The URL can be used to link to this page

1973 Planning Planning Commission - I - January 2, 1973 ~ Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 2, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. 2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 3. Roll call was taken as follows~ Present: Barniskis, Cameron, Herman, Meyer, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: Garln, Ohman and Sueker. (Commissioner Ohman entered at 7:35 p.m. and Commissioner Garin's absence was excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Planninq Case No. 73-1 (Request for a Special Use Permit to Conduct a Home Occupation) 3209 Gettysburg Avenue North, Charles S. Hoffmann, Petitioner, Mr. Charles Hoffmann and his wife, Mrs. Joyce Hoffmann, were present con- cerning this case. Mr. Hoffmann started by stating that he and his wife had gotten involved in Shakely products for two reasons. The first reason was because his wife was working as they needed financial help to make ends meet. Mr. Hoffmann said that a good friend approached him about the Sha'kely business; a business you could operate in the home and where the wife could stay and be with the children and be a mother. He stated that to him it looked good and there were financial returns enough to satisfy economic needs so they decided to try the Shakely business. The second reason was because of the principles Shakely runs on. Mr. Hoffmann further stated also that this company offered an opportunity to do something to benefit mankind. He went on to state that Shakely is a company that produces products that are made from natural sources basi- cally fruits and vegetables that have non-polluting products and also has a line of cleaning products which do not contain phosphates, nitrates, bocane, or any pollutant that would affect the environment, therefore, they felt the second reason for entering Shakely was because they were doing something to preserve our country. Mr. Hoffmann then went on to explain a little about how Shakely works. He said that everyone starts at the bottom as a distributor. As a dis- tributor you are given the right to sell products to anyone you meet. Chairman Ostlund commented that he would like Mr, Hoffmann to go through the organizational structure and Mr. Hoffmann replied that he would do this. Mr. Hoffmann said that you would have the right to sponsor other distrib- utors as well as to build a sales organization. Once you have developed an organization that sells $3,000 worth of products, retail, you can be appointed a supervisor. As supervisor you order your products directly from the company and then supply distributors in your organizatio~thus, your home business never becomes too large because when any group in your organization reaches $3,000 these groups break away and they run their own Planning Commission - 2 - Jaunuary 2, 1973 Minutes business and then order directly from the company. He stated that this was basically the organization of the company. Mr. Hoffmann said that his wife and he had started out at 3816 Hillsboro Avenue North three years ago and started selling products and sponsoring people as distributors in November of 1969. Six months later they had developed a good organization and were appointed supervisors in Shakely. They then started supplying products from their home to people In thelr' group as well as holding meetings and cosmetic training sessions for dis- tributors in their home. During the following two years they had most of their products delivered to them by semi-trailer trucks plus all of the shipments out of the home were delivered by UPS service. Mr. Hoffmann stated that the semi-trailer trucks brought in because this is the means that the trucking company uses to bring them their products. He pointed out that the truck was not full of their products but rather that it was on a route when it stopped at their house. These trucks de- livered anywhere from 10 to 40 boxes. Mr. Hoffmann further stated that for two and a half years they had semi-trailer trucks coming to the house along with the UPS service. Mr. Hoffmann also stated that he had held weekly meetings at his home until they grew to the point where Mrs. Hoffmann and he felt that they were in- fringing upon the neighbors and at that time of March 1971, they moved the meetings to the Ambassador Motel on Highways 1.2 and I00 and they no longer hold meetings at their home. These meetings are held each Tuesday night whereas before they had been on Thursday nights. During this 2½ years of operation Mr. Hoffmann stated that they never had any neighbors complain but rather a few became distributors and many were buying products from them. In June of 1972 he moved to their present address of 3209 Gettysburg Avenue North. Mr. Hoffmann said that they had moved for one reason only because their three boys did not have enough room. He stated that they had one bedroom for their three boys and with the business in the home it had forced them to have more room. On November 15 Mr. Hoffmann said they were informed by Mr. Tuma that he had received complaints at the Village office against the Shakely busineSS. He stated that Mr. Tuma informed them that they would have to do three things if their business was to continue: I. They would have to apply for a special use permit at the Village of New Hope, which they did. 2. There could be no more delivery of products by semi-trailer trucks to the home, which he told Mr. Tuma he would stop immediately. Planning Commission - 3 - January 2, 1973 M i n utes 3.They should talk to the neighbors in an attempt to resolve the i r prob i ems. Mr. Hoffmann said that they had agreed to do ali three of these things. He further stated that they had cai led the two trucking companies that were involved and asked them to put their orders aside because they would be coming in and picking them up In their station wagon. One truck did arrive though after the trucking companies had been notified. This driver had been del tvering to their house for these 2½ years and he immediately just picked their order off of the del ivery place at the trucking com- pany and del ivered it to them. Stnce then Mr. Hoffmann said he had talked to the driver and requested that he not do that again because they were going to be picking it up on their own from now on, and since that time there have been no semi-trailer trucks coming to their home. Mr. Hoffmann said that after this he started talking to the neighbors on ° his street and with the exception of three parties out of the 15 neigh- bors he found that the business in his home was not a problem and that people felt that they had a right to have a business in their home. He then stated the complaints that he had received from the other three parties: !. They did not like the semi-trailer trucks coming to the home. Mr, Hoffmann stated that he had informed the neighbors that they had already been canceled and that there would be no more semi-trailer trucks. 2. They talked about the meetings in their home, and to this Mr. Hoffmann said that he had informed them that there were no meetings in his home; that they had a few open houses when they first moved in for people in the organization for the fine work they had done. 3. They complained about the fact that they had a neighbor working in their home. Mr. Hoffmann explained that one of the problems they had was that most of their orders were by mail or phone and that there had to be someone by the phone at all times, so when his wife was not home they would call in a neighbor to stay and answer any calls. He stated that they had hired a part-time person for this. Upon receiving this complaint he said that they had asked this person If she would mind not working for them any longer because they had received this com- plaint. At the present Mrs. Hoffman Is running the business by herself. 4. The UPS truck. This truck comes to the house once a day Monday through Friday. Mr. Hoffmann stated that the truck drives in the street and backs up the driveway and then goes to the garage and picks up any boxes they may Planning Commission - 4 - January 2, 1973 Minutes have. He stated that it amounts a~ywhere from I to 12 boxes of products depending on each individual day. Mr. Hoffmann commented that he felt this UPS service was a great service to them and they would like it to continue if possible but if not, if they had to give it up they would; however~ it would just create a lot more work for them in their business. Mr. Hoffmann stated that in requesting this special use permit they would like the Planning Commission to take into consideration the following things: I). All Shakely supervisors who have Shakely businesses in their homes do not sell any products at retail prices. All sales are made strictly to the distributors in the group. By supplying only distributors Mr. Hoffmann said they were not involved in any retail businesses. 2). For business purposes the Hoffmanns have kept a record of the cars coming into their home and have found that an average of 1.9 cars come per day, with the most cars any day to pick up products being five. 3). The hours of operation being from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Hondays through Fridays, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Saturdays and no business on Sundays or holidays. 4). Over 80 percent of the business was done by mail or phone order which goes out by the United Parcel Service (UPS) and the rest of the products they deliver to assist the distributors at the weekly meetings. Again Mr. Hoffmann pointed out that they had only one UPS truck which came each day to Pick up orders only and that it did not bring them any products. 5). The activities concerning the business were quiot activities. 6). The people who come to the house drive into the driveway or park in front of the house. They walk in and pick up -H~eir products and leave. There are no cars parked in front of other peoples homes. 7)° They keep their home neat and attractive and therefore do not feel that they are taking away from the appearance of the neighborhood. 8). Shakely products are safe. There are no aerosal cans or anything that could explode. All prod- ucts are non-flammable. 9). The house, products and business have in- surance on their.business liability ~hich covers the complete business and home. Insured through the David Insurance Company. 10). There are no signs or visible indications of a business in the home, and II). There are no meetings in their home to bring in people at night. At this time Mrs. Hoffmann spoke before the Planning Commission. She stated that she would like to briefly speak about this organization since it was primarily her business. Mrs. Hoffmann said that it had besn brought to her attention that this was considered a big business but did not feel it could be because, as a mother and wife, she had been running it solely by herself between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and was still c~pable of managing home affairs. She stated that if this was a big business she did not feel that she would be able to do this sufficiently. Mrs. I~offmann went on to state that at the present time she was transporting all orders which were the same orders that were being delivered before by the semi-trailer trucks and that if she Planning Commission - 5 - January 2, 1973 Minutes could pick them up in their station wagon they could not be'very large' orders. Out of the 18 homes on the Hoffmann's block, Mrs. Hoffmann stated that there were six other homes which also ran home occupations, therefore, she commented that they were not the only ones doing this. She also did not feel that they generated anymore traffic than these other homes. Mrs. Hoffmann then stated the things which they would like to request before the Planning Commission. I. That the business be able to continue in their home. 2. That the UPS delivery continue if possible, if they would relinquish it. and 3. They would not have any more semi trucks and that they did not have any semi trucks at the present. Commissioner Ohman stated that he would like to know for sure if there were slx other home occupations on her street and Mrs. Hoffmann replied that this was correct, they did have six other home occupations. Commissioner Barniskis asked Mr. Hoffmann at his previous address, 3816 Hlllsboro, he did not have a special use permit and Mr. Hoffmann answered that this was right. Commissioner Barniskis then commented that he had noticed on Mr. Hoffmann's former address that they had been in the middle of a block and Mr. Hoffmann replied again that this was correct. Commissioner Barniskis then went on to ask when Mr. Hoffman had the semi trucks come to his house did they come through the streets or up through 32nd. Mrs. Hoffman replied that it came through 32nd. Commissioner Barniskis asked about the UPS truck and to this Mrs. Hoffmann replied that she had not really noticed which way he came but she thought he came up 32nd also, however, she was not sure. Commissioner Barniskis then asked Mr. Tuma if this was considered a retail or wholesale business that the Hoffmanns were operating and Mr. Tuma re- plied that It would probably be wholesale but if you were going by the or- dinance it was alright to operate by phone and mail without such a special use and this was basically how they received their orders, by phone or mail. Mr. Tuma said that he felt the thing that was of primary importance here was the traffic generate~ if any, and also that there was some stocking of merchandise. Other than that he felt that if you operateby phone or mail you did not have to have a special use permit, Commissioner Meyer questioned about Mr. Hoffmann's inventory from week to week. Mr. Hoffmann said that they had 115 items and the shelves were ap- proximately I0 feet long and there were about 15 shelves. Commissioner Meyer then asked if this would be known as a pyramid organl- Planning C~mmission - 6 - January 2, 1973 ~M i nutes zation and Mr. Hoffmann answered that this depends on how you take it, If you were talking about buying into a certain level, no, because everyone starts at the bottom. Commissioner Meyer asked if they were supervisors now and Mr. Hoffmann said that they were coordinators which was a term for supervisor. Commissioner Meyer then went on to ask if there were further steps up and if so what were they. Mr. Hoffmann answered that there were, yes, and that there were titles such as key coordinator and master coordi- nator but that basically these were the same thing as a supervisor. Mr. I~ffmann stated that when you reach supervisor ali the other titles were mainly prestige. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any other questions from the Commis- sion. Commissioner Oswald asked if, when they break off at $3,000 as an individ- ual, if it was then true that you could add an unlimited number of distrib ut~rs in your organization and Mr. Hoffmann replied that this was correct, you could sponsor as many people as you wanted whether you were a dlstrlb- utor, supervisor, or any rank. Commissioner Oswald then asked should this be assumed to be a special use or home occupation that would be acceptable to either the neighbors or the community at this particular point you could in time triple the traffic or quadruple it within the setup of the organization at this point. Mr. Hoff- mann said that not basically because once you sponsor someone and that per- son gets to $3,000 then they break off and form a separate group and that person then supplies them until they can get $3,000 to form another group. He stated that basically the business is not going to get any bigger. Commissioner Oswald then asked if it was correct that they can add an limited amount of people as long as they are not over $3,000 and Mrs. Hoffmann stated that you only sponsor as many people as you feel you are capable of handling and she did not feel that a person would ever go to the extent where they take on more than they can serve. Mr. Hoffmann said that this business also involves, besides supplying, training and motivation, and he felt that these were two very important areas in the business. Chairman Ohman questioned if this was the Basic H line and Mr. Hoffmann replied that yes it was, that this was Shakel¥ prod- ucts. Chairman Ostlund asked how many people actually came to them for supplies. He asked how many they could have come to the~ locally as a maximum and Mrs. Hoffmann answered that they had a very small organization in the Twin Cities because the organization branches out to so many various people but that she did not feel they could have more than 25 or 30 people at the very m~st a week. Chairman Ostlund then asked when they had the training sessions at the mo- tel, how many people attended these and Mr. Hoffmann replied that there Planning Commission - 7 - January 2, 1973 M i nutes were between 50 to 300 people in all in their organization, however, he al- so stated that these meetings were open meetings so that you could actually have anyone from anyone's group at these meetings. He stated that there were over 1,000 distributors and any of these could send people, but that in his organization they may have around 50 people. Commissioner Ohman questioned as to where all these products came from and Mr. Hoffmann replied that all the products came from Haywood, California to the Ed ina Distribution Center by semi. He stated that this was a warehouse that Shakely rents and this is where they go to pick up their products. Mr. Hoffmann also stated that the warehouse in Ed ina did not stock sales supplies, if anyone wanted an order of sales supplies they would have to be ordered from Haywood, Cai ifornia, basically all products come from Edina. Commissioner Cameron asked if their business was so large today five years from now would it be I0 times as large and Hr. Hoffmann said no because ba- sically they were working with a $3,000 group and to this Commissioner Cam- eron asked what would happen if the group didn't go up to $3,000 and Mr. Hoffmann said that it did not work this way if people were not successful they quit. He stated that volume-wise the groups change very little. Chairman Ostlund asked If there was anyone here concerning this case. Mr. David Paulson of 3217 Gettysburg Court was present to discuss this case. Mr. Paulson stated that he lived one house from the Hoffmann's res- idence and that his objection was strictly on the basis that this was a warehousing operation and also he was concerned with the amount of traffic flow in the neighborhood. Mr. Paulson stated that he just mainly wanted to point out that Mr. Hoffmann was operating a warehouse operation and that this was against the City Code. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Paulson if he noticed any traffic going by his home or if it was mostly going onto 32nd and Mr. Paulson said that the traffic would most likely not flow past his home as his home faces a cul- de-sac and his garage is on a side street but aside from that issue the most natural flow would be for the traffic to come down 32nd Avenue to Gettysburg and a half block through Gettysburg to Mr. Hoffmann's house but that this still put the operation of this warehouse operation in his neigh- borhood. Chairman Ostlund asked if the trucks were stopped and the Village maintained a semi annual or annual inspection and if no truck traffic was allowed a~d attempts were made to curtail other traffic would Mr. Paulson still be op- posed to this? Mr. Paulson replied that he would then have no objection to an operation in the home but a warehouse operation he did, Commissioner Barniskis asked Mr. Hoffmann if he was using his garage for inventory and Mr. Hoffmann said he was but that his garage was designed fo store products and therefore it did not interfere with parking or cars. · Planning Commission - 8 - January 2, 1973 Minutes Commissioner Barniskis then asked if they used any storage within the house. Mr. Hoffmann replied just the office room was used for this. Chairman Osttund asked if there was anyone else here concerning this case. Mr. Bob Thompson of 3221 Gettysburg Court came forward and stated that on October I0, 1967 Mark Z. Jones and his wife and Twin City Federal entered into some protective covenants and restrictions on all of the lots in Hidden Valley. He then stated a few of these. One was on residential lots. The only permitted use of any lot shall be for single family residential purposes with attached or appurtenant structures suitable to and compatible with such use. The other one was on nuisance. It stated that no noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on on any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which is, may be, or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. Mr. Thompson stated that he had brought this up for the Planning Commission's consideration as these restrictions and covenants applied to all the lots. Mr. Tuma commented that while these protective restrictions were on file at the Courthouse they are not necessarily filed with by this community and could not be enforced. Mr. Thompson said that this was true but he had just brought it up in case their entire business was found undesirable. Dee Cheser, 9108 - 34½ Avenue North, came forward and stated that she was a former neighbor of the Hoffmann's having lived in their old neighborhood for four years. She stated that she just wanted to point out to Mr. Paulson and his group that of this traffic they have been counting, the 4 to 6 cars, that after the complaint business traffic has fallen off a great deal. She also stated that she has been going to the Hoffmann's every day for the past three months sewing drapes and that most of that traffic was probably her. Also, Mrs. Hoffmann had many friends that called on her just to visit not for business. Chairman Ostlund asked if there was any possibility that delivery could be made to an area outside of the home. Mr. Hoffmann replied that this would be a hardship to him because they would have to take the products to an- other location for the UPS truck to pick up, however, they would be willing to compromise if they had to, but he stated again that the UPS service was very valuable. Commissioner Barniskis asked how many cars Mr. Hoffmann could have in his driveway and Mr. Hoffmann replied that they could easily fit four cars in his driveway. Commissioner Barniskis then asked if Mr. Hoffmann would feel it a hardship to have people park on his driveway rather than on the street and Mr. Hoffmann answered that they would be glad to have them park on the driveway. Commissioner Cameron asked about having the UPS truck pick up only come twice a week instead of once a day and Mr. Hoffmann replied that it was Planning Commission - 9 - January 2, 1973 Minutes necessary to have every day pick up since 80 percent of the business was going out in that truck and if they did that they would have to move the products some place else. He stated that the majority part of the business ls being picked up by the UPS truck. Discussion was held on having the UPS truck come to the house every day for business purposes as well as the backing up of the truck by the driver when he came to the house. Mrs. Zolohonook~ 3207 Flag Avenue North, spoke before the Planning Commis- sion. She asked if this would set a precident for other people who wanted to get a special use permit or if it was just for the Hoffmanns. Chairman Ostlund replied that there was no real precidents here as every home in New Hope is allowed to apply for a home occupation or special use permit. She then asked if this would make this into a commercial type and Chairman Ostlund again replied no, that it would not change the zoning, taxation, or anything, but if it is found favorable there would be restrictions on it and it would be subject to annual ra¥iew. Judy Hawkins, 3832 Hillsboro~ stated that she had lived one house from the Hoffmanns when they had their business on Hillsboro and there had never been any problems in the neighborhood. She said that they always wanted ~heir home and yard to look nice and wouldn't let any boxes to be allowed outside. She felt that they ~i~C~!~! be abi~ td~continu~h~is busines~in their home. Mrs. Eleanor Novak of 3208 Ge?tysburg stepped forward and said she would like to know what other types of business were in the neighborhood. Mr.. Hoffmann stated that he did not wish to state these because he felt it might just create problems. Mr. Paulson stated that he felt there was some confusion entering in. Mr. Hoffmann talking about his business in the home and again talking about an ordinance in New Hope that relates to warehousing. He further stated that he felt Mr. Hoffmann's sta±em~ts were welt made, and that if these other businesses in the neighborhood were not visible to them that Mr. Hoffmann's operation must not be a home occupation but a warehousing op- eration. Again he mentioned the truck delivery and delivering to Mr. Hoffmann's home. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were ~ny further comments or questions. \ Commissioner 8arniskis asked Mr. ]~ma if there was anything at all with re- spect to accessory uses other than special use that has anything to say at ~11 with respect to how much Mr. Hoffmann can store or have on his premises, it only says he cannot put it ou-kside. Mr. Tuma stated that this was incorrect and read the ordinance 4.42 (Subd. I}. He commented that there were two main things that the Planning Commission had to look for. First of all the need for a home occupation and secondly Planning Commission - 10 - January 2, 1973 M i nutes the item of traffic. Commissioner Cameron moved to recommend to the Council that Planning Case No. 73-1, Charles S.-Hoffmann, petitioner, be granted a special use permit providing that there be no semi-trailer trucks at his home or residence at any time, that there be no more than three cars at one time, that the business hours be kept from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. with no business or traffic on Sundays or hol ldays and with the understanding that this operation be subject to annual renewal. Commissioner Ohman second. Commissioner Barniskis moved to amend the main motion by adding that the UPS trucks be limited to one pick up per day. Commissioner Cameron second. Oiscussion was held as to the UPS trucks picking up once a day or twice a week. Mr. Hoffmann commented that people will not wait and that it' ~as part of his business to have prompt service and that this UPS truck only helped to speed up the service, and kept dealers from picking up at his home. Vote ~as taken on the amendment. Amendment was passed by voice vote. Vo- ting against.- Chairman Ostlund and Commissioner Heyer. The main motion ~as then voted on and carried by majority vote. Commissioner Hayer wishing to be recorded as being opposed. The meeting was recessed for five minutes. The meeting was called back to order by Chairman Ostlund at 9:15 p.m. Planning Case NO. 73-2 (Request for Waiver of Platting Requirements to Change Lot Dimensions of Lots 15 and 16, Block 3, West Oak Terrace Addition) Vern Donnay Realty Inc., Petitioner. Hr. Roi lie Kureger of Vern Donnay Realty was present to discuss this case. Mr. Kureger stated that they had a customer that would Iike to buy Lot 15 tn their West Oaks Addition in the Village of New Hope and in order to fit the 'house that they would like to have they have to ask for a ~alver of pla~rting and take a pie shaped portion of the Lot 15 to the lot they would like to have. He said that they were asking that the Planning Commission would recommend the approval of this so they could proceed with the build- lng of this house for these people. Commissioner Barniskis asked what plans they had on the-remaining lot and Mr. Kureger repl led that this would not real ly affect this as it took mostly off of the back the lot and any house that went up on this lot could still be kept up to the front. Commissioner Barniskis then asked if anyone else had observed this lot and Chairman Ostlund answered that they had. Planning Commission - tl - January 2, 1973 M inutes Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any further questions or if there was anyone here concerning this case. Commissioner Barniskis made a recommendation to recommend to the Village Council approval of Planning Case 73-2, waiver of platting Lots 15 and 16, Block 3, West Oak Terrace Addition with a portion of Lot 15 being legally attached to Lot 16. Commissioner Meyer second. Hotion passed by voice vote. 6. Plannin~ Case No. 73-3 (Request for Variance to Side Yard Setback Require- ment) 7108 Bass Lake Road, Ponderosa System~ Inc., Petitioner. Hr. Tom Lindgren from Construction 70 of Harkland Development was present. Commissioner Cameron asked if that property was .in New Hope why New Hope did not have part of the street and Commissioner Barniskis said that he had looked at this property and it was the only one in New Hope that had this. Chairman Ostlund commented that this was very unusual. Commissioner Heyer moved for approval of Planning Case 73-3, request for variance to slde yard setback requirement allowing a 4 ft,6" sideyard set- back to the east property line. Commissioner Oswald second. Chairman Ostlund asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Ohman asked if Crystal could legally prohibit entrance onto the street if it abutts a piece of property. He questioned as to how this could be done. Commissioner Oswald replied that it did not abut this piece of property and that the street was beyond the property line. Chairman Ostlund said that they could deny a curb cut. Chairman Ostlund then asked If .there was any further discussion. Notion carried by voice vote. 7. Interviewinp of Plannin~ Commission Candidates The two Planning Commission candidates, Hr. Thomas P. Fulton and Hr. Scott H. Craigie were present and interviewed by members of the Planning Com- mission at this time. 8. R~port of Codes and Standards Committee Commissioner Ohman said that there was no report at this time from this committee as they had not had a chance to meet during the holidays. Planning Commission - 12 - January 2, 1973 M inutes 9. Report of Land Use Committee Commissioner Barniskis also stated that there was no report as they had not met over the holidays. I0. The Council minutes of December 26, 1972 were reviewed by Mr. Tuma, Building and Zoning Director, and any questions from Planning Commission members were answered. il. Approval of Plannlnq Commission Minutes of December 19~ .1~. Notion to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 19, 1972 by Commissioner Meyer. Second by Commissioner Ohman. Motion passed. 12. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens~ Commissioners and Staff. None. 13. At this time Consideration of Planning Commission membership was considered. Mr. Robert Cameron, Melvin Ohman and Bernard Herman's terms have expired and they have expressed a desire to be reappointed. Mr. 8arniskis moved that Mr. Cameron, Ohman, and Herman be recommended for appointments for three year terms, and Mr. Thomas Fulton for the one year term. Second by Commissioner Meyer. Motion passed. 14. Announcements Chairman Ostlund asked Mr. Tuma if a letter could be sent to Shakely prod- ucts in Haywood, California about semi trailer trucks in the Village. 15. There was no liquor committee report. 16. The Architectural Review Board report will be on the agenda for January 16, 1973. 17. Ad,iournment There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at I0:10 p.m. Motion to move for adjournment by Commissioner Barniskis. Second by Commissioner Meyer. Motion passed. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - January 16, 1973 Mi nutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 16, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. 2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 3. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Cameron, Fulton, Herman, Meyer, Ostlund, Oswald and Sueker. Absent: Garin and Ohman. (Commissioner Ohman entered at 7:35 p.m. and Commissioner Garin at 7:45 p.m.). NEW BUSINESS 4. Election of Officers for 1973. Commissioner Oswald made a motion that the Planning Commission had gotten along this year so far without any leadership and therefore he did not know why there was any need to elect officers now. Commissioner Cameron second it. Commissioner Cameron renominated Chairman Ostlund as Chairman. Commissioner Meyer second it. Commissioner Sueker nominated Dr. Cameron as the new chairman and Com- missioner Cameron stated that he would thankfully decline. Chairman Ostlund then asked if there were any other nominations. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Ohman moved that the nomina- tions be closed. Commissioner Cameron second the motion and the motion was carried by voice vote. Nominations for Vice-Chairman were then open. Commissioner Meyer said that he would like to renominate Commissioner Sueker. Chairman Ostlund second the motion and then asked if there were any further nominations. Commissioner Oswald nominated Commissioner Meyer and Commissioner Barniskis second it. Commissioner Cameron moved that all nominations be closed. Commissioner Meyer second it. Motion again carried by voice vote with Commissioner Meyer being nominated as Vice-Chairman. Nominations for Secretary were then open. The question was brought up as to just what duties the secretary would have and Chairman Ostlund re- plied that he would like to see the Planning Commission send a repre- sentative to the Council meetings to read out loud what certain people have said in the minutes from the previous meeting, as it did not appear at times that the Council read the minutes and they would just go over the same ground asking the same questions that had already been asked to the Planning Commission. He stated that this was just a suggestion. Commissioner Cameron recommended that Commissioner Oswald be appointed Secretary. Commissioner Oswald then recommended Commissioner Sueker as being appointed to the position of Secretary. Commissioner Cameron moved to close the nominations, second by Commissioner Oswald. Vote was taken and Commissioner Sueker was reappointed as Secretary by voice vote. Commissioner Cameron then commented that he agreed with what Chairman Ostlund had said earlier in the meeting about the Council not always reading the Planning Commission minutes and that he felt this was a problem. Planning Commission - 2 - January 16, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Sueker stated that he did not think anyone was trying to read into the recording secretaries condensed version of what was $~id and that he felt that the people should plight their problem in front of the Planning Commission and have their total hearing without being biased by someone's opinion of what was said. He went on to state that this was suggested before and that this was the main reason in the past why it was not done. Chairman Ostlund agreed, stating that in the past he had voted against the idea of sending a representative because the Planning Commission was sometimes prejudice in their own way. Chairman Ostlund also mention- ed that he was not politically oriented and that he did not want to be on the Council. There was no way that he would even try to belong to that body and for that reason he never has attended a Council meeting until recently and this was only because people say things to him. He stated that one person had asked him why they even had a Planning Commission and this was an exact duplication of what was done the previous week. Commissioner Barniskis asked Chairman Ostlund if perhaps they could sug- gest an ressonable alternative. He stated that he had been to some of the C~uncil meetings and that he had stood up and said things for the Planning Commission because the Council was kicking around points that the Planning Commission had pretty well covered. Commissioner Barniskis, therefore, suggested that the Planning Commission send a representative as a visible representative of the Planning Com- mission to explain or go over points if the Council asked them to do it. He further stated~ that this representative would be there to perform a function, answer questions or clarify a point if the Council wants that se rvi ce. Chairman Ostlund stated that this was the part he objected to. Commissioner Barniskis then went on to state that legally, in fact, once it is published in the paper that it is a public hearing for the Plan- ning Commission then to be heard by the Council no matter how trivial or how triat a person's viewpoint may be on an occassion he has that legal constitutional right to stand before the Commission and bore any- one and you cannot take this right away from him. Chairman Ostlund replied that he was not trying to do this. Commissioner Barn iskis also pointed out that the Council meetings were much shorter than the Planning Commission's at least a couple of hours. Chairman Ostlund said that this was because the Planning Commission did a lot m~re things than the Council. Commissioner Barniskis commented that the Planning Commission talked a lot more but that was because there were more members to talk, however, the Council still always finishes earlier. Planning Commission - 3 - January 16, 1973 Mi nutes Chairman Ostlund stated that Commissioner Barniskis was not paying much attention to the Council's quitting time and Commissioner Barniskis said that I0 or 10:30 p.m. was normal for the Council to adjourn a meeting. Commissioner Barniskis then restated his question if this would not be an alternative, to send a representative to the meetings and Chairman Ostlund answered that he did not feel this was the answer. Chairman Ostlund then said that the thing which bothered him was not so much that a member of the Commission be there to explain but rather the problem he had was that he believes a person could sit at the meeting and make a synopsis of what Mr. Hoffmann had to say all night long and get it done within five minutes and he wouldn't get up and repeat that same thing. Chairman Ostlund then asked Councilman Enck who was seated in the audience how he felt about it and Mr. Enck replied that he would be non-committal either way. Commissioner Oswald said that if he was a citizen and he came to a Planning Commission meeting on a case that he was very concerned with he did not care what the Planning Commission did about it as far as his rights to go to the Council but he would want to look the Council in the eye rather than to have the Chairman or anyone else stand up and read a synopsis of what he had said. Commissioner Oswald stated that his reason for feeling this way was because you couldn't give another persons's opinion the way they had stated it or give it the feeling they put into it and he thought that in effect Chairman Ostlund was taking away a right that they were entitled to. Commissioner Oswald then said that he agreed with the approach of what Chairman Ostlund was trying to accomplish but he did not think it was a realistic approach from the kind of pleas that are made on a case that is important to another person. Where a case of bitterness or very strong feelings in the community are present a person is not going to be satisfied with a synopsis but rather they are going to want to go on the record again as talking to their Councilman or Mayor. Commissioner Oswald then said that he would much rather want to see someone there, at these Council meetings, from the Commission to try and back up why the Planning Commission took some action as they can recall the meeting and their feelings. Chairman Ostlund replied that Commissioner Oswald could be right. The emotional pitch might be such that is not desirable, however, he sincerely believed that when the people come to these meetings they do not know what kind of minutes or what kind of conversation takes place between the Planning Commission and the Council. Chairman Ostlund further stated that he felt these people also did not realize or were aware that what they have said is recorded and that the Councilmen also have this information. Planning Commission - 4 - January 16, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Cameron asked if it would help if before every meeting, whoever runs the Council meetings would say that they have read the Planning Commission minutes of the previous meeting. Commissioner Cameron further stated that he felt the Council does not read the minutes or they would not be asking the same questions that were already reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Herman commented that he agreed with Commissioner Cameron. He went on to say that ~.n his work he has appeared before a lot of Councils and what Commissioner Cameron was saying was very true. Com- missioner Herman stated that most Councils will direct the petitioner to say only that which has not been stated already or add only the in- formation that would be additional or in the way of revisions as a re- sult of the Planning Commission meeting they pre~viously attended. 5. C..ommittee Appointments. Chairman Ostlund took a voice vote on which members of the Planning Commission would like to be on the Land Use Committee and which ones would prefer Codes and Standards. He then ap- pointed committees to the fol lowing Planning Commission members: Commissioners Barniskis, Fulton, Garin and Cameron, on Land Use and Commissioners Herman, Oswald, Meyer, Ohman and Sueker on the Codes and Standards Committee. 6. Review of Council Minutes of January 8~ 197,3. The Council minutes of January 8,~1973 were reviewed by Chairman Ostlund and any questions by Planning Commission members were answered at this time. 7. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 2.~ 1973. The Planning Commission minutes of January 2, 1973 were approved. Motion to move for approval of Planning Commission minutes of January 2, 1973 by Commissioner Garin, second by Commissioner Meyer. Motion carried. 