Loading...
1971 Planning1971 PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD February 16, 1971 PLANNING CONMISSI~ Term Expires Walter Barnlskls 3601 Flag-Avenue North December 31, I973 New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Alan Greenberg 3509 Ensign Avenue North Becember 3t, 1973 New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Verna McConnell 7720 - 47 !/2 Place North December 31, 1972 New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Hel Ohman 4021 Nevada Avenue North December 31, 1972 New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Dennis Ostlund 8508 - 36 I/2 Circle North December 31, 1971 New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Nell Oulmette 3900 Virginia Avenue North Deceaber 31, 1971 New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Raymond Rauch 3405 Enstgn Avenue North December 31, 1971 New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Wayne Sueker 3924 Xylon Avenue North Deceaber 31, 1973 New Hope, Htnnesota 55427 Robert Bonnet 3830 Boone Avenue North December 31, 1972 New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Scott Heyer 4689 Gettysburg Avenue North December 31, 1971 New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Planning Commission -1- Januar~ ~, 1971 Minutes 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 401 Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, January 5, 1971, at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairm=n Raueh. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Sueker, Ouimette, Ostlund, Barniskis, Greenberg, MoOonnell, Rauch, Ohman. Absent: None. ~JBLIC HEARINGS ~ Ca.se No.. 7.0-88. request from George H. Gerdes for rezoning from SR to LB and a variance to reduce floor area requirement from 1000 square feet to 780 square feet so as to operate a real estate office at 6003 West Broadway, was heard by the Planning Co~,~ssion. It is proposed to locate the office in the existing house. Mr. ~erdes appeared before the Commission to present the proposal. He said he had a couple offers to sell the house for a real estate office. Mr. Gerdes stated that there was too roach traffic and it was too noisy for a residence. Mr. Jack Huber stated that he was interested in pmrchasing the house if it could be used for a real estate office. He feels it would Be an excellent site because of the heavy volume of traffic and it is surromud.~d by MR with some RB development across the street. The Planning Commission noted that the property abuts SR to the north with adtitional SR to the south - in Crystal. A single family residence is also located directly west of the lot in question. Mr. Don VoJta, 6019 West Broadway, objected to the proposed rezoni~g, He said he had bought his house based on the SR zoning and he wants it to stay th,~t way unless the entire group of homes along West ~roadway were ~ought by the real estate company. Mr. Norbert Rudy, ?408 Shirley Place, in Crystal, objected to any change in the zo.uing. Further discussion held. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ouimette, that the Planning Commissio~ recommend to the Council the rezoning from SR to L~, as requested under PI~ Case No. 70-88, be denied. N~tion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission -2- January 5, 1971 Minutes ~. P!a;~J_n~ Case. No .... 70-89. request from Ralph Zachman for a variance to allow outside storage without fencing at the Texaco Station, 7~0! Bass Lake Road, was considered by the Commission. Mr. Zachman appeared before the Commission regarding the matter. Mr. Zacl'~an wants to park rental trucks and trailers (EZ Haul). Mr. Zachman presently has a three foot fence along the Country Club and school property lines with a screening fence to the south of the station abutting the residential property. Mr. Zachman contended that .he had contacted the village office at an earlier date and had been told that he could have the rental truck operation; he then bonded for the '~Z Haul', operation. Upon questioning by the Commission, Mr. Zachman said he h~d permission from Texaco to continue the rental truck business, but Texaco would not pay for the fencing. The Commission advised Mr. Zachman that approximately a year ago all station owners or operators had been given a letter regarding rental and storage operations in connection with their filling stations, and said owners and operators had been invited to discuss the issue with the Planning Commission. Mr. Zachm. an said he had not received such a letter. Commissioner Ouimette questioned whether the second business use could be permitted under the vea~ma~ee provision, or' wh~ther it should be ~ndled by special use permit. The staff was requested to clarify which procedure is required. Motion by Sueker, second by McConnell, to table Planning Case No. 70-85 ~.-.~til the meeting of February 2, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. §. _P]~ff~J.n~ Case No.. 70r~O, request from Gene Pelshaw for a variance to pormlt outside storage without screening for a rental truck and %ratler oparation at the Texaco Station, ~201 lginnetka Avenue, was discussed b~.~iefly. Inasmuch as this is the same type of request handled under Pim~ming Case No. 70-89, Mr. Pelshaw was advised that it was the · om.mission,s intent to table his request. Motion by Sucker, Second by Oumette, to table Planning Case No. 70-90 until the meeting of February 2, 1971. Motion carried by voi~e vote, P!sm.uing Case No.,. 70-92. request from William Skorpak for a variance to permit parking of customer's trucks and rental trailers at the Car Haven Union 76 Station, 3601 Winnetka Avenue, was discussed. Mr.. Skorpak was present. It was pointed out to Mr. Skorpak that his request for variance differed from the two previously handled in that parking of customer,s trucks was being requested. Motion by Sueker, second by Ouimette, to table consideration of Plan- ning Case No. 70-92 until the meetin~ of February 2, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission -3- January 5, 1971 Minutes 6, Plannin~ Case. No,: 70-91. request for a variance from Russ Haverberg to allow the placing of an advertising sign within 15 feet of the front lot line of the car wash site located east of "Mr.. Steak" on 42nd Avenue, was heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Haverberg was at the meeting to discuss the variance.. The "Mr.. Steak" sign is set back 15 feet and the car wash sign is to line up with it. The proposed sign is 15 feet high, 12 feet wide and 3 feet in dept~ with a Standard Oil torch extending above an additional 3 feet, making a total height of 18 feet. Commissioner Ostlund asked the petitioner if it might be possible to hold up on the advertising sign since the Codes and Standards Committee is presently involved with revising the village code re- lating to signs. Mr. Haverberg stated that he must proceed with the sign now. Commissioner Sueker questioned the need for such a large sign and expressed concern with the car wash sign obstructing view of the "Mr. Steak" sign. Motion by Sucker, second by Ostlund,. that the Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council approval of variance to permit placing of the car wash sign within fifteen feet of the front lot line, with a further recommendation from the Planning Commission that the Council give serious thought to modifying of the sign so as to preclude obstructing view of the "Mr. Steak" sign. Motion carried by majority voice vote. 8. Plar~n.i.ng ..C. as_e.No. 70-.~, request from James Hamm~n to rezone the Property at 5615 Pennsylvania Avenue North from LB to GB to permit operation of a sports service shop, was heard. The petitioner was present to discuss the business use. The business would include skate sharpening and repairing, repairing of golf equipment, plus general repair of any sports equipment. Mr. Bsm~.nn proposes to remodel the building at an approximate cost of $ 15,0OO. Mr. Victor Fish, 5608 Pennsylvania, spoke in opposition to the re- zoning. His concern was ~ith future use of the property if it were zoned GB, that the shop as proposed by Mr. Hamann might create a noise problem and that additional traffic ~ould be created. Discussion held as to whether ample parking could be provided with the apartment owner to the north inquiring as to number of parking spaces to be provided.. Mr. H~m_~.nn said that if it is deemed neces- sary additional parking can be provided on the site. Motion by Sucker to table Planning Case No. 70-93 until February 2, 1971, to permit time for study to see if the proposed business could go in the LB zone as a permitted use. The motion was seconded Planning Commission -4- January 5, 1971 ~nutes by Bs~niskis and roll call vote was taken as follows: Vot~g in favor: Greenberg, RauCh, McConnell, Barniskis Voting against: Ohman, Ouimette, Ostlund, Sueker. Motion lost for lack of majority. Motion by ~,~mette, second by Ostlund, the Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council that a rezoning, in this case, is not necessary in our opinion and asking the Council to give consideration to granting a special use permit for retail sales and repair of sporting goods and equipment with such permit to be on an annual reviewal basis. Motion carried by voice vote. The Planning Commission advised Mr. Hamann that the site plan pre- sented was not complete enough to warrant consideration at this timej A new site plan must be presented for approval. The continued hearing on Planning Case...N.o.. 7.0r7~., request from M. C. Honsey for rezoning of the property on the northwest corner of Xylon and ~2nd Avenues from LB to GB, was held. The petitioner is proposing to construct a "Ch~mplin service station-convenience store" on the site. The Planning Commission Chairman noted that the request had previously been denied by the Commission, but, before the matter was considered by the Council, the plans had been changed so that the Council had referred the matte~ back to the Commission to reconsider on the merits of the revised proposal. ~_n~tes of the Land Use Committee meeting regarding this mather were re~d by Commissioner Barniskis. Commissioner Sueker stated that the L~ud Use Committee had also given consideration to the impact of ad- d~_tional traffic in a forty mile speed zone and to the developer's ¢~cr to very seriously consider finishing of the northern portion of the total site for parking, with the village to make use of the p~rking area until the lot was disposed of in some other manner. Mr. Howard Dahlgren, Midwest Plann~ and Research, represented the petitioner. Mr~ Dahlgren said that the petitioner is proposing a 1Lmited gas outlet and perhaps GB zoning should not be required. He said this is not a service station in the sense of servicing vehicles. Mr. Dahlgren then presented the revised site plan, land- scap~ug proposal and elevations for the proposed Champlin ~ilding.~ DiscussiOn held as to projected traffic count for 42nd Avenue, with Mr. Dahlgren giving this count at 30,000. He said that at the time the traffic reaches this volume, traffic signals will have to be installed at the intersection. Mr. Dahlgren further stated that, in his opinion, the ideal use ef the property in question would be to combine it with the civic center. Planniug Co~mission -5- January 5, 1971 Mdnutes In the interi~ period, a small inexpensive building, such as is proposed, should be constructed on the site. Mr. Dahlgren also said that the building would look like and fit into a residential district. He then asked the Commission if this business could be included as a special use in the LB zone. Mr. Peter J. Buratti, being present, advised the Commission that he was representing Champlin. The Pls~nning Commission Chairman read a letter which had been received from Mr. Kavl.~L, owner of the property to the east, stating that he is in favor of the proposal to rezone the northwest corner of Xylon and 42nd to GB and advising that no such use can be made of his property to the east, nor in the New Hope Shopping Center because of deed restrictions ~ A letter from Mr. Ivan S. Kerr, owner of the apartment to the west, restating his objections to the requested rezoning was read. ~. Kerr was pre~ent and referenced said letter. He called the Commission's attention to the petition objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Kerr further stated that he does not believe the subject property meets the criteria for rezoning~ Mr. Anderson, traffic planner with Midwest Planning and Research, and Mr. ~rattl assured the Planning Commission that the double yellow line can bo crossed by vehicles seeking ingress into a property. Mr. ~ratti told the Planning Commission that Champlin had been acquired by Union P~Lcific Railroad and, as a result, there had been certain policy changes. The policy now is to develop Ch~mplin stores as here proposed, ~..~_thout service bays~ Commissionor 0uimette pointed out that the Village Council had denied permission to other filling stations to sell milk from station sites. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ouimette, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council denial of the rezoning requested under Plan- ning Case No~ 70-70. Further discussion held. Commissioner Ouimette stated that the area is developing LB as zoned, and therefore there is no reason for changing the zoning. Motion was carried by majority voice vote~ (One vote in opposition. ) Planning Cs~ses Nos..~0-_75 and 70-76~ continued from December 1, 1970 meeting, wer~ considered. These requests are for rezoning of the Collier and Carpenter property located south of 42nd Avenue near CSAH #18. The property is currently zoned SR and the request is for GB zoning. Mr. William Rosen, Attorney for the petitioners, appeared at the meet- ing. Mr. Rosen said that the area has changed with 42nd Avenue being a four lane highway and CSAH #18 being developed as a super highway with a cloverleaf interchange. He also discussed the present zoning Planning Commission -6- January 5, 1971 Minutes of surrounding property including the "Four Seasons" development in Pl~nouth. Mr. Rosen stated that he had tried to get together with Mr. Malik of the Hope~od l~L~lls HomeownerAssociation on three different occasions, but each time something had come up to prevent the meeting. Mr. Rosen said that he is aware that the SR residents will object to business. He then suggested that the property in question could be deeded to "X" with a restriction in the deed as to gasoline filling stations. Mr. Rosen said that he thought the Commission would agree that SR is not the proper zoning for the Collier - Carpenter property, and he asked them to recommend to the Council as to what, in their estimation, is the proper zoning for the property - LB, RB or GB. ~. Rosen also stated that zoning is not done by referendum, that the property in question is ideal business property and that it is, at least, entitled to MR zoning since the property to the south is zoned MR. Commissioner Ouimette pointed out that the Commission is rightly concerned with traffic generation and flow from the PR property and this is also the main concern of the homeowners in the area. The Commission then inquired as to the plans for the property. Mr. Rosen said the petitioners want to devote the property to a commercial use such as a "Lil General" store or business offices. P~. Gary Grower of the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Association asked for the floor. He said he was speaking for the Association in place of Mr o Malik~ who was unable to attend. He stated that the Associa- tion's prime concern was the traffic that would come through the residential area from the property to the south. He questioned why the entire quadrant could not be developed SR. Discussion held by Commission members as to what the proper zoning sho~3~d be. Mr. Rosen again stated that the request was for GB (with restriction against service station) or, if it could not be G~ then the zoning should be RB. Further discussion held. Motion by Barniskis, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Village Council that the property in question (Cases 70-75 and 70-76) be rezoned from SR to MR. Discussion was again opened to the floor with Mr. Walfred Takkinen, ~57 Flag Avenue North, speaking in opposition to rezoning the CoLlier- Carpenter property to MR. Motion carried by voice vote with Rauch voting against. Planning Commission -7- January 5, 1971 Minutes 11. The continued hearing on Planning Case No. 70-87, request from Phillip Hirsch to rezone the property at the northeast corner of ~nd and OSAH # 18 from SR to MR, was heard. Mr. Barniskis read the minutes of the Land Use Committee meeting relating to the proposed rezoning. 0hair- man Rauch read a letter, submitted by Phillip Hirsch, asking that the name of Real Estate Development Company be included as a petitioner on the requests. Mr. Dale Larson, Attorney representing Standard Oil, was at the meeting, He gave a history of the property under consideration. The entire tract is 33 acres, with 26 acres to remain after taking for the interchange. Mr. Larson said that, with a clover leaf interchange being constructed, the property is no longer suitable for SR development. Mr. Howard Dahlgren, Midwest Planning and Research, representing the petitioners, spoke on problems resulting from the interchange, such as noise from the ramp. He said he does not know of any area cont~ to this type of interchange where SR has developed. Mr. Dahlgren then spoke on the projected traffic counts for the interchange and for Gettysburg and 12nd Avenues. Mr. Dahlgren pointed out that the traffic to be handled at the Boone and Winnetka intersections with 42nd Avenue will be 2 to 3 times as great as the traffic at Gettysburg and ~nd. Mr, Dahlgren said that 384 units are proposed, with a combination of town houses and multiples to be built. Mr. Don Lunzer, 4225 Decatur, read a .copy of the Cc~cil resolution had been adopted previously, denying, rezoning on the s~.bjoot property. Mr. Lunzer stated that there havebeen only two ch~u. gc.s tk~t he w~s a~are of since the last denial of the rezoning. The first cl~ange is that a ri~t turn can now be made at Gettysburg mud more SR has ~een built o ~rs. Joyce Morrison also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Further disc~$sion held. Motion by Gr~berg, s~cond by Sueker, to recomm.~nd to the ~illage.' ~ ...-. 0ouncil do~. ~uial of the rezc~, requested under P!~ug Case No. Moticn ~ ' c~rm-sd on voice vote, with Rauch and OuLmette voting against. 12. Mr. George Jc~.~uson appeare~ before the Commissicn to discuss the denial of his req~.~.est for change in planned unit development (for grade change on garages and the addition of an enclosed swimming pool, Pi~unin~ ~ase No. 70-79. ) Mr. John Briar, Architect for George Jo~mson, was also present. The Commission advised Mr. Johnson that the major objection to the request for change in the planned development related to the exterior materials proposed. ~uy exposed walls on the g~ro.ges ~.,st be of brick Planning Com=~ission -8- January 5, 1971 Minutes to match the apartment b ,uildiu~ and recreational build.~n~gs must conform as to the exterior finish. Mr. Johuson ,advised the Co~mission that he had another multiple develop- ment plar~uod for the abutting property and that the garage on the proposed development ~ould back up to the garage now under construction. The Commission ~d~sed Mr. Joh~nson that he would need additional rezoning and even if the rezoning was granted, there would still be open area be- tween the g~rages, Thns, brick would still be necessary for maintenance purposes. Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueke~ r~affiming the recommendation for denial fcr ch~..ge ~n pl~ze, ed ~nit development c~s requested under Plar~ Case No, ?O~TP~ a~,:i ~.~.ther rooo~£~ng that a t~au~-orary certificate Of occupancy b~ granted for the apartment building pendLug completion of garages. Motion carried by voice vote. Mr, George Jcl'~son then stated that he was with~avdmg his request and that that the matter need not go before the Council, NEW BUS~SS 13. The proposed snow removal ordinance was presented to the Planning Com- mission for revie~l~ and was referred to the Codes and Standards 0om- mittee for recommendation at the next Commission meetLug. 1~. Discussion held as to possible platting for the park proPerty lying on the east side of Boone Avenue, north of 32nd Average. The matter was referred to the Land Use Committee for study and recommendation thereon~ 15. Nom~uations for the office of Chairman of the Plar~ui~g Commission were opened. Nominations were as follows: Ouimette Ostlund Motion by Ostlund, second by Mc Connell, to cast an unanimous ballot for Oui~otte. Motion carried~ Nominations for the office of Vice Chairman were then opened with nomina- tions beLug as follows: Ost~.~nd. Motion by Greonberg, second by Ouimette, to cast an un~mimous ballot for Ostlund. Motion carried~ Nominations for the office of Secretary were opened with nom~uations being as follows: ehman. Motion ~ ~,~tt% s~cond by Sucker, to cast ~n u~n~ous ballot for 0~. Uo Mcti~ c~rried, ~nning Commission -9- January 5, 1971 I~mtes Planning Commission officers for 1971 were then declared to be as follows: Chairman Neil Ouimette Vice-Chairman Dennis Ostlund Secretary Mel Ohman Appointment of Commission committees was held over for the next meet- ing. The Codes and Standards Committee said they had nothing new to report. 17, The Land Use Committee had previously submitted minutes of Committee meetings.~ 18, The Council minutes of the meeting of December 14th and December 28th were reviewed.. 19. MotiOn by On~mette, second by Sueker, to approve the Planning Commission. minutes of the meeting of December 1, 1970, as submitted. Motion carried by voice vote. 20° Chairman Rauch said that copies of applications for Planning Commission membership had been distributed to the commissioners. This matter is to be considered at the next meeting. 21. M~tion by Greenberg,.. second by McConnel~ and carried to adjourn the meeting 'at~, 1:30' a. m.. Respectfully submitted Bet~y Pouliot Acting Secretary MEETING REPORT LAND USE COMMITTEE - 17 December 1970 SUBJECT: Case 70-~7 (Hirsch Rezoning 42nd & 18) ATTENDEES: Plannin~ Commission Members Walter Barniskis Ray Rausch Wayne S~ker Mel Ohman Proponents Philip Hirsch - Proponent David Kirsch - Midwest Planning Dick Hirsch - Developer Jim Dorsey - Hober Associates - Attorney Dale Larson - Standard Oil - Present Owner Tom Riesdorf - Hirsch's Attorney Public Larry Harrison 9009 - 46th Ave. Ron Tomsyck 4501 Flag Marshall Besikof 4616 Flag Frank Dimberio 4526 Flag Ted Armstrong 9333 - 45th (Abuts property line) Object of Meetin~ Obtain information for consideration by Planning Commission. (No staff report on Case). Parcel under consideration is entire quadrant of NE corner 42& 18. This includes the corner parcel at Gettysburg and 42nd. Hirsch has some kind of option on this piece. The Rezoning request is for entire parcel to multiple. Acreage: Approximately 27 acres with about 24 usable, discounting about 3 acres for the low water area in N.E. corner of parcel. Hirsch is going for Planned Unit Development. He expressed no possibility of lower density due to financial reasons. Traffic: It is now the opinion of Dale Larson (Standard Oil) that the change for Gettysburg access removed the obstacle which pre- vented the rezoning before. This was confirmed by other Hirsch people. Observations 1) Hirsch is asking for only one access to property (on Gettysburg). A complex as large as the one proposed should have at least two, maybe more, to be adequate for safety reasons. Location of property dictates that altermate access would vent traffic to SR area due North. 2) Hirsch wants all or nothing. He's adament about high density multiple -- no mix or blended development to be compatible with the existing SR abutting now. 3) Density of MR within 1 mile of proposed unit (1 mile radius) is at least 1000 to 2000 units. Actual count could be arrived at by staff if desired. 4) Case appears to resolve itself to the following item: Has anything changed to justify the rezoming. Hirsch's contention is that there is~ with the removal of the "No Access" situation at Gettysburg. The degree of this change and its total affect are ours to consider. I do not believe that this is the only consideration especially due to the size of the property and the momentum that development of this property would generate for additional access. Limiting access only to Gettysburg with one exit at the SE corner of the property would be difficult to cQntrol. (Recall the MR Development at 56th and Wisconsin, which had only one access -- they got two because of pressure and other reasons). 5) Present traffic count on 42nd is as follows: 1969 ~/~. East of 18 7,500/day West of 18 5,950/day 1970 Unadjusted East of 18 ll,877/day (Jan) 8,016/day (Sept) West of 18 7,341/day (Sept) 7,376/day (Oct) 1985 Projections East of 18 18,000/day West of 18 18,000/day This data is a 7-day-week number. Traffic entering 42nd now at any intersection is difficult to say the least. The Gettysburg corner is approximately 500 to 750 feet from the N.E. mcc~ss ramp to 18. Speed limit is 45 mph now with acceleration for entering 18 boun~ to speed the traffic up. Any future light would undoubtedly be a long green on 42nd and much slower for Gettysburg. Single access apartment traffic has got to back up on Gettysburg. A second access would help -- would probably be re- quired. Walter A. Barniskis Chairman LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT LAND USE COMMITTEE - 29 December 1970 SUBJECT: Case 70-70 (Honsey Rezoning 42nd & Xylon) ATTENDEES: Planning Commission Members Walter Barniskis Ray Rausch Wayne S~er Mel Ohman proponents Peter Buratti - Realtorr Howard Dahlgren - Planner Duane Leis:inger - Planner Object of Meeting Allow H. Dahlgren to make a presentation on a new approach to the development which is different than first presentation. Parcel under consideration is at corner of 42nd and Xylon, running back to swimming pool parking lot (North) and (West) to apartments. The single-family home will go if the rezoning is approved. Acreage Approximately 1.3 acres with the drawings showing .6 acres devel- oped for station and .7 acres undeveloped on North side. Observations 1) H. Dahlgren presented the view that the original intent of the Limited Business Zoning has been satisfied by the apartment development. Consequently, rezoning of this parcel is logical and does not violate the original plan since this plan's intent has been satisfied. 2) A new site plan is before us. It is attractive! Champlin Oil will operate the station. According to P. Buratti, they will market thirteen (13) items besides gas and oil. They will per- form no service -- no bays are shown. A rezoning to G.B. would allow any other station to build whatever they want. - 2 - There are six (6) service stations on 62nd now -- Phillips 66, Skelley, Mileage DS, APCO, Mob£1 and Texaco. Also within one block is the new Superette-Ice Cream Store. Real need is questionable. 4) The developers assure that access on the West side to the Pool would be provided which would get the pedestrian traffic away from the station traffic. 5) A station of the~::type presented would have little or no impact on the surrounding land use because of existing development or zoning sufficiently screens the area from SR. 6) Case resolves itself to the following: Has the present LB use changed for this parcel sufficiently to allow ~~, Problem - What do we do with the ~z7 acres of undeveloped land left over. A possible solution would be to allow rezoning of only ,~ acres for station and leave.7 acres for LB use.''(Doctors, Dentist Office, etc') The developer has indicated he would like to sell the .7 acres to the city for parking at the pool. At last report, P. Lehman, Park Director, says we don't need additional parking with the new paved lot at Village Hall now available. Walter Barniskis, ChaErman LAND USE COMMITTEE Planning Commission - 1 - January 19, 1971 Minutes 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, A2~O1 Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, January 18, 1971. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimette at 8:00 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Greenberg, McConnell, Ohman, Ostlund, Ouimette, Rauch, Sueker. Absent: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings scheduled. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. Discussion was held by the Commission on the method of selection to fill the two vacancies. Chairman Ouimette noted that twelve resumes had been submitted to the Commission for consideration. Motion by Rauch, second by Sueker, to review the applications and invite an acceptable number of the applicants to appear before the Commission to be interviewed. Motion carried by majority voice vote. The Commission reviewed each of the resumes. Motion by Greenberg, second by Ostlund, to direct the Village Manager to invite the following applicants to appear before the Planning Commission at the February 2, 1971 meeting: Lawrence ~Teinzetl, Robert Bonner, Scott Meyer, Gary Hamre, Rodney Pakonen, John Dahlmeier, Merlyn Brinkman. Motion carried by voice vote. Chairman Ouimette noted that the following Commissioners were ap- pointed to the Land Use Committee: Barniskis (Chairman), Ohman and Rauch; and that the members of the Codes and Standards Committee would be: Ostlund (Chairman), Greenberg and Sueker. Chairman Ouimette stated that because of the need for the Planning Commission to study such areas as the redevelopment of New Hope in lO - 15 years and to determine future uses for older development adjacent to ~2nd, east of Winnetka, that a new Committee was to be formed consisting of Commissioner McConnell and the two new members that would be appointed in the near future. Ouimette said that if any other member wishes to assist the Committee, to be known as the Future Planning Development and Zoning Committee, that such assistance would be useful and that he planned to work closely with the Committee. Ostlund suggested that future development is a concern of the Land Use Committee. Sueker stated that new members should work on existing Committees and that he would suggest that members with longer service should be appointed to the new Committee. Planning Commission - 2 - January 19, 1971 Minutes Greenberg noted that certain studies that the new Committee might undertake would cause problems because the property owners might refer to such studies in presenting cases before the Planning Com- mission. Barniskis suggested that Chairman Ouimette would provide enough direction in the work of the Committee that this would not be a problem. Ouimette read from the Planning Commission Charter Whichs%ated that the Planning Commission should be .doing future planning as is pro- posed for this Committee. NEW BUSINESS 5. The Codes and Standards Committee reported that a meeting had been held on January 18th with the Assistant Village Attorney, Village Manager and service station operators regarding outside storage at Village service stations. Chairman Ostlund stated that Bob Miller, Assistant Village Attorney, discussed a number of problems associated with the existing ordinance provisions and that revisions should be recommended by the Codes and Standards Committee. Ostlund asked for direction from the Planning Commission on whether different standards should be applied to service stations depending on adjacent land uses. Barniskis noted that adjacent zoning and parking areas should be considered in preparing revisions to the existing ordinance. Chairman Ouimette stated the Codes and Standards Committee should prepare revisions for review by the Planning Commission and that the above considerations be used. Ostlund stated that the Snow Removal Ordinance had been studied by the Codes and Standards Committee and that the time limit for snow removal should be discussed by the Planning Commission. Greenberg suggested that it should be set so that it has practical application, Ouimette said that the time limit must be reasonable so that it can be enforced if a public hazard exists. Motion by Ostlund, second by Barniskis, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council that the snow removal ordinance be approved with a 24 hour time limit. Motion carried by voice vote. Ostlund reported that the Codes and Standards Committee had received 8 - l0 sign ordinances for area communities and that these will be studied to de~ermine the form of the revised sign ordinance. He reported that this ordinance should be ready for review by the Planning Commission in two months. Barniskis suggested that the newspapers should be encouraged to start a campaign that would feature undesirable signs that exist in New Hope. Planning Commission - 3 - January 197 1971 Minutes 6, Barniskis submitted a written report to the Planning Commission on the platting of the park property east of Boone between 32nd and 33rd Avenues (see attached). Discussion followed on the platting require- ments of the Village Code on minimum lot sizes and the quality of the soil existing on the subject property. Barniskis noted the rea- sons discussed in his report for recommending that the property be platted in five parcels as shown in Figure I of his report. He noted that this would provide maximum flexibility for the developer to build homes that are to the standards of most residences in New Hope. Motion by Rauch, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Village Council that the park property east of Boone between 32nd and 33rd Avenues North be platted in five lots as shown on Figure I of the Land Use Committee report. Motion carried by voice vote. Barniskis presented a written report on the Brooklyn Park Comprehensive Development Plan (see attached). He noted that the terms used to describe the development planned for Community E (an area north of 63rd Avenue, east of County Highway 18, west of Highway 52, and south of I-9&) were unclear and needed clarification. Als% he stated that Community E was to have a number of commercial establishments at 63rd Avenue and Boone and that this development would result in increased traffic movements on the portion of Boone Avenue in New Hope. BarniSkis noted that storm sewer and sanitary sewer plans for Com- munity E were not discussed in the Development Plan. Ostlund questioned the plans for 63rd Avenue and Boone Avenue because an ice arena had been planned for this location. Barniskis said that the plan states that only in Community E that the plan for housing density also reflects housing type intended. The Village Manager explained that the Metro Council had scheduled a hearing on the Development Plan for January 21, 1971 at 3:15 p.m. Motion by Barniskis, second by Ohman, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council that New Hope be represented at the Metro Council hearing on the Brooklyn Park Comprehensive Plan to express those objections outlined in the Land Use Committee report and those discussed by the Planning Commission. Motion carried by voice vote. 7. The Village Council minutes of the meeting of January ll, 1971 were reviewed. 8. Motion by Sueker~ second by Barniskis, to approve the Planning Com- mission minutes of the meeting of January 5, 1971, as submitted. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 4 - January 15, 1971 Minutes Motion by Greenberg, second by McConnell, and carried to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, R. Michael Amyx Recording Secretary SUBJECT: PLOTTING OF VACANT PARK LAND EAST OF BOONE BETWEEN 32ND AND 33RD AVENUES NORTH. ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter to W. Barniskis from Village Clerk-l/7/71. B. Figure I. C. Figure II. BACKGROUND: Property in question consists of two parcels; PARCEL "A" 303.68' on Boone by 120' deep, and PARCEL "B" 2&O. 02' on Boone by 120' deep. PARCEL "A" - property immediately to East is in Crystal. Presently platted into four lots. These four lots are all 125 feet in depth and 91.&6 feet, 75.0 feet, 68.6 frontage on Aquila Avenue North, respectively North to South, between 32nd Avenue North and 32nd Place. PARCEL "B" - property immediately to East is also in Crystal. Platted into 2 abutting lots approximately 120 feet long with 75 foot frontage. B~tween 32nd Place and 33rd Avenue North. OBSERVATIONS: PARCEL "A" - the development in Crystal on the previously mentioned four abutting lots is in my opinion extr~emely limited based upon recent develop- ment in New Hope. 75 - foot frontage lots are really too small for conventional dwellings with normal size double' garages unless the garages are detached~ and behind the homes. Present style of development is to attach double garages (a homeowner desire). Using this basic criteria of maximum home develop- ment then created the sample plat of PARCEL "A" in Figure I. This plat would allow after adjustment for the 30' to 50' foot setback on Boone and the 20' requirement on both corner lots on the East- West streets a usable lot with variation for home style that would be equal to the surround- ing development in New Hope. No variances would be required, I believe, if this or similar platting is adhered to. By contrast, Figure II shows a probable platting of the parcel if development were to be com- patible with the Crystal Development to the Ea'ste Most of these homes are on 75 x 120 foot lots with unattached garages. -2- PARCEL "B" - the development in Crystal is in single level rambler style immediately abutting. I do not have a strong argument for the proposed plat- ting as shown in Figure Io This large lot would allow the property to be developed either way; facing North - South, or East - West. If North - South, then the home style would probably be large rambler. If East - West, it could be split level. By contrast, Figure II would force the develop- ment to be East - West and again, small lots. Same argument as for PARCEL "A". RECOMMENDATIONS: I reco~end to the Planning Co~ission and Council that the subject property be platted as shown in Figure I, or a similar lot allocation. This platting would provide the maximum flexibility for the developer/homeowner to build a home that is to the standards that we know and expect in New Hope in the present day and forseeable future. W&lter A. Barniskis, Chairman LAND USE COMMITTEE New Hope Planning Commission ¢ .12,0 0 0 0 33~-,L'Aye il, Sub.~ect: Report/Recow~endations on Brooklyn Park Comprehensive · Development .Plan. Results/Action: ! have reco~aended to Village Manager that New .Hope be allc~d to present her viewpoints to the ~rooklyn ParkF~etro hearing on the subject ~~_~: ! based ~ recommendation on several factors contained withi~ the plan which ! believe will have a direct affect ca New Hope.' The Plan is developed around planning ccaeamities. The cae ab~t- ting New Tope is Planning 'Cc~e~nity E. See Figare l, The follo~ state,eat generally describes Planning Cceea~ity E. · P~m,etir~ .Co .~eamity E ~t is anticipated that this eo~aunity, will expand its r~eatial growth West of Boone Avenne to acco~aodate a la~ge~ thereby supporting the two elementary schools within this ~a~ity. This area ts somewhat isolated frc~ the ~Uder of the City by freeways and the industrial laud ~ectl~ to the North of this area. In -~ respects, the actual orieatatica of this a~ea is not to Brooklyn Park, But facilities in both Cr3~tal sad Brook~ Center. This is especially true in regards to shopping. This community's general character has been established by the existing residential development and it is the infest of the. Flau to further expand the residential co~aitaemt. Develol~aent Proposals for this Commm-~ty ~hich ! felt ~ pact New Hope are as follows: Cc~unitF E... Develo~aent Pro~osa~. s :~ 1. As p~eviously stated, it is the intent of the pXau to ocaeait the entire community to residential use and those u~ea support of that resideatial function. Oaly two e~eptiom to this intent should be permitted: .a. Retention of the C~neral Business area at the inte~- section 63rd Avenue North and U.S. ~2. b. The development of office and/or regional facilities at the intersection of ~oc~e Avenue and Interstate 2. The designation of a housing density in other pa~ts of the plan does not .necessarily reflect the housing type, hce~ver,. in this co~anity the designation of the plan for housing density also reflects the housing type i~tende~. 3. A ~aJor portion of the area l~Ang North~st of the inter- section of Boone Avenue and 63rd Arenas North is px~p~ed to take advantage of the terrain to encourage high q~ality single family housing. This is the o~lv ax~a 'in the City in ~xich such a goal could be accc~liahed with relative surety that the housing developed in the ar~a ~d be high quality. ~. A high density hub should be developed at the intersection of 63rd Avenue North and Boone. The neighborhood co~aercial center is prop~, sed in the South~st corner. The area South of 63rd lying between County Road 18 and Bo~ne Avenue should be developed to to~nhouse in respect to the single fa~ development in New Hope to .the South. 7. The interc, hange at $3rd and. County Road 18 will provide access to this neighborhood and will also serve aa one of the major access points to the industrial area North of ~ter~ta%e 9~. For this reason, 63~d Avenue North frc~ County Road 1~ . to Boone and Boone Avenue South ~ be heavily traveled. Therefore, both of these facilities should be dele ~1~ at a high vol~ae standard of sufficient right-of-way and access control to accommodate the movement of traffic. In reviewing the reeaainder of their plan, it ~aa o~served that high density maltiple use ~as contemplated in the entire section bounded by County Road 18 - Boone - 62nd Aveeme. Ad- ditional multiple is sho~n in N.W. Quadrant of Bo~ne a~d $3rd Avenue. The only new single family contemplated that is al- ready not there is ~ in Proposal 3. Proposal 2, I believe, is the key. It s~ates that ~ in this cc~m~ity -- the plan for housing density also--sets housing type intendS. Proposal ~. High density hub -- cc~nercial development which ~ accelerate the problem of Boone Avenue ~n New Hope. Proposal 7 states that Boone ~.11 be heavily traveled as a result of proposed development. Conclusion: The proposed development will concentrate hi-density devet-op~er~ into an area that will have dr$~atic effects on the usage of ~oo~e. · The Meadow Lake School at 62nd and Boone further complicates traffic consideration. The plan states in another section eon- cerning m~ltiple family housing: "The density of such housing requires that the supportive systems such as thoroughfares, se~er capacity, parks, etc. be developed to a higher level. Also, I believe that a clear understanding of the present a~d future zoning of the property in Plar~tng Co~muuity E should Be obtained prior to the hearing so that detail analysis of New . Hope's position or viewpoint can be made..The .present plan does not have a clear definition of the proposed uses except in a general way. Walter A. Barniakis, Chair~a~ IAND U~E COMMITTEE New Hope Pl~_~uing' C~ssion -2- Planning Commission - i - February 2, 1971 Minutes 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, ~O1 Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, February 2, 1971. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimette. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Greenberg, McConnell, Ohman, Ostlund, Ouimette, Rauch, Sueker. Absent: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. The first item on the agenda was p1..ann.inE Case No. 7ltl, request from B. James Benson for a variance to allow outside storage of a rubbish truck at the Union "76" station at 5550 Winnetka Avenue North. The Village Manager advised the Commission that, on the advise of Com- missioner Ostlund, he had told Mr. Benson that his request would be tabled until March 2, 1971, pending recommendation from the Codes and Standards Committee relating to storage of vehicles at filling station sites. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ohmar~ to table Planning Case No. 71-1 until the meeting of March 2, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote, Mr. John Bauer, 5539 Winnetka Avenue, was at the meeting in regard to Planning Case No. 71-1, He asked the Commission whether he would be notified when the matter again comes before the Commission. Mr. Bauer was advised to check with the village office to make sure that the matter was up for consideration on March 2, 1971. 4. The Village Manager advised the Planning Commission that the request for waiver of Platting Ordinance from Travis Smith, Planning Case No. .71.r2, had been withdrawn. 