he would like to buy his house. Com~issioner Anderson said he would like further review of the parking areas and garages. He felt that some of the garages would be almost impossible to get in and out of during certain times of the year. Mr. Pope said he felt this was an adequate space in which to maneuver a car. Commissioner Anderson again stated his concern, and asked the petitioner to take a look at the units and check the turning radius - he felt that those in the center look like they could be awkward during the winter. Mr. Pope agreed. Chairman Cameron said that there were two issues for the Commission to consider at this time: One of these is the rezoning, and the second is the total development plan for the site. He added that it was customary for the city to consider rezoning based on only two criteria: one that there had been an error in the original zoning, and the second that the area and conditions had changed sufficiently since the property was zoned, to justify a change in the zoning. Dr. Cameron said that he thought that even though at the time the church was built, R-1 was almost an automatic zone, he did not think that the Planner had looked very seriously at the zoning, when the city's zoning was updated. In looking at the surrounding property, with industrial to the west, apartments to the south, and a major street to the north, he found no problem with amending the zoning, because an error was made in allowing the R-1 zone to exist when code was updated several years ago. He felt that to.leave the property zoned R-1 would be a mistake. Commissioner Anderson said he concurred with the Chairman's comments, and therefore, made a motion recom- mending approval of the requested rezoning from R-1 to R-4 at 8515 Bass Lake Road. Co~issioner Frie- drich second. ' Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Edwards, Lutts voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. Chairman Cameron asked the City Manager to review the PUD concept for the Commission. Mr. Donahue said that the PUD is a mechanism for the city to enter into a partnership with the developer with the city having prime input with everything regarding the development. The agreements are binding on the part of the developer. The city will often, as in this case, give a bonus such as higher density, but the city in turn has input into the development ~n total. There are three stages of a PUD: the concept development, development approval, and the final step is the actual agreement, drafted by the City Attorney, between the city and the developer. The approval requested at this meeting is for concept and development. Chairman Cameron asked what kind of variances would be required, if the project were not going as a PUD? Mr. Donahue said they would need approval of the rezoning, a variance for more than one building on a lot, and side and rear setback variances. Chairman Cameron noted that he felt the petitioner was really not asking the city for too much. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - APRIL 3, 1984 3. Commissioner Anderson asked what the alternative would be to approval of the concept development at this meeting? Mr. Donahue said that the case could be tabled for one month. Commissioner Anderson said he leaned in this direction at this point. He asked the petitioner what ef- fect a table would have on their plans? Mr. Pope said that it would be a very significant investment for the petitioner to prepare complete con- struction documents if approval was not assured. He said he presumed that Mr. Thompson was interested in obtaining a pretty positive indication that the project would be approved before he made that large an investment. Mr. Pope asked whether the concerns expressed by the Commission could be addressed and they could appear before Council and then come back to the Commission? Mr. Forseth said they were looking at April 26, as a deadline for a decision on whether to go ahead on the project. If there is to be a third option, he would like to get the proposal before the Council, now~ get their input and then come back to the Commission in May. Mr. Donahue said that the final stage of the process could come back to Planning Commission. the Commis- sion could request that final stage comes back, when the actual construction documents .were available. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the Commission could give just concept approval? Mr. Donahue noted that no building permits would be issued until the final stage had been reached, and the proposal had been passed by the Planning Commission and Council. Commissioner Edwards said he had no problemwith giving concept approval. Mr. Donahue stated that from the staff point of view, he felt comfortable with approving the development stage. The planning stages are similar to the platting procedure. Commissioner Edwards commented that in regard to the grading and terracing, he would like to be able to take more time to look at the proposal. Chairman Cameron said he did not feel that the Commission had concerns serious enough to table the case, but that there are a number of issues that Planning Commission wants to be sure are adequately dealt with. He felt Design and Review should look at the proposal again before the final stage. Commissioner Andersonmade a motion recommending approval of the concept plans and the development plans for the PUD at 8515 Bass Lake Road, subject to review by the entire Planning Commission regarding the items that were discussed at this meeting, prior to final acceptance of the project. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. Design and Review had held one meeting in March. 5. No report from the Land Use Commission. 6. No report from Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 7. The Planning Commission minutes of March 6, 1984 were accepted as printed. 8. The Council M~nutes of March 12, were reviewed. 11. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J~c~ Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 1, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, May 1, 1984 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: ~resent: Kolander, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Absent: Anderson (excused), Friedrich (excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 83 - 58 (TABLED FROM MARCH 6, 1984) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5149 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - L AND L DISTRIBUTION, PETITIONER Mr. Rick Gjertsen represented the petitioner. He stated that at this time they feel that they have the solution at hand. He had test results but noted they were without all of the Up and Away units on the vehicles. Testing was done at three spots. He distributed the report to Chairman Cameron and the City Manager. Testing was done on April 26, 1984. The test results were as follows: 51.5 dB'A' at the apartments 50.0 dB'A at the Weeks property line 52.0 at the T shaped telephone pole 53.0 at the next telephone pole west of the T shaped telephone pole Mr. Gjertsen noted that he felt the sound pressure levels would be reduced from those above, when all of the Up and Away units were on. Testing had been done by Intest Laboratories, Inc. ~. Gjertsen added that the Building Inspector was scheduled to come out on Sunday to test because weather conditions had prevented earlier tests. Chairman Cameron asked whether the test could be done on Sunday, Mr. Gjertsen said "yes". They will continue to schedule until they can get an accurate test, depending upon weather conditions. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Gjer5sen to explain what the final plan looked like. The City Manager distributed a drawing indicating the barrier placement. Mr. Gjertsen said they had two trailers parked opposite each other which created approximately a 70 foot barrier. There are two units parked at a diagonal to direc5 the sound to the west, and the final two units are spaced between the building, far to the west. They are pointing directly north, and spread approximately 50 feet apart. Every trailer now has an Up and Away unit, which ha~ an insulating factor inside of it, mounted perma- nently over the front of the unit. To this time they have not been able to test the new units for sound protection because of the storm. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the trucks were parked after they were loaded. In answer to a further question, it was noted that they loaded four trucks at a time. Mr. Gjertsen noted that if the trailers were empty, they were not running. Com~issioner Gundershaug asked what decibel level they were looking for? The answer was ."50. He further confirmed that the trucks parked as a sound barrier, were not in use, and would s~ay in place. Mr. Gjertsen said he felt that the readings would be a decibel better because of the wind factor than the readings they had on paper now. The Up and Away units had been able to cut their rating at the source level about 6 decibels. Commissioner Bartos asked what the decibel levels had been dropped to? Mr. Gjertsen said about 6 decibels at the point of the source. As you go further out it lessens. Chairman Cameron asked what guarantee the city had that the trucks would always be parked as shown on the plan? Mr. Gjertsen said that this would be the only way he could keep on operating at the site. He said he would have a night supervisor, with a plan worked out as to the parking of the trucks. Trucks will be parked 50 feet out from doors 9 and 11, they will pull the tractor on a diagonal up to the doors. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the neighbors had the phone numbers for the night supervisor. Discussion then covered a temporary barrier versus a permanent barrier. Mr. Gjertsen noted that it was their intention to move by fall of 1986. To this time, he has not been able to obtain a lease in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MAY 1, 1984 3. in another location. They are looking at a October/November moving date. He felt it would be to every- body's benefit for them to move out then. He was sure the neighbors and the city would like to have them go. He felt that long term it would be better for them to be in an industrial neighborhood. Mr. Gjertsen agreed with Chairman Cameron's statement that there was a nuisance factor involved. Chairman C~meron stated that he thought they had done their best to try and control the sound.. He hoped the city could have their assurance that they would not be on the site beyond the Fall of 1986. Mr. Gjertsen said they would not be located there by that time. This would give two elements to the tem- porary barrier request: One was that once the noise source was gone, it would be very simple to just take the barrier away and there would be no existing parking problems when they were gone, as there might be if they installed a permanent barrier. Chairman Cameron said he had no problem with a temporary barrier. Karen Weeks, 8316 50th Avenue North, said she felt one crucial point was where they had done the noise tests. Her bedroom is on the second story, other people had two story houses, and you get a higher noise reading at that level. She asked what level they were conducting the noise readings at? Mr. Gjertsen said that Intest had been doing the readings, but they would be happy to take readings on her deck. ~he problem has been that they have not had access to the decks. In answer to a further ques- tion from Mrs. Weeks, he said that he thought that the 49-50 decibel rating was at the fence line. Mrs. Weeks said they were welcome to come on her deck any time to take a reading. Mr. Gjertsen said he thought the Building Official would take a reading there. Mrs. Weeks commented that the problem had continued to worsen, as business increased. Mr. Gjertsen said they were looking au a maximum of eight trucks on the site. They have opened up a Sioux Falls branch, and hope to run this year with only seven trucks. Chairman Cameron said that he felt that in this past year L and L has tried in a number of ways to solve the problem. They have invested quite a bit of money in trying to lower the noise levels. Mrs. Weeks asked whether there would be a deadline pu~ on the permit, so that they would have the oppor- tunity ~o come back and express their thoughts again? She felt the process had taken a long time. Chairman Cameron said it could be reviewed at regular times, as set by the City Council, conditions could be set calling for specified times for review of the situation. The city is caught in an impossible situation, between two good citizens. It seemed to him that this year, with a lot of cooperation, and no one pushing the panic button, L and L has invested quite a bit, and he firmly believed that L and L was committed to getting this noise level down to a legal limit. L and L has every legal right to operate on that property. He added that he felt sure that the only way the neighbors would think the problem was eased, was when the petitioner picked up and moved. Bruce Kaufman, 5017 Wisconsin, said that another problem was the traffic -- more trucks will mean more business. Late at night, people were talking, the PA system was going, and people were trying sleep. It is hard to be waked up several times is grating on peoples nerves and was irritating. He agreed something had been done, but it had been a long time. He felt Mr. Gjermsen had the opportunity to leave and didn't. He thought he could have solved the problem by movinq out at the end of his lease. Chairman Cameron said he felt it was important that the record show that there would be a due date on the Conditional Use Permit as Fall of 1986. Mr. Gjertsen said there shouldn't be a problem with open doors and the PA system any more. They have taken two steps, regarding the traffic and the PA system. Keeping the door shut shouldn't be s problem, because they do not wan~ bugs inside the warehouse. The doors will be covered by the truck extensions. The traffis problem they hope will be solved by the installation of a sign stating "no overnight parking" and they will pu~tup a sign also indicating this in line with the entrance. They have also made a note on all their purchase orders indicating there is no overnight parking allowed. He stated they were try- ing to be as cooperatmve as possible, and trying to solve the problem. Some of the things it is difficult to know whether they will work. He felt there is going to be some noise out there, even when they move, noise may not disappear from the facility. They are doing all they can to stage their routing so there are as few trucks on the site as possible. In response to a question from a citizen regarding the proposed time of the testing, Mr. Gjertsen said he hoped that it would be between 10 p.m. and 12 p.m.. The time would be the same on Wednesday or Sunday. Doug Sandstad from city staff would be conducting the tests, he felt he would probably wish to know what the sound levels were by the windows. Commissioner Bartos questioned making a decision when the Commission still did not have all the facts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 MAY 1, 1984 3. Chairman Cameron said that the process was that the Commission recommend to the City Council. He felt the data they had received was close enough, and hopefully by the time of the City Council meeting, the final test data will be available. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 5149 Winnetka, Case 83-58, with the following stipulations: 1. Conditional Use Permit valid until October 1986. 2. Trucks limited to a maximum of eight. 3. Subject to a 6 month review by staff, or by complaint. Approval was also recommended for a temporary barrier to be in place until October 1986. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Kolander, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 84 - 3 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 7750 47~ PLACE - TERRY HEBIG, PETITIONER. Mr. Hebig said he was requesting a variance in rear setback to allow him to construct an addition to his house. He has a cul-du-sac lot, and they decided that esthetically it was best to add on to the back. The addition would be 14' x 26'. The bedrooms would be in the lower level of that addition, the eating area and family room would be on the upper level. Commenting that this was a major variance request, Chairman Cameron asked how far the addition would be from the neighbors. Mr. Hebig said their house was about 30 feet from the lot line (neighbor to the west). He had spoken to the neighbor, and there had been no objections. In answer to a question from the Chairman regarding the addition's exterior, Mr. Hebig said that the siding would match the existing house, that the roofing would be tied into the existing roof, and that the materials and color would match. tn answer to a question from Commlsszoner Kolander, Mr. Hebig said that the fence was on the other side of the house, that the addition would be on the northwest size, facing west. He added that the house was set at a little bit of an angle on the lot. Commissioner Lutts asked whether the city required the neighbors to sign their approval? The Chairman noted that everyone within 350 feet of the property had been sent notices telling them about the variance request, and inviting them to appear at this meeting if they had any concerns. Commissioner Edwards asked whether they had considered any other arrangement of the addition? Mr. Hebig said yes, but it would not really work on the other end. Chairman confirmed that there was no way for Mr. Hebig to put on an addition, without going into the setback. There were no further comments. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the request for a 15 foot rearyard variance at 7750 47% Place, as requested in Case 84-3, subject to the exterior siding and color and roof materials matching the existing house. Commissioner Kollander second. Voting in favor: Kolander, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts Voting against: Edwards Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 84 - 4 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY RETAIL SALES AT 7900 56th AVENUE NORTH - J. SHOWALTER, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Lament, the Territory Manager for Amoco, represented the petitioner. He stated they were re- questing a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to operate a limited convenience store in the station. There will be no building modifications. They will plan~to add three front loading coolers and "L" shaped counter of approximately 12' by 6'r paneling on the interior walls, candy and potato chip racks, a micro wave for the Stewart sandwich type of food, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MAY 1, 1984 5. Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioner had acquainted himself with the city ordinances regarding this type of request? Mr. Lament said he had looked through it and he thought he had complied so far. The Chairman noted that one of the requirements was that all parking be striped, and staff word is that they cannot find any stripes on the site. Mr. Lament said they had parking stripes for eight automobiles, and that there is also a tire barn which their maintenance people have been instructed to remove. They plan to stripe the additional spaces to get them up to the proper number of s~riped spaces as required by code. Chairman Cameron confirmed for the record, that the petitioner would do this striping when the weather permitted. (14 spaces) In response to questions from the Chairman, the petitioner noted that not more than 50% of the interior would be devoted to such sales. The City Manager stated that the Building Inspector had confirmed that the area proposed was under the code requirement. Chairman Cameron noted that they would not be able to serve anything to eat on the site. The petitioner stated he did not think the food would be actually consumed on the site. Their feeling is that these Types of items are consumed in the vehicles. Chairman Cameron noted that the City Sanitarian would have to inspect the site, but that as a full ser- vice gas station they would not.be able to sell anything to be consumed on the site, such as Stewart sandwiches, or coffee -- these were the rules of the ordinance. The City Manager stated that the Sanitarian would inspect the premises, but that ordinance required that anyone who handled oil or gas, cannot also handle food. The Sanitarian will judge the operation in that light -~ will anyone handling oil/gasoline also be handling food to be consumed. The petitioner said no, either the cashier or the customer would handle the food. As a company, they as a company did not even want those ~eople inside the sales room. Chairman Cameron confirmed for the record, that there will be a separate cashier on the premises -- an employee who does nothing but tend the counter and service the convenience foods. Commissioner Gundershaug referred back to 1972 and the Conditional Use Permit given then, there was a -stipulation 'that a 5~.' green triangle be maintained on the southeast corner of the ~roperty, where the rocks now are. The petitioner stated he was not aware of th~ requirement for green area on that corner. Chairman Cameron asked whether there was still a carwash on the site? The answer was yes, and the Chair- man then noted that the green triangle had been a requirement when the conditional use permit for the carwash had been granted. The stations across the street also have these requirements. The petitioner said this would be taken care of. If the requirement was for a green area, there is no problem, they will take care of it. Mr. Showalter, the owner of the station, commented on a statement made earlier. He did not wish to mis- lead the commissioners. In regard to the separate cashier, they do not always have that. He wished to give something they could live with. The way they.were set up right now, they were not really in a position to do'this because they cannot afford to have non productive people standing around when there was work to be done. Chairman Cameron asked who actually was going to handle t~e Stewart sandwiches? Mr. Showalter said the customer. Chairman Cameron said they could approve this, but that if the city Sanitarian went into the station and discovered that someone who actually had dirty hands was handling food, or a cup of coffee, he will shut you down. Mr. Showalter said he understood that, but he did not want to go on record as saying "yes" they will al- ways have a cashier on duty, with sanitary hands and handling nothing filthier than money. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for retail sales at 7900 56th Avenue North, Case 84 - 4, with the stipulation that striping for 14 cars be provided, that the green space triangle of 50' be re-installed on the southeast corner of the site, and including PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MAY 1, 1984 5. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for retail sales at 7900 56th Avenue North, in Case 84-4, with the stipulation that striping for 14 cars be provided, that a 50' green triangle be re-installed on the southeast corner of the site, and that all requirements of city Code 4.124(3) (6) (7)be met, and subject to the approval of the city Sanitarian. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Kolander, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Friedrich Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 8. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Chairman Cameron stated he was appointment Commissioner Anderson Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee, and requested that Commissioners Kolander and Lutts serve as members of that committee. NEW BUSINESS 9. The Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1984 were accepted as printed. 10. The Council minutes of April 9, and April 24, 1984 were reviewed with no comments. 12. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 5, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 5, 1984. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Kolander,Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Absent: Anderson (arrived at 7:35 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS ~.~, 3. PLANNING CASE 84 - 1 (TABLED FROM MAY 1, 1984) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROVAL, REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-4, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT BASS LAKE ROAD/BOONE - CHUCK THOMPSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Don Forseth of North Ridge Properties represented the petitioner. He noted that they had originally appeared ~fore the Planning Commission in April. At that meeting, certain issues were raised that needed amending before they appeared before the Council. They then met with the architect, and North Ridge staff and when they appeared before Council, they suggested changing the approach to combine family housing and elderly housing. He stated that the concept the petitioner was presenting now was for a mixed development project with senior citizens on the same site, not in the same building, with the family housing. This will allow the seniors to intermingle if they choose. As a result of their meetings with the North Ridge staff, it was discovered that there was a need for senior housing for people who did not need the health services provided at the North Ridge complex. The present proposal is for a senior building that will appeal to the person that is 61+ , wants independent living, but doesn't need subsidized housing or health services, but is in the moderate income level. The buildings now being proposed will cover 35,600 square feet of the site, a decrease in building cover- age of 35%. The blacktopped area has been decreasedto 55,350 square feet, which is a decrease of 16%. The landscaped area has been increased by about 40% from that originally proposed. The tenants would be able to make use of the services offered by North Ridge, if they chose, could have one meal a day if desired. They would also have access to any emergency services from North Ridge. Bob Pope, of Pope and Associates then used visual displays to illustrate the proposed housing complex. There will be two buildings which will take substantially less ground coverage. The family housing build- ing will have 54 units, will be three stories, the elderly housing building will have 67 units. There will be underground parking which will have both "in" and "out" access. The access to the site has been located as far away from Bass Lake Road as possible. The elderly building has a drop off area at the front and a patio at the rear of the building. They have heavily landscaped using pine trees on the south and west to provide screening from lights. They will have a fence to screen the parking area from Boone Avenue. Trash will be kept inside, and because there will be basement garages for both buildings, they have been able to eliminate the need for large berms as originally proposed. The underground park- ing will have spaces for 41 cars for elderly, with 60+ outside. He then showed the Commissioners layouts of the proposed apartments. There will be 122 stalls provided for the family housing outside. The elderly building will have an entrance vestibule, a lobby, day room, office and reception area on the lower level, with an elevator. Laundry and trash areas will be on the second level. The exterior of the buildings will be quite comparable to the units at North Ridge with a face brick, and stucco. They will not have awnings on the windows. There will be bay windows on each unit and will break up the roof line with fake gables which will serve to conceal condensor units. The family housing building will have 61 underground parking spaces with a drive-through arrangement. There will be parking spaces provided outside. The upper floors will have day rooms by the elevators, balconies for each unit, the entrance and lobby area, office, laundry will be on the first level. There will be four sizes of apartments: large one bedroom 756 square feet; small one bedroom 672 square feet; large two bedroom 1064 square feet; and small two bedroom 980 square feet. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the parking lots and drives would be blacktopped, that there will be concrete curbing around the perimeter of all the parking areas, and that all the parkinq stalls would be the proper size and there was the proper count by City Code on the spaces available. He further con- confirmed that any rooftop equipment would either be screened or painted to match the building. He then asked about security lighting. Mr. Pope used a site plan to indicate that there would be security lighting throughout the courtyard area, throughout the parking areas, and around the perimeter. Also discussed was rubbish areas which will be interior, and that the signs installed would meet the New Hope Sign Ordinance. He stated that signage would consist of identification type signs which will meet the ordinance. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that there were no variances required for the proposed construction. He then spoke of the landscaping on the east side of the parking area, indicating that the majority of the area should be completely screened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - ~ 5, 1984 3. Mr. Pope indicated that this would pose no problem, and the screening required would be taken care of. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding any possible age restrictions, Mr. Forseth stated that there would only be 10% under the age of 61. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern about the easterly edge of the property, around the angled lot, and said he would like to see more screening provided, and more landscaping between the two buildings. He felt more shrubs should be put in between the two buildings. Mr. Pope said this could be easily accommodated. Chairman Cameron asked the city manager if the city staff had any concerns about the project. Mr. Donahue stated that as far as the project plans the city really had no concerns. The concerns cen- tered around the development agreements and the financing. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there was a walkway to Boone, from the elderly parking lot? The answer was "yes". He was also concerned about the entrance to the elderly park, and whether the radius would accommodate emergency vehicles. It was noted that the north end of the lot, which was designed to provide turn around area, should be marked "no parking". Mr. Pope said this would be taken care of. In response to concerns expressed, the City Manager indicated that no variances were required for the construction, but that a Conditional Use Permit was required to allow the elderly housing in a R-4 zone. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether this site was on a bus route? Discussion followed regarding the need for a walkway to provide a more direct route out to the bus stop. Mr. Pope indicated that the sidewalk could be extended to Boone Avenue. It was noted that there was not a bus shelter on that corner. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that it was the petitioners intent to have people load and unload from the lower level in the elderly building. Mr. Pope stated that there would be an area provided on the site for storage of maintenance equipment. This will be in the elderly building, in the basement, next to the door. There were no comments from the public in regard to this project. Chairman Cameron stated that at the previous meeting he felt that the proposed change in zoning had been justified. The Commission was now being asked to approve the concept and development stage of the PUD, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow elderly housing in an R-4 zone. The City Manager stated that the PUD Agreement must include what type of contractual agreements would be made to handle garbage collection. This must be stipulated by the Developer before the final agreements could be approved. Mr. Forseth said that garbage collection would be contracted out. He then asked whether it would be possible to avoid another appearance before the Commission for final construction approval. He noted this had been done with other North Ridge construction and wondered whether this could be done with a PUD also? The City Manager noted that the ordinance was not clear on this issue, but felt that perhaps final staff approval as a condition would be sufficient. The Chairman noted that it was his opinion that a second appearance before the Commission was not neces- sary since this was such a clean proposal, with no variances required. He assumed that the Commission ~would be willing to waive the second round appearance. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommending approval of the rezoning requested from R-t to R-4, in Case 84-1, at Bass Lake Road and Boone, contingent upon the development of the PUD, as reviewed on 6-5-84. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos~ Ca~aeron, Gundersh~uq, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. Commissioner Edwards made a mo~ion recommending approval of the prelimina[y.concept development stage_ of the PUD, in Case 84-1, and approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the elderly housing build- ing, subject to the addition-~-~ a second sidewalk on th~-n~t~-%~-~{-~h~ ~ld~ly building ~rking lot, on the Boone Avenue side, an~ with the understanding that the petitioner will add some landscaping ~o PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JUNE 5, 1984 3. the east side of the elderly housing building. He also recommended approval of construction of the project, and waived the petitioner's requirement to appear before the Planning Commission a second time. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 84-5 REQUEST FOR REARYARD SETBACK VARIANCES AT 4410 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE NORTH - DAVID AND LINDA JONES, PETITIONERS. Mr. Jones was accompanied by Mr. Dave Butler, the original builder of the home. Mr. Butler stated that the Jones' were requesting approval of the variances to allow construction of a three season porch enclosure around their swimming pool, to within 13.6' from the lot line as well as a variance to allow expansion of a family/recreation room (12'x 34') on the rear of the home. This would require a 3.2' variance. Plans were distributed illustrating the proposal. Mr. Butler said that the porch enclosure would have windows facing south. The porch would not be heated, but would be insulated in the ceiling and walls. The existing structure has 12" lap masonite siding, and the addition would match the home as far as siding. The lot is of an irregular shape. They felt it would be an attractive addition to both the home and the neighborhood. Chairman Cameron asked how large the swimming pool enclosure was? Mr. Butler said that it was approximately 70' at the furthest points. He noted that the lot had an irregular shape. Commissioner Anderson confirmed with Mr. Butler that there were actually two additions proposed. One would be a 12' x 34' addition on to the house which will be a one story addition with a shed type roof. They are also proposing a small building for the pool equipment. The 50' x 35' addition would be the three season porch enclosure. To the south is a walkway entrance. Commissioner Anderson noted that the petitioner was asking for a very substantial variance. He asked whether the petitioner was willing to separate the two variances as far as Commission action was concerned. Mr. Butler said that the petitioner would naturally like approval for the entire project. In response to questions, he stated that the height at the highest point would be 16'. This point is where the win- dows are located. It will be a truss type of structure. He stated that he thought that the structure would be 25'-3-' from the back corner o£ the home at 4412 Independence. In response to questions the petitioner indicated he had not spoken to the neighbors about his plans. Mr. Butler commented that they had felt it was going to be an attractive enough addition so that there would be no objections. He said that they had felt that the lot was large enough that the addition was proportionate to the size of the lot. He felt that with the addition, the property would be valued in excess of $200,000. Mr. Jones noted that he was the original owner, and since he had a business in New ~ope, he intended to stay in the home for a long time. Commissioner Lutts confirmed that the neighbors had been sent notices in regard to.the requested variance. Chairman Cameron noted that the variance requested (22') was probably the largest variance he had ever seen anyone ask for. John Ceder, 4412 Independence North, stated he did not agree that the proposed additions would enhance the neighborhood or the value of his property. He felt that the lot would have 90% building and he also felt that water drainage would be blocked by the huge building. He referred to the fact that there ha~e been water problems in the past, that because the original grading had not been adequate, he had had to spend $1000 to correct his water problems. He felt that Criterion Homes had blown it originally. He wanted his interests protected. Dave Kinear, 9301 45th Avenue North, was speaking for himself and the owner at 9307 45th Avenue North. He felt that the addition would be the closest to his back yard. He asked what the distance would be from his home. Mr. Butler replied that the Kinear home was 67' off the lot line. The addition would be 13.2' from the corner, between the two homes, approximately 80' from the Kinear home. Mr. Kinear said he was also a long time resident. He did not appreciate having to sit on his deck and look at a shed like roof. He did not feel the ad~itioR would enhance his property or the neighborhood. They had a split level home, and every morning they had to look at the part of the yard with five foo~ weeds. He did not want to look at the building blocking his view either. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JUNE 5, 1984 4. Mr. Indehus, 4416 Independence, stated he had to concur. He also had a water problem, with water stand- ing in his yard. He had to believe that any building this size would affect the water flow a great deal. He requested that it not be allowed. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the request was for a rearyard variance, but that there was no vari- ance required for lot coverage. The City Manager stated that there is a coverage requirement, but that this is incorporated in the setbacks. Commissioner Anderson referred to city requirements in regard to out buildings, and the size allowed. He noted that to him, the covering of the swimming pool constituted an out building. He had no problem with the variance requested for the family room addition. Commissioner Bartos noted that he felt pretty much the same way. He felt also that this was the biggest variance the city had ever been asked for. Chairman Cameron said he thought so too, he felt they were asking too much from the city. He asked again, whether the petitioner was willing to separate the two variance requests. Mr. Jones said that this was why they had applied for it in this manner. He noted that the swimming pool structure would be 8' above the fence top. He would like to have the request handled as two issues. Commissioner Anderson, stated that because of the extreme variance required and the massiveness of the structure proposed, he would move to deny the variance requested in Case 84-5 for a three season porch at 4410 Independence North. Commissioner Kolander second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts Voting against: None Abstain: Edwards Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the variance of 3+ feet requested in Case 84-5, at 4410 Independence Avenue North, to allow construction of a 12' x 34' family room subject to final approval of the plans by city staff. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts Voting against: None Abstain: Edwards Motion carried. Mr. Kinear requested further discussion of the family room addition. He stated that they had discussed the whole project, not the family room. He wanted to know what it would look like. I don't want any- one ramming it through. Mr. Butler showed the plans to Mr. Kinear and other neighbors. Chairman Cazaeron confirmed to Mr. Kinear that the family room addition required a ~ foot variance. Mr. Kinear said he did not think it should be voted until they had a chance to review the proposal. Chairman Cameron stated that it had been reviewed and voted on. Mr. Kinear said that he did not think they should have voted on it -- they were in error. Commissioner Anderson said that he would like the record to show, that the family room addition had been reviewed by the Commission and that a number of questions had been answered in regard to this addition, specifically about the size, exterior finish, color, etc. 5. PLANNING CASE 84 - 7 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 4371 WINNETKA NORTH (WINNETKA DRUG) - MICHAEL BEUGEN, PETITIONER. Mr. Beugen stated that he was requesting the variance to allow him to install a second sign at the rear door of his pharmacy. He wanted the sign to identify the door to allow prescription customers to enter at the rear of the store. There is a severe parking problem in the front of the store at this time. He felt this would be a solution to the problem. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that he wished to open up the back door as a second entrance to the store. He asked whether this would not present problems to Mr. Beugen with cashiering, security, leakage, etc. Mr. Beugen said that the pharmacy was located at the rear of the store. He said he did not have an answer to possible problems involved with the second door. He had weighed it, and while it is a concern, feel it is important enouqh to try. If it becomes a problem, he perhaps will do something else. At the present time people can exit through the rear door. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 JUNE 5, 1984 5. Discussion then centered around the proposed parking~spaces at the rear. Would they be striped, was the surface paved, etc. Mr. Beugen said he would need approximately four parking spaces at the rear. He noted that the City Council had approved a possible 20 extra spaces behind the drug store. He would prefer to have the park- ing spaces right up next to the building. Commissioner Anderson stated that normally the city discouraged parking against the building. He asked whether Mr. Beugen was aware that the proposed sign was contrary to the comprehensive sign plan for the center? He wondered who would see the sign. Mr. Beugen said he felt it would be seen from 42nd, and from Winnetka. He stated he had the shopping center owner's blessing on his proposal. He was aware when he went in the location, that he could not put a sign on the rear without a variance. It would not be a large sign. Chairman Cameron commented that the city had to be concerned, because if they endorsed this sign, they would be endorsing the idea that other tenants in this shopping center and in other shopping centers, would encourage patrons to park in what was really intended to be a truck loading zone. He noted that additional parking spaces could not be approved unless they were on a paved surface. They also had to be striped. He confirmed that the area designated by the center as "future parking" was not paved at this time. To correct this could be quite costly. Mr. Beugen said he would expect to have to pave and stripe the spaces. Chairman Cameron noted that the city had to treat everyone alike. He thought this proposal was a viola- tion of the concept of a strip shopping center. The city would have no choice if other people requested additional signs and parking at the rear. Commissioner Gundershaug clarified that the drug store already did have an identification sign on the door. He commented that he felt that unless the customers knew the drug store was there, they would not see the sign from Winnetka. He felt that the drive in the back was designed strictly as a service drive, the intent was that the business face the front. There was also a safety factor. Commissioner Edwards said his sentiments were with the petitioner, but that he could not go along with signing the rear of the store. He was concerned about the adjacent tenants. Mary Nylen, 4701 Nevada, said she was a customer and she would like to get closer to the store. She was getting tired of having to drive around and around. She has often parked in the back and would like to be able to get in the back door. Mr. Cogswell, said he was a customer, but had designed the original layout of the store. He stated that the drug store business was an "in" and "out" business. People don't want to stand around when they wanted prescriptions filled. Noted that the rear had been designated for future parking. Chairman Cameron stated that there was nothing in the city code that stated he could not open his back door. Mary Wedwic, an employee of the store, noted that parking was a problem, a recent customer had been unable to locate a parking space, and had received a ticket for parking briefly in front of the store. She felt that if there were a sign at the rear and parking spaces this would not have happened. Discussion continued in regard to the ordinance restrictions, the safety factors, and the fact that one reason given by the original developer for the "future parking" at the rear was that this could even- tually be used for employee parking, if needed. Mr. Beugen asked what he had to do for the Commission to grant a sign variance to him. Chairman Cameron noted that if there were anything automatic about the request, the city would not have seven people sitting on a Commission. The Commission could only react to specific requests. Many sign variance requests have been turned down by the city. The city has an ordinance that must be enforced. Mr. Beugen would have to have a case that would convince the majority of the Commission of its merit, and reasonable justification for the variance. Mr. Beugen asked whether the city would have any problems with his opening up the back door. The City Manager answered that city code required that there several things that would have to occur before parking could be allowed at the rear of the store -- curbing, striping, blacktopping -- these items could prove to be very expensive. Chairman Cameron noted that the petitioner would have to meet all the conditions involved with providin~ parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - JUNE 5, 1984 5. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending denial of the sign variance requested for 4371 Winnetka, (Case 84-7)because sufficient reason had not been proven to change the overall sign plan for the shopping center, and that the sign might attract customer traffic to an area which has extensive commercial use and employee parking. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Abstain: Bartos Motion carried. 6o PLANNING CASE 84 - 8 - REQUEST FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 7251 40TH AVENUE NORTH - RICHARD AND PAT BRUINS, PETITIONERS. Mr. Bruins stated he was requesting a four foot variance in the sideyard to allow him to construct a porch, which would then put his porch to within six feet of the lot line. He had been told that the house had been placed in the wrong location on the lot. It will be a screened porch, not a three season porch. He did not feel there was another location for the porch. As proposed it would be off the kitchen, any other location would require the porch to be located off the dining room. This location is more accessible. Commissioner Anderson asked whether they intended to do any additiona~ screening? Mr. Bruins said he had not planned on it. At the present time there is a chain link fence at the lot line. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the roof and exterior materials would be harmonious with the rest of the house. Mr. Bruins said it would not be heated or insulated. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the sideyard variance as requested at 7251 40th Avenue North in Case 84 - 8. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anders~n, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION 84 - 9 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCE AT 5017 BOONE AVENUE NORTH - NORDIC PRESS, PETITIONER. Mr. Ed Anderson, and Mr. Ole Bjorkdahl represented the petitioner. They requested construction approval for two buildings -- a 21,000 square foot warehouse addition to be located between the existing facility on Boone Avenue and the warehouse to the rear (on 51st). The second addition 'would be to the building on the west. They are requesting a variance to allow them to reduce the green area requirement from 35% to 29%. This is necessary if they are to meet the city's requirement for parking. Discussion then covered the possibility of providing 90 stalls, obtaining a variance for this number and providing space for "future parking" if needed. They currently have 67 employees and operate three shifts. The shifts overlap a little. There are perhaps six straight trucks a day on the site and perhaps two semis. They have three trucks of their own. They will be serviced by one on the west, and at the existing building. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there was adequate turning radius for trucks to maneuver. There will be space provided at the rear for additional parking if it is needed. It was further confirmed that there will be asphalt curbs, the parking lot will be striped and there will be spaces marked for handicapped parking. In regard to landscaping, it was noted that they will relocate landscaping that is displaced by the con- struction, and there will be additional landscaping installed along Boone Avenue. There are wetlands to the west. The area behind the parking lot will be left natural. They will maintain the trees to pro- vide a buffer. The proposed buildings will be block, with the brick facia and will match the existing buildings. The ~ back sides of the buildings will be painted to conform also, Rooftop equipment will either be screened or painted to match the building. There will be no outside refuse containers, and no new signaqe. Further discussion regarding the maneuvering ability of the trucks, and the adequacy of the parking spaces. Also confirmed was that there were no variances or permits required in regard to the wetlands. The City Manager stated that at this time, the petitioner had not submitted evidence of title. This must be provided before construction could proceed. There was no one present in re<~ard to this case. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - JUNE 5, 1984 7. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the green space variance as requested for 5017 Boone Avenue, in Case 84- 9, construction approval, and variance to allow 90 parking spaces to be provided at this time, with the provision that if the city sees a need, additional parking will be provided. The future parking area will remain green at this time. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts Voting against: None Abstain: Edwards Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 84 - 10 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AT 3240 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - ROBERT SHEPPARD, PETITIONER. The City Manager indicated that the petitioner had been informed he would not have to be present at the meeting. This was a routine request for a comprehensive sign plan. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommending approval of the comprehensive sign plan for 3240 Winnetka, Case 84-10, as submitted by Robert Sheppard. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 10. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 11. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 12. The Planning Commission minutes of May 1, 1984 were accepted as printed. 13. The Council minutes of May 14, and 29, 1984 were reviewed. 16. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was-held on Tuesday, July 10, 1984 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Absent: Cameron, Bartos PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 84-11 - REQUEST FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 4104 OREGON NORTH - James E. Wiczek, Petitioner. Mr. Wiczek stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to build on to the north side of his house. This would bring him to within three feet of the north property line, next to the adjoining apartment building. He is proposing a tuck-under garage with a dining room and a bathroom and bedroom on top of the addition. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that overhang of the proposed addition would be two feet from the pro- perty line. He further confirmed that the petitioner intended to match the siding, roofing materials, texture and color of the addition to the existing home. Mr. Wiczek said that everything would be identical but that the new roofline would be approximately four feet higher than the old roof line. He added that the fence at the rear would stay about the same. The retaining wall will be removed. The house and addition will have a different color from the existing. Mr. Wiczek said he had discussed the proposal with the owner of the adjoining property who had no objec- tions as long as Mr. Wiczek replaced the fence at the rear after construction. Commissioner Anderson requested that the petitioner explain in more detail the plans for the rear of the property. Mr. Wiczek said that the new fence would be level with the existing fence to within one foot. He will try to make the sight line of the fence as even as possible. The existing fence will be dropped a lit- tle bit. ~ ~ ~.~ Commissioner Edwards asked whether the petitioner had considered not having such a wide addition, and cutting it back to 20 feet instead of 22 feet. Mr. Wiczek said he had considered it. He had received advice to go with a 22 foot garage. If it was the Commission's wish, he would reduce the garage to 20 feet in width. Commissioner Edwards said his main reason for concern was that the Commission/City had found that with a very narrow amount of ground between a structure and the property line, it was more difficult to maintain. Mr. Wiczek said he would consider it, he felt he did not need the extra width for the upstairs addition, he was attempting only to have the garage as wide as possible. He plans no windows on the north side. The City Manager confirmed that the required setbacks were five feet on the garage side of a site, and ten feet on a living side. There was no one present in regard to this case. Acting Chairman Gundershaug asked the petitioner whether he would be willing to change the width of the garage and in turn, the size of the variance. Mr. Wiczek agreed, especially if it meant the difference between receiving the variance or not receiving it. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommending approval of the one foot sideyard variance as requested at 4104 Oregon Avenue North, Case 84-11, subject to the exterior materials, roofing, and texture and sid- ing of the addition and existing dwelling were the same. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Bartos Motion carried. PLANNINGCOMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JULY 10, 1984 4. PLANNING CASE 84-12 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR MORE THAN ONE BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND CONDI- TIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVING QUARTERS IN AN I-1 ZONE - 3561 Nevada Avenue North - Dick Curry/Ed Kauffman, Petitioners. Mr. Curry stated he was requesting permission to build mini-warehouses with more than one building on the site, and needed the variance for this reason. The proposed construction will be at the southwest corner of Nevada and 36th.Avenue North. To the north is the Creamette building and to the west is the railroad, to the east are the Lou Ann Terrace apartments, owned by Mr. Curry's partner. They are proposing 63,000 feet of mini-storage -- the existing zoning would allow 73,000 square feet. There will. be 35.5 green area, the variance is needed because of their desire to have more than one building on the site, and the conditional use permit is required because there will be living quarters on the site for a caretaker/manager. The hours of operation will be competitive, probably 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. They feel that the amount of traffic will be quite light. There will be on-site security lighting that will be pointed downward. There is a ponding area with a controlled outlet on the site. He then introduced the architect, Charles Novack. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Curry stated that after the Design and Review meeting, they had eliminated the 15 foot drive, and re-positioned the buildings further to the south as requested by the city engineer, and added ten feet to the northernmost building. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the parking proposed was a s required by ordinance. Commissioner Gundershaug then asked whether the platting had been finalized? The City Manager noted that the petitioner was using a legal description that did not exist, they cannot proceed without the plat being finalized. He did not think it would take much to get the plat. finalized. Mr. Curry said they had talked to the sellers of the property and they had assured them they would file. It was his understanding that the two lots had been sold. He said they would appreciate it if the city ./.~ would allow them to come in on a Metes and Bounds description. Commissioner Edwards noted that it was his understanding that the petitioner could not use a Metes and Bounds description. Mr. Kauffman asked whether the city could give them approval of their building proposal, subject to the filing of the plat? Commissioner Gundershaug after conferring with the City Manager, said that the Commission could approve the proposed project, subject to the final filing of the plat. Commissioner Friedrich asked about the materials to be used in the construction. Mr. Novack stated there will be two different building types. The two buildings that face the roadways, and the five interior buildings. Code requires that the interior buildings must have walls with a one hour fire rating, the roofs will be steel. The exterior buildings will be of brick, with wood roofs. They will use concrete and masonry on the interior buildings. The exterior buildings will use a material called panel brick, which is non load bearing. The buildings are all non-heated, there is a little bit of insulation in the roof but only because of condensation. Mr. Curry noted that the soil conditions on the site are something less than perfect. They had designed the building to be as light as possible to work on the bad soil, and have done everything they could to lighten the load. The parking lot will be asphalt with surmountable curbs. The reasons for this type of curb are that there will be many types of people driving in the lot, with many different types of vehicles, and they felt that the surmountable curbs would be more practical. The drive lanes will be 24 feet, and the back one will be 27 feet. There will be 35 feet between the buildings. Commissioner Friedrich confirmed that there would be no problem for city emergency vehicles gaining entrance to the site. There will be a 10' x 10' concrete pad for the dumpster, surrounded by a fence. There will be no roof top equipment. In response to a question regarding the hours of operation, Mr. Curry re-stated that they would be compe~ /,~, titive, basically 7 a.m. to 8-9 p.m. Commissioner Friedrich asked how the petitioners intended to maintain the site? Mr. Curry said that the trash collection and plowing would be done by a hired service. The lawns and general maintenance will probably be done by the resident manager. There will be no mechanical equipment to be maintained. Maintenance will be mostly maintenance, sweeping, and painting, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JULY 10, 1984 4. The security lights will be located as indicated on the landscape plan. and will be of a low sodium type. Mr. Curry stated that any signage will be according to the city code. Commissioner Friedrich asked how they intended to control flammables. Mr. Curry said they would do their best to control storage of flammables, this would be a violation of the lease the tenant signs. It was his opinion that the average homeowners garage contained more fire hazards than the mini-warehouses would. There will be no outside storage of vehicles allowed. Mr. Novack then explained the landscaping as indicated on the plan. They have increased the numbers of landscaping items on both 36th Avenue and Nevada Avenue. There will be 14-21 trees. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the petitioners intended to build the entire facility at the same time. Mr. Curry said yes, weather permitting. There was a possibility they might have to finish in the spring. The interiors may not be finished to give some flexibility as to the size of the stalls for rent. Commissioner Edwards commented that since the Design and Review meeting, the landscaping did look better. There~as no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Friedrich made a motion recommending approval of the construction for seven mini-warehouses, with a variance to allow more than one building on the site, and granting of a conditional use permit to.allow a resident manager on the site, at 3561 Nevada North, in Case 84-12 contingent on the final filing of the plat for the Stremel Addition before a building permit is issued. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Bartos Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 84-13 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 9008 40½ Avenue North - Harland Sandberg, Peti- tioner. Mr. Sandberg stated he was requesting the setback variance to allow him to construct a 10' x 12' screened porch off of his breakfast nook. He was accompanied by Tom Buehler, his contractor. Mr. Sandberg distributed photographs of the area where the porch is proposed on his lot. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the petitioner had discussed the addition with the neighbors. Mr. Sa~erg said they had expressed no problem with his plans. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, Sandberg stated that it would be only a screened porch, on a deck type base, supported by post hole footings. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the roof line and the roofing materials would match the existing house. He then asked whether there was another way to add the porch? Mr. Sandberg said he had discussed this with the building inspector and the only other location would be by the back door, and he felt this would cause some problems. He added that the fence on the north side of the house was approximately 25 feet from the neighboring house. When originally constructed the house had not been position correctily. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that there would be an up-to-date survey, before construction started. Mrs. Sandberg stated they had been told by city staff, they could wait for approval before providing this survey. The City Manager confirmed this, adding that the survey must be presented to the city before the building permits would be issued. This is normal policy in residential areas. Discussion then followed regarding the type of variance needed, in view of the location of the house on the lot. The City Manager' stated that by the "book" it is a rearyard variance, because the house already encroaches into the rearyard easement by 12 feet. There was no one present in regard to this case. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JULY 10, 1984 4. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the variance requested at 9008 40% Avenu~ North, Case 84-13, to no less than 7~ feet from the property line, subject to the submission of a cer- tified survey to the city, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Kolander second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Bartos Motion carried COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. Design and Review held one meeting this past month. 6. There was no report from Land Use Committee. 7. There was no report from Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 8. The Planning Commission minutes of June 5, 1984 were approved as corrected. 9. The Council minutes of June 11, and 25th, 1984 were reviewed. The manager indicated there were some upcoming projects that might be controversial. In response to a question regarding large trucks parked at K-Mart at the present time, the Manager stated that they did belong to K-Mart, and they had to do with potential remodeling. The city had re- quested that they be moved to the back of the store. 12. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1984 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Lutts (excused), Bartos, Friedrich PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 84-14 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DAY CARE IN AN I-2 ZONE at 7601 . . 42nd Avenue North - Y.M.C.A., Petitioner. Marilyn Gitter and Kathy Truax represented the petitioner. Ms. Gitter stated they were requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to conduct a pre-school and toddler day care in existing rooms at the Northwest YMCA building. She noted that Ms. Truax would be directly in charge of the day care program. There would be a total of 30 children involved. They plan to use space now occupied by the drop-in care center, which will now be moved to the JA portion of the building. There will be no struc- tural changes in the building. Chairman Cameron noted that the city was concerned with the additional traffic that this would create. He asked what the traffic pattern would be for the day care center? Ms. Gitter said they would open at 6:30 a.m. and operate until 6:00 p.m. Most of the traffic should be from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and from 5:15 p.m.to 6:00 p.m. The traffic consists basically of a parent stopping, bringing a child into the center, and then leaving -- probably not taking more than a ten minute time span. In response to questions from the Chairman, Ms. Gitter indicated that they were considering making three of their current parking spaces into "five minute parking" spaces so they would not block the fire lane. She added that during the summer months they provide care for up to 100 children, and the same system of parking,as parents drop children off, has been used with no apparent problem. Chairman Cameron confirmed that they were speaking of a maximum of 30 children, as approved by the State. He further confirmed that the Y intended to use only the two rooms, and that the day care would be pro- vided on a 52 week a year basis. Discussion followed regarding the proposed "five minute" parking spots, where they would be located, and the necessity of keeping the fire lane open. Ms. Gitter stated the proposed parking spots would be by the front entrance, close to the day care area of the building. Chairman Cameron asked how busy the parking lot was at 6:30 a.m.? Ms. Truax replied that she was there at 6:30 a.m. every day, and the lot was not even half full -- there were also two ends of the lot that were usually empty. In regard to the afternoon pickup traffic, she stated that the pickup times were more staggered - with people arriving anywhere from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Chairman Cameron asked whether the "Y" was planning to expand the parking lot? Ms. Gitter said that this was in the discussion stage, they had just completed their five year projection and this is one of the issues that will be looked at. Commissioner Anderson asked how many additional employees would be required? Ms. Truax stated that the ratio of adult to child was 1-10 for pre-schoolers, and 1-7 for toddlers. There would be a total of five additional adults at one time. In response to further questionning, she said they would park at the Jr. Achievement end of the building. Commissioner Anderson stated he thought that three parking spaces for drop off was not enough. He recom- mended starting with a higher number, and cutting back if they ~ere not needed. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that 30 children was the maximum that would be cared for at the center. He commented that he felt any motion should include limiting the size of facility to 30 children, so that should the petitioner wish to expand in the future, they would have to return to the Planning Commission/ city for approval, and also should provide for an annual review by staff in regard to the parking. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommendinq approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow day- care at the YMCA, 7601 42nd Avenue North, subject to a limit of 30 children, and subject to annual review by staff in regard to parking and traffic needs. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Bartos, Lutts Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 AUGUST 7, 1984 4. PLANNING CASE 84 - 15 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT BASS LAKE ROAD AND BOONE -Charles Thompson, Petitioner. City Manager Donahue stated he was representing the petitioner because the city had requested that Mr. Thompson plat the property to officially join the two parcels and provide a definite legal descrip- tion, as part of the PUD agreement. He recommended Planning Commission approval. Mr. Donahue stated that Hennepin County has requested a 17 foot easement--as well as the required utility easements for the plat. The City Attorney is presently looking into this request to deter- mine whether it was the right of the property owner to grant the easement or not. Chairman Cameron confirmed that this requested plat is a technicality. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the plat, subject to the "reservation" of 17 feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Anderson noted that "reservation" allowed for either future dedi- cation or purchase. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city had the right to do that? The City Manager stated that according to Hennepin County, if the property easement is not dedicated on the plat, in the future if the County came through and ~ted to acquire the property for right-of-way, then the city would be responsible for 50% of the purchase price of the land. Commissioner Anderson said this was not an uncommon policy with the County. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Bartos, Lutts Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 84 - 16 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE - International Parkway/ East Research Center Drive - Charles B. Edwards/Benson-Orth, Petitioner. The petitioner was represented by Paul Nelson from Benson-Orth, Chuck Yarns from Charles B. Edwards Company, and Don Hustad, Project Architect. Mr. Yarns noted that the company was presently located at 4929 Boone in an incubator type building designed for more than one company. Charles B. Edwards has shown a need to expand their facility and would hope to take the project into construction, no later than the first of next month. It will be a 64,500 square foot building on one level. The total building usage area will be just under 75,000 including a mezzanine area. The company produces colored resins that are in pellet form, containing the color pigment, which are sold to introduce color into plastic products. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Yarns stated that there was some lead dust involved, but no hazardous or flammable chemicals, per se. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what would be done with the material remaining when the elevation was changed? Mr. Nelson said they were making a d~al with the city to take their dirt away - 17 - 20 thousand yards. Commissioner Gundershaug then asked about the numbers of trucks,' and the type of trucks that would be in and out of the site, and loading docks. Mr. Yarns stated there could be 15-20 a d~y, including everything from pickups, to over-the-road hauling types. Deliveries will be at the rear of the building. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the visitor parking was now designated on the plan? He also referred to the area indicated as "future building" and stated that this could probably create problems. He wanted the petitioner to know that they were not receiving "carte blanch" at this meeting. Any future development would have to be approved by the Commission/City, especially in regard to parking and traffic problems. The petitioners said they understood this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - AUGUST 7, 1984 5. Gundershaug confirmed also that there would be continuous concrete curb, both front and backj around the parking area, and that the green area would be sodded. Mr. Nelson indicated they had discussed seeding a portion of the site, but if the city wished, they would sod. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that there was basically a blank space, and felt it would be easier to maintain if it were sodded. Discussion about roof top equipment. It was noted that there would be a 20 ton, heating and air condi- tioning unit over the office area. Commissioner Gundershaug that if it were not screened, it would have to be painted to match the building so that it would blend in. He confirmed that there would be security lights on the building, pointed downward. Mr. Yarns indicated that there would be identification signs, but no huge signs on the building. Commissioner Gundershaug informed them that any signage would have to be according to City Code. In response to questions, Mr. Yarn said that the plant would operate round-the-clock, but that the office would be operating only 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Operation is only five days a week. Commissioner Gundershaug then referred to the LP gas tank on the site. He asked whether this problem had been solved? Mr. Nelson said not 100%, they had hopes of having it removed. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the Commission could go on with the review, if the tank was not removed? The City Manager said that the tank had to be removed. Commissioner Gundershaug then asked about the height of the silos at the side of the buildings, noting that City Ordinance allowed only 35 feet. Mr. Nelson, using an illustration, and elevations, indicated that the silos would be probably 1'6" above the maximum allowed. They intend to install one now. Commissioner Gundershaug said that then they would require a variance. Chairman Cameron asked why ~they needed a silo that large? Mr. Yarn said that they wanted silos large enough to allow them to unload an entire railroad car at once. At this time they would expect to have a railroad car delivery about every three weeks. In response to questions about burying a portion of the silo, it was noted that this would require pumps underneath, and a great deal more expense. There would also be a problem with drainage. They felt that a variance would be the solution. They had discussed this with Mr. Sandstad, who had agreed with them. The City Manager stated that technically they would have to come back and ask for a variance from the city. The Chairman stated he felt this project was being rushed through, and perhaps it should be tabled for a month to allow the petitioner time to address the questions of the propane tank, the variance for the silos, and the need for additional landscaping. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that Design and Review had requested more landscaping be provided, i.e. evergreens. Mr. Yarns replied that he thought this had been satisfied. Commissioner Anderson noted a discrepancy in the driveways on the plans. Mr. Hustad indicated that perhaps the revised plans had not been delivered to the city. Chairman Cameron asked whether there was someone that could describe the revised plans. Discussion followed about the landscaping, and where the proposed evergreens would be located. Commis- sioner Edwards asked whether they could add some on the north side. The petitioners indicated they had not discussed this possibility. Mr. Nelson said that tabling for one month would create a hardship for the petitioner. Chairman Cameron stated the Commission was not trying to be vindictive, but that the petitioner should have come with complete plans. There are unanswered questions in regard to the landscaping, the need for a variance and the disposition of the propane tank. He did not see how the Commission had a choice. He also suggested they might wish to meet with Design and Review again. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - AUGUST 7, 1984 5. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Edwards made a motion tabling Case 84-16 until the meeting of September 4, 1984. Commis- sioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Frisdrich, Bartos, Lutts Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 84 - 17 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REMODELING OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CREATE MORE STORAGE AREA AT 5620 Winnetka Avenue North - Franks Norsery and Crafts, Petitioner. The petitioner was represented by Barb Stoops, Bill Bunio and Greg Durenberger. Ms. Stoops said that presently Franks is using an area to the south and rear of the store for storage and sales. This area is under an overhang. They would like to enclose that area for retail space for merchandise and display of other dry goods that need to be protected. They would also like to construct a small addition to be used for dry storage of items such as fertilizers, mulches, etc.which now are stored under the trucks during the peak times of the year. Chairman Cameron asked what the front of the building will look like. Mr. Bunio stated that they were not intending to change the look of the building so much, but just create more space. Comraissioner Gundershaug commented on the proposal to close in under the canopies, stating the city's con- cern was the fact that Frank's was using area for outside sales that had been designated for parking. He was also concerned that the need for extra space for outdoor sales coincided with the need for extra park- ing on the site. He said that now, the areas being used for outdoor sales, had never been approved by the city. He questioned what would change with the new addition, would they still be using the same un- approved area for outside sales. Ms. Stoops said that currently they had taken part of the area used for outdoor storage and the sales area has been compacted. She believed that provided 28 parking spaces. As far as the use of the area in front of the store for outside sales, when they had inherited the property from Green Giant several years ago, they had not been aware of this restriction. They recently did become aware of it and did re- duce their outdoor sales area and move some to the north side to accommodate the extra parking. They would like to have permission to continue to use that area for outdoor sales. Outdoor sales are allowed at peak times. Commissioner Gundershaug asked Ms. Stoops if she was aware of the area that is currently being used that had never been approved by the city? It bothered him that they were asking to continue to use that area, this takes a great number of parking spaces. In response to questions, Ms. Stoops said that most of the parking area had been striped. Mr. Bunio said that they had no signs at this time, indicating the direction of traffic flow. This could be done. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the fence at the rear of the property. Ms. Stoops said she had had a difficult time matching the inserts in the fence now. She feels that she may have come up with a product that will work. Discussion followed about the condition of the fence, and the need for maintenance of the fence. The City Manager confirmed that the site was not short in parking spaces at this time. Commissioner Gundershaug then commented on the appearance of the site, noting that it was a "sea of black- top", a barren entity. Comment was made that in would seem that a company that was in the landscaping business, would have the front of their building loaded with shrubbery, the present condition does not bring out the building very much. This had been stressed at Design and Review, but Commissioner Gundershaug noted that he did not see any additions on the plan as presented. Ms. Stoops said that they had plans to put in shrubs, they were looking at shrubs at this time. Chairman Cameron asked where a nursery looked for shrubs? Mr. Bunio commented that they were looking at possibly using ornamental shrubs along the boulevard. It had been re-timbered. The store manager, Greg Durenberger, commented that it was not so difficult to find shurbs that would survive weather, but that the salt content from the road was hard on them. They were looking for some- thing that can be pruned back and that will re-~ow in a short time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 AUGUST 7, 1984 6. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that there were a number of places along Bass Lake Road where they have done a very good job of landscaping, and certainly there was more traffic and salt to damage shrubs along Bass Lake Road than on Winnetka. There's a great need for more landscaping in front of the building. Chairman Cameron agreed with this statement, and the fact tkat the site needed some additional landscap- ing to upgrade it. He said one nice feature had been the planter in front, but they have now ripped the whole thing out. Mr. Bunio said that the timbers had been rottinq, and this was why they had been removed. Chairman Cameron referred to the statements that they had inherited the site and some of its problems, and noted that they had had the property lc~ng enough and he did not think that management had given that store what it needed to be maintained. It looks like a tacky operation. Mr. Bunio said he was trying to get a better understanding as to what the commission was looking for. The planter had been a problem for them. The Chairman stated that the commissioners were all residents, and they appreciated having a store like Franks in the community, but he felt they could use some of the profits to upgrade the outside of the whole area. He felt they should do something to improve the property and its look. He said he was one of their best customers. Commissioner Gundershaug said that another concern was how much area they were looking at.'for expansion for retail sales, and whether it included the area that had not been approved. He again asked whether they needed the area in front, now used for outdoor sales, since it infringed on the parking spaces. Ms. Stoops said this area was very important, the area is used for the annuals, etc. In response to a question regarding additional parking, Mr. Bunio said they now had 125 spaces, and the only area they could pick up any more would be in the front of the store. Mr. Durenberger said that there was street parking mainly in May, at their peak season. There are usually 12-18 parking spots in the back that are empty -- people did not seem to want to walk around. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what their time schedule was for the remodeling, and addition? The builder said he planned to do it in stages, constructing the storage space in the rear first. Hope- fully it will all be done by 1 November 1984. Discussion followed about the lack of landscaping on the site as proposed, the fact that they were using 'unapproved sales area, and whether this request should be tabled for one month. Chairman Cameron said he felt the city had an opportunity to help the store manager get something from the corporation to improve the site. The city wanted a more definite com~itment from Franks and wanted to see a more complete landscaping plan and wanted also to see the parking thoroughly analyzed. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending that Case 84-17 be tabled until the meeting of Sep- tember 4, 1984. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Bartos, Lutts Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 84 - 18 - APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT at 49th/County Road #18 - City of New Hope, Peti- tioner. The City Manager stated he would speak to this request. He stated that the City Council in May, had held a public hearing on the general concept plan for this property. As a result of this public hear- ing Council had ordered that the planning process be initiated. The preliminary plat was the first leg of that process. He added that the City Council wished to assure the neighbors that this property would in fact be developed into R-1 or single family housing. This would be done, even though the zon- in on the property was R-2 and would allow for the development of double dwellings. He stated that all of the lot sizes are within the minimum requirements of the city code, which is 9500 square feet. Outlot A, toward 49th and #18, was controlled by the DNR, and will always be a holding pond. There will be 21 lots, from the east side to the south side of the property. The site will essentially be a cul- du-sac, although a long cul-du-sac. At this time the property is part of the Shingle Creek Watershed District. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - AUGUST 7, 1984 7. In response to a question from the audience, the City Manager again pointed out the location of the proposed lots (using the plat illustration) stating that they will be on the east and south sides of the property. He further stated that runoff will go north, just west of the ball diamonds and north along County Road #18. He re-affirmed that the holding pond area will never be developed, because it is controlled by the DNR. A citizen asked what would happen to the water behind the homes on Flag, that now drains behind the hill? Mr. Donahue stated that the proposed plat will not affect-drainage along Flag Avenue at all. The Chairman noted that drainage was not the problem before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kosmek, 4833 Flag AVenue, stated that it was their problem. He stated that water drains from 47th, down the back of the lots toward 49th. They have a "..." of a problem now, and he wanted it taken care of. The City Manager pointed out that city ordinance prohibited any development that adversely affected drain- age in an adjoining area that would in any way have potential for damaging property. He further stated that drainage was an engineering problem and that tonight's public hearing was to deal with a proposed plat, not development of the site. Mrs. Ostrom, 4885 Flag Avenue North, referred to the Council meeting, and asked whether the entrance to the development was still going to be 500 feet west of Flag Avenue? Mr. Donahue said he was not aware of any such commitment. He would check on this. Mrs. Ostrom stated that there were many concerns, including drainage. Any entrance on to 49th Avenue, was going to affect them. There has been a traffic count of 8000 cars a day. She felt they had to look at this very carefully. She did not know how people were going to get out of the cul-du-sac. She fur- ther stated that she had not received a notice about the meeting. The City Manager stated that a staff error had been made in sending out the notices. He added that the lots proposed, will be comparable to the lots they will back up to. There will be no house within 35 feet of the existing properties. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the proposed plat did meet all requirements of the city ordinance in re- gard to platting, and that no variances were required. Mr. Donahue stated that the minimum frontage was 55' and ranged to 88'. This will be the longest cul-du- sac in the city, but there will not be a problem for emergency vehicles gaining access. There were no further comments from the audience. Commissioner Anderson made a ~oticn recommending approval of the preliminary plat for 49th/County ~18, as requested in Case 84-18. Commissioner Kolander second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting.against: None Absent: Friedrich, Bartos, Lutts Motion carried.' COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. Design and Review held one meeting during July. 9. There was no report from Land Use Committee. 10. There was no report from Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 11. The Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 1984 were approved as printed. 12. The Council minutes of July 23, 1984 were.reviewed. 15. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday~ September 4, 1984 at the ci%Y~i,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: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts, Absent: Edwards (arrived at 7:50 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 84-17 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 5620 WINNEKTA NORTH - FRANKS NURSERY AND CRAFTS, PETITIONER. Bill Velch and Bill Bunio represented the petitioner. They stated they were requesting permission to enlarge the existing building. Mr. Velch stated they w~shed to push out a portion of the rear wall 16 feet, and the south eall 8 feet. The roof structure will remain the same. They will move the walls out to the edge of the existing roof. This will give them 2200' additional selling area inside. Chairman Cameron referred to the concerns that had been expressed at the previous meeting regarding the plans for the entire site. Mr. Velch stated that they had presented landscape drawings to the city staff, showing both existing trees and where there would be additional trees and shrubs they plan to install. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what they planned to do with the outside sales area. Mr. Velch responded that they intended to secure it inside the fence. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be no more sales in any but the approved area, and that there would be nothing outside the fence. He asked what they intended to do about the rear fence? Mr. Velch said they had put out the fencing for bids. They are looking at either cedar or PDC slats, which is used commercially and holds up in all kinds of weather including cold. They would remove what is there now. They have already eliminated the trees in the back. They have ivy climbing on the fence. Commissioner Gundershaug then asked about the parking proposed? Mr. Velch said code required 110 spaces, and the plans show 122. The City Manager noted that the petitioners would have to take care of the parking situation, with com- pletely striped spaces, and that the driving aisles needed to be 24 feet in width. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that he felt it would be advisable if the petitioner added some trees to the plan before they appeared before the City Council. He confirmed that the drives would be marked. Commissioner Bartos asked what they would do about the weeds in the area toward Sumter? It was answered that they had put this area out for bids, and planned to fill in the area with gravel, after excavating about 8 inches. Chairman Cameron requested that staff verify that the drive aisles were indeed 24 feet in width. There was no one present in regard to this case. Cor~missioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit at 5620 Winnetka North, as requested in Case 84-17, to allow construction of an addition, with the stipulation that the outside sales area would be restricted to the fenced area only, that the rear fence be either cedar or PDC slats, and that the parking and driving aisles conform to code. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts Voting against: None Absent: Edwards Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 84-19 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 8615 BASS LAKE ROAD - CHARLES THOMPSON, SR., PETITIONER. Mr. Don Forseth represented the petitioner. He referred to the previous plan that had been presented · to the Planning Commission, and the preliminary plat that had been approved. He noted that they had spent the last two months, trying to work out the financing and the costs of the proposed project and it had proven to be unfeasible. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 4. This evening they are proposing to build one elderly building, setting aside for the present, plans for constructing a f~unily building. At the present time, the plans and the financing for the proposed build- ing are as firm as it is possible for them to be. They are now requesting approval of a six story building for senior housing. ~This is what requires the conditional use permit. In an attempt to gain some westerly exposure for the building, they have posi- tioned the building on a cant, which is what requires the variance in setback. They wish to split the one lot into two, and the easterly lot would be reserved for the possible construction of family housing at some time in the future. Mr. Bob Pope, architect for the project, then made his presentation with the use of graphics illustrating the proposal. They propose an "L" shaped building that will contain 129 units. It has been canted on the site to pro- vide some westerly exposure and avoid tke total north exposure. They are asking for a variance at the frontyard setback. They will be 35 feet from the property line at Boone Avenue. There is a sidewalk access to both Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road. There will be visitor parking for 21 cars, toward Boone Avenue with a potential parking area along the drive area for 27 cars. The statistics for the one lot are: 136,660 square feet, 3.04 acres, 20,298 square feet or 15.3% of the site for building, black topped area 26,425 square feet, 20% of the site, and landscaped area 85,937 square feet or 64.7% of the site. There will be 118 one bedroom units, 5 one bedroom and den units, 6 two bedroom =nits, and 6 handicapped units. Parking underground will provide 42 spaces, and 28 surface parking spaces. They have a total potential parking area of space for 97 cars. They have provided a significant amount of landscaping on the site. Trees provided include Colorado spruce, honey looust,ash, silver maple, american linden, spirea. The landscaping was laid out by a landscape architect. There will be surface drains around the yard, which will be picked up by a catch basin. The grades on the drives are a maximum of 5%. There will be space for yard tool storage and trash collection inside the building. The building will be served by two elevators, and the front entrance will have a covered canopy. There will be a vestibule, and lobby, mail room, and elevators. There will be a day room and a community room with a small kitchen, on the first floor. There will also be an office area and public toilets on this level. There will be one handicapped unit on each floor. There will be recessed corridor lighting at each entrance. The one bedroom units will have 643 square feet, and contain a living room, bath with shower, kitchen, walk in closet and storage area. The two bedroom unit will be 966 square feet and include two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, large walk-in closet, and two other closets. The one bedroom and den units will be similar to the two bedroom units. The building will be constructed of pre-cast concrete, with exposed aggregate panels on the end walls, with a syncom syntheti~ stucco on the exterior walls, with a two tone treatment, to .match the fab con panels at the entrance to the building, and a glass curtain wall system going up over the entrance. Chairman Cameron asked why the sun deck was positioned at the north side of a six story building? Mr. Pope said it will get some sun in the late afternoon, and some of the east sun in the morning. It ~ill not get sun during the mid day. It was the only location for the sundeck on the site. In response to further questions as to the choice of name - New Hope Elderly Housing - the City Manager said that the project had been designated by ordinance as a senior housing Complex and can be restricted. There are State rules, in addition to the New Hope ordinance. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the commission was also to deal with the changed plat? Mr. Pope said that he believed from the point of financing, it should be dealt with. The City Manager noted that the Planning Commission had already d~alt with the platting issue. Chairman Cameron asked whether there should not be any concern about where the lot line would be dividing the property into two lots? The City Manager stated that the petitioner was going to petition the City Council for two lots instead of one. The final plat will have to show the exact dimensions of the two lots. This final plat, how- ever, will not be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that technically, the commission was still dealing with one large lot, as had been previously approved. He expressed concern that the second lot might not be within code. Thesecond Manager lot. stated that it was staff's understanding that there would be no variances needed for the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 4. Discussion then covered the real property line, and whether it required a variance, and what the required setback was. ~ It was noted that anything over three stories required a 50 foot setback on both sides. Mr. Pope said that they had provided a 35 foot setback. Mr. Donahue said that the petitioners were asking for a 15 foot variance on the setbackon both sides, east and west. Co~missioner Edwards confirmed that the drive aisles would be 24 feet wide, throughout the site, with a 100 foot radius at the southwest corner for turning. He'asked whether this radius would accommodate a large moving van? It was confirmed that the canopy would be high enough to accomodate an emergency vehi- cle. and that there would be continuou~ concrete curbs, and blacktopped drives. Commissioner Edwards confirmed with the petitioners, that they agreed to provide the additional parking, in the event that the city staff determined it was needed. The parking will be completely striped. The areas of the one lot, where the building is proposed will be sodded and the area east of the lot line will be seeded. There will be a low, monument type sign, for identification purposes on Boone Avenue, and no signs on the building. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the petitioners were aware of the New Hope sign ordinance and its restrictions. He asked whether there would be any outside recreational area? Mr. Pope said none was planned, but that there would be some green area adjacent to the patio.. In res- ponse to a question regarding an alternative building plan that would not require a six story building, Mr. Pope said that would involve another wing, and they would probably run into the same probiems with costs and financing as they had on their previous proposal. It was their opinion that this proposal would make for a superior project, even if it were six stories high. Discussion then returned to the proposed lot split, and what the second lot would be used for? Mr. Pope said that the originally proposed family housing was still in the back of their minds, for 27 units of family housing. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding the possible length of time before this might be developed, Mr. Forseth said it would probably be two years, hopefully it could be sooner. Chairman Cameron asked'whether when they got to the point of developing the second building, would it all be treated as one project? The answer was "no", it would be a second building on its own property. Chairman Cameron said that he had some very deep concerns about creating that second lot, and the access to Bass Lake Road. He was afraid they were creating a terrific problem for the city, and for the site, if all traffic had to go out to Bass Lake Road. Mr. Forseth said that the final plat would show flip flop easements. The City Manager noted that any future development of the second lot would have to come before the Plan- ning Commission and Council for construction approval. The Chairman asked whether the city would not be creatin~ a problem if the second lot were sold to some- one else in the future, and all access were forced to be from Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Edwards said that personally he would prefer not to see cross easements, because of the legal entanglements that ik would create for both properties. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the proposal had any affect on the financing the petitioner had asked for? The City Manager stated that the financing request spoke to Lot 1, not to Lot 2. Commissioner Edwards confirmed that the petitioner was asking for' the two variances in setback and the Conditional Use Permit to allow a six story building. Chairman Cameron asked whether the County had all the property it will ever want on Bass Lake Road. The City Manager said that the County wanted an additional 17 feet of right-of-way. However, it could be reserved for future acquisition. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the fire department and police had reviewed the plans. Discussion then centered on the handicapped units, and their location on the floors - one on each floor, at the far end of the corridor away from the elevators, and the stairs. Commissioner Anderson asked how the firefighters would get through to the people. They would be the farthest away from the stairs and also from the driveways.. He was very concerned about this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - SEPTF~BER 4, 1984 4. Co~issioner Anderson then questioned the turning radius as indicated -- he noted that it was actually a 50 foot turn around area, and felt it would be almost impossible for a car to pass, if a truck were parked in that spot to unload. Mr. Pope indicated that the driveway could be widened at the entrance, by the drop off area.. In answer to further questions, he stated that there would be a security system installed in the building. The future building would probably be three stories and have underground parking. . . Discussion continued in regard to the 16 feet available for turning at the elevator corner of the build- ing, the possible time frame for development of the second lot, and the landscaping proposed, which was illustrated as extending into the secQnd lot, and the location of handicapped parking spaces. It was noted that there were no stairs planned for the center of the building, and that this provision did meet code. Commissioner Anderson commented that he felt this proposal was a little hasty, and that he personally wished that the city had more time to work with them on the project - he again expressed concern about . the minimal landscaping provided. Mr. Pope stated that they recognized the site line problem on the corner of Bass Lake ~oad and Boone and had kept the landscaping down there. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern that the handicapped parking space in the underground lot was the one furthest from the elevators -- he questioned whether it could not be moved? Chairman Cameron asked if the petitioner did not have to submit a request for the changed pla~ and have the request for two lots reviewed by Planning Commission? The City Manager stated that the City Council had discussed with the developer the need for platting of the property, and the original platting request had been at the request of the city. The Council had recommended that the developer go ahead and create two lots, this will actually be before the Council ~, on the 27th. The final plat will show two lots, with the dimensions of each. The Planning Con~nission had approved the platting with one lot. Commissioner Bartos commented that all they had to go by was a line drawn on the plat, there were no dimensions given. The City Manager stated that from a staff perspective, the second lot will meet all minimum requirements. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a six story building and construction approval, providing that the drive aisle in front of the building be widened, that potential parking for 27 cars be shown on the plan, with the assumption that if the city decided that these parking places would be needed the developer would be willing to provide them, and approval of the setback variance toward Boone Avenue. Commissioner Gundershaug second. / There was no one present in regard to this case. Voting. in favor: Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: Anderson Motion carried. Chairman Cameron asked the City Manager what the Commission should use as a legal description of the pro- posed plat, since it was different from the original? He asked whether the lines shown on the survey were adequate for Commission action? The City Manager stated that the City Council would require the surveyor to have the lines drawn with all dimensions shown, and it will be at the point that would meet the minimum requirements for platting such a development. It will be determined between the staff, the developer and the surveyor as to where the lot line should be, Commissioner Edwards asked whether the Commission could hold off until they could review a formal proposal? He asked whether leaving it as one lot would hurt the project? The City Manager stated that the city had originally asked for the platting. Chairman Cameron stated he was trying to protect a little of the integrity of the Planning Commission. Twice before the petitioner had come to them with plans that had been changed because of costs and finan- cing problems -- he felt that perhaps they were trying to move too quickly. Commissioner Bartos expressed concern about the proposed flip flop easements. The City Manager stated this could be a future issue. The City Council had still not acted on the request for the preliminary plat. PLANNING coMMIssION MINUTES - 5 - SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 4. Chairman Cameron asked whether when the Council approved the preliminary plat, it would include the two lots? Commissioner Edwards stated he could not go along with splitting the lot at this time. Further discussion regarding the proposed plat, and the potential easements and driveway access. Planning Commission took no action on the proposed plat. 5. PLANNING CASE 84-21 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 49th AVENUE NORTH AT FLAG AVENUE - MLB PROPERTIES, PETITIONER. Clarence Brandell represented MLB Properties. He stated that he wished to plat the property to divide it into two lots, one would be 2+ acres and the other 3+ acres. He wished the two lots to allow the petitioner in Case 84-22, Englund Graphics, to construct a building. Commissioner Bartos asked whether the 40 foot easement on 49th still existed? The City Manager stated that in the past, Mr. Brandell had stated he would donate or dedicate this as street easement. Mr. Brandell said he thought that the easement should only be 35 feet from the center of the road. The City Manager stated that according to staff it should be 40 feet. He will have the City Attorney look at the problem and determine where the setback should be measured from. He stated that there will be the standard 10 foot easements for utilities. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Bartos made a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat requested in Case 84-21, with the stipulation that the City Attorney verify the proper road easement. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 84-22 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL OF BUILDING AT 9100 49th AVENUE NORTH - ENGLUND GRAPHICS, PETITIONER. Ed Englund stated he was requesting approval for construction of a manufacturing facility on 49th Avenue. He produces business forms. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that it would be a one story building, of concrete block and that all rooftop equipment Will be screened. Mr. Englund stated that there was a landscape plan, but that the trees were grouped by type that will be provided --the berm will be 30' and they had doubled the trees on the berm. The berm will be sodded as will the lot, with the exception of the triangle piece behind the building which will be seeded. There will be 24 foot drives, and the parking stalls are 9' x 20'. Mr. Englund stated that they run two shifts, 20 people On the first shift, and 10 on the second. The shifts but, but do not overlap. There will be 39 parking spaces. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that there would be inside refuse storage, and complimented Mr. Eng- lund on his landscaping proposals. Mr. Englund said that there would be very light truck traffic, with a semi on the site maybe once every ~ two weeks. There is a 50 foot radius for turning provided - center to center. Signage has not been decided yet, but would be very small. He said he was aware of the city's Sign Ordinance. He has added security lighting of the down-type, at the rear of the building. Commissioner Gundershaug said he felt it was a nice clean development plan. Chairman Cameron commented that if the site looked as good when completed as it does on paper they will have a very nice site. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the construction requested at 9100 49th Avenue North in Case 84-22. Commissioner Bartos second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 6. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. 7. PLANNING cAsE 84-23 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCE AT 5101~BOONE AVENUE NORTH - .~ELOR STEEL, INC., PETITIONER. Mr. Dale Hanson, Vice President, represented Keelor Steel. He stated that they were requesting construc- tion approval for an addition to their building. There is presently a"grandfathered" variance on the north side of the building. They are requesting an extension of that variance with the new addition. The purpose of the addition is to meet their current business needs. They are presently operating build- ings in Crystal and Golden Valley. They plan to leave those sites and move everything to the new addition. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the loading docks would still be on the south side of the addition? Mr. Hanson said they had taken the Design and Review Committee's recommendations back to the architect, but that they were limited to this particular docking area. The addition will be 80' x 110'. Using an illustration it was explained that when the trucks came in on 51st Avenue, they traveled on a roadway all around the building to the unloading area. They also have a rail spur on the site, and they were also asking permission to put in another rail spur. They presently have four truck bays, and the trucks have to come in on 51st Avenue. They understood the congestion problem and were concerned about it. They plan to create a truck drive-through which will allow them to position trucks side-by- side, and will allow about 8 trucks to sit inside while they load. This would be right through the middle of the plant and will releave the congestion on 51st. The new facility will handle the trucks inside. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the new facility would be able to handle a 65 foot truck. He also confirmed that there would be no stacking on 515t. Mr. Hanson noted that they were asking for the boulevard section to be removed, since then their trucks would all be able to wait on their property. They cannot maneuver and wait at the same time with the boulevard in place. In answer to a question regarding widening the drive and stacking inside, Mr. Hanson said he did not know how they would turn the trucks around. Com~issioner Gundershaug asked why they could not stack on the west side of the building. Mr. Tim O'Peary,Vice President of Operations stated that they did park t~ere for unloading and also along the railroad spur. Their proposal would greatly reduce the traffic on 51st. He noted that some of the loading was done with an overt~ead crane, and the trucks had to approach the docks where the crane was located. They needed those truc~c docks for the long rigs in the winter time, to avoid open doors. Commissioner Gundershaug said he was concerned with keeping the traffic down, on 51st Avenue. Mr. Hanson stated that with the new addition, they will eliminate the inter-plant transfers, which would eliminate 4-5 trucks every day. Considerable discussion followed regarding the possibility of widening the driveway at the rear, the pros and cons of removing the existing curbing, the drive toward Boone Avenue and the turning radius into the building. ~he City Manager stated that city staff had no problems with the drive to Boone. In response to questions, Mr. Hanson said that the addition itself would add only a couple of employees, but they expect 7-8 maximum additional employees. They have added 65 spaces for parking on the left side of the site. Discussion continued about the turning radius for trucks, as they are to enter the building, the exact distance at the present time, and how much space there would be to widen the lane. The addition will be of pre-cast concrete, will not match exactly~ but will be the same height. They will use a built up insulated material, with vertical striation. They hope to complete the addition by the middle of December. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that they were requesting 200 feet of driveway along the north side and that they wished to remove the existing island. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of using surmountable curb in that area, what area they would use for snow storage, and drainage -- it was noted that the entire site drained into the pending Co~issioner Anderson asked the City Manager to have the m~tv Engineer look at the drainage as it re- lated to 5tat, and across to the neighbor's property. - ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 -- SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 7.Mr. Hanson said they 'intend to conform their landscaping with that of Nordic. and incorporate existing trees. Commissioner Edwards stated he was really concerned with removing the curb and island. He questioned what would happen when Keelor Steel outgrew this site, and another owner was on the site? Mr. Hanson stated they have made an extensive investment in equipment and building, and plan to stay on this site as long as they are in business. He noted that it was essentially a private driveway as there was no more room for another occupant. In answer to a question from-Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager stated that staff had looked at the possibility of removing the curb and island and sees neither an advantage or disadvantage to the plan. Actually he felt that it will not set'a precedent for the future. Commissioner Edwards stated that he felt it was going to provide more area to stack trucks and that he felt strongly about keeping streets streets, and private property private. Commissioner Bartos noted that it was really a landlocked street. Commissioner Anderson asked whether they would be comfortable with a mountable curb? This would provide control for the drainage. He felt that if they did this, it would appear to be more of a drive- way, not a street. The petitioner said they had no problem with that. Commissioner Gundershaug said he was still bothered by the entrance on the west side as far as accessi- bility for trucks -- felt it should be wider and should be addressed before they appeared before the City Council. He also wanted to be sure that the drives would be a minimum of 24 feet. Mr. Hanson said this would be done. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the variance in setback, and constructio~ approval for the addition as requested in Case 84-23, with the following stipulations: that the existing curb be replaced with surmountable curb, that the west access to the building be addressed, that the drive on the west side of the building be a minimum of 24 feet wide to allow for truck stacking, and that there be additional landscaping provided along the cul-du-sac to shield the parking area. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts. Voting against: None Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 84-24 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 4052 DECATUR AVENUE NORTH - ALVIE CAREY, PETITIONER. Mr. Carey said he was requesting a setback variance to allow him to put an addition on his garage. It is primarily a single car garage and he wanted to enlarge it to a double. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that this was the only location for the addition on the site, and that there had been no negative comments from his neighbors abgut his plans. Mr. Carey said that he will repaint and that the addition will blend in with the existing house. He said he had located his stakes and he was now requesting a two and a half f~ot variance. The City Manager stated that it was city policy, that when/if a petitioner .received the variance, they would be required to have the site re-surveyed. Mr. Carey said he understood this, and if he needed a survey he would like to have 2 1/2 feet of variance. He plans to widen the driveway and it will be re-done. There was no one present in regard to this request. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the variance in setback requested at 4052 Decatur Avenue, Case 84-24, with the setback to be no more than 17 feet from the lot line. Commissionor Kolander second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 84-25 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CHANGE IN RESTAURANT OPERATING HOURS AT 7181 42nd AVENUE NORTH - STRATOS ATSIDACOS,PETITIONER. Mr. Atsidacos stated he operated George's Cafe on 42nd Avenue North and he would like permission to expand .~ his operating hours until 9:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 9. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson as to why he wished the change in hours, Mr. Atsida¢os said that he was barely making it right now, and hoped to expand the hours to. give him more business. It is basically a breakfast and lunch establishment, with no liquor or wine. Commissioner Anderson commented on the fact that they were short of parking spaces and that at the present time there is often parking on the street. The petitioner said that the employees parked on the side of the building toward.the east -- two.spaces. Chairman Cameron noted that this property has been a tortuous piece of property for the city, but that recently there had been no particular traffic complaints. He did not know what the afternoon traffic would do to the site, but he felt it was worth a try. If a problem was created, it would have to be changed. There was no one present in regard to this request. Noting he was concerned about parking during the winter months, especially from the video business, he suggested that staff review the parking situation in six months. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow extended hours at the restaurant at 7181 42nd Avenue North, Case 84-25, with the stipulation that staff would review the parking situation at six month intervals. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None .' Motion carried. The City Manager reviewed for the commissioners, the recent developments with the Charles B. Edwards case, which had been tabled by Planning Commission the previous month. He noted that because of the IRB request, and the need to adjust to new State regulations about the amount of money that could be requeste~,---~ in an IRB, they had been forced to act quickly - before September 1, 1984. This was the reason for the special meeting of Planning Commission. He added that the request for a variance for the tower, had been withdrawn, and it was to be lowered. They had met all of the contingencies that the Planning Cor~ission had set and construction approval was the only approval needed. Mr. Kolander and Mr. Edwards had attended the meeting. City Council subsequently approved the request. Chair~nan Cameron stated that he felt it had been an unfortunate set of circumstances. COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. There had been one Design and Review Committee meeting. 11. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 12. There had been no meeting of the Codes and Standards Committee. Commissioner Anderson requested that staff arrange a meeting with the Planning Consultant to go over the updated city code. The date suggested for this meeting was 23 October. It was noted that any commissioner interested should attend the meeting. NEW BUSINESS 13. The Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 1984 were accepted as printed. 14. The Council Minutes of August 13th, and 27th, were reviewed. 15. Chairman Cameron commented on the fact that there was no official Vice Chairman of the Commission. He requested that Commissioner Gundershaug ac.cePt that responsibility. This was accepted unanimously by the Commission. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the restrictions on parking on the street by North Ridge. Staff will check on this. 17. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully s~bmitted, _ e Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, October 2, 1984 at the Minnesota Federal Building, 8320 42nd 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: Anderson, Kolander, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts Absent: Friedrich (excused), Edwards (arrived at 7:33 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 84-20 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXTERIOR STORAGE AND TO PARK TWO SEMI-TRAILERS AND THREE COMPANY TRUCKS AT 7550 BASS LAKE ROAD - A. C. CARLSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Carlson was present and commented that he was surprised that the request for truck storage had been put on the agenda, since that had been discussed a year ago when he moved into his building. He said he was asking for the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to park a couple of trucks for storage in the back. near the dumpster. He added that he had done a little survey in the neighborhood. He had contacted the office building adjacent to their site, a Richard Kenneset, Steve Finkelstein, manager of the Towers apartments and had been told there was no problem with his parking the trucks there. When he had asked the city why this issue had come up after a year, he was told that someone at the apartment building at 5617 P~%nsylvania had called. He then went over to that apartment and interviewed the occupants of that building and didn't find any objections to what they have been doing for the past year. He didn't know where the big problem was. He would like to have the extra storage space. They like to use it for the take-with items that people purchase, microwaves, etc. Chairman confirmed with Mr. Carlson that the two semi-trailers were there permanently for storage, and did not go in and out of the site. He does have some semi's coming in to unload but not these two. However, they are on wheels. He further confirmed that Mr. Carlson was requesting permission for out- side storage, in the form of the two trucks. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that Mr. Carlson also had other trucks parked on the site. Mr. Carlson said he had two pickup trucks, and one larger truck. Commissioner Anderson commented that it was his understanding that when Mr. Carlson had come into the city originally for approval, the trucks discussed as being on the site were the delivery vans. Mr. Carlson said this was right. At that time he did not know they would have the need for this extra storage. Commissioner Anderson noted that he did not see any vehicle in the code to allow the granting of a Con- ditional Use Permit for outside storage, he did see the possibility of a possible rezoning. The City Manager confirmed that the code did not directly address the issue of outside storage in the B-2 zone. City policy has been that if it is not addressed in the code, then it is not allowed. In the S-3 zone, there is specific language. A possible text change could be discussed. However, any storage which takes up required parking spaces, is specifically forbidden by code. Chairman Cameron confirmed that outside storage was allowed in the B-3 zone. The City Manager stated that open or outside storage was allowed as an accessory use to a Conditional Use Permit, provided that the area was fully screened,surfaced to control dust, etc. Commissioner Anderson said that one option would be to rezone the property to B-3, which permits acces- sory uses as allowed in the B-1 zone. Discussion followed about code language, and the options available to the city. Commissioner Anderson noted that one advantage to the city in amending the Conditional Use to allow a commercial structure for storage, would be that the city would then have a specific land use to deal with. He noted that he had not observed any parking problems on the site. He asked whether there was some other way to consider this request? Chairman Cameron said there was no way that the Commission could grant something that was not provided for in the city ordinance. He felt this case had several unique angles, one of which was the outdoor storage, He was sure that the ordinance did not recognize trailers as outdoor storage. He felt the Commission was being presented with some "hair splitting" definitions, none of which fit the standard criteria or ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - OCTOBER 2, 1984 3. Com~issioner Anderson noted that he felt the request should be worded as an amendment to a Conditional Use to allow two commercial structures for storage on the site. He noted that another issue was with the screening requirements. He was also concerned about the screening between the dumpster area and the residential area, which in his opinion is not adequate, to screen the two trucks. Chairman Cameron stated the Commission should hold up on discussion of this screening issue until the problem of the outdoor storageis resolved. Commissioner Bartos commented that an adjacent structure is usually considered to be a permanent struc- ture. Discussion regarding the definition o~ structure in the city code. "4.022 (128) Structure Anything which is built, constructed or erected usually on a foundation; an edifice or building of any kind; any piece of work artificially built up and/or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner whether temporary or perma- nent in character." Commissioner Anderson commented he felt it was stretching a point to consider truck trailers as a structure. Chairman Cameron said he felt the whole city ordinance would be shaken up if people could move trailers in as storage facilities at will, even in parking lots -- this is a big issue~ Discussion regarding length of time trailers had been in place, whether Mrl Carlson intended to have more trailers in the future, and what he would do if the commission/council denied his request? Mr. Carlson said he would have to find some other space for storage. He noted that he did not intend to have too many storage trailers, there was not too much room back there. Chairman Cameron referred to the discussion held a year ago when Mr. Carlson was planning his building, and the fact that most of the Commission felt at that time, that he was proposing too large a building for the site. He felt that the city was now wrestling with a problem that was foreseen a year ago. He added that the commission was now dealing with a conditional use permit for outdoor storage and they should talk to this issue, as well as the issue of allowing semi-trailers to be considered as storage facilities, and whether the commission/council/city should set this precedent? Discussion followed regarding the possibility of Mr. Carlson having his request tabled, to allow him to find a way to legally have some outside storage on the site. Commissioner Edwards stated that he thought the Commission/City had addressed the issue of the use of semi- trailers for storage, whether temporary or permanent, long ago, and decided this was something that would not be acceptable in the City of New Hope. Are we now going to go back on that? The Chairman noted that the Commission was now being given an opportunity to change their minds. He added that he felt that the city would be tampering with a very important concept to change this policy. Commissioner Bartos noted that previously there had been a request to allow sales from a trailer in the parking lot of a shopping center, and it had been decided that it would not be in the best interests of the city to allow this. Mr. Victor Fish, 5608 Pennsylvania, stated that he was concerned about the screening. There have been trucks parked there since last winter and they are kind of an eyesore in his opinion. He was in attendance to request better screening of the site. Commissioner Anderson noted that regardless of action on tonight's request, at the time of approval of the building permit, Mr. Carlson had been given permission to park two delivery vans on the site. The issue of the screening will have to be dealt with. The City Manager stated that the city did have the resources of the Planner to mull over any options in regard to problems, and make suggestions to the city. Chairman Cameron said that he personally was not interested in changing the text, or rezoning, to allow the use of the two semi-trailers for storage on this site, or anywhere else in the City of New Hope. Mr. Carlson has the right to ask for such permission, but he felt that after this meeting, he should have some feeling of how the Commission will react to the request. Commissioner Gundershaug stated his feelings were along the same vein. In the past the city has never allowed this type of storage, and he did not think it should be allowed now. There were inherent pro- blems on this site to begin with, and he felt the trailers should be kept on another site. He asked whether a fence had been originally required at the rear of the site? The City Manager said he was not sure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '- 3 - OCTOBER 2, 1984 3. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Carlson said that Crystal Properties has a fence now. He felt that if they also installed a fence, it would be like driving through a tunnel. He felt there had been a lack of communication between himself and the city staff. He had felt that the screening was also going to be on this agenda. He has discussed this with city staff. There is no screening on the north side, they did put up a retaining wall. He had talked with Towers, and they have a green strip of about 3-4' wide. They had suggested that some tall shrubs be planted there. Another possibility would be putting a low 4' type of fence along the curb, along with the shrubs. He added that he thought there was a lack of public relations in the city. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Mr. Carlson did recognize there was a commitment to provide the screening. Commissioner Anderson made a motion that whereas there was no provision in the city code to allow this type of parking in the B-2 Zone, that the request in Case 84-20, be denied. Commissioner Kotander second. Chairman Cameron informed Mr. Carlson that based on the discussion from the meeting, he felt that the Commission would be willing to table his request for one month to give Mr. Carlson a chance to work with staff to see if there was another way he could conceivably solve the problem. He felt he should have gotten the feeling that the Commission was not particularly enthusiastic about any outdoor storage. On the other hand, if Mr. Carlson wished, the Commission would act on the request and send it forward to the City Council. Mr. Carlson said he did not know what he wanted to do. Commissioner Anderson noted that if Mr. Carlson did elect to proceed to the City Council at this time, and in the event that they would deny his request, he would then have to start the process all over again, and pay another fee for this to be reconsidered. Following Mr. Carlson's request for a table, Commissioner Anderson withdrew his motion, with Commissioner Kotander seconding the withdrawal. Commissioner Anderson made a motion tabling Case 84-20 until the meeting in November. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts Voting against: Edwards Absent: Friedrich Motion carried. The City Manager said that he felt a meeting should be called, which would include him, the inspection department,-Mr. Carlson, and may be the city's Planner to discuss this request and any options available. Chairman Cameron informed Mr. Carlson that he should contact city staff. Commissioner Anderson stated that it appeared that there was a Conditional Use Permit on this property and he requested that when Mr. Carlson returned to the Commission, he had a very positive program that would address the screening issue, regardless of the outdoor storage issue, there is a screening issue. 4. PLANNING CASE 84 - 26 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DAY CARE IN AN R-1 ZONE AT 8808 MF~DICINE LAKE ROAD - CARROLL VOMH©FF, DISTRICT #281, PETITIONER. The City Manager announced that Mr. Vomhoff had called him and asked that this case be withdrawn from the agenda. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 6. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 7. Commissioner Anderson said he had talked with the city's Planner, and there will be a meeting of the Codes and Standards Committee on October 23, 1984. It will be more or less of a round table discussion. The City Manager said that the updated code would be available before that meeting. Commissioner Anderson stated that anyone on the Planning Commission would be welcome to attend this meet- ing. It was also noted that perhaps the City Council might like to attend this meeting. Commissioner Gundershaug requested that notice be sent to the commissioners, clarifying the date and time. The City Manager stated that another area to be discussed is the issue of utilization of closed school buildings. He referred to the withdrawn request from District #281 for a daycare center at Sunny Hollow School. Such a use required a Conditional Use Permit, because it was a non-school activity. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - OCTOBER 2, 1984 7. He continued that this issue will be coming back before the city. He has requested the Consultant look at this, and make recommendations, and an advance plan as to how to handle such requests when they do occur. Chairman Cameron noted tkat the ordinance speaks to what can be done in closed school buildings. He felt it was also important that the school people understand what can be done with buildings, and what type of activities a community might like to encourage as a use for a closed building. He added that there was also the possibility that a ~unior high would be closed within the next few years, and he felt that this was also an area that should be explored, as to how a city might use such space. Discussion continued in regard to the future need for a city community center, and the Manager noted that the City Council now feels they will put this on hold until the school district possibly made a decision as to which buildings will be closed.' He felt that initially he would like the Consultant to look at the issues, and at our code, so that the city would have a plan as to the use of these closed buildings. He felt they should look at each facility to determine what uses might be acceptable in the given location. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt it would have to be addressed on a school by school basis. The City Manager stated that in conjunction with this, the city is looking at its long range CIP needs, as well as the demands on the Recreation Department, and what direction the community will want the city to go in regard to such services. In response to a question from the Manager, Chairman Cameron said that it cost the School District between $25,000 - $40,000 to mothball a school building for one year. The Manager also noted that the Comprehensive Plan did speak to the selling of school buildings and the need for the city to review such sales. NEW BUSINESS ~ 8. The Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 1984 were accepted as printed. 9. The Council Minutes of September 10, and September 24, 1984 were reviewed. 12. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:23 p.m. " Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 1984 MIN-tJTES 1. A special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, October 23, 1984 at the Ice Center Community Room, 4949 Louisiana Avenue North. 2. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 3. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts, Edwards, Absent: Bartos, Friedrich (excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Review of the 1984 amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and Amended Redevelopment Project 82-1 and Amended Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1. The City Manager presented the plan to the Commission and explained the details to the Commission members. Commissioner Anderson and Edwards ex- pressed concern about the tax increment financing plan. Commissioner Edwards stated that he would rather see the developers go into the open market for financing as required of most other developers. Commissioner Anderson further expressed concern that this type of financing may not be the best for the city. Commissioner Edwards made a motion recommending approval of Resolution Re- lating to 1984 Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and amended the Redevelopment Project 82-1 to be undertaken pursuant thereto and amended Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in"favor: Anderson, Kolander, Cameron, Gundershaug, Lutts, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Friedrich Motion carried. 5. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:30 p.m. There followed a training session conducted by Planning Consultant Dave Licht. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Donahue City Manager PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, November 6, 1984 in the Conference Room of the Minnesota Federal Building, 8320 42nd Avenue North, New Hope. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Lutts PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 84-20 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXTERIOR STORAGE AT 7550 BASS LAKE ROAD - A. C. CARLSON, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that this case was being withdrawn. Mr. Carlson had met with staff to resolve the problem. The city had given him ten months in which to build a warehouse, on a site further west on Bass Lake Road. This will eliminate the outdoor storage problem. 