8. Consideration of Planninq Commission to Devote Second Monthly Meeti~.cI to Accomplish Committee Work. Discussion was held as to having only one main meeting a month and devoting the second monthly meeting towards committee work. Chairman Ostlund was deeply opposed to this as he stated that there was still a lot to be done, especially in the months of March, April and May, when buildings were being put up. Chairman Ostlund also stated that he was opposed to the idea of the Planning Commission not al lowing any public hearings during the second meeting. He said that the Commission should at least let the petitioner come in and ask or state their request. Commissioner Oswald said that he also thought it would be well if they could try to discourage this unless there was a need for timing reason order. In other words, if planning cases were starting to pile up be- fore the second meeting a public hearing should be al lowed at this second meeting instead of doing committee work. Planning Commission - 5 - January 16, 1973 Mi nutes Chairman Ostlund then asked if there were any further questions or comments. Commissioner Oswald moved to recommend to the staff that the Planning Commission would have two meetings a month with the second meeting per month being a study meeting with the exception of items which staff deems necessary because of timing. Commissioner Meyer second it. Chairman Ostlund asked if there was any further discussion. Chairman Ostlund stated that basically he was opposed to this as he felt the Planning Commission did not have the right to shut off the public. Commissioner Oswald commented that he did not think they would be doing this and Chairman Ostlund went on to say that because the at- titude they have always taken has been exactly what they say and it eventually either goes one way or the other, you shut off the public and people start complaining. Commissioner Oswald said that tike Commissioner Herman he also appears before a good deal of other Planning Commissions and it is a regular thing with most Planning Commissions that he is familiar with. That they do devote alternate meetings to what they call study sessions. Vote vote was then taken on the motion. Motion was passed by majority vote. 9. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Copmissioners and Staff. None. !0. Announcements. It was requested that the representative from Shell Oil come in and talk to the Planning Commission about the station on 36th Avenue North and County Road #18. At this time Commissioner Herman reported on his findings relating to the Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Herman stated that the basic responsibility of a design re- view board was to deal with matters of architectural harmony and aesthetics only and this is as it would relate to construction, projects and planned unit developments. He said that he had talked to three different communities, these being Apple Valley, Golden Valley and Hopkins, who have active functioning review boards. Commissioner Herman also stated that these boards vary in size from three to seven people and there main duties would be to advise, recommend and assist the Planning Commission or Council in matters of exterior materials, architectural harmony, compatibility with surrounding areas, landscape design and site evaluation, but they seem to relate to their functions differently with respect to how the Council charges them with these duties. He then went on to state briefly what each board did in these three com- munities. Commissioner Herman stated that in Apple Valley their board is comprised of three members which serve as directs.arm of the Planning Commission. In Golden Valley the board serves in an advisory capacity to the village administration and specifically the Village Council. Planning Commission - 6 - January 16, 1973 Mi nutes It consists of not more than six members and is defined in the village ordinance as an Advisory Board. It reviews all projects prior to grant- ing a building permit. Commissioner Meyer asked at this time if the review board sat in at the Planning Commission meetings, if they had the recommendation before the Planning Commission saw it or if the Planning Commission never saw this recommendation, and Commissioner Herman re- pi ied that the Planning Commission never gets to see any recommendations unless they are a variance or zoning request. Commissioner Meyer then asked what the sequence of events were and Com- missioner Herman answered that it goes right to the design review board and then to the Council. Commissioner Herman then explained the setup of Hopkins. He stated that Hopkins has a board made up entirely of Planning Commission members. Their review of projects is a planning commission matter only and is intended to encourage developers, bui Iders, etc. to concern themselves with aesthetics prior to the formal presentations. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any other questions. Further discussion was held as to an Architectural Review Board for the Village. Commissioner Fulton asked if there had been any talk of having an ordinance that would govern architectural design. He said that this was what he thought they were talking about in Hopkins. Chairman Ostlund commented that he thought this was unnecessary but he did feel it was a logical step. Commissioner Herman stated that Golden Valley did have an ordinance. He then stated that one thing you had to accept was that this design board was not going to revolutionize the quality of design in any community and it is not going to be the answer to all of these things but if it has any effect whatsoever in terms of improving the character and quality of the projects then it is serving its purpose well and that for these reasons you couldn't help but take a step forward on this. Chairman Ostlund stated that he thought it could be established if the committee was within the Commission and if they stayed within the member- ship of the Planning Commission there would be no problem but if they went outside of the Planning Commission looking for help he thought that they might have to have the Council's permission, however, he could be wrong. Commlssioner Barniskis read the recommendation submitted to Chairman Ostlund by Commissioner Herman which went as follows: Planning Commission - 7 - January 16, 1973 Mi nutes Recommendation: A Design Review Board be organized in the Village of New Hope for the expressed purpose of affecting quality design and planning in our community. The Board should be comprised of three people, two of which would be members of the Planning Commission and a third may be from the general community with a known expertise in engineering, real estate or land- scaping design. Meetings be scheduled as required to review project.. proposals at least I0 days prior to Planning Com- mission meetings. Further, the burden of scheduling such a meeting be that of the builder or developer. The activities of the Design Review Board shall in no way affect the schedule of Planning Commission meetings or their delay. The Board shall not assume any legal responsibilities on behalf of the Planning Commission or Council but shall act only as a board or recommendation. Three members of the Planning Commission were assigned to further review this Design Review Board. The three Planning Commission members appoint- ed were Commissioner Herman, Commissioner Cameron and Commissioner Fulton. The above recommendation was moved by Commissioner Fulton and Commissioner Garin second it. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any further discussions. Voice vote was taken and it was decided that further investigation would be made on tht.~ review board. II. Ad,iournment. There being no further business, Commissioner Meyer made a motion to move for adjournment. Commissioner Garin second it. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at g:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - February 6, 1973 Mi nutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 6, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. 2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Osttund. 3. I~oll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis~, Cameron, Fulton, Garin, Herman, Meyer, Ohman, Ost Iund. Absent: Oswald and Sueker. (Commissioner Sueker entered at 7:33 P.M. and Commissioner Oswald entered at 7:35 P.M.). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Plannin~q Case No. 73-4 (Request for Variance to Sign Ordinance) Midland Standard Station, 7850 Medicine Lake Road, Bob Winberg, Petitioner. Gommissioner Meyer moved, second by Cameron, to table Planning Case No. 73-4 until later in the meeting as no one was present representing this case. 5. Plannin~l Case No. 73-5 (Request for Variance of Front Yard Setback} 34t0 Winnetka Avenue North, Blaine Carey, Petitioner. Mr. Carey asked if this planning case could also be tabled until later in the meeting as not everyone was present yet concerning this case. Com- missioner Barniskis moved, second by Garin, that Planning Case No. 73-5 be tabled until later in the meeting. Motion carried on voice vote. NEW BUS I NESS 6. PlannincI Case No. 73-6 (Site Plan Approval) 2769 Winnetka Avenue North (in Midland Shopping Center) Burger King Restaurant, Antler Corporation, Contractor. Mr. Warren Hanson of Antler Corporation and Mr. Olson of Gingoid-Pink Architects, were present to discuss this case. Mr. Oison stated his firm had prepared the site plan and he had additional data on the parking which was required and provided at this point. Mr. Ol$on then presented the site plan for the parking lot and a discussion was he ! d. Chairman Ostlund commented that the parking spots to the rear of the building should not be connected as there was no rear entrances for retail traff i c. Mr. Dick Dacrap who handled the real estate end of the project, stated he also officed in the center and the front parking lot is never filled. Planning Commission - 2 - February 6, 1973 Mi nutes Chairman Ostlund stated the north entrance, to the center off Winnetka Avenue, by this building, was probably used the most often. Mr. Dacrap stated Chairman Ostlund was probably right. Chairman Ostlund went on to say he felt if the building was located as proposed this entrance would have to be closed due to a potential conflict between the proposed parking and the normal traffic pattern. Commissioner Barniskis asked if they had talked at all about opening the curb cut or widening the driveway. Mr. Dacrap replied they had not. Commissioner Barniskis then asked if it could be considered and Mr. Dacrap replied with the fact it could be studied. Commissioner Sueker stated he wished to bring up several points. First, it was absolutely imperative to wipe out parking on the east side of the building unless it was turned from east-west to north-south parking. If it was north-south parking with a small barrier walt to isolate the park- ing from the driveway, it may work. He also asked why, from a standpoint of visability, ease of access, etc., couldn't this unit be located behind the gas station at the southeast end of the parking lot. He noted the business would be farther away from the residential area; it would be out of the congested area of traffic egress and ingress, almost in a protective area of the lot. It would also give much better visability from all directions. Commissioner Sueker also felt it would solve a temendous traffic problem with traffic backing up on Winnetka Avenue. It would also solve the problem, or help to eliminate, accidents caused by cars entering and leaving the traffic at an angle. He state~ th~t4by locating the building on the other end of the parking lot it would tend to provide a more open development whereas it was now kind of closing in. Chairman Ostlund asked if the proposed building would be the same height as the existing center. Mr. Olson replied that it was. Chairman Ostlund then commented that roof signs were not allowed and ali signs in~the center would need to conform to the new ordinance. Commissioner Garin commented he thought if this operation were located in the southerly corner the Commission might be more receptive to the pro- posa I. Chairman Ostlund asked why there was a I5 foot space between the buildings. Mr. Day, District Manager of Burger King, answered that this was for ser- vice or deliveries. Commissioner Barniskis noted that if the building was turned around, this · space could be eliminated. Mr. Day then stated that if the building were "flipped" it would be all right as he felt the people in the dining room would then have a better view. Planning Commission - 3 - February 6, 1973 M i nutes Commissioner Sueker asked Mr. Olson if the unit was turned around as the entrance was on the south side could it be moved up against the building to get further away from the street. Mr. Olson repl led that this would not be possible. Commissioner Barniskis asked if this building plan was a kind of red mansonary roof and Mr. Dacrap answered that it was cedar shake with a Chicago brick and lots of glass. Commissioner Cameron asked what hours would the operation be open. Mr. Day answered that it varies. During the winter it would probably be open from !0:00 a.m. to I1:00 p.m. weekdays and till 12:00 p.m. on weekends. During the summer normal hours were usually from I0:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on weekdays and t0:00 a.m. to I:00 a.m. on weekends.~ Commissioner Cameron then asked what the normal hours were for the center. Chairman Ostlund replied that they were open till 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Cameron asked about the exterior parking lighting. Would it be left as is or would new flood lights be. needed? Mr. Day answered he understands lighting would be left as is. Commissioner Cameron asked if the neighbors would be concerned if addition- al lighting were added. Chairman Ostlund felt additional lighting was needed. Mr. Hanson co~mmented that there had been no lighting provisions made but they can provide additional lighting if required. Mr-~ Day said that the .project would have its own lighting. He mentioned that a,s far as exterior lighting was concerned they would be using the same l ight~ that now exist. Chairman Ostlund stated that they were on a very dark end of the shopping center with no lights and that Mr. Day was going to have to eliminate the building and parking lot. Chairman Ostlund also stated that this business obviously thrives in the late evening, it is adjacent to single family residents and also directly across from single family residents and traffic was a definite problem. Chairman Ostlund went on to state that this was a successful operation which would generate additional traffic. Chairman Ostlund further stated that he sincerely felt that they could move their entire operation adja- cent to where the gas station is located. Commissioner Fulton said moving the building over by the Gulf Station would solve several problems, but the only advantage of leaving it as proposed is that it preserves a continuity in the shopping center. He would like to know the other advantages of leaving the building where it is now pro- posed. Planning Commission - 4 - February 6, 1973 Mi nutes Chairman Ostlund asked what volume per hour would be. Mr. Day stated that he did not know. Chairman Ostlund asked if these figures were available. Mr. Day said somebody in the department might have th~m but that they were not here tonight. Commissioner Cameron asked if this plan was acceptable as it is, would it not make this an addition to and change of a shopping center and require a total sign plan for the shopping center at this time. Chairman Ostlund replied that this was correct. Mr. Gerry Heetlad~ local attorney for Burger King, commented on this site plan in respect to the lighting. Mr. Heetlad stated that plans for exterior tighting could be submitted. Discussion was then held as to signs. Chairman Ostlund stated that they should be welt aware of the fact that they had many non-conforming signs in the Midland Shopping Center. He stated that Mr. Day was receiving sentiment from the Commission to change the location of the proposed building. Commissioner Cameron commented that problems with the sign ordinance and the relocation should be directed to the center manager for legal restrictions and lease problems. Commissioner Sueker stated that he felt the north end was a very poor place to put this restaurant. Chairman Ostlund asked if there was anyone else here concerning this case and if there were any further questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Garin, that Planning Case No. 73-6 be tabled until the meeting of February 20, 1973. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Plannin.q Case No. 73-4 (Request for Variance to Sign Ordinance) Midland Standard Station~ 7850 Medicine Lake Road, Bob Winberg, Petitioner. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Garin, to take Planning Case No. 73-4 off the table. Motion carried on voice vote. Mr. Bob Winberg of Standard Oil was present to represent this case. Commissioner Meyer questioned Mr. Winberg regarding the height of the Standard Oil ground signs. Mr. Winberg replied that they were over !0 feet. Commissioner Meyer stated that the ordinance required them to be 9 feet off the ground. He then asked about window signs. Mr. Winberg noted these would be removed. Planning Commission - 5 - February 6, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Meyer asked about the ground sign setback. Mr. Winberg stated that the torch sign presently was five feet from the property line which then allows the top of the torch to come right in line with the property line. He then showed pictures of the torch. Commissioner Meyer asked how big was the car wash sign on the building. Mr. Winberg's reply was 9 feet long by I I/2 feet high. Chairman Ostlund asked if they were considering the message board as a ground sign and Commissioner I~eyer replied yes. Commissioner Sueker asked if the car wash sign was~going to stay basically as it is. Mr. Winberg said yes, except that the dollar would be taken off. Commissioner Barniskis asked how many variances Mr. Winberg needed and Commissioner Meyer replied that Mr. Winberg would need three variances. One variance for the setback,~one for the side wall sign~ and another one to allow the additional two pole signs. Commissioner Ostlund then asked if there was anyone here concerning this case. No one was present. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Garin, for approval of Planning Case No. 73-4 allowing a variance to put up a ground sign within I0 feet of the street right of way, allowing a variance to put two other ground signs on the same pole and allowing the side wall sign to be varied from 9 square feet to 13 i/2 square feet. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Plannln§ Case No. 73-5 (Request for Variance of Front Yard Setback) 3410 Winnetka Avenue North, Blaine Carey, Petitioner. Commissioner Barniskis moved to take Planning Case 73-5 off the table. Commissioner Garin second it. Motion carried on voice vote. Mr. Larson, Village Manager, stated that this request for a variance of front yard setback was to be changed to a site plan approval. Mr. Blaine Carey was here to discuss the case. Chairman Ostlund asked Mr. Garey what was going to be in this building. Mr. Carey stated that there would be office space on the first floor and warehousing on the lower level. Chairman Ostlund then asked what type office and Mr. Carey replied that it would be mostly sales. Discussion was held on drainage. Planning Commission - 6 - February 6, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Barniskis asked if the following comments by Glenn Cook, Village Engineer, had been met: I. Get parking lot to drain to SE corner or install catch basin elsewhere but in either case, connect to existing storm sewer at SE corner. No drainage of blacktop areas. 2. 2 inch bituminous paving on 6 inch class 5 base. 3. What type of curb - concrete recommended. 4. Show ground cover on areas. 5. Coordinate driveway openings with County Highway Department. He questioned the 2 inch bituminous paving on the lot and Mr. Carey said that he was not aware that this was a Village requirement but that they certainly would confirm to that, as right now they had a I I/2 inch on 6 inch base. Chairman Ostlund asked if there was anyone here concerning the case. No one was present to comment on this case. Commissioner Herman asked Mr. Carey if this was a one way traffic system that is moving in front of the building. He wanted to know if it was a driveway ramp under the canopy. Mr. Carey answered that this was correct and their intentions were to make it a one way. Commissioner Herman then asked what width was the drive. Mr. Carey re- plied I0 feet. Commissioner Herman questioned whether this was adequate width. Mr. Carey stated that they did not want it to be too wide because of double traffic. Commissioner Barniskis asked which way the traffic moved, north or south, and Mr. Carey stated that they would prefer it to go north. Discussion was held as to widening the driveway from I0 feet to 12 feet Mr. Carey stated that they would be willing to provide 12 feet. Commissioner Herman brought up the subject of curb cuts and Chairman Ostlund said that the County has requested 26 feet curb cuts. Commissioner Barniskis asked if there was enough parking space for the size of the building. Chairman Ostlund commented that they had 31 stal Is shown and they needed 30, therefore, the parking was sufficient. Commissioner Meyer asked what was planned for signs. Mr. Carey replied that they did not plan on having general signs, only an address. Planning Commission - 7 - February 6, 1973 Mi nutes Chairman Ostlund asked if there wwre any other questions from the Planning Commission. Motion by Commissioner Sueker, second by Garin, to approve the site plan subject to 26~' curb cut, 2~' bituminous parking lot, variance in lot size, a 12 foot drive and a landscaping plan. Motion carried on voice vote. OLD BUS I NESS 7. Ptannin.q Case No. 72-60 Informal discussion was held on this case. Commissioner Ohman moved, second by Fulton, to take Planning Case No. 72-60 off the table. Motion carried on voice vote. Mr. Krank presen-t, ed. the proposal in Planning Case No. 72-60. He stated that they were requesting rezoning to TR, a variance in land area and a variance in rear yard setback and approval of the project as planned unit development. Mr. Krank stated that the plot plan was as presented earlle.r~ ?1 town house units. Commissioner Meyer questioned as to how much these units would sell for and Mr. Krank stated that they would be rental town houses, in the range of $295 - $345 a month. Chairman Ostlund asked if this was I0 units per acre and Mr. Krank said he thought it was 9.7 units per acre. Commissioner Ohman then gave his report from the Codes and Standards Committee. He stated that §eneral ly they were asking for~two variances. One variance being to change from 8 units per acre to 9.7 units per acre~ and the second was the side or rear yard setback. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Ohman stated that earlier the units were to be sold, now Mr. Krank was talking about rental units. Mr. Krank stated that this was correct, these would be only rental units under current plans. Commissioner Ohman moved, second by Oswald, to recommend approval of the revised planned unit development, rezoning from MR to TR, a variance to land area requirement which would be from 8 units per acre to 9.7 units per acre, and the variance to land rear yard setback which would be a 34 foot variance from 35 feet to one foot with the 24 foot easement shown on the south property line. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 8 - Fel~ruary 6, 1973 Mi nutes 8. Review of Council Minutes of January 22~ t973. The Council Minutes of January 22, 1973 were reviewed by Chairman Ostlund. Discussion was held as to having someone read the Planning Commission minutes and sending a Commissioner to each Council meeting. Commissioner Barniskis moved, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Village Council that the planning case minutes be reviewed verbally by the Chairman of the Council prior to hearing the petitioner's plea. The Chairman could then ask if the case is essentially the same as presented to the Planning Commission. If changes were made the petition- er could deal only with those differences at the Council meetings. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any further discussion. Commissioner Cameron stated that he felt the Commission was trying to solve a problem which did not exist. He said that he felt it was a Council problem and here the Commission was debating whether it was a problem or not. Chairman Ostlund commented that as advisors to the Council he felt it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to recognize that problem. Commissioner Cameron said that he felt the Commission was only creating a problem and he did not feel it was necessary for the Planni. ng Com- mission to give the Council advice on how to run their meetings. Commissioner Oswald said he disagreed with this because if the Planning Commission did not try to make the Council meetings less of a copy of the Planning Commission's then the Commission did not have a function. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any other questions. ^ roll call vote was then taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Commissioners Barniskis, Garin, Herman, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund and Sueker. Voting against: Commissioners Cameron and Fulton. Motion passed by majority vote. 9. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1973. The planni-ng Commission Minutes of January 16, 1973 were approved on motion by Commissioner Barniskis, second by Cameron and carried on voice vote. !0. Land Use Committee. Commissioner Barniskis said that there was no report from this committee. Commissioner Cameron stated that he had a sub-committee report concerning improvement of Louisiana Avenue from 27th to 33rd. After a review of the various types of street con- struction it appeared that the requirements for State Aid would be impractical to meet. Therefore, the two communities would need to handle as a regular street project. The best design appeared to be a 36 foot wide, 9 ton road costing about $120,000. An equitable financial arrangement whereby New Hope would pay 3/4 of the additional cost over and above the four ton road which Crystal wanted was suggested. Planning Commission - 9 - February 6, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Cameron then stated that Counci Iman Enck had met last M~.day with the Crystal long range planning committee and he stated that they had pretty well bought the idea of a 36 foot wide, 9 ton road through this area. Chairman Ostlund commented that the hiring of a professional planner had been discussed and Mr. Larson would be wi I ling to provide assistance to the land use committee. 11. Codes and Standard Committee Report. There was no report from this committee at the p resent t i me. 12. Liquor Committee Report. Commissioner Garin commented the committee had contacted other communities and had found differences in pricing and operations between communities. Off sales rlcenses are set at $200. On sale licenses range anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000 or better. Commissioner Garin stated split liquor might not be the bad way to go. Brooklyn Center is putting a package together for New Hope on the studies they did do on the split liquor question. 13. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens~.. Comm. i. ssioners and Staff. Chai rman Ost I und appointed Commi ss loner as Chairman of Land Use for 1973. Chairman for Codes and Standards is Commissioner Meyer. Com- missioner Meyer is to tel inquish the liquor committee chairmanship to Commissioner Ohman who will run this under the Codes and Standards Corem i ttee. Chairman Ostlund then commented that he would like to ask the. Council if the funds which were meant to go towards hiring a professional planner could be used to hire a professional traffic planner. The purpose would be to look at the Vi Iiage and its stop signs so that the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council as to where stop signs should be located. He further stated that he had talked to Mr. Jack Morse, Police Director, who was strongly in favor of this. Commissioner Sueker commented that he felt this was wholly out of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Chairman Ostlund stated that he had asked Mr. Morse to discuss with the Planning Commission, during a regular meeting night, the traffic problems and the police problems in relation to Village development industrial, apartments, lighting, etc. Chairman Ostlund noted that the Shell Station on 36th Avenue was not complying with the plan approved for the car wash and he asked Mr.' Larson to invite the manager to the next meeting of the Commission to discuss the. problem. Planning Commission - I0 - February 6, 1973 Mi nutes Chairman Ostlund then stated that the Mobil station on 42nd has put up a new sign without coming in and talking to the Planning Commission. He said that he would like to see them come in and talk to the Planning Commission and asked Mr. Larson to notify the station manager. Commissioner Herman reported on the Architectural Review Board pro- posal. He submitted a written report on this matter. Following a general discussion on the report the committee felt that this could not be handled by an ordinance so the recommendation is that the board become a committee of the Planning Commission and act in that capacity. Chairman Ostlund stated that he was opposed to establishing this as a committee since he did not feel that it would have any authority. He went on to say that he felt it would be an expensive proposition for developers in the community. He did not feel there was anything this committee could do, that the members could not do as members of the Planning Commission. Further discussion was held on the Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Fulton then moved, second by Oswald, that the specific concerns noted in the report be considered in the staff reports. The Commission would then evaluate the progress over the next three months at which time the Commission would again look at the need for an Architectural Review Board. Chairman Ostlund'asked for any further comments. Motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Fulton wished the records to show that he would like to have his name plate for the Planning Commission. 14. Announcements. None. 15. Adjournment. There being no further business a motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Meyer, carried on voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - March 6, t973 Mi nutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 6, 1973 in the Village Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. 2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 3. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Cameron, Fulton, Garin, Herman, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund, Oswald and Sueker. Absent: None. PUBL I C HEAR! NGS 4. Plannin.,cj Case No. 73-6 (Site Plan Approval - Burger King - Midland Shopping Center). Commissioner Barniskis moved to table Planning Case No. 73-6 to the meeting of April 3, 1973. Second by Commissioner Fulton. Motion carried on voice vote. 5~. P!annin,q Case No. 73-7 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Rauenhorst Corpora- tiOn - 5100 Boone Avenue North). Mr. Ray Rauch representing Rauenhorst stated that the dimensions of the property originally broken out for Tool Products were incorrectly given; consequently, the legal description on the waiver of platting on the original request was not correct. Dimensions should have been from the center of Boone Avenue instead of from the right of way line. Commissioner Sueker moved to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case No. 73-7. Second by Commissioner Garin. Motion carried on voice vote. NEW BUS I NESS 6. Review of Council Minutes of February 12th and February,. 26tht 1973. The Council Minutes of February 12th and February 26th were reviewed. Mr. Larson answered questions from Commission members. 7.~ Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of Februa.~y 20th~ 1973. Approval of Planning Commission minutes of February 20th, 1973 were so moved by Commissioner Barniskis, second by Commissioner Garin. Motion carried by vo i ce vote. Mr. Larson stated that the discussion on the Architectural Review Board had been omitted from the minutes. He and Commissioner Herman would attempt to have a report for the next meeting. 8. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens~ .Commissioners and .s.taff,. Mr. Fred Buyes was present to talk With the Commission about the sign ordinance 'in regards to the Mobil Station located at 4200 Winnetka Avenue. Follow- ing a short discussion Chairmen Ostlund asked Mr. Buyes to meet with Mr. Larson and work out his total sign program before it is presented to the Commi ss i on. Planning Commission - 2 - March 6, 1973 Mi nutes Mr. Marv Gordon requested time to present a proposal he was working up for his property in the SE corner of 42nd and County Road #18. He was thinking about a rezoning to TR. Some 56 town house units would be placed on the site including the single family lots he has purchased. Discuss i on was he I d. Chairman Ostlund stated that he felt Mr. Gordon had a good idea and ap- parently there were no objections by the Commission to the basic concept. Mr. Gordon was requested to work with Mr. Kraus in regards to the project before formal ly presenting it to the Planning Commission. 9. Codes and Standards Committee Re.p.o. rt. Discussion was held on the new re- vised Garbag~'~Refuse Ordinance. Commissioner Barniskis moved to recommend acceptance of the ordinance to the Village Council. Second by Commissioner Cameron. Motion carried on voice vote. I0. Liquor Committee Repqrt. Commissioner Ohman stated that there was no report. Chairman Ostlund read a letter from State Senator, Skip Humphrey, in regards to state regulations and licensing. Commissioner Garin commented that he had met with Brooklyn Center and they had explained to him what they had done on split liquor. II. Land Use Committee. There was no report. 12. Architectural Review Board. No report. 13. Announcements. Chairman Ostlund commented on the meeting held in regards to the new ice arena and outlined the basic proposal to the Commission for its information. 14. Discussion as to Home Occupation and Special Use Permits. Commissioner Meyer presented a proposal developed by the special committee on home occupations. The proposal included a list of I0 specific items that must be met in order to have a permitted home occupation. If a proposed use could not meet all of these a special use must be applied for. In order to issue the special use permit !1 points must be met. Discussion held on the merits of the proposals. Commissioner Meyer noted that Section 4.51 was general ly a restating of the present code with two new points added. The intent was to restrict home occupations, but to pro- vide greater flexibility in the special use procedures. Discussion was then held on the general purpose and philosophy of special use permits. Village Manager Larson asked what the actual problem was since the present code, in his opinion, was well suited to the needs of the Village except for the special use criterion of - next to thoroughfares. Several of the Commissioners then told about a dentist that started an office in his home. According to the Village Attorney this was permitted. Mr. Larson there must be some facts not known here in order for the Attorney to make such a ruling. According to Mr. Larson there was no way the dentist could qualify for a permitted home occupation based on the discussion here. Planning Commission - :~ - l~arch 6, 197:~ Hi nutes Additional discussion then held on the merits of the committee proposal. Following the discussion the proposal was referred back to the special committee for further study. Commissioner Meyer noted they would meet the roi lowing Monday - March 12th - 7:30 p.m. in the conference room at the Vi I l age Hall. 15. Discussion was held as to having a basketball or vol leyball match between the Planning Commission and the Village Council. The Commission felt that the members of the Council were perhaps too old for such a contest. Following discussion the Planning Commission issued a challenge to the Council to meet them in either basketball or vol leyball, as preferred by the Council. The Commission would like the Council's response by the next Planning Commission meeting. 16. Ad,~ournment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. on motion by Commission- er Cameron, second by Commissioner Oswald and carried on voice vote. Respectful ly submitted, Deni se Schrader Record Ing Secretary March 29~ 1972 TO' The Village Council and Manager Vdlla~e of New Hope The Liquor Study Committee held a planning meeting on Tuesday, March 20, at. the Village Hall. The ~roblem appears to be the obvious decline in revenues (~0,000 for 1972) and the consideration of several courses of action. It would appear that the Village of New Hope should consider: 1) Gettin~ out of the liquor business completely - cannot compete. 2) Improve the present facilities, located at g2nd and Nevada, in an attempt to attract new business. - Enlarge the off sale,open the lower level "Beer Garden", and remodel the main lounge. q) Fstabldsh a combined on and off sale facility at the Village Greens Golf Course and close out the present off sale store in the Mew Hope Shoppin~ Center. A) Convert to the new ~Split Liquor" operation. Wfthout a detailed study at this time. the committee feels that the Village of New Hope~ !) Shoulf not go into the split liquor operation. 2) Proceed ~dth plans for a new On Sale--Off Sale--Restaurant facility to be located at the Vil!ase Greens Golf Course. o) Proceed with plans to improve the ~resent facilities at g2nd and Nevada. No money, other than exterior paintdn~, has been s~emt om this facilit? since it was built in 1959. Phase out the Off Sale store in the New Hope Shop~in~ Center, mo~.~n~ the stock into the new facility at the Golf Course and also into the enlarged Off Sale store at A2nd and Nevada. M.M. Ohman Chairman L~quor Study Subcommittee Planning Commission - I - April 3, 1973 Minutes I. The Planning Commission was informally called to order at 7:10 p.m. to hear a presentation by Mr. John Westlake, Golden Valley Planning Director, on Golden ValleyVs Building Board of Review. Following introductory remarks Commissioner Cameron asked if the Board reports directly to the Council. Mr. Westlake replied yes, they were a recommending body to the Council. The Planning Commission was involved first in applications because they look at land use, the number of units, etc. so that the project first ceives approval of the architectural requirements~ After ~he~ are worked out then the p~titioner goes to the ~oard of Re~iew. Thero is also a third unit -- the Board of Z~ning Appeals, which ~s a separ- ate body which is involved if the petitioner needs variances. Commissioner Barniskis asked how conflicts between the Boards were handled. Mr. Westlake replied that they did not have many, but if there were the Village Council would decide. Commissioner Meyer asked how often the plans were changed after presenta- tion to the v~rious Boards° Mr. Westlake stated the staff worked very closely with the Board and knew what they were looking for so the specifics of the plans did not receive that much change. If they have something that is felt to be a gray area it went to the Building Board of Review for a concept approval. Cc~nmissioner Cameron asked if they had any difficulty getting professional members on the Board Committee; if it was an active group, and if the members felt that they were contributing to the Village. Mr. Westlake replied that they had no problem getting members. They did attempt to have a Board with varied professional backgrounds. Commissioner Barniskis askedif the Planning Commission would see what the Board of Review saw for plans or if a different presentation was used for each body. Mr. Westlake stated that they had two approaches: one was a concept, the other detailed plans. Gonerai discussion was then held on the time period that was required, the specific makeup of the Board and procedures that were followed. 2. Following the Board of Review discussion the regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:37 p.m. on Tuesday, April 3, 1973 in the Village Halt, 4401Xylon Avenue North. Roll call was taken as foliows: Present: Barniskis, Cameron, Fulton, Garin, Herman, Meyer, Ohmen, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: Sueker. (Commissioner Sueker~s absence was excused). Planning Commission - 2 - April 3, 1973 Mi nutes PUBL I C HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 73-8 .(Variance - 2912 Val ie Vista - Larry Bass, Petitioner). Mr. Larry Bass, the petitioner, was present. He stated he would like to attached a double garage on the end of his house and convert the present garage into a recreational room. Commissioner Meyer asked if there were any other alternatives for placement of the garage. Discussion was held as to moving the driveway exit. Commissioner Barniskis asked if Mr. Bass had talked to the neighbors or if the neighbors had been notified. '"' ~ Mr. Larson stated that the neighbors had been notified. The petitioner noted he had not discussed this with the neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Duane Fredericks, 2901 Valle Vista, were present. They stated they had no objections to the garage as planned. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Meyer, to recommend approval of Planning Case 73-8, a variance in sideyard setback. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any further discussion. Commissioner Herman commented that the Commission should take a good look at the setback requirements of the zoning code. He stated that if the Commission was not 9oin9 to enforce then they should seriously consider rewording the ordinance for conditions such as presented in this case. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any further questions. There being no further questions the main motion was voted on. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Plannin.q Case No. 73-9 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Winpark Drive - Joe Pazandak, Petitioner). There being no one present to present the case it was tabled until later in the meeting on motion by Commissioner Barniskis, second by Commissioner Cameron, carri ed on roi ce vote. 5. Planning Case No. 73-10 (Special Use Permit - 3601 Winnetka - William Skorpak, Petitioner). Commissioner Barniskis moved, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case 73-10 until later in the meeting as no one was present to present the case at this time. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 3 - April 3, 1973 Mi nutes 6. Planning Case No. 73-11 (Special Use Permit - 7305-42nd Avenue North - Dave Anderson, Peti ti oner). Chairman Ostlund stated that Mr. Dave Anderson had withdrawn his request for a special use permit. 7. Plannin.q Case No. 73-12 (Variance - 9420-36th Avenue North - Signcrafters, Petitioners). Mr. Lawrence from Signcrafters was present to present the case. He stated that they would like to install a larger sign on the west side of the Old Piper Inn than had been originally approved. As original ly approved the two signs were to have 143 square feet, they will now be approximately 145 square feet. The wording Was to be changed from Old Piper Inn to Family Restaurant. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Garin, to recommend approval of the amendment to the sign plan for Post Haste Shopping Center. Chairman Ostlund asked if there was further discussion. Commissioner Meyer asked if the sign would really serve its purpose. He stated that when someone is driving On County Road //18 you cannot even see the sign. The petitioner stated they did receive exposure from the sign and would real ly like to have a design as proposed for the sign. Motion carried on voice vote. 8. Planninq Case No. 73---13 (Variance/Site Plan - 8004-42nd Avenue - Dunkin Don uts, Pet i t i one r). Mr. James Ballenthin, an attorney, was present representing Dunkin Donut. Mr. Bal lenthin stated that he was present to ask for approval of certain variances and the site plan on the existing lot on 42nd Avenue between the drives to New Hope Shopping Center and K-Mart. Mr. Bal lenthin stated that no one from Dunkin Donuts was present tonight but that they felt the lot was satisfactory for their business. Questions on curb cuts, access, etc. were brought up. Mr. Bal lenthin stated that he could not comment on these as he did not have the answers. Commissioner Cameron stated that since there was no one present to provide facts on Planning Case 73-13 he would move to table the case for one month. Commissioner Garin second it. The motion carried on voice vote. 9. Planninq Case No. 73-14 (Site Plan Approval - 62nd and Winnetka - Bill Olson, Petitioner). Planning Commission - 4 - April 3, 1973 Mi nutes Mr. Tom Stahl, of Tom Stahl Architectures, and Mr. Wi II lam Olson were present to present this case'. Mr. Stahl stated that the Planning Commission was being requested to approve the basic concept. Detail plans would be presented once the con- cept received approval. The proposed structure is approximately 7,000 square feet located on a lot with 250 foot frontage. He stated that they had placed the structure so a service drive could be placed behind the building. A screening fence is setback 15 feet from the property line to provide a landscape area as required in the present code. Mr. Stahl said that they had been in touch with the Village Engineer and that there was storm sewer, sanitary se,,~er, and water available to the site on the site. Fifty-three parking spaces, which they feel is adequate are provided. There would be one car for approximately every 115 square foot gross. Mr. Stahi said that since this site plan was prepared a decision had been made that is was necessary to have a curb cut on 18innetka. Commissioner Barniskis then asked if Mr. Stahl felt that he needed 24 feet to 29 feet for moving the rear of the bui Iding. He asked if that was the primary service access. Mr. Stahl stated that they wanted to circulate their service traffic around the building. Commissioner Barniskis asked if there would be a curbing arrangement to retain runoff, etc. in the back and Mr. Stahl r~pl led there would be. Discussion was held as to the traffic. Commissioner Garin asked the Village Manager to secure an accident count on ~/innetka and 62nd in this area. Commissioner Barniskis then asked about the signing. Mr. Stahi stated the signing would include I~ylons on the east corner and the signs would be tied into the total architectural design. Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Olson if he would real ly lose a great deal of money by putting three houses on this land. Mr. Olson replied that there was no way this could be done. Commissioner Barniskis stated that he would rather see the access off 62nd. Mr. Olson stated his lessee would require the Winnetka Avenue access. Planning Commission - 5 - April 3, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Fulton questioned whether the trees shown on the site plan were ali existing.t~ees or if they had to be planted. Hr. Stahl replied that they would have to be planted. Commissioner Fulton questioned what screening would be provided for the neighbors towards the back. Mr. Stahl stated that there would be a fence and plantings provided. Commissioner Herman asked what the minimum height of a screening fence was. Mr. Larson replied that 5 feet was the minimum. Commissioner Herman then stated *hat most often the fences do end up being minimum height; consequently, an earth berm should be considered to pro- tect the people living behind the proposed building. Discussion held regarding the history of the zoning on the property. Commissioner Barniskis asked if the building could be turned around, changed to an L shape or put on a diagonal. Mr. Stahl replied that the proposal was about the only practical shape for the lot. Chairman Ostlund asked what recessing the building would do for the neighborhood. Hr. Stahl stated that you could not depress the elevation because of lot grade. Commissioner Oswald asked if Hr. Olson's tenants or perspective tenants are aware of the parking facilities. Commissioner Oswald asked if Mr. Olson's leases included a stipulation of parking requirements. Mr. Olson stated that they were stated. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any questions from the floor. No one was present to discuss this case. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Camerdn; to recommend approval of Planning Case 73-14. The detailed plan is to include a curb cut on Winnetka, lighting, signing, fencing, landscaping, etc. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any further questions. Motion declared carried on voice'vote. I0. Planninq Case No. 73-15 (Site Plan Approval - 51st and Hillsboro - C°t~le/He*~man, Petitioner). Mr. Bernard Herman of Cottle/Herman Architects stated the site is on 51st and Hillsboro near County Road #18. He stated that basically the building is a large warehouse to be used for warehousing and.working on fabrics and materials, processing and handling large bolts of cloth. To the south is the office and administrative area which has a total of about 1,451 square feet, the warehouse is 17,628 square feet and the total building is 19,079 square feet. Planning Commission - 6 - April 3, 1973 Minutes The building does conform in every respect in terms of the ordinance code and it has already been reviewed in comparison to the State Building Code. Commissioner Barniskis asked Hr. Herman if they enlaged the warehouse building where an expansion could go and how large an expansion would be planned. Mr. Herman replied that they would be going east. They have building coverage now of about 18 percent and he thought they were allowed about 40 ~ercent. Commissioner Cameron asked what exterior finish was planned. Hr. Herman replied that the entire building is prestress concrete. The south edge of the office is designed with a four foot overhang and a pier affect. The office building is about II feet high and the warehouse around 19 or 20 feet. It has a ranked finish with very heavy scores. It is very much like the new Rauenhorst building with a smooth concrete on the office building. Commissioner Barniskis asked what kind of t~uck traffic movements were anticipated. Mr. Herman indicated the loading area. Commissioner Cameron asked about the lighting and signing. Mr. Herman stated that they have a sign which will be on the warehouse wall facing County Road #18 on the west. commissioner Dleyer moved, second by Garin, to recommend approval of Plan- ning Case 75-15. Hotion carried on voice vote. Discussion then held regarding the lack of gas service to the area. Hr. Herman indicated if gas could not be provided now they would be forced to install an alternative heating system. Following discussion Commissioner Hayer moved, second by Cameron, to recommend to the council that they urge the Gas company to extend gas to the area immediately. Notion carried on voice vote. 4. Plannip.g C~se No. 73-9 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Winpark Drive - Joe Pazandak, Petitioner). The petitioner still was not present. Commissioner Dleyer moved, second by Garin, to table this case until the next meeting. Notion carried on voice vote. 5. Planninffi Case No. 75-10 (Special Use Permit - 3501 Winnetka - William Skorpak, Petitioner). The petitioner still was not present. One of the truck drivers wishing to use the site was present but could not speak for the petitioner. Short discussion held. Planning Commission - 7 - April 3, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Fulton ..mO. Ved, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case 73-10 until the next meeting. Motion carried on voice vote. II. Report of Codes and Standards committee. There was no report from this Corem i tree. 12. Repor~ of Land Use Committee. There was no formal report from thb Land Use Committee at this time. 13. Liquor Committee Report. The Liquor committee had nothing further to re- port but reminded the members of the joint meeting with the Council on the 17th. 14. Review of Council Minutes of Hatch 26t .1973.. The minutes were not yet available for distribution. 15. .Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of Februar¥.20t 1973. The minutes of February 20, 1973 of the Planning Commission were approved on motion by Commissioner Meyer, second by Garin, with a change made on Page 3, paragraph 8 - should read Hr. Chuck Hoffman instead of Hr. Chuck t~elgman. Notion carried on voice vote. 16. AdJournment. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Herman, second by Commissioner Barniskis, carried on voice vote. Respectful ly submitted, Den i se Sch fade r Recording Secretary Planning Commission~ - I - April 17, 1973 Minutes I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 17, 1973, in the Village Hall, 4401XylOn Avenue North, at 7:00 p.m. 2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 3. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Cameron, Garin, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: Fulton, Herman and Suekero (Commissioner Fulton and Com- missioner Herman had excused absences). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Planning Case No. 73-16 (Variances and Site Plan Approval - Burger King - Northwest Corner of Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road). Planning Case No. 73-16 was tabled until later in the meeting on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Barniskis, as not everyone representing this case was present. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Planning Case No. 73-17 (Special Use Permit for Open Storage - 7600 - 49th Avenue - Robbinsdale Transfer). Mr. Dick Mast of Robbinsdale Transfer was present to discuss this case. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Hast how many trucks they anticipated storing. Mr. Mast replied it would vary from day to day but there would probably be 12 to 14. When asked if these would all be kept outside, Mr. Mast replied that they would get as many of these as was possible inside the building and the rest would have to be kept outside. Commissioner Meyer then asked if they were planning any improvements to the site. Mr. Mast stated they would make any changes that were necessary. Chairman Ostlund asked about blackt~ for the lot. Mr. Mast stated that presently it was gravel and they had not thought about blacktopping it yet. Commissioner Cameron questioned what, exactly, the property was to be used for. Mr. Mast stated it would generally be used for maintenance and re- pair on their trucks; this being motor maintenance such as plugs, points, changing oil, etc., with their truck fleet stored on the lot when the trucks were not on the road. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were underground gas tanks on this property. Mr. Mast'weplied there were and ~hey would be storing their own gas and diesel fuel. He further stated the building was designed for this as this is what it had been used for all along. Commissioner Cameron asked how many trucks they owned. Mr. Mast said they owned eight trucks but they had more trailers than trucks. They are presently located at 3900 West Broadway (offices at 4004 West Broadway) and are asking for a special use permit because they need additional room in order to have all their equipment on the lot. Planning Commission - 2 - April 17, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Cameron asked, on an average evening in Robbinsdale how many trucks did tt)ey have on the property? Mr. Mast replied about 15. A question was then raised regarding access to the 49th Avenue site. The main ave[~ue of ingress and egress would probably be Quebec from Rockford Road according to the petitioner. At the latest, nigh~ hours would be only until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. They will be operating on a five day week basis and occasionally on Saturdays. Commissioner Cameron asked how many employees were employed and Mr. Mast replied as of right now they have nine employees. Mr. Michael Miles, General Manager of Midwestern Finance, the owner of Wingate Apartments located at 7620 - 7640 - 7720 and 7820 - 49th Avenue North, came forward at this time. Mr. Miles stated that if this variance was granted it would depreciate or affect the value of their property. He stated the traffic which would result from the operation itself would reduce their land'value with the tax contribution they make each year, somewhere in the area of $46,600 and were very much against this type of operation. Commissioner Barniskis asked if adequate screening would be of any com- pensation in association with the adjacent property. Mr. Miles stated screening would help but he felt it would still not adequately protect the property. Mr. Robert Carlson, 8613 - 49th Avenue North, asked to speak against the petitioner.' Mr. Carlson stated he was also very much opposed to this type of operation for several reasons. Mr. Carlson stated his taxes had gone up from $600 to $800. The truck yard would be a safety hazard - children going to the park or hockey rink or who lived in the apartments would be climbing on these trucks. There would be a noise problem. It would be a pollution problem. Traffic would increase. Mr. Robert Wagner, 7641 - 49th Avenue North, stated he had been to a meet- ing at Mr. Carlson~s house with the Mayor when the previous trucking business had been operating and they could hardly hear what was being said due to the noise. Mr. Wagner said if this trucking operation was to carry on as the previous operation had there would definitely be a bad noise problem. He stated screening could be put up to keep out the view of the trucks and trailers but screening could not keep out the noise problem. Mr. L. J. Moriarity, representing Mr. Bergerdale, owner of this property, stated when Mr. Bergerdale purchased this property it was in the present state except that fencing had been added on three sides. He purchased it to be used for trucks and it has been used for truck operations at ali times. Mr. Moriarity also stated this property pre-dated the apartments which were there now. The building is single purpose with a ceiling height of 17 feet, one overhead door in front, two at the rear. The build- ing is especially designed for taking care of large semi-trailer trucks. This had been its use and he felt, based upon past history, this special use permit should be granted. Planning Commission - 3 - April 17, 1973 Minutes Mrs. Robert Carlson then came forward. She stated when this garage was first built they were promised it would be a quiet operation. The first man who had built the garage had semis in there but he had a quiet operation, He never stored any running trucks. The next user did have running trucks and they had semis starting out at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. She stated she also was deeply opposed to such an operation. Commissioner Barniskis asked Mr. Mast how they would deal with these problems of pollution,jnoise, etc. Mr. Mast stated they did not have any refrigeration trucks or trailers, they did not operate at night, and they had diesel tractors and trucks which are the quietest kind of trucks they knew of. As far as pollution, a diesel truck is less polluting than a car. Chaiman Ostlund asked if any of the trucks were loaded when they come onto the premises and Hr. Hast replied they would be sometimes. Mr. Miles again commented on the fact it would be a dangerous hazard for the children who lived in the apartments. Further discussion was held on the zoning and the past history of use. C~mmissioner Meyer m eyed, second by Cameron, to recommend denial of Planning Case No. 73-17 since the petition as presented did not meet the criteria for a special use permit. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planninq Case No. 73-16 (Variances and Site Plan Approval - Burger King - Northwest Corner of Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road). Planning Case No. 73~16 was taken off the table on motion by Commissioner Ohman, second by Oswald. Hotion carried on voice vote. Chairman Ostlund read a letter stating as of March 26, 1973, Midland Shopping Center has entered into a binding agreement with Burger King Corporation which allows them to have a ~6n-exclusive right to the use of the Shopping Center's parking lot for parking purposes. The original letter was given to the Village Manager, Mr. Larson, for the file. Commissioner Barniskis asked if the proposed building was basically on the property line of the existing Gulf Station. Mr. Currie replied it was. Commissioner Barniskis then asked if they had the required parking. Mr. Curr[e answered they did have adequate parking with the lease agree- ment. Commissioner Barn iskis commented about the parking arrangements. He said that parking appeared to be on both sides and in the back. Mr. Currie replied this was correct - basically, people would be parking behind the building. There are now four curb cuts on this property - ali but one is to be eliminated. Commissioner Barniskis asked if Burger King had another building con- structed similar to this one. Mr. Currie said the one on 26th and Hennepin and the one in Anoka would be similar. Planning Commission - 4 - April 17, 1973 Mi nutes Chairman Ostlund asked where supplies come in. Mr. Currie replied supplies were taken in at the back. Chairman Ostlund then asked if one truck delivered ali products. Mr. Currie replied, with the exception of milk products, the local commissary deliver- ed everyth ing. Discussion was held on signs and Mr. Currie commented the sign c~any would come in for their own sign permits but they w~ld like to have the mansord roef sign. Commissioner Cameron asked about lighting. A double pylon spot light will be lighting the Medicine Lake Road side and there will be one in front. There wil I also be lighting on the overhang shining straight down. Lighting on the Medicine Lake Road side will be directed entirely into the parking lot. Commissioner Meyer asked if they would be changing the elevation of the site at all and Mr. Currie said they had no intention of doing this. Questions and comments were then opened to the floor. Mr. Bob Mi I ier, representing Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Lamphere, who are the owners of the apartments on the opposite side of the street, stated it this should go through, it was Mr. Lamphere's intention to commence a lawsuit. He stated Mr. Lamphere felt if this use was permitted he would suffer an economic loss of around $50,000. Mr. Mi I let commented as far as he knew, in order for Burger King to be a successful operation they needed around 1,200 cars per day and this would be a substantial increase in'traffic from what you would expect for a service station operation. He stated this area was already congested and they did have a divider there. There were already many traffic problems and another 1,200 cars per day would only add to this and could cause many nuisance problems for the tenants of the apartments. In addition, Mr. Miller stated Mr. La, here felt the location was too close to the road and there would not be adequate parking facilities. Mr. Joe Pazandak was present and stated he felt this was a very good use for the site. If a service station moved in they would have to enlarge it and make the building more elaborate. Also, many business in the area needed a convenient place for lunch. Commissioner Oswald questioned the green area. Mr. Curry replied there ~lould be green area between the sidewalk and black- top on Winnetka and along Medicine Lake'Road there would be a planted area. Vlhether the planting was real or artificial he was not sure. Commissioner Oswald then asked about the depth of the green area. Mr. Curry replied it was three feet. Planning Commission - 5 - April 17, 1973 Minutes Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Garin, for approval of Planning Case No. 73-16 with a recommendation to the Council that a variance in lot and building size and setback requirements be granted and that the joint parking agreement be accepted. Commissioner Oswald moved to amend to accept the joint parking agreement on the condition It is a permanent recorded agreement and also that the parking stalls indicated by Midland Shopping Center are striped. Com- missioner Meyer second the amendment, yore was taken on the amendment. Amendment carried on voice vote. Vote was then taken on the main motion as amended. Hotion carried on voice vote. 6. Plannl.nR Case No. 73-18 (Proposed Ordinance Change in Home Occupation Regulations). Commissioner Meyer went through the proposed ordinance section by section. The word manufacturin~ was added to Section 4.51(3)a. Commissioner IVleyer moved, second by Ohman, for adoption of Sect. ion 4.51 on home occupati..ons as revised. Motion carried on voice vote. ~Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Meyer, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council acceptance of Section 4.43 as presented. Notion carried on voice vote° 7. Continuation of Plapni. n~ Case No. 75-9 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Winpark Drive - Joe Pazandak). Mr. Joe Pazandak was present to represent the petitioner and presented a brief history of the projec~ and the need of Sir Vend for expansion proper"fy. Con~issioner Barniskis asked if there was any kind of easements for drainage from the building being built on Winnetka. Hr. Pazandak replied there was and it was underground. Mr. Larson corrmented that on the north lot line of the existing lot line there is an easement with sanitary sewer serving the Winnetka proper-fy. Commissioner Barniskis moved, second by Oswald, to recon~end approval of Planning Case No. 75-9 with approval being subject to a for"mai combination of the Sir Vend proper?les within 50 days of the Council approval. Notion carried on voice vote. 8. Continuation of Plepnin~ Case No. 75-10 (Special Use Permit - ~601 ~601 Winnetka - William Skorpak). Mr. Bill Skorpak was present to request a special use permit for storing three delivery trucks on the service station site which he operates at · 501 Winnetka Avenue North. Planning Commission - 6 - April 17, 1973 Minutes Commissioner Cameron asked if there was any difficulty with refuse or trash coming off the trucks. Mr. Skorpak stated there was not. Chairman Ostlund questioned as to what had happened to the trailer rental proposed earlier. Mr. Skorpak said that Union Oil did not want him to have rental trucks or trailers so he had let them go this spring. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Garin, to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 73-10 subject to a limit of three trucks and striping of the parking stalls. Motion carried on a voice vote. 9. Following the public hearings members of the Village Council and Industrial Commission met to discuss the status - present and future - of the Village liquor operations with the Planning Commission. Discussion was held on the present sales trend, possible reasons for the downward trend, restraints on advertizing, the present condition of the store and bar, the feasibility of split liquor, etc. Mr. Larson noted that he had done some preliminary checking on financing and felt the present operation could support a bond issue for new con- struction of some $350,000 if it was decided to remodel the present bar and construct a new outlet on the north end of the Village. Discussion then held on what type of remodeling should be done in the present bar and what could be done to improve the operation at the Center Store. Discussion held on the procedure to use in establishing remodeling standards - use of citizen committee - architect - contractors, etc, Commissioner Oswald noted the need for professional input and suggested that retail store display sales type assistant be obtained. Consensus appeared to be that this was best approach and Mayor Erickson asked those present to look for assistance of this type. Following completion of the discussion no formal action was taken but the consensus appeared to be that the Village should stay in the liquor business with a remodeled bar on 42nd, an outlet near the golf course and improved merchandising at the Center Store. Mayor Erickson asked Mr. Larson to prepare suggestions for possible immediate upgrading of the Center Store. Council is to continue investigation of the new out- let on the north end and remodeling plans are to be investigated for the present bar. Mayor to call another meeting when and if he felt it is necessary. !0. The Land Use Committee did not have a formal report. Chairman Barniskis asked to be removed as chairman of the committee because he did not have time to devote to the position. Mr. Ostlund appointed Cameron as the new committee chairman. Discussion held on the Armory proposal. The Land Use Committee is to in- vestigate further. Planning Commission - 7 -- April 17, 1973 Minutes II. The Codes and Standards Committee presented a report on a proposed new regulation for off street parking. The report was referred to Mr. La~son for review prior to discussion at the next meeting. 12. The Council minutes of March 26th and April 9th were reviewed. 13. The Planning Commission minutes of April 3rd were approved as printed on motion by Meyer, second by Oswald, carried on voice vote. 14. Several items were discussed under comments from Commissioners including rubbish behind the property in Case No. 73-17. Maintenance problems at the apartments at Bass Lake Road and Pennsylvania and signs on Boone in the Science Center area. Mr. Larson was requested to write a letter to Shakley Products regarding parking of semis. 14. There being no other business to come before the meeting, Cameron moved, second by Garin, to adjourn at 10:26 p.m. Carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - I - May 15, 1973 Minutes i. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 15, 1973 at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North. 2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 3. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Cameron, Fulton, Herman, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: Garin and Sueker. (Commissioner Garin's absence was excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Plannin~ Case No. 73-27 (Approval of Addition to Tool Products, 5100 Boone Avenue North). Mr. Larson stated that Planning Case No. 73-27, approval of addition to Tool Products had been withdrawn. Commenting on this subject was Mr. Halgren, 8512 - 50th Avenue North. Mr. Halgren stated that there has been a real lack of interest and concern on the part of Tool Products in regards to hazards around the building. He felt that before any building permits were approved the Planning Commission should take a look at the facilities around the building and take action to have it cleaned up prior to issuing per- mits for additional construction. Some examples of these hazards were stacks of large pallets on the blacktop driveway which children play on and tip over. Leaving large numbers of barrels and containers around which are rolled around the driveway. Also, the plant is run both day and night with the doors open and unguarded, all the time. It is not uncommon for children to walk in the back door and walk around inside. Mr. Halgren felt that before allowing Tool Products to expand their facilities they should take some precautionary measures in guarding their facilities and maybe fencing off areas that would allow children to walk around some of these things which are laying about. Mr. Halgren further stated that Tool Products also had a large L.P. tank behind the building. This tank is not fenced and was just another hazard for children to play on or break something off of which could be a big disaster. Again, Mr. Halgren stated he would like to stress very strongly that prior to approving any additional building permits they bring up to date what they have presently. Commissioner Cameron questioned as to whether these barrels and things were left over from the construction or whether this was part of their processing. Mr. Halgren said that it had been accumulating steadily, at first it had been right up close to the building and now it extends the width of their parking lot. Planning Commission - 2 - May 15, 1973 Mi nutes Also present to comment on this case was Mr. Clifford Franzen, 8516 50th Avenue North. Mr. Halgren commented that according to Ordinance 73-4, Tool Products was now in violation of this ordinance and also at the time that the original permit was taken out for construction their architect sub- mitted to the Council illustrations-pictures and details as to how the building would look. The building is now one year old and does not re- semble what they brought before the Council and Commission to.get their building permit. Whether it is because they are going to add on and just haven't taken the necessary time to finish the bui iding as they originally planned, or whether they are out of finances and do not care to finish it, the rough grade concrete exterior is not what was planned nor does it fit into the surrounding area. Mr. Halgren then said that with the additional space on the building coming much closer to the residential area, closer to the lot line, he was wonder- ing if there shouldn't be some consideration as to the noise and machinery in this new section. Tool Products does run a 24 hour shift. It hasn't been a problem but they were concerned about Tool Products coming out another 90 feet. Chairman Ostlund indicated that these complaints would be reviewed by the Village officials. 5. Plannin§ Case No. 73-26 (Variance New Hope/Crystal Church of Christ, 5116 Boone Avenue North). Mr. Bruce Robert, 5116 Boone Avenue North, was present to discuss this case. Mr. Robert stated he was the minister of the church and that he lived in the parsonage. He said that they would like to build a red- wood fence along Boone Avenue and needed a variance in order to con- struct it in the front yard adjacent to the property line. C~ammissioner Cameron asked what the reason for a fence across the front of this property was. Mr. Robert replied~they were surrounded com- pletely by commercial. Also the students from Cooper High School and Hosterman Jr. High came right through their yard on a regular basis. The fence might help slow down this traffic. They also had a mentally retarded chi Id and felt a fence might help to block off some of the distractions and some of the other interferences in her behalf as well. Commissioner Cameron questioned the fact they were completely sur- rounded by commercial property. Mr. Cameron stated that to the south was the church and to the east are residential homes so they are not completely surrounded by commercial property. Commissioner Cameron then asked if Mr. Robert's complaint was that the students coming down Boone Avenue and were cutting through the church property. Mr. Robert said they were not so concerned about the church property as they were about the parsonage yard. Planning Commission - 3 - May 15, 1973 Minutes Commissioner Cameron asked if the students cut through the residential area to the east. Mr. Robert replied they sometimes did. Commissioner Cameron asked what kind of fencing they had on the north side of the property. Mr. Robert said there wasn't any as of yet. Eventually they would plan to have a fence on the north side also. When asked to what extent the nuisance was, Mr. Robert replied that it got pretty bad at times. Students would go right by the window next to the house. Commissioner Cameron commented that if Mr. Robert was worried about foot traffic couldn't he put in a rail-type fence instead of a solid fence. Commissioner Meyer asked how close to the siewalk they would propose the fence to be. Mr. Robert replied they would like to have it just as close as possible. Commissioner Meyer then asked Mr. Larson how close they could go. Mr. Larson stated that the property line was one foot from the sidewalk. Commissioner Meyer asked if they had considered any other type of fence besides redwood, such as chain link. Mr. Robert replied they had not. Asked if he had talked to Tool Products at all about their possible participation with the fence Mr. Robert replied that he had not. Commissioner Meyer stated he was troubled by the thought of a redwood fence being put up because of several factors. A redwood fence would most likely deteriorate faster as snow in the winter would affect it as well as the road chemicals, children, etc. Upkeep would be harder. Another thing about a redwood fence is that if a service road is put in for Tool Products it would really block their view for trucks coming out and children who rode bikes along there might not be able to see the trucks or vice versa and there could be some site hazards. Commissioner Cameron asked about a living fence of honeysuckle, shrubery, etc. It would serve the same purpose and look a lot nicer. Commissioner Fulton also asked if Mr. Robert had considered some sort of landscaping, hedges or something along this.line. Mr. Robert stated this would not work so well because the children would break the branches and it would be bad in the winter. Chairman Ostlund asked if it would lessen Mr. Robert's problem if Tool Products put up a fence. Mr. Robert replied that it would not since his problem was east/west traffic across his yard. Planning Commission - 4 - May 15, 1973 Minutes Chairman Ostlund asked about signing, Mr. Robert answered that students would tear them up and therefore it was almost impossible to have any signs. Commissioner Fulton questioned as to where all these children were coming from and where they were going. Mr. Robert said that they came up I~one from Hosterman and then cut across going east back to the residential areas. The heaviest traffic right now was around 2:40 p.m. when Cooper students ended school going north and then about 20 or 30 minutes later students from Hosterman would be coming south. Commissioner Herman asked what the problem would be if the fence was put on the east property line. He said that it looked to him that the fence would be 90% effective if it were on the east property line, between the residential area. Mr. Robert stated that this would not work because of the church park- ing lot which would still have to be maintained and left open. Following this discussion, Commissioner Meyer suggested that the petitioner meet with Tool Products to see if the fence problem could be handled jointly. Discussion held on a requirement for Tool Products to screen their property. Mr. Larson indicated they were required to screen. Discussion held on if a variance had been given on the screening. It was the consensus that it had not been and that Mr. larson should so notify Tool Products. Commissioner Cameron moved, someone s~cond, to ~tabl~e Planning Ca§e No. 73-26 unti~ the next Planning Commission meeting of June 5, .1973. Motion carried on voice vote. 6. Plannin~ Case No. 73-28 (Approval of Site Plan and Building Plan - Benson-Orth Associates, Inc., 49th and Quebec Avenue North). Mr. Ken Benson of Benson-Orth Associates stated that they were pr~- posing a building at 49th and Quebec. At this time they have a build- ing supply house that is proposing 32,000 feet and another tenant who is proposing 20,000 feet. There are 202 parking stai Is shown and the ordinance requires 75. Mr. Benson stated he was not sure of the second tenant at this point and might change the plan so as to increase the size of the building. They would have a speculation type building. There is a potential of increasing the size of the building. There are three things which Mr. Benson is primarily concerned about: I) setbacks, 2) parking re- quirements and 3) the green area. It is zoned Gl. Commissioner Cameron asked if the parking still be adequate with the proposed addition. Mr. Benson replied that it would. There will be no trucks, it will be primarily a~tomobiles. Planning Commission - 5 - May 15, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Cameron asked if the use would be strictly wholesale without retail. Mr. Benson replied that it was a warehouse operation which was strictly wholesale. There will be no retail. Further discussion was held as to parking requirements. Commissioner Herman stated that there was a row of diagonal stalls due north of the building that were not workable. They had a one way access off a diagonal meaning that a car has to back all the way out and chances are they would be backing out right into an entrance drive. Mr. Benson stated that they could easily change these. Commissioner Herman then questioned the loading area on the north end of the bui iding. He noted that the area had the depth of a 20 foot stall plus a 20 foot drive isle and depending on what type of vehicles were used th is may net be adequate. Mr. Benson stated that the plot plans indicated these as being drive-in doors, not.loading stalls, where~you can drive directly into the build- ing. Mr. Benson stated that they would propose to ask the Planning Commission's approval for this particular plan with the understanding that any changes in the plan would be brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Barniskis moved that the Commission recommend approval of Planning Case No. 73-28, secgnd by Ohman, approval of site plan and building plan for Benson-Orth Associates, subject to: a) that the diagonal parking on the northern portion of building A be eliminated, b) that the driveway immediately adjacent to that bui idin!~ be removed and moved further to the east and combined with the further east driveway into a single larger driveway, c) that the parallel parking on the west side of the building be eliminated in its entirety and that addi.tional diagonal parking toward the boulevard be substituted, d) that the entrance driveway on the southern most portion of Quebec be widened, e) that the entrance-exit driceway on the northern most portion of Quebec be moved a minimum of 20 feet further to the south and also widened. Motion carried by voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. Re~rt of Liquor Committee Chairman Ostlund stated that they (the Liquor Committee) had a meeting last week with two members of the Council, Mr. Enck and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson was elected chairman of this committee and the goals and object?yes which they planned to strive for were discussed. Mr. Enck was assigned Recording Secretary. There will be a discussion next Monday night. 8. Report of Land Use Committee There was no report at this time. Planning Commission - 6 - May 15, 1973 Minutes 9. Report of Codes and Standards Committee Commissioner Meyer stated that they had not met yet and therefore there was no report from this Committee. They will be looking into the sign ordinance as it applies to shopping centers and office buildings trying to tighten it up and changing the wording. I0. Architectural Review Board Rep~t Commissioner Fulton moved, second by Oswald, that a Design Review Committee be established in accordance with the February 6th report for a trial period of six months at which time there would be a review of how the Review Committee was functioning and also that the third person mentioned would be someone from the staff rather than someone from outside the Commission. Discussion held on the various problems and benefits. Chairman Ostlund expressing concern that developers would be facing delays. The con- sensus of the discussion appeared to be that the Committee would be of benefit, that it should serve as a staff type report, it would work toward avoiding delay and would meet at the convenience of the petitioner. Motion carried on voice vote. II. Review of Council Minutes of May. I~ .1~3 The minutes were not available, since the Council had met only the prior evening. Ostlund and Meyer had attended the meeting and made some comments regarding the planning cases. 