5. Planni.ng Case NO. 71-3, request from Kenny Benson for approval of site plan for an industrial building to be located north of Ware Manufacturing, was heard. Mr. Kenny Benson presented the proposed site plan. He said a 25,000 square foot building is to be con- structed for Medko Stamping. Parking requirements were reviewed with Mr. Benson stating that the code called for 33 spaces with the plans showing 56 spaces to be blacktopped at this time. There is room for a total of 86 spaces. The Planning Commission noted that they did not have a staff report on the proposed site plan. Mr. Kenny Benson assured the Planning Commission that all code requirements were being met. Planning Commission - 2 - February 2, 1971 Minutes Motion by Sueker, second by McConnel~ to recommend to the Village Council that the site plan for Medko Stamping building be approved subject to verification by the Village Manager that all codes are being met. Motion carried by voice vote. Mr. Benson advised the Commission that he would be in with a request for division of the site now under consideration, but that the con- templated division had been considered as the site plan for Medko was prepared. 6, Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, to table Planninz Cases N.os. 7, ?0r8.~,..70-90 and 70-92 until the meeting of March 2, 1971, these and Planning Cases all relating to storage at filling station sites. 8. Motion carried by voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to be handled. NEW BUSINESS 9. The following applicants for Planning Commissioner appeared: Mr. Scott D. Meyer 4689 Gettysburg Avenue North Mr. Lawrence Weinzetl 8524 - 49th Avenue North Mr. Merlyn Brinkman 4930 Zealand Avenue North Mr. Robert Bonner 3830 Boone Avenue North Mr. John H. Dahlmeier 3501 Ensign Avenue North Chairman Ouimette announced that a letter had been received from Mr. Gary Hamre withdrawing his application and that Mr. R. Rodney Pakonen was unable to attend the meeting this evening. The applicants were interviewed by the Commission. 10. Chairm_~.n Ostlund of the Codes and Standards Committee reported that his committee had met and discussed the following: a. Compiling codes relating to service stations so as to consolidate into one section. b. Criteria for trailer rental at service stations. 1. Area requirement per trailer 2. Screening requirements 3. Trailer parking and ordinance requirements Inspection requirements 5. Licensing requirements c. Whether truck rental should be permitted from service station sites~ Commlssioner Ostlund stated that he feels the requirements for trailer and truck rental can be ready before the first meeting of March. The sign ordinance is to be reviewed following completion of service station requirements~ Planning Commission - 3 - February 2, 1971 Minutes ll. Mr. Barniskis, Chairman of Land Use Committee, said that there had been no formal committee meeting. He asked the Commission for direction as to problem of locating a site for storage of damage vehicles. Discussion held as to the possibility of locating the car storage out- side of the Village. The Village Manager advised the Commission that the storage problem relates to just four or five cars at a time and he felt this amount of space could be made available at the Public Works site. The matter was held in abeyance with the Village Manager to keep the Planning, Commission advised as to how the contract for towing of damaged vehicles is progressing. Discussion held as to possible development of the corners at 36th and CSAH ~18. 12. Discussion held as to the appointment of a liaison member to the Park Commission. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to recommend that the Planning Commission have a liaison member to the Park Commission, Planning Commission members to serve on a rotating basis for a period of four months with the appointment to be made by the Chairman of the Planning Comm~_ssion. Motion carried by voice vote. 13. The minutes of the Council meeting of January 25, 1971 were reviewed. 1~, Motion by Barniskis, second by McConnell, approving the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 1971, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. 15. Chairman Ouimette requested that the Planning Commission hear two cases at the meeting of February 16, 1971. The Commission agreed, 16. The Village Manager reported on status of directional signs for the Village Hall. 17. Discussion held as to recommendation to the Council for appointees to the Planning Commission. Balloting was conducted to determine which two applicants should be recommended to the Council for appointment. The recording secretary was then instructed to let the minutes show that Mr. Scott Meyer and Mr. Robert Bonnet were recommended to the Council for appointment to the Planning Commission. 18, Motion by Sueker, second by Greenberg, and carried to adjourn the meeting at 10:~O p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission - I - February 16, 1971 Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, February 16, 1971, at 8~00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimette. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present~ Barniskis, McConnell, Ohman, Ostlund, Ouimette, Rauch, Sueker, Meyer and Bonner. Absent~ Greenberg (Business obligations). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. The Village Clerk-Treasurer administered the Oath of Office to new Commissioners Meyer and Bonner. The new members were then seated. 4. Planning Case No. 7!~44 request from Edward W. Dooley for variances in front and rear yard~setbacks on the lot at 81t0 - 60 I/2 Avenue North, was heard. Mr. Dooley appeared before the Commission. He is proposing to build a single family residence with attached garage to come within 25 feet of the front lot line and within 27 feet of the rear lot line. The lot is on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Dooley stated that he had been requested at the time of platting to donate ten feet of this lot to the village for use in connection with the sliding hill at Dorothy Mary Park. Question was raised as to whether any hardship necessitated the granting of the variance. Chairman Ouimette pointed out that no one was really effected by this variance inasmuch as it backs up to the park. Commissioner Sueker said that the sliding hill is used in the winter time when people do not customarily use their back yards and the reverse condition exists during the summer months. Commissioner Sueker also stated that since Mr. Dooley had given the ten feet at the request of the village this variance deserves consideration. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ohman, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the variances as requested under Planning Case No. 71-4. Motion carried by voice vote. 5. Planning Case No.~ 71r~, request from Phillip Hirsch for rezoning fr~m SR to MR of the property at the northeast quadrant of 42nd and CSAH #18, was heard by the Commission. Mr. Hirsch stated that if the rezoning is granted he intends to build townhouses and sell the units to individual owners. He presented a drawing of the site showing location of buildings thereon. Planning Commission - 2 - February 16, 1971 Minutes He said he had retained Midwest Planning to make study of the traffic at Cettysburg and 42nd and Midwest Planning has stated that the intersection can handle the traffic. Mr. Hirsch feels there is a need for this type of housing. The units will sell for approximately $25,000. The plan provides for 185 units. Mr. Hirsch said the exterior treatment of the buildings would be handled to make them look as much as possible like single family residences. The buildings will be no more than two stories high. Generous green areas would be provided and the ponding area would be developed. Ten percent of the units would be one bedroom, sixty percent would be two bedroom units and the other thirty percent would be three bedroom units. The higher tax return from this type of development was cited by Mr. Hirsch. Mr. Hirsch then introduced Mr. Ed Bell of Miller and Melby, this being the firm he had retained for doing the site plan. Commissioner Bonner pointed out that a planned unit development had not been presented for consideration. The only matter before the Commission was rezoning from SR to MR. Discussion held as to maintenance of the general area of the com- plex after sale of the individual units. Mr. Hirsch advised that this would be handled by an organization formed for such purpose. Question was raised as to when the stop light at Gettysburg and 42nd would actually be installed. Commissioner Bonner said that the underground wiring was ~*o be installed with the improvement of CSAH 18 and 9 interchange with the signal itself to be installed at a much later date. Mr. Hirsch then stated that Don Lawler of the Highway Department had told him that the lights would be installed when they were found to be necessary. Further discussion held as to antrance to the property and ad- visability of ordinance revision to include townhouses versus con- trol through the planned development concept. Mr. Don Lunzer, 4225 Decatur Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. He called attention to the petition which was on file with the village objecting to this rezoning. He said the referenced petition was signed by 129 or 130 persons, about 100% of the neighborhood. Mr. Lunzer stated that the criteria for re- zoning had not been met, too much traffic would be generated by the townhouse development and he feels there are builders who would develop the site for single family residences. Planning Commission - 3 - February 16, 1971 Minutes Mr. Ken Craven, 9315 - 45th Avenue North, objected to the rezoning. He stated that he had purchased his property relying on the zoning of SR. Mr. Craven also spoke on problem with upkeep of townhouses based on his knowledge of townhouses in California. Mr. Ted Armstrong, 9333 - 45th Avenue North, spoke in oppositlon to the rezoning and questioned what grounds could be used for re- versing the previous decision to deny rezoning of the same property. Mr. Lloyd Wasnick, 9029 - 46th Avenue North, spoke against the re- zoning. Mr. Hirsch asked for some direction from the Planning Commission. It was suggested that some single family dwellings should be considered for the northerly portion of the property. Mr. Hirsch said this might be possible but that he does want to have town- houses abutting the proposed pond. Following further discussion motion was made by Bonner, second by Barniskis, to deny the rezoning as requested under Planning Case No. 71-5. Motion carried by majority voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Discussion held as to appointment of liaison member to the Park Commission. The Village Manager informed the Commission that the Council felt that no Council action was required but they thought the liaison member was a good idea. Chairman Ouimette then appointed Mr~ Denny Ostlund to serve as the liaison member to the Park Commission. Mr. Walt Barniskis is to serve the second three month period. 7. The Village Manager advised the Planning Commission that he had at- tended the'Metro Council hearing relating to the Brooklyn Park comprehensive plan. The plan was approved by the Metro Council, subject to questions still remaining on sanitary sewer facilities. 8. The proposed ordinance relating to change in zoning code text was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Village Manager advised that a public hearing must be held if the Commission is interested in the proposed revision. The proposed ordinance was then referred to the Codes and Standards Committee with the suggestion that they get together with the Village Attorney to discuss the matter. Plannlng Commission - 4 - February 16, 1971 M inutes 9. The report of the Codes and Standards Committee was given by Com- missioner Ostlund. The Committee presented the following con- siderations for service station ordinance: !. All provisions for service stations to be pulled into one section, including but not limited to 4.61 (2), 4.68 (8), 4.92 (4 and 5), 4.200, 4.63 2. Rental-recommended limiting to service stations and Committee recommended following: (trailers only) A. Criteria for rental should include: I. area requirement 3. screening (size) 2. location on premises 4. licensing and inspection 3. Self propelled rental--(trucks) Need legal opinion whether truck rental and storage of same would allow rental of space to store contractor's trucks. A. Possible control of truck rental and divergence of opinions on Committee I. Daily permit to limit permanent rental of trucks with appropriate fencing and 2 A above 2. Allowance of permanent rental of trucks with control per above Discussion held with the entire Commission as to the above listed considerations for control of service stations. The Codes and Standards Committee is to set up a meeting with the filling station operators to discuss these matters. I0. Mr. Barniskis said there was no report from the Land Use Committee other than he had attended a Crystal Planning Commission meeting regarding rezoning of Pazandak property which abuts New Hope and had spoken against the rezonlng. II. The Council minutes of the meeting of February 8, 1971 were re- viewed by the Commission. 12. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to approve the Commission minutes of the meeting of February 2, 1971, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 5 - February 16, Ig?l Minutes 13. Additional comments and requests from citizens, commissioners and staff members were heard at this time. Discussion held as to feasibility of changing zoning code to pro- vide that setbacks be in accordance with existing homes on the street. The concensus was that each variance should be looked at on an individual basis. The Planning Commission members expressed the opinion that action should be taken to assure that the stop light at Boone and 42nd be installed as soon as possible. Discussion held as to the possibility of lowering the speed limit on 42nd Avenue. Motion by Bonner, second by Sueker, that the Planning Commission go on record to urge the Village Council to install adequate stop signs and cross walks around playgrounds, recreational areas and schools in the village. Motion carried by voice vote. 14. There were no announcements. 15. Motion by Barniskis, second by Rauch, to adjourn the meeting at IO:55 p.m. Motion carried by voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Bot ¢uliot, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - March 2, 1971 Minutes !. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, March 2, 1971, at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimetteo 2. Roll call was taken as follows~ Present~ Barniskis, McConnell, Ohman, Ostlund, Ouimette, Sueker, Meyer. Absent: Bonner (work obligation), Greenberg (vacation~ and Rauch. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 71-6, request from Kenny Benson for waiver of Platting Ordinance to permit separation of a 205 foot lot with frontage on Quebec from an 11.6 acre tract located between the MN&$ tracks and Quebec Avenue and lying north of 45th Avenue N~rth extended, was heard. Mr. Benson appeared at the meeting to make the presentation. The depth of the ~proposed lot is 310 feet or the depth of the large parcel. It was noted that site plan for a building on this size lot had previously received approval by the Planning Commission. Motion by~Sueker, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance as requested under Planning Case No. 71-6. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 71-7, request from Wong Investment to rezone the p~operty at the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and Winpark Drive from LI to GB and RB for the purposes of constructing a ser- vice station with offices, restaurant, movie theater and rental space, was heard. Mr. James Speckman, Associated Architects, St. Paul, made the presentation for the petitioners. The proposed GB or filling station site is 150 feet by 150 feet. The balance the tract for which RB zoning is requested is 106,476 square feet. The Architect presented a tentative layout of the site. The theater is of prototypal design and the restaurant is to be of con- temporary design with a Chinese motif. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Levy, of the Zodiak theater group, were also the meeting. Mr. Carlson said the theater is to seat 350 people and is of the neighborhood variety. The building would be taste- fully designed to blend in with the neighborhood surroundings. The Planning Commission Chairman pointed out that the request before the Commission was for rezoning. He advised the proponents that their presentation should be directed toward justification for zoning, in accordance with established rezoning criteria, rather than proposed site and building plans. Planning Commission - 2 - March 2, 1971 Minutes Mr. Speckman stated that Wongs have owned the property for ! I/2 years and this is the only type development that has been willing to go into the property. Mr. Speckman said the owners had made efforts to develop industrially with no results. Commissioner Barniskis asked whether the owners had contacted the Industrial Commission relative to the development of the property in question. Mr. Speckman then asked that the matter be tabled to give the pro- ponents the opportunity to give some further thought to their presentation for rezoning. Discussion was then opened to the floor. Mr. Frank Gusmich, Crystal resident, expressed concern with traffic problems and loitering if the property were to be rezoned. He asked that~the property remain as currently zoned. Mr. Ron Olson, Crystal resident, said that New Hope Shopping Center and the Midland Center amply serve the commercial requirements for the area. He thought rezoning as proposed would add a loitering and traffic problem to the area and result in a decrease in residential property value. Mr. David Hill, 35th and Utah, spoke in opposition to the rezontng. Mr. O. J. Bronstad, 3411 Winnetka Avenie, asked that the ~zoning remain as is. Mrs. Marlys Fitermann, 3400 Utah Avenue, objected to the rezonlng, being concerned with traffic impact on the safety of the young children in the area. Further discussion held as to tabling the matter to permit the petitioners to give more thought to their presentation. Motion by Barniskis, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Village Council that the request for rezoning from Wong Investment Co., Planning Case No. 71-7, be denied and that the Industrial Com- mission be asked to study the site in question. Roll call vote was taken on the question, as follows: Yes: Barniskis, Sueker, Meyer, Ouimette. No: Ostlund, Ohman, McConnell. Motion carried. (Denial recommended). Planning Commission - 3 - March 2, 1971 Mi nutes 5. Planning Case No. 71-8, request for rezoning of the property lying west of Louisiana Avenue at 30th Avenue from L! to MR was discussed. Messrs. McFetridge and Baldwin presented the case. Mr. Baldwin said they had worked with the Industrial Commission on several occasions. The property had been zoned LI since 1960 and it had not developed with such zoning. The property is bounded by the railroad on the west and Louisiana Avenue on the east. Mr. Baldwin advised that the Crystal Council had turned down the upgrading of Louisiana to an industrial street. He further stated that the property is physically located to invite industri~al development. It is not a good site for a sophisicated industry. Problems with the topography of the land and the cost of industrial development were cited. The proponents stated that the land terrain was suited for MR development, that Crystal could service the property with sanitary sewer and that the Medicine Lake Road could and would be improved to handle increased traffic when the traffic situation called for the improvement. MR development of neighboring property in Crystal was sited. The proposed multiple development is to be a $7,000,000 project consisting of 480 units with development to be over three to five years. The Commission inquired as to why Mr. McFetridge had not presented a planned unit development along with his rezoning request. Mr. McFetridge stated that he had presented a planned unit development last August and the same development was now proposed. Further discussion was held as to the probability of this land developing industrially and as to the surrounding undeveloped property in both New Hope and Crystal. M~tion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council that the rezoning as requested under Planning Case No. 71-8 be denied. Motion carried on voice vote with Barniskis and Ohman voting against. 6. Planning Case No..~ 71~9, request from Brown/Hardy for a variance in parking spaces in connection with the proposed convenience center to be located on the north sYde of 42nd Avenue, 600 feet west of Winnetka Avenue, was heard. The site plan, variance in lot size and variance in building size had been approved by the Council at the meeting of November 17, 1970. Mr. Sandeen, builder, advised the Commission that at the time a survey was made of the property it was found that the depth of the site was only 140 feet instead of 165 feet as previously thought. The original site plan provided for 30 parking spaces and the Village Code requires a minimum of 28 parking spaces. The petitioner now seeks a variance to allow 23 parking spaces, or five less than the Code requires. Planning Commission - 4 - March 2, 1971 Minutes Mr. Sandeen then presented a revised site plan which provides only a 20 foot rear yard setback instead of the required 35 feet. The revised plan showed the loss of eight parking spaces to the rear, being offset by three spaces to the east side of the building or six spaces if the abutting shopping center lot is infringed upon. Mr. Sandeen assured the Commission that the shopping center owners were agreeable to the parking infringement. It was called to Mr. Sandeen's attention that the variance in rear yard setback would also require advertisement and public hearing. Mr. Sandeen then said he thought he could use the original site plan maintaining proper rear yard setback and still come up with 23 parking spaces. Further discussion held. Motion by Barniskis, second by Sueker, that the variance in parking requirements be approved on the condition that the petitioner, upon consultation with the Village Engineer and Building Inspector, can satisfy the Village Manager and Village Council that he can get his 23 parking spaces and that the 20 foot loss of property be com- patible with the intended use. Discussion held as to public hearing requirements on rear yard varl'ance. Motion and second were then withdrawn. Motion by Barniskis, second by Sueker, that we recommend to the Village Council approval of Variance for 23 parking spaces for the Brown/Hardy convenience center, Planning Case No. 71-9. Motion carried on voice vote, with Ostlund voting against. NEW BUSINESS 7, Chairman Ostlund, Codes and Standards Committee, said this Committee had nothing new to report, A meeting is being set up with the service station owners for Tuesday, March 9, 1971. 8. Chairman Walt .Barniskis, Land UseCommittee, reported that the Com- mittee would be meeting with the Industrial Commission and the Council regarding feasibility of rezoning industrial lands to other uses. Mr. Barniskis also advised the Commission that Mr. Hewitt Peterson had informally presented a proposed plan for property on the east side of Hillsboro between 35th and 36th Avenues. 9. The Council minutes of the meeting of February 22, 1971, were re- viewed by the Commission. I0, Motion by Meyer, second by Barniskis, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1971, as presented, Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 5 - March 2, 1971 Minutes I!. The Village Manager reported that he and Commissioner Ostlund had investigated the possibility of acquiring aerial maps of the Village for use at meetings. After discussing the matter with other municipalities, the Village Manager and Commissioner Ostlund recom- mended that an overhead viewer might better serve the purpose and the cost is now being investigated. Chairman Ouimette reported that he had received a letter of resignation from Commissioner Rauch. The letter was read to the Commission. Motion by Ohman, second by Sueker, to accept the resignation of Commissioner Rauch with regret and to send the resignation forward to the Council. Motion carried on voice vote. Chairman Ouimette then read a letter which he had received from Mr. John Dahlmeier thanking the Commission for opportunity to present himself as a candidate for the Commission and advising the Com- mission that he wished to be considered for an appointment to fill future vacancies. The letter is to be placed on file. The Village Manager advised that he had received a notice of a re- zoning hearing before the City of Crystal Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1971, relating to property near 32nd and Louisiana Avenue. Commissioner 8arniskis agreed to attend the Crystal meeting. Chairman Ouimette advised the Commission that the Human Rights Com- mission wished to meet with the Planning Commission. This matter is to appear on the March 16th Planning Commission agenda. Discussion was held relative to the request from the Village Council for a study of townhouse ordinances. Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, that it is the concensus of the Commission that this matter had been reviewed at length on several occasions and that the following findings go forward to the Council: I. We do not believe it is advisable to set up standards for townhouses. Townhouses should be developed under the planned unit development concept. 2. The planned unit development concept provides us with enough control as well as.flexibility to provide good architectural license. 3. If gradient zoning is used, we woul.d then be faced with the ?someone" who would just meet minimum standards. Planning Commission - 6 - March 2, 1971 Minutes 4. Planned unit development provides for bargaining as to amenities to be included in development. 5. Gradient zoning would be more vunerable as to change to higher densities once an t4R classification was obta i ned. Upon voice vote the motion was unanimously carried. The Planning Commission suggested that the posslbllity of using a temporary hanging overhead signal at Boone and 42nd Avenue be investigated if the permanent signal cannot be Installed before the swimming pool opens for the season. Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker and carried to adjourn the meetlng at 1t:25 p.m. Respectfu I I y subm i tied, Betty ~ou I iot Record ing Secretary Planning Commission - I - March 16, 1971 Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, March 2, 1971, at 8:00 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, McConnell, Ostlund, Sueker, Meyer, Greenberg. ~bsent: Ohman, Ouimette, Bonner. (Commissioner Bonner had been detained at work). NEW BUSINESS 3. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, to table Item 3, presentation by Human Rights Commission, until later in the meeting, pending arrival of Human Rights Commission members. Motion carried by voice vote. 4a. The report of the Codes and Standards Committee relating to rentals and truck storage at gasoline filling stations was reviewed by the Village Manager. A meeting was held with the station owners on March 9, 1971 to discuss proposed ordinance controls relating to aforesaid matters. Six or seven station operators appeared at the committee meeting of March 9 and those in attendance indicated general agreement with the suggested controls. At the point that the service station operators would be asking for their annual license for rental and truck storage, the service station operators would submit a site plan indicating the areas designated for storage. The Village Manager also advised the Planning Commission that the staff would compile a list of the ordinance provisions relating to service stations. The recommendations as to controls were then reviewed with suggestions for revisions being given. It was also pointed out that it would be necessary to clearly define what is meant by "trucks" by reference to tons or some other such definition. Motion by Sueker, second by McConnell, to recommend to the Village Council that the controls for rentals and truck storage at gasoline service stations as prepared by the Codes and Standards Committee of the Planning Commission be incorporated into appropriate ordinances subject to the following corrections: Item 2 be modified to read -- Truck rentals will be permitted on a restricted basis of no more than three trucks per station and any trucks beyond three be removed within twenty-four hours of their acquisition and that a definition of trucks be incorporated so as to limit to single unit trucks, excluding semi-trailer- tractor trucks. Planning Commission - 2 - March 16, 1971 Minutes Item 3 be amended to read -- Storage of rental vehicles and trailers could not use space required by ordinance to meet the minimum parking space requirements. Motion carried by voice vote. At this point, Mr. Dick Hirsch appeared before the Planning Com- mission on an informal basis seeking direction as to development of the property at the northeast corner of CSAH #18 and CSAH #9. 3. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, to take Item 3, presentation by Human Rights Commission, off the table. Motion carried by voice vote. Human Rights Commissioners Jim Swanson, Noreene Brooks, Pauline Jensen and Rose Turner were in attendance. Mr. Jim Swanson said that the Human Rights Commission wanted to establish dialogue with the Planning Commission. Mr. Jim Swanson indicated that the Human Rights Commission was concerned with Iow cost housing among other things. The Planning Commissioners pointed out to the Human Rights Commissioners that property which was still open for development. Mr. Swanson also stated that his Commission was concerned with build- ing codes, senior citizen and handicapped persons' housing and related problems. 3a. Mr. Don Zila appeared before the Planning Commission and indicated his interest in serving as a Planning Commissioner. Mr. Zila is to submit his resume for consideration along with other applicants. 4b. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance relating to change in zoning text. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, recommending in favor of the proposed amendment. Motion carried on voice vote. It was noted by the ¥illage Manager that it would be necessary to hold a public hearing in connection with the proposed change in zoning ordinance. 5. Chairman Barniskis, Land Use Committee, reported on a preliminary proposal for development of the property located to the east of Hillsboro Avenue between 36th and 35th Avenue. Mr. Barniskis also advised the Planning Commission that he had attended the Crystal Planning Commission meeting regarding rezoning of property in the vicinity of 32nd and Louisiana to MR. Mr. Barniskis said the Crystal Planning Commission had recommended against said rezoningo 6. The Council minutes of the meeting of March 8, 1971, were reviewed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission - 3 - March 16, 1971 Minutes Discussion held on planned unit development concepts° Mrs. McConnell asked to be excused from the meeting. 7. Motion by Barniskis, second by Meyer, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 2, 1971, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. 8. Additional comments or requests from Commissioners or staff were heard. Discussion held as to the time table for filling vacancy on the Planning Commission. It was decided that applicants should be interviewed at the middle of April meeting with recommendation to be sent forward to the Council at the same meeting. Discussion held as to status of purchase of overhead projector. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Respectful l y submitted, Betty Pou I iot, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - April 6, 1971 Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, April 6, 1971, at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimette. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Sueker, Meyer, Greenberg, Ohman, Ouimette, Bonnero Absent: McConnell, Barniskis. (The Chairman announced that Barniskis had been detained at work). PUBLIC HEARINGS I0. The first matter considered was the continued hearing on Planning Case No. 71-7, request for rezoning from LI to GB and RB of the property at the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and Winpark Drive for the purposes of constructing a service station with of- fices, restaurant, movie theater and rental space. Mr. William Riley, Attorney representing Wong Investment Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Riley said that he did not believe that the requested rezoning could meet the criteria for rezoning. He did feel that a mistake had been made in the original zoning as it relates to the property in Crystal, but not as it relates to New Hope. He said he believes the proposed rezoning would be more compatible to the Crystal properties and that ob- jections to traffic is not a criteria for denying rezoning. Mr. Riley said that, based on his research, Wong Investment was with- drawing their request for rezoning. Mr. Riley then said that he feels a restaurant could go onto the property as now zoned and he referenced Section 4.52, Subdivision 3 of the Village Code. The residents from Crystal were advised that inasmuch as the request for rezoning had been withdrawn, the matter would not come before the Village Council. 3. Planning Case No. 71-I.Q, request for variance from Arthur Voigt to permit parking of a 1½ ton truck on a residential lot at 5406 Yukon Avenue North, Lot t0, Block 5, Begin Addition, was heard. Mr. Voigt was present and said that he had kept such a truck at his home for five years before the zoning code was adopted. The truck is a single axle, 1½ ton with a dump box and is used for masonry work. Planning Commission - 2 - April 6, 1971 Minutes Mr. Voigt was advised that keeping of this truck on a residential lot was in violation of the Village Code. Commissioner Bonner said such a truck was unsightly and the neighbors did have to be considered. Commissioner Sueker brought up the matter of unsightly travel buses being parked in residential areas. He feels it is discriminatory to allow travel buses and not a 1½ ton truck such as this. Sueker asked that the Planning Commission consider tabling this Planning Case pending determination of need for change in the ordinance. No one appeared to object to the granting of the variance as re- quested. Commissioner Ostlund stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had investigated the parking of travel buses in residential areas and had determined that they could not do anything to eliminate such parking. Commissioner Greenberg said that he felt that controlling parking of travel buses in residential areas was a practical problem, rather than a legal matter. Motion by Bonner, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Village Council that the variance requested under Planning Case No. 71-10 for parking of a 1½ ton truck in a residential area be denied. Motion by Greenberg, to table the motion to deny. Motion lost for lack of second. Commissioner Sueker said that he thought the parking of vehicles in residential areas should be controlled by standards other than tonnage, perhaps by size and appearance with semi-annual inspection provided. Vote was then taken on the original motion to deny as follows~ Voting in favor~ Ohman, Bonner, Ostlund~ Voting against~ M~yer, Ouimette, Sueker, Greenberg. Motion lost. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ouimette~ to table Planning Case No. 71-10 until the May 3 Commission meeting and referring the matter of parking in residential areas to the Codes and Standards Com- mittee. Motion carried by voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 71-11, request for variance in lot size and building size from Burger King Corp. for the property at 7009 Bass Lake Road, was heard. Mr. Norman Coleman, First Florida Corporation and Mr. UIIman, Burger King Corporation, were at the meeting to present the case. The site in question is .89 acre and the building size is 2750 square feet. The code requires a 3 acre site and a 20,000 square foot building. Planning Commission - 3 - April 6, 1971 Mi nutes Mr. UIIman, Burger King, said the operation would be similar to their operation at Broadway and Penn Avenue. It is anticipated that most of the eating will be done inside the building. He said they would be willing to post signs requesting their customers not to eat outside if the Village so requested. Mr. UIIman also said that the people taking food out usually take it home and Burger King con- siders their operation to be a restaurant rather than a drive-in. Discussion held as to the curb cut opening onto Louisiana Avenue North and feasibility as to parking to the rear of the building rather than the front. Existing heavy traffic on the Bass Lake Road was cited and the Commission expressed concern with the traffic going onto Louisiana through a residential district. Comments were then heard from the audience. Mrs. Bill (H.E.) Doty, 5525 Louisiana Avenue, inquired as to what land area and building area is required by code. Mr. Archie Carlton, 5500 Louisiana Avenue, expressed concern with the traffic being funnelled onto Louisiana. He asked that the Louisiana curb cut be deleted. Mrs. Edward Beck, 5506 Louisiana Avenue, asked why this lot could i~ot be developed with the lot to the east so as to give traffic access to the shopping center. Mrs. Richard Andresen, 5524 Louisiana Avenue, asked what type of fencing could be provided that would minimize noise and lights. Mr. Uilman pointed out that there was an 80 to 85 foot green belt provided on the south end of the property adjoining the residential area. Mr. UIIman also stated that the lights are hooded and will not shine onto the residential property. Motion by Bonner, second by Sueker, to grant variance in lot size and building size as requested by Burger King Corporation under Planning Case No. 70-11 and approving site plan with exception of the curb cut onto Louisiana Avenue, with the understanding that the fencing and lights will be brought back before the Planning Commission prior to installation, site plan being subject to the approval of the Building Inspector and the Village Engineer. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 4 - April 6, t971 Minutes 5. Plannin~ Case No. 717!~.., request from Mr. George Zubeck for variances in yard setbacks for the lots at 8921, 9001, 9011 and 9101 - 49th Avenue, was heard. Mr. Zubeck was in attendance to present the proposal. Th~ required setback from 49th Avenue for the front yard is 50 feet from the property line or 90 feet from the center of the street, whichever is greater. The required side yard setback is 35 feet from the property line or 75 feet from the center of the street, whichever is greater. Mr. Zubeck requested permission to place the homes within 35 feet of 49th and to within 29 feet of the rear yard line assuming the houses are to be fronted onto 49th Avenue. If the houses are to face onto either Flag or Ensign the variance would be needed in corner lot setback from 35 feet to 20 feet from 49th Avenue. Mr. Zubeck is planning to build homes 26 by 40 feet plus attached garages of 20 feet by 26 feet. Mr. George Kirchoff, 4856 Flag Avenue, wants the lots to face onto 49th Avenue. Mr. Kirchoff said that he understood Mr. Zubeck is planning to put modular homes on these lots. The Planning Com- mission advised Mr. Kirchoff that, if the modular homes met our building code, they could be built. Mr. Frank Niess, 8911 - 49th Avenue, asked that the homes be kept 35 feet from 49th Avenue with it being immaterial as to which way the houses faced. Mrs. Patricia Helquist, 4817 Ensign Avenue, expressed concern with modular homes going into the area. Mr. Eimers, Jr. 8901-~ 49th Avenue, said his house faces 49th Avenue and he wants the setback from 49th Avenue kept at 35 feet. Motion by Sueker, second by Bonner, to recommend to the Council a carte blanche setback of 35 feet along 49th Avenue with any other variance on said lots to be brought back before the Planning Com- mission. Motion carried by voice vote with Ostlund voting against. Mr. Zubeck was advised that the Planning Commission wanted house plans and site plans before them when considering additional variances for the lots in question. Discussion held as to the removal of the Zubeck signs at 42nd Avenue and Boone and 49th Avenue and Boone. Motion by Ostlund, second by Bonner, to recommend to the Village Council that Mr. Zubeck be requested to remove the aforesaid advertising signs since the signs would appear to be of no further value. Motion carried by voice vote. Mr. Zubeck said that removal of the signs at this time was agree- able to him. Planning Commission - 5 - April 6, 1971 Mi nutes 6. Planning Case No. 71-13, request from Frank Balma for a variance in rear yard setback at 9125 - 34th Avenue to permit construction of an in-ground swimming pool to within I0 feet of the rear lot line, was heard. Mr. Balma appeared before the Commission to review the plans. Discussion held as to the fencing with Mr. Balma assuring the Commission that the fence would be completed. Motion by Bonner, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Council approval of the variance in rear yard setback as requested under Planning Case No. 71-13. Motion carried by voice vote. 7. Ptannin~ C~se No. ~1~.!.4, request from Brown/Hardy for variances in rear yard setback and in parking requirements for the con- venience center to be located on 42nd Avenue approximately 600 feet west of Winnetka Avenue, was heard. Mr. Sundeen appeared representing the proponents. He requested permission for 23 parking spaces instead of the required 28 spaces and the pro- posed rear yard setback is 20 feet instead of 35 feet. All of the 23 spaces are located on the site proper with Mr. Sundeen stating that additional parking would be available at the shopping center. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the variance in parking requirements and the variance in rear yard setback as requested under Planning Case No. 71-14. Motion carried by voice vote. Motion by Sueker, second by Meyer, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the revised site plan presented this date in connection with Planning Case No. 71-14. Motion carried by voice vote. 8. p!.annih~ Case ~. 7t-15, request from Jerry Harrington for a variance to permit placement of a sign at 7401 - 42nd Avenue North in the front setback area, was heard. Mr. Mary G~rdon appeared before the Commission to represent the petitioner. The sign would be placed 23 feet from 42nd Avenue right of way line and within 7 feet of the west property line. The proposed sign is 17 feet at the highest point with the main part of the design to be an insert display identifying the tenants. Commissioner Ostlund noted that the Codes and Standards Committee are in the process of rewriting the sign ordinance. Mr. Gordon indicated that they wanted to get the sign constructed as soon as possible. " ' The Village Manager noted that the proposed location is against the railroad embarkment and would not result in any traffic problem. Planning Commission - 6 - April 6, t971 Minutes Motion by Ohman, second by Bonner, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the variance in placement of sign as re- quested under Planning Case No. 71-15. Motion carried by voice vote. 9. The Village Manager presented the affidavit showing publication in the New Hope-Plymouth Post of the "Notice of Public Hearing for Change in Zoning Code Text",lhearing scheduled for April 6, 1971. The public hearing was called to order. Proposed Ordinance 71-4 relating to special use requirements was reviewed. No one appeared to object to the proposed change. Motion by Sueker, second by Ostlund, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 71-4 entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.43, SUBPARAGRAPH (I) (A) AND ADDING SECTION 4.45 TO THE VILLAGE CODE RELATING TO SPECIAL USES." Motion carried by voice vote. II. Plannin~ Case No. 71-16, request for approval of site plan for an addition to Midland Shopping Center, 27th and Winnetka Avenue, was heard. Mr. Fred Levy presented the site plan for the addition. The addition is to be to the south side of the existing building and is to be 30 feet by 150 feet. Four stores are con- templated. The Village Manager reported that no variances are requested in connection with this site plan. Motion by Greenberg, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the site plan for the addition to the Midland Shopping Center as presented under Planning Case No. 71-16, sub- ject to the approval of the Village Engineer and the Building Inspector. Motion carried by voice vote. t2. PI..anni~ Case No. 71-17, request for approval of a site plan for an industrial building to be located at 5000 Hillsboro Avenue in Olson Industrial Park, was heard. Mr. Olson appeared to present the proposed site plan. It was noted that the code provides for a ten foot setback from the front lot line for parking facilities. It was the concensus of the Commission that this ten foot area should be blacktopped and clearly marked to indicate "no parking". Motion by Meyer, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the site plan for the industrial building at 5000 Hillsboro Avenue, Planning Case No. 71-17, subject to the approval of the Building Inspector and the Village Engineer. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 7 - April 6, 1971 Mi nutes 13. Plannin9 Case No. 71-18, request for approval of site plan for an addition to Soley Iron Works building, 7500 - 42nd Avenue North, was heard. Mr. Earl Rosengren appeared before the Commission regarding this request. The Village Manager noted that no variances are required. Mr. Rosengren stated that the main purpose of the addition is to get the existing outside storage under cover. The proposed addition is 76 by I00 feet and is to the north end of the existing building. Motion by Sueker, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the site plan for the addition to the Soley Iron Works building at 7500 - 42nd Avenue North as requested under Planning Case No. 71-16, subject to the approval of the Village Engineer and the Building Inspector. Motion carried by voice vote. NEW BUSINESS Mr. O. Reuben Johnson, representing Buetow & Associates, Architects and Engineers and also part owner of the Krause-Buetow property located at the southeast corner of CSAH #9 and CSAH #!8, appeared before the Planning Commission on an informal basis to discuss a townhouse development on said property. Mr. Johnson was seeking direction as to what type of development the Commission might approve. Mr. Johnson also advised the Commission that the con- demnation hearing in connection with taking of a part of the property for the interchange at #18 and #9 was scheduled for April 27, 1971. The Planning Commission indicated that a request for Planned Unit Development for this property could be handled at the meeting of April 20, 1971. It was also noted that the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Association should be advised if this matter is to appear on the April 20th agenda. Mr. Johnson told the Planning Commission that he wanted to contact the owners of the balance of the undeveloped property in this quadrant before the meeting is definitely set. 15. Commissioner Ostlund reported that the Codes and Standards Com- mittee had no report at this time. 16. No report was given by the Land Use Committee, Chairman Barnlskls being absent. 17. The Council minutes of the meeting of March 22, 1971, were re- viewed by the Planning Commission. 18. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to approve the Planning Com- mission minutes of the meeting of March 16, 197t, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 8 - April 6, 1971 Mi nutes 19. Additional comments from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff were and 20. called for. All citizens had been heard earlier in the meeting. Commissioner Sueker announed that he will not be present at the April 20th and May 4th Planning Commission meetings because he will be having after hours courses at work. Commissioner Ouimette asked the secretary to record these as excused absences for Mr. Sueker. Mr. Sueker also inquired as to when the additional parking lot lighting would be provided for the Skyline apartment complex at 58th and Winnetka. He was informed that the additional lighting would be installed after the frost was out of the ground and that the performance bond was being held by the Village to insure that the work would be done. Commissioner Ostlund stated that the Ordinance establishing the Planning Commission charges the Planning Commission with review of major street improvement. Discussion held. Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, to request the Council to refer plans for major street improvements to the Planning Com- mission or delete this from their charges. Motion carried by voice vote. 21. Motion by Greenberg, second by Ostlund, to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Motion carried by voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Betty Pouf lot, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - April 20, 1971 Minutes t. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, April 20, 1971, at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Meyer, Greenberg, Ohman Barniskis. Absent: Ouimette, Bonner, McConnell, Sueker. (Excused absence for Sueker--after hours course at work). (Mrs. McConnell arrived at 8:50 p.m.). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 71-19, request for rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of CSAH #9 and CSAH #18 from SR to MR for town- houses, Hirsch Brothers, petitioners, was heard by the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Richard Hirsch appeared to present the proposal. Mr. Richard Hirsch stated that he understood the Village was in the process of writing a "townhouse ordinance" and requested that this case be considered under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Hirsch showed slides of townhouse developments and of the proposed site and sur- rounding properties. The site plan for the Hirsch Brothers townhouse development was viewed by the Commission. A swimming pool and activity building is proposed for the complex. Mr. Hirsch said they propose to use a combination of rustic type wood and brick for the exterior treatment of the townhouses. A total of 186 units are proposed with the buildings ranging from 3 units up to 8 units per building. A pond is proposed at the north end of the site. The units are orientated inward away from the roads. It is proposed that the units will be privately owned with all property owners belonging to a homeowners' association, charged with the upkeep of the area. Commissioner Barniskis statedthat, inasmuch as New Hope is in the final phase of development and does presently have a high ratio of multiple dwellings, additional multiple residences in this area would compound the problem. Mr. Barniskis further said that while it appears to be a good plan, it is proposed for the wrong property. He believes the site is good residential property. Commissioner Meyer asked whether Hirsch Brothers had checked into the property shown as an exception to the plat. Mr. Hirsch said they had not done so and that the Village would have control over the develop- ment of the "exception~'. Mr. Hirsch does not feel that Hir$ch Brothers should have to buy this property at whatever price might be asked for it. Planning Commission - 2 - April 20, 1971 Minutes Mr. Don Lunzer, 4225 Decatur Avenue North, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Lunzer said that, inasmuch as the Village does not cur- rently have a townhouse ordinance, we are really talking about re- zoning to MR Under the current ordinance. The issue is the sam~ as under previous presentations. He also called attention to the petlition objecting to the rezoning which had been signed by approximately 130 persons and was on file with the Village. Mr. Lunzer said the people in the area had bought relying on the existing zoning, the area should be developed so that the people are part of the community with- out barriers between the areas, and that the modular housing proposed by George Zubeck should fill the need for Iow cost housing. The criteria for rezoning is not met. He believes that if a definite "no" was given as to rezoning, Standard Oil would offer the property for sale for single family residential development. He then asked that the rezoning be denied. Commissioner Ostlund stated that a letter had been received from Mr. ~ Frank Girdle~Real Estate I0, endorsing the project as proposed. Discussion held as to the status of the "townhouse ordinance" with the Village Manager advising that the matter had been referred to the Codes and Standards Committee. Commissioner Ostlund, Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee, stated that it would be a month before the committee would be ready with recommendations on this ordinance. Currently they are reviewing ordinances from other communities. Mr. Will Wahl, 4680 Ensign Avenue North, said townhouse development could be handled under the present planned unit development, with the only advantage of a townhouse ordinance being better control as to density. Motion by Greenberg, second by Meyer, to recommend denial of the rezoning as requested under Planning Case No. 71-19. Commissioner Greenberg noted that the motion was based on the ordinances as they now stand. Mrs. Joann Brown, 8240 - 39th Avenue North, said that while New Hope has sufficient multiples, she feels townhouses are different than multiples° She said that if New Hope does not allow townhouses, housing will be denied to our sons and daughters and our parents. Housing is needed for people in the $10,000 to $12,000 bracket. Townhouses would give New Hope a more diversified population. Further, denial of townhouses might result in refusal of federal funds at a later date. Commissioner Barniskis said that New Hope does have townhouses and double bungalows, diversified housing, and that he does believe that . New Hope has an excessive amount of multiple dwelling units. He cited the apartment construction just across CSAH #18 in Plymouth, and the MR zoning at the southeast corner of CSAH #9 and CSAH~#18. He stated that he cannot justify further multiples in that area. Planning Commission - 3 - April 20, 1971 Minutes Vote was then taken on the motion and was carried unanimously. Mr. ~ennis Martinson, 8200 - 45th Avenue North, spoke in favor of allowing townhouse~~ in New Hope. Mr. Ted Armstrong, 9333 - 45th Avenue North, pointed out that the motion to rezone had been defeated and spoke against townhouses on the Hirsch site. 4. Planning Case No. 71-20, request by ~Reuben Johnson, Buetow & Associates, Inc., for~ approval of a planned unit development at the southeast corner of CSAH #18 and CSAH #9, was heard. Mt. Reuben Johnson, Architect and part owner of the property, presented the case. Mr. Johnson said that the townhouse proposal was a com- promise on the part of the property owners to reduce density in the area and make low cost housing available. Mr. Johnson said the owners were aware of the opposition of the Hopewood Hills property owners to multiple density but that the owners must do something to develop the property which is currently zoned for MR. The owners feel that a townhouse development would be a responsible use of the land. The plan shows ninety four units, including 24 - 2 bedroom units and 70 - 3 bedroom units. Mr. Johnson stated that is a density of II units per acre instead of 17 which could be built under the present zoning. The units will sell from $20,000 to $28,000. The units range from 2 to 3 stories, with attached garages. Split level entrances will be used on some of the units. Commissioner McConnell arrived at 8:50 p.m. Typical floor plans for the units were shown. Commissioner Barniskis commented that the green provided seemed small. Mr. Reuben Johnson pointed out that Buetow & Associates, Inc. own the strip of SR zoned property buffering Hopewood Hills and that the size of the proposed pond could be reduced to provide more green area without affecting the drainage. Mr. Jerry Otten, 4057 Flag Avenue North, acted as spokesman for the Hopewood Hills Homeownes Association. He said that his group have not had the chance to review the plans. He does not feel that the long buildings are very attractive and that little green area is provided. Mr. Otten inquired as to the exterior treatment of the buildings. Mr. Johnson said the exteriors would be a combination of wood and brick, keeping Iow maintenance in mind. Planning Commission - 4 - April 20, 1971 M i n utes The Planning Commission pointed out that the necessary data for a planned unit development had not been presented. Further discussion held as to the esthetics of the proposed develop- ment, with specific emphasis on the length of the buildings. Mr. Reuben Johnson said that perhaps something could be done to ~-~ break up the length of the structure but economic feasibility in development of the site and solving a tow cost housing problem were. major concerns. Mr. Johnson was asked how much time he would need to finalize plans and to consider working with the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Associa- tion. The Village Manager advised the Planning Commission that Mr. Malick of the Homeowners Association had been notified Over a week ago that this matter would be before the Planning Commission at this meeting. Mr. Otten, Hopewood Hills Homeowners Association, asked whether Mr. Johnson had considered any alternate plans for the site and expressed concern with a nice looking development. Mr. Johnson said the general approach for the development of the property must be as presented. Motion by Greenberg, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 71-20 until the meeting of May 4, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. 5. Mr. George Zubeck appeared before the Planning Commission to request variances in yard setbacks for 8921, 9001, 9011, 9101 - 49th Avenue, this matter having been referred back to the Planning Commission by the Village Council. (.~lannin~ Case No. 71-12). The Village Manager advised that the interested property owners had been advised that this matter would be on the agenda. No one appeared to object to granting of variances. a. Motion by McConnell, second by Barniskis, to recommend granting a two foot side yard variance from 49th Avenue (setback of 33 feet) for Lot I, Block 6, Zubeck's Rolling Hills (4885 Flag Avenue). Motion carried by voice vote. b. Discussion held as to variances requested for Lot 41, Block 3, Zubeck's Rolling Hills (9011 - 49th Avenue). It is proposed that the house on this lot will face 49th Avenue. Planning Commission - 5 - April 20, 1971 Minutes Motion by Barniskis, second by Meyer, to recommend that a fifteen foot variance in front yard setback and a 5½ foot variance in rea~ yard setback be granted on Lot 41, Block 3, Zubeck's Rolling Hills Addition (9011 - 49th Avenue North). The house would then be set back 35 feet from49th Avenue and would have a 29½ foot rear yard setback. Motion carried by voice vote. ¢. The house on Lot I, Block 3, Zubeck's Rolling Hill Addition (4873 EnSign Ave.), will have its side yard to 49th Avenue, A two foot slde yard variance is requested to result in a setback from 49th Avenue of 33 feet. Motion by McConnell, second by Greenberg, to recommend approval of a 2 foot side yard variance form 49th Avenue, setback of 33 feet, for Lot I, Block 3, Zubeck's Rolling Hills (4873 Ensign Avenue). Motion carried by voice vote. d. The house proposed for Lot 15, Block 3, Zubeck's Rolling Hills Addition (8921 - 49th Avenue) is to front on 49th Avenue. Motion by Ohman, second by McConnell, to recommend to the Village Council that a fifteen foot front yard variance (setback of 35 feet) and a 5½ foot rear yard variance (setback of 29½ feet) for Lot 15, Block 3, Zubeck's Rollings Hills Addition (892t - 49th Avenue), be granted. Motion carried by voice vote. §a, Vice-Chairman Ostlund advised that Mr. Coleman, general contractor for Burger-King, had asked to present a revised site plan for the restaurant at 7009 Bass Lake Road, (Planninq Case .N~...~.71-11). Mr. Coleman said that the revision provided for the elimination of the access to Louisiana, that the rear grass area to be lighted as requested, and fencing along the south line is shown. Revlewal of the site plan revealed that the rear grass yard had been cut from 85 feet to 65 feet with Mr. Coleman advising this was done to provide better traffic flow. The Planning Commission felt that the change in the rear grass area was of a major nature and that the matter should be handled at the May 4, 1971 meeting, thus giving the opportunity to advise abutting property owners, especially those having expressed concern with the proximity to the residences. The mat,er ts to be placed on the agenda for May 4, 1971. NEW BUSINESS 6. The following applicants were interviewed for the vacancy on the Planning Commission: Mr. Jerome Oster, 3501Xylon Avenue North Nr. Willard K. Nelson, 4057 Ensign Avenue North Planning Commission - 6 - April 20, 1971 Minutes Mr. Ray R. Wormsbecker, 2809 Hampshire Avenue North Mr. Fred D. Silver, 7720 - 49th Avenue North Mr. Donald Zila, 9209 Northwood Parkway Mr. Dennis Martenson, 8200 - 45th Avenue North Mr. John Dahlmeier, 3501 Ensign Avenue North Mr. Lawrence Weinzetl, 8524 - 49th Avenue North Mr. Gerald T. Laurie, 3530 Yukon Avenue North The resume of Merlyn J. Brinkman, 4930 Zealand Avenue North, was also reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Brinkman was un- able to attend the meeting as he had military duty. Vice-Chairman Ostlund advised the applicants that a decision as to the recommendation for appointment would be forthcoming at the meeting of May 4, 1971. 7. Commissioner Greenberg gave the report for the Codes and Standards C~mmittee. The Committee is currently working on standards in connection with parking of trucks and trailers in residential areas. Co~issioner Ostlund asked that the Village Manager set up a meeting with the Codes and Standards Committee and the Village Attorney to discuss this matter. 8. Commissioner Barniskis said that the Land Use Committee had nothing to report. 9. The Council minutes were reviewed. 9a. Motion by Greenberg, second by Meyer, to approve the Planning Com- mission minutes of the meeting of April 6, 1971, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. I0. Additional comments from citizens, commissioners and staff were heard. & II. Commissioner Ostlund asked that something be done to move telephone poles out of sidewalk areas. Commissioner Barniskis inquired as to when the directional signs for the Village Hall would be placed. Commissioner Barniskis inquired as to what was going to be done to repair the roadway at 36th and Flag. 12.Motion by Barniskis, second by Greenberg, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Motion carried by voice vote. Betty Po~¢ iot, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - May 4, 1971 Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Halt.~ 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, May 4, 1971, at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimette. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Meyer, Ohman, Barniskis, Ouimette, Bonner, McConnell. Absent: Greenberg, Sueker. (Excused absence for Sueker-- after hours course at work). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 71-21, request from Mr. Harvey Mills, 8816 - 36th Avenue, Lot 9, Block 4, Northwood Terrace, for a variance in side yard (corner lot) setback to permit the construction of an attached garage to come within seven feet of the corner lot line, was heard by the Commission. The original request was for a 20 X 22 foot attached garage. Mr. Mills was at the meeting and stated that he wanted to have a 24 foot garage. The Village Manager advised that the Building Inspector had ex- pressed concern as to whether there would be sufficient room to park a car in the driveway. Commission Barniskis said he had viewed the property and it looked like the seven feet was measured from the curb line instead of the property line. Mr. Mills presented letters from the following neighbors stating that they do not object to the proposal: Mr. and Mrs. Spilde 3609 Decatur Avenue North Mrs. Byrne 3601 Decatur Avenue North Mr. Hormann 3608 Decatur Avenue North No one appeared to object to the proposed variance. Motion by Bonner, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 71-21 until the meeting of May 18, 1971, pending gathering of additional information by the staff. Motion carried by voice vote. The Commission Chairman asked the Village Manager to provide the Planning Commission with whatever information is available in relation to Harvey Mills' house and the street right of way. Planning Commission - 2 - May 4, 1971 Minutes 4. Planning Case Not 71-22, request from George A. Johnson, for a change in planned unit development to permit a swimming pool and for variances in setback requirements for said pool, property at the southwest corner of intersection of 27th Place and Yukon Avenue, was heard by the Commission. Mr. George Johnson appeared before the Commission to explain the proposal. Plans for the enclosed pool were presented. The pool is to be located in an area 60 X 131 feet which was originally designated for a golf putting green. The pool building is to be 28 X 56 feet with the actual size of the pool to be 12 X 26 feet. Three walls of the building are to have brick with the south wall shown to have wood panels between the windows with no brick material used. A two foot variance in set- back from 27th Place is requested as well as a 31 foot variance from the rear lot line. The Planning Commission first directed its attention to the request for change in the planned unit development with the question being whether the amenity of the swimming pool was more desirable than the green area afforded by the putting green originally proposed and approved. Mr. George Johnson advised the Commission that the building proposed is of a very permanent nature. Those persons in the audience concerned with Planning Case No. 71-22 were invited to come forward and view the plans. Appearing were: Mr. Robert Gerber 8400 27th Place North Mr. Roger Salo 8408 27th Place North Mr. Irvin Dahl 8400 Medicine Lake Road Discussion held as to the fencing requirements for the pool area with Mr. Johnson saying that he would fence if this is what the neighbors wanted. Fencing had heretofore been required for the putting green. The Planning Commission stated that the fencing would still be required in connection with the swimming pool. The people present inquired as to potential noise factors from the pool building. Mr. Johnson assured that curfews would be estab- lished. Discussion held as to the exterior treatment of the south elevation. Mr. Johnson said that either rough sawn cedar or a very similar product would be used and that the building would be built as drawn. Commissioner Ouimette noted that it would be necessary to change the lighting plans for the pool site. Planning Commission - 3 - May 4, 1971 M i n utes Discussion held as to bricking of the rear wall of the garage. Mr. Johnson said that he would attach the fencing for the pool area to the back of the garage and that the rear of the garages would be bricked as soon as the dirt moving is completed. Mr. Irvin Dahl expressed concern with the drainage. He said he presently has some ponding in the corner of his property. Mr. Johnson said the drainage is all to the west and that Mr. Dahl will not have a drainage problem when the work is completed. Further discussion held as to the variances requested. It was noted that the proposed pool building lines up with the garage to the east which is already set from the Dahl property line. Motion by Barniskis, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the change in planned unit development pro- viding for enclosed swimming pool instead of putting green and recommending approval of variances as requested, variances being 2 feet in front yard setback and 31 feet in rear yard setback, contingent upon approval of the revised lighting plans by the Building Inspector, previous fencing requirements to be applicable, with the fence to connect to the garage (in essence the pool is to be entirely enclosed) and that the drainage plan originally approved for this planned unit development be adjusted in accordance with the recommendations of the Village Engineer. (Planning Case No. 71-22). Motion carried by majority voice vote. 5. ~.l~n~ing Case No. 71-23, request from Gary F. Elofson, 3005 Boone Avenue North, Lot t6, Block 3, West Winnetka Park 2nd Addition, for a variance in side yard setback requirement to allow con- struction of an attached garage to come within 2 feet of the lot line, was heard. Mr. Elofson was present and advised the Com- mission that he wished to construct the garage that would be 19 X 26 feet. He said that he needed a nineteen foot garage instead of 18 feet as originally proposed. There is to be no windows in the garage other than to the rear. Commissioner Ostlund asked that considerstion be given to some type of fire wall construction for the north wall of the garage. After discussion on this point, it was the consensus of the Commission that the fire wall should not be a condition for granting the variance. The garage is to have a one foot overhang to match the rest of the house. Mr. Elofson assured the Commission that the two foot strip between the garage and the neighboring lot could be readily maintained. Planning Commission - 4 - May 4, 1971 Minutes Mr. Elofson then presented a letter from Mrs. Martha Ao McMitlian, neighbor to the north~ stating that she had no objection to the construction of the garage as proposed. Motion by Bonner, second by Ohman, to grant the variance as re- quested under Planning Case No. 71-23. Further discussion held with it being pointed out that the petitioner had changed his request from an 18 foot gara~ to a 19 foot garage which would bring the garage to within one foot of the property line with the overhang on the lot line. Discussion was held as to the exact location of the neighbors fence. Mrs. McMillian had indicated that the fence was on her lot six inches from the property line. Mr. Elofson said that he had used the fence for a measurement point. Motion by Bonner, second by Ohman to amend the motion to provide that the garage could be built to come within 2 feet of the property line (overhang one foot from the line) with Mr. Elofson being directed to locate the property line. Motion carried by majority voice vote with Commissioner Ostlund voting against. Mr. Ostlund stated that he had voted against the granting of variance because he thought the wall of the garage toward the neighbor to the north should have some fire restrictions. 6. Plannin~ Case~No~. 71~, request from Overmyer Company for a variance in parking space requirements at the warehouse site at 5621 International Parkway, was heard. It is proposed by the petitioner that 12 spaces be provided based on the number of employees rather than the 103 spaces if the requirement is based on the square footage of the proposed warehouse. It was noted that the code would require six spaces based on number of employees. Mr. Rogers, representing the Overmyer Company, stated that twelve spaces are to be provided and that there will be twelve employees. Discussion held as to the exterior finish ~or the warehouse. The same exterior finish as previously approved is to be used. Motion by Bonner, second by Meyer, to recommend to the Council that the variance in parking requirements be granted as requested under Planning Case No. 71-24, subject to previous commitments to the Village being met in connection with the Winnetka ware- house. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 5 - May 4, 1971 Minutes 7. Plannin~ Case No. 71..-25, request from Brown/Hardy for a variance in parking requirements in connection with the convenience center- ice cream outlet to be located on 42nd Avenue west of Winnetka Avenue, was considered. The Village Manager advised that the petitioner is attempting to negotiate a lease for additional parking from the New Hope Shopping Center and had asked that the matter be held over. Motion by Ohman, second by Bonner, to table Planning Case No. 71-25 until the meeting of May 18, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. 8. Planning Case No...~1-27., request from Mr. Edward Dooley for site plan approval for the construction of a double bungalow at 5841- 5843 Winnetka Avenue, was considered by the Commission. Mr. Dooley was present. Question was raised as to front yard setback, Front yard setback is to be 38.2 feet. The petitioner asked that this be considered under Section 4.23(I) of the Village Code which allows for adjustment of the front setback to conform to the prevailing setbacks in the immediate vicinity. Motion by Ostlund, second by Barniskis, approving site plan as requested under Planning Case No. 71-27 with front yard setback to be 78 feet from the center of the street instead of 90 feet. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Planninq Case No. 71-28, request from Burger King Corporation for approval of a revised site plan for the building to be located at 7009 Bass Lake Road, was heard. Mr. Norman Coleman appeared on behalf of Burger King. Mr. Coleman said that instead of 85 feet of green area on the south side of the lot it is now proposed to have 65 feet. The twenty feet will be blacktopped with the building to remain in the same location as before. The revised site plan also shows the requirements placed by the Council. Mr. Hartzei Richards, owner of property to the east appeared and expressed concern with fencing. Mr. Coleman told Mr. Richards that Burger King would fence that line if necessary. Several Crystal citizens came forward to view the revised plans. No further objections were offered. Motion by Ostlund, second by McConnell, to approve the revised site plan for Burger King as requested under Planning Case No. 71-28 to permit 65 feet of green area on the south side of the site rather than the 85 feet first proposed. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 6 - Hay 4, 1971 Mi nutes I0. Continued hearing on P!annin~ Case No. 71-10, request from Arthur Voigt, 5406 Yukon Avenue North, to permit parking of a 1½ ton truck on his residential lot, was held. Mr. Arthur Voigt was present. Commissioner Ostlund, Chairman of Codes and Standards Committee, advised the Commission that said Committee does not intend to recommend change of the Code relating to parking of trucks in residential areas. Mr. Voigt pointed out that if the truck were parked elsewhere he would have vandalism problems and that he used this truck to make his living. He said he had been parking a truck in his yard for I0 years without any complaints and to park the truck elsewhere would create a financial hardship. Discussion held as to allowing period of time for Mr. Voi gt to find a suitable place to park the 1½ ton truck. Motion by Ostlund, second by Barniskis, to recommend denial of the request for variance to park 1½ ton truck at 5406 Yukon Avenue, Planning Case No. 71-10, and further recommending that enforce- merit of the Code on this particular situation be stayed until January i, 1972. Motion carried by voice vote. II. The continued hearing on Planning Case No. 71-20, request from Reuben Johnson for approval of a planned unit development for cons+ruction of townhouses at the southeast corner of CSAH #18 and CSAH #9, was held. Mr. Johnson was present. Revised plans were furnished to the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson said that the plans now covered all the points set forth in the check list relating to planned unit development and that two units had been deleted from the plans since the first presentation. Mr. Ralph Collier, abutting property owner, viewed .the plans with respect to access to his property. Mr. Johnson told Mr. Collier that he would be happy to work out an easement to provide access to both the Collier and Carpenter property. Discussion held regarding the proposed layout of the buildings on the site. Mr. Johnson said they must have eleven units per acre to make the project economically feasible and that the character- istics of the land limits the layout of the buildings. Mr, Mike Malik, Hopewood Hills Homeowners Association, said that the people in the area were primarily concerned with traffic and that they had hoped that the Buetow-Krause property would revert to SR zoning. Mr. Malik stated that the County had said that if there is a traffic problem they would limit access at Gettysburg to east bound traffic only. Planning Commission - 7 - Nay 4, 1971 Ninutes Mr. Ma lik felt that the townhouses as proposed would took like rows of row-housing and that his group would like to see something a little nicer with more green area and different exterior treatment so that the townhouse development would fit better with the homes in the area. Mr. Reuben Johnson said that four units to be used for models would be built at this time. Mr. Malik expressed concern that all the units would have stucco rather than brick for the exterior since the purchasers will be permitted to make this decision. Mr. Johnson said that the models will have both brick and stucco exteriors so as to show prospective buyers what is available. Notion by Bonnet, second by Ostlund, approving planned unit develop- merit for property at the southeast corner of CSAH #18 and CSAH #9 as requested under Planning Case No. 71-20. Further discussion held as to whether the exterior treatment of the buildings should be restricted at this time. Notion by Bonnet to amend the motion to include exterior of the buildings to be of either brick or stone or equivalent, excluding stucco. Hotlon lost for lack of second. Voice vote was then taken on the original motion and was unanimously carried. Ila. Mr. William Lundberg appeared before the Planning Commission on an informal basis seeking direction as to possibilities for developing the MR zoned property at the southeast corner of 49th Avenue and CSAH #18. NEW BUSINESS 12. The proposed ordinance relating to rental and storage of trailers and trucks at service station sites was considered. The Codes and Standards Committee recommended that the fee be set at $15.00. The Village Manager said that a $15.00 fee would cover staff time involved. Notlon by Ostlund, second by McConnetl, that a public hearing be set for consideration of lhe proposed ordinance relating to rental and storage of trailers and trucks at service stations. Notion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 8 - May 4, 1971 M inutes 13. Discussion held relative to recommendation to the Council on appoint- ment of Planning Commission member. Fol lowing voting on the matter, It was declared that the name of Mr. Jerome Oster, 3501 Xylon Avenue North, be sent forward to the Council for appoln~ment to the Planning Commission. 14. Commissioner Ostlund stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had been looking into the parking of trucks In residential areas and It appeared that the regulations should be tightened, if anything. Trucks and truck campers will be separated into different categories for definition purposes. The Codes and Standards Committee is also studying townhouse ord I nances. 15. Nfo Barniskis said that the Land Use Commlttee had nothing to report at this time but that he felt the proposed ice arena and YNC^ facilities should be referred to his Committee. 16. The Council minutes of the meeting of April 26, 1971, were reviewed. 17. Notion by Barniskis~ second by Ohman, to approve the Planning Com- mlsslon minutes of the meeting of April 20, 1971, as printed. Notion carried by voice vote. 18, Notice was received from the City of Crystal relative to rezonlng and for double bungalow at 3515 Louisiana Avenue. No objection is to 19. be entered by New Hope. A notice was received from the City of Brooklyn Park relative to special use permit for apartment construction for the property at 62nd and Louisiana Avenue. Discussion held regarding housekeeping at the Green Giant Garden Center, Commissioner Ostlund also asked that the staff look into the parking of trucks and other equipment at 3118 Boone Avenue North. Discussion also held as to court cases in connection with filling station rezoning requests. 20, 14orion by Ohmen, second by McConnell, to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 a.m, Notion carried by voice vote. Respectful I y submitted, ~et~y~ul !or ~ Recording Secretary Planning Commission - ! - May 18, 1971 Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401~1on Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, May 18, 1971, at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimette. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Meyer, Barniskis, Ouimette, Oster, McConnell, Greenberg. Absent: Sueker, Ohman, Bonner. The Chairman requested that the record show Mr. Bonner having an ex- cused absence as he is out of town on business. PUBLIC HEARINGS The continued hearing on Planning Case No~ 71-2!, request from Mr. Harvey Mills, 8816 - 36th Avenue North, for a variance in side yard (corner lot) setback to permit construction of an attached garage, was held. This matter had been tabled from the meeting of May 4, 1971 to enable the staff to gather additional information. The original request was for a 20 X 22 foot attached garage. The petitioner had since amended the request seeking a 24 X 20 foot attached garage. Mr. Mills, being present, further advised the Planning Commission that the 24 foot dimension would extend toward the side street. With the information now available, it was noted that Mr. Mills is requesting permission to come within six feet of the side street or within 21 feet of the curb line. Discussion held. The driveway to the garage is to be off Decatur Avenue. It was then noted that a car would not be able to park in the driveway without infringing on the street boulevard. It was further noted that it would be difficult to have the driveway come off 36th because of the grade. Discussion held as to whether a garage located this close to Decatur would impair traffic visibility at this corner. The front yard setback is 30 feet, so it was felt that the addition of the garage would not create a traffic hazard. Commissioner Oster said that, in addition to parking of automobiles in the driveway, it is necessary to think in terms of the neighbor- hood. He felt that permitting a garage that close to Decatur would change the character of the neighborhood. The topography of the lot was discussed. Mr. Mills stated that there was no other alternative as to placement of the garage. Mr. Mills also stated that, at the meeting of May 4, 1971, he had presented letters from the neighbors stating that they do not object to the construction of the garage as p~roposed. Planning Commission - 2 - May 18, 1971 M i n utes Motion by Greenberg, second by Barniskis, to recommend to the Council that a 14 foot variance be granted to permit the construction of a garage on Lot 9, Block 4, Northwood Terrace (8816 - 36th Avenue North) to come within 6 feet of the corner lot line (Planning Case No. 71-21). Motion carried with Oster voting against. Planning Case No. 71-25, request from Brown/Hardy for variances in rear yard setback and parking requirements for the convenience center to be located on 42nd Avenue 600 feet west of Winnetka, was heard at this time. This case was originally scheduled for hearing on May 4, 1971, but had been held over at the request of the petitioner. Mr. Sandeen appeared on behalf of the petitioners and presented a re- vised site plan. The interior of the~ building had also been changed, reducing the retail area to 1,682 square feet instead of 2,300 square feet originally proposed. The outside dimensions of the store remain the sam~ with the reduction in retail space now included in storage area. The revised site plan showed 20 parking spaces on the site proper. Inasmuch as the retail area has been reduced, the twenty parking spaces meet the code requirement; thus eliminating the need for a variance in parking requirements. Mr. Sandeen said the petitioners are still requesting a fifteen foot rear yard setback variance. Commission Oster inquired as to whether the change in retail area would effect the amount of business. Mr. Gi l Darkenwaldt, representing the owner of~he property lying to the north and west of the Brown/Hardy site, asked to go on record opposing the variance on rear yard setback and the use of a private sewer and water system. Mr. Darkenwaldt said that he is now in the process of negotiating a development on the Kavl i property. He asked whether the private sewage system had been approved by the PCA. Mr. Darkenwaldt was advised that permission to use a private sewer and water system was conditioned upon an agreement to connect to municipal facilities when same are made available to the Brown/Hardy site. Mr. Darkenwaldt was further advised that Mr. Kavl i had ap- peared at an earlier meeting regarding the Brown/Hardy convenience center and objected to extension of sewer and water past his property at this time. Mr. Dale Sauer, representing the owners of the New Hope Shopping Cen- ter, also asked to go on record as opposing the variance in rear yard setback requested for the Brown/Hardy convenience center. He also objected to the use of a private sewer and water system. He said the owners of the shopping center were afraid that the parking from the convenience center would spill over onto the New Hope Shopping Center site. Planning Commission - 3 - May I$, 1971 Mi nutes It was pointed out to Mr. Sauer that the petitioner was no longer re- questing a variance in parking requirements and that several hearings had been held in connection with the Brown/Hardy site for which the owners of the New Hope Shopping Center had received notices. Motion by Barniskis, second by McConnell, to recommend to the Village Council that a 15 foot rear yard variance (20 foot setback) be granted on the Brown/Hardy convenience center as requested under Planning Case No. 71-25. Further discussion held. It was noted that the area to be devoted to ice cream operation is not included in the retail area computation, although the ice cream sales will be conducted in the retail area of the store. (This computation is in accordance with the code). Commissioner Oster said he thought there might be serious traffic circulation problems created in connection with the convenience cen- ter activity. The chairman asked that roll call vote be taken on the question. Vote was as follows: Voting in favor: Meyer, Ouimette, Barniskis, McConnelt. Voting against: Oster~ Ostlund, Greenberg. Motion carried. 4b. Mr. Dave Bartel, representing Rauenhorst Corporation, appeared before the Planning Commission requesting approval of a site plan for con- struction of an industrial building in Keelor Steel 1st Addition. The proposed building is to be located to the south of the Keelor Steel building and is to be occupied by Nordic Press Company. There is to be 5,000 square feet of office space and 24,000 square feet of warehousing and printing press space. The building will front onto Boone Avenue with side yard onto 51st Avenue. The Village Manager advised the Planning Commission that the Building Inspector had viewed the site plan and that all code requirements were met. Mr. Bartel is proposing that the areas abutting both street frontages will be sodded, with seeding to be used for the rear areas. The Planning Commission advised Mr. Bartel of the difficulties encountered in the development of green areas by seeding. Mr. Ole Bjorkedal, Nordic Press, was also present to discuss the pro- posa !. Motion by Ostlund, second by McConnell, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the site plan for the Nordic Press Building. (Planning Case No. 71-35). Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 4 - May 18, 1971 Minutes 4c. Dr. Saliterman appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss, on an informal basis, the possibility of developing the southeast corner of Hillsboro and 36th Avenues as a medical center. He inquired as to whether' the Planning Commission would consider his request for rezoning property on an individual basis or whether his request must be tied in with the development of the balance of the undeveloped property in that area. A citlzen in the audience advised that petitions were being circulated in the area opposing any rezoning of the property under discussion and that the sentiment of the area was well known. Criteria for rezoning was discussed with Dr. Saliterman. NEW BUSINESS 5. Commissioner Ostlund said there was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 6. Commissioner Barniskis said there was no report to be made by the Land Use Committee. 7. The Council minutes of the meeting of May I0, 1971, were reviewed by the Planning Commission. 