4. PLANNING CASE 84-27 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCES FOR HEIGHT, SIZE AND TYPE AT 4401 WINNETKA NORTH - WINNETKA ASSOCIATES, PETITIONER. Mr. Jack Lawrence, of Signcrafters spoke to this request. In response to a question from the Chairman, he stated that they were requesting variances to allow the construction of pylon sign, that would list the three major tenants of the center, as well as include a message board. They,would need a variance in height, letter size, and type of sign. He stated that the lack of the sign was a hardship for the tenants in the center. He noted that if you were on the corner of 42nd/Winnetka Avenues, you could not see what was in the Winnetka Mall center. The three major tenants had decided that they would absorb the cost of the new sign. He stated they felt there was a hardship involved because they needed iden- tification, and the whole shopping center needed some help to make it profitable. Chairman Cameron asked whether Mr. Lawrence represented the owners? Mr. Lawrence answered "yes" as far as the sign was concerned - he represented the three major tenants. Mr. Jack Garberg of Hardware Hank then addressed the Commission. He stated that he had been at the location for 4% years. His operation stressed service, integrity and credibility of merchandise and service. In recent years business has been faced with an onslaught of large discount stores. These stores however, do not offer repairs and other services. He added they get many calls on the telephone with people asking "where they are located", because they have been down Winnetka and not noticed them. He feels he is "betwixt and between" as to whether he should continue to operate the business as he has, or convert to a self service operation. He would prefer to remain a full service store. He added that he had lost close to a quarter of a million dollars in the last 4% years. He asked for the Co~ission's help. He has been advised by Hardward Hank corporation to look for another spot. He would prefer to stay in New Hope. He feels that their store stresses service. Mr. Lawrence commented on a similar situation that had occurred at Terrace Mall in Robbinsdale. He noted they had used the three prime anchors and indicated who was in the mall. HE felt the sign would bring the traffic necessary into the mall, if people can know where the stores are located. Mr. Garberg said that from 42nd/Winnetka you could not see his store, he really needed some help. Chuck Pelletier, Manager of the Country Store stated he had been asked by his company to request this sign variance. He noted that the first month or so, they had sent out flyers to the surrounding areas, advertising the store. They had a lot of customers call and ask where they were located. He felt that a Country Store logo out on the street would help the store, it could also indicate that the store was open 24 hours. He added that it was great to be back in New Hope, they plan to stay in New Hope, but it would help if they could get some help with identification. Michael Beugen, of Winnetka Drug, stated he also wished to ask for help. He stated he had a salesman come in, that he bought from every month. This man had other stores in the area, and regularly drove up and down Winnetka Avenue looking for his store. He noted he hoped the Commission would realize his sincerity, and that this lack of identification was a severe problem. He said they were taking a risk, and hoping that a new sign would make it a nicer shopping area --- he was continually asked, on a daily basis, "where you are". Mr. Lawrence stated that as a taxpayer he was concerned also. He didn't want people to come in to the center and move. He said at 42/Winnetka you could see 9 signs. He presented a picture, which illus- trated the type of sign they were proposing. H~ stated that visibility was not good for the tenants, and felt the new sign would let the people know ahead of time that there was a shopping center at that location. He felt the sign as proposed was a very elegant sign that would fit into the community. Chairman Cameron asked why this particular size was necessary? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 6, 1984 4. Mr. Lawrence stated that the sign had been designed to be visible from 42nd/Winnetka, because at this time you could not see what was in the center -- the sign would include a message board. For this visi- bility they need 12" or 14" letters to be legible -- need the power.of identification. It will be up in the air. It will be no larger than the sign and no wider, than the sign at the other shopping center. The height is necessary to give it visibility. Commissioner Anderson stated he thought everyone on the Commission was concerned about the area and wanted it to be successful. Mr. Lawrence noted again, that as a taxpayer, he wondered why the city should lose anyone -- the center needed exposure. Coramissioner Anderson asked whether ~r. Lawrence represented the owners of the mall? Mr. Beugen said he thought he could say he represented the owners, because he represented them, the three major tenants. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the petitioners were familiar with the sign ordinance of the city? Mr. Lawrence said he thought the sign ordinance was written as a guideline, an ordinance doesn't have to be changed everytime you give a sign variance. Commissioner Anderson noted he had seen some extra poor signs, and a great deal of effort had gone into the sign ordinance, he didn't feel he would feel comfortable with denying anyone else such a request if these variances were granted. Mr. Lawrence said he felt that it was not the size of the sign that would present a problem, but how it was built and how it was maintained. Discussion followed regarding the apparent success of Midland Center, and the differences in type~of center configuration -- straight line, "L", setback from the street, etc. Mr. Beugen noted that the three major tenants were willing to spend some more money, on the sign, to try and turn the center around. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Commission needed a unique hardship, in order to grant a variance of this type. He asked what had changed in the area/center since the previous sign had been approved. Mr. Lawrence said the reason was the need for exposure, identification of the center. Referring to the three large entities in the area -- Winnetka Center, the bank, K-Mart -- he asked whether there had been any joint effort to create a different image for the area? He added that he would like to see the three owners sit down with the city staff and see if there could not be some signing planned for the mall and area. He understood why the petitioners were asking for the variances, but he felt he would have a hard time going along with the reasons for the variances. Mr. Lawrence said it was not the signs themselves, its building exposure. The tenants did not have time to wait for the owners to do something about the situation. He suggested that if the commissioners wanted a unique situation, how would it look tohave two vacant spots in the center. Mr. Beugen noted that the spot he occupies was vacant for three years before he moved in. This was his last "hurrah". He needed this sign, he needs people. The tenants needed the variance, he felt it was going to benefit the city. There was no one present in regard to this case other than the petitioners. Commissioner Gundershaug said that the Commission recognized the petitioner's problem, but they had to go by the ordinance. He wished there was a way to work around the proposed size. The City Manager stated that from a staff perspective, everything the petitioners were asking for involve% an ordinance change. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether a variance, if granted, would have a time line imposed? The City Manager stated that it was the recommendation of the Planning Consultant, that the ordinance would have to be re-written, in order to accommodate the proposal. ,~ Chairman Cameron said it was hard for him to see how a sign would rescue a poorly planned shopping center. Hardware Hank received a variance for their present sign. He felt the commission/city was dealing with a built-in problem that will always be there. He was personally not convinced that a very large sign was going to rescue the shopping center. It appeared to him that the discount mall had established themselves very quickly. He recognized that there were three businesses that were really hurting, and wished he could be convinced that any kind of sign would do something good for the business, could guarantee it would hlep. He felt that granting this request, would in effect destroy a large part of the sign ordinance as written. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 6, 1984 4. Commission Friedrich stated he felt that the Chairman had stated the case very well and he agreed with his comments. Commissioner Bartos stated that his heart went out to the petitioners and that he didn't think the city could afford a mall with more vacant spots as this would give the impression that it was not very prosper- ous. However, the variances requested were substantially overwhat code allowed. Commissioner Anderson asked whether there were any facilities within the staff, that could work with them on this problem? He understood that the merchants need more identification, and that if people could see what was in the center, they were going to drive in. He noted however, that 14" letters were what was generally used on inter-state signing -- to give freeway signs visibility. He asked whether there was any way. that city staff could work with the merchants to achieve their goals? The City Manager stated that the city had had some preliminary discussions about updating the concept plan for the area. The city has a plan that is essentially outmoded -- everything has changed. Chairman Cameron asked whether the city could establish an economic development zone? The Manager said that most important was to get the owners of the area together, but if the owners were not willing to sit down and talk with the city, they were starting with"one leg down? There is one owner who is not interested in exploring the issue. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the Manager could report back in 30 days about the 'feasibility of helping the petitioners? He wished the city could assist in some way but did n~t think the ordinance should be re-written. The Manager said he felt they should move pretty quickly, these people need help. Mr. Garberg commented on the fact that the discount mall was doing well, noting that the sign on that spot is larger than what they were requesting. Personally he did not feel he could go until spring--Hardware Hank feel that the center is a "turnoff". Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending that the variances for heiqht, size, and identification of tenants at 4401 Winnetka, as requested in Case 84-27, be denied. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Lutts Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 84-28 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE'PE~IT FOR' HOME OCCUPATION ~ 7829 TERRA LINDA DRIVE - LESTER BAUMAN, PETITIONER. Mr. Bauman stated he has had a hobby of repairing lawn mowers, snow blowers, and doing tune ups and re- pairing blades, etc. He is asking for a residential conditional use permit to allow him to use one stall of his existing four stall garage for this business. He has only three cars. The garage is located about 80 feet from the street. He is surrounded by a parking lot, apartment garages, and there is a six foot fence to the north. He presented a petition to the commissioners from his immediate neighbors stating tkey had no objections to his plan. Co~m~issioner Kolander asked whether he would need any additional equipment? The answer was "no". Mr. Sauman noted he had a bench grinder like everyone does in their garage. Commissioner Kolander confirmed that Mr. Bauman would be conducting this work on his own, there would be no employees, and that he would not be selling anything, i.e. snow blowers, lawn mowers, etc. Mr. Sauman said he would only be selling the parts necessary to make the repairs. % Commissioner Kolander confirmed with Mr. Bauman that he would not need any additional electrical equipment or service, and that there would be no signs. Commissioner Anderson asked how long he had been doing this type of repair? Mr. Bauman said it had been his hobby for several years. He added he did not do any painting. A neighbor of Mr. Bauman's expressed his approval of the plan. Commissioner Anderson asked how Mr. Bauman got such a large garage? Mr. Bauman said he just asked for it. At one time they were a four car family. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - NOVEMBER 6, 1984 5. Discussion then covered.how the equipment to be repairs arrived at Mr. Bauman's -- in the trunks of cars; where people parked -- in the driveway, and the hours of work -- starting and stopping. Mr. Bauman said usually he had a normal working day -- and worked just during the day. He doesn't get a lot of work to do. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Bauman said that in a week the maximum number of customers was about 20 -- it depended on the time of the year. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about summer, when doors were open in the garage, and the amount of noise that could possibly annoy the neighbors. Mr. Bauman said he did not do any wel~ing.. He added that the only sales he might conduct, would be if someone wanted to purchased a re-conditioned piece of equipment. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that Mr. Bauman intended to use only one stall. He asked whether if the business increased, Mr. Bauman would expand to two stalls? Mr. Bauman replied that he did not think it would expand to that extent. He noted he did advertise by distributing handbills. He did not advertise in papers. In response to a question from the Chairman as to what he would do if the city turned down his request, Mr. Bauman said he would probably go on welfare. Com~issioner Gundershaug commented on the fact that a residential conditional use ~ould need restrictions as to time of operation and traffic conditions, with a review by staff at certain intervals. Commissioner Kolander asked whether Mr. Bauman had ever considered or looked into hooking up with a hard- ware store to do their repairs? Mr. Bauman said he had thought about it, but hadn't been able to get their business. Chairman Cameron noted that the city/commission had to be concerned about protecting the neighbors. '~'~' Commissioner Friedrich made a motion recommending approval of the residential conditional use permit at 7829 Terra Linda Drive, as requested in Case 84-28; with the stipulation that the business operate only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and that there be no sales on the premises. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Lutts Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 84-29 - REQUEST FOR REARYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 8701 32ND AVENUE NORTH - $OREN AND GALE SHAMBLOTT, PETITIONERS. Mr. Shamblott stated that their residence was at present non-conforming because of its position on the lot. They were requesting a variance to allow them to construct a vestibule addition at the rear of the property. The addition would come to 28 feet from the lot line, instead of the required 35 feet. The vestibule will be 18' x 10', and will be a mud room, place for outdoor clothes, etc. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the siding, roof, color and exterior treatment would match the exist- ing house. It will be a one story addition, and will come off the garage. Mr. Shamblott said he planned to re-roof, so everything will match. There~was no one present in regard to this case. ~ Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the setback variance at 8701 32nd Avenue North, as requested in Case 84-29. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Abstain: Kolander Absent: Lutts Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - NOVEMBER 6, 1984 7. PLANNING CASE 84-30 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE GREEN AREA REQUIREMENT AT 4920 COUNTY ROAD 918 - WAYZATA BAY CENTER COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. David Brown stated he represented the management of the Wayzata~Bay Center Company as the owner was out of the country. He said there had been a problem with a shortage of parking spaces which has to do with the changing Of some of the original tenants. As the space use has changed to include more office space, there is a need for more parking space. There would be no economic benefit to the owners or to the tenants, they are asking for the variance to allow the reduction in green area to make it more convenient for the tenants, the employees, and customers. They had submitted a print indicating proposed screening to the inspections department. The parking area would be totally screened from view bf the roadway. The area they wish to use has never been developed, and they would be willing to increase the amount of landscaping and shrubbery to compensate for the in- creased parking. They propose to spend an additional $1500 in shrubbery. They wish to use an area out of the public view for the additional parking. Discussion followed regarding the treatment of the proposed parking area, is it seeded, wetland, or blacktop at this time, as well as the loading docks and the maneuvering area for trucks.and whether semis would still be able to back in. Jah~Wa~d~n~ of Packaging Consultants, stated that one of the problems is people parking along the boule- vards and along the east side of the building. Mr. Brown stated that they were requesting the 6% variance in green area to provide the parking that is presently needed. He added that according to Mr. Sandstad, the 6% would add 30 parking stalls which is the maximum needed. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he could not remember a time during his tenure on the Planning Commission when a variance had been granted in green area. He added'that originally the building had been built for office/warehouse use. It now appears that there is more office than warehouse space. Mr. Brown said there was still 54% warehouse space in use. They need 113 spaces, and have only 91. Commissioner Gundershaug said he felt that basically the were over utilizing the property. He personally would have a hard time voting for a reduction in the green area requirement. He asked whether the peti- tioner had investigated the possibility of acquiring some more land? Mr. Brown stated that they had looked at the property in back of the building. However, there would be no reason to purchase this except the long range use of the building. Any benefit to the building would be minimal, for the investment required. Commissioner Gundershaug said he felt a tradeoff of nine trees for a reduced green area was too much of a trade off. Mr. Brown stated that the proposed parking area was one area of the green area that had not been as yet developed. Discussion continued about the need for green area, the affect reducing the green, and putting parking in the proposed area, and what effect it would have on the view presented to the public, and whether the in- creased landscaping would in fact provide a better looking site. Mr. Brown said that this matter had come up because a tenant wanted to change his use and needed more space. The permit was denied because of the lack of parking. They had tried to work with him in every way possible to get around this. He added that they had already invested a large amount of money on a survey and the fees involved in this request, to no economic benefit to the owner. He felt they had tried to be cooperative with the city, and make the building nicer for the tenants who desparately need more parking. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the tradeoff shouldn't be to acquire more land? ~ Mr. Brown stated that what is for sale is 2 1/2 acres, which is $56,000, which is a lot of money to provide 30 more parking stalls. He was afraid the owner would think they were crazy to suggest this. It was noted by the commissioners that a case had to be made for granting such a variance and changing a long standing policy. Feeling was that there was an over use of the property, and sufficient reason had not been presented to justify such a variance. There is just not a physical hardship present in this case. Mr. Boyd Barrett, of Fleet Graphics, stated he was one of the tenants. He would like to see the variance granted to provide more parking. He added that in the wintertime, people parked all over. When snow is blowing, people park in back and they also need the space to push the snow into. There is a definite problem in getting in and out of the site. Chairman Cameron stated he did not feel dropping the green area was a solution to the problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 6, 1984 7. Discussion followed regarding the money already spent by the petitioner in regard to this request. Commissioner Anderson stated that the he did not want to vote for ~ranting this variance as it is, there must be some other options. There must be some other property, somewhere, to accommodate the green space and parking requirements. He felt the crux of the issue is that the building has too intense a use for the parking as provided. This variance could not be ~ranted without modifying the green space. He stated he would be willing to have the petitioner table the request to look for other options. Mr. Brown asked whether it was .the 6% reduction that was the problem, or any variance in green space? Commissioner Anderson said he was not in favor of any variance of green space requirements. Mr. Brown commented on the fact tha~ if they were not in compliance, Mr. Sandstad had approved these plans as totally legal. In answer to a question, Mr. Brown stated that all space in the building was rented at the same rate. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending denial of the variance in green space at 4920 county. Road #18, as requested in Case 84-30. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Lutts Motion carried. COMMITTEE F~EPORTS 8. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 9. There was no report from the Land Use Com~ittee. 10. There was no report f~om the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS ./~ 11. The Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1984 and October 23, 1984 were approved as printed. 12. The Council Minutes of OCtober 9, and October 22, 1984 were reviewed. 15. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1984 1. A special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, November 20, 1984 in Room 210, of the District #231 Administration Building, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Friedrich, Kolander, Edwards, Gundershaug, Bartos, Cameron, Lutts, Anderson Absent: None 3. Chairman Cameron stated that there was only one order of business before the Commission at this meeting. He asked the City Manager to address this item. Mr. Donahue noted that at the Council meeting of November 13, Council had considered the request for variances of height, size, of the sign at the Winnetka Mall, Case 84-27, as had been previously denied by the Planning Commission. Council had tabled this request with the feeling that they did not want to tinker with the variance, and did not want to grant the variance. This had also been a strong staff recommendation -- not to grant the variance. Council had asked the Planning Commission to have a special meeting to look at the issue of whether or not the ordinance should be changed to accommodate their request rather than granting the variances. He requested that the Planning Commission consider wording changes to the ordinance. He has met with both the city attorney and the city's planning consultant, Dave Licht, to consider whether the ordinance should be changed, or what the options were. There are essentially three proposals. 1. Essentially no change. 