12. Approval of Commission Minutes of May I~ 1973 An amendment was made to add at the end of the minutes noting that the starting time of the Planning Commission should remain at 7:30 p.m. as discussed at the meeting. Motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May I, 1973 with the above amendment by Commissioner Meyer, second by Barniskis. Metion carried by voice vote. 13. Additional Comments/Requests .from Citi.z~n~.~ Commissioners and Staff None. 14. Annoucements Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Meyer, that the second meeting in June, July, and~August of the Planning Commission be suspended unless t~ere was a call of the chair. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 7 - May 15, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Sueker's acceptance of resignation was tabled to the meet- ing of June 5, 1973 by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Meyer. Motion carried on voice vote. 15. Ad~iQurnment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned on motion by Commissioner Meyer, second by Commissioner Oswald, and carried on voice vote at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - June 5, 1973 Minutes 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 5, 1973 at the Village Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North at 7:30 p.m. 2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 3. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Cameron, Fulton, Herman, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: Garin and Sueker. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Plannin~ Case No. 73-14 (Approval of Development - William Olson - SE Corner Winnetka and 62nd). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 73-14 until later in the meeting as the petitioner was not present at this time. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Planning Case No. 73-21 (Variance - Sign -.Zapata Foods - 7160 Bass Lake R'oad. (Held Over from May 1, 1973). Mr. John Butorac, the restaurant area supervisor, was present to discuss this case. Mr. Butorac stated he would like to put up a commander board. The commander board would be a 4 X 8 double faced board on which you could interchange the letters and provide messages to the public. Education of the public, especially with Zapata mexican foods is important according to Mr. Butorac who said that a lot of the public is leery about mecican foods. Market studies have been done and they have found that some people are afraid of the food because they do not know what is in it. The commander board can educate the public as to what - their product is. Commissioner Ohman' asked if they would be putting up slogans and things like this. Mr. Butorac stated that occasionally they would run a cam- paign and would put up a slogan such as "Taco Hater" or something like this which corresponds with their advertising campaign at the time. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Larson if their present sign was 72 square feet. Mr. Larson replied that it was. Mr. Butorac when asked what their front footage was on their property replied that he did not know the exact foota§e but that they qualified for up to 90 square feet. Comnissioner Meyer ~then asked if there were any other alternatives to the message board. Planning Commission - 2 - June 5, 1973 Minutes ~-~ Mr. Butorac stated that they have cut down some of their signs in size, but outside the commander board there is no other alternative. There are eight other Zapata operations now within the Twin Cities and one in Rochester. Of the nine, five of these operations presently have com- mander boards and they are in the process of installing commander boards in all of the other locations. Co~nissioner Barniskis questioned as to how far off the ground the com- mander board would be. Mr. Butorac said that from the bottom of the · commander board would be approximately eight feet. Commissioner Barniskis then stated that~if they put the commander board that low people won't be able to see it because of the patio- table and umbrellas. Mr. Butorac commented that if everything went as planned they planned on rearranging the patio. Commissioner Barniskis commented that if the Planning Comn~ission grant- ed Zapata a variance to this sign, Ponderosa would or could come and ask for a bigger sign as would Burger King, etc. It is not presenting any hardship for them and the commander board, as of now, is not really a necessity. Chairman Ostlund commented that he did not see any value for more sign- ing on this property and that there was no hardship, at this time. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Cameron, for denial of Planning Case No. 73-21. Motion carried on voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 73-24 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Am Cal Con- struction - 42nd and Rhode Island. (Held over from May l, 1973). Mr. Larson stated that the representatives for Am cal were in New York and may not attend. He asked the Planning Commission to table this case until later in the meeting and if no one showed up he would like to represent the case as he understood it. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Ohman, to table Case 73-24 until later in the meeting. Motion carried on voice vote. 7. Plannin9 Case No. 73-26 (Variance - New Hope/Crystal Church of Christ - 5116 Boone Avenue North. (Held over from meeting of May 15, 1973). Mr. Larson stated this case should be tabled for at least one more meet- ing and that it may be withdra~n permanently. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Herman, that Planning Case No. 73-26 be tabled until the first meeting in July. Motion carried on voice vo~e. Planning Commission - 3 - June 5, 1973 Mi n utes 8. Planning Case No. 73-29 (Variance - James Orey - 8821 - 62nd Avenue North). Mr. James Orey was present to present this case. Mr. Orey stated that he would like to add seven feet to the east side of his garage. Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Orey if he would plan to build a double garage as he now had only a single garage. Mr. Orey replied that he was planning on a double garage, yes. The reason why it had not been .b~uilt that way was because it had been a model home. Commissioner Cameron then asked if the single garage was a hardship right now. Mr. Orey replied that it was. Asked if he had several cars Mr. Orey replied that he did, in addition to several mini-bikes, a motorcycle and a truck. Commissioner Oswald questioned Mr. Orey as to whether he planned to have a solid wall, or would there be windows. Mr. Orey replied that there was going to be a window there but it made no difference to him. When asked if the present garage would be torn down or just added to, Mr. Orey said that they would just be adding to the present garage and the roof line and rest would be the same. Mr. Roger Bregal, 8811 - 62nd Avenue North, a neighbor to Mr. Orey, came before the Commission at this time. Mr. Bregel stated .that he had one concern, that of the effect of an explosion on his home. He stated that there was approximately 22 feet between their houses. Discussion was held as to how far it was between homes and installing a fi re wall. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Meyer, that the Commission recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case No. 73-29 subject to a one hour fire rating wall on the interior of the garage. Discussion was held. Commissioner Herman stated that he felt the definition of a one hour fire wall may still permit wood frame construction. Mr. Cameron noted that was his intent. Motion carried on voice vote, with Commissioner Herman in opposition. 9. Planning Case No. 73-30 (Variance - Garage Size - Richard. Gibson - 8518 - 29th Avenue North). Commissioner Barniskis stated that he had talked to Mrs. Gibson this morning and that her husband was out of town. Mrs. Gibson had asked if she would need to come to the meeting. Mr. Barniskis had told her that he saw no real problems. After looking over the plans and staff report discussion Was held. Planning Commission - 4 - June 5, 1973 Mi nutes , Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Oswald, for approval of Planning Case 73-30. Motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Oswald commented that he would like to request that the ordinance provision limiting garage sizes be reviewed. Chairman Ostlund asked the Codes and Standards Committee to look at present requirements. 10. Planning Case No. 73-31 (Variance - Sign Ordinance - Calhoun Realty - 7809 Bass Lake Road). Mr. Chuck Johnson, Branch Manager of Calhoun Realty, was present to pre- sent the case. Commissioner Meyer asked if it was Mr. Johnson's intention to take down any of the signs which were presently on the building once he added this one. Mr. Johnson stated that they were certainly willing to. The sign they proposed was a 10' X 7', 70 square foot sign. The problem they were faced with was that the County had moved the street away from their property line. The sign ordinance reads that all signs must be at least l0 feet from the property line. In order to put this particu- lar sign up they would be approximately 40 feet from the curb since the street moved away. They would like to put the sign a minimum of l0 feet from the sidewalk which is five feet from the curb. Mr. Johnson said that he would be willing to remove the sidewall sign as well as the roof sign in order to put this sign up. Commissioner Meyer asked what the front footage was. Mr. Johnson re- plied that it was 70 feet. They are allowed up to 90 feet of ground sign. Questioned as to whether this would be a lighted sign and if so how would it be lit, Mr. Johnson stated that it would be lighted from the inside. Commissioner Meyer asked what type of construction it would be. Mr. Johnson stated that it was a message board type sign, and would be 16' at the top height. Con,missioner Meyer asked if it would sit on a 9' pole and Mr. Johnson said that he thought it would. It is a double faced sign sitting perpendicular to the street. Commissioner Meyer commented that he felt Mr. Johnson did how a definite hardship because of the way in which the road angles by the property. He felt that if Mr. Johnson was willing to conform to the ordinance as far as removal of the roof and sidewall signs the total signing would be improved what was there now. Planning Commission - 5 ' June 5, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Herman asked what the vertical height of the sign was from ground level and Mr. Johnson stated that he thought it was 16'. Com- missioner Herman stated that if this was boulevard identification sign he would like to see it a little bit lower. Mr. Johnson is entitled to 25 feet. Mr. Johnson commented that he thought a low sign may present a problem with blocking some vision. He felt the higher sign would be less of a problem both on the access to their building and to the Nelson building. Discussion was held as to the visibility of the present signs and the visibility of the new proposed sign to the motorist. Commissioner Fulton commented that he felt this sign would only create more problems and clutter for the building. Commissioner Oswald said that he felt this sign was an assest to Calhoun Realty and if they were willing to remove the roof sign and sidewall sign he was in favor of it. Commissioner Barniskis asked what their hours would be. Mr. Johnson stated that they would be open from 8:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. during the winter months and from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. during the summer months and on weekends from 9:00 a.m. until around 10:00 p.m. He stated that their intention was to have a lighted sign. The current sign is lit till around 11:00 p.m. Mr. Lohman, Attorney for Calhoun Realty, stated that when the road was moved away from the building it created quite a problem for good exposure. He said that a realty agency, if it were to prosper, had to have some exposure and Calhoun Realty obviously did not. The problem was not created by them but by the moving of the road. To him · this variance was almost a necessity. Commissioner Barniskis moved, second by Cameron, to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case 73-31, with the following conditions: the present roof sign and the sidewall sign be removed, then the front wall sign and this sign be considered to be conforming to the sign ordinance and approving the variance to allow the new sign, as proposed, to locate in the boulevard. Chairman Ostlund asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Meyer, to amend the main motion by inserting the words that the front edgectosest to the curb of the sign be no closer than 25 feet to the curb. Vote was taken on the amendment. Amendment carried on voice vote with Chairman Ostlund voting in op- position. Planning Commission - 6 - June 5, 1973 Minutes ~ Commissioner Fulton moved to amend the motion by making the Commission's approval of the variance contingent upon limiting the height of the boulevard sign to six feet. Commissioner Herman second it. Vote was taken on the amendment. Amendment failed for lack of majority. Vote was taken on the main motion as amended. Motion carried by voice vote with Chairman Ostlund and Commissioner Fulton wishing to be re- corded as being opposed to this variance. 4..Piannin_~. Case No. 73-14 (Approval of Development - William Olson - SE Corner Winnetka and Commissioner Cameron stated that he objected to the petitioners coming in late and made a motion that the Commission proceed with the meeting, Second by Fulton. Motion carried on voice vote. 13. Planning Case No. 73-34 (Variance - Sign Ordinance - Signcrafte~s- 5600 Winnetka Avenue North). Discussion held on if Cases 73-32, 73-34 and 73-36 should be combined. Decision to combine 32 with 36 and take up 73-34 at this time. Planning Case 73-34, a sign variance, was presented by a representative of Signcrafters. Discussion held on interpretation of the ordinance, with it being noted that if Signcrafters would cut some of the blank space on the sign they would not need a variance. Discussion was held as to why they couldn't cut down on white space. Signcrafters feel that it looks better. The District Engineer from Shell Oil stated that this sign was 10 feet wide because their main door was lO feet wide and it looks much better in proportion. In other words, the sign was tailored to fit into a space which already exists. This sign is on the outside of the building right above the door, on the back of the building and is not visible from the front. Following discussion Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Fulton, to table Planning Case 73-34 until the first meeting in July. Motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Barniskis was opposed. Commissioner Barniskis moved to move Planning Case 73-32 down on the agenda to Planning Case 73-36. Commissioner Meyer second it. Motion carried on voice vote. 12. Pla.nning Case No. 73-33 (Plat Approval - Science Center - Knutson Co.). Mr. J. D. Smith, Director of Commercial Development for the Knutson Company, v~as present to discuss this case. Mr. Smith stated that they were requesting the Planning Commission's approval of the replatting in connection with the sale of certain lands in the Science Industry Center. All plats have been submitted to the Village Manager. Planning Co~ission - 7 - June 5, 1973 Mi nutes Con~nissioner Cameron asked why Mr. Smith was bringing this up at this point. Was it a question of legal technicality? The lots designated on that plat as Lots 2 and 3 are all a part of one torrens certificate. In order to se 1 Lot 3 they have to replat otherwise the deed pursuant to the torrens certificate will not be recorded by the County. Asked if they were about to sell Lot 3, Mr. Smith replied that this was correct - it was under contract. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Barniskis, to recommend approval of Planning Case 73-33 subject to staff approval of all technical de- tails, easements, etc. and that the extension of utilities at present, not be and required that Knutson Cempany not be required to post additional development bonds at this time. Motion carried on voice vote. 14. Planning Case No. 73-35 (Variance - Setback - Norval Kangas - 4046 Oregon Avenue North)'. Mrs. Kangas was presenting this case. She stated they would like to construct an addition over their garage for a master bedroom, bath, walk-in closet and a sitting room. Chairman Ostlund asked if this addition would be the same height as the current elevation. Mrs. Kangas replied yes, but it would be six inches higher on the top roof peak. 'There will be a window on the south side. This window would look out toward the rear bedroom of their neighbors; however, it would not be directly adjacent to their wi ndow. Commissioner Barniskis questioned if the neighbors had been contacted or talked to about this. Mrs. Kangas stated that she had talked to them. Mr. Beorge Starke, 4042 Oregon Avenue North, came before the Commission at this time. Mr. Starke is the neighbor who lives to the south. He stated that he was not against building on, but he was very much against the idea of having a window looking across to his bedroom. Another thing Mr. Starke was concerned about was the amount of space left be- tween houses once the overhang was attached. Mrs. Kangas said that they could take the window out if they had to. Commissioner Meyer moved for approval of Planning Case 73-35 on the con- dition that the window currently shown on the south side be removed. Commissioner Herman second it. Mo~ion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 8- June 5, 1973 ~-~ Mi nutes 4. Planning Case No. 73-14 (Approval of Development - William Olson - SE Corner Winnetka and 62~). Mr. Olson, petitioner, and Mr. Tom Stahl, the architect, were present to present this case. Mr. Stahl stated that since the last meeting they have reviewed the site plan, landscaping, the reduction of the service drive, etc. Statistics remain generally the same. The interior space is subdivided into three lease spaces. The south elevation of the building facing the residential property is windowless. As are the east and west elevations. The only windows which occur on the building are on the north elevation by the entrances. Landscaping and screening was discussed. The screening fence south of the building would run from 5 feet to 6 feet using basically heavy wood construction of the lattas type so that it is pretty much secure. General discussion held on the proposed service drive. How would the trash be handled was directed to Mr. Stahl and Mr. Stahl replied that they had an area where they could have a closed refuse container as shown on the site plan. The lighting around the building is primarily on the building. Because of the overhand the light can be directed down so as to light the front. Basically there is no other lighting provided except what is on the building. Commissioner Oswald asked what the side material of the building would be. Mr. Stahl replied that it would be the same brick all around. Commissioner Oswald stated that the roof line indicated a paneling material. Mr. Stahl said that the panel material was vinyl clad metal, and had been used basically to replace copper. Commissioner Herman questioned the service drive. He asked Mr. Stahl if it was a two way drive and Mr. Stahl replied that it was 16 feet wide and there was a curbing which limited the driveway to approximately 13 feet. It is basically the width of a one way drive. Snow removal was discussed. Planning Commission - 9 - June 5, 1973 Minutes Commissioner Herman asked where they would store the snow, he felt that it would create potential problems. In reply it was pointed out that the snow would probably need to be hauled away. Mr. Brochure, 6201 Winnetka Avenue North, questioned the need for a convenience center. He felt that between Crystal, New Hope, and Brooklyn Park we had the most convenient area in the States. There were major shopping centers and fine convenient stores open 'from early morning to late at night, with a wide variety of products including meats in the area. Mr. Brochure then said that he had watched the growth of his area for many years and it has been a healthy growth but he had to take exception to another Superette in as much as the neighbors living within eight or ten blocks already have a wide choice. They can go to chain stores, independent merchants, etc. and can buy economical products and just about anything they want at any time of the day or night. Mr. Brochure said that snow removal was a problem also in that area and he was basically opposed to having one-third of the building used for a Superette. He stated that to the best of his knowledge there is no food van delivering to stores; larger trucks are used. The major warehouses in the metropolitan area would never, under any circumstances, deliver products to a Superette in a van. Snow removal for a Superette must be done in the early hours of the morning. They should have the lot bladed by 9:00 a.m. so, therefore, unless there were snow removal trucks that had noise suppressers, there would be an awful lot of noise and there's only one way to get the snow removed and that is to blade it, pick it up, put it in a truck, and take it out. Another major problem that bothered Mr. Brochure was the traffic problem on 62nd and Winnetka. He said that on the corner of 62nd and Winnetka there was a bus stop and he felt they did not need any more traffic on this corner and he was bitterly opposed to more traffic. Mr. John Burke, 6133 Sumter Avenue, asked how far the fence would be from his garage. Mr. Stahl stated that he was not certain how far Mr. Burkes lot line was so at present he could not answer this. Mr. Burke then questioned the drainage. Would it be draining unto his property? Mr. Stahl assured Mr. Burke that there would be no drainage unto his property. Mr. Burke said that whenever there is a Superette there is also a lot of paper laying around and he was opposed to this. Planning Commission - l0 - June 5, 1973 Mi nutes Mrs. Mavis Jolberg, 6209 Winnetka asked if Mr. Olson was going to permanently own this property or if he planned to sell it. Mr. Olson replied that he was planning to own it permanently. Mrs. Jolberg then asked Mr. Olson if the laundry mat and Superette he planned on putting in would be open on Sunday. The reply was that it would be open Sundays, To this Mrs. Jolberg stated that the First Lutheran Church of Crystal was located on 62nd and Sumter and they have four church services there every Sunday and this would be a catch for all the children going to Sunday school. She was also opposed to the traffic situation as she has seen many accidents in the area. Mrs. Jolberg went on to state that the windows were facing 62nd which means they will look toward the Brooklyn Park side. She said that there were some neighbors who lived right across from there with two little children and she could not see all the windows, lights, and traffic coming towards those children. Pastor Dahlon, 61st and Winnetka stated that he was new to this area and did not know much about its history but would like to concur with some of the comments mainly with relation to the church, There were approximately 1,000 children in the Sunday school and this was a pretty busy area. He was wondering what the affect would be on the traffic in this area and in relation to the movement of the children back and forth. One basic concern was that, at the most, it was only about six blocks up to Highway 94 and only two blocks to West Broadway where there is a Superette. If you go south on Winnetka from Bass Lake Road to all the way down to 42nd you won't find one grocery store in that whole area. There are other business facilities but no grocery stores. Mr. Glen Haffa, 6132 Winnetka, stated that he lived next to this property and his feelings were pretty much the same as the rest. He felt it should be residential. Commissioner Fulton moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend approval of Planning Case 73-14 with the variance as required for the sign and the additional lighting if added would not exceed 8 feet in height. Motion carried on voice vote. 15. Planning Case No. 73-36 (Changes in Site Development - Shell Oil - 9400 - 36th Avenue North) Mr. Tom Mundorff, District Engineer for Shell Oil Company, St. Paul District, presented the petition including a site plan showing some Planning Commission - ll - June 5, 1973 Mi nutes major changes. Discussion held on the history of this site, the advantages and disadvantages of these changes. Commissioner Barniskis moved to recommend approval of planning case 73-36 with the exception that Item #1, a new directional sign proposed to lead to the car wash at the rear, be deleted, and only Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 be approved. Items 2-5 read as follows: 2) In place of the solid curb 100' long dividing station from the drive to Post Haste a boulevard, planting area to extend even with the building. 3) Removal of the divider at the 36th Avenue entrance. 4) A new planting area behind the building. 5) The area between the station and the drive is to be left open. The existing power pole is to be moved closer to the building and direction lines are to be painted on the paving, within the property line once the power pole is removed. The power pole must be removed. Commissioner Cameron second. Discussion was held also on the lighting. CommisSioner Oswald moved, second by Meyer, to amend the motion by in- serting the phrase that the circle and everything in it be taken out as should the pole light on the east. Low level lights in the curbing on the east and the west should be substituted. & Vote was taken on the amendment. Amendment carried on vOice vote. Vote taken on main motion as amended. Motion carried by voice vote. ll. Planning Case No. 73-32 ( Variance - Sign Ordinance - Signcrafters - 9'400 - 36th Avenue North) Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Barniskis, to table Planning Case 73-32 until the first meeting in July.' The petitioner is to present a sign plan cOmplete as to what Shell actually wanted for signs on the other site. Motion carried by voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 75-24 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Am Cal Construction - 42nd and Rhode Island (Held over from May 1, 1973) Commissioner Barniskis moved to take Case 73-24 off the table, second by Commissioner Ohman. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 12 - June 5, 1973 ~-- Minutes Mr. Larson stated that there is an easement across the two lots and this does provide rights for the properties involved. The lot situation had already been approved so the question was the easements. The Village was not a party to them and while the Village could not control the use it would be to the advantage of the public to require notice to the Village of any changes proposed. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Ohman, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Case 73-24 to the Council, providing the easement is amended so that notice is given to the Village within 60 days of any changes in the rights of any party to the easement. Motion carried on voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS 15. Review of Proposed "Par~king" Requirements Ordinance Discussion held on proposed parking ordinance. Mr. Larson reviewed the ordinance as to changes in single family requirements of the joint parking provisions - also definitions of shopping centers. After discLIssion the Commission organized that residential requirements should be considered and that the standard of one enclosed and two open spaces be used. There being no further changes the ordinance is ordered for public hearing in July. 16. Report on "Armory" Meeting Com, missioner Cameron reported on a meeting that he had called on the Armory question representatives of Crystal, New Hope and the General attended. Plymouth's representative was unable to attend because of illness. Little new information had been obtained. Mr. Cameron reviewed the basic proposal for the Commission. Following a short discussion Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Oswald to recommend to the Council that, while a National Guard Armory would have benefits for some communities, at the present stage of community development, the Village of New Hope does not desire to be included in any further planning or discussion concerning an Armory in the Village. Mainly the reasons are: l) No obviously suitable land is available to the Village. ~-~ Planning Commission - 13 - June 5, 1973 Minutes 2) The financial burden on the Village to acquire the land would be too great. 3) The mutual costs to the Village for such an Armory would not seem justifiable for the benefits received. Motion carried on voice vote. 17. Report on Administration of Review Committee Commissioner Herman presented the proposal that had been developed for the Design Review Committee of the Commission. The proposal included: Purpose: The Committee shall review all construction project proposals under the jurisdiction of the New Hope Planning Commission in excess of $10,000 in cost. They shall advise the proponents of these projects on matters of design, architectural harmony'and aesthetics only for the expressed purpose of influencing an imporved quality of design and planning in the Village of New Hope. Organization: The committee shall be comprised of three members of the Planning Commission and the Village Manager. The Committee would reserve the right to call upon other members of the community for special consultation when considered necessary. The Design Review Committee shall be organized as a special committee of the Planning Commission. It shall not assume any legal responsiblities on behalf of the Planning Commission but shall serve only in an advisory capacity to builders and developers. Written recommendations and comments shall be made to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the report from the Village Manager. A standard form listing required drawing submittals shall be on file at the village hall for distribution to, project applicants. It shall comprise the following: 1. Site Plan - Shall include site dimensions, building location and dimensions, spot finished grades sufficient to establish building level and drainage, bounding streets and Planning Commission - 14 - June 5, 1973 Minutes adjacent building locations and uses, signs, exterior lighting, location of access points, parking and loading areas and dimensions. 2. Landscape Plan - Shall indicate location, numbers, size and type of landscaping and plant materials. 3. Exterior Elevations Shall include four sides of the building, labeled North, South, East and West Elevation rendered and noted to show building materials; walls, windows doors, special features, etc. 4. Floor Plan - Shall include major floors of the building showing layout and dimensions, points of access for people and vehicles and, in general, building materials. Meetings: The Committee shall meet only as may be required to review project proposals at least 10 days prior to Planning Com- mission Meetings. Further, the burden of being scheduled for a Design Review will be that of the builder or de- veloper subject to direction by the Village Staff. The activities or meeting dates of the Design Review Committee shall in no way affect the schedule of Planning Commission meetings or cause their delay. ~-~ The three Commission members are to be Commissioners Herman, Cameron . and Fulton. The new committee is to become active for the July applications. In response to a question Mr. Larson stated he would present the new Committee studies to the Council at the next meeting so they would be informed. 18. Report of Land Use ComMittee Commissioner Cameron stated the land Use Committee had no report. Mr. Larson informed the Commission that proposals were being discussed by developers for the St. Regis area both sides of 42nd and 18 and on the way north of the New Hope Center. 19. Report of Liquor Committee Chairman Ostlund reported that the Liquor Committee had met the previous Planning Commission - 15 - June 5, 1973 Minutes evening with the major topic and discussion of the present operators with Mr. Luke. 20. Report of Codes and Standards Committee The Codes and Standards Committee had no report. Chairman Ostlund noted he was appointing Commissioner Fulton as Chairman with Commissioner Meyer resigning because he was running for the Village Council. REGULAR BUSINESS 21. Review of Council Minutes of May 14th and May 29th The Council minutes of May 14th and May 29th were reviewed. 22. Approval of ~Planning Commission Minutes of May 15th The Planning Commission minutes of May 15th were accepted on motion by Commissioner Meyer, second by Oswald, and carried on voice vote. 23. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff There were no comments from citizens. 24. Announcements Chairman Ostlund noted that Councilman Enck was working on some revisions to the Home Occupation proposals. He raised the question of if any changes would need to be referred to the Council. Mr. Larson stated Mr. Enck had indicated he intended to refer his proposal to the Commission further that major changes would need another "Legal" hearing. Chairman Ostlund then presented a letter from Commissioner Sueker by which Mr. Sueker submitted his resignation. On motion by Commissioner Meyer, second by Commissioner Ohman, the resignation was accepted- carried on voice vote. Discussion held on presenting a token of appreciation to Mr. Sueker. Commissioner Ohman was working on a gift and Mr. Larson was requested to look up the dates of service so they could be added. Discussion held on possible reductions in size of the Commission. Interest was shown by several .members in this action. No'formal action was taken with the matter being left for discussion at a later date. Chairman Ostlund noted one application for filing the position had been received. Planning Commission - 16 - June 5, 1973 ~-~ Minutes Chairman Ostlund reported on Gene's Texaco and the action that had been taken by the Council. No action by the Commission, but general expressions of concern regarding the continuing of the present operation. Chairman Ostlund then noted he had received complaints regarding the new PDnderosa/Zapata Resturant area. The lack of fencing, sod not replaced and grease being kept in barrels at the rear of the lot. Mr. Larson noted he would have the items checked. 25. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 12:21 a.m.. on mo~ion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Ohman Ca.r~e~ on voice vote Res~ec tfu 11 y ~bmi tted, 'Hariyn G. Larson Village Manager Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission. - 1 - July 3, 1973 Minutes 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 3, lg73 at the Village Hall, 4401 ×ylon Avenue North. 2. The .meeting was called to order by Chairman Osttund at 7:30 p.m. 3. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Barniskis, Fulton, Garin, Herman, Meyer, Ostlund andOswal~. Absent: Cameron and Ohman. {Commissioner Cameron had an excused absence and Commissioner Ohman entered at 7:32 p.m.}. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Plannin9 Case No. 73-26 {Variance - New Hope/Crystal Church of Christ - 5116 Boone Avenue North). Mr. Larson stated that the petitioner was not present. Discussion was held with the petitioner earlier indicated that there was no longer an interest in this request. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Garin, to deny Planning Case 73-26. Motion carried on voice'vote. 5. Planning Case No. 73-34 {Variance - Sign Ordinance - Signcrafters - 5600 Winnetka Avenue North). Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Meyer, to table Planning Case No. 73-34 until the first meeting in August. Motion was carried on voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 73-32 {Variance - Sign Ordinance - Signcrafters - 9400 - 36th Avenue North). Conmissioner Oswald moved, second by Meyer, to table Planning Case No. 73-32 until the first meeting in August. Motion carried on voice vote. 7. Planninq Case No. 73-37 {Variance - Garage Size - Hendrickson - 7215 - 62nd Avenue North}. Mr. Allen Hendrickson was present to represent this case and stated that he would like to build a new 20' X 24' detached garage behind his existing house and relocate his present existing single garage so that it will become the rear portion of this new garage, using t~le old garage as a workshop. Commissioner Barniskis asked Mr. Hendrickson if he would be agreeable to other alternatives, because in doing it this way he would be ruining a lot of his backyard as well as losing a good deal of it. Mr. Hendrickson replied that he had thought about different ways to do the project but he wanted to come into the driveway and pull into the garage from the side so he could back up and drive fo~ard, in other words he would like to be able to turn around in his backyard. When asked if he wanted, to lose that much of his yard, Mr. Hendrickson said he would have to. Discussion was held as to relocating the new garage in the area where the present garage was. Commissioner Herman commented that if the new garage was located in the area where the present garage was and if the driveway area was an L shape he could still come out the garage and back up like a turn around. Mr. Hendrickson replied that he could not do this as there was a tree there and they did not want to lose any of the trees. Chairman Ostlund asked if the neighbors had been notified. Mr. Larson replied they had. Commissioner Oswald asked if the proposed garage and the existing single garage when combined would have a similar looking construction or would they look like two completely different buildings that are just set end to end. Mr. Hendrickson said that from the front you won't be able to see the small one and from the side it would look like the two were together. The small garage and the larger garage will both have the same angle on the roof~ The siding will be similar and they will be connected. Commissioner Barniskis moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend to the Village Council approval of Planning Case 73-37, variance for an oversize garage. Motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Oswald commented that he would like to have the question of garage sizes referred to the Codes and Standards Committee. 8. Planning Case 73-38 (Special Use and Variances -United Hardware - 8201 - 54th Avenue North). Planning Commission - 2 - July 3, 1973 Minutes Mr. Earl Nye, warehouse manager, representing United Hardware, was present to discuss this case. Mr. Nye stated that they had just recently acquired a group of stores and this would create some problems internally as far as their space was concerned. They did not know about these additional stores until about eight weeks ago. There are only 24 stores. However, they represent a large amount of volume and a small amount of items. Most of the items they are interested in purchasing from United Hardware are bulky and require quite a bit of internal storage which they do not have now at the present time. What they propose to do in Phase I is construct a concrete slab, just like the floor in the present building now, fence it so they can store steel outside. This will free space inside so they can take care of the bulk which the new stores are going to require them to have. Phase II, in the spring of 1975, would be to finish the building. The reason they would like to do it in two phases is that the company was making some changes in organization. Mr. Nye stated that there would be a different personnel mix and internally they would be asking for different things so he did not know exactly, at this time, what their requirements would be. Mr. Nye said that by using the two phase plan they will eliminate some of their immediate storage problems and give some extra time to plan the construction of the building. Mr. Nye stated that in Phase I they would like to come out five bays, including excavation for a truck bay to match up with their present truck bay and put in the slab, fence it and store their steel ~utside, asphalting, the front of the truck dock so they can have access to this fenced in dock area. Phase II would be to come out one more bay which is 28 feet, dig in the west wall footing, put their finished brick wall on the west side, finish the docks, hand the bar joints, put the roof over, and pav6 the west side for parking. Commissioner Fulton questioned as to who owned the land to the west. Mr. Nye stated that Soo Line Railroad Development Corporation did. Mr. Nye commented that at the present time they were very light in store services and their new president was very heavy on store services. Store services defined as being store design or layout work. For example right now they did not have anyone in store design but will have. They had no drafing table, etc. and eventually will have. How many they did not know at the present. They want some time to think out the process. Commissioner Fulton asked if the proposed addition would be only warehouse use. If it would just be that, their present warehouse might be converte~ he failed to see why Mr. Nye couldn't go ahead and build the actual addition at this time. Mr. Nye stated they need some storage space before January 1st and could not get it that fast if the building was to be constructed. Commissioner Fulton then co~ented that it se6med that this whole site would be devoted to building, parking concrete and structure. He asked Mr. Nye if there was any special screening they would be using to hide this from residential homes along Yukon and Xylon. Mr. Nye replied there would be a fence across the dock area with metal slats which would hide what was behind it, so that a person could not look through. It will be a permanent dock area. Commissioner Barniskis asked if they were going to move trucks out of their present bays into that area. Mr. Nye said that this would be a service area so they can unload there. There will be no extra trucks. When asked about the storage of steel Mr. Nye replied that it would be the 10' pipe, 21' pipe, soil pipe and some plastics. They are stored on pipe racks and there will be two dr.iveaay isles down the middle. No equipment, including trucks, will be stored outside. Chairman Ostlund commented that this was far too big for the property and United Hardware was way over- using the property. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Nye if this was the corporate headquarters of United Hardware. Mr. Nye stated that it was and all executive offices as well as all their warehousing were in this building. When asked if it was possible to split the offices and warehouse, having their warehousing in one location and offices i~ another, Mr. Nye stated that this would be inconvenient. Asked if any thought had been given to seeking additional warehouse space, Mr.~ Nye replied that they were right now, in other locations, and they would like to contain it all on this one piece of property. When another warehouse is built it will be in another city in another state. Commissioner Meyer asked how long a range of a plan this would be, if they added on would it meet their needs until 1975 or how far beyond this would it go. Mr. Nye replied that they would probably satisfy their needs in this area until 1978. After that they would have to put up another building in some other state. Commissioner Oswald asked if when the addition was complete, if approved, constructed and finished in 1975 what the height of the front wall would they expect to have at that point and what would be the roofing height. Mr. Nye said the inside roof height would be 20' and the dock area about 16'. Mrs. Virginia Preston, 5411 Virginia Avenue North, stated that she would like to see the Village ordinances enforced. Planning Conmission - 3 - July 3, lg73 Mi nutes Commissioner Barniskis questioned the parking. United Hardware would need 435 parking spaces to do this and they have 309. When Mr. Nye was asked how many employees he had in the building now he re- plied about 225 counting two shifts with a maximum of 180 cars at any one time. Commissioner Garin asked how many cars Mr. Nye would forsee at any one time with the new addition. Mr. Nye said around 280 - 300 at the maximum. They will be going into a three shift operation where- as they are presently on a two shift operation. Motion by Commissioner Meyer, second by Commissioner Herman, to deny Planning Case 73-38 based on the fact that it does not meet the present ordinance as far as lot coverage, green area and parking are concerned. Motion for denial carried by voice vote. g. Planninq Case 73-39 (Amendment to Text - Training Schools - Minnesota Fabrics). Mr. Bob Meeker, Minnesota Fabrics was here to represent this case. Mr. Meeker stated that their re- quest was to have training schools in their retail store. Commissioner Garin asked if these upholstery classes that Mr. Meeker ran were open to the public. Mr. Meeker replied that they were. Commissioner Barniskis asked what was the rel ationshop of the training area to the retail and office area. Mr. Meeker replied that it would be part of the present retail operation, separated by walls. ~he parking situation was questioned. Mr. Meeker stated that a maximum of 15 people was all that they would allow in a class. There would he two classes on Saturday and two classes during the weekday plus one in the evening lO:O0 p.m. being the latest. Mr. Meeker said that the student would bring their own materials and merchandise to work on and there is a gentlement in charge who goes around, answers questions and shows them how to do it. Commissioner Oswald asked about the trucks. Mr. Meeker stated that they were parked on the north side and are not parked in the front. There is a loading dock on the north side of the building. Asked if they were parked on weekends and nights on the west side M~. Meeker stated that he could not answer that, but they would look into this. Commissioner Barniskis moved, second by Oswald, to recommend to the Village Council approval of Planning Case 73-39 with the stipulation that the amendment to the zoning code come under the special use permit provision and that the word "process" to include manufacturing be added to the amendment. Motion carried on voice vote. 10. Planninq Case No. 73-40 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Village of New Hope - 49th Avenue at Flag Extended). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Garin, to table Planning Case No. 73-40 until later in the meeting. Motion carried by voice vote. ll. Planninq Case No. 73-41 (Amendment to Text - Parking Regulation - Planning Commission). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Garin, to table Planning Case No. 73-41 until later in the meeting. Motion carried on voice vote. 12. Planning Case No. 73-42 (Variance - Garage - Anderson - 4052 Nevada Avenue North). Mr. Ronald Anderson was present to discuss this case stating that he had a lot on 4052 Nevada the dimensions being 75' X 120' and what he proposed to do was build a detached garage at the rear, 22' X 26' with an L shape extension for storage. The basic objective to provide space. He presently has a single car garage and now has three cars. A concrete driveway is proposed which will blend in with the existing concrete driveway from the street up to the garage and run up along the north boundary line to blend in with the south wall of the garage. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Anderson if he would have a work pit in the garage. Mr. Anderson replied yes, that he would like to have a work pit. However, it would not be in the L shaped area it would be in the southern bay of this garage. Discussion was held as to if work pits were legal. Asked if there was a prohibition against work pits would he still want one. Mr. Anderson said no, he would abide by the regulations and comply with the ordinances if there were any. He would want his garage as proposed with or without the pit. Planning Commission - 4 - July 3, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Fulton stated that there was a tree and a shrub in front of Mr. Anderson's house where the proposed driveway was to go and he was wondering if Mr. Anderson was going to take these out. Mr. Anderson stated that the shrub would have to be relocated, however, the tree would be all right left where it was as the driveway would come to within about six feet of it. There is a single car garage there now and the intention would be that within three years to eliminate the single car garage and reface the front of the building converting the garage into living quarters. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Anderson if he had studied any other alternatives for the garage location on his property besides the one he has shown tonight. Mr. Anderson replied yes he had, but he liked this one best. He preferred not to go up the south boundary because of a very large Swedish Pine, plus an apple tree, each about 30 feet high located there. Adjacent to the patio on the same side was a pine tree 25 feet tall. Therefore, he would have to bear an additional cost of removing these trees before starting construction. Secondly, it would eliminate the need for the existing concrete drive- way which would mean an additional cost of removing the existing driveway and replacing it with sod. The estimated cost for removal of trees and replacing the driveway would run around $1,800, more than just adding onto his existing drive. Mr. Anderson's neighbor to the northeast corner was present to comment on the case. Ne felt it would devalue his property. Mr. Clayton Meese, 4046 Nevada Avenue North, also a neighbor of Mr. Anderson, stated that with the driveway that close to his property all the cars will be dragging the salt snow into his driveway during the winter season. He would like to see'a privacy fence put up to keep off the snow. Commissioner Meyer asked when Mr. Anderson would tike to begin construction. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to complete this before the snow came. Discussion was held as to backing up of a car in a 24 foot area. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case 73-42 until the first meeting in August in order that Mr. Anderson and his neighbors could come to agreement on a specific plan. Motion carried by voice vote. 13. Planning Case 73-43 (Approval of Preliminary Plat - Gilbert Mork - 36th and Flag Avenue). Mr. Link Hamilton, Brook Park Realty, was present to represent Mr. Gilbert Mork and discuss this case. Mr. Hamilton stated that they felt this was the best plan for this property in order to save the exist- ing house and develop usable lots on Flag. Commissioner Barniskis asked how you would exit from the Flag lots. Commissioner Barniskis asked if it would be possible to split the property three ways instead of four or split the property into only two lots. Mr. Hamilton replied that it would be a real financial hardship to the owner to split the property into three lots instead of four. Discussion was held as to preserving the trees on these lots. Commissioner Fulton commented that he felt this was a very unique terrain and it would seem to him to be worthwhile to keep it in the ,Village. Commissioner Barniskis moved, second by Garin, to recommend to the Village Council approval of Planning Case 73-43, approval of the preliminary plat as presented. Motion was carried on voice vote with Chairman Ostlund being opposed. 14. Planning Case No. 73-44 {Variance - Sign Ordinance - Fotomat - 4239 Winnetka Avenue North). A representative of Fotomat stated that the building was up and operating but they needed a sign. After presenting a picture of the sign and discussion as to whether it was a mansord roof or not, Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Garin, for approval, of Planning Case No. 73-44 in accepting the variances requested for the installation of the signs as detailed and also because of the unusual size of the building and also accepting as a mansord roof. Motion carried on voice vote. 15. Planning Case No. 73-45 {Variance - Sign Ordinance - Church of Christ - 5116 Boone Avenue North). -. A representative of the church stated that they would like a sign varince for the church sign which' ~' .: was planned when the church was opened. The footings for this sign were put in when the church was ~ '~ originally built. It has taken them some time to collect enough money for a decent sign and buy some .~. : bricks. The sign is a 32 square foot sign and the temporary sign which now exists will be taken down. Commissioner Garin moved, second by Fulton, for appKoval of Planning Case '73-45 on the basis that the petitioner will not be requesting a second sign. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 5 - July 3, 1973 Minutes 16. Planning Case No. 73-46 (Amendment to Text - Dry Cleaning-- Heskin Associates, Inc.). Mr. Ron Heskin, representing Heskin and Associates, Inc., was present to discuss this case. Mr. Heskin stated that they were a three state sales dealer for one hour martinizing dry cleaning shops. Mr. Heskin went on to state that they presently had a shop with PDQ on 58th and Lyndale and they have found that the location is not adequate for their needs. PDQ contacted Heskin and Associates to notify them that they had a location on Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road next to a Mini Mart there and they would be willing to transfer the lease. Mr. Heskin said that after checking a zoning map they saw no problems as there was a dry cleaning shop across the street in the same type of zoning - R.B. Prior to coming in and making-their actual move, which will cost them $68,000, they came in for a final check to be sure everything was in order. They found that the shop across the street is operating illegally and that they would need to have a change in the zoning ordinance if they were to operate. Mr, Heskin then proceeded to read to the Commission from the National Fire Protection Association Bulletin on dry cleaning plants. He said that they had four different classes of dry cleaning plants which were: 1). Class I solvents - flammable liquids having a flash point below 100 degrees Fahrenheit, 2). Class II solvents - flammable liquids having a flash point at or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit and below 140 degrees Fahrenheit, 3). Class 3A solvents - combustible liquids having a flash point at or above t40 degrees Fahrenheit and below 200 degrees Fahrenheit and 4}. Class IV solvents - liquids classified as non-flammable. He stated that Class IV was what they were concerned with. Mr. Heskin commented that perchloride ethylene was the material used to clean in the machine. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Garin, for approval of Planning Case 73-46, amendment to text of Zoning Ordinance which reads as fo)lows: "Laundry aQd Dry cleaning provided the process used meets requirements of the fire prevention code for use in buildings with other occupancies". Motion carried on voice vote. 17. Planning Case No. 73-47 (Approval of Plat - Alan Peterson - 32nd and Boone Avenue North). Mr. Larson presented the plans. Commissioner Barniskis, moved, second by Oswald, for approval of Planning Case No. 73-47. Motion carried on voice vote. 18. Planning Case No. 73-48 (Approval of Site Plan - Building - Benson-Orth - 4700 Quebec Avenue North). Mr. Ken Benson presented the petition stating they had such a large front setback because they need immediate rail access. In the future it was planned to expand to the front with a 7,800 square foot addition. Commissioner Herman commented that the only real problem was the trash situation and when discussed at the Design Review Board there was no real positive answer to this situation. Mr. Benson said the industry, which is White's, Inc., is a wholesale building material house. It sells rubber base, ceiling tiles, etc. Basically everything is in cartons. It is received that way, stored that way and sold that way, so hopefully, there will be a minimum trash factor involved. He felt a warehouse operation was cleaner than manufacturing type facility. Commissioner Barniskis questioned the mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Benson stated the mechanical equipment would be unit heaters on the warehouse. There will be nothing other than this sticking up from the roof. Mr. Benson stated that the entire lot will be sodded. Commissioner Barniskis asked if the driveway width was adequate. Commissioner Herman said that the Design Review Board had talked about this. They had questioned the turn around at the rear and were told that it would be adequate with the type of vehicles they were using. It would be no problem if not used as parking. Mr. Benson stated that a good deal of the receivables would be by rail, and therefore, no outside storage. Commissioner Herman moved, second by Garin, for approval of Planning Case 73-48. Motion carried on voice vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:lO for three minutes by Chairman Ostlund. Planning Commission- - 6 - July 3, 1973 Mi nuteS 10. Planning Case No. 73-40 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance -.Village of New Hope - 49th Avenue at Flag Extended}. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Oswald, for approval of Planning Case 73-40. Motion carried on voice vote. ll. Planninq Case No. 73-41 {Amendment to Text - Parking Regulation - Planning Commission}. The proposed adoption of new parking requirements was reviewed by the Commission. Questions regarding the space width were raised. Section I, Subd. (4) Parking Space Standards were amended to read as follows: Angle Space Width 90 (Two-Way) 9 Feet 60 (One-Way} 9 Feet 45 (One-Way) 9 Feet 0 (Parallel} l0 Feet Section 2, Subd. {8) Off-Street Spaces Required (One space equals 300 square feet). A. Single Family Residence - one enclosed space and one open space. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Fulton, to recommend to the Council approval of the amendment in parking requirements as amended above. Motion carried on voice vote. COld, II TTEE REPORTS lg. Report of Liquor Committee Chairman Ostlund commented that the Village had a $50,000 drop in sales which represents a $10,000 drop in profit. There was an increase in prices in the on sale. Comparison prices were registered between the surrounding communities of equal type establishments which justified the increase. Additional changes are being looked at. 20. Report of Land Use Committee Commissioner Barniskis stated that there was no report from this committee. 21. Report of Codes and Standards Committee Commissioner Fulton reported on the June 19th meeting with the Council and outlined the work schedule of the committee. Special use provisions for home occupations, sign ordinance review and animal con- trol were three major work itmes. 22. The Council minutes of June 25, 1973 were reviewed. 23. The June 5th Planning Commission minutes were accepted on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Garin, and carried on voice vote. 24. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff. Garbage ordinance was discussed briefly. The reduction of the size of the Planning Commission was also discussed. Chairman Ostlund commented that the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Industrial Commission, Youth Commission and Environmental Commission are to be invited to a meeting with the Commission to discuss their participation in planning agenda -'terns. The question as to whether the sales and storage of outside materials at the Green Giant Garden Center was permitted this year was raised. Chairman Ostlund con~nented that they were starting to do this. Mr. Larson said he would check into the matter. 25. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Garin at 11:27 p.m. and carried on voice vote. enise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - August 7, 1973 Mi nutes A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 7, 1973 at the Village Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North at 7:30 p.m. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Cameron, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund and Oswald. ~sent: Barniskis, Fulton, Garin and Herman. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 73-34 {Variance - Sign Ordinance - Signcrafters - 5600 Winnetka Avenue North). Mr. Larson stated that the petitioner was not present and he had not heard from them. Commissioner Meyer moved, second.by Commissioner Cameron, to deny Planning Case No. 73-34. Vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Cameron, Meyer and Ohman. Voting against: Oswald and Ostlund. 4. Planning Case No. 73-32 (Variance - Sign Ordinance - Signcrafters - 9400 - 36th Avenue North). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to deny Planning Case No. 73-32. Voting in favor: Cameron, Meyer and Ohman. Voting against: Oswald and Ostlund. 5. Planning Case No. 73-42 (Variance - Garage - Anderson - 4052 Nevada Avenue North}. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to table Planning Case 73-42 until later in the meeting. Motion carried on voice vote. 6. Planninq Case No. 73-49 (Special Use Permit - Minnesota Fabrics - 5600 County Road #18). Mr. Ed Anderson representing Minnesota Fabrics was present to discuss this case. -Mr. Anderson stated that they were applying for a special use permit for their training school. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Anderson what type of school they were running. Mr. Anderson replied that there would be from one to 15 people in it. Upholstery of chairs and couches is taught. It would be non- profit. When asked what the hours of operation would be Mr. Anderson replied that they had morning, afternoon and evening classes up until lO:O0 p.m. These classes met periodically through the week depend- lng on how many people sign up for the classes. Commissioner Meyer then asked if these classes would be held continually throughout the year. Mr. Anderson stated that, yes, they would be. Chairman Ostlund asked how Mr. Anderson got his customers. Mr. Anderson stated that they sign up when they come into their store. They do not necessarily have to be a customer or purchase material in their store. Commissioner Meyer questioned as to whether it was only "in" store promotion. Mr. Anderson said that some- times there are advertisements in the local shopper's guide for the school they have. Chairm~n'Ostlund asked if there was any government support as far as teaching. Mr. Anderson replied that theresa§ no government aid. When asked if Minnesota Fabrics built upholstery on their own, Mr. Anderson's .mePlY"Wa~-Chat they did not. The expert for teachi.ng.this was hired;, he would work five days a week going to these different classes when he was needed. No more than 15 peoPie can attend one class. The number of classes required before a student accomplishes upholstering depends on how long it takes him to finish his project. When. they finish this project their classroom ~ctivity is over. When asked if'students were obligated to purchase materials from Minnesota Fabrics Mr. Anderson replied that they were not. They may use their own materials if desired. Students taking these courses are charged $3.00 or S4.00 per session. Each time they come they must pay this amount or fee. Each session is three hours. No discount is given if materials are bought from Minnesota Fabrics and the fee does not include materials. Materials must. be bought extra. The chair or couch that a student is working on is left right at the training schoQ1 until it is finished. Comnissioner Cameron asked how many classes would be going on at any one time. Mr. Anderson replied just one. There would not be three classes going at a time and even if each person drove their own car there would not be more than 15 cars at any one time. Planning Commission - 2 - August 7, 1973 Minutes Commissioner Meyer asked if Mr, Anderson was conducting these classes right now, Mr. Anderson replied that they were being conducted. When asked how long they had been conducting them Mr. Anderson replied two or three months. Commissioner Oswald questioned the parking of semi trucks in front of the store. He noted that at the last meeting when Mr. Meeker was before the Commission, Mr. Meeker said that he would look into the problem of trucks parking in front of the building advertising the store. Commissioner Oswald stated that Saturday night and Monday night there was a semi parked directly in front of the store and he would vote against any additional variances or permit until the truck parking was under control. Commissioner Cameron asked if this was Minnesota Fabric's home base. Mr. Anderson replied that it was. Commissioner Cameron then asked if Mr. Anderson had seen many semi's parked or left out. Mr. Anderson replied that he had not. Commissioner Owald moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 73-49 until the first meeting of September in order to receive an answer on the truck parking. Motion carried by voice vote. 7. P.lannin9 Case No. 73-50 (Special Use Permit - John Gronholm - 8409 North Meadow Lake Road). Mr. John Gronholm, the petitioner, stated that he was applying for a special use permit for part time sales and s. ervifes of all terrain vehicles in his garage in a residential area. Commissioner Meyer asked what Mr. Gronholm meant by all terrain vehicles. Mr. Gronholm stated that all terrain vehicles were small plastic bodies vehicles that run on six soft rubber tires capable of going through swamps, sand, etc. Commissioner Meyer asked if Mr. Gronholm received these at his home by a trailer. Mr. Gronholm said this was correct. They are not parked outside, and he usually works on one or two at a time. He owns two machines which he uses for demonstrators and he does not store any new machines. Some parts are stored in his garage, however. When asked how long Mr~ Gronholm had been doing. this type of business, Mr. Gronholm replied that he had moved back to his house l~st fall and at that time " did not know it was a violation of the code. Mr. Gronhotm stated that he had found out from the Building Inspector. Chairman Ostlund asked what type of engines were used. Mr. Gronholm said he used regular snowmobile . ~ engines. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Gronholm if he worked on these every night. Mr. Gronholm said that this would defend on the business. He stated that the all terrain business was very slow. Some weeks he might work on one every night the next few weeks he might not work on any. Asked if people brought these to him-or Jf they would just simply call him and he would pick them up, Mr. Gronholm stated that people both bring them to him and he picks some up. In a week's time, depending on sales, and what happens, approximately three cars a week come to his home and leave. Mr. Gronholm does not buy from customers or take trade-ins as his business is not that big yet. Business is strictly on order only. Asked how things were delivered Mr. Gronholm replied by semi's or vans. It depends if they come by factory truck or a common carrier. They are delivered to his garage, where he stores them inside. Day time deliveries are not accepted at the house. Commissioner Cameron asked if Mr. Gronholm road tested any of these vehicles in any way once they were delivered to his home. Mr. Gronholm stated that once in a while he would take them out in his back yard on his own property. When asked if these engines were as noisy as snowmobile engines, Mr. Gronholm said they were comparable. Mr. Gronholm also stated that he had had no complaints as far as noise goes, to him personally, from any of his neighbors. Commissioner Cameron asked if any vehicles were stored within the home other than his own. Mr. Gronholm stated that if he had someone's machine he was working on he would store it there until it was finished. Asked where he stored his parts, Mr. Gronholm replied in his garage, He has put in extra shelving where he stores these extra parts. Mr. Gronholm said that his family has two personal cars and they have a two car garage. Normally one care is kept outside in the ~einter, During the summer his wife is usually gone so there is only one car. It is a year round opera- tion. Advertisement in the paper under all terrain vehicles during the spring and fall is his way of letting people know of his operation, as well as entering the camping show in February. 'Commissioner Cameron asked what would happen to his business if the permit was denied. Mr. Gronholm said he would either have to dissolve it or try to find a new location. Mr. Gronholm when asked how hard this woutd be replied that it would be very difficult. Even renting out space in a service station is expensive. Chairman Ostlund commented that truck deliveries and noise were of main importance to him. Mr. Gronholm stated that he might have a delivery once a week and as far as running the machines, he doesn't run them maybe more than a couple times a week and it is usually before 8:00 p.m. If his neighbors wanted a stipu- ~ lation that he only run them certain hours such as between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. then he was willing to abide by this. Planning Commission - 3 - August 7, 1973 Mi nu tes Commissioner Meyer questioned as to whether Mr. Gronholm had anyone helping him out with his business, any employees. Mr. Gronholm said that there was no one else helping him. He did all his work on his own. When asked how big a businss he would like to have, Mr. Gronholm replied that he would like to become big enough so that he could have his own shop and expand into a further recreation area of snowmobiles, boats, etc. on a full time basis. Whatever he can afford. Commissioner Meyer asked what the effect would be if truck deliveries were limited. Mr. Gronholm stated that he could arrange to pick up freight at the freight office. Asked if there was a possibility of re- modeling his garage so that his work was all done in an enclosed area and somehow sound proof it, plus have the proper exhaust system~ so that he could conduct his business inside his garage without sound factors annoying the neighbors, Mr. Gronholm said that he did not feel the sound would affect his neighbors that much. In the summer his operation is conducted with the garage open. However, the engines are no~ run for long periods of time. Mr. Gronholm said that remodeling could be done but it would mean more money involved and he was trying to hold finances down as much as possible. Mr. Beryl J. Jette, 8100 - 59th Avenue North, was also here concerning this case. Mr. Jette stated that they had moved into New Hope some time ago and he 'had found New Hope to be the noisiest neighborhood they have lived in compared to previous homes they have occupied. He said that an accumulation of it was a num- ber of things such as motorcycles and the people who repaired their cars on Sunday afternoons in their garages, however, and not just this particular case. Mr. Gronholm commented that if he had to he could take the vehicles and tune them outside the area. Not running them at all in the neighborhood. Commissioner Cameron moved to deny Planning Case No. 73-50, request for a special use pemit for home occupation. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 73-50 until the first meeting in September. Motion failed for lack of majority vote. Commissioner Cameron moved for denial of Planning Case No. 73-50. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, for denial of Planning Case No. 73-50. Roll call vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Cameron, Ostlund, and Oswald. Voting against: Meyer and Ohman. Motion carried on majority vote. 8. Planning Case No. 73-5t (Variance - Side Yard - Richard Rabe - 3625 Boone Avenue North). Mr. Richard Rabe was p.resent to request a variance for a side yard setback in order to construct a garage within five feet of Boone Avenue. Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Rabe why he had decided to put his garage on' the Boone side of the house. Mr. Rabe stated that he had talked to the Inspector in regards to constructing on the west end of the house but he was advised that there was a 14 or 15 foot easement that comes into his property. The Village Inspector would give Mr. Rabe a permit on the provision that he would not park in his driveway. The easement would be towards the cul-de-sac. Mr. Rabe said he was trying to get away from backing onto Boone Avenue. Commission Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Rabe if he would have any serious objections to placing his garage to the west of his home. Mr. Rabe replied that this was his original intent and he had no serious objections. Mr. Rabe said that his intention, providing the variance was granted, would be to create a new driveway exiting into the Circle. The garage would not be an attached garage. Mr. Rabe has two cars. Asked if he intended to keep both cars inside the garage if it were to be a double garage Mr. Rabe replied that normally he would, however, from time to time he would have company would would need to park outside. Further discussion was held as to whether the garage would be placed on the west side. Mr. Rabe stated that his neighbor had no objections as to where the garage was located. Mr. Rabe said his biggest con- cern was the overnight parking on his driveway. Chairman Ostlund questioned ~nether Mr. Rabe would build this. garage himself or have it done by a builder. Mr. Rabe replied that he would probably have a builder. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Meyer, tO table Planning'case No]'~3Z;5f, variance ih side yard setback until the first meeting in September. Motion carried on voice vote. 9. Planning Case No. 73-52 (Variance - Side Yard - Wayne Christensen - 3436 Yukon Avenue North). Planning. Commission - 4 - August 7, 1973 Minutes Mr. Wayne Christensen was present to discuss this case. Mr. Christensen said that they were going to put a patio on the back of their garage. It would actually be.a slab this year but they did have thoughts of making it a screened in porch. In talking to the Village he found that footings were needed for the screening and it would encroach on the side yard. Mr. Christensen would like to get the footings and slab which would be 16 X 20 in now and then when economics justify they would put in a screened in porch. The porch would not be a year round use, there may be combination windows but there will be no heat. The neighbors have been notified and there were no comments or objections. Conmissioner Cameron asked if there was any possibility of moving the slab over four feet. Mr. Christensen commented that the house juts out approximately 18 inches and while there probably would not be any problem moving the slab over but he would prefer not to. Commissioner Oswald asked if it would change Mr. Christensen's affect of the room substantially if there were limited or no windows on the west side. Mr. Christensen replied that they had talked about this also and they would prefer to have the porch left open since the idea was a screened in porch. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, for approval of Planning Case No. 73-52. Motion carried on voice vote. lO. Planning Case No. 73-53 (Var.iance - Oversized Garage - Cliff Helling - 4649 Gettysburg Avenue North). Mr, Cliff Helling, petitioner, stated that he would like to enlarge the back of his garage for cars and storage. The same builder that built the home will be building this addition, therefore, the gable woof. will be the same as the house; same angle and roof line. There will be a 9 foot door into the extension.. and a nine foot door into the back yard. The new area will be heated but not the old garage area... /Lsked why Mr. Helling needed a 9 foot door into his back yard Mr. Helling replied that if they had parties they would like to be able to have that area right onto the patio. Also it is a quiet private place to work on things. Asked what type of uses this addition would be used for, Mr. Helling replied that in the gable part which would be the same angle as the house there would be some room for storage. The main use of the area would be to work on his hobby and the storage of an old car. Mr. Helling commented that his bobby was working on antique cars. No pit wilt be installed. There will be no noise factor, as no engine work is being done. It will be mostly restoration of the cars. No commercial work will be done. It is strictly for his enjoyment. There are also no objections from his neighbors. . ~-~' Motion by Commissioner .Meyer, second by Commissioner Oswald, for approval of Planning Case No. 73-53, variance to permit garage of over 700 square feet. Motion carried by voice vote. 11. Planning Case No. 73-54 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Knutson/Coachman - Science Industry Center). Mr. J. D. Smith, Vice-President of the Knutson Company, was present to represent this case. Mr. Smith stated that back in the late 50's when the Science Industry Center was subdivided they created a Lot t, Block 2 which was approximately 12 acres in size. Since that time they have conveyed two tracts of ap- . proximately three acres by metes and bounds and on both occasions have obtained a waiver of subdivision from the Village of New Hope, They have six acres remaining in Lot 1, Block 2. Apparently two acres of whiCh.'~hey are selling to the Coachman Corporation of Omaha, Nebraska. Mr. Smith stated that they were requesting that the Planning Commission grant them a waiver of subdivision on this conveyance pursuant to the provision for 5.81 of the code. Commissioner Oswald asked if the building proposed would be in conformance with the small size of the lot. Mr. Smith replied that it would be according to the plans he has seen. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend to the Village Council approval of Planning Case No. 73-54, waiver of platting ordinance. Motion carried on voice vote. 12. Planning Case No. 73-55 (Variance - Sign Ordinance - Park Department). Mr. Harlyn G. Larson, Village Manager of the Village of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, was present to discuss this case. Mr. Larson stated that the Park Department had prepared redwood signs for all Village park sites. They began putting them up when it was pointed out that the new sign ordinance provides that all municipal signs must be set back at least 1/2 the minimum setback for the zoning district. The signs had been designed small to be set near the Froperty line. Setting them back into the site would be against the public interest since it would make them difficult to read both because of size and their location. The signs are perpendicular to the street so they are visible from both ways. Height was questioned. ~_~ Commissioner Ohman commented that the pointed end on these signs would seem to be dangerous. There are a maximum of 15 signs and the Park Department would like to put them as close to the property line as they can. Planning Commission - 5 - August 7, 1973 Minutes Conmissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, for approval of Planning Case No. 73-55 with the stipulation that the Park Department will install them so the height will not cause problems for bike riders and pedestrians. Motion carried on voice vote. 13. Plannin9 Case No. 73-56 (Rezoning - Variance - Building - Natalie Stuhr - Wisconsin and Bass LaKe Road). Mr. and Mrs. Stuhr,_5635 Wisconsin Avenue North, petitioners on this request, stated that on their adjoin- ing property they would like to put a building. In order to do so they need a variance and rezoning. The property in question is presently zoned MR they would like to have a retail business and office there. Part of the building would be a sewing machine and vaccuum repair service. Commissioner Meyer asked if there were any other proposed uses for this'other than sewing machine and vaccuum repair service. Mr. Stuhr replied that they would have about 1/8 of the office space. It is a two story building and the rest of the space would be for rent. One more parking space than' needed has been gained. All spaces.will be usable. The exterior material of the building will be break off brick's' on all four sides. . ~ ..- Commissioner Cameron commented that there was 11,000 square feet of asphal~ ~n a 21,000 square lot. Some green space has been added and exterior lighting, as well as dumpsters behind a retaining wall. Chairman Ostlund questioned the justification for rezoning. The lot has been zoned MR for about four years. Chairman Ostlund asked if they couldn't get financing for the apartment building and therefore, justifying that the property was zoned in error. Mr. Stuhr said this was correct. Mr. Stuhr's reasoning for the request for rezoning was significant change in the existing zoning in the area due to the LB east of Wisconsin. Mrs. Stuhr commented that they were hoping to rezone it so they could establish a full time business. Discussion held as to zoning LB. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Chairman Ostlund, to table Planning Case No. 73-56 until the first meeting in September. .Motion carried on voice vote. 14. Planning Case No. 73-57 (Development Approval - Rauenhorst - Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg). Mr. Ray Rauch representing Rauenhorst Corporation stated that his company was working with the Prudential Life Insurance Company in development of an office building north of Bass Lake Road andwest of Gettysburg Avenue. A site plan was presented showing the existing zoning. G.B. is on the east, LB on the west side of the subject property. The total site is approximately 6.5 acres. Mr. Rauch stated that they had met with the Design and Review Committee and gone over the site plan, etc. The property is currently under option. The proposed building is approximately 50,000 square feet. It will be an office, records, storage building. Prudential plans on moving all their records, files, tapes, etc. out to this particular area. These records will be from a building they are currently running in St. Louis Park. Approximately 40 - 50 employees will occupy the building on an eight hour shift from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. The dock entrance shown will handle the deliveries with deliveries about every hour. There was shown enough parking for about 45- 50 cars with future expansion available. It will be a one storm building, 14 feet high throughout. Mrs. Eichenberger, 9241 - 59th Avenue North, was concerned about how far over the building would be as there were several trees between her house and the proposed site. Mr. David Sorenson, 9315 - 59th Avenue North, asked how the site drainage would be handled. Mr. Rauch presented a plan showing the grading and elevations of the building. The current building elevation is 905. Drainage would drain through the parking lot into a storm drain where it will go out to County Road #18. A question was raised if there would be direct drainage or a ponding area. Prudential may want to.see the building raised five to ten feet, in order to present a better view from County Road #10. Parking lot drainage will be underground by pipes, hQwever, final drainage is subject to the Village Engineer's approval. Mr. Rauch commented that there were quite a few sick trees in the area and a few of them have to come out, however, they will try to replace them with some other kind of shrub or tree. .Planning Commission - 6 - August 7, 1973 Mi n utes A few Elms are catching the Elm Disease ~nd several of the Cottonwoods were not worth saving. A good strong wind will eventually knock them down. Some of the trees can be saved, however, and the ones that they will try to save. The floor plan and elevation plan were then submitted for reviewal before the Planning Commission and citizens. The majority of the floor plan is all files, there is a dining area with vending machines, dock area and storage area for films and tapes. The building will be totally air conditioned with floor and ceiling tile throughout the building. General office areas as welt as the dining area is carpeted. Elevation is 14 feet from the top to the bottom. Four air conditioning units are on the roof totally screened with l" X 6" redwood vertical wood. Mr, Rauch stated that they had talked to the Design and Re- viewCommittee as to how they would handle the area they wanted to look like windows. Their architect has decided on brick in place of the glass. Prudential has cut down on a number of windows in the dining area. The reason is mostly because of Security. No signing is shown. Mr. Rauch commented though that even though there was no signing Prudential would probably want some sort of identification. Berms for screening will also be used. Several kinds of trees will be included in the landscaping. Among these are Austrian Pine, 78' tall, Colorado Spruce, Green Ash, American Lindin, Silver Maple and Apple trees. There is only one access which is from Gettysburg Avenue. The drainage off of the lots on 59th Avenue is to the south of the lot. In the berm area provision will need to be made to permit the natural drainage of the residential lot area. Mr. Ron Ryan from Rauenhorst Corporation stated that the storm sewer system they intend to install is going to be required at any elevation they set the building below 908. They are intending a 905 or 906 so the storm sewer system will have to be installed. On the northwest portion of the site a ponding area may be developed. Mr, S~renson commented that his main concern was the drainage. He stated that they already had a problem i~ ~is area with drainage, high water and water in the neighbor's basements. Right now part of this ~-~ p[~!i~'ty dranns to the east and part of it drains to the west. Under this proposal the whole thing will dra~? to the lower area. Mr. Ryan stated that they had a flow line of 980, however, their flow line is at the bottom of the valley which makes for a natural ponding area. Mr. James Olson, 9209 - 59th Avenue North, asked if there was only one drainage inlet off the back of the building. Mr. Ryan replied that there was. The elevation information was taken from an on-site survey. Mrs. Eichenberger asked when construction would start and when would it be finished. Mr. Ryan stated that if they were to obtain approval from the Council they would start grading in a week or so after the 13th of August. The duration of construction will be about four months. Mrs. Eichenberger expressed concern about fencing towards the back of the building. She said that if left open children could drown, mosquitos would definitely be worse and there would be no way of keeping people from going back there, Questioned . . as to lighting,~ Mr. Rauch replied that the parking lot lighting will take place in the center island or on the building but will be located away from the residential area. Generally the parking lot lighting will not be on as if the building were running two shifts. During the winter lights would be on to perhaps 4:00 when it was dark. There will be very little if any night security lighting, however, they may be required on the corners of the building. Mr. Ryan stated that they would like to use dim lights or security lights all the way around the building, just to let kids know there was a building there but nothing has been decided as of yet. Roof top equipment should be screened. According to Mr. Ryan if a sign is put up it will probably be a monument type sign. Mr. Rauch also stated that as far as he knew refuse would not be a problem since it will be handled on the inside at the loading docks. Fencing would be approximately eight feet high, the building is 14 feet, therefore, six feet of building would still be visible. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner osWald, fOr approval of Planning Case No. 73-57. Approval of development proposal, subject to the Planning Commission's review of the engineering plans for drain- ~-~ age as well as the detailed plans for lighting and signing. Motion carried on voice vote. A five minute recess was called by Chairman Ostlund at 10:40 p.m. Planning .Commission - 7 - August 7, 1973 · Minutes '5. Plannin9 Case No. 73-42 (Variance - Garage - Anderson - 4052 Nevada Avenue North). Mr. Larson stated that the pe.titi~ner was not present. Commissioner Ohman moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to table Planning Case No. 73-42 to the first meeting in September. Motion carried on voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS 17. Report of Codes and Standards Committee A. Home Occupations Co~nissioner Meyer reviewed the new home occupation proposal and outlined the criteria which was used. Mr. David Paulson, 3217 Gettysburg Court, asked Commissioner Meyer if he could have a clarification of what was meant by home occupation. Mr. Paulson was wondering whether a rewording or clarification would be made before it became official. Commissioner Meyer assured Mr. Paulson that it would be. Mr. Chuck Hoffman, 3209 Gettysburg Avenue North, stated that he felt there was a big difference in type of sales. A retail sale is when someone buys a product for themself. If you have a business and the person buys a product they are supporting one person themself; however, if you have a wholesale type of operation one person can be supplying several hundred customers. You have a completely different type of operation. The word "retail" was stricken and the sales of goods or products was added. Mr. Douglas W. Twede, 3229 Gettysburg Court, asked what was involved wi th a business if you were selling or processing a service or good. Further discussion was held and questions answered by the Commission on home occupations. Anyone who cannot qualify for a home occupation is on to a special use permit. Section 4.43 Criteria for Special Use Permit was reviewed. Commissioner Cameron moved., second by C~mmissioner Meyer, for approval of the home occupation proposal subject to review and rewriting by the Village Attorney. Motion carried on voice vote. '~ 15. Repprtof Liquor Committee Chairman Ostlund commented that they had invited independent dealers and a motel chain to talk to the Commission regarding private liquor. Also Senator Humphrey, III was to talk to the Commission from the State's point of view in regards to what changes are to be proposed and what changes are in transit now in the State law. Discussion of liquor at the golf course .is totally negative as far as the study committee is concerned~ 16. Report of Land Use Committee Chairman Oswald stated that there was no report from this Committee. 17. Codes and Standards Committee B. Sign O~dinance Mr. Larson reviewed with the Planning Commission the proposed amendments to the sign ordinance as per the memos of Tom Fulton. The consensus of the Commission was that the committee should prepare formal amend- ments. They agreed with the excerpts presented. 18. Approval of Minutes of July 3, 1973. The'Commission minutes of July 3, 1973 were accepted on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Meyer, and carried on voice vote with the amendment that on Page 3 United Hardware was offered the option of going to the Review and Design Committee before action was taken on the proposal instead of denial. United Hardware preferred a vote on their proposal as provided. lg. The Council minutes of July 9th and July 23rd, 1973 were reviewed. 20. Additi. onal Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff Mr. Ohman was appointed the official member to attend Park Commission meetings, the first Wednesday of each month. Codes and Standards Committee was asked to look into designing an ordinance to the affect that there be a certain amount of time given to people who are given a variance, after which the variance would not be ef- fective. Planning Commission - 8 - August 7, 1973 Minutes The sign at Standard Oil is still in non-conformance with the new sign ordinance. The Architectural Review Committee has recommended that there be an ordinance which would relate to the screening of equipment on top of buildings. This was referred to the Architectural Review Committee for drafting. Commissioner Oswald reminded the Code and Standards Committee that the size of garages was to be looked into. Chairman Ostlund asked that the Charimen's of all Commissions receive a copy of the Planning Con~nission agendas as well as the Planning Commission receiving agendas from the other Commissions in line wi th the discussion held prior to the meeting. 21. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m., on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Chairman Ostlund, and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - September 4,'1973 Minutes A regular meeting of the 'New Hope Planning Commissio'n was held on Tuesday, September 4, 1973 at the. Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:35 p.m.' 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Cameron, Fulton, Garin, Herman, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: Barniskis, Meyer and Ohman. (Commissioner Meyer and Ohman had an excused absence). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 73-42 (Variance - Garage - Anderson - 4052 Nevada Avenue North).. Mr. Larson stated that the petitioner was not. present and had indicated before the last meeting that he was no longer interested in this request. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Co~issioner Garin, to recommend to the Council denial of Planning Case No. 73-42. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 73-49 (Special Use Permit - Minnesota Fabrics - 6600 County Road #18). Mr. Bob Meeker was present to discuss this case. Mr. Meeker stated that the petition had been tabled last meeting because of a truck being used for a sign. Since the last Planning Commission meeting this has been corrected. The truck will not be parked out by the highway or County Road #18. They Will ~ry to keep the truck parked in the dock. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, for approval of a special use permit for Minnesota Fabrics, Planning Case No. 73-49. Motion was carried on voice vote. 5. Planning Case No. 73-51 (Variance - Side Yard - Richard Rabe - 3625 Boone Avenue North). Mr. Larson stated that he had not heard from Mr. Rabe, the petitioner. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to table Planning Case No. 73-51 to the first meeting in ~ctober. Motion was carried on voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 73-56 (Rezoning - Variance - Building - Natalie Stuhr - Wisconsin and Bass Lake Road). Mr. Lawrence Marossky, an attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Stuhr, was present to present the case. Mr. Marossky stated that the Stuhr's property was originally zoned commercial. It had been changed to residential in 1960 and then to MR three years ago. Mr. Marossky said that Mrs. Stuhr has tried to get financing for MR but has been unable to ao so. With MR in this area the Stuhrs are the only ones with a single family residence. The new rezoning would not increase the traffic tremendously and is desig~- ed primarily to get. the Stuhr's home occupation out of their garage and into an office building. The Stuhrs have owned this property for approximately 19 years. They are now asking for RB zoning, the ~ 'other alternative being GB. When asked if the petitioner had specific developing plans for this parcel when it was changed to MR in 1970 the reply was that they did have plans for an apartment building. Because of lack of financial aid they were unable to proceed with these plans. Commissioner Fulton questioned whether they would be any more successful in obtaining financing if this was zoned RB. Mr. Marossky said that the financing situation had been checked into first and in talking to the Small Business Administration they have indicated that there should be no problem. The parcel across Wisconsin is zoned Limited Business. Mr. Stuhr stated that the Village had suggested the rezoning to MR, Mayor Honsey, when a dairy store was turned down some years ago. Mrs. Stuhr commented that when they had tried to get the financing they were unable to get it for a m~ltiple nine unit apartment. During She past few years Mr. Stuhr has been layed off because of his work and this is why they went into a home occupation. The home occupation has grown steadily and they would like to move it out of their home into a separate building. Mr. Arthur Grapentin, 5619 Wisconsin Avenue North, was present concerning this case. He was concern- ed about the effect of the rezoning on the general neighborhood. Discussion was then held on if the rezoning petition could meet the criteria for rezoning. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Con~nissioner Oswald, to table Planning Case No. 73-56 until the first meeting in October in order to give the petitioners time to develop a case for the rezoning. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 2 - September 4,.1973 Minutes 7. Planning Case No, 73-58 (Rezoning LI to RB - MLB Properties, Inc, - 49th Avenue). Mr. Roger F. Johnson, an architect, stated that he had been retained by MLB Properties and Mr. Brandell to do two things: One was conduct a feasibility qtudy for the site in question and the second was to present a rezoning petition and the justification for the rezoning. An RB zoning is being requested in place of LI, which exists at the oresent time. In addition to rezoning, Mr. Johnson stated that they have tried to do a feasibility study in order to see what sort of building or buildings could exist on the site keeping in mind the setbacks, ponding, parking, etc. Mr. Brandell has been ap- proached and has had inquiries for retail development but has not been approached to for industrial development. All criteria based on the new codes have been included. Asked if the rezoning was for a convenience shopping center Mr. Johnson replied that the intent was to develop a convenience center. Discussion was held as to the traffic situation. Comnissioner Cameron questioned whether Mr. Johnson felt it was wise to put a convenience center in at this particular site next to an intersection. Mr. Johnson said that he felt the entrance was far enough away so that it would not create any traffic backups. Mrs. Roz Ogletree, 4869 Flag Avenue North, was present to comment on this case. Mrs. Ogletree said she was concerned also about the traffic situation as well as the ponding area. Chairman Ostlund led discussion on the criteria that was used for rezoning pointing out that he could not find that a mistake was made in the original zoning or that any major changes had occurred from the 1960'land use plan for the area. Commissioner Fulton moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, for denial of Planning Case No. 73-58. Motion carried by voice vote. 8. Plannin9 Case No. 73-59 (Variance - No Enclosed Garage - Gordan Jenson - 3740'Gettysburg Avenue North). After discussion was held Mr. Jenson withdrew his request for'a variance, no enclosed garage, and wilt be building an enclosed garage instead for which no variance is required. 9. Planninq Case No. 73-60 (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Peter King - Medicine Lake Road). Mr. Peter King, owner of 17 acres on Medicine Lake Road, which he purchased from the St. Regis Paper . Company, stated that he had been approached by Egan and Sons to sell thelr some 3 acres of this parcel so that Egan and Sons can expand their business. They would like to put two new businesses in the building proposed for the parcel of land to be sold. In order to permit the sale to Egans Mr. King was asking for a waiver of platting Ordinance. Mr. King had not intended to move quickly in develop- ing this property. However, since. Mr. Egan is asking for the parcel he needs to move at this time. The frontage available on Medicine Lake is limited. Unless there is some expression on the part of the Village that they would look favorably in the extension of Nevada Avenue as a means of developing this parcel than the development of the whole parcel would be in jeopardy if the desirable frontage of the proposed Egan lot were sold. Mr. King stated that they had discussed this with Mr. Krause, owner of the property to the south, and an ~effort had been made to see how Mr. Krause would view the extension of Nevada Avenue into his property and serve the western section of this parcel. Mr. Krause seemed reluctant to participate in the cost of extending the road beyond what Mr. King would have to do in developing this parcel. Commissioner Oswald asked Mr. King if the proposed road to the cul-de-sac was not approved or acted upon would this affect the sale of the parcel which he was to sell to Egan. Mr. King stated that he found it difficult to turn his back on Mr. Egan; however, the legal agreement which he has Wi th Mr. Egan states that if the Commission does not at least give a favorable expression regarding the road extehsion Mr. King can terminate his agreement. The grade on the west side of this property rises to accomodate the overpass over the railroad and the only practical access that Mr. King has to the parcel from Medicine Lake Road would be from where the extension of Nevada Avenue is shown. Possible special assessment for the road construction was dis- cussed. Mr. Jacob Miller was present to represent Mrs. Paul F. Brix, 7300 Medicine Lake Road. Mr. Miller questioned as to why Nevada wouldn't be run all the way through instead of forming a cul-de-sac.to better serve Mrs. Brix's property. Planning Commission - 3 - .September 4, '1973' Minutes Mr. King stated that ther'e was no easement across his property. He stated that while the private road trespasses through a corner of his parcel he would not change the arrangement. Mrs. Brix's access problem was one that must be worked out between her and Mr. Krause. Commissioner Cameron moved for approval, second by Commissioner Oswald, of PlanninQ Case No. 73-60, Waiver of Platting with approval of the concept of the Nevada Avenue Cul-de-sac subject to the City of Crystal's willingness to develop Louisiana to a heavy industrial road. Motion carried on voice vote. lO. Planning Case No. 73-61 (Amendment to Home Occupation Ordinance). Mr. Larson went over the amendment to the home occupation ordinance, noting that the following changes were made from the original wording suggested: Section 5 (5) Business which are not involved in direct sales on the premises except as may be con- ducted through the use of the U.S. Mail or by taking and delivering orders by telephone. Section 6 (5) A business or business-characteristic usage in a residenti.al (R) ... Section 6 (5)c The Council shall find that any interior changes necessary to conduct the business comply with all building, electrical, mechanical and fire codes governing the use in a residential occupancy. Commissioner Fulton moved, second by Commissioner Garin, for approval of Planning Case 73-61, the Amendment to Home Occupation Ordinance. Motion carried on voice vote. ll. Planning Case No. 73-62 (Approval of Development Plan - Coachman Corporation - East Research Center Road). Mr. Louis Terzich of Bell was present to present this case. The building is a multi-purpose type of building of concrete block.. It is int6nded primarily as a speculation type building. The intent is to start the building as soon as possible. The basic building would be warehousing; there may be some offices across the front. Rooms will be divided as the tennants rent out space and facilities will be furnished accordingly. 32 parking spaces were shown and future parking spaces may be installed depending on the experience. If necessary additional parking can be provided. One and half inch trees were raised up to a two and a half inch minimum. Mr. Terzich then presented a letter dated August 29th pursuant to their application for a building permit with the Village of New Hope. Basically it stated as follows: At the building was intended fo~ multipurpose use it would be difficult initially to draw a complete and final set of construction plans as the occupants were unknown at this time. Looking at the program during construction as being two fold may help to clarify several questions which arise. A building shall consisting of footings, foundation, exterior walls, interior floor, all exterior lodge surfacing and a roof will be constructed first. Landscaping improvements and rough in plumbing along with electrical services are also made at this time, Interior partitions are shown on the plans and not built until a tennant moves in. The second phase begins when a signed lea~e is received from the tennant. The necessary partition walls are then added making sure all building and fire codes are met. If the codes cannot be met and the building cannot be changed inside to meet this particular tennant's needs no leasing will be made. Commissioner Herman commented that they were short on parking and this may be a problem as the tennants who were moving in were unknown. The surface drainage pattern works in a semi circular fashion going from west to east and wrapping around the corner of the building and then out onto East Research Center Road. Detailed discussion held on the parking problems both in terms of layout of the lot and the number of spaces provided; the need to have a similar exterior treatment on both the west and north sides and potential drainage problem. Commissioner Oswald noted he at least would be willing to consider one variance in green area if necessary to develop better parking facilities. Commissioner Fulton moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to table Planning Case No. 73-62 for two weeks subject to the developer's presentation of a revised drainage plan, subject to the presentation of an illustrative plan indicating the location of additional parking that could be provided if the building should be devoted to a moderately more intensive use and subject to the developer's consideration of employing the same exterior treatment on the north and west side. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commi ssi on 4 - Se pte~ber 4, '1973 Minutes COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. Report of Liquor Committee Chairman Ostlund commented that the Liquor Study Committee would meet on September 5, 1973 at 7:00 p.m. at the Village Hall. State Senator Humphrey and State Representative Clifford will be ih attendance and they will advise the Committee as to how the new liquor laws which were passed would be affecting the Village and what they think the direction is for the future. 13. Report of Land Use Committee There was no report from this Committee. 14. Report of Codes and Standards Committee A. Animal Control Commissioner Fulton went over briefly with the Planning Commission on the adequacy of the present animal control ordinances. B. Sign Ordinance Proposed revisions to the sign ordinance were reviewed by the Plannin'g Commission as outlined in a memo from Commissioner Fulton. After discussion the following changes were made in the proposed wording: Insert H outlawing of billboards was deleted from the proposed changes. Insert I proposed elimination date for billboards was eliminated. Wording was added to provide for individual addresses on each apartment building. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to recommend a public hea~ing on the revised ordinance as soon as possible. Motion carried on voice vote. 15. Review of Drainage for Rauenhorst Mr. Larson stated that he had not brought the plans with him so this item was dropped from the agenda. 16. Approval of the Commission Minutes of August 7, 1973 The Commission minutes of Au§ust 7, 1973 were accepted on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Garin, carried on voice vote. 17. The Council'minutes of August lOth and 27th were reviewed. 18. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Co,~missioners and Staff Chairman Ostlund asked that a report by the Design and Review Committee be a regular item on the agenda. Mr. Larson commented that Plymouth is holding a public hearing on September 5, 1973 on the Northwestern Bell building at 7:30 p.m., 14900 - 29th Avenue North. Mr. Larson noted that a training course on zoning will be held 'on September 18th. Chairman Ostlund reviewed the Planning Commission Ordinance and then asked Commissioner Oswald to meet with the Council to review the responsibilities of the Commission. Commissioner Garin expressed concern about the traffic situation on Boone Avenue and 36th'Avenue and streets in need of repairs. 19. Announcements Chairman Ostlund reviewed the July monthly activity report. 20. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned on motion by Commissioner Garin, second by Commissioner Cameron, at ll:20 p.m. and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - September. 18, 1973 Minutes · A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning commission was held on TUesday, September 18, 1973 a~ the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, at 7:30 p.m. 1. The meeting was called to' order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Cameron, Garin, Herman, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund and Oswald Absent: Barniskis and Fulton. {Commissioner Fulton entered at 7:32 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Planning.Case No. 73-62 {Approval of Development Plan - Coachman Corporation) Mr. Douglas Stock from Omaha,President of Coachman, was present to discuss this case. At the last meeting .~q~h~..~o~poration had shown 31 parking spaces. Since then they have added an additional four spaces,.making the total count 35 parking spaces. Mr. Stock explained again that with this type of building the tenants they would have are unknown; however, if parking requirements by a tenant exceeded those provided that particular tenant would not beacceptible. The building is designed principallY to be a warehouse. Discussion was held as to the parking. It was the general feeling of the Planning Commission that even though the minimum parking requirements were met, expan- sion space should be provided because of the range of tenants possible. Mr. Stock commented that they were holding parking to minimum requirements because they were concerned about maintaining 35 percent green landscaping. The two principal things which have been changed since the last meeting are: l) The exterior treatment of the building, it will be the same on the North and West sides and 2) The elevation of the building. The building has been elevated two feet to allow for proper drainage. The building will either be of adobe block or split facing block. Adobe block being defined by Mr. Stock as a decorative block treatment with the treatment of the block itself being very irregular. The Commission pointed out that as they understand adobe bl-ock there could be a problem duPiQg the wintertime as water collects on the blocks and freezes and after a while the moisture collects inside the blocks and they start to break. It was suggested that Mr. Stock contact a Minnesota architect on the technicality of exterior materials. Mr. Stock said they could get in touch with a Minnesota architect or engineer as to this type of construction. If the development plan is approved the building will be started immediately since they want to finish it be- fore winter. By moving the mound on the point North Easterly as a screen, and putting more green area in the front of the building an additional seven to twelve stalls can be added for parking spaces. Mr. Stock stated that they had to have some parking in the front. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Ohman,to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case 73-62 with the provision that the plans be revised to provide adequate parking spaces---14-20, that the drain- age plan be reviewed and approved in writing by the Village Engineer and that the exterior block to be used be'specifically defined. Commissioner Oswald, moved, second by Commissioner Garin,to amend the motion by inserting that the exterior finish of the West side would be at least a split face block and be finished as the North side. Amendment carried on voice vote. Conmissioner Cameron moved to amend the motion, second by Commissioner Ohman, to delete anyreference to spe- cific number of parking spaces. Amendment carried on voice vote.' Chairman Ostlund then restated the main motion including; the parking ordinance be enforced~ green space requirements be met; that the drainage be approved, and the exterior finish on the North and West sides be the same and at least split facing block. ~'~ ~i.~he amended motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Herman voting in opposition. Village Manager Larson . 'i~i!~.Was asked to inform the Council that the Commission felt it absolutely necessary that adequate parking be . ~provided and that the drainage plan be acceptable and that if these conditions were not met, then the action ~ of the Commission should be considered as denial of approval of the plans. Mr. Larson agreed to relay this to the Council. 4. Plannin9 Case No. 73-63 (Variance - Sideyard Setback - Thomas Bohlinger - 60~ Avenue and Winnetka). Mr. Thomas Bohlinger, petitioner, stated that he was applying for a variance on the corner of 60½ and Winnetka Avenue. He wanted to face the house toward 60½ and was asking for a seven foot variance from Winnetka on the edge of the lot. Mr. Bohlinger stated that he wanted the house to face 60~ instead of Winnetka because the garage could then act as a buffer to street noise. He stated that the plan could be reversed with the five foot setback on the West; however, he wanted the garage on the Winnetka slue to act as a noise buffer. Planning Commission - 2 - September 18, 1973 Minutes Short discussion held on the s:etbacks of other Winnetka Avenue homes. Consensus appeared to be that most of ~-~ the homes had less than full setbacks because of street widening or const6uction befohe the presenl'ordinance. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to approve Planning Case No. 73-63, variance side- yard setback. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Planninq Case No. 73-64 (Variance - Frontyard Setback - Continental Baking) Mr. Earlyn Jaguar, Krause Anderson Construction, stated that they were the contractors for the proposed con- struction and were representing Cantinental Baking Company in this case. Mr. Jaguar stated that Continental Baking Company would like to construct a 10'2" x 9'4" vestibule at the entrance to the re,ail outlet to cut down on the wind and cold air around the cashiers and customers during the winter. Chairman Ostlund commented that he was basically opposed to anything which will cause more traffic problems and suggested that any changes t~be made be inside the building. He also noted that the retail operation appeared to be growing to the point where it was more than an accessary outlet as originally approved.. A question was raised as to the relationship of the Winnetka Avenue access to the proposed structure. Mr. Jaguar noted the driveway entrance is further to the South --- approximately 20.feet. Mr. Harold Lucs, 7917 51st Avenue North was present tocomment on this case. Mr. Lucs stated that he agreed that the original building, when first constructed, did not call for a high retail store. It was strictly for warehousing. Mr. Fred Grainger, General Manager of Continental Baking Company in Minneapolis, stated that they did not have space inside the building to build this vestibule as it would take up valuable selling space in the store. Ten feet has been taken from their property in widening Winnetka, therefore a variance is now required. Mr. Dennis J. O'Connell, 7631Angeline Drive stated that'he could not see taking some parking off for this vestibule when the parking situation was already inadequate. Mr. O'Connell also commented that during the summer at night the noise was a problem and he felt a sound barrier should be installed. Commissioner Ohman asked if the entrance could be moved to the South side. Discussion held on the relation- ship of the retail sales to the Industrial Zoning. It was noted that retail sales were a questionable use and that the entire operation needed review. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Fulton, to table Planning Case 73-64, referring it to the Land Use Committee for study. Motion carried on voice vote. 6. Discussion of Siqn Variance (Big Save Furniture) A representative of Big Save Furniture was present to ask for the reaction of the Commission to a va6iance from the sign ordinance during a proposed warehouse sale. Big Save Furniture is having a five day sale at their Shopper City warehouse located on County Road #18 in the Science Center. They were askiDg for input from the Commission as to whether several signs attached to a few trucks for advertising could be posted. They had applied for a variance, but it could not be officially heard until October and they needed to pro- ceed with their planning. There will be no pennants, banners, search lights etc. on the building. The signs would be on their property on the sides of trucks. They would like three of these trucks, but could limit to two if necessary. The signs would consist mainly of arrows pointing to the warehouse or some sort of iden- tification. A major advertising campaign will be run in the paper and they will be bringing in merchandise from al! eight of their locations, as well as clearing out some goods. The sale will start on a Wednesday or Thursday and run through the weekend. The signs to be removed on Monday. Hours would be fr~m 9:00 a.m. through lO:O0 p.m. No flood lights or search lights would be on the signs. There have been no complaints as far as they know from any residents in the surrounding areas. This property is zoned Industrial. The Commission discussed the matter and the majority indicated that they were strongly opposed to granting any variance as requested. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. R~port of Liquor Committee The next meeting will be held Tuesday night September 25, 1973. Several private investors have been invited to express their views on private liquor in New Hope. 9. .Rpport of Design and Review Committee - Commissioner Herman stated that this committee would like to propose an amendment to Chapter 4, in the area of roof top equipment. They would like to add an item number 5 to Section 4.63 which would read as follows: "All roof top mechanical equipment, excluding vents, pipes, power ventilators, stacks, etc. over 30" .in height or within 15' O" of the roof edge shall be totally screened with a wood or metal enclosure · Planning Commission - 3 - September 18, 1973 Minutes not less than the maximum height of any equipment contained therein." . The Commission agreed that the amendment was needed. Chairman Ostlund ordered that a public hearing be es- tablished on the amendment. 10. Land Use Committee There was no report from this Committee '~ ll. Report of Codes and Standards Committee Commissioner Fulton presented a proposed amendment to the animal Control ordinance to read: 7.04 Nuisances and Running at Large Animals shall be maintained and handled in sqch a manner as to prevent their becoming a nuisance or a threat to health and safety. No owner or keeper of animals shall permit such animal to run at large withi.n the limits of the Village other than on premises owned by or rented by the owner. No owner shall permit barking, howl~ing or other noises that disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and. no owner shall permit the deposit of animal excrement on public property or the property of others. Commissioner Fulton moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend adoption of the amendment and to or- der a public hearing if necessary. Motion carried by voice vote. 12. Approval of Commission Minutes of September 4, 1973. The Commission minutes of September 4, 1973 were approved on motion by Commissioner Cameron. Second by Commissioner Ohman and carried on voice vote. 13. Review of Council Minutes of September 10, 1973. The minutes of the September lO, 1973 Council meeting were reviewed, f 14. Chairman Ostlund commented that the garbage ordinance would be coming back to the Planning Commission on October 2, 1973. The Codes and Standards Committee would meet on Wednesday the 26th September at Chairman Ostlund's home to review the present ordinance. 15. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Garin to accept the resignationof Commissioner Walt Ba~niskis. Motion carried on voice vote. 16. Adjournment The Commission had a 2½ hour training session scheduled for the remainder of the meeting. There being no further official business to come before the meeting at this time the official meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Meyer, second by Commissioner Ohman. Carried on voice vote~ Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - October 2, 1973 Mi nutes A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 2, 1973 at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Cameron, Fulton, Garin, Herman, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS · 3. Planning Case No. 73-51 (Variance - Side Yard - Richard Rabe - 3626 Boone Avenue North). Mr. Larson stated that the petitioner wished to withdraw his request for a variance in side yard at this time. The request was formally withdrawn. 4. Planning Case No. 73-56 {Rezoning - Variance - Building - Stuhr - Wisconsin and Bass Lake Road {Tabled from 9-4-73). Mr. Larry Marofsky, an attorney for the Stuhrs was present to represent this case. Mr. Marofsky stated that at the last meeting the Stuhrs were requested to obtain additional details in regard to the re- zoning of this property which had been rezoned SR to multiple dwelling. Mr. Marofsky said that he had contacted ex-Mayor Hilton Honsey. He presented a letter dated October 2, 1973 from Mr. Honsey which explained some of the history of the zoning of this property and his recollection of the events-which took place. The letter was made a part of the planning case file and original records. The Stuhr's~ property was rezoned to multiple dwelling without an investigation on their part as far as financing, etc~. After they got the multiple dwelling zoning they could not secure financing. ~ letter dated September 5, 1973 from Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association, addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Stuhr, was read by Mr. Marofsky, ~Briefly the letter stated that Twin City Federal would not mortgage a nine unit apartment building in this particular area. In applying for a mortgage at other banks the Stuhrs also found that they could not get any help in financing. Chairman Ostl~nd led the discussion on the question of if there was justification for a change in zoning at this time for this property. It was the concensus that a change probably could be justi- fied, but a question existed as to the specific zoning that should be used, Mr. Larson reviewed the reason for the RB request. When asked what variances would be required if the property was retai'l business, Mi. Marofsky replied that they would need a variance on the size of the lot and.on the si~e ~of the building. Three acres are required for retail business and the Stuhrs would need a v~riance allowing only half an acre. The lot is approximately 200 X 100 feet. At present the property has driveway accessability from both Wisconsin Avenue and Bass Lake Road. The property does have proximity to thoroughfares, intersections and other shopping centers. Mr. Marofsky commented that he felt it would fully support retail zoning. Mr. Marofsky felt that with the proper conditions on the zoning of it such as size, a retail business could have advantages. Discussion was held as to retail business or limited business. Comnissioner Herman read the definitions of both zonings. Commissioner Meyer asked if LB zoning with a special use permit for limited retail could be used. Mr. Larson replied no - the code would need amending before a special use permit could be used. Discussion held on the desireability of having retail as a special use. Con~nissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to table Planning Case 73-56 until the first meeting in November. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Planning Case No. 73-64 (Variance - Front Yard Setback - Continental Baking (Tabled to Land Use Committee) Comnissioner Cameron stated that last Monday afternoon the Land Use Committee had met with Continental Baking Company. After reviewing the plans it was the Land Use Con~nittee's suggestion to bring the entrance out the south end of the building. The vestibule could go in that direction without re- quiring variances. Continental has agreed to this plan. Planning Commission - 2 - October 2, 1973 Hi nutes Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to table Planning Case 73-64 to the meeting of October 16, 1973 in order that the Village Manager could contact Continental for an official re- ply as to their future action in this case. Motion carried on voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 73-65 (Variance in Sign Ordinance - Big Save Furniture (Informally discussed 9-18-73). The petitioner was not present. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Meyer, to table this case for two weeks until the meeting of October 16, 1973. Motion carried on voice vote. . 