8. Motion by McConnell, second by Barniskis to approve the Planning Com- mission minutes of the meeting of May 4, 1971, as printed. Motion carried by voice vote. 9. Comments were called for from citizens, commissioners and staff. & I0. Commissioner Ostlund said that he had attended the last meeting of the Park Commission and gave a report on same. Commissioner Ostlund asked the Village Manager to contact Hennepin County regarding obtaining a stop light at 36th and CSAH #18 on a 24 hour operational basis. C~mmissioner Barniskis suggested that the Village check into the pos- sibility of obtaining a temporary overhead stop signal for Boone and 42nd Avenue, the concern being with the children trying to cross the intersection on the way to the municipal swimming pool. The Village Manager advised that the installation of the permanent signal is scheduled for this fall. Commissioner Ouimette asked that, if a temporary light cannot be ob- tained, consideration be given to having a responsible person serve as a patrol at this corner. Planning Commission - 5 - May 18, 1971 Mi nutes Commissioner Barniskis asked the Village Manager to discuss with the Village Engineer and the Council the possibility of breaking curb at the intersections of streets so that the sidewalks will be more usable for bicycling,~wheelchair operation and for ease in snow plowing. Discussion held as to whether the Planning Commission should again come in with suggestions for programs to be undertaken by the Village so that these suggestions might be considered at budget time. It was agreed that anyone having any suggestions that might effect the budget for the forthcoming year, should give his suggestions at the June Ist meeting. II. Motion by Greenberg, second by McConnell, and carried, to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Be ~:t~-" P~u I lot Recordi n9 Secretary Planning Commission - I - June I, 1971 Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, June I, 1971 at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimette. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Meyer, Barniskis, Ouimette, Oster, McConnell, Sueker. Absent: Greenberg, Ohman~ Bonner. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Plannin~ Case No. 71-29, request from Green Giant Company, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, for a special use permit to allow outdoor sales, was considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. John Short appeared on behalf of the Green Giant Company. The Village Manager reported that the proposed outdoor sales would reduce the parking spaces from the existing 118 to only 84 spaces. Code requirement is for 97 parking spaces. Mr. Short said that he was not aware that the outdoor sales were in violation of the Code until such time as the Building Inspector so advised him. Mr. Short said that, since the Building Inspector had spoken with him, he had opened the parking back up to I00 spaces, either through sales or consolidation of the stock. The Commissioners noted that Green Giant customers had been parking on the street be- cause the on-site facilities were full. The Commissioners also advised Mr. Short that the 50 foot strip lying to the north of the Shell Oil Station was zoned LB and, consequently, could not be used in connection with the RB Green Giant operation. At this time, this strip of land is being used for storage of me rchan d i se. Discussion held as to the fencing which was to have been provided in connection with the Green Giant store. Mr. Ostlund noted that a search of the records shows that fence is to be provided on three sides of the site and is to be slatted with redwood. Mr. Short advised that Mr. Jack Jones, Engineer for Green Giant, had approved the metal slats instead of the redwood. It was pointed out to Mr.~ Short that the change in fencing would have to be approved by the Village Council. Mr. Short told the Planning Commission that the biggest problem around the Green Giant center has been "start up" problems. All the work did not get finished last fall and that they had been hauling in gravel for the last three months. Mr. Short indicated that next year Green Giant would only be selling perennials in the front lot area. Planning Commission - 2 - June I, 1971 Minutes Commissioner Barniskis asked Mr. Short to get together with the Building Inspector to delineate on the Green Giant site plan the areas to be used for outside storage, outside sales, and area to be used for parking. No one appeared in regard to the issuance of the requested special use permit. Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, to table consideration of Planning Case No. 71-29 until the meeting of June 15, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. Mr. Short was asked how many people were employed at the Green Giant Garden Center. He said they have twelve to thirteen full time employees and from 45 to 50 part time employees. 4. Planning Case No. 71-3Q., request from Mrs. Shirley Bundy for a special use permit to conduct a home business at 6008 Rhode Island Avenue North, was heard by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Bundy was present to discuss the proposal. She wishes to sell distributors samples of clothing from her home. Sales are to be by appointment with advertising to be done by word of mouth only. Mrs. Bundy would be going to the distributors and picking up the samples. Upon questioning, Mrs. Bundy said that there is room for 2 or 3 cars in her driveway in addition to her own car. No one appeared to object to the issuance of the requested special use permit. Motion by Barniskis, second by McConnell, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the special use permit to conduct home business at 6008 Rhode Island Avenue North as requested by Mrs. Shirley Bundy under Planning Case No. 71-30, subject to reviewal on an annual basis. Motion carried by voice vote. 5. Plann'inq Case No. 71-31, request from Mr. Allen J. Ihrke, 5212 Winnetka Avenue North, for a variance in side yard setback to permit construction of living quarters within six feet of the side yard lot line. Actually the space in question is now being used as a garage. There are also double garage facilities in the basement. The above ground garage would be converted into a bedroom, recreation room and a sewing room. Presently there is a door on the side of the garage. The neighboring property has an attached garage to the side next to the Ihrke Property. No one in the audience appeared to object to the requested variance. The Planning Commission asked Mr. Ihrke if he would be agreeable to closing off the door toward the neighbor. Mr. Ihrke agreed that he would do this. Planning Commission - 3 - June I, 1971 Mi nutes Mr. Ihrke was advised that he should check into the proposed grades for Winnetka Avenue as it abuts his property. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, to recommend to the Village Counci i approval of variance in side yard setback for Iiving quarters to come within six feet of the lot line as requested by Mr. ihrke, 5212 Winnetka Avenue North, under Planning Case No. 71-31, subject to closing off of the existing side garage door and that there be no openings on the south side toward the neighbor. Motion carried by vo i ce vote. 6. Planning Case No. 71-32, request from Kenneth R. Jensen, 3500 Boone Avenue North, for a variance to permit construction of an oversized garage at his residence, was heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kenneth Jensen was in attendance. Mr. Jensen presently has an attached garage which is 520 square feet. He is asking permission to construct an addition of 28 X 20 feet to give total square footage of t,080 square feet. The Village Code provides that residential garages may not contain more than 700 square feet of floor area or parking spaces for more than four non-commercial passenger veh icles. Mr. Jensen said he needs the garage to house recreational equipment, including a boat and two snowmobiles. Mr. Jensen said he had hoped to be able to get his Winnebago inside the garage but it might not be possible. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, to recommend to the Village Council approval of variance for oversized garage at 3500 Boone Avenue, as requested by Kenneth R. Jensen under Planning Case No. 71-32. Motion carried by voice vote. 7. Planninq Case No. 71-33, request from David K. Cotie, 8501 Meadow Lake Place, for a variance in front yard setback to permit construction of a 26 X 22 foot attached garage in front of his house, to come within 8 feet of the front lot line. Mr. Cotie was present to discuss the request. Mr. Cotie presently has a tuck under garage. He said the existing garage does not have frost footings. He would like to construct a double garage to the front of the existing garage and then use the old garage for a basement room. The proposed garage would be constructed so that it would be largely concealed from view by the existing grade of the front yard. Discussion held as to possibility of building a garage in the rear yard or installing proper frost footing under the existing garage. It was pointed out to Mr. Cotie that he would not be able to park a car in his driveway if the garage came within 8 feet of the front I~ot I ine. No one appeared in opposition to the request for variance. Planning Commission - 4 - June I, 1971 Minutes Further discussion held. Motion by Ostlund, second by Oster, to recommend to the Village Council that the variance in front yard setback as requested by Mr. David Cotie under Planning Case No. 71-33 be denied. Motion carried on voice vote. 8. Planning.Case No. 71-34, request from William Lundberg for rezoning from M.R. to R.B. and approval of planned unit development for town- houses at the southeast corner of County Road 18 and 49th Avenue North, was heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bill Lundberg presented tentative plan for the convenience center. Mr. Gary Garish, Architect for the Lundberg project, was also at the meeting. Discussion was held as to the distance of the entrances to the proposed convenience center from the diamond interchange. Mr. Lundberg was asked whether he had approval from the County as to the proposed curb cuts. Mr. Lundberg said he had not contacted the County on this matter but would do so. Mr. Clarence Brandell, owner of the property to the north of 49th Avenue, was in attendance. He advised that he was at the meeting to observe and that he was neither in favor or against the proposal. Discussion held as to the proposed townhouse development. It is proposed that there will be 112 townhouses (58 four bedroom and 54 three bedroom units)° This is a density of 7 units per acre. The exteriors of the townhouses are to be of brick and cedar, color theme to be of earth tones of four to six different shades. The brick will also be varied in a like manner. Discussion held as to whether it might be advisable to give some con- sideration to a more open type exterior parking. Presently tandem parking is proposed. Motion by Ostlund, second by McConnell, to table Planning Case No. 71-34 until the meeting of June 15, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. 9. The Chairman announced that the pub lic hearing on the proposed amend- merit to the Zoning Code relating to trailer and truck rental and/or storage at service stations was called to order. All persons present were afforded the opportunity to express their views in regard to the proposed change in the Zoning Code. Speaking in regard to the matter was Mr. Don Bowman of the U-Haul Company. Mr. Bowman did not object to the proposed revision but said that he thought there should be a provision for obtaining a variance to the Code in regards to the proposed change. Planning Commission - 5 - June I, 1971 Mi nutes Mr. Kenneth R. Jensen, 3500 Boone Avenue North, inquired as to the intent of the change in the zoning ordinances regarding storage and rental of trucks and trailers at service station sites. Mr. Jensen was advised that this does not relate to storage of recreational vehicles, but that the Codes and Standards Committee is presently considering controls relating to storage of recreational vehicles. Discussion held as to subdivision I0 on page 5 of the proposed ordinance. It is recommended that this section be revised so that Line 4 will read "required front or side yard setback for buildings on". The Village Manager was asked to check with the Village Attorney as to whether above change in wording of the proposed ordinance would necessitate another publication and public hearing. Motion by Sueker, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Council approval of proposed Ordinance amending the zoning code relating to trailer or truck rental and/or storage at service stations subject to Page 5, Subdivision I0, line 4 being changed to read "required front or side yard setback for buildings on". Motion carried by voice vote. NEW BUS I NESS I0. Discussion held relative to recommendations from the Planning Com- mission as to items for consideration in connection with the 1972 Operating Budget. Commissioner Ostlund asked about the possibility of using ponding areas for tree planting, the feasibility of the number of boulevard trees being doubled and that the trees grown by the Village would be sold to the citizens for planting on the bou I eva rds. Discussion held as to need for additional parking in connection with the Village parks. Commissioner Sueker said he would like to see a lighted sign on Winnetka Avenue giving direction to the Village Hall. Commissioner Meyer would like to see a guide for homeowners printed to give pertenent information on various codes of general interest to new homeowners. Commissioner McConnell stated that she thought a large map of the Village should be posted in the Council chambers. The Village Manager advised that the overhead projector would be in use at the next meeting. Commissioner Barniskis asked whether the League of Minnesota Municipalities could bring some pressure to bear on NSP for changing decorative lighting for the "close-in" suburbs. Planning Commission - 6 - June I, 1971 Minutes Mr. Barniskis also inquired into the possibility of breaking curbs at street crossings. Commissioner Ostlund mentioned the need for m~ving telephone poles now located on the sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue. lOa. Chairman Ouimette announced that he was appointing Commissioner Oster to serve on the Land Use Committee. Commissioner Ostlund, Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee, reported that this committee is currently working on the proposed townhouse ordinance and proposed regulations for storage of recreational vehicles. Work is also being done on a sign ordinance. Copies of the proposed ordinances are to be mailed to the Commission members and these items will be on the next Planning Commission agenda. The Village Manager was asked to check the laws regulating signs advertising gasoline prices. 12. Commissioner Barniskis said there was no report from the Land Use Committee. He asked to be advised when the Dr. Salitermann proposal for development of the southeast corner of Hillsboro and 36th Avenue is submitted so the Land Use Committee can review~the proposal with respect to previous requests for development of~this corner. 13. The Council minutes of the meeting of May 24, 1971, were reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission questioned why it is that changes in planned unit developments are not brought back to the Planning Commission. Discussion held as to policing of Boone and 42nd Avenue during the swimming pool season. The Village Manager is to look into the matter. 14. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of May 18, 1971, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. 15. Chairman Ouimette read a letter of resignation from Mr. Robert Bonnet. and 16. M~tion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, accepting Mr. Bonnet's resigna- tion from the Planning Commission. It was decided that the applications now on file would be brought forward and that action would be taken at the next Commission meeting to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Bonnet. Discussion held as to whether it would be possible to cancel the mid-month meetings in July and August. Planning Commission - 7 - June I, t971 Minutes Commissioner Meyer inquired as to Village ordinances regarding filling. He noted that there was some filling going on near 49th west of Flag. 17. Motion by Barniskis, second by Sueker, and carried, to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Respectful I y submitted, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - June 15, 1971 Mi nutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, June 15, 1971 at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was cai led to order by Chairman Ouimette. 2. Roll calt was taken as follows: Present: Ouimette, Ostlund, Meyer, Oster, Sueker, Greenberg, Ohman. Absent: McConnell, Barniskis. (Excused absence for Barniskis). PUBL I C HEAR I NGS 3. Planning Case No. 71-29, continued from the meeting of June I, 1971 was considered at this time. This is the request from Green Giant, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, for a special use permit for outdoor sales. Mr. Short and Mr. Jack Jones appeared at the meeting representing the Green Gi ant Company. Mr. Jack Jones presented a layout of the proposed site use. Discussion held as to the fencing requirements for the site. It was again pointed out by the Planning Commission that the north, east and south side of the site was to have privacy fence, this being a contingency of the original approval of the site plan. Chairman Ouimette pointed out that there is an additional structure on the site to the rear of the main buildin§ which was not a part of the approved plans. The concensus of the Commission was that the privacy fence thus far constructed does not meet privacy standards and that redwood was to have been used instead of the slatting now being instal led. Mr. Jack Jones said that he had looked into the possibility of redwood slats but these could not be used on th is fence. Mr. Jones further stated that he feels the fence being constructed is a good looking fence. The Chairman asked for comments from the floor. No comments were offered. Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, to move denial of a special use permit for outdoor sales as requested under Planning Case No. 7 i -29. Planning Commission - 2 - June 15, 1971 Minutes Further discussion held with Mr. Jack Jones asking to see the minutes stipulating fencing on the north side. Mr. Jones said such a fence does not show on the original site plans. Mr. Jones was advised by the Commission that the Village Code requires a fence between commercial and residential property. It was suggested that the matter be tabled so that the records could be researched as to requirements previously placed on the Green Giant Company. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 71-29 until the meeting of July 6, 1971. Motion carried unani- mously. 4. Chairman Ouimette announced that Mr. William Lundberg had asked that Planni.n~ Case No. 71-34 be continuted until the first meeting in July as he was not ready with his presentation. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 71-34 until the first meeting in July. Motion carried by voice vote. NEW BUSINESS 5. The request for substitution of fencing material for Miles Con- struction Company apartment complex at 58th and Quebec Avenue North was considered. Mr. Ed Orwall, Attorney, represented Miles Construction Company. Mr. Orwall said Miles Construction is requesting permission to change from a chain link fence with slats to a rough cedar fence. It was pointed out to Mr. Orwall that problems have developed with the cedar siding on the apartment.buildings and that it was doubtful that cedar fencing would be any better. C~nmissioner Sueker said that he wanted to see a cedar fence of this type that has been up for a while. Mr. Orwall said he was not aware of the problem with the cedar siding on the apartments and that he didn't believe there were problems anywhere el se. Mr. Thomas, 5709 Pennsylvania Avenue North, said he was unable to fix his yard until Miles Construction completed their work. He said there wasa bank that is from three to four feet high and, if the fence is to be at the bottom of the bank, for all practical purposes, the fence would only be three to four feet high. Planning Commission - 3 - June 15, 1971 Mi nutes Mr. Fritz Koshiol, 5725 Pennsylvania Avenue North, said he is concerned with a barrier to protect his property. Mr. Will Schief, 5708 Pennsylvania Avenue North, asked for specifications as to the location of the fence and asked if Mi les Construction would consider a redwood fence. He also said they have a traffic problem on their street. Mr. Bob Johnson, 5701 Pennsylvania, also appeared regarding the matter. Commissioner Ostlund suggested that the Planning Commission get together as a group with the Architect for Miles Construction, if possible, and take a look at the problems on the site. Motion by Ostlund, second by Greenberg, to table consideration of substitution of fencing materials for Mi les Construction Company apartment complex at 58th and Quebec until the first meeting in July. Motion carried by voice vote. 6. The Planning Commission considered the proposed townhouse ordinance. Commissioner Sueker questioned the provision relating to private roadways. He also asked about the possibility of having side by side parking rather than tandem parking, so that vehicles might be able to come out of garages without having to move the car in the driveway. Following discussion, it appeared that side by side parking would be advisable for those units abutting on a pub I i c street. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ohman, to recommend to the Council adoption of the ordinance on townhouses with the suggestion that a change be made to provide for side by side parking for units that traffic onto public streets so as to minimize on-street parking. Commissioner Sueker spoke against the motion and asked that the Codes and Standards Committee research the suggested change. Motion by Oster, second by Greenberg, to table the proposed townhouse ordinance until the first meeting of July. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 7. The Planning Commission considered the proposed ordinance re- lating to parking of recreational vehicles in residential dis- tricts. Discussion held as to weight limitation on vehicles to be parked in residential districts. Planning Commission - 4 - June 15, 1971 Mi nutes Motion by Sueker, second by Greenberg, that the limitation be 7500 pounds. Motion by Ostlund, second by Meyer, that this be amended to 9000 pounds. Discussion held. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ohman, to move the question. Motion carried by voice vote wlth Greenberg voting against. Roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend the restriction of weight to 9000 pounds as roi io~s: Voting yes: Ostlund, Meyer, Ouimette, Oster. Voting no: Greenberg, Sueker, Ohman. Amendment carri ed. Roll call vote was then taken on the motion as amended as follows: Voting yes: Ostlund, Meyer, Ouimette, Oster. Voting no: Greenberg, Sueker, Ohman. Motion carried. (Restriction of 9000 pounds recommended). Motion by Greenberg, second by Sueker, to change Section 9-(I), line 7, by deleting the word "a" and inserting instead "an actual". Motion carried by voice vote. Motion by Sueker, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the proposed sections relating to recreational vehicles as amended. Motion carried by voice vote. 8. Commissioner Ostlund said the Codes and Standards Committee had sent forward a copy of the proposed sign ordinance. The Village Manager advised that the proposed ordinance is now being evalu- ated by the Assistant Village Attorney and copies will be sent to the Planning Commission for consideration at its next meeting. 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. II. The Planning Commission minutes of June !, 1971 are to show Commissioner Greenberg as excused. Motion by Sueker, second by Meyer, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June I, 1971, with the correction noted above. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 5 - June 15, 1971 Minutes 12. Commissioner Ostlund noted that Mrs. McConneil had said she wishes to resign. Discussion held as to whether a letter should be obtained from Mrs. McConnel I. I0. The size of the Commission was discussed. Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, that the names of top four candidates on list for Planning Commission appointment be placed in nomination tonight. Motion carried. The candidates under consideration were Don Zila, Merlin Brinkman, Willard Nelson, Dennis Martenson. Vote was taken. Motion by Sueker, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Council that Hr. Don Zila be appointed to the Planning Commission to fill Mr. Bonner*s unexpired term. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Vii lage Council that the Planning Commission be reduced to nine m~nbers. Motion carried, with Hr. Greenberg asking to be recorded as voting age i nsf. 12. Additional comments and requests from citizens, commissioners and staff were called for. Discussion held as to status of traffic signal at 42nd and Boone. It was asked whether the Hetro sign for the car wash to the east of Mr. Steak conforms with the Code. Motion by Ohman, second by Greenberg, to adjourn the meeting at 10:12 p.m. Motion carried by voice vote. Respectful I y submi tied, .,. :.--.... ......... I~,tty Pou I iot Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - July 6, 1971 Mi nutes i. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, July 6, 1971, at 8~00 p.m. The meeting was cai led to order by Chairman Ouimette. 2. Roil call was taken as follows: Present: Ouimette, Ostlund, Meyer, Oster, Sueker, Greenberg, Ohman, Barniskis. Absent: McConnell, Zila (Zila arrived shortly). PUBL I C HEAR I NGS 3. Plannin.q Cas~ No. 71-37, request for variance in rear yard setback to allow for construction of a g~age within I0 feet of the rear lot tine, Lot !0, Block 4, Mork Campion Heights, 6001 Quebec Avenue North, as requested by Mr. Adolph Streier, was heard~ Mr~ Streier was at the meeting to discuss the request. Discussion held as to whether there were any objections from the neighbors. The Vi Itage Manager commented that notices had been sent to the neighboring properties. No one appeared to object to the requested variance. Mr. Streier was advised that the boulevard portion of the driveway must be hard surfaced. Commissioner Sueker inquired as to why the garage could not be built so as to line up with the house on the 60th Avenue side. Mr. Streier said that it would be necessary to remove trees. This particular setback is 20 feet in ~conformance ~ith Code. Commissioner Zi la arrived. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to recommend to the Village Council approval of a variance in rear yard setback for Lot i0, B~ock 4, Mork Campion Heights, .6001 Quebec Avenue North, to permit con- struction of a detached garage to come within I0 feet of the rear lot line, as reqL~sted under Planning ~ase-No~ 71-37.~ Motion~ carried by voice vote. 4. ~Planninq Cases Nos. 71-38~. 71-39 and 71-40~ requests for varianc~ in side yard setbacks for Lots I and 19, Block I, and Lot 6, Block 2, West Oak Terrace, to permit construction of houses within 34 feet of 27th Avenue, was heard. The street numbers of the lots in question are 2700 Ensign, 2701 Ensign and 2700 Flag Avenue. The Code re- quires a setback of 35 feet from 27th Avenue North. Mr. Dean Peterson appeared before the Commission representing Vern Donnay Homes. It is proposed that L-shaped split foyers will be built on the lots in question. The driveways will be off Flag and Ensign Avenues. Planning Commission - 2 - July 6, 1971 Mi nutes Mr. Peterson was advised by the Planning Commission that, at the time the plat was presented, it was called to the developer's attention that variances would be required unless homes were planned to fit the lots. Mr. Peterson was then asked to locate the balance of the plat with this problem in mind. Mr. Peterson advised the Planning Com- mission that 15 different styles of homes are proposed for the West Oak Terrace platl No one appeared to object to the granting of the requested variances. Motion by Ostlund, second by Barniskis, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the variances in side yard setback to permit construction of L-shaped split foyer homes at 2700, 2701 Ensign and 2700 Flag Avenue, as requested under Planning Cases Nos. 71-38, 71-39 and 71-40. Motion carried by voice vote. 4b. Discussion held relative to request from Miles Construction to change from a chain link fence with slats to a rough cedar fence for the apartment complex at 58th and Quebec Avenues. tt was noted that the architect for the project had assured that new material will be placed on the apartment building where there is a general problem. The Village Manager advised the Planning Commission that Mi les Construction had requested that this matter be tabled until the meeting of July 20, 1971. Motion by Ohman, second by Meyer, that, in view of the request from Mi les Construction to retable, the matter be held for the July 20th meet i ng. Roll call vote was taken on the motion to table. Voting in favor~ Meyer, Ohman. Voting against~ Ostlund, Zila, Oster, Greenberg, Sueker, Barniskiso Abstain ing ~ Ou i mette. Motion lost. Motion by Sueker, second by Ostlund, to table the matter of request for change in fencing material for Mi les Construction Company apartment complex at 58th and Quebec Avenues until the meeting of August 3, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. 54 Planning Case No. 7~1-41, request for rezoning from SR to LB for a medical center on the property at the southeast corner of Hi llsboro Avenue and 36th Avenues, Dr. L. M. Saliterman, petitioner, was heard. Dr. Saliterman appeared to discuss the requested rezoningo The site in question is 1.4 acres and the proposed medical center would be approximately 12,000 square feet with 8 medical offices. Underground parking facilities would be provided for tenants with outside parking for patients. Dr. Saliterman then set forth the following reasons as basis for the rezoning: Planning Commission - 3 - July 6, 1971 Mi nutes I. Highway construction at 36th and //18. 2. Access and egress to the property. 3. Shell station is located kitty-corner from his property. 4. Traffic pattern is already established on 36th because of schools in Plymouth Village and access to County I~ad #18. 5. Home builders said they were not interested in building houses on this property. 6. The corner is no longer suitable for SR. Dr. Saliterman further stated that the proposed medical center would not generate much traffic and that the building would be of a design compatible with the residential flavor of the neighborhood. He said a medical facility was needed, that he thought the criteria for re- zoning was met and requested that the rezoning be granted. Commissioner Oster asked how many bui Iders had been contacted re- garding SR development of the property. Dr. Sal iterman stated that three builders had been contacted and that the builders are willing to submit a letter on the matter. Chairman Ouimette noted that the property in question was zoned LB with the diamond interchange in mind, that the intersection is being developed as originally planned, and in his opinion, the original zoning was not in error. Commissioner Oster stated that he could not accept the considerations presented by Dr. Saliterman as making the property unsuitable for single family residences. The Chairman read a letter dated July I, 1971, from Mr. and Mrs. Thad Kranz. Mr. and Mrs. Kranz requested that the property remain as single family and noted that the property to the west of Hi llsboro was zoned LB. The letter also objected to the MR zoning requested by Mr. Hewitt Peterson under Planning Case No. 71-42. Mr. and Mrs. Kranz reside at 3601 Gettysburg Avenue North. Mr. W. J. Bialas, 9108 - 35th Avenue North, objected to the rezoning and stated he had purchased his property in 1969 after checking the surrounding zoning and had bought relying on same. He said he would not like to see MR zoning and that the area should remain as SR. Mrs. Charles Oliver, 3555 Flag Avenue North, said they had lived in the area since 1947. When they purchased their property, the land along 36th Avenue was zoned for business and the zoning had since been changed. Mr. Charles Youngberg, 9132 - 34½ Avenue North, said that when he purchased his property in 1966 he had checked the zoning in the area. and bought relying on same. He requested that the land remain SR. Planning Commission - 4 - July 6, 1971 Minutes Motion by Ostlund, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Village Council that the rezo~ing from SR to LB, as requested by Dr. Saliterman under Planning'Case No. 71-41, be denied. Motion carried by voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 71-42, request from Mr. Hewitt Peterson for rezoning from SR to MR of the property in the southeast quadrant of Hi lisboro and 36th Avenue North, was considered. Mr. Peterson was present to discuss the case. He stated that he does not feet the proPerty is suitable for single family residential development and that good townhouses would add to the area and give a good tax base. He said the traffic would not go onto 36th Avenue. Mr. Peterson further stated that he would provide the Oliver property, 3555 Flag Avenue North~ with an easement through the MR property so that the O! i vers would have access to the rear of their property if the MR zoning were granted. Mr. Peterson was advised that he would have to present justification for the requested rezoning b~ssd en established criteria. Mr. Peterson stated that he o~vned the property and that it was not economically feasible to develop the land into single residential. He further stated that when he bought this land it was zoned com- mercial and that the Village rezoned ~ithout giving a reason for rezon ing. Commissioner Barniskis noted that this property has been SR since 1962 and the area is developing in accordance with the comprehensive zoning plan for the Village. Chairman Ouimette read a letter from Mr. Alan Gessner, 9141 - 35th Avenue North, dated July 5, 1971, objecting to rezoning as requested by Mr. Hewitt Peterson. The letter was placed on file. Mrs. Charles OIiver, 3555 Flag Avenue North, pointed out that there were other townhouses in the area. Mr. Dwayne Quiggle, 9133 - 35th Avenue North, said that he bought his property relying on the zoning and he wanted it to remain as single family. Mr. Harvey Keller, 9149 - 35th AvEnue North, said that townhouses would increase i-raffic on 35th Avenue and that he had purchased his property relying on the zoning. Motion by Ostlund, second by Zila, to recommend to the Village Council ~that the rezoning as requested by Mr. Hewitt Peterson under Planning Case No. 71-42 be denied. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 5 - July 6, 1971 Mi nutes 7. Planning Case NO. .7.17..34., continued hearing from the meeting of June I, 1971, was again considered. This is a request from Mr. William Lundberg for rezoning from MR to RB and approval of a planned unit development at the southeast corner of 49th and CSAH #18. Mr. Lundberg was in attendance and presented a revised site plan for the property. He stated that the County would permit the placing of curb cuts within 2C0 feet of CSAH //18. Mr. Lundberg said that the location of the shopping center had been changed from first presentation due to soil conditions and that further expenditures would be required for soil testing before constuuction is started. He said that the townhouse construction would be started before the retail structure. Initial development would take place near 49th Avenue on the good soil. When the townhouses are about one-third developed, construction will commence on the convenience center. Also 50% of the retail area would have to be leased before starting construction. The total site consists of about 20 acres with 3.3 acres to be used for the convenience center and the balance for townhouse development. One hundred fifteen units are planned. Commissioner Sueker noted that it would be questionable whether a planned unit development should be approved until soil conditions were determi ned. Question was raised as to whether the ponding area was in accordance with the master storm sewer plan. Commissioner Oster questioned the size of the proposed convenience center and said that this much square footage was in excess of that needed to serve as a convenience center for the proposed townhouse development. Discussion was held as to whether the retail develop- ment should be classified as a convenience center or a shopping center. No one appeared to object to the rezoning as requested by Mr. Lundberg under Planning Case No. 71-34. Further discussion held as to the size of the proposed retail center, with the concensus being that it should be considered as a shopping' center rather than a convenience center. Commissioner Sueker noted that there is approximately the same driving distance between this proposed center and the New Hope Shopping Center as there is between Midland and the New Hope Center. Motion by Sueker, second by Meyer, to recommend to the Vi~l'lage Council approval of rezoning from MR to RB as requested under Planning Case No. 71-34. Roll call vote was taken as follows: Voting in favor: Ouimette, Ostlund, Meyer, Sueker, Ohman, Barnkiskis,. Zila. Voting against: Oster and Greenberg. Motion carried. Planning Commission - 6 - July 6, 1971 Minutes Further discussion was then held on the proposed townhouse planned unit development. Traffic flow within the area was discussed. The Village Manager noted that the revised plans had been presented this afternoon and that the staff did not have the opportunity to review the ptans. Motion by Greenberg, second by Sueker, to table consideration of the planned unit development for townhouses at The southeast quadrant of 49th Avenue and CSAH #18 until the meeting of August 3, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. Pla?nin~q Case No. 71-2~, continued from the meeting of June t, 1971, was considered. This is the request from Green Giant Company, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, for a special use permit to al Iow outdoor sales. Mr. Short and Mr. Jones appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Green Giant Co~mpany. The letter from Mr. Short of Green Giant, that assures that Green Giant will meet any commitments made to the Village and sets forth a time table for the work needed, was read. Question was raised as to the removal of the dirt from the site to the south of the Green Giant center. Mr. Short said that the New Hope Park and Recreation Department wanted this dirt. The Village Manager stated that the Village has scheduled removal of the dirt by September Ist. Mr. Short asked if this date could be moved forward so that the site can be graded. The Village Manager said he would check into the possibility. The Village Manager noted that, while the Planning Commission minutes of March 3, 1970 specify fencing on the north side abutting the Skyline apartments, such fencing would serve no useful purpose. The apartment garages are there and there is also a grade change. The storage material is to be fenced, which would be an improvement along the north property line. Inasmuch as fencing along the north property tine is a code re- quirement, it was suggested that the Green Giant Company come in for a variance to delete this section of fencing. Discussion held relative to the swimming pools on the site. The height of the building used in connection with the pool sales was also discussed. The Planning Commission was advised that this is a temporary building used for the swimming pool sales office and that this type of structure is for sale. The lessee also stated that if his lease is renewed, the building in question will not be part of the operation next year. Discussion held as to the need for the swimming pool area on the Green Giant site meeting code requirements for fencing of pools. Planning Commission - 7 - July 6, 1971 Mi nutes Mr. Short agreed that the company will put up a four foot fence around the pool area. Further discussion held as to the material being stored in a manner so as not to exceed the height of the fencing. Commissioner Sueker left the meeting. Discussion held as to whether the lathe house used to shade the plants was included in the original plans. It was determined that this was shown on the plans dated June !, 1970. A letter, dated July I, 1971, from Mr. Short of Green Giant Company, stated that the special use permit under consideration was for selling inside the fence in the front area. Motion by Greenberg, second by Ohman, to recommend to the Village Council approval of a special use permit for outdoor sales for the Green Giant Company as presented this date. (Planning Case No. 71-29). Motion carried by voice vote. The Green Giant Company was asked to submit a corrected revised site plan to the Viii.age Council to include the fencing of the swimming pool area and deleting the utility buildings, (now displayed in front parking lot) from the outdoor sales area. I0. Discussion held relative to the site plan for swimming pool lessee, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North. Motion by Barniskis, second by Greenberg, to approve the revised site plan of the entire Green Giant site including the swimming pool area and outdoor seasonal sales area subject to: I. Fencing the pool area to meet code requirements. 2. Excluding the utility buildings from the outdoor sa les area. 3. The temporary building used for swimming pool sales to be moved to meet setback requirements. The Village Manager advised Mr. Short that he would check the code as to the necessity of applying for a variance on the fencing requirement for the north property line and advise Mr. Short as to his findings. NEW BUS I NESS 9. The next item on the agenda was a request for change in sign design for the 42nd Avenue car wash. The proponents were not in attendance. Motion by Greenberg, second by Barniskis, that, since the proponents did not attend the meeting as scheduled, the request be denied. Planning Commission - 8 - July 6, 197I Mi nutes Discussion held regarding the matter. The motion and the second were then withdrawn. Motion by Ostlund, second by Ohman, to table the consideration of the request for change in sign design for the 42nd Avenue car wash until the meeting of August 3, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. II. Planning Case No. 71-44, request for approval of the site plan for Burger Chef, 4210 Winnetka Avenue, was considered. The Village Manager stated that no variances are needed in connection with the proposed site pain. Mr. Ken Johnson appeared representing Burger Chef. He said that the proposed building is 3,000 square feet, most of their sales are indoors and seating is provided for 76 people. Fifty-three parking spaces are shown. Mr. Johnson also said that the advertising sign does noet the present code requirements. The property is zoned general business. Mr. Ken Johnson was informed that the County must approve the curb cuts onto Winnetka Avenue and that screening is a requirement for the north property line. Mr. Johnson stated that the plans had been submitted to Hennepin County for approval. it was noted by Mr. Johnson that the T'Mr. Steak" sign on Winnetka Avenue side will be ten feet inside the Burger Chef site and that it is proposed to leave the ~TMr. Steak" sign as now located. A rendering of the proposed bui Iding was then presented by Mr. Johnson. The Commission expressed concern with the number of curb cuts within such a short distance of the Winnetka and 42nd Avenue intersection. Discussion was also held regarding need for barrlers to separate the ~'Mr. Steak" site from the Burger Chef site for better traffic control. Discussion held as to whether the ~'Mr. Steak" sign could remain on the property and be within the Village code provisions. Motion by Greenberg, second by Meyer, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the site plan for Burger Chef, Planning Case No. 71-44, contingent on obtaining approval from Hennepin County as to the curb cut specified in the plan. Motion by Barniskis, second by Greenberg, to amend the motion to include closing east and south lines to separate from "Mr. Steaks' site. Amendment carried by voice vote. The motion as amended was carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 9 - July 6, 1971 Mi nutes 13, Discussion held as to the proposed sign ordinance. A representative from Naegele Sign Company was present. He said that he had applied for a permit for a sign on 42nd Avenue-to the east of the municipal liquor store and that the requested permit was being held up be- cause of the proposed sign ordinance. Mr. Robert Miller, Assistant Village Attorney, advised that bill- boards are a permitted use in General Business under the existing ord i nance. Commissioner Greenberg left the meeting at 11:55 p.m. Discussion was held regarding possibility of requiring uniformity in building signs in shopping centers. The Assistant Village Attorney noted that the proposed sign ordinance was an amendment to the Zoning Code and would require a public hearing. A copy of the proposed ordinance was furnished to the representative from Naegele Sign Company. Motion by Osttund, second by Ohman, to send the proposed sign ordinance forward to the Village Council for their review and com- ments. Motion carried by voice vote. 12. The proposed townhouse ordinance was reviewed by th'e Planning Com- mission. Motion by Ostlund, second by Oster, to send the proposed townhouse' ordinance forward to the Village Council for their review and comments. Discussion was held as to minimum width for private streets within a townhouse development, it was agreed that 25 feet should be the minimum width. Commission Zila left the meeting at t2:30 a.m. Voice vote was then taken on the question. Motion carried. 