2. Allow what is being requested in this planning case. 3. Variations -- not to allow designations on signs,, but to allow commercial and business concerns to have temporary signage, much like the "rent a billboard type" of thing. 4. A temporary type of sign that would be a permanent pylon sign which would have temporary signs for individual shopping centers. Mr. Donahue passed out copies of the consultant's recommendations to the commissioners (attached). The Commissioners then read and reviewed these recommendations. Chairman Cameron stated that the city ordinance did recognize shopping centers as a separate entity and so the Commission could work with just that portion of the ordinance. The centers in the city involved are the Winnetka Mall, the Outlet Mall, Midland Center, and Poste Haste. He confirmed that shopping centers are required by code to submit a total sign plan to city staff. The City Manager said yes, and if a change was desired, they were required to submit these changes to the city staff/commission/council. Chairman Cameron asked whether the request for a change in signage, should not have come from the owners of the Mall, rather than the tenants? The Manager stated that the ordinance spoke separately to ground signs, versus.those signs which are on the buildings. Chairman Cameron referred to the Planner's recommendations, noting that he did not specifically address height, and larger square footage of signs. Most of the recommendations spoke to the part of the city ordinance that prohibited individual business' from being listed on a sign. The City Manager stated that the petitioner had re-drawn their request so that the sign proposed would come under the 200 square foot requirement, and under 30' in height. The only real variance they were requesting now was the identification of the tenants of the mall. Commissioner Anderson referred to the ordinance section 3.467,(3) (a) ..... "containing four or less separate and distinct occupancies, may erect ground signs in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.465(3) and may identify each separate and distinct occupancy on said ground sign", noting that this seemed to be the section of the ordinance Mr. Licht was referring to. Chairman Cameron commented that what struct him was that two out of three of the options, dealt with temporary signs, i.e. portable. He felt the Commission should speak to this issue first. Commissioner Gundershaug said he would not vote for allowing temporary signs. Signs can be made that way -- to be less durable, and he also felt it would create a "policing" problem for city staff. They could use "cardboard signs", as the cheapest method of signage. He personally did not like any of the options. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- NOVEMBER 20, 1984 3. Commissioner Bartos agreed with these statements, noting he felt temporary signs were apt to look "junky" and not be esthetically pleasing. Commissioner Edwards said he had much the same feelings in regard t~ temporary signage. He felt the ten- dency for a struggling business would be to choose a cheaper sign, which would only add more confusion to the center signage. Following discussion, it was the concensus of the Planning Commission that they did not want any provi- sions for temporary signage in the ordinance. Chairman Cameron said he was more in favor of Option I of Mr. Licht's recommendations, which would allow the listing of businesses in multiple occupancy developments. Commissioner Anderson asked what they were asking for that was already not being allowed at the Outlet Mall on 42nd/Winnetka? He noted that the Outlet Mall had put up a sign which did not meet the sign ordi- nance, but it had been subsequently endorsed by the city. Now the city is being asked for a similary sign. Chairman Cameron noted that the Outlet Mall had the "menu board" addition, which is currently being ille- gally used -- it is not being used for civic messages, but basically to advertise what is going on in the mall. They do not list individual businesses. Following additional discussion, Commissioner Anderson asked whether anyone was interested in any option other than amending the sign ordinance. Chairman Cameron said there had been considerable discussion at the City Council meeting regarding pos- sible options -- one had been to allow a certain amount of space to be allowed for individual businesses, with the owners determining who would be represented, but having the city not involved in the number of tenants to be listed. The Commission also must determine what type of restrictions they wanted to put in the ordinance change. The City Manager stated that at the meeting held on November 20, staff had agreed on several points: 1. Signage should stay within the 200 square foot restriction. 2. Do nothing about how many tenants should be designated on the sign. 3. Can an argument be made on the public safety issue, in regard to the size of letters on the sign? Should a minimum size of letter be specified? Chairman Cameron said he felt it should be the center owner's problem, as to how many people are listed on the sign. It was the concensus of the Commission that this should be determined by the owner. Discussion then centered on the square footage of the sign. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that staff felt the such signs should not exceed 200 square feet in total. Commissioner Bartos noted that he would rather see a sign listing the names of the tenants than a message board -- he felt this would be better for all concerned. Chairman Cameron confirmed that it was the opinion of the Commission that the sign size should be left ~at a total of 200 square feet, with the shopping center to be given flexibility as to who would be listed on the sign. Commissioner Gundershaug said he thought there still needed to be something on the sign to identify the name of the center . Chairman Cameron Said that when the sign ordinance had been designed, it had been thought the centers would want the identification, and that the city could count on the owners to work out the signage with the tenants. At this center, this is apparently not the case. Commissioner Gundershaug said he felt they should stay at the 200 square feet and let them determine who and what was on the sign. Discussion continued about the possible advantages/disadvantages of changing the maximum signage allowed. The City Manager referred to the Sinclair case, which had gone to the Supreme Court, stating that it was the logo and its size and height questioned. He added that actually, this center could have two signs, one facing each road. Commissioner Edwards asked whether the city wasn't flirting with having multiple signs, multiple colors, etc. He was opposed to changing the ordinance -- felt it was a touchy issue -- the city had attempted to eliminate clutter on the streets, has granted numerous variances to this center already. This variance request is purely economic. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 20, 1984 3. Chairman Cameron agreed that the city should not tailor the ordinance to accommodate this center, but that the City Council had requested that the Commission do something about the problem. Commissioner Bartos noted that there was some protection in the fact that the city only had four shopping centers. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of other shopping areas, i.e. K-Mart/grocery store being shopping centers and needing additional signage. The City Manager said a shopping center consisted of four or more businesses, in a B-4 zone. Mr. Lawrence, of Signcrafters, indicated that Applebaums in Robbinsdale, had moved out because no one knew they were there. During a discussion regarding possible restrictions on size of letters on signs, it was noted that the size of the total sign, would determine the size of the letters used. Concern was expressed in regard to the use of too small letters, and whether this could cause a traffic problem with people slowing down to read the sign~ It was the concensus of the Commission that they didn't need to worry about the maximum letter size. Commissioner Gundershaug said he would be more concerned about the minimum size allowed. Chairman Cameron also said he was concerned about a safety factor. Commissioner Edwards felt that 3'-4' letters would be as much of a hazard as too small letters. Chairman Cameron questioned whether the city allowed 3 or 4 businesses to be listed on the sign, is there wasn't a chance the petitioners would come back later to request that more names be added? Commissioner Gundershaug said he would still like there to be a percentage designated as a name for the center itself -- maybe 20%, but reserved for only the center identification. Chairman Cameron said another issue was the possibility of a "menu board". This had not been addressed. Discussion followed regarding the "menu board" on 42nd at the outlet mall and whether this sign was in- cluded in the 200 foot restriction, or was an additional sign. It was noted that the message board had been approved, as a community board not for advertising about events/sales at the center. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending that the New Hope Sign Ordinance Section 3.467 (3) (a) be amended to eliminate the restriction against individual businesses being identified on the sign, and including the requirement that at least 20% of the sign ratio be devoted to center identification. Commissioner Friedrich second. Discussion then centered on the size of letters on the sign, and whether there should be either a minimum or maximum size stated. Commissioner Edwards stated he felt that the commission/city would be back designing signs again if these were so stated. He felt the letter size should remain wide open, and that the city would be asking for trouble if they try and restrict minimums or maximums. Mr. Garberg, of Hardware Hank, stated he felt that the Commission's decisions had been good. He added that one of the hardest things for the tenants had been to get the landlord involved in the problem. He felt the Commission had done a good job. He noted that he had been observing message boards, and had not seen any that listed community service events, etc. Discussion then covered the problems of maintaining a message board, and the fact that it would have to be up to a center owner to decide what would be on such a sign. Mr. Garberg said he thought it would cost a tenant $50-$75 a week to operate a message board sign. Mr. Lawrence noted that there were not too many such signs operated well any more. The industry itself has gone to the electronic type of sign. He added that he appreciated the Commission and its willingness to hold a special meeting on this issue -- they will try and design a sign that will be effective and were trying to cooperate with the city. He was comfortable with the size restrictions of the ordinance. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission's recommendations would go forward to Council at their meet- ing on November 26, 1984 at House of Hope Lutheran Church. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Kolander, Gundershaug, Bartos, Cameron, Lutts Voting against: Edwards, Anderson Motion carried PLANNING CO~ISSION MI~TES - 4 - NOV~BER 20, 1984 Co~issioner Gundershaug noted that the city still needed to deal with the message board on the sign at the outlet mall. Concensus was that it was a staff probl~ to police this sign. 4. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully s~mitted, Boeddeker, Secretary northwest associated consultants, inc. ME~IORANDUM TO: Dan Donahue~~/ FROM: David Licht DATE: 20 November 1984 RE: New Hope Sign Ordinance Revision FILE NO: 131.01 Based upon our phone discussion and my understanding that there is some sympathy for the Winnetka Mall sign request, I have conducted a preliminary r~view of the New Hope Sign Code in an attempt to identify possible alterna- tives for responding to this matter. On a very preliminary basis I believe that there are three possible options which can be considered. I have briefly summarized these below. Option I Amend Ordinance to automatically allow listin~ of individual businesses in multiple occupancy development (Section 3.467 (3) page 3-46). The most straight forward means to accommodate the Winnetka Mall request would be simply to modify the present ordinance to allow them a blank check to implement what they are requesting. This would mean, however, that other centers such as Post Haste, New Hope Mall and the like could also automatically expand their signs plus begin listing individual tenants. This also would set the City back approximately seven or eight years to sign clutter and public safety problems which previously existed. While this approach is certainly available, we would strongly recommend against its selection. Option 2 Amend the temporary sign provisions of the Ordinance to allow greater application and flexibility (Section 3.441 - page 3-39). By possibly expanding the time framework and utilization potentials a modification of the provisions which govern portable signs could be tailored to accommodate the needs of the Winnetka Mall. The potential, however, of opening up this inexpensive, low quality, signage throughout the community is in our opinion highly ques- tionable. As a result, we would also not recommend modification of this very far reaching ordinance provision. 4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, minnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-942 Dan Donahue 20 November 1984 Page Two Option 3 cre'~te an optional temporary signing provision, exclusively for multiple occupancy retail structures (addition to Section 3.467 - pages 3-45 and 46). In an attempt to accommodate the Winnetka Mall and its self interest, an overriding objective should be to minimize the potential damage throughout the community. By introducing a temporary signing provision into the multiple occupancy development section for retail establishments only, this may be possible~ An objective should, however, be to ensure that the sign be of high quali'ty and not appear as a "fly by night" situation. We also believe that a "temporary" sign should respond to the issue at hand. If as the applicants claim, that a sign will make "all the difference in the world" and produce a viable economic endeavor than a reasonable period of time of exposure to the motoring public should serve to produce the desired consumer base. While we do not hold this premise to be true, we believe the applicant will be provided with the opportunity to gain the desired exposure 'and the community simultaneously is limiting the time as well as number of instances in which such signing can be utilized. Time has not permit our office to finalize or give sufficient thought to an ordinance provision of the scope suggested. Prior to undertaking to complete such a provision, we would also appreciate staff, Mayor and Council,~and Planning Commission perspectives and direction. We have identified, however, several elements of a temporary sign clause which at least can serve as the basis for discussion. We have listed these below. We emphasize, however, that these are only preliminary ideas which require more thorough consideration, expansion and refinement. POSSIBLE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS TEMPORARY GROUND SIGN - RETAIL MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY CENTERS 1. Names of individual tenants may be listed. No tenant previously receiving a variance to sign size provisions shall, however, be included on a temporary ground sign. 2. The temporary portion of the ground sign shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred square feet. 3. The temporary ground sign shall be part of a permanen~ucture and not an independent freestanding sign. 4. All letters on said sign shall be a minimum of feet in height (suggest two to two and one-half feet). Dan Donahue 20 November i984 Page Three 5. The design of the temporary sign shall be of the same material plus character of the permanent structure. The temporary sign shall not be of the lighted, reader board type. 6. The temporary sign may be utilized for a ~month period (suggest 3 month period). Utilization of such signing shall be limited to once during a year period (suggest two years). 7. A security for removal of the temporary sign shall be posted with the City. 8. Said type of sign shall require the processing and approval of a conditional use permit. cc: Doug Sandstad Bill Corrick PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 1984 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 4, 1984 in the conference room of the Minnesota Federal Building, 8320 42nd 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: Edwards, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos (all excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 84-33 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT/SUBDIVISION OF DOUBLE BUNGALOW AT 9137-41 30TH AVENUE NORTH - MINNESOTA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN, PETITIONER. A representative of the petitioner was not in attendance. The City Manager spoke for the petitioner. He stated that they wish to divide the existing lot, re- platting into two zero lot line parcels to allow them to sell the properties individually. He added that this is the first such request, since the new city ordinance had been adopted. He recommended approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the provision by the petitioners, of the standard ease- ments to the city. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat as requested for 9137-41 30th Avenue North, in Case 84-33, subject to easements being granted to the city. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Edwards, Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 5. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 6. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. The City Manager distributed copies of a recommendation from the City Planner, Dave Licht, speaking to the issue of adult multi-person/family housing in an R-3 zone. The Commission reviewed this recommendation. The City Manager stated that there was a group that was interested in establishing a group home for mentally handicapped adults in one of the apartment buildings behind the Fina station on Bass Lake Road. This would be a group home, for up to 16 adults, with 24 hour supervision on site. The home would be State licensed. He added that under the current city code, state licensed facilities such as that proposed, are a per- mitted use in the R-3 zone. It was his understanding that the city could impose a conditional use per- mit requirement on such a use, that would allow them to impose the normal, standard requirements of a conditional use permit, year review, etc. Chairman Cameron asked what this would do? The Manager replied that the city could not impose any stiffer requirements on such a use, but it would provide a vehicle for having a public hearing on this type of use. Discussion followed about the R-3 zones in the city, and how many of them could accommodate such a use. The Chairman then asked why the city would even want a public hearing on this issue? He felt it might just get people upset. He referred to the development of Homeward Bound several years ago. The Manager indicated that th% Mayor felt a public hearing should be held. Commissioner Gundershaug asked what conditions the city could impose, other than those for a normal apartment building? The Manager responded that the city could not impose any restrictions other than those listed in the code as they referred to conditional use permits. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 1984 6. Chairman Cameron confirmed that such a requirement would provide the city the opportunity to conduct an annual review of the facility. Following further discussion, it was the concensus of the commission that a decision would not be made at this meeting, but would be placed on the agenda for the January 8th, meeting~ Chairman Cameron asked whether the City Council would be giving the Commission some direction on this? The City Manager stated that the facility would assure the city that the residents would be non-violent, and have no histories of violence. NEW BUSINESS 7. Following brief discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission members present that the January 1985meeting should be held on January 8, 1985. The Manager stated that the January meeting would be held at the city~ Hall. 8. The Planning Commission minutes of November 6, and November 20, were accepted as p.ri~ted. 9. The Council minutes of November 13, and November 26, were reviewed. Discussion followed regarding the sign variance requested at the Winnetka Mall, and what the Council had done. The City Manager stated that Council had agreed with the Planning Commission in regard to not granting a variance. They had voted to strike the language of the code, that prohibited individual tenants from being listed on the sign. They had referred the issue of the percentage of sign to be used for center identification, back to staff. In response to a question from the Chairman in regard to the staff recommendation on this, the City Manager said there were several items that needed to be considered by the Codes and Standards Committee. He said discussion on these items would have to be held off until after the first of the year. Discussion then covered the most recent change in the North Ridge. development project. It was noted that they have now gone back to only one lot instead of two. The City Manager noted that the city hopes that the bond sale can be held on January 22, 1985. He added that the 15 foot setback requested by North Ridge from Boone Avenue still was in effect. In response to a question from Commissioner Edwards regarding mini-war~house construction, the Manager stated that Council had adopted a resolution on 11/26/84 Creating a moratorium against this type of con- struction in the city, to allow staff to analyze the effect of mini-warehouse construction on the overall Comprehensive Plan of the city. The city had received a request for a project that had been scheduled to be discussed at the January Planning Commission meeting. This petitioner had been informed of the moratorium and their check returned. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about maintenance standards for double bungalows, and whether this issue had been dropped from discussion. Commissioner Edwards stated that the latest development in this area, at least in new construction, was for cities to require restrictive covenants for such developments, that run for extended periods of time. Such covenants tied'entire plats together, and did n~ effect only single lots. He added that the city of Shoreview had a good Ordinance th~' spoke to this issue. Mr. Ronald J. Norstrem, of Minnesota Federal arrived at the meeting. The City Manager stated that his request had already been discussed and the request granted. Mr. Norstrem stated that the property had been sold, and that they had already had the city conduct a compliance inspection. 10. The City Manager noted that the terms on the Commission for Mr. Edwards and Mt. Cameron would expire at the end of 1984. He confirmed that they wished to continue on the Commission. 12. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~oyce Boeddeker, Secretary