14. No report was given by the Codes and Standards Committee. 15. No report was given by the Land Use Committee. t6. The Chairman cai led for comments on the Council minutes of the meetings of June 14th and June 28th. No comments were heard. Planning Commission - I0 - July 6, 1971 M i n utes 17. Motion by Ostlund, second by Meyer, to approve the'Planning Commission minutes of ithe meeting of June 15, 1971, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. Motion by Ostlund, second by Oster, and carried, to'adjourn the meeting at 12:40 a.m. Next meeting to be held on August 3, 1971. Respectfu ! I y submitted, Betty Pou I i et Recording Secretary Planning Commission - i - August 3:1971 Mi nutes I, A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Halls ~01Xylon Avenue North~ in said Village on Tuesdays August 3~ 1971~ at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Vice- Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund~ Sueker~ Greenberg~ Ohman~ Barniskis~ Zila. Absent: Ouimette~ FIeyer~ Oster. (All excused absences). PUBLIC HEARINGS plapninq Case No..~...~l-/5~ request for variances in rear yard and side yard setbacks, building size and lot size for Hamco, Inc. to construct a convenience center at the northeast quadrant of CSAH ~lB and 35th Avenue North, was heard. Hr. Harvey ~,~urphy, Hamco, Inc.~ appeared to represent the proponents. Hr. i,iurphy stated that the ori§inai intention was to build an L-shaped building which would have required setback and building size variances. However, after his firm became aware of the protective covenants~ requiring a 70 foot green strip and that no retail building can be erected within I10 feet of the abutting single family parceis~ Hamco~ Inc. had revised the plan rather than seek I00~/o concurrence from the property owners in the subdivision to void the provisions. The revised site plan was then presented to the Planning Con~nission. The building now proposed is 20~800 square feet. Entrances to the stores will be through a central mall with the exception of the grocery store which will be entered from the south. The new plan no longer requires variances in side and rear yard setback. The Village ;.ianager advised the Planning Commission that the parking as shown on the revised site plan extended into the 70 foot green strip and that the Village does not have the authority to waive the protective covenants. Fourteen parking spaces would have to be eliminated~ leaving 105 spaces or 75~ ratio. The access from 36th Avenue' would be through the Shell property. (Hr. ~iurphy stated that Hamco has an easement from Shell for this access). A variance is still required on the size of the site~ consideration should be given to the removal of the fourteen parking spaces a~d approval of the revised site plan is needed. Planning Commission - 2 - August 3~ 1971 Hinutes Discussion held as to the 30 foot entrance off of Jordan Avenue~ with the Village Hanager noting that this does Conform to the covenants, Commissioner Sueker then commented that it would be possible to parallel park 8 or 9 cars on the aforesaid 30 foot entrance. Comments were then heard from interested property owners. Hr. Bob Olson~ 3S/3 Jordan Circle~ inquired as to the 30 foot opening onto Jordan Avenue. Discussion held as to the location of the fence in respect to the adjoining single family properties. ;ir. Ralph Thomas~ designer of the site plan~ said that the fence would go approximately 5 feet from the property line with the fence to vary so as to save as many trees as possible. A 5 foot redwood fence is proposed. Hurphy~ Hamco~ Inc.~ said that they would connect the fence to the CSAH 4,18 fence and that they would also be v~iiling to remove a couple of the dead trees in the area. He further stated that if the adjoining property owners so desired~ the fence could be set out 20 to 25 feet so that the adjoining property owners could use the space as additional back yard. Hamco~ Inc. would retain ownership to the 25 feet but it is expected that the homeowners ~ould maintain it. Hrs. Robert Olson~ 3S~3 Jordan Circle~ asked if there ~ould be plantings in the green area. Hr. Thomas said some planting~as proposed as well as decorative lighting. Hr. Tom Christenson, 3539 Jordan Circl~ said that he had experienced some drainage problems with his tot and inquired as t~;the proposed grade and drainage for the retail site. Hr. Thomas advised that the drainage for the site in question ~'/ould be toward 35th Avenue. Commissioner Ostlund expressed concern with the ingress and egress to the property. He does not feel that the 25 foot driveway is sufficient. He also inquired as to a sign for the 35th Avenue frontage. Hr. Hurphy stated tl~at they will probably have a sign on 35th Avenue frontage to be located just west of the entrance. He further stated that the siCn would meet the proposed sign ordinance. ;~r. Hurphy also said that they would prefer to have a 32 foot entrance-way but Shell Oil tzould then have to move their advertising sion. Planning Coramission - 3 - August 3, 1971 Hinutes Furthur discussion was held as to the exterior treatment of the building and the possibility that entrance to the grocery store be from the central mall. Hr. ;.iurphy said it would be difficult to have the entrance to the grocery store fro~ the central mall and that other shops might also need outside entrances. Commission Sueker commented that the site plan should be redrawn showing revised parking~ and location of fence and then be brought back to the Planning Con~,3ission for consideration. Hotion by Sueker~ second by 0hman to recommend to the Village Council approval of variance in lot size for retail business area as requested under Planning Case No. 71-~5. Hotion carried by voice vote. · Notion by Sueker~ second by Barniskis to table consideration of the site plan for Hamco~ Inc. until the second meeting in August. I4otion carried by voice vote. The Village Hanager advised the proponents that the matter would not be placed on the Council agenda until the meeting of August 23~ 1971. ~. P,J,~9~ioq Case No. 71-~ request from Blaine L. Carey for waiver .. or'platting ordinance to permit division of property into two industrial lots and request for variances to permit undersize industrial lot and undersized industrial building for the property at 3zOO \'linnetka Avenue~ was heard, i. lr. Carey was in attendance and presented the proposal to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission inquired as to the nature of the proposed business. Hr. Chaney said that his fi, rm would be the owners of the proposed building and that they were distributors of packaging materials. No manufacturing will be done. Hr. Chaney atso stated that the proposed building was 3~595 square feet and that this square footage is adequate for the operation. He furthur stated that the building would be adequate for quite some ti~e. The lot being divided would result in two parcels~ one parcel would be .05 acres and the other parcel would be 1.02 acres. The minimum lot requirement for LI is I acre. Fir. Chaney was advised that t-here would be no room for expansion on the lot. l.lotion by Barniskis~ second by Sueker to recommend to the Village Counoil approval of the waiver of platting ordinance to permit division of property as proposed and approval of variances for lot size and building size as requested under Planning Case No. 7I-~. Hotion carried by voice vote. Plannin~ Commission - /.- August 3~ 1971 ;;inures 5. The Public hearing on proposed revisions in general ordinance standards for signs and sign permits was calle~ to order. The proposed ordinance had previously been made available to interested parties. The Village 1.;anager and Village Attorney advised the Commission and others present of changes to the proposed ordinance made by the Council in respect to directional signs for churches and signs accessory to parking areas. tlr. Oob Naegle of Naegle Advertising appeared before the Commission and offered his comments as to the proposed sign ordinance. The sections questioned by i~;r. Naegle were as follows: Page I~ Subdivision 2 - seems to 9ive unfair advantage to civic organizations. Page 2~ Subdivision 3 - (I) i~;r. Naegle said that church signs should be permitted on other than church property. Page ~ (2) expressed concern with illuminated signs havin~ to be turned off at I1:00 p.m. He said this would be impractical if we were concerned witl~ a hospital. Subdivision 3, (3) - thought that signs should be permitted on vacant property and that variances would be needed to these provisions. Subdivision 3~ (11) - hoped that the Planning Commission ~ould vary this requirement. Subdivision 5~ (2) - noted that a double bungalow would be treated the sa~e as a 35 unit apartment and that 5 square feet was not much space. (The Village ;.ianager noted that Subdivision 6 (2) provides for sales or rental signs). Subdivision 5~ (3) - made no differential between a large project and a small project. Page 6~ Subdivision ~ - questioned the 120 foot square foot requirement. Page 2~ Subdivision 3 (I) - stated that pennants were some- times used as a part of the decor - such as Camelot. Page 8~ Subdivision I0 (I) - said he felt the signing at the Ne~ Hope Shopping Center was in good taste but that the signs would not ~eet the present ordinance. Variances to this requirement will also be needed at the i-iidland Shopping Center. Planning Co~rni ssi on - 5 - August 3~ 1971 ~--[i nutes Page 12~ Subdivision 13~ (5) - inquired as to how the nineteen foot height had been decided upon, and questioned whether this was large enough. Page 12, Subdivision I~ - asked about the sign on the i.lunicipal Liquor Store as relates to this section. Page 12~ Subdivision 15 - commented that all but three signs in the Hidtand Center would require variances to this section. Page 15~ (5) - wanted to know if this only pertained to service station. (Yes) Page 15, (3) - inquired as to nonconforming signs and require- ment for removal of same. Nr. Naegle then asked for a two week extension to permit additional time to study the ordinance, i.;r. Naegle was advised that he had a weel( to study the ordinance before it would be considered by the Council, Hr. Bill l.icGanigal~ Vern Donnay Homes, stated that he thought the intent of the ordinance was to set standards and that not everyone should come and ask for a variance, [,ir. 1jcGanigal said he would like an additional two weeks to study the ordinance. Hr. Lund~ Nelson Paint Store, i,lidland Center, said that none of the signs in the center conform to the proposed standards and he asked if all the merchants have to come in and apply for a variance, llr. Bill HcGanigal, Vern Donnay Ho~es¢ said that the ordinance will set up a situation which is very unfair, The person that comes in to request the variance will have the advantage and that the ordinance should be more explicit t.~ithout the necessity for all the variances. The ordinance is too restrictive. i.ir. Jia Karaback, Developers Diversified~ inquired as to proposed ordinance provisions in respect to the :(-i4art building. I,iotion by Greenberfi, second by Zila to recon~mend approval of the sign ordinance as a~ended for adoption by the Village Council at the aeeting of August 23~ 1971. Hotion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - ~ - August 3~ 1971 ~iinutes 3. The public hearing on the proposed ordinance relating to tovlnhouses t'ms called to order° The ordinance vJas revietved by the Planning Commission. No one appeared regarding this proposed ordinance. Discussion held as to ~..zhether the maximum number of units should be specified. It ~vas decided that this provision should remain in the ordinance. Hot ion by Barn iskis~ second by Ohman that the proposed to,m~house ordinance as amended be recommended to the Village Council for adoption at the next Council meetingo Hotion carried by voice v, ote. Commissioner Ohman left the meeti 7. Pianninq Case No. 71-Z,4,~ continued hearing from the meeting of Ju~e I~ t971~ relatin~ to the request from V!illiam Lundberg for rezoning from HR to RD and approval of a planned unit development for the property at the southeast corner of Zgth Avenue North and CSAH was again considered. Hr. ','!illiam Lundberg vms present. It vms noted that the rezoning portion of the request had been recommended for approval at the meeting of July 3~ 1971~ and that the planned unit development vms to be given consideration at this time. Nr. Lundberg advised the Planning Commission that he had one buildin~ consisting of eleven units while the proposed tovznhouse ordinance limited the number of units to ten per building. The eleven unit buildin¢, is necessary because of the soil conditions on the site. Coi,~missioner Ostlund reported that Planninr~ Commission Chairman Ouimette had contacted him before the meeting to state that he felt the planned unit development proposal for Planning Case No. 71-3z~ vzas totally acceptable v.,ith the provision that I/3 of the tot.mhouse units be built prior' to con~lencing the retail business construct ion. It t.zas noted that a large amount of vmod is to be used for the exterior. Hr. Lundberg said that the exterior of the buildings are to be of rough-sa~,zn cedar and hricl( vzith the homcovlners association being responsible for the maintenance of the buildings. He further statad that the materials t'muld meet FHA specifications. The Planning Cor,~aission felt that Ne~,z Hope should develop the standards for the rough-savm cedar to be used on the buildinp, s rather than relying on FHA specifications. Discussion held as to the specifications for the internal streets in this planned unit development. Plannino Commission - 7 - August 3~ 1971 tiinutes It t/as noted that storage I~ad not been provided for any of the dtJellino units¢ other than tin the attics. Commissioner Sucker suggested that st;irs should be provided to the attic storage. Discussion held as to ~,,,hether the units r, tet the requirer;tent for t¥io exits. ['.ir. Lundberg said that there ~.zere patio doors in the living roora area and that this requirement is therefore met. Comraissioner Barn[skis inquired as to ~,Jhere the raaintenance equipmentgsuch as latin r,~ot/ers, vloulc~ be stored. It appeared that no provision has been made for this type of storage. t.totion by Greenberg that because of the serious storage problem, tie recomraend to the Village Council denial of the planned unit development. Hot[on lost for lack of second. [lotion by Sueker~ second by Barn[skis, to record]mend to the Village Council approval of the planned unit development as requested under Planning Case No. Furthur discussion held as to tile anticipated storage probler,~¢ ~.~ith Coramissioner Barn[skis commenting that ;ir. Lundberg t~ould have to t.~ork ~.~ith the storage problem and that the market t~ould control the probler,~. It ~.~as also sun~pested that the Council take heed of the fact that the brick or equivalent should be strongly considered. flor[on by Sueker, second by Darnis'.',is, to amend the r,~otion to make approval subject to establishr,]ent of siding standards for multiple deve I o p,~, ent s. i;otion by Sucker, second by Barn[skis that the motion be further amended to make approval contingent upon no construction to be started on thc commercial development por'l:ion of the project until at least I/3 of the to~../nhouse structures are substantially completed (meaning closed in). The first amendment ~vas carried by voice vote. The second amendment v/as carried. Voice vote :./as then taken on the motion as ar,~ended and v~as carried Y/[th Cot, ifil[ss[on Greenber~ and Zila asking to be recorded as voting a?ainst. Planning Commission - 8 - Auoust S~ 1971 ]iinutes NE','/ BUS I HESS So Planninq Case Noo 71,-,/7~ approval of site plan for K-i.;art building to be located at the northeast corner of Xylon and /2nd Avenues was considered° [~r. Jim Karaback~ Diversified Developers~ appeared regarding the proposed site plan. The proposed building is to be constructed by Diversified Developers and leased back to K- ~iarto ;'-lo variances are required and the property is correctly zoned. Discussion tms held as to the number of curb cuts onto Xylon Avenue and whether access would be available across the New Hope Shopping Center site. lir. Karaback said that the garden center storage :.muld be enclosed by a fence with slats and that everything would be within the slatted fence. Discussion held as to traffic to be generated ;-~ith special concern for the "' ,,glen - /2nd Avenue intersection. (It was noted that a traffic signal appeared on the plan for this intersection). The Villanue i;anager asked what the developer proposed to do about the turning action onto /2nd Avenue for traffic ~oin~ east and discussion was held as to the installa- tion cost for a traffic signal at this intersection, i.lr. Karaback said Diversified Developers would cooperate on the cost of signalizing the intersection. Following further discussion of the traffic flow the concensus of the Planning Commission was that it would be advisable to also have access across the New Hope Shopping Center site. Discussion held as to the signs for the K-Hart building~ and necessity for conformance to the proposed sign standards. Discussion held regarding the 200 foot parcel at the corner of 4.2nd and Xyton not included in the K-;-iart site. Discussion held regarding the exterior treatment for the building. ;Jr. Karaback said that pigraented split-face block is to be used. Plannin~ Cor.~mi ssi on _ o, _ August 3~ 1971 iiinutes The follo,4in¢, suggestions were made as to control of traffic: (I) possibility of one-vmy traffic on Xylon~ (2) lowering of speed on /.2nd Avenue, (3) ,:~ori( ;.,'ith shoppin~ center~ installation of traffic signal lights at Xylon and A2nc: Avenue. Comr~lissioner Greenberg left the r.]eeting. i;otion by Sueker~ second by Zila to recommend to 'the Village Council tentative approval of both site plans and that we inforra the Council that ,..~e feel that the traffic problem is the greatest problem ~.~ith the site and that Council approval should be subject to corain~ up with a satisfactory solution to the traffic problerao Hotion carried by voice vote. abe Hr. Scott Godin~ ,~ar,, Z. Jones Cor.~pany~ appeared before tile Planning Co[omission to inforraally discuss the possibility of rezoning the southeast corner of ~2nd Avenue and CSAH ~,lC fror,~ the existin¢; RB to i;Ro The property is now o;.med by Standard Oil Company but road plans have changed so that there is no access to County Road lO. The ;;ar!', Zo Jones Cor,~pany is proposin~ to build 12.5 units on the $~ acre tract. T,,.mnty tot.rehouses '4ould be built on the side of the property ~..,ith the balance of the units to be in four apartn~ent buildings. 9. ;iotion by Sueker~ second by Zila to table consideration of proposed ordinance on recreational vehicles until the first meeting in Septernbero ;;otion carried by voice vote. I0. l]otion by Barnis?,is~ second by Zila to table consideration of election procedure for Planning Comn]ission meraber until the first meeting in September. i,iotion carried by voice vote, II. Commissioner Ostlund advised that there ~-]as no report fret,1 the Codes and Standards Cor,]raittee. 12. Co~missioner Darniskis advised that there vms no report from the Land Use Coramitteeo 13. The Council minutes of the raeetings of July 12 and July 23, 1971¢ ~.zere reviewed. 14. Hotion by Zila~ second by Sueker to approve the Planning Coran~i ssi on minutes of the raeetin~ of July 5~ 1971. Hotion CarFied by voice vote. 15. i.iotion by SuekeF¢ second by Barniskis to amend page 3~ (v) of the proposed to:.mhouse ordinance by the ad:ition of the follmving: such roadYmys shall be iraproved in accordance with all specifications of Section /.55/.~ except subdivision (3) (b) (5) and (3) (f) thereof° Plannin~ Commission - I0 - August 3~ 1971 Hinutes ~;otion carried by voice vote. Discussion held as to the condition of the Ne,,.: Itope Garden Center~ /2nd and ",¢innetka Avenue. t.iotion by Ostlund~ second by Sueker to recommend to tile Villa.pc Council withdrawal of the special use perrait for said garden center. ;;orion carried unaniraou~ly. i.;otion by Zila~ second by Barniskis to adjourn the r,~eeting at 12:45 eom. ;.jot i on carr i ed. Respectfully submitted~ Record Jnfj Secretary Planning Commission - I - August 17, 1971 Minutes I. A special meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on TueSday, August 17, 1971, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ouimette. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ouimette, Ostlund, Ohman, Barntskis, Zila, Meyer. Absent: Sueker, Greenberg, Oster. Consideration of'a request for approval of a site plan for property described as the north 450 feet of Lot 3, Winnetka Hills, 2nd Addition to be developed by Reo Plastics as in industrial building of 27,200 square feet. Mr. Ken Benson and Mr. Robert O'Conner, President of Reo Plastics, explained that two future expansions were being considered and that the parking facilities would be adequate. The mode of operation of the plant was discussed. Mr. Benson said that the building would have a sprinkler system. The Village Manager explained that the site plan would be reviewed by the Village staff prior to consideration at the August 23, 1971 Village Council meeting. Motion by Ohman, second by Ostlund, to recommend to the Village Council approval of the site plan subject to review by the Village staff. Motion carried by voice vote. Motion by Ohman, second by Barniskis, to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, R. Michael Amyx Acting Recording Secretary Planning Commission - t - September 7, 1971 Mi nutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, September 7, 1971, at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Sueker, Ohman, Meyer, Oster. Absent: Zila, Ouimette, Greenberg. (Excused absence for Ouimette). ~/~,'~ PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. ~.la~nin~ case No. 7!.]49, request from Mr. Richard Reimer for a variance in rear yard setback to permit construction of a single family home with attached garage at 8310 - 36th Avenue North, to come within 28 feet of the rear lot line, was heard. Mr. Richard Reimer appeared before the Commission to discuss the request, i~r. Reimer advised the Commission that protective covenants on the area required 1,100 square foot house and that a variance in setback was needed because of the irregular shaped lot and the re- quirement for a fifty foot front yard setback from 36th Avenue. A split entry home is proposed. The house will have a deck extending into the rear yard area. Commissioner Sueker inquired as to whether the garage could be placed on the east side of the house. Mr. Reimer replied that he wanted to put in a common driveway with turn arounds for the lot in question and the lot to the west. Following further discussion Mr. Reimer asked whether it would be more acceptable to grant a variance in front yard setback. He noted that this was the first variance that had been needed in the development and that this was the last lot to be developed. Appearing in regard to the matter were: Mr. Bob Bourbonais, 8301Northwood Parkway, stated that he does ob- ject to the requested variance. The house would be 60 feet from his porch and will be looking right into his back yard. Mr. Bourbonais was asked whether placing the garage to the east of the house would be helpful to which he replied that it would be better but that the balcony to the rear of the proposed house would still be too close to his property. Mr. Bourbonais said that if the following four things were done he might agree to the variance as requested: (!) the house plan should be reversed, (2) the living area should be turned away from his house, (3) a six foot privacy fence should be constructed on his property so that maintenance would be assured and (4) no deck should be built to the rear of the house. Planning Commission - 2 - September 7, t971 Mi nutes Mr. Ed Lother, 8309 Northwood Parkway, said that he objected to the proposed variance, that the house would be right in his back yard and that this house and the one next to it would be uncomplimentary to the neighborhood. Mr. Richard Reimer stated that he objected to putting up a privacy fence and that he felt a deck to the rear of the house would be necessary for saleability. It was also noted that the difference in grade of the lots was an existing condition. Mr. Bourbonais stated that, if the fence were not required of Mr. Reimer, he would have to construct it at his own expense so that he would have some privacy. It was pointed out to Mr. Bourbonais that the code permitted a thirty five foot rear yard setback. Further discussion followed with it being suggested to Mr. Reimer that he draw up a new plan with the garage located on the east side of the house and the house moved forward so that a front yard variance is needed in preference to the rear yard variance with the revised proposal to be considered by the Planning Commission. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 71-49 until the meeting of September 21, t971. Motion carried by voice vote. .P!.~n.n!ng Case ~o. 71-50, request for variance in rear yard setback to permit the construction of a garage at 2724 Xylon Avenue North to come within ten feet of the rear lot line, was discussed. Mr. Dan Countryman, petitioner, was present. The garage is to be four stalls and will serve the four apartments located at 2724 Xylon Avenue North. Mr. Countryman presented a site plan including location of the exterior parking. Commissioner Ostlund expressed concern with the amount of green area remaining on the site after the erection of the proposed garage and additional outdoor parking. i~r. Countryman stated that there are usual ly seven cars owned by people living in the building and that he needed more than four outside parking spaces to accomodate overnight guests, etc. Mr. Countryman was advised to revise the site plan to show the garage located in the northeast corner with the exterior parking to be to the north of the apartment building. Motion by Meyer, second by Ostlund, to table Planning Case No. 71-50 until the meeting of September 21, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 3 - September 7, 1971 Minutes 5. Plann!.~g Case No. 71-51, request from William R. Nelson for a variance in front yard setback to permit construction of a home at 6132 Utah Avenue North, was to be considered at this time. The Planning Commission was advised that the petitioner had requested that the matter be held over until the meeting of September 21, 1971, in ~that the petitioner had not decided on the type of residence he wishes to construct° Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 71-51 until the meeting of September 21, 1971. i~otion carried by voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 71-52, request for waiver of Platting Ordinance, was held for late~r in the meeting so that it might be handled in conjunction with Planning Case No. 71-55, petitioner on both cases being Mr. Ken Benson. 7. Planning. Case No. 71-53, request from Rauenhorst Corporation for a variance to permit placement of a four foot high by eight foot long brick planter (with the Nordic Press Company designation on the planter) in the required front yard setback at the site of its new structure, 5017 Boone Avenue North, was heard. Mr. David Bartol, Rauenhorst Corporation, appeared on behalf of the proponents. Mr. Bartol said that it had been decided to use the planter with the sign designation rather than place a sign on the building. The letters on the sign will be about 18 inches high, with designation on both sides of the planter. The sign will be lighted with small flood lights on either side. Discussion held as to how this sign would fit into the proposed sign ordinance~ i~4otion by Sueker, second by Oster, to recommend approval of the variance for planter sign in the front yard setback of the Nordic Press site, 5017 Boone Avenue North as requested under Planning Case No. 71-53, contingent upon limiting this sign being the only sign for the front of the Nordic Press building. Motion carried by voice vote. 8. Ptanninq Case No. 71-54, request for approval of site plan for multi.pie garages at 41st and Nevada Avenue, Dr. Irving Herman, petitioner, was heard. Mr. Ed Anderson, Olson Concrete Company, presented the request on behalf of the petitioner. Discussion held as tO the exterior finish of the building, with i~r. Olson being advised ~hat the exterior of the garage must be all brick with the excepti°~ Qf the doors. Further discussion held as to the use of figer glass ~tarage doors. The concensus of the Planning Commission was that fiber glass garage doors would not hold up. Mr. Anderson said that he would carry the Planning Commission's comments back to the owner. Planning Commission - 4 - September 7, 1971 Mi nutes Commissioner Ostlund pointed out that exterior lighting plans certified to meet code requirements must be presented. Motion by Sueker to recommend approval of the site plan for multiple garages at 41st and Nevada Avenues, Planning Case No. 71-54, subject to presentation of certified lighting plans. The m~tion was seconded by Ohman and carried by voice vote. Commissioner Sueker recommended that the Planning Commission go on record to the Council that the proposed sue of plastic doors in the multiple garages at 41st and Nevada Avenue be looked at carefully by the Building Inspector. The recording secretary was directed to include above recommendation in the minutes for transmittal to the Council. 6. Planninq Case No. 71-52, request from Mr. Ken Benson for Waiver of Platting Ordinance to permit the division of the residue parcel of lot I, Block 3, Winnetka Hills 2nd Addition into four parcels, was heard at this time. Mr. Benson was present to discuss the proposed division. The property is zoned Gt and has 1,302.56 feet frontage on Quebec, including the southerly parcel previously divided from the tract. Each parcel exceeds the minimum one acre requirement in the Gt district. Mr. Eugene Johnson, 4709 Oregon Avenue North, appeared to inqui re into the proposed division of property. He offered no objections. Motion by Ohman, second by Meyer, to recommend to the Council approval of request for Waiver of Platting Ordinance as outlined in Planning Case No. 71-52. Motion carried by voice vote. 9. Planning Case No. 71-55, request from Mr. Ken Benson for site plan approval for Midco Register Building to be located at 46th and Quebec Avenues, was heard. Midco Register Company is to be located on the parcel directly south of the Reo Plastics site. Discussion held regarding the parking layout with 53 spaces shown on the site plan. The code requires 42 spaces. It was called to Mr. Benson's attention that only visitor parking is permitted in front area, and that a few of the spaces on the side would have to be deleted or posted as visitors' parking only. Discussio~ held as to the exterior finish of the building. Mr. Benson was informed that the plywood facing shown on the plan does not meet code. Mr. Benson then stated that break-off block would be used on the front of the building other than the office area, which will be ceramatraz and glass, with the balance of the building to be scored b.locks. Mr. Benson then brought forward a sample of break-off block for the Planning Commission's consideration. Planning Commission - 5 - September 7, 1971 Minutes Discussion held as to the loading doors to the front of the building. The Planning Commission noted that this arrangement would not be workable inasmuch as semi-truck of 55 feet in length would extend into the street. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to approve the site plan for Midco Register Company, requested under Planning Case No. 71-55, subject to removal of the two loading doors on the front of the building, removal of the plywood facing shown on the plans and that there be no permanent parking to the front of the bui Iding. Motion carried by voice vote. The Planning Commission recommended that the loading doors be placed on the north side of the building. NEW BUSINESS I0. Discussion held regarding conSideration of the request for sub- stitution of fencing material for Crystal Towers Apartments, 58th and Quebec Avenues. Hr. Bob Ryan, property manager for Crystal Towers, appeared to discuss the request. Commissioner Ostlund stated that the rough sawn cedar applied to the building was unsatisfactory and although the matter had been called to the developer's attention some months ago, repair had not been completed. Mr. Ryan said that he had met with the Acting Building Inspector this date to review work still needed to be done prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. The Planning Commission stated that the buildings must be brought up to normal standards. Mr. Ryan said the work would be done. A group of citizens from the City of Crystal living in the proximity of the Crystal Towers complex were in attendance and were recognized by the chair. Mr. Fred Koshiol, 5725 Pennsylvania Avenue North, said the single family home owners in the area would prefer chain t ink fence placed at the top of the grade. Mr. Ryan indicated that the intent is to place the fence on the property line and use a fence of more than six feet where it is felt necessary. Mr. Harold Thompson, 5709 Pennsylvania Avenue North, said he did not object to the fence being placed on the property line provided the property is brought up to grade before placing the fence. Mr. Thompson noted that maintenance of the complex needed improvement and felt that if the property were not up to grade, a depression by the fence would se'rye as a collection area for papers and so forth. Mr. Koshiol, 5725 Pennsylvania Avenue North, also expressed concern with the strength of the wooden fence as opposed to a chain link fence. Plannlng Commission - 6 - September 7, 1971 Mi nutes The Village Manager was asked to report on the status of the repair of the apartment buildings. He said that Mr. Dupay had Inspected the site and that Mr. Ouimette had stated to him that there had been some improvement. The issuance of the final certificate of occupancy wi II be predicated on correction of the siding defects. The Planning Commission's concern was that, inasmuch as rough-sawn cedar had not worked out satisfactorily on the building, it would not be acceptable fencing material. The Village Manager advised that this was a point to be considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ryan indicated that he would be willing to come in with different ideas for wooden fencing--something more durable and still provide the proper screening. The Village Manager suggested that revised plans for the fencing and sample of materials be brought in for staff reviewal. The Planning commission advised Mr. Ryan to work wtth the Crystal citizens as to location, quality and height of the fence. Mr. Robert Johnson, 5701 Pennsylvania Avenue North, asked if there was a deadline as to construction of the fence. He noted that the sodding of the site was incomplete. Mr. Ryan agreed that the landscaping was not complete. He was advised by the Commission that this development was a planned unit development and, as such, dead sod must be replaced with sod rather than seeding. Mr. Ryan noted that there was a drainage problem to be worked out before sodding could be completed. Motion by Ohman, second by Oster, to table the request for sub- stitution of fencing materials for Crystal Towers Apartments until the meeting of September 21, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. II. Discussion held regarding proposed ordinance on recreational vehicles with the Planning Commission requesting further information from the staff regarding reasons why the Council referred the pro- posed ordinance back to the Planning Commission for further study. It was requested that this information be given to the Codes and Standards Committee for consideration prior to the next Planning Commiss ion meeting. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman, to table the matter until the meeting of September 21, 1971. 12. Discussion held regarding selection procedures for filling Planning Commission vacancies. The Planning Commission decided that publicity should be obtained in the local papers regarding the existing vacancies as well as contacting all those persons who had previously appl led for Planning Commission membership to ascertain whether they were still interested. It is expected that applications would be before the Commission for consideration at the meeting of September 21, 1971. Planning Commission - 7 - September 7, 1971 Minutes 13.. Commissioner Ostlund reported that the Codes and Standards Committe_~e__ had met with the Environmental Committee to go over the propqsed sign oral i nance. 14. Commissioner Ostlund reported that the Land Use Committee had not met since the last Planning Commission meeting. 15. The Council minutes of the meetings of August 9th and 23rd were reviewed by the Commission. 16. Motion by Meyer, second by Ohman, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of August 3rd and 17th, 1971, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. 17. Additional comments/requests from citizens, commissioners and staff were requested. Commissioner Ostlund suggested that the Village talk to the owners of the New Hope Shopping Center regarding providing an enclosure for the area where the Salvation Army collection box is located. Vice-Chairman Ostlund announced that Commissioner Barniskis is appointed to serve as the liaison member to the Park Commission. Discussion held regarding the barber shop located behind the Phillips 66 Station at Louisiana and 42nd Avenues. It was noted that the zoning of this property is Gl3. Discussion held as to whether the Planning Commission should appoint a liaison member to the Environmental Commission. It was the con- census that this should be done. Discussion held regarding status of fencing improvement at the Green Giant site. The attendance roster was reviewed. Discussion was held as to what should constitute an excused absence. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that excused absences should be given only if the commissioner is out of town on company business or is sick. 18. Vice-Chairman Ostlund suggested that the Planning Commission members do their homework as to viewing sites up for consideration by the Commission. Vice-Chairman Ostlund said that the "Future Planning and Zoning Com- mittee'' would be abolished for the balance of 1971. He then ap- pointed Commissioner Meyer to serve on the Codes and 'Standards Committee. Planning Commission - 8 - September 7, 1971 Minutes 19. Motion by Ohman, second by Oster, to adjourn the meeting at II;00 p.m. Motion carried by voice vote. Respectfu I ! y submitted, Betty Poul iot Record i ng Secretary Planning Commission M~nutes -I- September 21, 1971 I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, Septem- ber 21, 1971 at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order L',' Vice Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: 13arniskis, Greenberg, Meyer, Ohman, Oster, Ostlund, Sueker Absent: Ouimette, Zita (Excused absence for Zila) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 71-56, request for variance in parking requirements for the K-Mart Department Store to be located at 4300 Xylon Avenue North, was heard. Mr. Jim Karabec, Developers Diversified, appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss the request. Mr. Karabec said that he had received a letter from a group of citizens living in the area and that he had met with the group concerning the K-Mart development. These people were concerned with the expanse of the black- top'and whe~hew there, w6uld be.any, landscaping. Mr. Karabec'said that be:told this ghoup he would be glad to cut down on the b.~acktop area, but there was a village code requirement as to the number of parking spaces. Mr. Karabec is now asking that a variance be granted to allow 879 parking spaces rather than the 1,088 spaces required by the code. It is also proposed that trees will be planted on three sides of the site (not on the side abutting the New Hope Shopping Center). The type of tree to be planted has not been determined. Pine trees are to be planted by each entrance. A 2½ foot berm along Xylon Avenue is planned so that the people living on Zealand will not have to look at the store all the time. Mr. Karabec also said that Developers Diversified had hired Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. to do a traffic study in connection with the K-Mart site and that page 17 of that report states that 850 parking spaces should satisfy the highest demand at the site. Mr. Karabec further stated that the Brooklyn Park store has only 708 spaces. Discussion held as to how parking requirements were arrived at by Barton-^schman. The Village Manager advised that Barton-Aschman made a thorough analysis of the particular site, looked at the area of demand and at the future estimated develop- ment of trade influence. This firm has considerable experience and took into ac- count the experience at other K-Mart facilities. Mr. Karabec stated that Kresges have a '~rule of thumb" whereby they feel that 700 parking spaces is enough, except perhaps at Christmas and Easter. Discussion held as to parking facilities at other discount stores located in the vicinity of New Hope, such as Target and Shoppers City. Mr. Karabec stated that Barton-Aschman had done work for Daytons and that he was sure a comparison had been made to Target facilities. Planning Commission - 2 - September 21, 1971 Minutes Commissioner Sueker inquired as to arrangements for'snow removal from the site. Mr. Karabec said that Kresges would take care of the snow plowing. The Village Manager advised that the Village has a requirement for removal of snow from the site. As an administrative matter, this would allow the village to assure that a certain number of parking spaces are available. Discussion held regarding the proposed use of the 160'xl88' parcel at the extreme northeast corner of Xylon and 42nd Avenues. Mr. Karabec said that the use of this land has not been determined and noted that there is a deed restriction as to a gasoline filling station. Further discussion held with Mr. Karabec stating that he still does not have a working agreement with the New Hope' Shopping Center for traffic across its site. Commissioner Barniskis inquired as to what Hennepin County had to say about traffic in connection with the K-Mart development. The Village Manager said that the County indicated that left turn lanes and a traffic signal would be needed. No indication had been given that the speed limit on 42nd Avenue would be reduced. The Village Manager further stated that the expense lies in the turn lanes and widening and that K-Mart has indicated their willingness to cooperate. Mr. Karabec then stated that they will participate in the biggest share of the traffic light, but that he did not know about the left turn lanes. Commissioner Oster said that 90% of the parking spaces could be effectively used and that, as a practical matter, a traffic problem would exist on the lot if it were more than 60% full. Mr. Oster further noted that 60% of 880 was 528 spaces. Mr. Karabec again stated that he does not believe there will be a problem with parking and that his firm has the experience to back this up. Further discussion was held as to the possibility of using the small parcel on the corner for parking, if needed. Mr. Karabec said paving was expensive and this property was too valuable for such use. The Planning Commission then suggested that Developers Diversified purchase an ad- ditional 80 feet and just landscape it, at this time, so that the land would be avail- able if it were needed for parking space. Motion by Sueker, second by Greenberg that, on the advise of Barton-Aschman Asso- ciates, inc., the Pl~nni6g Commission recommend approval of the parking variance to provide for 879 parking spaces as requested under Planning Case No. 71-56. Further discussion held with Commissioner Oster expressing conern as to expansion of the facilities in the future, need for signal at 42nd and Xylon, the utilization of the lot on the extreme corner, and the colume of traffic to this site. Planning Commission - 3 - September 21, 1971 Minutes Roll call vote was taken on the question as follows: Voting in favor~ Greenberg, Ohman, Sueker. Voting against: Oster, Meyer, Ostlund, Barniskis. Motion declared defeated. Further discussion held. Motion by Barniskis, second by Oster to deny request for parking variance for K-Mart-Planning Case No. 71-56o Commissioner Ohman asked whether it would be possible for Developers Diversified to purchase an additional 50 feet of property to the north of the site for future parking expansion. It was suggested that the fifty foot strip need not be black- topped at this time, but rather be inexpensively landscaped. Mr. Karabec stated that future expansion of the New Hope K-Mart facility was not foreseen. The Motion and the second to deny the variance in parking requirements was with- drawn by Commissioners Barniskis and Oster. Motion by Greenberg, second by Ohman to approve the request for variance in @ark- ing requirements down to 879 spaces, as requested under Planning Case No. 71-56, subject to the developer acquiring an additional 50 feet on the north side of the site, which need not be blacktopped at this time. Upon voice vote, the motion was declared carried. Commissioner Sueker asked to be recorded as voting against the motion. Planning Case Noo 71-49, request from Richard Reimer for variance in yard setback at 8310 - 36th Avenue North to permit construction of a single family home with attached garage, was heard. This case had been continued from the meeting of Sep~ tember 7, 1971. Mr. Reimer said that he is requesting a variance in the front yard setback and that the house will be 35 feet from the rear lot line. He also said that at the last meeting there was some talk about reversing the house plan. Mr. Reimer said that if he were to do this, he could not meet the glass requirement for the one bedroom. Mr. Reimer also stated that it is his intent to build a deck to the rear of the house and that the garage will be on the east end of the home. Mr. Robert Bourbonais, 830t Northwood Parkway, asked why a rambler could not be built on the lot. Mr~ Reimer noted that if a rambler were built it would have a walkout basement and be above the level of the Bourbonai$ home. Mr. Bourbonais also asked whether the deck could be deleted from the plan. It was noted that the deck is a permitted encroachment in the rear yard setback. Mr. Bourbonais then said that as much variance as possible should be given in the front yard set- back so that the home may be constructed as far away as possible from his home. Mr. Ed Lother, 8309 Northwood Parkway, said his property lies to the rear of the lot in question, that he had checked over the revised plan and that he was in favor of granting the variance. Planning Commission - 4 - September 21, 1971 Minutes Motion by Barniskis, second by Meyer to approve variance in front yard setback up to 42 feet from 36th Avenue with the provision that the house be located as shown this date. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Case No. 71-50, request from Mr. Dan Countryman for a variance in rear yard setback at 2724 Xylon Avenue, to permit construction of a multiple garage to come within I0 feet of the rear lot line, was considered. This public hearing had been continued from the meeting of September 7, 1971, with the petitioner reques- ting. to revise the site plan so as to retain as much green area as possible. Mr. Countryman said he had considered relocating the garage to the front of the lot but this did not work out as well as expected. He felt there would be too much noise for the tenants if the garage were located as suggested by the Planning Com- mission. He then presented a site plan showing a counter proposal, with the garage being located !0 feet from the rear property line and 20 feet from the south property line. Mr. Countryman said that more green area is saved by this garage location and that parking for the second car would be in front of the garage stall. The Commission asked what type of exterior finish was proposed for the garage. Mr. Countryman said the garage will be stuccoed and will have a gable roof. He also noted that there is stucco on the aprtment building. No one appeared in regard to this requested variance. Motion by Ohman, second by Sueker to recommend to the Village Council approval of the request for variance of 25 feet in rear yard setback for the mutliple garages to be located at 2724 Xylon Avenue, as shown on Plan A, dated September 21, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 71-51, request from Mr. William Nelson for a variance in front yard setback at 6132 Utah Avenue North to permit construction of a single family home with attached garage, was considered. The public hearing had been continued from the meeting of September 7, 1971. Mr. Nelson said the house is located on a cul-de-sac, making a front yard variance necessary. He said that he would rather move the house forward and maintain the rear yard setback requirement. Mr. Nelson also noted that he owned the abutting lots and these lots were vacant. Motion by Oster, second by Greenberg to recommend approval of a ten foot front yard variance at 6132 Utah Avenue North as requested under Planning Case No. 7t-51. Motion carried by voice vote. 7. Planning Case No. 71-45, continued from the meeting of August 3, 1971, was consid- ered. This is a request for site plan approval for a convenience center to be located at the northeast corner of CSAH #18 and 36th Avenue North, Hamco, Inc., petitioner. Mr. Harry Murphy, Hamco, Inc., and Mr. Ralph Thomas, designer, appeared to review the revised site plan with the Planning Commission. Mr. Murphy said that 165 park- ing stalls were now proposed and that access through the central mall has been pro- vided for the southernmost store. Probably all stores would have access through the mall except the store on the northwest corner, which is tentatively planned for a barber shop. Planning Commission - 5 - September 21, 1971 Minutes Mr. Murphy also proposed that the Shell sign be moved to the corner of the site near CSAH #18. If the sign were moved, double egress would be available from 36th Avenue. There is also a 22 foot drive off Jordan Avenue. Mr. Murphy said that, if the Shell sign is moved to the corner of CSAH #18, the word "food" would be added to the sign. Discussion was held regarding location of the fencing between the commercial site and the homes on Jordan Avenue. Mr. Murphy again stated that they would be willing to locate the fence so as to retain as many trees as possible and that the dead trees in the area would be removed. The fence could be set in on the convenience center site a depth of 25 feet, with the understanding that the neighbors would cut the grass on their side of the fence. Mr. Murphy also~ropo~ that the fence not be run all the way out to and alongJordan and that he would like to discuss this matter with the people directly across the street from the Jordan driveway. Further discussion held as to parking. The Village Manager said that the parking is at 78% based on the store area and that this appears reasonable. The building proposed consists of 22,000 square feet and, consequently, a variance in building size is no longer needed. Appearing in regard to approval of the site plan were: Mrs. Christianson, 3639 Jordan Circle, inquired as to the height of the fence and whether the sodding and buffer could be provided before the construction starts. Mr. Murphy replied that the fence could be six feet high if the neighbors wish it. The sodding and blacktopping can not be done until next spring. Mr. Tom Christianson, 3639 Joran Circle, inquired as to how trucks would be able to service the center. He was advised that Shell would "tip" the pumps so there would be room. The trucks will be unloading from the front of the store. The grade of the site was discussed and the people were advised that the conven- ience center grade would be approximately three feet above the Shell Station grade so that drainage could be maintained. Further discussion held as to access off 36th Avenue. Motion by Barniskis, second by Sueker that the subject site plan for Hamco, Inc. be recommended for Council approval and that the variance in lot size be approved as shown in the staff findings, Planning Case No. 71-45. Motion carried by voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. Discussion held regarding the proposed ordinance relating to recreational vehicles. the ordinance was referred back to the Codes and Standards Committee for further study. 9. Discussion of selection procedure for Planning Commissioner was held for later in the meeting. Planning Commission - 6 - September 21, 1971 Minutes NEW BUSINESS I0. Discussion held regarding change in time for Planning Commission meetings. Com- missioner Sueker stated that he would like to'have'the meet'ings start at 7iO0'p.m. rather than 8':00 p.m. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman to request the Village Council to change the Planning Commission meeting starting time to 7:00 p.m. Motion carried by voice vote. Ii. Commission Oster gave the report for the Codes and Standards Committee. He said that the Committee had met and reviewed the sign ordinance, together with the comments of the Environmental Commission and the Northwest Chamber of Commerce. He stated that the Committee had come up with a number of recommended changes but an~other meeting needs to be held to continue the review. He asked that the Assistant Village Attorney attend the next committee meeting. 12. No report was 'given by the Land Use Committee. 9. Vice Chairman Ostlund advised the Planning Commission that Chairman Ouimette's business will be keeping him out of town for sometime. Motion by Sueker, second by Ohman to recommend that the Council grant Commissioner Ouimette a leave of absence until the end of this year. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion held regarding selection of a Planning Commissioner. The Village Manager advised that the vacancy had been advertised in the New Hope Plymouth Post on July 15 and it had appeared again last week. He further stated that he had received just one new application and that Messrs. Wi itard Nelson and John Dahiheimer were still interested in an appointment to the Commission. It was decided that the three ap- plicants should be invited to appear before the next Planning Commission meeting. 13. The Council Minutes of the meeting of September 13, 1971, were reviewed. 14. Motion by Barniskis, second by Ohman to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 7, 1971 with the f~91 lowing correction: Barniskis is to be recorded as absent. Motion carried by voice vote. 15. Additional comments from staff and Commissioners were heard. 16. Commissioner Ostlund stated that Mr. Oster has agreed to be Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee. Commissioner Ostlund stated that Commissioner Zila was ill and asked that his absence be recorded as excused. t7. Motion by Barniskis, second by Ohman to adjourn the meeting at I1:t0 p.m. Motion carried by voice vote. Respectfully submitted, BettY' Po~u I iot Record i no Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - October 5, 1971 Mi nutes 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xyion Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, October 5, 197! at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund, Sueker, Barniskis. Absent: Greenberg, Oster, Zila, Rauch. (Zila and Rauch arrived later in the meeting). Vice Chairman Ostlund called the meeting to order. Vice Chairman Ostlund announced that Commissioner Greenberg was moving out of the Village and had submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission. It was noted that the public hearings to be considered by the Planning Commission this evening had been published for 8:00 p.m. and that other matters on the agenda, not requiring public hearing, would be con- sidered at this time. 8. The first item considered was the interviewing of applicants for Planning Commission vacancies. Appearing were~ Mr. John Dahlmeier, Mr. Robert Cameron, Mr. Ronald Oswald and Mr. Willard Nelson. Following the interviews the applicants were advised that the appoint- ments to the Commission will be considered later in the meeting. 10. Commissioner Meyer reported that the Codes and Standards Committee met with the Assistant Village Attorney and revisions had been made to the proposed sign ordinance. It is the intent of the Committee to now meet with someone from the Northwest Chamber of Commerce and other parties who might be interested. This meeting is to be scheduled after the redraft of the ordinance is submitted by the Assistant Village Attorney and might possibly take place at the next Planning Commission meeting. 11. Commissioner Barniskis stated that the Land Use Committee had met on Monday evening, October 4, 1971, and gone over several items in connection with the townhouse ordinance. Also, discussion was held regarding the width of 49th Avenue, sidewalks and parking in this area. Commissioner Rauch arrived. 12. The minutes of the Council meeting of September 27, 1971 were reviewed by the Planning Commission. 13. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, approving the Planning Com- mission minute, s of the meeting of September 21, 1971, as presented. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 2 - October 5, 1971 Minutes 14. Additional comments and requests from citizens, commissioners and staff were heard at this time. (No comments offered by citizens). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case.No. 71~58, request for variance in side. yard setbacks from Jerry E. Fruin, 3433 Hillsboro Avenue, was heard. Mr. Fruin was present to discuss the request. He is seeking variances to allow for the con- struction of a 22 X 25 foot attached garage to the north of his residence and the conversion of the existing attached garage to the south of his residence to living quarters. The proposed garage would come within 7 feet of Hillsboro Avenue, while the code requires a 20 foot setback. If the existing garage is converted into living space, a five foot sideyard variance is needed (code requirement being I0 feet for living quarters). Discussion held as to whether a visibility problem would be created at the corner of 35th and Hillsboro Avenue. Mr. Fruin said that the driveway would be off 35th Avenue. Commissioner Sueker pointed out that a car could not be parked in the driveway without encroaching on the boulevard. The Commission asked Mr. Fruin what would be done with the existing driveway out to Hillsboro. Mr. Fruin said the driveway would be torn up and the area sodded. Upon questioning, Mr. Fruin said he would be willing to have the new drive come off Hillsboro Avenue. Discussion held regarding the request for variance on the south side- yard. It was pointed out to the petitioner that there could be no openings on the side of the house being converted to living quarters. Mr. Fruin said that a fireplace is planned and it was noted that this would extend into the proposed five foot setback. Commissioner Meyer stated that he had two objections to the proposal. The overall dimension of the house and attached garage would be 80 feet and this would not be compatible with other homes in the im- mediate area. Also, the alignment with the home to the rear would be objectionable. He said the proposed structure would not fit into the neighborhood. Further discussion held as to feasibility of an L shaped addition for garage purposes, or the construction of a detached garage. Possibil- ity of the installation of a stop sign at 35th and Hillsboro Avenues was discussed. No one appeared to object to the variances as requested by Mr. Fruin. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, to recommend approval of the variances as requested under Planning Case No. 71-58, subject to the driveway coming out to Hiltsboro Avenue, to the approval of the Police Department as to visibility at the corner and that there be no openings on the south side of the house. Motion carried with four members voting in favor and two members against. Planning Commission - I - October 19, 1971 Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, October 19, 1971, at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present; Meyer, Ostlund, Sueker, Barniskis, Oster, Oswald, Cameron. Absent; Rauch, Zila, Ohman. (Ohman arrived shortly). (Excused absence Zila - out of town on business). The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 3. Planning Case No. 71-63, request from Robert L. Krause for variances in front yard setback, minimum building size and minimum lot size for a LI zoned parcel located at 29th and Louisiana Avenues, was the first item on the agenda. Hr. Krause was not in attendance. Motion by Sueker, second by Barniskis, to table until the meeting of November 2, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. Commissioner Ohman arrived. 4. Plannin~ Case No. 7.!-64, request for special use permit to allow a home occupation at 8330 - 36th Avenue North, Dr. Richard D. Bateson, petitioner, was heard. Dr. Bateson was present to explain the pro- posed business. It is to be a one chair dental office operated on a part time basis while practice is building up. Dr. Bateson also said that at such time as his patient load warrants he will move to larger quarters. Dr. Bateson stated that he presently is working for the State of Minnesota as a dentist. Appointments will be for one hour duration and there should never be more than two cars in the driveway at one time. Discussion held as to criteria for granting a special use permit for home occupations. Commissioner Barniskis noted that the planned driveway is a major change and that since a part time temporary use of the premises is proposed the additional drive should not be built. Commissioner Oster expressed concern that the home occupation could quickly become a full time business use. Upon questioning, Dr. Bateson said that to start with, he would be working primarily evenings. He also stated that some of the neighbors were in favor of the home occupation, some objected to it and others were indifferent to the proposal. Commissioner Oster said that he is concerned with Section 4.43 (I) (C) -- adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Planning Commission - 2 - October 19, 1971 Minutes Dr. Bateson was advised that no signs would be allowed on the property other than signs permitted in residential districts. Commissioner Barniskis said that item (E) of the criteria for granting special use permit was the only point not met. The property in question is not located adjacent to industrial or commercial property nor at an intersection of a thoroughfare, but rather, it is located in the middle of the block. Chairman Ostlund said that if the permit is granted he does not be- lieve that the driveway should be built as proposed since it would result in car lights shining into the adjoining house. He further stated that a limitation of two cars should be part of the permit. All persons present were afforded the opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed special use permit. Appearing were: Mr. Terry Hughes, 8501 - 36½ Circle North, said that his back yard faces the side of Dr. Bateson's house and that his patio door also faces the Bateson house. There would be a complete view of his back yard from the Bateson property. Mr. Hughes said that he does not have his yard fenced. He objected to the granting of the special use permit because the property in question is located in the middle of the block, with homes on either side. He noted that there were two new houses being built on 36th Avenue just east of the Bateson house and commercial use might extend to the homes under construction. (Beauty shop or a barber shop). He also objected to the special use permit on the grounds that it would depreciate the value of his home because of parked cars, moving cars in and out of driveway and also resultant noise. His privacy would be invaded because of view into his back yard. Mr. Hughes noted that Dr. Bateson had already installed the dental chair and completed ~lectrical work for the dental office. He then asked that, in the interest of the environment of the entire neighborhood, the special use permit for the home occupation be denied. Mr. Oris Henrickson, 8317 Northwood Parkway, said that the back of his lot adjoints the Bateson lot, and that he was here to speak in favor of allowing the special use permit based on business as stated (part time and temporary). Dr. Bateson said that to the best of his knowledge, the house to the east of his property had not been sold. Commissioner Ohman said that inasmuch as the special use permit could have a time limitation thereon, he could see no problem with the granting of the special use permit. Further discussion held as to parking in the driveway and limitation as to the number of cars, including the Bateson vehicles. Planning Commission - 3 - October Ig, 1971 Minutes Mrs. Rita Hughes, 8501 - 36½ Circle North, objected to the issuance of the special use permit because she feels there wou~d~be adverse effects on property values and on the basis that they would lose privacy in their back yard. Dr. Bateson stated that he would be willing to put a fence between his property and the Hughes property. Commissioner Barniskis suggested that the hours of operation of the dental office be restricted to 9:00 p.m. week days only. Dr. Bateson said that he would be agreeable to the 9:00 p.m. but he would want to have the dental office open on Saturday mornings. Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hughes, 8501 - 36½ Circle North, again spoke against the special use permit and asked the Commission to please come over to their house and view the problem and give consideration to real estate value. Mr. Roger Shawd, 8500 - 36½ Circle North, spoke in opposition to the granting of the special use permit. Motion by Oster, second by Barniskis, to recommend to the Council that the special use permit to allow a home occupation at 8330 - 36th Avenue North, requested under Planning Case No. 71-64 be denied. Discussion held with Commissioner Oster saying that, in his opinion, to recommend approval would be a technical violation of paragraph (E), criteria for granting special use permit, would violate the spirit of the zoning code, and that it would result in an enforce- merit problem. Commissioner Meyer noted that 4 out of 5 of the requirements for granting a special use permit were met. Commissioner Ostlund said that special use permits provide for minor adjustments to zoning and that he feels this is a minor adjustment and does meet the spirit of the ordinance. Roll call vote was taken on the question as follows: Voting in favor: Cameron, Oswald, Oster, BarniskiS. Voting against: Meyer, Ostlund, Sueker, Ohman. Motion lost for lack of majority. Following further discussion it was decided that Planning Case No. 71-64 be sent forward to the Council with the notation that there was a tie vote on the issue. Planning Commission - 4 - October 19, 1971 Minutes 5. Plannin~ Case No. 71-~5, request from Mr. Edward Dooley for varlances in front and rear yard setbacks to permit construction of a double bungalow on Tract E, RLS 1137, 5809 - 5811 Winnetka Avenue North, was heard. Mr. Dooley was at the meeting to discuss the plans for the double bungalow. It is proposed that a front yard setback of 38 feet instead of 50 feet be permitted and that the house extend to within 9.5 feet of both side lot lines instead of I0 feet. The site plan was reviewed. Mr. Dooley stated that he is requesting variance in front yard setback under Section 4.23 (!) of the Village Code which allows for adjustment of the front setback to conform to the prevailing setback in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Dooley said that he had tried to revise the house plan so that he would be able to comply with the I0 foot side.yard requirement but had found that revision was impractical. Motion by Barn iskis, second by Ohman, to rer~ammend to the Village Council approval of request for variances in front yard and side yard setbacks for construction of a double bungalow on Tract E, RLS No. 1137 as requested under Planning Case ~1o. 71-65. Motion carried by voice vote. 6. PlanniqB. Ca~e No. 71-61~, request from Mr. William Lundberg for a special use permit for townhouse development for the southeast quadrant of 49th Avenue and CSAH #18, was heard. The Village Manager advised that information had been received from the Village Attorney regarding restrictions to be imposed in connection with the special use permit under consideration, tt was noted that the Planning Commission had previously recommended in favor of the town- house rezoning. Messrs. Lundberg and Logan Johnson were present to discuss the townhouse development. Discussion held as to the development of the westerly portion of the proposed townhouse area. Mr. Lundberg said that he would not be able to develop the westerly portion at this time as he will have to haul in fill for that portion of the site. Discussion held as to exterior treatment of the townhouses. Messrs. Logan Johnson and William Lundberg assured the Co~nission that the cedar siding proposed for the exterior of the building will be stained. Mr. Lundberg said that after the proposal has gone through the Council, he would be back before the Planning Commission to show plans in more detail. Motion by Barniskis, second by Meyer to recommend to the Council that the special use permit for townhouse development for the southeast quadrant of 49th Avenue and CSAH ~!8 be approved as re- quested under Planning Case No. 71-61 subject to restrictions set forth in the document prepared by the Village Attorney. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 5 - October 19, 1971 Hinutes NEW BUSINESS 7. The report of the Codes and Standards Committee was given by Commissioner Oster, with the report relating to the status of the proposed sign ordinance. Commissioner Oster said the committee needed to have another work session in respect to this proposed ordinance at which time the committee should be able to determine when the ordinance will be ready for consideration by the entire Planning Commission. it was decided that the work session would be held on November 16, 1971. 8. Commissioner Barniskis reported that the Land Use Committee had met with Mark Z. Jones Associates, Inc., regarding the proposed development of the southeast corner of 62nd Avenue and CSAH #18. Discussion held as to proposed developments for the southeast corner of 36th Avenue and CSAH #18. 9. The Council minutes of the meeting of October 12, 1971 were reviewed. I0. Motion by Barniskis, second by Meyer, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of October 5, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. II. Additional comments from Commissioners and Staff were heard at this & 12. time. Ail citizens had been heard earlier in the meeting. Chairman Ostlund noted that he had not heard from all the Com- missioners regarding improving the quality of the Planning Com- mission meetings. 15. Motion by Ohmen, second by Barniskts, and carried, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting until November 2, 1971, at 7:00 p.m. (Time - 9:25 p.m.). Respectful ly submitted, Betty Poul lot, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - November 2, 197t Minutes !o A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, November 2, 1971, at 7~00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present~ Barniskis, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund, Oswald, Rauch, Sueker. Absent: Cameron, Oster, Zila. (Cameron arrived at 7:15 p.m.). Excused absences for Oster and Zila - out of town on business). 3. Planning Case No. 71-66, request for rezoning, special use permit for townhouses, planned unit development and variances for the parcel located at the southeast corner of CSAH #18 and 62nd Avenue North, Mark Z. Jones Associates, Inc., petitioner, was heard. Mr. Scott Godin appeared in behalf of the petitioner and explained the property involved was located at the far northwest corner of the Village. At present it is zoned RB and was so zoned some time ago in anticipation of the crossing of 62nd over County Road #18. The land belongs to Standard Oil and they had planned to develop the site into a service station. Since that time the crossing of #18 has been moved to the north at 63rd Avenue leaving this piece of property with a zoning no longer usable for that purpose. Mr. Godin stated the petitioner is asking that it be rezoned into two parcels, with the easterly 200 feet to be rezoned TR and the westerly balance of the property to be zoned MR. Chairman Ostlund asked that the discussion be centered first on whether the criteria for rezoning has been ~met. Rezoning from RB to zoning of a residential use, based on everything the Commission has seen, is definitely a plus. Mr. Roger Thompson, 6032 Gettysburg Avenue North, asked for details of the Brooklyn Park Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Barniskis stated it was of medium density, which means eight to ten units per acre. That would cover townhouses, duplexes, fourplexes, with open space in between, and putting~the service road along the medium density site. The watershed will be green on both sides of that medium density over to Boone. At the corner of 63rd and Boone will be a retail business shopping center. Chairman Ostlund stated he felt a case has been made for rezoning and that the criteria has been met. He felt the Commission has estab- lished there are no objections to the criteria being met. Chairman Ostlund stated two letters had been received regarding the planning case under consideration. One was from the City of Brooklyn Park, Mr. Donald Herrman, City Manager, stating they had reviewed the area mentioned in Planning Case No. 71-59, Outlot I, Allan Hills, and find no objection to the request. Planning Commission - 2 - November 2, 1971 Minutes Chairman Ostlund read the second letter which was from James and Mary Ann Sommer of 6t33 Gettysburg Avenue North. Mr. and Mrs. Sommer stated they are very much against the rezoning. They felt construction under the requested rezoning would cause a sewer problem and backing up of sewers into the basements of the surrounding residences, which might eventually necessitate in installation of new sewers. Mr. and Mrs. Sommer stated they had no objection to a medical center being built in this area. They would be against rezoning of this property for the purpose of building apartments. Commissioner Sueker asked what the staff findings were on sewers in th i s area. The Village Manager stated that although the consulting engineer has not reviewed any detai led plans, any action taken on the rezoning re- quest would be subject to his review and approval. If there was a problem, the Village would not proceed with the development. Commissioner Rauch asked whether these plans are presented to the staff before they are presel'Jted to the Council and was assured by the Village Manager that they were. The Village Engineer would review the plans and could give a preliminary response. Mr. Godin stated that there would be 24 townhouses on the easterly portion of the property and 102 apartment units on the westerly side of the property. He stated soil borings had been taken and his firm was putting some garages and basements on bad ground. He stated his firm went to some length to place the lower density units near the abutting single family homes. He stated they have a considerable amount of open land. The apartments would be one and two bedroom units and the townhouses would be three bedroom units. Mr. Richard Schwartz, Architect for Mark Z. Jones Associates, Inc., explained they had kept the garages for the townhouses in a cluster with doors opening into the court yard in the center. The line of garages along CSAH //18 was done to attempt to block the view into the center for privacy from County Road 18. There are play areas in the center of the site as well as the center of the townhouse complex. Recreation space is provided in the southeast section of the apartment building. Some trees are shown on the landscaping plan. Existing trees along the creek would remain wherever the buildings are not located and whereever there is no amount of regrading of this area. The townhouses and all the garages have sloping roofs with composition shingles. There will be sloped roofs over the stair doors. Siding would be in a variety of different styles. There would be three different cedar sidings - horizontal, vertical and cedar shal~es. Siding of the apartment buildings would be of vertical cedar siding. Trash enclosures would be located near the townhouses to take care of trash. Commissioner Barniskis asked whether the petitioner would bring some samples of the wood siding and inquired as to the color. Mr. Schwartz explained the siding would be stained cedar boards, probably in a soft brown co Ior. Planning Commission - 3 - November 2, 1971 Mi nutes Commissioner Rauch inquired why all the garages were at angles to each other and was advised by Mr. Schwartz that the basic reason was a matter of esthetics; the petitioner felt it was more pleasing to the eye than a straight line of garages. He stated the garages would be cedar on the side, also, except in the location in the northwest corner where the garages were backed up into a hilt and some block was used below grade. Chairman Ostlund inquired why the entire area could not all be town- house development. Mr. Godin explained it was a matter of economics basically. He stated the petitioner could build on only half of the nine acre picce because of poor soil conditions, and they felt it ws a reasonable deYelopment from their standpoint. He stated although no one seems to like apartments, but somebody always needs and wants to live in them. He stated apartment building was his firm's business. He mentioned they could bring a living unit with the reasonable characteristics of home like qualities at a price that people could afford, and that the costs of owning single family homes had gone higher and higher. Many people could not afford to live in homes. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Godin to explain the learning center. Mr. Godin stated it is a day care center for children. He said they are having recreational facilities to put up a day care center for programmed care greater than baby sitting type of service. Basically this would be for children from 2½ to 5 years of age - pre-school children~ and basically would be for working mothers or for mothers who like to have some free time. That is the reason why they call~ it a "learning center". Commissioner Meyer asked whether that would be for the exclusive use of the people in this complex, and Mr. Godin stated it probably would not be. He said they have a couple of projects that are larger than the one in question which have learning centers for exclusive use of tenants. In these larger projects service can be provided for 80 to I00 children in a learning center, but in this project they probably would be taking care of about 60 pre-school children, possibly not even that many. These would be pre-school children or possibly children who go to kindergarten in the mornings or afternoons and attend the learn- ing center when they are not in school. Commissioner Meyer asked whether this was a profit-making venture. Mr. Godin said probably it would not be and would be more in the nature of a service to the residents of the complex. The Village Manager mentioned the fact that some of the churches are providing daytime nursery schools. The demand has been very high and there is a great need for this type of service. Planning Commission - 4 - November 2, 1971 Minutes Chairman Ostlund brought up the question of traffic coming into the complex to deposit children and traffic going out of the complex for people driving to work. He felt this was different type of traffic problem than that generated by a townhouse and/or apartment complex. The Village Manager brought out the fact that the one bedroom apart- ments are 580 square feet whereas the minimum is 600 square feet and the two bedroom apartments are 744 square feet whereas the minimum is 750 square feet. The Village Manager explained that the square feet in each case would be brought to minimum standards as provided by the Village Code. Mention was made by the Commission that the screening on the east and south boundary lines could consist of tree lines or proper screening fence. The Commission felt it ought to be considered along with side- walk and garage arrangements in the variance request. Mr. Schwartz advised the Commission the petitioner was not asking for a variance. Commissioner Barniskis pointed out that the screening and the property line runs down the creek. He suggested that he would like the fencing requirement reviewed at a later time, if approval were made of this planning case. He suggested it not be fenced down the middle and later if the property owners abutting the site felt it looked like a problem, then it could be fenced. Commissioner Sueker suggested fencing from the creek to 62nd a distance of about 150 to 200 feet. He stated the Commission had discussed the fact that there presently is a near vertical bank on the back of this creek. He asked whether anyone had found out any information as to what the watershed commission would do about cleaning up these banks. He said there was a definite hazard. Some of it is on these gentlemen's property and according to the plan, it looks as though one-half of the eastern boundary is across the creek and is quite steep. Mr. God in said they had checked with the watershed people as to just what they could do with the watershed, and was informed they have no jurisdiction. They are just in the middle of formation and don't even have a permanent chairman at this time. The Commission asked Mr. Godin about the steepest part of the bank and asked whether the petitioner had had any discussion with the abutting property owners about the vertical bank against their property. Commissioner Ohman stated it always has been a messy corner. The creek used to go somewhat diagonally and originally it was going to be a shopping center. Mr. Robert Gorin, 6101 Gettysburg Avenue North, stated the Village dredged out the creek and left a vertical drop. Within a distance of three feet, the creek drops 6½ feet deep. It never has been lower than 4½ feet. He stated there has been one near drowning, and said the creek goes the full length of the property. Planning Commission - 5 - November 2, 1971 Minutes The Commission discussed whether it would look at the planning case as two pieces of property, townhouse zoning and multiple zoning, and decided to discuss both zonings at one time. Mention was made that the culvert at 62nd was quite a bit higher than the land to the south. Commissioner Barniskis asked Mr. Gorin what he would like to see done If the creek were sloped, and Mr. Gorin stated he had already sloped his own lot. Mr. Gorin stated there would be a problem unless it were fenced, and said he would not like the fence to be on his side. It would be difficult to have the fence standing in the creek. On the bend on the southeast corner the creek is approximately 5½ to 7 feet in depth at times. Another problem is the build-up of silt in the creek from the storm sewer waters, and it is building up quite quickly. This comes from Gettysburg. There is a culvert at the southeast corner into the creek. Mr. Gorin stated he would prefer to have the entire parcel zoned for townhouses. Mrs. Richard Helland, 9101 - 62nd Avenue North, asked whether it was the petitioner's intent to rent all apartments and townhouse units and was advised it was. The range would be about $175 for one-bedroom apartments, $200 to $210 for two-bedroom apartments and $250 for the townhouse units, Mr. Godin stated that there would be on duty one full time resident caretaker for the whole 126 unit complex. There would be one or two assistant managers on week-ends, and they would take care of the grounds and the hallways. Mrs. Helland inquired whether application had been made for FHA federal subsidy 10% loans on the townhouses, and was advised by Mr. Godin that it had not, that the FHA required that the property be properly zoned first. Mrs. Helland mentioned that in Brooklyn Park rezoning, you get a drop in your taxes under the FHA financing. Mr. Godin stated this is the kind of site that could go either way. Ne stated they would not be adverse to receiving a government subsidy if they could get lower rents, but it is a difficult process. The only advantage to the petitioner is the fact that it is going to be built as a guarantee to rent. Mr. Thompson said discussion is being held about the southern third of this property. Point number I, he said, was that he simply couldn't quite go along all the way because he had seen this happen before. Mr. Thompson inquired about the number of school-age children which would be anticipated in a project such as this and was informed that in the 3-bedroom townhouses, reasonable density could be expected. In the l-bedroom apartments there probably would be very few children and in the 2-bedroom apartments there probably would be some. Commissioner Barnlskis stated that there are a lot of apartments In $ch.ool District 281. Out of a total of 30,000 children in the district, less than 600 students live in multiple dwellings. 40% of all living units'i~ New~ are apartment buildings. Planning Commission - 6 - November 2, 1971 Minutes Mr. Godin stated the cost of the 102 apartment units would probably average about $12,000 a unit for construction. Chairman Ostlund mentioned that the fence would go on the property line and if it were not feasible, naturally there would be a change as requi red. Mr. Thompson said he was concerned about the additional traffic flow which the development would generate. He said while it is true a certain amount would continue on 62nd, he imagined the flow up to 62nd would go through this residential area. The Commission assured Mr. Thompson again that the square footage of the units be changed to meet the Vii iage ordinance requirements. Commissioner Rauch stated he had not heard one home-owner make a statement about the fence, and asked whether the home-owner would consider the fence an asset or liability to their properties. Mr. Thompson stated that right now it would be no asset but it could be if the fence was put on his side of the creek. The Commissioners asked Mr. Godin if the pond were a holding type pond and were advised it was there for beautification purposes only. Commissioner Barniskis stated that five or six years ago they pushed a lot of dirt down to the southern part of the parcel. The soil is peat and a pretty Iow grade of soil. The land use would call for rezon ing to a res i dent i a I type deve I opment. I t won ' t go as reta i ! business. A major retail business center will be in Brooklyn Park at 63rd and Boone. Multiple residence is across the road in Brooklyn Park. Boone is considered a major arterial street. 62nd Avenue is also considered an arterial street but not as much a major thorough- fare as Beone. 63rd will be a major street, also. The probability of this piece with its access limited developing into retail business as well as the site at 63rd and Boone is very remote. If it had access to County Road #18 it would remain RB. Discussion held regarding traffic flow down 62nd, with some Commissioners feel lng extensive use would be made of the access at 63rd and County Road t8 to the east rather than using 62nd. Chairman Ostlund stated he thought the whole site should go TR for whatever it is worth. He said possibly the petitioner could come up with a rental or saleable townhouse project, based on some of the things that have been said here. Commissioner Rauch asked whether the petitioner has given any thought to developing the property entirely in a townhouse development and whether he were wit ling to consider it. Mr. Godin replied that they probably would not be interested in such a development, and stated he hated to bring up the matter of economics again, but it was in- volved in the matter at hand. He said the reaction to multiple housing is always negative but it does create housing for which there is a demand, tf the site were to be developed only in three or four bedroom townhouses, the rents would be $250, $275 or $300, with a density of 8, 7 or 6 units per acre, or 60 or 70 units in total. Planning Commission - 7 - November 2, 1971 Mi nutes Discussion held as to putting all the garages on the northwest corner, and Mr. Godin stated townhouse residents would want to walk right from their residences to their garages. Mr. Godin stated he felt this was the best they could do with the property and he felt there is a demand for multiple housing. The apartment buildings are going to carry some of the cost of the townhouses and costs of maintenance. Motion by Sueker, second by Meyer, to recommend approval of the request to rezone the eastern 200 feet of Outlot I, Allan Hills from RB to TR and the remaining portion of that property from RB to MR, as requested under Planning Case No. 71-66. All those in favor~ Barniskis, Meyer, Ohman, Oswald, Rauch, Sueker. All those opposed~ Ostlund. Those abstaining~ Cameron. Motion carried. Discussion held as to cedar siding, with the Commission stating it felt the highest quality of cedar siding should be used. Further discussion held as to the use of cedar rather than brick or other material, with Commissioner Sueker stating he felt the Council would not approve the project if it were 100% cedar. The Village Manager stated the special use permit would apply only to the townhouse development and should relate to such items as density requirements. Commissioner Barniskis stated the Commission specifically wanted to control the density as proposed, that there would be 24 units and they all would be 3-bedroom units, and the site plan be essentially as zoned. He said the screening fence might be considered at this point. He said approval should be subject to the Village Engineer's recom- mendation as to grade and that the screening be located on the easterly part starting at the north property line and extending south until it reaches a point where it doesn't make sense to continue. The Village Manager advised that exterior treatment should be considered as part of the special use permit, as well as screening and density. Mr. Godin mentioned allowance for substitution of a living screen, taking into account certain points that were suggested. Motion by Sueker, second by Rauch, to recommend approval of special use permit for townhouse development subject to the abatement of the fencing being extended. Motion by Sueker, second by Rauch, to amend the motion to include a provision that the maximum density be 8 units per acre. Amendment to the motion carried by voice vote. Motion as amended carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 8 - November 2, 1971 M i n utes Chairman Ostlund stated the Commission now would consider approval of variances in requirements for sidewalks and garage location. Mr. Schwartz explained that 8 of the multiple residence garages are clustered with the townhouse garages, so that instead of 24 gar~ for the townhouses, there are 32 garages, and the petitioner wanted make sure that feature of the development is approved° Discussion was held regarding location of a possible future swimming pool to be located in the south central court yard, and fences to be provided for the swimming pool. Discussion also was held regarding landscaping, trees and dimensions of garage areas. Commissioner Barniskis stated that if the Commission excludes these people from building their sidewalk, it would be terribly unfair for other residents on 62nd to have to pay for a sidewalk at some time in the future. He wondered whether the Commission could legally exclude the petitioner, and suggested that we waive the provision but not forever. Commissioner Sueker mentioned that inasmuch as there has been no grade established for 62nd and no requirement at present for sidewalk, the matter possibly could be reviewed on an annual basis, or deferred subject to development or requirement of sidewalk on 62nd. Chairman Ostlund stated the Commission would want deferment of the sidewalk and fence requirement to come back before it or whatever body should review it. The Village Manager suggested the abutting residents would want to have knowledge of any such meeting and the Village certainly could send out notices regarding it. Motion by Barniskis, second by Rauch, to recommend to the Village Council approval of variances in requirements for sidewalks and garage location of the townhouse area subject to completion or requirement of sidewalk on 62nd Avenue North be abated until such time as need for such sidewalks can be determined and that the finished portions of the screening requirements and final established grade on the easterly and southerly portion of said property be deferred until com- pletion of the project, and that at such time full notification of a public hearing be given to the abutting property owners and at the time of the public hearing whatever fencing and grading problems exist be resolved; also, that in respect to bee planned unit develop- ment the siding be of brick, block or the equivalent ~and that the proposed cedar be of the highest grade possible amenable to the Village Code; five foot fencing be required, and at least half of townhouses completely closed in before any of the multiples can be occupied. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Commission - 9 - November 2, 1971 Hinutes 4. ~la~n~.i~ci Case No. 71~63_., request from Robert L. Krause for variances in front yard setback, minimum building size and minimum lot size for an LI zoned parcel tocated at 29?h and Louisiana Avenues, was heard. 14r, Rick tfl ! Iiams appeared and advised that t4r. Krause is in Cai ifornla and was unable to attend the meeting. He explained the parcel on which variances are requested is approximately 1,000 feet north of Medicine Lak~ Road abutting Louisiana. He stated there is a private road going west at approximately 29th, from Louisiana, but that access to the property in question ~ould be from Louisiana. The Vi i iage Manager explained a smal t Industrial bui Idtng is planned for the site, and that it is part of a development concept of bul Iding sites around, the existing pond. Hr. 9/II tiaras stated they are asking for a 50 foot rather than a 75 foot setback from Louisiana, which has residential property in Crystal on the east side of the street. He asked that the lot siZe be per-- mitred to be 51,500 squ~re feet or approximately 3/4 of an acre. They asked to be at lo,ed to bui td a 5,000: square foot building rather than the minimum required of I0,000 square feet. Commissioner Rauch asked if Hr. Krause intends to fi lea plat and Mr. Williams stated they were no? absolutely sure, that It might go as a condominium p.roperty - office or warehouse. He stated the proper~y in question is being sold. t4r. Wi.lltaas stated they could put a larger building on the corner, for possibly small office spaces. The condominium property would consist mainly of office space or warehouse space. Motion by Sueker, second by Meyer, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Vt l lage Council approval of the Planning Case No. 71-63, request from Hr. Robert L. Krause, petit, loner, for variances in front yard setback from 75 to 50 feet, building size of under IO,000 square feet but in no case under 4,000 square feet, and minimunt tot size of approximately 31,500 square feet. Motion carried by voice vote. t4r, Bill Tuma, Building and Zoning Director, was introduced to the Cc~ission by the Vi t lage Manager. Mr. Tuma stated he was looking toward with pteesure to working with the Planning Coamission. S. The review of requirements for special use permit was discussed. Com- missioner Meyer stated that Commissioner Oster had particularly wished to have the Commission revie~ the special use permit for Dr. Batesonw requested under Planning Case No. 71-54, that was denied by the Village Council at its meeting of October 26, t971. Commissioner Oster particularly questioned the fact that apparently Dr. Bateson did not need a Special use permit as he. quai iliad as a permitted home use, and that the Village would not have any right to restrict him in any Hay at all. The Vi l lage Attorney suspected that that was the case. Planning Commission - I0- November 2, t971 Mi nutes The Village Manager stated a special use permit is required when the use does not qualify under 4.51 which pertains to permitted home accessory uses. He stated interior or exterior changes or signs would necessitate a special use permit. The Village Manager stated the matter has been referred to the Village Attorney and the Village should be bound by his decision. The Village Manager further said that if the Planning Commission is concerned, they certainly may recommend that the code be changed. Motion by Ohman, second by Sueker, to table review of requirements for special use permit until the next Planning Commission meeting to be held Tuesday, November 16, 1971. Motion carried by voice vote. 6. Regarding the report of the Codes and Standards Committee, Commissioner Meyer stated there would be a meeting next Tuesday, November 9, 1971 at 7~30 p.m. for alt members of the Codes and Standards Committee. There would be discussion of this special use permit, which will be on the November 16, 1971 agenda, and there will be a review of the sign ordinance. A redraft will be ready Tuesday night. The Village Manager left the meeting at 10:05 p.m. ?, Commissioner Barniskis reported that the Land Use Committee had a meeting with Mr. Krauseo He stated he had tried to reach other members but could not reach any of them. He suspected that Mr. Krause would be back before the Committee. 8. The Council Minutes of October 26, 1971 were reviewed. Commissioner Sueker stated he was pleased to see that a new dog catching contract to be shared with the City of Crystal will become effective the first of the year. He said the need is great. 9. Motion by Cameron, second by Ohman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October t9, 1971. 10. Additional Comments/Request from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff. All citizens had been heard earlier in the meeting. Chairman Ostlund asked that Mr. Amyx prepare a new roster giving the home telephone numbers and office telephone numbers of each member of the Planning Commission, and have one given to each member at the next general meeting. Chairman Ostlund also asked that the bulletin board be located in the Conference Room and something more substantial be put i~n its place. Planning Commission - II - November 2, 1971 Minutes Chairman Ostlund stated at the next meeting to be held Tuesday, November 16, 1971, the Commission would have the attendance record of the Commissioners available for discussion. II. Notion by Ohman, second by Meyer, and carried, to adjourn the Planning Comnisston meeting at 10:15 p.m. until November 16, 1971, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Esther Ho I I oway Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - November 16, 1971 Mi nutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xyion Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, November 16, 1971 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Meyer, Osttund, Oswald, Rauch, Sueker, Cameron, Oster, Zila. Absent: Ohman (arrived shortly). 3. The first business item on the agenda was the discussion of the pro- posed sign ordinance. Chairman Ostlund turned the meeting over to Mr. Oster, Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee. Mr. Oster made the following opening statements: "The purpose of our meeting here tonight is to have a work session on the proposed sign ordinance. This work session will give an opportunlty for the members of the Codes and Standards Committee to review the document that we have to date with the remainder of the members of the Planning Commission here and also with interested parties who have been invited here tonight. I should like to indicate who is on the Codes and Standards C~mmlttee: Wayne Sueker, Don Zila, Scott Meyer, Ken Oswald. I would like to follow a certain format in our discussion here tonight. I would like to go through the proposed ordinance point by pointt allow- ing everyone present to comment, to criticize, perhaps to suggest al- ternatives to what you have in front of you at the present time. I would like to stress the importance of going through this in an orderly fashion. We have, obviously as you can see, quite a bit of ground to cover and we won't be able to get through it all if we do not try to follow a certain format. ! suggest that we go through the ordinance one paragraph at a time and I suggest the following framework of dis- cussion. First: i perhaps can read through the paragraph. We might skip or ! might tend to paraphrase as we get a little further along In our dis- cussion here, but I'll try to read and then talk about the intent or rationale and in some cases we can discuss some of the pros and cons. i'11 talk about~ it first, Then I would like to turn it over to the rest of the Codes and Standards Committee for further elaboration. Thirdly, I would like to open it up to comments from the remainder of the Planning Commission and fourth: I would sincerely invite anyone in the audience here to participate in our discussion. Planning Commission - 2 - November 16, 1971 Minutes This is intended, once again, as a work session. Through the give and take of discussion we obviously hope to come up with a better ordinance and we, that is the members of the Codes and Standards Com- · mittee, will make careful notes of the comments that are made. When it is necessary, we will. rework the language and have it retyped for sub- mission in another hearing at a later date. At this point, are there any comments or does anybody want any change in the proposed format -- members of the Committee and Planning Com- mission?'' Discussion held with Commission members as to obtaining a list of persons present concerned with the proposed sign ordinance. It was decided that the same procedure as usual for obtaining names would be used. Anyone in the audience having any comment to make will stand and give their name and address and then the comment. Mr. Oster then said "everyone here should have a copy of the ordinance and I think you also have a synopsis of the basic points in the ordinance. Before we get into subdivision I, ! would like to discuss some aspects that perhaps go more directly to the heart of what we are going to talk about here tonight. I would like to throw out a question, hopefully going to the real basics of the matter, for your considera- tion and discussion. The question I want to throw out is -- Is some form of sign control needed in New Hope? In other words, can any form of sign control be justified, or does sign control perhaps represent tinkering? (Some may say things that are the proper concern of individuals taken separately.) In other words, does the cc~munity, acting through its governing bodies, have a right to become Involved in sign control? That is the question I would like to start with here tonight, if I may. For what it is worth I would like to throw out my own response and then try to illicit some discussion. My answer to the question would include three points. My first point would be precedent. Obviously years ago, twenty years ago, there was very little emphasis in this country, our cities and villages, on sign control. Ten years ago, we saw some of the villages and some of the cities becoming involved. Within recent years, at the national level, there has been an increasing interest in ecology and aesthetics and generally the things that go into making up a better form or urban life. Many, many areas today are becoming involVed in it. We have a sign ordinance of course, and we are looking at it - at specific points, thinking about resolving them and modifying it in some cases. There is a precedent in this country of sign control and this precedent appears to be growing. Secondly, I would like to point out, without going into specifics, that there are examples. Examples abound of what can happed in a co~munity such as New Hope. I am not saying that it is occuring or that it has occurred here. But there are examples of what can happed without proper sign control and, obviously, as you travel from one jurisdication to the next in the metropolitan area you can see a great deal of varia- tion. Some communities have very serious problems and others have less. Planning Commission - 3 - November 16, 1971 Minutes Thirdly, it would seem to me there is a possible need to establish certain ground ru/~es for signs (ground rules would be the way I would word it). The ground rules should recognize the legitimate role that signs play in our society, but at the same time prohibit abusive use, abusive signing practices. I would like to refer to the rest of the members of the Codes and Standards Committee for elaboration on this point. Is there any comments or rebuttals?" Mr. Wayne Sueker stated that he firmly believed we need some form of ordinance because , if nothing else, we are getting to the point of everyone trying to out-do the next person. He gave, as an example, the "Goodyear blimp" -- with nothing to see but the sign. He said there must be steps taken to control signs and that, if we start, maybe some of the other villages will follow and perhaps in time the landscape will not be taotally obliterated with signs. Mr. Scott Meyer said that he agreed with the points Mr. Oster had made and with Hr. Sueker's points. He further said "1 feel that our purpose here is not to stifle business and try to make them rip down as many signs as possible, but to help them be as effective as possible with the least signs as possible." Discussion held as to the present New Hope ordinance relating to sign control. Mr. Ostlund stated that he thinks our present sign code is very am- biguous, very loose and very uninformative and does not appear to be workable. He said that it is not only difficult to enforce but also difficult to understand and much time is required by staff and persons wanting to erect signs because of this. He said the proposed ordinance is an attempt to clear up the old code. Mr. Ostlund further said that he believes that what the new code will do is to help the small businessman in that he is not going to have to compete with bigger and more expensive signs erected by other business men and should be considered an asset. Mr. Oster again spoke on the proposed ordinance. He said "What t want to get out here is that we are addressing ourselves to the issue 'Is some kind of sign control needed in New Hope?'", Mr. Oster then Invited anyone in the audience to respond to that issue. He then continued. "The concensus of the Codes and Standards Co~ittee and the Planning Commission, if I read it right, is that 'Yes, indeed, there are reasons for having some form of sign control'". No comments were offered from the audience on this point. Mr. Oster then said "We have talked about aesthetics and so forth. Another thing that is cited in sign control is traffic hazards and so forth. I would just like to throw out some of the economic reasons that are involved in the issue of sign control. Planning Commission - 4 - November 16, 1971 Hinutes This can be looked at in two ways really -- from the point of view of the individual home owner or someone who lives in an apartment in New Hope and also from the point of view of the businessman. Let's take those two points and look at the first one. From the point of view of the individual home owner or resident of New Hope, there are no conclusive studies to clearly and with complete scientific accuracy establish the correlation between home values and environmental prob- lems; but the impression one gets as one travels about is that there is a correlation. We couldn't demonstrate it with complete scientific precision, but there certainly appears to be sufficient to make me believe that good maintenance of our village, concern for aesthetics and this would translate into good sign control, as I would see it. From the point of view of the individual homeowner - he has something at stake. Clutter and other problems having to do with signing could perhaps lead to some effect on home values. Looking at it from the point of view of the individual businessman, and perhaps elaborating on what Mr. Ostlund has said, there is always the problem of trying to keep up, to compete with your competitor and when your competitor sticks up a big sign, there being no limit, you are almost forced to keep up with him .or go one step better and so there is a kind of a spiral upwards in the size and so forth of signs. There is a given amount of business in an area and it would seem to me there would be economic reasons for the businessman to operate within a system that has some form of sign control". Mr. Oster ~hen asked for comments from the Committea. Mr, Barniskis then commented on signing in connection with service station~ noting that bigger and bigger service station signs are going up along freeways and if there are no control% bigger signs are a natural p~ogression. He said he can think of areas In New Hope that could easily be effected in the same way. Mr, Oster then asked Mr. Oswald to comment on the shopping center field-on the matter of relation between aesthetics and doing business. Mr. Oswald said tha, tight sign control, but unffo~m and within reason, can create just as much business, with right amount and proper signs. As Mr. Sueker said, the safety aspect should not be overlooked as concerns passing vehicles. For this reason signs should be kept under control, with signs to be back off the street. There are too many flashing signs for safety. Mr. Scott Meyer said he would like to comment by quoting from Dr. Peterman, an advertising phyc~ologist from the University of Minnesota. He said Dr. Peterman is currently doing a study on the effects of signs and has stated flatly that a sign is the least effec, ive vehicle for advertising. In his preliminary studies Dr. Peterman had said that signs are often a deterrent to doiog business since any advertising sign Is often missed in the constant bombardment of advertising signs on vehicular traffic. Planning Commission - 5 - November 16, 1971 Minutes Mr. Oster noted that this may apply to specific instances and not others but it is a point to be well taken. Mr. Rauch said that he had experience within the last couple of months with a community that had a very loose ordinance up to two years ago at which point the community had tightened up the ordinance - going completely the other way. He said it is just about impossible to get a meeting of the minds as to what type of signs they want put up in that community and this is very frustrating to a developer. Mr. Rauch said he would stress reasonableness. Mr. Oster asked for comments from the audience. No comments were offered. Mr. Oster then proceeded with the reading of the proposed ordinance. Comments and d i scussi on was as fol to~s: Section I~..Subd. (I) Discussion held as to how to define ~'carnivai atmosphere". It was thought that this was a general term and had no legal effect. Subd. (2) Commissioner Sueker thought that political signs should be covered and that all items should have a size limitation. Further discussion as to possibility of removing political signs from this category. Commissioner Oswald said he would like to see this subdivision referred. back to the Codes and Standards Committee. Mr. Loren Schiebe, Chamber of Commerce, said that he thought govern- ment flags should be rmoved from this group. Mr, William Tuma, Building and Zoning Director, felt that the signs in this group should not be exempt from placement requirements. This entire subdivision is to be reworked by the Committee. Subd. (3) Mr. Loren Schiebe, Chamber of Commerce, inquired as to whether para- graph 2 included Christmas tree lights. Commissioner Oster replied that he did not believe that Christmas tree lights fall within the definition of signs. Commissioner Sueker inquired as to what "casting a bright light" means. He felt. that a standard should be established, something that is measurable such as foot candles. Planning Commission - 6 - November 16, 1971 M i n utes Commissioner Rauch noted that paragraph 2 first referred to residential districts including MR and later referred to single family residential d i stri cts. The reference to "single family" is to be deleted from this paragraph. The Codes and Standards Committee thought that portion of paragraph 2 excepting the municipal liquor store from the I1:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. requi rement shou I d be deleted. Mr. William Tuma, Building and Zoning Director, said that he would prefer standards to be set rather than the reference to casing bright Iight. Subdo 3~ Para. 3 (r,~lat!n,q to flashin,~ ~nd movin~ si,qns} The Committee is to look at the possibility of striking the last sentence relating to intermittent lighting for time and temperature signs. Also, discussion was held as to whether fifteen seconds was correct. Commissioner Zila said he thought barber shop signs should not be el iminated as these signs have long been the trade mark of the barber. Commissioner Oswald said that he had seen several barber signs that do not revolve and these are effective. It was questioned as to whether this paragraph would eliminate a "weather bait". It was noted that a ~'weather ball" might be handled through the variance provision. Commissioner Barniskis said that he thought the last sentence relat- ing to the municipal liquor store should be stricken. Subd. 3t Para. 4 No changes contemplated. Subd. 3~ para..5. It was mentioned that this point should be reviewed with possibility of limiting size of letters to be used in windows. Possibility of flashing signs in windows should be considered. Commissioner Cameron stated that in discussing window signs the Com- mission is concerning itself with advertis.ing and perhaps a separate committee should consider that issue. Commissioner Oswald agreed with him. Mr. Loren Schiebe, Northwest Chamber of Commerce, said that it would be rather difficult for the retailers to have too strict window con- trol. Advertising window devices are intentionally visible from the sidewalk and you should not try to eliminate these. Planning Commission - 7 - November 16, 1971 Minutes Subd.,..3~. Para. 6 The meaning of "vacant" is t:o b.e checked into. Mr. Jim Shaw, Naegle Advertisi,ng, asked if this ~is possibly depriving the owner of the use of a piece of property. Subd. 3.,.para. 7 (Signs on Trees or Utility P. oles) The Commission suggested that accessory structures including fences be added. Discussion also held as to whether we could control utility poles. The Committee is to check into this. Subd. ,3, ,,P. ara. 8 (But Idin.cl and Electrical Codes ApplLica_b_ie) No comments. Subd. 3~ Para. g (Ar. ea, of Signs) General Discussion held as to wall signs. Su.bd. ~ Para. t0 (Traffic Safety) Discussion held as to who would be responsible for the enforcement with the Village Manager advising that enforcement rests with the Village Manager and can be handled through staff. Sub_d. 3~ pa~ra. 11 (Obsolete and Off-Premiss. es si,qns) The Commission raised questions as to effect of this section on sea- sonal businesses and what would be the determining factors as to the removal of signs when a business is not being conducted, the concern being with businesses that are fOr sale and will perhaps have use for existing signs. Possibility of time limitation was discussed. This paragraph is to go back to Committee for possible revisions. Subd. 3t Para. 12 (Maintenance of Si§ns) Discussion held as to administrating requirement for painting at least once every three years. It was decided that the word "rust" shoul'd, be changed to "corrosion". Subd. 4 (Si,qns Accessory to Residential Uses) This subdivision was read with general comments following. Subd. 5 (Name Plat% D. ir_e_c_tional and,' I,dentl ficatlon Si,~ns) Para. I. Mr, Loren Schiebe, Northwest Chamber of Commerce, said that it woui"'d be discriminatory to permit professional status to be shown on identification signs [n residential dlstricts and not to permit occupational desl gnations, Planning Commission - 8 - November 16, 1971 Hi nutes It was decided that the reference to professional status should be de I eted. Subd. 5,. P~ar~a., 2 (Relatin~cl to m. ult. ip]e family dwelling, si_gns) cussion held as to what signs would be permitted for double bungalows or townhouses. Question was raised as to why these signs should not be I I I umi nated. Hr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, said that with larger buildings it would be difficult to determine which entrance is the main entrance, He also asked how one would determine "what is near main entrance". Hr, Shaw also said that he felt 5 square feet was a very small identi- fication sign for a building where maybe 150 families live. Mr, Schiebe asked that the requirement for placement of the sign near the main entrance be el iminated because, he feels, in some cases it would be more advantageous to have it at the end of a building. It was decided that "non-illuminated" should be deleted. S.~bd. 5~ Para. 3 .Hr. Schiebe asked that the words "non-i I luminated" be el iminated from this paragraph also. Commissioner Sueker stated that "non-illuminated" could be deleted but the degree of illumination should be controlled. Mr, Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, said that a 5 X 5 sign is not very big when a developer is developing a square block area, It was pointed out to Mr. Shaw that this paragraph relates to Identifying architects, engineers and contractors in construction or remodel lng of buildings, Commissioner Oster said that he felt 5 X 5 sign for this purpose was re asonab t e. Subd. ,5~ P_ara. 4 (.Re. lati.~l to d!,.re_c.ti;o.n, al signs for church, e.s.) Commissioner Ostlund said that he felt churches should not get preferent iai treatment but should have the same si gn ing requirements as residences or buslnesses. He said churches should apply for a sign permit just like anyone else and if the church finds it cannot live with the Code it should come in and ask for a variance. Further discussion held as to the need for directional signs to churches. Commissioner Oswald said he would be in favor of striking the whole paragraph and handling, churches Iike other businesses, Commissioner Zila spoke in favor of leaving this paragraph as is. He did not feel that churches should be restricted. Planning Commission - 9 - November t6, 1971 Minutes It was decided that the Codes and Standards Committee would review this paragraph. S.ub.d...~. ("For~Sale'' or "To Rent") Signs It was noted that these reauirements apply to all districts. Commissioner Oswald said that "immediately upon the sale" should be changed to read immediately upon the consumation of the sale. Commissioner Rauch said that he thought it should be permissable that these signs be illuminated. ~ubd.~.~.~ Pa~a. 2 (Sale or rental_.si~ns relating t~,~ultiple dwellings) Commissioner Meyer noted that our existing sign code provided for a maximum size of 80 square feet rather than 120 square feet, a two year limitation on the sign and removal upon 75% rental. Commissioner Rauch said there should be some kind of a break when you take residential versus commercial and industrial. Mr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, commented that the requirements for signs should relate to type of construction rather than size, saying that a temporary sign ~111 become an eyesore. Further discussion as to whether this section of the code should follow the existing ordinance. Subd. 7 (Siqns Accessory to Parkinq Areas) Para. I. Discussion held as to whether signs should be located one foot behind the lot line or the curb tine. This matter was referred back to the committee. Subd. 7 Para. 2 It was asked why signs designating conditions of use of parking area should be screened from the adjoining property. Subd. 8 (Si.~n..s A~gessory to Churches, Schools or Nonprofit Institutions) Commissioner Cameron asked whether the Cooper High sign would met the regulations. Commissioner Sueker stated that he would like to have churches and schools or nonprofit organizations obtain a permit - without fee - so that the Village would know who to notify for removal of the sign. The Village Manager commented that this would be helpful. Planning Commission - I0 - November t6, 1971 Ninutes Subd. 9 (Signs Accessory to Business or Industrial Uses) No comments offered. (Will be considered under Subd. I0 through 15). Subd. I0 (Front Walt siRns) Para. I. Comaissioner Heyer commented that he would like to see signs (imited to one front wall sign. Commissioner Sueker said that limitation as to size should be based on area of store rather than frontage. (Foreman & Clark). Commissioner Oster said that the provision as written was enforce- able and if unusual situations came up the variance provision could be used. Hr. Loren Schiebe, Northwest Chamber of Commerce, commented that every sign in Hidland Shopping Center would have to come down. Hr. Lund0 Hidland Shopping Center, said that he does not have an extremely large sign for his store but that the proposed code provides for only I/2 the size of his existing sign. Commissioner Oster pointed out that the code was designed for citizens also and that there are going to be cases such as cited by Hr. Lund. Hr. Lund then said he did not believe that any of the small stores would be in conformance and that his objection is cost of changing the signs. Hr. Schiebe, Northwest Chamber of Commerce, inquired as to whether the signs at Hidland fall into this category or into the roof category. Nr. Lund, Hidland Shopping Center, said that the ordinance should not be applied retroactively. Commissioner Oster noted that the period of time for conformance to standards under consideration is in relation to reasonable tax wrlte- off time. Mr. Schiebe, Northwest Chamber of Commerce, said that possibly the size limitation should be looked into. He feels that the ordinance should control the majority of the signs without variances. The size should be a little more reasonable to compare with other villages. Commissioner Ostlund stated that the Planning Commission does not intend to imply that variances will be automatically granted. Mr. Schiebe said that most of the merchants feel the I/lOth of the area of the front face is too small and a good majority would have to get variances or tear down the signs that are there. He said the existing signs should be looked at, and if they appear reasonable then the proposed ordinance should be changed. Planning Commission - II - November 16, 19~1! Minutes Commissioner Oster said he belived that a tot of the signs would, comply with the l/lOth requirement. Mr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, said he thought it was wrong to equate the tastefulness of a sign with the size. Consideration should be given to (!) what is the nature of the business, (2) who do we have to reach, (3) how fast does the traffic move. He also said that a sign is a big capital investment for a small business to replace. Mr. Shaw said each individual case should be looked into and that he felt the I/lOth regulation could be restrictive but that the 200 feet maximum might be reasonable. Commissioner Sueker asked Mr. Lund whether a sign I/2 the size of his existing sign would hurt his business -- other than the replacement cost. Mr. Lund said it cost money to tear down signs as well as to replace with a new sign. He said he felt I/Sth requirement would be more realistic than l/lOth. The operator of.the Coast to Coast Store in the Midland Center, said that the I/lOth restriction would hurt him, that his sign had cost $4,000 and that he had only been in business three years. He also said that the Planning Commission had not even researched the signs in the area. He said the existing signs had been put up in good faith in previous years. He asked why his sign should not be good for another ten or fifteen years. Mrs. Betty Jo Phillips commented that large signs are very costly, that smaller signs are not so costly. She said that as a consumer she does not need these large signs to look at. Mr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, noted that our population turnover is 20% and that signs are needed for the newcomer. Mr. Shaw satd one foot letters are needed to be readable at 500 feet. The Village Manager said he questioned the 500 foot premise and in- quired where we needed to reach 500 feet. Mr. Shaw said consideration should be given to the fact that you have to say something legibly, not the size of the store front. Mr. Jerry Quinn, 8724 - 47½ Avenue North, inquired as to how the i/lOth requirement compared to other ordinances and whether it is punitive in comparision to other ordinances. Sign control on the west coast was discussed by Commissioner Oster. Commissioner Ostlund said he did not feel the I/lOth limitation was punitive. Planning Commission - 12- November 16, 1971 M i n utes Commissioner Rauch said he 'wanted to speak to the point Mr. Shaw had made as to arbitrarily setting I/lOth limitation based on the store frontage. Mr. Rauch said he thought there should be no dis- advantage from one area to another and that he would like to see some type of equalizing from a small store to a big store. He said he thought this section could be reworded and that restrictions should not effect competitiveness of a business and should not be arbitrary and caprious as far as this shopping center is concerned. Commissioner Oswald said that he does have some misgivings on this point and that perhaps this portion should be reworded. Paragraph (I) and (2) are to be gone over by the Committee as to sign size. Subd. !0.,. Para. 3 The Village Manager stated that the purpose of this paragraph is to insure against encroachment on setback areas. _Su.bd,. .10~ Para.. 4.~ 5 and_ 6 Paragraph 5 is to be changed so that lighting is measurable and the word "surrounding" is to be changed to adjacent, Subd. Ii (Side Wall Si~n~) Mr. Shaw asked how a large development taking up an entire area would be hand i ed. Subd. 12 (Rear Wall Siqns) Mr. Lund, Midland Shopping Center, inquired as to whether names of stores would be permitted on the back wall. Commissioner Oster said that the store name could be used to designate del ivery area, Subd. 13 (Ground Si..qns_) Commissioner Barniskis questioned why 4 ground signs were to be per- mitted and how the size of the signs had been arrived at. No comments were heard on paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6. Subd. 13 Para. 5 (Relatinq to MaximumHeiqht of Siqn) The words "main body" are to be deleted. Planning Commission - 13 - November 16, 1971 Mi nutes Subd. 14 (l~=of Si~:qns) Commissioner Oster commented that roof signs can present a chaotic look or aesthetic problem. Hr. Sha~, Naegle Sign Company, asked for clarification as ?o mansard roofs. Commissioner Ostlund said fha? the mansard becomes a side wall or a canopy. Commissioner Os?er said ?he ordinance did need clarification as this Subd. 15 (^wnin.q or Canopy Si~_ns) i? was noted ?ha? let?ers painted or otherwise affixed to an awning or canopy are ?o be included in ?he total 200 foot maximum allowance. This section is to go back to ?he Committee for further consideration. Subd. 16 (Sio~n.s. ^ccessorv to Aufomobile S?rvice Stations) Commissioner Cameron noted that this was the type of business where the ordinance specifies what must be said on a sign. (price) The area of the sign ?o specify price is to be established at five square fee? on e i the r s i de. Subd. 17 (Advertisinq si_qns (Blllboa_?ds)) This subdivision is ?o be changed so as ?o provide for height limitao ?ion of 20 feet. Mr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, said that he ?hough? the standards established for billboards were basically unfair. He said he could have a t,000 acre trac? and still be permit?ed only one sign. He said he is asking for fairness and the ability ?o do business. S. ubd...I 8 (Nonconform.i ng. Si .qns.) Paragraph 3 of this subdivision is ?o be changed by adding "except as established in Subdivision 3, paragraph Subd, 19 (SiRn Standards) was read with no comments offered. Commissioner Os?er suggested that this work session be terminated a?-this time. Planning Commission - 14- November 16, I971 Minutes Motion by Oster, second by Ohman, that the proposed sign ordinance be tabled until the meeting of December 21, 1971. Motion carried by voi ce vote, 4. Discussion held as to requirements for special use permits with concern being expressed as to performance standards for home oc- cupations and criteria for granting special use permits in residential areas. 5. Commissioner Oster stated that there were no further comments this evening from the Codes and Standards 'Committee. 6. Commissioner Barniskis said there was no report from the Land: Use Commi tree. 7, The Council minutes of the meeting of November 8, 1971 were reviewed by the Planning Commission. 8. Motion by Barniskis, second by Oswald, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 2, 1971, as presented, Motion carried by voice vote. 9. Additional comments and requests were heard at this tlme. I0. Chairman Ostlund commented on the need for the Planning Commission to do "Its homework" in connection with the Plannlng Cases. I!. Motion by Cameron, second by Oswald, to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 a.m. Motion carried by voice vote. Respectful ly subr~itted,.,~ _ ~ ./ ~' .(.. : ::; /' ':'-'-""' '" . _ Record J ng Secretary Planning Commission - I - December 7, 1971 Mi nutes 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Vi I lage Hal I, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said Vi Itage on Tuesday, December 7, 1971, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairmen Ostlund. 2. Roll cai I was taken as fol lows: Present: Barniskts, Meyer, Ostlund, Oswald, Sueker, Cameron, Oster. Absent: Ohman, Zila, Rauch (Rauch arrived later). PUBL I C HEAR I N$S 3, P_!anni_n.q Case NO. 7,1-67, request for variance in height limitation for industrial structures at 4630 Quebec Avenue North, Benson-Orth Associates, Inc., petitioner, was considered at this time. Mr. Kenneth Benson, Benson-Orth Associates, Inc., and Mr. Ronald Marveson, Reo Plastics, appeared before the Commission to explain the need for the variance. A variance is sought to the 35 foot height limitation requirement of the Village Code to al Iow for the construction of two 60 foot bulk storage si los. The si los are to be used for storage of plastic pei let materials and are to be constructed In con- junction with the Reo Plastics Industrial building located at 4630 Quebec Avenue North. The Village Hanager advised that the staff had recommended that the silos, if permitted, be located I0 feet off the rear lot line. This location would al Iow proper access for fire fighting equipment. The Vi liege Manager further advised that the staff recommended that a chain link fence (8 ft. minimum) be constructed to discourage vandal ism and to reduce the possibility of an unauthorized person being injured. The petitioner was asked why the si los had not been shown on the original site plan for the Reo Plastics building. Mr. Ken Benson said that originally this firm had intended to expand their Maple Grove plant and that when it was decided to locate in New Hope the engineer- ing staff for Reo Plastics did not keep abreast of the issue. Commissioner Sueker stated that the question is whether there will be a problem with the 60 foot high silos since the code limitatlon Is 35 feet. Messrs. Benson and Marveson said they had not been aware of the staff change as to the location of the si los, but agreed that they could see no problem with locating the silos in accordance with the staff recommendati on. Mr. Marveson said the si los would be of welded steel and could be either green, gray or yel Iow. The color had not been determined. Planning Commission - 2 - December 7, 1971 Mi nutes Commi ss loner Rauch arrived. Commissioner Oster asked what other private structures in the Village exceed the height limitation. The Village Manager said there were no other height variances as far as he knew. Commissioner Sueker commented that he could see no fire hazard in connection with the storage of the plastic materials since the material will melt before it will burn. He said that the height limitation was for fire protection reasons, since we do not have equipment to handle buildings of greater height. He also said that he could see no aesthetic problem, this being little different than a chimney. He thought there would not be much danger of the structures toppling. Discussion was held as to the distance of the si los from the neighbor- Ing residential property. It was noted that the silos would be separated from residential property by the !00 ft. right of ~lay plus "extra Long" back yards. The possibility of recessing the silos was discussed. Mr. Benson said that this would be difficult because of water table on the site. Mr. Ken Benson said that Reo Plastics is al ready tat king about expanding the New Hope plant. Mr. Marveson said that when the plant is expanded two more silos of the same size would be needed. Mr Marveson also said that, if the firm did not have the si los, storage space would have to be taken from inside the building or they would have to operate from railroad cars. He said it would not be practical to operate from box cars, since the silos handle different type materials and they would have to shut down to change box cars. It is proposed that the plastic material will be unloaded from the box cars into the si los and then used from the si los. He also said it is not economical- ly feasible to provide inside storage. Discussion held as to whether it would be feasible to use a greater number of smaller si los. Mr. Marveson said that when the plant ts in operation one silo would hold a 2 I/2 day supply of plastic material, Commissioner Oster noted that the Planning Commission must be concerned with setting a precedent if this height variance Is permitted. Further discussion was held as to the contemplated expansion of the Reo Plastics operation. Commissioner Rauch expressed concern with these "high" si los being so close to residential zoned property - as opposed to being located tn an industrial park. Discussion held regarding the elevation of the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the proposed si Io site. ' Planning Con~nisslon - 3 - December 7, 1971 Minutes Hr. Eugene Johnson, 4709 Oregon Avenue North, and member of the Industrial Commission, said that he felt he could speak for ?he neighborhood and that the neighbors would obJect to the silOs. He also thought the Industrial Commission would be interested in looking at the proposal. Notion by Barniskis, second by Cameron, that since granting a variance in height limitations woutd set a precedent for indtjstrial develop- ment, the matter be referred to the Industrial Commission for Its cOnments and critique, with report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of December 21, 1971. Hotion carried by voice vote. Chairman Osttund said he thought the Planning Commission al'so should discuss the proposed addition te the Reo Plastics plant. It was decided that Hr. Harveson should advise the Vi i lage Hanager as to where similar structures have been bui It so that the Planning COn~ission might take a look at the structures. Hr. Kenneth Benson advised the Planning CommissiOn that he had puro chased the Industrial property at 49th and Quebec (south of 49th and west of ?racks). 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the cedar siding standards as pre- pared by Hr. Wi II tam Tuma, Bui Iding and Zoning Director. Discussion was held as to the effect of the adoption of the State Building Code on these standards and on existing Village codes. Notion by Oster, second by Cameron, accepting the grading rules for red cedar as prepared by Nr. William Tuma and expressing agreemant with these standards. Notion carried by voi.~e vote. 5. Commissioner Oster said that the Codes and Standards Committee had nothing to report. He suggested that the Planning Commission go over the changes suggested at the last Planning Commission meeting in connection with the proposed sign ordinance. It was decided that thls could be done roi Io~ing the regular meeting. 6. Commissioner Barniskis said that the Land Use Committee had nothing to report. 7. The CO~cil minutes of the ~tlng of Nove~r 22, 1971, were revl~d, 8. Conmissioner Hayer stated that af ~he last meeting he had quoted fro~ Dr. Robbins instead of Dr. Peterman and that he had inadvertently g i van the wrong name. Con~nlsstoner Sueker stated that at the last meeting he was vehemently against people being, able to put ~hatever type signs they wished In front store ~indo~s and that he would like this recorded. Planning Co~mlssion - 4 - Oecember 7, 1971 Minutes Ho~ion by Barnlskis, second by Oster, to approve the minutes of the Planning Co~ission meeting of November 16, 1971 together with above coements. Motion carried by voice vote. 9. Additional comnents and requests were heard fro~ staff and mi ss Ioners. Vt l iage Manager distributed information on planning courses offered at North Hennepin Junior College. He asked that the Com~isstoners express interest in attending at the next meeting. Olscussion held regarding fencing at the Green Giant Garden Center, inspection of fill ing stations, and the operation at the New Hope Shopp i ng Center Garden Store. Coemi ss loner Oster advised that the Codes and Standards Coemitfee wi It be ready with a report on special use pemits for home occupations for the first meeting In January. Motion by Cameron, second by Rauch, and carried, to adjourn the · eeting at 8:45 p.m. (Fol lowing adjourneent the proposed sign ordinance .and changes SU~l- gested at the last ~eeting were reviewed. Al I Comeisslon eeebers were invited to offer their comments). Respectful ly submltted~ etty i or Recordt ~g Secretary Planning Commission - I - December 21, 1971 Mi nutes I. ^ regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said Village on Tuesday, December 21, 1971, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Barniskis. Chairman Ostlund arrived. 2, Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Meyer, Ostlund, Oswald, Rauch, Cameron, Oster, Ohman. Absent: Sueker, Zila (Zila arrived shortly). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 71-67, request for variance in height limitation for industrial buildings at 4630 Quebec Avenue, Reo Plastics, was considered at this time. The matter had been referred to the Industrial Commission for recommendation as to granting the variance for the construction of two 60 foot silos for the storage of plastic materials. Comm~ssioner Zi la arrived. Mr. Ron Narveson, Reo Plastics, appeared representing the petitioner, Mr. Narveson said that he had nothing further to add to the case pre- sented at the last meeting. The Village Manager advised that he had a call from Weidon Hultgren of the Industrial Commission. Mr. Hultgren said members of the Industrial Commission had visited several of the sites that were given to them to look at. None of the si los were over 32 feet and that one would have to travel to Denver to see one that is 60 feet high. The IDC has recommended against the granting of the variance. The IDC felt that the cost of shorter silos would not be an extraordinary burden and they felt that the 60 foot high silos would not be con- sistent with either the Village Code or the other development in the Village. Discussion held as to the silo at the Bemis plant with it being noted that this silo is about I/2 of the si.ze that is being proposed. Mr. Narveson said that it would take four 40 foot silos to replace the two sixty foot silos and would cost an additional $40,000 to $50,000 more than the 60 foot silos. Discussion held as to whether it would be necessary to readvertise to authorize variance for four 40 foot silos. Mr. Robert Miller, Attorney, advised that he did not think a new advertisement would be required. Planning Commission - 2 - December 21, 1971 Minutes Commissioner Cameron said that he had looked at the Bemis silo and felt that this was too large for this section of New Hope, He noted that the school administration building was about 45 feet high. He said at 40 feet tall if they put a light on it, it will match the ~'Crystal Ball" Mr. Cameron also said that ReD Plastics should have thought of this problem before they decided to build the plant here, He said that at the last meeting he asked the question three times as to why the silos had not been discussed with the initial presenta- tion, and that this had not been recorded in the minutes. He said this was a point and that his question was never answered. In reply to Mr. Cameron, Mr. Narveson said that ReD Plastics is not planning on any sign whatsoever and that they do not advertise from their plant in Osseo at the present time. In fact, the president of the Company said that if the Village wants to write New Hope on the top of the silos, they would put New Hope on them. Commissioner Oswald said that he felt he could "live" with a 32 foot silo. Commissioner ~eyer inquired as to whether eight 40 foot silos would be required eventually. Mr. Narveson said that the firm would run out of space and that they would have to forget about the expansion and look somewhere else for expansion. Commissioner Rauch said that he was familiar with the Bemis installa- tion and that it is located in a heavy industrial area and since it is in such an area it does not offend any of the surrounding development. He noted that the ReD Plastic New Hope site abuts residential property. He felt that unless the height of the silos were cut to 30 feet or below, nothing much would be accomplished and that 40-45 or 50 feet would be too high. Chairman Ostlund said that inasmuch as the silo feed through a vacuum he did not understand why half of the structure could not be below ground and the other half above ground. Mr. Narveson said that he had discussed this point with the contractor and that it was his understanding that there is bad water table in the area. He felt that trying to put something underground would be a problem. Chairman Ostlund said that he would like to see the petitioner get soll borings and that a little more study of the site on the part of ReD Plastics was in order. With the investment involved, Hr. Ostlund noted that it might be possible to build a brick retaining wall to help with the water problem and still be money ahead plus maintaining room for expansion. Planning Commission - 3 - December 21, 1971 Minutes Hr. Narveson said that at the last meeting he had tried to explaln that the development had been a "rush" affair and they had not originally planned to build in New Hope. Upon questioning, he said that their budget was at the point that the additional expense for the towers would mean elimination of one machine in the plant. Hr Narveson noted that they were talking about four 40 foot silos versus 1~o 60 foot silos. Further discussion held regarding soil testing and studying possibility of burying I/2 of the silos. Mr. Narveson again stated that the problem originated because they had tried to move too fast and had not planned to build in New Hope. He said his firm had started up a new division which they did not know too much about beforehand. This is the first such operation in the whole country as far as the product goes and that ~he business has snowballed, everyone is looking for parts, and they were trying to satisfy their customers. He said the company is leasing the building but that the President of the Company is part owner of the building and'is one of the builders. Discussion held as to Reo Plasticts time table. Hotion by Ohman, second by Zila~ to table Planning Case No. 71-67 until the meeting of January 4, 1971. IVlotion carried by voice vote. NEW BUSINESS The proposed sign ordinance was the next item on the agenda. Chalm~an Ostlund turned the meeting over to Commissioner Oster, Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee. Mr. Oster stated that the full Commission had met a month ago to consider ,he proposed ordinance and at that time had gone over i, point by point. ^, fha, time, the interested people had been invited ,o the mee, ing ,o participate in the discusslon. ^pproxlma,ely five hours of that meeting was given to considera, ion of ,he proposed sign ordinance. He further said ,ha, ,wo weeks ago the proposed sign ordinance had been considered in committee and the various Inputs from the previous meeting had been discussed and cer, ain recommenda- tions had been made to the Village Attorney for redrafting of ,he pro- posed ordinance. Copies of the proposed changes were presented to the Commission members. Hr. Oster said that he would hope the Commission would be able to act on the proposed ordinance this evening. The proposed ordinance had received a tremendous amount of work, consideration and attention from all concerned. He noted that there were people in the audience that had been at the meeting held a month ago. These people were invited to speak at this time. Planning Commission - 4 - December 21, 1971 Minutes Mr. Lowell Ri dgeway, Assistant Secretary of Minnesota Petroleum Council, spoke on behalf of the major oil companies. He apologized for not being present at previous meetings and asked for the opportunity to offer comments at this time saying he thought he would have some valuable Input for consideration by the Commission. He also noted that]possibly some of the comments he would be offering had possibly been acted upon and changed already. He stated that a Mr. Glen Hubbard, Union 76, was also In attendance and that Mr. Hubbard would be able to answer technical questions and would be presenting pictures to illustrate the points of the petroleum industry. Mr. Ridgeway then commented on the following sections of the proposed ordinance. Subd. 3, Para. 2 -- on illuminated signs. He said he noticed that prtvate business must abide by certain hours but this did not apply to the municipal liquor store. He said the paragraph should be re- written because the words "avoid casting bright light" is a redundant discrepancy. In its place, he recommended inserting "any illuminated sign located on a lot adjacent to a single family residential district should not be located within 50 feet of such border line. Signs visible from such districts should not be illuminated between the hours of 12 midnight and 6:00 a.m." He said this last sentence was not necessarily recommended but if hours are to be established it is felt that these are the hours that should be implemented. Subd. 3, Para. 5. Mr. Ridgeway said this paragraph appears ambiguous. The paragraph states that no sign shall block any required access way or window. He said they felt that signs or decals should be permitted in a glass window front. He asked if a sign could be posted if a service station was for lease or sale. He said that if such a sign could be posted in the window then perhaps the paragraph should be tied in with another paragraph in Subdivision 6 which discusses "for sale" or "to rent" signs. Subd. 13 -- Re: Ground Signs. He said that according to the proposed ordinance one of the ground signs may project into the front setback area no closer than I0 feet to the street right of way line. He pro- posed that this phrase be stricken and instead make projection in the front setback area to be not over the s~reet right of way line. Commissioner Oster asked Mr. Ridgeway if it would be possible to para- phrase his points. Mr. Oster noted that a letter covering these ~atters had been presented to the Commissioners just prior to the ·eeting and that consideration would be given to the points in the letter. Mr. Ridgeway then continued with his points. He said that it is recog- nized that a service station identification sign is the single most il~portant factor in our credit card economy in advising approaching motorists of the availability of an advertised product, thereby per- mitting an orderly safe ingress to the station site. The setback pro- vision of this section does not allow for certain visibility situations 'Planning Commission - 5 - December 21, 1971 Hinutes in the proximity of a service station site and tends to defeat the purpose of a ground pole sign. He said that for maximum safety such signing should be permitted at the property or street right of way line, Mr. Rtdgeway noted that in the same paragraph limitation to one ground pole is discussed. He said that consideration should be extended to the Installation of a second sign where the property configuration, es- pecially at an intersection location where an extreme property radius'. or cut-off corner situation exists, He said that holding to a single sign to service two arteries could possibly negate the ordinance in intent and spirit. Subd, 13, Para. 2, He said allowable ground signs should be the same as he had just discussed in the previous paragraph. Subd. 13, Para. 5 -- Height Limitations. He objected to the twenty foot limitation, saying that the majority of the oil companies have a standard identification sign of about 25 feet in height. For this reason he suggested that the 20 foot limitation be changed to 25 feet. Also there are times when a sign 35 feet in height would be needed, Mr. Ridgeway said he would tike to see added to the paragraph a pro- vision such as -- "the height allowance of the identification sign allowed at a location will be exempt from the restriction to. allow for flexibility of sign pole pipe under a possible variety of dis- ability situations," Subd. 14 -- Regarding Roof Signs. Mr. Ridgeway said they did not find a definition of a roof sign in the ordinance and he inquired whether there was such a definition. Commissioner Oster said that the question on the definition of a roof sign would be answered later. Mr, Ridgeway then discussed Subdivision 16 relating to signs accessory to automobile service stations (Para. 3). He noted that this para- graph prohibits pom~able signs and pennants among other things, He said they object to the prohibition of portable signs, it being their contention that the retail character of a service station is such that an identification of the goods and services available should not be restricted to ground pole signage. He said motor fuel customers should be made aware of the special facilities, products or services, such as air conditioning repair, as they stop at the pump island. He said at service stations such signs should probably be.allowed_In vicinity of each pump island. As to the prohibition oT pennants, tMhr~ Ridgeway said they object in one instance, that being that pennants should be permitted during grand opening of a new or remodeled business. He said he thought that a week should be allowed for use of pennants at the time of a grand opening only. He further stated that they do not condone the use of pennants and flyers as part of day-to- day operations. Plannlng Co~mission o 6 - December 21, 1971 Hi nutes Subd. 18, Para. 3 -- Non-Conforming Signs. Hr. Ridgeway stated that this paragraph stated that all non-conforming signs shall be eliminated or made to conform by February I, 1976. He strongly recommended implementing a "grandfather clause'm saying that 1976 is just un- reasonable If a new business is constructed just prior to the adoption of the sign ordinance. Nr. Ridgeway then said he thought Hr. Hubbard of Union 76 and a member of Ninnesota Petroleum Council Engineering Advisory Committee would have something to say at this time, Hr. Hubbard then spoke. Hr. Hubbard said that he had picked out portions of the proposed ordinance that would particularily apply to the Union 76 Company and that these same points would perhaps apply to several other oil companies. He questioned the definition of a roof sign and presented a picture of one of the Union 76 stations, questioning whether the sign used would be considered a roof sign. He thought that a roof sign should be defined to include a statement that unless it is an integral part of the building, it is not a roof sign. He further said he would agree that an ordinary roof sign would be where there is a metal framework or post coming up with an A frame brace on the back, mounted on the roof. He said the Union 76 sign that he was concerned with was a definite part of the design of the station, Nr. Hubbard then discussed sidewall signs, noting that the sign used by their company was 2 feet, 9 inches by 16 feet and that the proposed ordinance limits signs to 9 square feet. He said he did not think their sidewall sign was offensive or out of balance with the rest of the building, Hr. Hubbard also said Union 76 would have a problem complying with the 20 foot height limitation. He said that if a shorter pole is used on the sign with the standard Union identification on top, it would give an appearance of a "toad stool", would not be attractive and would be out of balance. He said he thought a height limitation of 25 feet would cover all standard signs used by the industry. Hr, Hubbard also questioned what was meant by "no signs blocking re- quired windows or doorways", Further discussion was held with Hr. Ridgeway regarding height of signs on County Road 18, wlth it being noted that the sign ordinance was for all people, not just certain interests. Commissioner Oster asked whether there were any other people here representing the oil companies. There appeared to be no other oil company representatives in attendance, Hr. Oster again noted that the oil companies~ objections had just been received prior to the meeting tonight. Planning Commission - 7 - December 21, 1971 Minutes Mr, Shaw of Naegle Sign Company spoke at this time. He noted that his company has three signs in New Hope, all of which are located on GB property. He was concerned with Subdivision 17 regarding the need to remove a billboard when a structure is built on the site. Discussion held regarding the billboard standing on the Sheridan Sheet Metal property. He noted that Naegle Sign had a fairly substantial capital Investment in the sign at the Sheridan Sheet Metal site, and that In 1976 it would be in non-conformance. It was suggested that steps could be taken to create two parcels of ground instead of the large parcel, thus bringing the sign into conformance. Discussion held regarding the two Naegle signs located on the tract of land next to the liquor store. Mr. Shaw asked if it would be possible to provide for special use permits to cover the Naegle signs so that the signs might remain after 1976. Mr. Shaw suggested that a distance might be established to indicate how far a sign might be constructed from a building. He said that Naegle Sign Company does not want signs on buildings and that they do not want signs close to buildings. Commissioner Ostlund inquired as to the position of the Commission regarding billboards in New Hope. Mr. Ostlund said that the Naegle signs were already there and that the ordinance reads "constructed on". Mr. Robert Miller, Attorney, said that this point in the ordinance should perhaps be changed to also include "maintained~' as well as "constructed on", since this was the intended spirit of the proposed oral i nance. It was noted that there were two other billboard signs in New Hope, both advertising the Crystal State Bank. Mr. Shaw pointed out that these signs differed from the Naegle signs in that the sign is sold to the customer. He further noted that the industry does not con- sider signs such as the Crystal Bank signs as outdoor advertising. The Village Manager noted that the proposed ordinance does provide for the placement of billboards in GB districts as did the old ordinancee Mr. Loren Schiebe, Northwest Chamber of Commerce, was asked fo~ his comments. He said that since this meeting was so close to Christmas it was difficult to have merchants in attendance. He said he noted that the Commission had taken into consideration the points that were brought up at the last hearing. No further comments were offered by persons in attendance. Discussion held as to Commissioner Sueker's comments regarding window signs. Chairman Ostlund stated that Commissioner Sueker had called him with his recommendations regarding same. Mr. Sueker said that with all the retailers and the sign people he had contacted in the last two weeks it was unanimously their recommendation that we have no illumination from the rear to the window and that sign letters are not to exceed five inches by one Inch. This is what they considered to be acceptable window signing. PtanningCommission - 8 - December 21, Ig71 Hi nutes Discussion held as to definition of a sign, with concern being expressed as to the possibility of large inside window signs. Ostlund again pointed out that the reco~nendation coming forward from Hr. Sueker is that signs in the window shall not have lettering exceeding Ii inches by one inch and that no light shall come from within to the exterior to il luminate the window sign. it was pointed out that this matter was not covered in the amendments before the Commission this evening. Comments regarding this point were then solicited from the Commission members. Commissioner Rauch stated that he would like an opinion from the attorney as to the definition of a sign. Hr. Hiller, Attorney, said that as regards this ordinance as presently drafted anything that is inside of a window or in the display area be- hind the window, whether it be a price tag or an advertising picture or simllar item, is not a sign. A sign is strictly an exterior structure, whether it be painted or metal. As the ordinance reads, if you want to put a decal on the inside of a service station, this is Ooko Further discussion held regarding window signs with Hr. Oster saying that his argument on this point has been that, the probability of extreme signing in a front window is rather small, so at this time he does not see the need to write anything into the ordinance on .th~s point. He said he does see the need to write something into the ordinance regarding flashing or moving signs in windows, these signs being quite distract'ing and potential traffic hazards. He concluded that flashing and moving interior slgns might be treated the same as exterior signs. Further discussion held with the attorney as to how this might be included in the proposed ordinance. Attorney l~iller said that it might be possible to have a provision that the light, or source of light, be no closer than five to ten feat from the window itself, tt might be possible to draft something along this line. Commissioner Oster inquired as to whether there might be some problem wi th un i form, cons t stent enforcement of a provi sion agai nsf f I ash ing or moving signs in a window. Nr. Amyx said that he thought flashing or rotating light could be drafted into the ordinance. Hr, Amyx pointed out that if that pro- vision applied to the interior sign, it ~ould still be possible to have the advertising type sign in the windows. He thought the pro- vision against flashing and rotating signs in the window could be en- forced. Commissioner Oswald suggested that we take the present provision re- lating to no flashing c~ rotating signs and add onto it "including IndOOr signs which are visible from the public street". Planning Commission - 9 - December 21, 1971 Mi nutes Commissioner Cameron said that he agreed that flashing or rotating signs visible from the public street should be controlled but that he saw no need of controlling flashing or rotating signs visible from a private parking lot such as at Midland. Upon questioning, Mr. Cameron said he would not modify the ordinance any further as it per- tains to window signs. Commissioner Meyer stated his agreement with Messrs. Oswald and Cameron on this point. Attorney Miller stated that he would be able to come up with the language for this modification to the proposed ordinance. Chairman Ostlund expressed concern with windows being covered with advertising, thus making it impossible to see what is happening inside the store such as a burglary, etc. Discussion held as to display racks blocking windows. He questioned whether this type of thing should be control led in the sign ordinance or in the enforcement area. Mr. Ostlund said that he thought window signs should be looked at under a different category. Commissioner Oster stated that he would agree with Mr. Ostlund in the main except for flashing and moving signs. Mr. Ostlund then agreed that when the flashing or moving window sign was near the road, that it should be controlled, but not when it is back in a shopping center. Commissioner Barniskis said that he agreed with Mr. Ostlund and that he did not feel there would be that much problem with window signs. Commissioner Rauch said that he raised the point that Mr. Sueker had brought forth at the last meeting. Commissioner Oster said that the Commission seems to be divided as to whether the ordinance should be modified or left as is. He stated that this matter could be included at the time the Commission votes on whether to recommend the ordinance to the Council for adoption. Commissioner Oster then stated that all members had the proposed changes before them and that as far as he could see, the instructions from the last meeting as to changes were pretty welt incorporated in the memo as to the changes and that the Planning Commission's intent seems to be coming through. Mr. Oster suggested that the Commission just review the changes rather than go through the ordinance again on a paragraph by paragraph basis. Planning Commission - I0 - December 2t, 1971 M inutes Commissioner Barniskis inquired as to whether those things that had been asked to be deleted were deleted since this type of change is not shown in the memo. Upon questioning, Mr. Barniskis said that he was concerned with the statement of the gentlemen from the petroleum company about the liquor store being treated differently than private enterprise asking if we deleted that provision so that the liquor store is accorded no special privileges. The Vi i lage Manager replied that any business that is open between I1:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. may still have their business sign, but any business that is closed between these hours and is involved with a light violation, that sign must be turned off. The municipal liquor dispensary would be no exception. Discussion was then held as to Page 6, Paragraph 6, relating to property for sale. The Planning Commission had previously asked that the ordinance be changed to read that the for sale sign must be re- moved immediately upon consummation of the sale. Attorney Miller stated that "sale" means when the deal is closed. Up to that point it is only an agreement to sell. No change required. Commissioner Oswald questioned whether the change had been made as to "no such sign shall be illuminated in residential districts". (Page 6, Subd. 6, (I)). The Manager said that the change was noted. Commissioner Oster noted that a change had been made to Page 6, Subd. 2, Paragraph 2 to incorporate the language of the present ordinance, and that a Paragraph 3 had been added talking about "for sale" and "to rent" signs in commercial and industrial areas. Mr. Oster noted that in these areas we are permitting a 120 square foot sign while the residential "for sale" sign is limited to 80 feet. Discussion held as to whether these signs could be illuminated. The Vi I lage Manager noted that at the last meeting it was decided that the Village Manager was to confer with Mr. Oster and they came up with the changes in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Subd. 6. Following further discussion it appeared that the consensus of the Commission was that illuminated signs be permitted in commercial and industrial districts but not in residential districts, such i tlumination~to be subject to the it :00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. restriction, with referer:tce to be made to the glare standards. Paragraph 3 is to be changed to incorporate these p rovi s ions. Commissioner Oster inquired as to whether all members were satisfied with the provisions relating to the front wall signs as to maximum area since this was such an important part of the ordinance. No questions were raised regarding front wall sign restrictions. Discussion held regarding illumination standards and reference to 4.66 of the Code. The Village Manager noted that this reference appeared on Page 9 of the proposed ordinance, Subd. !0, Paragraph 5. Planning Commission - I I - December 21, 1971 Minutes Page 3, Subd. 3, Sub-Para. (2). It was felt that glare standards should be included in this paragraph or reference should be made to 4.66 of the Village Code. The Village Manager is to review this paragraph, in light of this recommendation. Attorney Miller also stated that the glare standards as recommended by Mr. Tuma will be incorporated into 4.66 of the Code, inasmuch as he feels this is necessary. Commissioner Oster asked Attorney Miller to explain what had been done regarding the compression of Subdivision II. Mr. Miller said that the language had been taken from Page t0 of the present ordinance for side walls and merely put in the new Paragraph (2) referencing regulations in Subdivision I0 of the Code. Mr. Miller said that rear wall signs had been handled in the same manner. This was agreeable to the Commission. Discussion held as to the limitation of nine square feet for side walls. Attorney Miller called attention to the fact that side wall signs were only permitted to designate del ivery areas and not for ad- vertising. This also applies to rear wall signs. Mr. Miller also noted that the only time an advertising sign can be on a side or rear wall is when you do not have a front wall to utilize. Comments were cai led for on ground signs. Commissioner Oster stated that this is another section of the ordinance that is important. The Village Manager stated that except for the deletion of the words "main body" in Sub-Paragraph 5, Page 13, there have been no changes made relating to ground signs. No further comments were heard. Subd. 14, relating to roof signs was discussed, with Commissioner Oster noting that in the present language of the proposed ordinance, there is a total banning of roof signs. Commissioner Oster stated that in Subd. 15, relating to awning or canopy signs, we are stating in our changes that such lettering shall be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. No further comments were heard relating to roof, awning or canopy signs. Discussion held regarding Page 16, Subd. 18, relating to non-conform- ing signs. It was noted that non-conforming signs must be eliminated by February I, 1976. The Village Manager said that this date would provide the amortization period as was originally discussed, when the Commission commenced work on the proposed sign ordinance. Commissioner Oster then said that the Commission had skipped over most of the first page of the proposed changes and inquired as to whether there were any comments on these points at this time. Planning Commission - 12 - December 21, 1971 Hi nutes Commissioner Meyer said he had one point on Section I and that relates to Mr. Cameron's comments on political signs. He said he felt Mr. Cameron's points were valid, that political signs should be exempted from provisions of the ordinance and that such signs should be allowed. Commissioner Barniskis agreed that political signs should be permitted, but that there should be a maximum size established. Commissioner Ostlund also agreed that political signs should be allowed because, if they don't accomplish anything else, they do make people aware of a forthcoming election, as stated by Mr. Cameron. Commissioner Oster then inquired as to how the language of the ordinance should be changed to provide for political signs. Further discussion followed, with it being decided that the amendment should be made to Subdivision 2 to allow political signs on private property with the owner's permission required, maximum size to be 8 square feet, limited to 30 days before the election and 5 days after the election, with the property owner responsible for the removal of the political signs. Attorney Miller said that he would have to check the state election laws as to regulations on election signs to make sure that our provisions are in conformance with state law. Mr. Miller was instructed to make the change to the ordinance regarding permitting political signs, pro- vided such change is not pre-empted by state taw. Mr. Miller also noted that it would be necessary to define a political sign. Commissioner Oster then inquired as to whether there were any questions which should be answered. Commissioner Zila inquired as to how church signs would be handled. Chairman Ostlund stated that the church signs would have to conform with the Code the same as the businesses with the exception that no fee would be charged for a permit. Commissioner Oster asked Attorney Miller for his comments on the pro- posed ordinance. He stated that he thought the wording was basically clear. The basic criteria is whether the ordinance is reasonable, and that it might be reasonable as it applies to 60 people but unreasonable as it applies to the 61st case. He was concerned with mall type shopping centers and interior stores not having front wall space, but noted that this could be handled under the variance procedure. The Village Manager stated that basic enforcement of the ordinance would not start until about mid-1975 when the Village will be looking for those signs that are non-conforming, but that new signs would have to comply with the new standard~ and permits must be obtained over the next few years-after the adoption of the ordinance. Planning Commission - 13 - December 21, 1971 Minutes Commissioners Ostlund and Oster again spoke on the variance procedure and the necessity for having this provision. Commissioner Oster then called for comments from the audience. Mr. Merle Brinkman, representing United Hardware and also Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce, inquired as to whether a survey had been taken to determine how many signs would be non-conforming if this ordinance is adopted. Commissioner Oster stated that this matter had been considered but that it was felt that reasonable standards should be developed rather than drafting an ordinance based on existing signs. Mr. Oster said that the Commission does not have a count as to the number of signs that will be in violation. He also said he felt a much larger percentage of the signs will be conforming than was originally thought. Mr. Brinkman said that he agreed in principle with first establishing standards but that he was concerned with what percentage of the signs will be non-conforming. The Village Manager noted that the Chamber of Commerce had done an excellent job in its newsletter of informing its members and that the highest number of business interests attending a meeting was three, which was the last meeting. Mr. Amyx said he thought that this implies that the business men feel their signs are in conformance and that they have no problem with the proposed ordinance; this is the only thing he can read into the response we received. Further discussion held as to the percentage of non-conforming signs, with Mr. Oster asking whether the Commission would have acted differently if there were 50% non-conformance versus 5% non-conformance. He said the Commission had tried to come up with fair standards. Mr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, again expressed concern with the sign at Sheridan Sheet Metal and as to whether signs which will be in non- conformance of the new ordinance can be painted. Attorney Miller advised that painting of the structure would be allowed but that a 50% improvement to the strucuture would not be permitted. Mr. Miller also advised that there was a dollar amount under which a permit was not required. Mr. Shaw also asked for clarification as to the definition of excessive glare. The Village Manager read the definition to Mr. Shaw. Mr. Shaw also said that he feels roof signs should be defined. Attorney Miller said he did not feel this was a problem--a roof is what you can see when looking down from overhead; the other portion is the side wall. Mr. Miller again said that he thought the language was about as clear as one can make it. Planning Commission - 14 - December 21, 1971 Minutes Further discussion held as to previous instructions given to define a mansard roof, with it being noted that the Attorney has adequately answered this point, with no additional language being needed. Mr. Shaw then asked the Commission to fully consider all points brought up by himself and other persons present, and not just to pass the ordinance because the Commission felt that the ordinance had been overworked. Discussion held regarding the letter from the petroleum interests. C~issioner Ostlund noted that the points covered in the letter from the petroleum people had been taken into account in the building of the ordinance. Accessory signs and new product signs had been considered, the Cc~ission was fully aware of the functions of a service station, and the ordinance as drafted has the standards wanted. Mr. Ostlund commented that he did not think it was fair to tell the petroleum people that we are going to act on your comments of this evening. He said that while the ordinance might be new to the petroleum people, their comments had basically been considered. Commissioner Oster stated that i.deally the Commission should have be- fore it a listing of the specific points where deviation is to be made from the documents before the Commission this evening. The Village Manager stated that the suggested changes have been recorded, both from the December 7 meeting and the several points that were mentioned this evening. He said that the ordinance could be retyped prior to Council action and that copies would be issued to the Planning Commission in tin~ to allow several days for the Commission members to look it over. If there are any problems, the Cx~r~issioner could call and the problem areas would be looked at. We want to make sure that you have the finished document in your hands and that each Commission member has read it and feels that the language included therein is in agreement with the consensus of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Oster said that he had hoped that the Commission might act on the proposed ordinance this evening. The Village Manager said he thought this was possible and that a copy of the proposed sign ordinance incorporating all changes would be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission before it was placed on the Council agenda. This would assure that the document was in the form recommended by the Planning Commission. At this point, further comments were called for. Mr. Brinkman, United Hardware, asked whether the copies of the redrafted ordinance could be made available to the Chamber before it was presented for Council action. Mr. Brinkman was advised that a copy would go to the Chamber and the Chamber could then provide for distribution to its me, ers. Mr. Shaw, Naegle Sign Company, again asked that Subdivision 17 be re- worded. , Planning Commission- - 15 - December 21, 1971 Minutes Mr. Shaw was advised that it was the intent of the Planning Commlssion to limit billboards to GB districts and that Mr. Shaw had said his firm did not want to put signs on buildings or adjacent to buildings. Mr. Shaw then said he was concerned with the provision for removal of the sign when the land is improved with a structure and that two signs could not stand on the same tract. Commissioner Osttund said that such matters as were brought up by Mr. Shaw would have to be considered under the variance provision on the merits of an individual case. Mr. Miller again noted that the ordinance is to be changed to read "constructed or maintained" and that under the present zoning code, we do not permit two homes on one parcel of land and that it seems to be a reasonable restriction whether it be homes or billboards. Motion by Commissioner Oster that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council adoption of the sign ordinance as amended up through the present. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meyer. Commissioner Cameron expressed concern that the Commission did not have the finished document in front of it for reviewal and inquired as to the procedure that would be followed if a Commission member finds something in the finished document which he does not feel was agreed to by the Planning Commission. The Village Manager stated that if any Commission member finds a problem with the ordinance as redrafted, he should call the Village Manager and a meeting could be set up to discuss the problem. It was decided that the ordinance would be sent forward to the Council at its second meeting in January. Upon voice vote the motion was unanimously carried. 5. Discussion held regarding North Hennepin Junior College planning courses and seminars. Discussion was also held as to attending meeting relating to Iow income housing. This meeting is to be on January tl, 1971. Commissioners Meyer, Ohman and Barniskis are to attend same, 6. Commissioner Oster, Chairman of the Codes and Standards Committee, said that the Committee would have its recommendations regarding home oc- cupation standards ready for the second meeting in January. ?. Commissioner Barniskis, Chairman of the Land Use Committee, reported that the Committee had met and reviewed the land use of the northern- most portion of the southeast corner of County Road 18 and 42nd Avenue (Collier-Carpenter Property). A report, dated December 21, 1971, re- lating to this matter (Planning Cases Nos. 70-75 and 70-76), was then read by Commissioner Barniskis. In this report, the Land Use Committee recommends that the subject property be rezoned to TR, and in addition, that the entire southeast parcel (now zoned MR with some SR) be also re- zoned to TR at the earliest possible date. The reasons for the recom- mendations were then summarized in said report. Planning Commission - 16 - December 21, 1971 Minutes Motion by Barniskis, second by Meyer, to forward this report to the Council for consideration at its second meeting in January, together with legal advice on the matter. ~tion carried by voice vote. 8. The Council minutes of the meeting of December 13, 1971, were reviewed by the Planning Commission. 9. Motion by Commissioner Barniskis, second by Commissioner Oswald, ap- proving the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of December 7, 1971, as printed. Motion carried by voice vote. ~10. Additional comments and requests were heard at this time. Discussion held as to the possibility of straightening out the Crystal- New Hope boundary. Discussion held regarding outside storage and parking at Cornelius Engineering plant. Discussion held regarding on-street parking adjacent to skating rinks, especially on Boone Avenue. The meeting was adjourned at I0:10 p,m. until January 4, 1972 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Be~-t~/liot Recording Secretary