7. Planning Case No. 73-66 (Variance in Setback - Benson-Rosengren - 4401 Quebec Avenue North). Mr. Ken Benson stated that the subject property was Displaymaster, Inc located at 4401 Quebec Avenue North. It is proposed to add a ll8 X 150 foot or 17,700 square foot warehouse addition to the north side 6f the Displaymaster's building. They are asking for a continuation of the variance on the west side of 38 feet and on the north side of 12 feet continuing the fence and the plants around the entire site. A question was raised regarding the number of parking spaces needed. The petitioner was requested to meet with the Village Manager and work ou: the parking needs. There would be a driveway on the east side of the building. The building is strictly warehousing and manufacturers displays for conventions, etc. Basically there would be minimum access requirements. ~Lsked if this addition was planned when the original building was built, Mr. Benson stated that it was planned, but the future expansion was not indicated. The original building has been set up in a traffic pattern to allow for this type of additional space. It will be strictly used for a warehouse. There is one new overhead door provided. The fence to the West of the building is sitting 15 feet off of the property line with an additional 23 feet between the fence and the building making a total of 38 feet. There is also planting screen behind the fence. Mr. Benson owns the property, Displaymasters is responsible for the upkeep of screening and land- scaping, etc. The approximate footage from the northern edge of the proposed addition to the apart- merit buildings on the north is about 30 or 40 feet. The apartment owners have been notified and there have been no comments from anyone. The present design of the building will be continued through the addition. Commissioner £ameron moved, second by Commissioner Herman, to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case 73-66, variance in setback requirements, with the provision that before this is sent to the Council the Design Review Committee has a chance to meet with Mr. Benson and approve the landscape plan and also that the parking requirements be reviewed by the Manager to be sure code is met. Motion carried on voice vote. (The Design Review Committee will meet October 15th at 4:00 p.m.). 8. Planning Case No. 73-67 (Variance in Fence Regulations - Shephard - 8701 = 31st Avenue North). Mr. Carl Shephard, petitioner, stated that he had installed a chain link fence on his side lot line on Boone Avenue. He is requesting a variance to keep the fence as it is now constructed. The fence is in violation of three ordinance provisions. Commissioner Cameron questioned Mr. Shephard as to how long he has lived in this house. Mr. Shephard replied nine years. When asked how long the fence has been there, Mr. Shephard answered that the fence has been up since last May; it was installed to stop kids from going through the yard on motor- cycles, bikes, etc. and throwing bottles or trash in his yard. Commissioner Garin asked if the points of his cyclone fence are up or oown - they are up. Mr. Stewart Anderson, 5857 Boone Avenue North, was p~esent to comment on the case. Discussion held on the possible need for revisions in the fence regulations. It was decided the ordinance should be reviewed. Commissioner Meyer moved for approval of Planning Case 73-67. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to table Planning Case 73-67 to the first meeting in May in order to provide time to study the petition. Roll call vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Cameron, Fulton, Herman, Oswald, Ohman and Ostlund. Voting against: Garin and Meyer. Motion carried. Planning Commissioh - 3 - October 2, 1973 Minutes g. Planning Case No. 73-68 {Special Use Permit - Schaefer - 7305 - 42nd Avenue North). The petitioner, Mr. Stanley Schaefer, Jr., stated that he wished to park his milk truck overnight behind the Anderson Oil Station on 42nd Avenue North and Nevada. There will be no more than one truck. Mr. Schaefer intends to have inside storage before needing another truck. r. Mr. Schaefer stated that he wished to park his truck at Anderson Oil Station for at least a year~ until he has two trucks. He will then look for another site where he can park both trucks inside. Mr. Schaefer stated that he had complied with all restrictions made by the Village. Questioned about the rate of vandelism to his truck, Mr. Schaefer replied that at first there had been some vandelism to his truck, but at present there was no problem. There is no lighting around the truck~ it is parked next to the Nevada side where it is visible from the street. There is only one entrance to the storage area which is on the west side into the station area. All electrical outlets are up to the Village code. Commissioner Fulton moved, second by Commissioner Camer6n, to recommend approval of a permit for one truck for one year. Motion carried on voice vote. ll. Report of Codes and Standards Committee Commissioner Fulton stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had met last Wednesday to discuss the public response to the recent enforcement of the garbage ordinance. This ordinance had been sent back to the Planning Commission for further study. Mr. Jim Overman, 8000 Del Drive, was present to comment on the garbage ordinance. Mr. Overman stated that he was opposed to the ordinance from an economical point of view~ He stated that the cost would be a lot more than the garbage haulers said it would be. Mr. Overman felt that if the people leave their garbage on the curb more than one day they should be tagged for littering, if nothing else, but he felt a person should be allowed to carry his rubbish down to the curb on collection day for economi- cal services~ Chairman Ostlund commented that in Edina the people pay 50 cents' more to have their garbage haulers pick up behind the house or at the back door and there was nothing permitted on the curbs. Mrs. Bonnie Manley, 7939 - 46th Avenue North, said she could not see any difference of having a bag of clippings un the curb compared to a bag of garbage. Commissioner Meyer stated that the reason they did not want garbage at the curb was that even through plastic bags or disposable containers there is a scent which dogs and animals can pick up and tear through the bags, littering the rest of the neighborhood. Mrs. Manley then brought up the subject of screening. She was concerned as to whether she would be taxed extra for putting up a screen or fence around her containers. Mrs. Manley said she did not see why a person had to have their garbage screened when a lot of people have boats, cars, etc. in their yards which are very noticeable and worse then garbage cans. Commissioner Fulton went over a few possible changes in the ordinance. These changes were as follows: 1. Allow anything at the curb: cans, disposable bags and any kind of wastes as long as it's picked up the next day. 2. Allow anything along the size of the street that was in a bag but not allow cans. 3. Allow trash and clippings along the street but require that garbage be kept up by the house; or 4. Prohibit everything along the street including yard refuse. Mrs. Manley stated that she felt either all garbage should be allowed down by the curb or none of it should be allowed. Discussion was held as to the above alternatives. Commissioner Cameron stated that he felt there was a difference between having garbage out at the curb in cans or bags. A can gets tipped over, the wind can take the lid off and it rolls around. After they were emptied kids could tip them over, etc. They become a problem. The Planning Commission was opposed to item number one. Planning Commission - 4 - October 2, 1973 Minutes Item two, allowing anything as long as it was in a bag except cans was then discussed. Chairman Ostlund was opposed to this, He felt that to look at something which was put on the curb, just because it was contained, and say it was o.k., to him was an impossible enforcement situation. -':The police cannot go around checking every bag to see if there are cans or not and every new resident ..... ~,-:~:in New Hope or every change that takes place will see containers sitting out at the curb. Not being ~ fully aware of the ordinance will eventually lead to the same kind of problem as the Village now has. Just because you enclose it in a container does not necessarily mean you should put it on the curb. The third alternative allowing trash and clippings along the street but garbage up by the house was · considered. · Several members of the Planning Commission felt that either all garbage should be on the street or none at all. Commissioner Oswald commented that even though a neighbgr may object to having someone elses trash or garbage out by the curb it does not mean he will say anything about it, even though it may i~ritate him. He stated that he felt it should not be the responsibility of the neighbor to complain about his neighbor because he was violating the law. The regulations should be made clear enough so that they can be followed through and enforced. Commissioner Herman said he felt the idea of having grass clippings on the curb and garbage or refuse by the structure is a half way ordinance. He felt the Commission should try to treat this ordinance in one way. To him there was nothing attractive or desirable about even having plastic bags out by the curb. His personal feelings were to get everything off the curb. Mr. Overman brought up the suggestion of breaking the Village down into sections and contract to one hauler in each area. ~hairman Ostlund'said they had looked at this alternative. The problem was that one big company was buying out all the little companies and there was nothing stopping that one company of making a bid so that eventually one company would be controlling all hauling. Mr. Overman asked if they couldn't just make a section and regardless of who was in it they could only haul to a certain section on certain dates. Commissioner Meyer stated that they had also considered this. This was where the rates were going up. Commissioner Cameron said he looked upon plastic bags as a temporary type of measure to help the garbage people keep the rates down during a small part of the year. Commissioner Meyer stated that if you make the garbage haulers go up to the house or behind the garage to pick up every piece of garbage and refuse the rates will definitely go up unless the Village does something to control costs such as a municipal system or a contract system. Commissioner Fulton commented that you either make the ordinance more restrictive or less restrictive. Commissioner Meyer also stated that a year of thinking about this problem had convinced him that re- quiring everything to be kept up by the house would not work. When asked why, Commissioner Meyer re- plied because of the cost and system of haulers in any area of the Village. Mrs. Gordon Lysdahl, 7919 - 46th Avenue North, commented that she felt the most important thing was to inform the public in regards to the overall garbage ordinance. Motion Chairman Ostlund moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend to the Council that all wastes be prohibited from the curbside. Vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Fulton, Garin, Herman, Ostlund and Oswald. Voting against: Cameron, Meyer and Ohman. Motion carried. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Meyer, that if the Council did not see fit to pro- hibit all curbside garbage that they then amend the ordinance to read that anything in plastic bags be allowed on the curbside. Vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Cameron and Meyer. Abstaining: Fulton, Garin,'Herman, Ohman, Ostlund and Oswald Motion failed since majority of Commission must vote in favor of motion to carry. Planning Commission - 5 - October 2, 1973 Minutes Screening of garbage containers was then taken up with the discussion centered on when screening should be required. The Commissioner agreed that screening should be required for commercial, industrial, MR and institutions as now provided. Single family residential areas should be handled differently. Much discussion held on the relationship of permanent cans to disposable cans. The placement in view of streets and neighbors. The discussion indicated that the original intent was to screen from adjacent homes. Motion Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Chairman Ostlund, to amend the definition of general waste con- tainers under the garbage ordinance by substituting instead of 9eneral waste containers a separate definition for disposable and permanent waste containers such as iron cans or sturdy p~astic, etc. Motion carried on voice vote. Motion Commissioner Meyer then moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, that all non-disposable or permanent waste containers, as above defined, shall be screened from the streets, and from all adjacent residential structures within 50 feet. Motion carried on voice vote. The'educational aspect of this ordinance was discussed. Chairman Ostlund commented that he felt it was a good idea to make up a postcard type of notice on the garbage ordinance. Motion Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, that a document be drawn up in some manner. to be reproduced~and to be known as the Citizen's Guide, or whatever, to the New Hope Refuse Collection Ordinance. This be distributed to all residents in a manner to be agreed upon at a later time. Secondly, that a committee b~ reactivated to study further methods of improving the efficiency of the refuse collection in New Hope by either going to a different system all together or the use of disposable bags. That these two areas be pursued so the ordinance is not left as it stands. Motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Fulton noted that three additional items needed discussion including: 1. A better difinition of industrial by-products. 2. The height for non-residential containers. 3. Handling of bulky wastes from residential area. Following discussion it was decided by consensus that industrial byJproducts that were sold for reuse could be treated as normal industrial products. Motion Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to amend the height requirements to read above ground. Motion carried on voice vote. ~tion Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Chairman Ostlund, to amend the ordinance so that bulky wastes could be placed in front of the house for pick up on the following day. Motion carried on voice vote. lO. Planning Case No. 73-69 (Amendment to Sign Ordinance). Commissioner Fulton reviewed the sign ordinance as it was amended and commented that there were several errors as to the amendments the committee had recommended. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to table the sign ordinance to the Codes and Standards Commi.ttee until all changes were made. Motion carried on voice vote. 12. Report of Land Use Committee There was no report from this Committee. 13. Report of Liquor Committee. Chairman Ostlund reported that the Liquor Committee will meet October 3rd, Wednesday night to adopt their position which they will then send to the Council by the first of November. 14. Report of Design and Rev.iew Committee. There was no .report from this Committee. lB. Approval of Commission Minutes of September 18, 1973.. The Planning Commission Minutes of September 18th were accepted on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Oswald, and carried on voice vote. Planning Comnission - 6 - October 2, 1973 Minutes 16. Review of the Council Minutes of September 24, 1973. The Council Minutes of September 24, 1973 were reviewed. 17. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff. · None. 18. Announcements. None. ' 19. Adjournment. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Oswald, and carried on voice vote at ll:~O p.m. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - October i6, 1973 Mi nu tes A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 16, 1973 at the Village Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North at 7:30 p.m. 1. The meeting was called to o~der by Chairman Ostlund. RollFcall wa~ taken as follows: Present: 'Cameron, ~ultohj Meyer~ Qstlu~¢ ~hd Oswald. Absent: Garin, Herman and Ohman. (Commissioner Garin and Commissioner Herman had an excused absence). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 73-64 (Variance - Front Yard Setback - Continental Baking - Tabled from October 2nd). Mr. Larson stated that he had talked to Continental Baking and they wished to withdraw their request. 4. Planning Case No. 73-65 (Variance - Sign Ordinance - Big Save Furniture - Tabled from October 2nd). This request was also withdrawn after a discussion by Mr. Larson with the petitioner. 5. Planning Case No. 73-69 (Amendments to Sign Ordinance - Tabled to Codes and Standards on October 2nd). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Chairman Ostlund, to table Planning Case No. 73-69 until later in the meeting. Motion carried by voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 73-70 (Variance - Rear Yard Setback - E. R. Pederson - 3316 Flag Avenue North). Mr. E. R. Peders.on stated that he wished to build a 12 X 16 foot porch off the back of his house. Commissioner Cameron asked what type of a room this would be. Mr. Pederson replied that there would be jalousie windows all the way around with one door. Questioned as to whether it would be winter- ized, Mr. Pederson stated that it would not be completely winterized; they would however, have temporary heat for this time of the year. Basically it was to get away from the bugs, etc. during the sun~er months and would provide living space for all but the three coldest months. Mr. Pederson stated he is-willing to build the porch.with the 16 feet going either way if it would make a dif- ference in obtaining the variance. .Mr. Pederson stated that he would prefer to go straight out the 16 feetbut if he has to go the other way he would. Other than the windows the material used to construct the rest of the porch will be wood and the roof will be built into and pitched as the house roof. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 73-70; based on the 16 foot extension. The variance was considered justified based on no objection from the neighbors; the convenience for the petitioner, and the yard in which the encroachment would occur was in fact a side yard in relation to the neighboring lot. Motion carried on voice vote. 7. Planning Case No. 73-71 (Variance - Oversized Garage - R. Soltes - 6072 Sumter Avenue North). Mr. Richard Soltes, petitioner, stated that he was asking for a variance to build a 14 X 24 foot addition onto his garage. The existing detached garage is 24 X 24 or 576 square feet. The proposed addition would add on 336 square feet making an overall total of 912 square feet. Mr. Soltes is requesting a larger garage mainly for storage reasons. He used to rent space from his mother to accomodate his boat and snowmobile. If he does not add on extra storage space he will either have to sell his vehicles or let them stand in the yard. The addition will be strictly for family purposes. There'will be no businesses or plans for any hobbies that could grow into a business. The driveway comes in from the north off of 61st Avenue. ~This addition will be on the side of the present garage that faces the rear of the 'house with the ridge line running east and west instead of north and south as now constructed. The present garage is made of stucco material and the new walls would also be made of this type of material. There will be a garage door on this addition. Presently Mr. Sol tes has two double doors, nines and he would like to put a l0 foot door on the addition without windows. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, for approval of Planning Case No. 73-71 with the roof line being changed to run from east to west instead of north to south. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 2 - October 16, 1973 Minutes 5. Plannin~ Case No. 73-69 (Amendments to Sign Ordinance). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to take Planning Case No. 72-69 off the table. Motion carried by voice vote. Commissioner Fulton stated that there had been some errors and questions as to content in the pro- posed sign amendment ordinance. One question was related to the new section in the sign ordinance which deals wit~'~signs accessory to multiple occupancy business and industrial uses. This new sectio~'now requires the submission of a comprehensive sign plan for any multiple occupancy use. · No si§n'permit for an individual sign can be issued before the receipt of such a plan and after a plan has been received the sign must be consistent with the plan. Commissioner Fulton noted the major Question was on control of signs for multiple occupancy com- mercial and industrial buildings. The wording proposed in the draft ordinance did not adequately take into account and distinguish between multiple occupancy buildings with shared entrances and multiple occupancy buildings where each occupant had a separate entrance. Mr. Fulton suggested that the words "with a separate entrance" be added after operator in the first line of Subdivision 18 (2) and the words "consistent with the comprehensive sign plan" be added after the word'signs in the same line. Then at the end of the paragraph the new sentence reading "Multiple occupants with shared entrances shall be entitled only to the amount and type of signage specified for a single individual operator" should be added. The second point that needed to be resolved is the information to be permitted on apartment development identification signs. Commissioner Meyer felt it would be a good idea to permit additional information about the amenities and rent structure on the sign. Commissioner Fulton felt that this would clutter the sign and would be used more as an advertisement ~ype of thing. Chairman Ostlund felt that this would create more of a traffic hazard if people stopped to read the sign and all the information, ~-~ Following the discussion it was felt that this provision should be left as printed. Discussion then held on the procedure to be used in adopting the changes. It was decided to have the entire ordinance redrafted and returned for action at the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS 8. Discussion with police regarding crime prevention, public safety and planning. Mr. Jack Morse, Director of Police, and Officer Art Hoganson were in attendance for a discussion re- garding crime prevention, public safety and planning. Director Morse stated that historically police had'had little opportunity to be involved with the planning process. They were now making efforts to have input. One major program was the present crime prevention push. Officer Hoganson has received special training in crime prevention and has what resources the State has to offer in this area. Director Morse commented that his goal is to cut burglary in residences and commercial places by l0 percent next year. Police calls are up 35 - 40 percent and the police department has insuf- ficient manpower to handle the total work. Consequently, the need is to develop a strong prevention program - such as fire departments have gone for many years. Discussion was held on cutting down on the burglary rates in industrial and commercial buildings by installing alarms, safety locks and bolts, etc. Officer Hoganson commented that presently the police department was trying to work on residential safety through Operation Identification and also through offering a premise survey. There is a booth in the New Hope Shopping Center to sign up for Operation Identification for the public. When asked what the response was from larger apartment complexes, Officer Hoganson replied that the ~ majority of apartment owners or managers are very much in favor and interested in the things they can do for better and tighter security against burglaries. Planning Commission - 3 - October 16, 1973 Mi nu tes Underground apartment garages are a major problem area since they are easier to enter and cannot be seen or checked as easily by a patrol car. Discussion was held as to bicycle traffic such as marking off half of Boone for two way traffic for cars and bicycles. Bicycles are considered motorized vehicles should follow the same rules as cars. Speeding and traffic' violations were also discussed. Director Morse stated that the police department was using accident data to ~rogram their patrol work so they can have a s~uad car at a certain spot at a certain time, etc. to help cut down per- sonal injury, etc. in the high traffic/accident areas. Discussion held on the relationshp with the State Code and the flexibility permitted the Village in adoption of new codes. Discussion then held on the ASAP tests for drunken driving. Director Morse said they used these tests every Friday and Saturday nights. Chairman Ostlund assigned the responsibility of determining what could be done in local codes in the area of security systems, etc. to the Codes and Standards Committee. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. Liquor Committee Report. Chairman Ostlund said that th~ Liquor Committee had recommended to the Village Council that New Hope go to split liquor. The committee will be meeting again October 23rd at 5:00 p.m. with the Council to discuss the reasons for the recommendation. 10. Report of Design and Review Committee. Mr. Larson stated that the Design and Review Committee had met October 15th at 4:00 p.m. with Mr. Ken Benson. The recommendation from the committee is that the fence on the north side should be eliminated with evergreens added between the Russian Olives. This will create more of a feeling of openness for 'the apartment building to the north. Russian Olives will also be substituted for the Poplars on the west side of the addition. ll. Report of Codes and Standards Committee. There was no report from this Committee. 12. Report of Housinq Committee. Mr. Larson reported the two man committee had discussed the housing problem at length. Additional information was needed and it would be at least a month before a detailed report would be ready. Some discussion held on the financing available, the need to coordinate efforts with surrounding communities, etc. It was also pointed out that two problems existed - one of maintaining present housing - the other of providing housing for groups not now having housing in the Village. 13. Report of Land Use Committee. No report from this Committee. 14. Review of Council Minutes of October 9, 1973 . The Council minutes of October 9, t973 were reviewed. 15. Approval of Commission Minutes of October 2, 1973. The Planning Commission minutes of October 2, 1973 were approved and accepted on motion by Com- missioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Meyer, and carried, by voice vote. 16. Additional Comments/Requests fr~m Citizens, Commissioners and Staff. Commissioner Meyer was appointed to represent the Planning Commission on the traffic committee that is being formed to work with the consultants on preparing a traffic control plan for the Village. Planning Commissio~ ~ 4 - October 16, 1973 Chairman Ostlund commented that he had been receiving agendas from all Commissions. 17. Announcements. None. 18. Adjournment. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Meyer, and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - November 6,' 1973 Minutes A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 6, 1973 at the Village Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Cameron, Garin, Herman, Meyer, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: Fulton and Ohman. {Commissioner Fulton had an excused absence}. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 73-56 (Rezoning - Variance - Building - Stuhr - Wisconsin and Bass Lake Road (Tabled from October 2, 1973}. The petitioner was not present and Commissioner Meyer noted Mrs. Stuhr was working at the polls and would be late. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to table Planning Case No. 73-56 until later in the meeting. Motion carried by voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 73-69 (Amendment to Sign Ordinance). Chairman Ostlund asked if anyone was present o~ this case - no one was. Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to table Planning Case No. 73-69 also until later in the meeting. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Planning Case No. 73-72 (Special Use Permit - Variances - McDonald's Restaurant - 7849 - 42nd Avenue North). Mr. Tom Sexton, Attorney, presented the case on behalf of McDonald's. Mr. Sexton stated that they were asking for a special use permit and some variances to establish a McDonald's restaurant on 42nd and Winnetka. The property is zoned L.I. A restaurant in this zone is permitted with a special use permit. Variances deal with the side yard setbacks which are seven feet and 4 feet while the ordinance requires ten feet. Other variances required would be on the green area and floor area requirements. Curb cuts and traffic flow also would have to be dealt with. McDonald's is proposing two drives - one each for exit and entrance to the site. A County permit is required for the curb cuts and they feel that only one access should be permitted since the lot has less than 200 feet of frontage. Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Sexton why McDonald's had chosen this particular site. Mr. Sexton answered on account of availability and the survey generally as to market ability. Questioned as to whether he thought a major YMCA center only a couple hundred feet from McDonald's would influence the operation, Mr. Sexton replied that he was not aware that there would be a YMCA center that close. Mr. Randy Berg with McDonald's corporation was also present to discuss this case. Mr. Berg stated that they surveyed the entire area. Their basic goal was to fit a McDonald's into every existing area that wants a McDonald's restaurant or rather into areas where it would be more convenient for the people to use. Presently there are 25 McDonald's in the Twin Cities area. When asked why this particular small site was selected for an operation such as McDonald's, Mr. Berg re- plied that this was not a small site as far as McDonald's requirements. The site is almost 50,000 square feet. Their qualifications throughout the country is a minimum of 35,000 square feet and they feel that they have more than adequate space on this site. Commissioner Cameron asked if there will be outside eating tables or seating. Mr. Berg stated that if they feel outside seating will do more for the appearance of the building and landscaping it will be put in. If the Village would like it they would, of course, have outside tables. Commissioner Cameron asked what the vehicle traffic would be per day for a facility of this size. Mr. Berg said this was hard to say. Their figures are based on the area population. Mr. Sexton said that on other sites, such as the one on West Lake Street in Minneapolis, approximately 400 cars per day are generated in traffic. This breaks down over the day of 30% from ll:O0 to 1:30, 30% from 5:00 to 7:00 and 40% over the remaining open hours. Mr. Berg stated that all 29 stores differ in volume. Golden Valley generates between 325-375 cars a day. Commissioner Cameron questioned as to ~d~at would happen to the trees on the present site. Mr. Berg answered that the eight spruce trees and three big elms would have to be torn down in order to build the restaurant. There is a minimum of lO,O00 square feet required for building size. The proposed structure would be close to 3,500 square feet. Planning Commission - 2 - November 6,' 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Cameron then asked if they could briefly describe how McD nald s handles their fumes wastes etc. Mr. Sexton commented that they were as far as they could go with fumes and it has not been a problem. McDonald's intends to keep up with the technology in this field and in fact is working on their own in this area. The company has a policy of policing their own lot and the area surround the site. Trash is handled in closed refuse areas or dumpsters. All lighting is directional. The hours would be from ll:O0 alm. to lO:O0 p.m. Basically the lights would be out by midnight except for security lighting. Approxi- mately llO seating spaces will.be provided for inside the building. Commissioner Meyer asked if this was the only site that had been considered in New Hope. Mr. Sexton said he was not sure; however, he thought that other sites had been looked at. Asked if the County refused to give McDonald's two curb cuts would they still consider this site, Mr. Berg replied that there was a good chance they would not take this site. Peak hours of operation would be around ll:O0 - 1:30 and then again from 4:30 - 6:30. Business usually moves with the traffic. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Berg if their Parking has always been adequate. Mr. Berg replied that it has not always been adequate. Commissioner Herman commented that he felt any project which had high traffic implications should be ac- companied by a professional traffic study so that proper evaluations could be made. Chairman Ostlund said he felt this parcel was too small and the requests for variances which McDonald's was requesting were extreme. He did not feel the site was wide enough and he did not feel they were giving enough to the Village to ask for three types of variances. Traffic will also be a very major problem. Commissioner Meyer commented that the three main things which he was concerned with were: 1. This type of operation does not fit in with the overall industrial, business type use for this area. 2. It requires such a great variance from the codes. 3. The traffic problem. This intersection is not fully developed yet. A shopping center, 'YMCA and bank will be coming in during the spring and this will only increase the traffic problems. Commissioner Oswald stated that his major concern was proximity to the intersection. Left turns into and out of the proposed McDonald's would definitely be a major trafficproblem. Chairman Ostlund commented that by putting in a McDonald's a lot of foot traffic would also be generated, mainly children. Mr. Cliff Teresi, part owner o~ the proposed site, half owner of Mr. Steak and past Mayor of Golden Valley, was present to comment on the case. Mr. Teresi said that he felt the Commission should ask them- selves first whether they wanted a McDonald's in their community. He felt New Hope should have one. Mr. Teresi went on to state that naturally McDonald's would generate trafiic but not any more than goes past their right now. He stated the present use of'the building is generating traffic problems. At one time he counted 16 cars in the driveway plus a bus. He felt traffic was a poor excuse and he has found the McDonald's in Golden Valley to be an asset to that community. Chairman Ostlund commented in reply to Mr. Teresi. Commissioner Garin also commented that he felt this was a traffic problem and was concerned about foot traffic which would be generated. Commissioner Herman commented that the McDonald's in St. Louis Park had a lot of problems and required a lot of revisions which McDonald's handled, doing a very good job. For the site in New Hope, however, any revisions would be almost impossible to be made. Once the plans have gone through they are final. If a mistake has been made it would be very difficult to make any changes because the site is surrounded by.developed property. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Meyer, for denial of Planning Case No. 73-72, request for special use permit and varinaces on the grounds that the variances asked to the Village ordinances on green area and building size are. too great and the nuisances created by additional traffic. Discussion was held' as to the motion for denial ortabling the request for two weeks. Vote was taken on the main motion. Voting in favor: Cameron, Herman, Meyer. Voting against: Garin, Ostlund, Oswald. Motion failed for lack of majority. Planning Commission - 3 - November 6, 1973 .MinUtes Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to table Planning Case No. 73-72 until the first meeting in December. Motion carried on voice, vote. 6. Planning Case No..73-73 (Variance - Fence ~ Vernon Scott - 4625 Winnetka Avenue North). Mr. Vernon Scott, petitioner, stated that he had just bought the old farm house on 4625 Winnetka Avenue and had begun installing a chain link fence around the yard for the protection and safety of children who were climbing and walking on top of the wall. The Building Inspector pointed out to Mr. Scott that he was in violation of the ordinance and would need a variance to continue the installation. Mr. Scott was, therefore, asking for a variance at this time. Many children walk on top of the retaining wall and Mr. Scott was concerned about the danger of them falling off or someone being hurt. The fence will come down the side lot line to the wall, but will not run accross the front of the lot. Mr. Scott stated the points of the cyclone fence are pointing down in answer to a question of Commissioner Garin. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Garin,'for approval of Planning Case No. 73-73 to grant a variance for the fence in light of the fact that the petitioner is attempting to prevent children from walking on his high brick wall which the Counts installed and to prevent injury or nuisance. Motion carried by voice vote. 3. Plannin9 Case No. 73-56 (Rezoning - Variance - Building - Stuhr - Wisconsin and Bass Lake Road (Tabled from October 2, 1973). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Herman, to take Planning Case No. 73-56 off the table. Motion carried by voice vote. ' Mr. Larry Marofsky, Attorney for the Stuhrs, was present to represent this case. Mr. Marofsky stated that he had talked to the Stuhrs and there were several reasons why they would have to continue with the,i.r requ.e~.t for RB zoning in spite, of the discussion regarding an LB zoning at the last meeting: 1. Mr. and Mrs. Stuhr would not be able, a't present, to operate the type of business they want in an LB district. They want to operate a small retail sales and repair operation of sewing machines which would be improper in LB zoning. 2. If Mr. and Mrs. Stuhr amend their request they would have to start from the beginning with the hearing process. This would put the Stuhrs at least a couple months behind. 3. If the Commission's recommendation is passed by the Council for the LB the Stuhrs would still be able to follow the other reconinendation for a change in the special use provision of the ordinances with a request to allow this type of operation on a LB zoned property if this is what the eventual zoning of the property is. Mr. Arthur Grapentin, 5619 Wisconsin Avenue North, commented that he could not see a retail business on this loS. Discussion held between the Commission and Mr. Marofsky regarding the desire for a vote on the RB request to clarify that the petitioner did want a vote on the request. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Herman, for denial of Planning Case No. 73-56, a re- quest for rezoning on the grounds that the site in question violates the standards for RB districts. Motion carried by voice vote. 8. Plannin9 Case No. 73-75a (Waiver of Platting Ordinance - Approval of Development - Knutson Company - NW Corner of Boone and Ea'st Research Center Road). Mr. J. D. Smith, Vice President of the Knutson Company, was present to review this case with the Commission. Mr. Smith presented a statement addressed to the Chairman of the Planning Commission which stated that the Knutson Company was requesting approval of a waiver of city platting requirements pursuant to Section 4.581 of the code. The waiver will enable Knutson to convey 3.44 acres of ground to Mork Associates be- fore formally subdividing the large 38 acre track of which it is a part. Their request for a waiver was based on hardship especially in the following two regards: 1. Denial of the waiver would preclude Knutson from obtaining valuable information for a more realistic plat. Soil conditions are extremely variable throught the site and unpredictable due to extensive surface rework by prior own.ers. The Mork transaction will allow Knutson engineers to observe actual soil conditions first hand during excavation plus parcelization of this first track of land will establish a pattern for lot configurations throughout the remainder ~of the 38 acre track. Planning Commission - 4 - November 6, 19.73 · Mi nu tes 2. Secondly, denial of the waiver may seriously impede the absorption rate for development ~ ~ of the center and further delay development of a full tax base for the community. The fact that County Road #18 is still not complete and the Bass Lake Road. overpass is yet to be opened coupled with visible soil problems has detained development of the 38 acre tract. Knutson is prepared to post a performance bond to insure timely completion of their obligation to plat. Commissioner Cameron questioned as to what would happen to the ~lO acre~ponUing area shown. Mr. Smith con~ented that he was not aware of the l0 acre ponding area easement. H~stated that it had not been formally recorded. Knutson would be happy to give it to the~illage ~ut d~.'view of the fact that there is no recorded easement Mr. Smith. thoug~'t the ~ommiss.ionwoul'd b~.~t~)b~'~-'!~ugh to work with his company in delenating its perimeter. Mr. Smith also commented that they didn't want the easement to interfer with the configuration of~plattedlots that might maximize devel6pment, of the land. Knutson Company has stated that they will give the Villagq written agreement that they will furnish an adequate ponding area prior to next spring. Mork and Associates said that they would give the Village, after buying the lo-t, prior to issuing a building permit, or prior to requesting an occupancy permit, an easement over the northwest corner for drainage/ponding rights. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Meyer, to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case No. 73-75a, waiver of platting, provided that the Knutson Company provide the Village with a written agreement on ponding area to be established; that a ponding/drainage easement be provided for the new lot, and that the agreement to plat be carried through. Motion carried by voice vote. g, Planning Case No. 73-75b (Approval of Development Plan - Mork and Associates - NW corner of Boone and East Research Center Road). Mr. Dempsey Mork, Mork and Associates, and Mr. Bill' Borg, Architect, were present to represent this case. Mr. Mork stated that they were before the Commission for approval of their proposed development on the lot just considered. Mork and Associates are proposing a 42,200 square foot office, warehouse type structure. The structure is made up of approximately 80% warehouse space and 20% office space. The basic appearance will be brick on block exterior with black glass panels. Mr. Mork stated that green area will be provided on both Boone and East Research Center Road. Use of the project will be primarily small tennants. Mork and Associates is anticipating the typical user to lease anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 square feet. Market research shows that they will be dealing mainly with owner occupant,tennants as opposed to' national tennants. The ceilings have been lowered from the original proposal to eliminate any possible future second story office expansion. The exterior has been changed in appearance with the addition of a band across the top of the building, parking space has been added as suggested by the staff and the loading dock area has been rearranged so that a 60 foot trailer can service the building with no pPoblem and still have the circular traffic. There are approximately 97 parking spaces which does meet the code requirements for office and warehouse space. Mr. Mork said that they had to lease their front office space at $4.50 a square foot. Discussion was held as to the tint of the dark glass. Mr. Larson noted the grading plan would require a 24" culvert under the west drive and that the present culvert from East Research Road to the pond would need to be extended. Commissioner Herman commented that there were different tints anO it was questioned as to what appearance would be projected if people were able to see boxes, crates, etc. Mr~ Mork stated that the glass would not permit seeing into the building. Mr. Mork stated no trucks will be allowed to park in front of the building on East Research Road. Commissioner Herman also commented that the landscaping was excellent and had been amended to include a hedge on East Research Center Road. Mr. Herman also raised questions on the overhead door on the southeast door. CommiSsioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case No. 73-75b as submitted. MotiOn carried on voice vote. A five minute recess was held at 9:20 p.m. The meeting was called back to order by Chairman Ostlund at 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission -5 - November 6, ]97.3 Mi nu tes 7. Planning Case No. 73-74 (Amendment to Code - Roof Top Screening). The following amendment for roof top screening was proposed: Section 4.63 Screening (5) All roof top. mechanical equipment, excluding vents, pipes, power ventilators, stacks, etc. under 30" in height or within 15 feet of the roof edge shall be totally screened with a wood or metal enclosure not less than the maximum height of any equipment contained therein. Police and fire protection was discussed. Commissioner Herman commented that .in other cities in which he has worked, roof-top screening has almost become a standard requirement during the last five years. Discussion held on specific intent of wording. It was agreed that some change was needed to clarify the intent. Commissioner Oswald moved, secnnd by Commissioner Cameron, for approval of the amendment to the code on roof top screening, Planning Case No. 73-74. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 73-69 {Amendment to Sign Ordinance). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to take Planning Case 73-69 off the table. Motion carried by voice vote. Commissioner Oswald questioned the ordinance as to permission for directional signs in parking lots. The policy on this was reviewed. It was agreed that no further wording was needed. There being no further comments on the amendments, 'Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, for approval of the amendment to the sign ordinance, Planning Case No. 73-69. Motion carried on voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. Report of Codes and Standards Committee There was no report from this Committee. ll. Report of Land Use Committee -'~ There was also no report from this Committee. 12. R~port of Liquor Study Committee Chairman Ostlund commented that the Liquor Study Committee had met again on November 5th for a preliminary meeting with the Knutson Company on the possibility of a 100 unit motel and cocktail lounge. There was a 7 acre site on County Road #18 and Bass Lake Road across from the Prudential building that was being considered. If private liquor was available and the motel received the license it would take them proximately 16 - 18 months, or until 1975 before any thing would be fully developed. It also appeared that a Village off-sale outlet could be provided as part of the motel/lounge complex. 13. Design and Review Committee Report Commissioner Herman commented that the Design and Review Committee had talked before about two amendments to Chapter 4 of the ordinance. One was the roof top screening and the second was landscaping controls. Commissioner Herman felt that a landscape requirement as part of the ordinance would only set limits on the petitioner and what he requested. Presently the petitioner will generally willingly comply with whatever the Commission requests or suggests. They have been very cooperative. By setting a definite landscaping ordinance requirement the Commission may be restricting some of the latitude they have presently. Commissioner Oswald disagreed. He commented thtt if there is no definite restrictions the petitioner will not always go with the recommendation. If specific requirements are spelled out the staff and Com- mission have some negotiating room. General discussion held after which it was decided to continue with the present general requirements, with Commissioner Herman reporting back to the entire Commission on any problems the Design and Review Committee run into. P.l-anning Commission - 6 - November 6, 1973 Minutes 14. Approval of Commission Minutes of October 16, 1973 - The Planning Commission minutes of October 16~ 1973 were accepted on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Cameron, and carried on voice vote. 15. The Council minutes of October 23, 1973 were reviewed. 16. Additional Comment~/Requests from Citizens., Commissioners' and Staff None. 17. Announcements Commissioner Meyer was assigned the task of interviewing each member of the Council and redefining the Planning Commission initial charge. He is to have a report bac~ to the Commission by the second meet- ing in December. Chairman Ostlund requested that the Village Manager have a news article regarding the two openings on the Commission and request applicants to apply. 18. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Garin, and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - November 20, 1973 Mi nu tes Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Village of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the Village Halt, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. 1. The meeting Was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Cameron, Herman, Meyer, Ostlund, Fulton and Ohman. Absent: Oswald and Garin arrived shortly after roll call. 2a. Two Community Service Officers from the Village Police Department were present and signed up the members for Operation Identification. 3. Tom Fulton reported on the subject of Housing Authorities. He reviewed the history and legal status of the Authorities and pointed out some of the advantages and disadvantages of their use. He felt one of the most important needs was a joint effort on redevelopment with Crystal. Several questions were raised regarding availability of Federal funding, relationship with the Village Council, pri- vate type projects and the actual needs in New Hope. Following the discussion Chairman Ostlund indicated he would discuss the information presented with the Council members to determine what they wanted in this area. Chairman Ostlund asked that the Codes and Standards Committee continue their review and also develop some statistical data on the age and economical status of the community citizens. Mr. Fulton then presented a report and a copy of the Hopkins' ordinance on minimum housing codes with a certificate of occupancy requirement. Discussion held on the effect of such a program and possible community reaction to it. Following the discussion Chairman Ostlund indicated he would also like to discuss this item with the Council members before the Commission pursued further. 4. On behalf of the Land Use Committee, Village Manager Larson noted that the rezoning request and development concept proposed for the "Standard Oil" property at 42nd and #18 had been presented and would be heard on December 4th. He questioned if the Design and Review and Land Use Committees should review it before the public hearing. It was agreed that they should. Mr. Larson also indicated he understood Standard was making a real effort to dispose of the property at ~18 and 62nd. Also plans have been received from the County for the improvement of Medicine Lake Road. The schedule proposed is Douglas Drive to Winnetka in 1975 and Winnetka to #18 in t976. 5. Mr. Ostlund reported that the Liquor Study Committee had met with a developer and the Council and discussed a possible motel complex and the Council had requested additional study and were looking at a possible professional feasibility report on the entire liquor question, 6. The Commission minutes of November 6, 1973 were approved on motion by Cameron, second by Garin, and carried on voice vote. 7. The Council minutes of November 12, 1973 were reviewed. Considerable discussion was held on the action of the Council in regard to the proposed roof top screening requirement. The consensus of the Commission was that the ordinance was needed and they should push for its adoption. A motion was made by Oswald, second by Fulton, that the Commission reconfirm its desire to have the Council adopt the proposed roof top screening ordinance. Motion was unanimously carried on roll call vote - all 8 members voting in favor. 8. Chairman Ostlund appointed Mr. Oswald to the Traffic Study Committee to replace Mr. Meyer who had been elected to the Council. Short discussion was held on recent California apartment fire where open stairways apparently were the major cause of loss of life. tt was noted that the State was considering upgrading its require- ments for fire alarms and to ask for upgrading stairways in existing building appeared to be too lar§e a step at this time. There b~ing no further business to come before the Commission at this time the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.'on motion by Oswald, second by Cameron, and carried on voice vote. ~Res~e~t~ly submitted, Acting Secretary Planning Commission 1 - December 4, 1973 Mi nu res ' Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Village of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the Village Hall., 4401 Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, December 4, 1973. 1. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Meyer at 7:35 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Garin, Herman, Meyer and Oswald. Absent: Cameron, Fulton, Ohman and Ostlund. (Commissioners Cameron and Fulton arrived later during the meeting. Chairman Ostlund had an excused absence). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 73-72 (Special Use Permit - Variances - McDonald's Restaurant - 7849 - 42nd Avenue No.). Mr. Dennis Cavanagh requested that this be tabled until later in the meeting as Mrs. Brooks, who would be representing McDonalds, was not yet in attendance. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to table Planning Case No. 73-72 until later in the meeting. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planning C.ase ~9- 73-76 (Rezoning - Concept Approval - Commercial and T.R. Planned Unit Development at 42nd and #18 -Smith and Shaw). Mr. Don Ripple, planner for the project, presented Planning Case No. 73-76. Mr. Ripple stated that Mr, Smith and Mr. Shaw, owners of the property, had consulted with marketing people in respect to what type of uses would be appropriate for the property within their investment framework. They then approached him to develop a land use plan for a commercial and housing project. This was the extent of the perimeter assigned. There was no particularly given amount of acreage but a reasonable project was to be developed. Mr. Ripple said that as planners they needed to approach every project by first taking a very close look at the natural characteristics. He then went on to explain the topography of. the property showing the physical elements which were being dealt with. Most of the land is gently rolling and well drained. On the northern portion of the site, towards the center, is a fairly mature, wooded area and along the northern border there is a marsh area. Mr. Ripple stated that the next analysis they made was the project's affect on the area and how it re- lated to the adjacent area. Traffic, single family developments and the church were taken into consideration. The views from the single family areas which border towards the north were examined. Mr. Ripple stated that they had had a very brief meeting with one of the committees of the Planning Com- mission in order to get input from the Village's standpoint. Several things were pointed out at this meeting. One was that the Village would like to see some kind of a connection or continuation of Independence over to Gettysburg for traffic circulation reasons.. Another thing which they were concern- ed about was that the single family property in the southeast corner. It has been made a part of this project by option and if the project were to go ahead, the home would be purchased and removed. The other suggestion was that because of the hi'story of this piece of ground Mr. Ripple should conduct some neighborhood meetings or have some kind of contact with the neighborhood people to get their input and feelings and also so that they were informed as to what was being proposed. Three neighborhood meetings were held. The meetings developed a variety of reactions. Mr. Ripple com- mented that generally speaking the consensus was more positive than negative toward the proposal. Mr. Ripple stated that they felt the southern portion of the site was more realistically related toward some type of commercial use. With this in mind they came up with a general concept plan of the area which Mr. Ripple presented for the Commission's and citizen!s review. The uses which were analyzed on the northern portion were basically 47 single family homes or the alterna- tive of the proposed 42 townhouses in the same space leaving a considerable amount of the land open. Use of this open land would be left open, in its natural state, and not being used as a park type development. Mr, Ripple commented that he felt there was a lot of advantage to a townhouse development because it left a significant amount of space open and pretty well limits the amount of development on the northern half of this lot. T.hese structures would be serviced by internal roads. There would be off-street parking for the owners of the townhouses and also for visitors. Planning Commission 2 -' December 4, 1973 Mi nu tes The development of the commercial area lying to the south is pretty much determined by the zoning ordinance which requires a certain level of parking to floor space. The structure proposed here could range anywhere from lO0,O00 to 122,000 square feet retail gross floor area. The structure itself would probably be multi-level. The land slopes toward County Road #18 to the south so the building would be like a walkout house~ All walkways would be inside, climate controlled. Employee parking would be separate from patron parking. The green area was a concern which came up at all the neighborhood meetings. At one meeting it was strongly expressed that in order for the proposal to even have a chance of the people favoring it, the green area would have to remain in its natural state and be protected against development two or three years later. At the time of the meetings Mr, Ripple suggested several ways in which this could be done. After talking to the Village officials it' was agreed that the use of a scenic easement would be the best way to do this. Another way would be to-dedicate this piece of green space to the Village and it would' then become community property. Traffic wise Mr. Ripple stated that he had a number of meetings with the Hennepin County Highway Department, specifically with Dennis Hanson. Mr. Hanson has just completed a study over a two year period for the purpose of identifying various types of land uses such as residential, commerical, in- dustrial, etc. in regard to traffic generation. Mr. Hanson felt that the proposed center would generate 4,000 (8,000 in and out) round trips per 24 hour period. Within the 100,000 square feet of retail space there will be approximately 68-70% basic retail space with the other 30-35% being office space or eating space, something with an entertainment type 9f atmosphere. Retail uses usually generate more traffic than the personal services in an office. Mr. Ripple had also talked with two other firms who had said that shopping facilities of this type, from their figures, range between 42 and 55 vehicles per 24 hour period per 1,000 square feet of floor which would be around 5,000 round trips instead of 8,000. According to Mr. Hanson sufficient traffic would probably be generated to warrent a signal at 42nd and Gettysburg. The counts would need to actually exist before the signals would be authorized, however. Mr. Ripple also presented a divider plan to control traffic at the proposed ~ettysburg/Independence intersection. Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Ripple if these would be privately owned townhouses. Mr. Ripple's reply was that they would be. The whole area would be owned in common by the 42 owners of the townhouses. The land would not be run by an outside commercial developer. Price ranges would be from $40,000 to $60,000 per townhouse depending on the market. Mr. Ripple commented that if he was to get concept approval, the next logical step would be to submit architectural plans for the buildings and the townhouses, complete grading plans and engineering plans as a unit as needed for the planned unit development. Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Ripple if he could give the Commission a clue as to the type of stores the developer envisioned. Mr. Ripple said that presently they were considering shops along the line of "nostalgic" -- some kind of architecture and products that will' appeal to people in the 45-50 year category. Market surveys also indicate that this could be a successful commercial enterprise because ~-of the income and age levels of the families in the area. ~F':]-':~"].]?'.:~i]~]~:~'i.~n~nissioner Oswald questioned if it would not be best in this discussion of the proposal to first con- ''<r' ~'?~Y'f~ider the point of if the Commission should concern themselves wi th the legal justification for the re- -.t~oning. Commissioner Oswald commented that he was not concerned with the acceptability of the develop- ment proposal but the actual justification for rezoning. He'stated he felt there had been a major change in the character of the land as a result of the change in intersection design at 42nd and ~18. This intersection was originally designed as a straight diamond in the late 50's which meant that the area used for that interchange probably did not extend half as far to the east and west of County Road ~18 as it does presently. It also makes a difference in the speed of the off-coming cars, cars coming off and going onto the ramps. He then commented that he felt the petitioner had not addressed himself to this particular problem. He felt that the change in the area from the original zoning perhaps justifies the need for rezoning. Basically he felt the change from a straight diamond to a full clover- leaf justifies rezoning; however, whether the R.B. is the correct zoning or not, needs to be determined. Commissioner Oswald also expressed concern regarding the north traffic flow onto the existing Ihdependence Avenue and how this would be controlled in terms of commercial traffic into the residential area. Asked, if he had given any consideration to how north bound traffic could be reduced, and how the use of ~-~ Independence Avenue as a throughfare for this business use could be reduced, Mr. Ripple replied that he felt this point is important. He felt if a person lives in the neighborhood he would probably want to circulate whereever'they were going in the neighborhood. Non-area residents would find the fastest way to get out this general area is to go onto County Road #9 and go north or south on #18 or Boone Avenue. Planning Commission 3 - December 4, 1973 Mi nutes Commissioner Oswald said that he agreed with Mr. Ripple's conception that the logistics make it easier for people to exit by Gettysburg and 42nd once it is signalized, but the period of 80-90% level of traffic before signalization would take place could be a problem. Discussion concerning the 8,000 cars per 24 hour period was held. Commissioner Oswald commented that regardless of the type of stores, assuming they are quality stores, and not running a low margin or. high volume such as a very large supermarket or a discount store, he felt traffic would be more in the 4,000 - 5,000 trips rather than 8,000. Mr. Ripple stated that most of his resources tended to favor the lower number also. Mr. Ripple said there would be no discount store in this center.' As far as food stores were concerned they were think- ing of an in between size at the largest such as a superette. Asked about the hours of operation, Mr. Ripple replied that the retail space would have to be similar to Knollwood or Midland Shopping Centers which usually have one or two nights a week that the retail stores are open. Commissioner Oswald expressed concern about the hours of the restaurant or entertainment, as parking lights would then be required. Mr. Ripple commented that they had not really gone into this much detail. It would be perhaps around 12 or 12:30. Commissioner Herman commented that they were talking about land use, appropriate land use and how it relates to other similar land use in the community. He felt this had to be a consideration. He noted New Hope has managed to keep most of its retail areas centralized on Winnetka Avenue. Approval of this area would be going off of this approach and he was concerned about'this for a number of reasons. This property was zoned residential and even though Commissioner Herman did not want to speak against this project because he felt it was a beautiful development, he still was not convinced that a cloverleaf totally eliminates the development of a parcel of property of this size for residential land use. If it does, in fact, eliminate consideration for residential land use then perhaps there were other considerations for a piece of property of this type which Commissioner Herman thought were very compatible land uses without the heavy commercial. Commissioner Herman also commented that this shopping center would be the largest in New Hope. New Hope does have several other shopping centers such as New Nope Shopping Center and Midland which are both approximately 50,000 - 60,000 square feet. The proposed additional square footage would create new con- siderations. One being competition with existing retail developments in the Village. Most of the retail areas which New Hope has presently also have an abundance of expansion potential and available land all around them. CommiSsioner Herman stated that there were some serious questions which can be raised as to why New Hope should begin a major retail shopping center in this particular location. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Ripple if any marketing research had been done as to if this area Would justify a shopping center in light of the existing development in New Hope and the proposed development across the street in Plymouth. Mr. Ripple replied that his client had the market studies which indi- cated little concerned since they would not be competing with these developments. The proposed develop- ment in Plymouth was a different level of marketing and a different level of merchandise. Commissioner Oswald commented that there was not a legal reason to consider competition perse as to whether this may hurt another business development. Commissioner Cameron stated that he felt they were talking about something larger than just a neighbor- hood shopping center in New Hope. Mr. Ripple said that the market analyst went to Plymouth's Planning Staff and talked to them on their long range comprehensive plans and they still felt this site was a good location. Mr. Dick Densly, 3732 Jersey Avenue North, President of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, was present to comment on this case. Mr. Densly stated that the church was in opposition to this request and sub- mitted a letter outlining the reasons. At this time Commissioner Meyer noted that a letter from Holy Trinity as well as letters received from Mr. Joseph Muhiclage and Mr. Theodore W. Hunt, who are homeowners in the area, as being opposed to this project also. Mr~ Densly said that the church had approximately four acres which would border the eastern part of this proposed plan. They have the possibility of a Christian day school being added. Plans have been developed but not acted on. Also Mr. Densly was concerned about the traffic. Planning Commission 4 - December 4, 1973 Minutes Reverend R. Bittorf of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church read some of the basic objections which the church had. Some of the objections were as follows: They did not feel another business development was necessary because: 1. New Hope Shopping Center is in close proximity for the residents of our area of New Hope. 2. M~dland Shopping Center serves also the southern section of New Hope. 3. These shopping centers are sufficient in size and number to serve the area well. 4. There are less than 100 residential logs left to be developed in New Hope (single family residences). 5. Multiple dwellings at this date are no longer permissible in New Hope. Commissioner Garin asked for clarification of Item No.5.. Reverend Bittorf stated that he was led to believe that this was the situation under present zoning. Commissioner Meyer commented that this was not true, there was existing zoning remaining MR. It was per- missible. Reverend Bittorf went on to explain why the church council felt another business development would not be. desirable with the following statements: "We of the church council of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, 4240 Gettysburg Avenue North, are of the unanimous opinion that another business development is not desirable: 1. It would not compliment our church aesthetically. 2. It would pose a congested traffic situation at the corner of 42nd and Gettysburg Avenues. Gettysburg Avenue has now become a main artery for traffic heading south in addition to the church member traffic. 3. It is undesirable to have a shopping center or retail business area-in the proximity of a school. Our congregation made a decision some five years ago to construct an extension of its educational wing and subsequently, to construct a parochial or Christian day school. We have engaged an architect and preliminary drawings are complete, along with working drawings for the initial section of this proposed construction on our approximate 4 1/2 acres of property. (Architect: Horne). This, if done, will occur as part of !ong range planning. ~. The area serves well as an open area. It is one of few left in New Hope. It is a good buffer zone between the busy HY 18 freeway and the residential area and church. 5. The business development proposal necessitates an exit, and certainly more than one. Adequate freeflow exit is out of the picture. There is not direct access onto HY 18, nor is there any such exit possible since HY 18 is a federal construction project. The church council also expects another study will be given to the proposed construction of Independence Avenue if this road is to be approved and constructed. The proposed access and exit of Independence Avenue, as it is projected to intersection with Gettysburg Avenue, occurs at the front door (in projection) of our new parsonage at 4332 Gettysburg. We suggest that no one cares to live as in a fishbowl, i.e. beset by especially car lights at night. We suggest that this road exit onto Gettysburg either at the intersection of 44th Circle North, or south by open church property. We the church council are of the unanimous opinion that another multiple type dwelling such as a town- house complex is not very desirable because: 1. New Hope Village has a large enough number of multiple dwelling units. 2. Such units do discourage many seeking single family housing. 2. These type units of multiple nature (townhouses, duplexes and apartments) do not add greatly to the stability of a community churchwise and they perhaps do present to the coffrnunity more than an "average share" of other problems. We of the church council of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, 4240 Gettysburg Avenue North, would have no objection to a park area". The above letter was signed by the President of Holy Trinity Church and Secretary of Holy Trinity Church and accepted by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission .- 5 -' December 4, 1973 Minutes -. Commissioner Fulton questioned the statement regarding such units discouraging many seeking single family housing. Reverend Bittorf stated that he had heard the comment from single family residents that they have either moved or are disgusted with their property because of cars, traffic problems', etc. Item 3 was brought up. Commissioner Fulton asked Mr, Bittorf to describe some of these "average share" of other problems which the communitywould be provided with. Reverend Bittorf stated that he felt in not too few instances there was an increase in moral problems such as the ADC girls who would be ~oving into these townhouses. Commissioner Garin asked Reverend Bittorf what Was wrong with an ADC mother. Reverend Bi ttorf said there was nothi.ng wrong with them but there were many instances with problems in conjunction with them living in apartment situations. Mr. Lloyd Wasnick, 9029 - 46th Avenue North, presented a petition with approximately 80 names in opposi- tion to the rezoning. Mr. Wasnick questioned earlier statements of Mr. Ripple regarding the reaction of people at the neighbor- hood meetings. Asked if anyone who lived south of the Helling house had been invited to the meeting, Mr. Ripple replied yes, they had. Everybody from 47th all the way down Gettysburg. Mr. ~asnick then commented to the Planning Commission that he had gQne down Gettysburg and every person on that block had signed the petition he had presented. He had not found a single person who had express- ed favor for this project. Mr~ Ripple commented that there were several people at the meeting tonight who had expressed a favorable opinion to this p~oposed development when he had talked to them. Mr. Wasnick was also greatly concerned about the traffic flow. Mr. Wasnick asked if the green area was dedicated to the townhouse owners would it mean that the owners of the townhouses could use the land and fence it off. Mr. Ripple replied that the owners would have all rights a regular property owner would. Mr. Wasnick then noted that even if the-property was zoned RB and the so called nosolgic approach was used there is no assurance that they will have control of the people who will occupy the spaces available. Mr. Wasnick stated that they had a situation in the New Hope Shopping Center there there has been empty spaces since the day it was established. There is also no assurance that the owner will not sell to someone else who may have an entire different motive. Commissioner Oswald commented that the owner in a lease can have a very tight and absolute control over tenants but it was true that the municipality would have little control. Mr. Wasnick stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission should react to the developer or owner of the land just to optimize land values through rezoning and he felt this was far too often the way it was taken. Mr. Lyle Carlson also was present to comment on the case. Mr. Carlson had tried to purchase this particu- lar property a few years ago for. residential building. However, it was not for sale to a home builder. Mr. Carlson said he was no longer interested in this.piece of land as he bad already bought other lots. However, he still felt that it was a good residential area. Mr. Wasnick stated that when he moved to New Hope from Crystal four or five years ago, he had moved with the idea that the church would stay where it was and the zoning would also stay as it was. During the four years he has lived here in New Hope this is his third appearance defending this piece of land. He did not feel it was fair to the people, Commissioner Fulton asked Mr. Wasnick if he had any objections to the townhouses proposed on this piece of land. Mr. Wasnick replied that he did as he felt this was the most beautiful piece of land for sin§le family residents in the whole community. Questioned as to what the difference was betweem single family houses, or townhouses; Mr. Wasnick re- plied that he just did not approve of townhouses. Planning Commission - 6 - December 4, 1973 Minutes Mr. Martin Overheiser, Di'rector of Planning and Community Development for Plymouth, asked to speak. He handed out copies of Plymouth's guide plan. Mr. Overheiser stated' that he was here representing the Village of Plymouth and trying to relate to the Commission some of the policies and guidelines that Plymouth's Village Council and Planning Commission have adopted and how they relate to this particular proposal. Mr. Overheiser said that he personally did not feel this should be rezoned to RB based on their future plans. Their planning had included consideration of the location of New Hope's shopping areas. The area at 42nd and Winnetka had been used to lay out Plymouth's neighborhood center. The gu'ide called for spacing of about 1 1/2 miles and at least 1,O00 feet away from a ramp. Under these guide- lines, the next neighborhood center on 42nd should be at Lancaster Lane in Plymouth. Plymouth does have an approved center at this point. Mr. Edward Lance, 4472 Independence Avenue North, stated that traffic was already dangerous if you were coming on County Road #18 going north to take a left turn onto Gettysburg Avenue and 1). he suspected you were breaking the law because he knew several people who had been picked up for~this, 2). you are taking your life into your own hands. Coming down Co'unty Road #18 and going onto County Road #9 Mr. Lance has to make a left turn onto Gettysburg to get to 'his home. If he wants to do it legally or safely he has to go down to Boone Avenue on 42nd take a left on Boone and another left on 45th Avenue and come down 45th Avenue taking a left at Independence. Mr. Lance stated that townhouses, especially during busy traffic hours, were definitely going to be a problem, traffic wise. Mr. Overmeyer, church member of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, commented that a few years ago, Holy Trinity was asked to sacrifice some of their land in order to widen 42nd and to help facilitate traffic, which they did. In completing Gettysburg Avenue and giving up their property they understood the land was ~esidential and assumed it would remain residential. Mr. Steve Johnson said that no mention had been made as to the economic base which will degenerate from {he development and he was questioning as to what was foreseen as far as tax additions to New Hope from the development versus development as a single family area. Commissioner Meye~ said that the Planning Commissio~ was concerned with the land use at this point and not economic return. Mr. Gerald J. DeGidio, 8810 - 45th Avenue North, was also present to speak in opposition to townhouses as he felt they were not being sold and several million dollar projects were shut down throughout the area. Commissioner Garin asked Mr. DeGidio, since he was a builder, could he tell why townhous'es were not selling as well as single family houses. He did not have a specific answer. Mr. Steve Larson, 9010 - 45th Avenue North, stated that his concern was the traffic problem at'45th. Mr. Larson stated that Mr. Ripple had not mentioned how he would eliminate the traffic from th~'northwest quadrant coming down Boone turning onto 45th and coming into the shopping center this way. Mr. Larson did not feel Gettysburg or 45th could handle extra traffic. Mr. Steve Lemmon, 9019 - 46th Avenue North, commented that he had bought a home where other single family residences were and this property was zoned single family. He was not really concerned about the traffic problem as he was far enough away so it did not directly affect him that much. Mr. Lemmon would be able to see the townhouses from his back yard and he just did not like the appearance of town- houses. Mrs. Montray, 9210 - 45th Avenue North, directly across the street from the marsh, stated she felt that at the time they were reviewing the proposal she did not feel it was a bad idea, but after hearing more about it this' evening her feelings had changed. Mostly because of the traffic problem, she would favor single family residential homes. Mrs. Mary Smedberg, 9330 - 45th Avenue North, stated that she did not want a shopping center at her front door. She also felt it should be kept as single family residential. Mr. Jerome Rachwal, 9030 - 45th Avenue North, moved to New Hope last year and wanted to know what was going to happen to the economics of the homes in this area if they would devalue because of the shopping center. Mrs. Smedber9 again commented that if she wanted to do her shopping she would go to Brookdale or Southdale or somewhere else but she did wot want one next door toher. She felt it was important to reserve the land area so people would want to live here. Mr. Mohinder L. Sharma,. 9346 - 45th Avenue North, said he too, was greatly concerned about the traffic and 'nuh~er of cars that would be generated. Planning CommisSion 7 -' December 4, 1974 Minutes Several people commented on the energy crisis. Several felt that it did not seem right using extra energy for lights in the parking lots, etc. Commissioner Meyer commented that this property, in his opinion, did not fit in wi th the total compre- hensive plan of the Village. Commissioner Cameron said that one of the criteria in rezoning was the change in character of the land and he felt that there was a change from the original 1960 comprehensive plan as the 42nd and #18 inter- change was originally envisioned as a relatively small diamond interchange, now there was a rather massive cloverleaf interchange. The character of the land has changed, but in terms of looking at entrance and access to this particular piece it .seemed to him it had changed for the worse. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Garin, for denial of Planning Case No. 73-76 based on the traffic situation with the limited access and problems which would develop throughout the residential area as additional traffic would be forced north in the developed area. Vote was taken. Voting in favor: Cameron, Fulton, Garin, Herman, Meyer and Oswald. Voting against: None. Motion carried by majority vote. A yive minute recess was called at 10:30 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Meyer. The meeting was called back to order by Vice-Chairman Meyer at 10:35 p.m. 3. Plannin9 Case No. 73-72 (Special Use Permit - Variances - McDonald"s Restaurant - 7849 - 42nd Avenue North). Co~nmissioner Garin moved, second by Commissioner Fulton, to take Planning Case No. 73-72 off the table. Motion carried by voice vote. Mrs. Helen Brooks, Broker's Exchange, stated that the attorney would not be present and that she was representing both McDonald's and the land owner in this project. Mrs. Brooks stated that she had talked to Mr. Bill Dupay and Mr. Caloway from the Highway Department regarding the traffic situation. The road on 42nd Avenue is built for a maximum capacity of 20,000 in 1985 and presently there is 15,000~cars, so traffic is not really straining. By figures alone McDonalds can not say they are going to create a traffic problem or take part in one. McDonalds all over the area lives off the traffic which goes by. Mrs. Brooks commented that she did not feel McDonalds would be creating any more traffic than was already present. Commissioner Cameron remarked that he understood that this type of service lives largely off of the existing traffic. His main concern was not so much that they would generate a great deal of additional traffi~but rather the location of the proposed site very close to a major intersection and the right turn, left turn exit onto 42nd Avenue with the resulting traffic conflicts. Mrs. Brooks stated that it was impossible to give the Commission a definite figure or estimate as to how many cars would be going in and out per day. When asked if there was anything new pKoposed since the last meeting Mrs. Brooks replied there was not. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to move for denial of Planning Case No. 73-72 for the reason that traffic problems created by the exiting and entrance to the site would be substantial and also that the number and type of variances that would be needed to develop could not be justified. Motion carried on voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5-8. There were no committee reports from the Codes and Standards Committee, Land Use Committee, Liquor Study Committee or Design and Review Committee. NEW BUSINESS 9. Discussion of Membership Appointments. Mr. Larson stated that there were two openings on the Planning Commission plus one opening coming. There were a few applications in and interviews should be set. After discussion it was decided that applicants will be interviewed the first meeting of January, 1974. Planning Commission - 8 - December 4, 1973 Minutes Discussion held on having a second meeting in December. After discussion Vice-Chairman Meyer asked that the second meeting of December be cancelled wi th approval from the rest of the Commission with the under- standing that the Village Manager should notify the Commission if a major need for a meeting develops. 10. The Planning Commission minutes of November 20, 1973 were approved on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Garin, motion carried by voice vote. ll. The Council minutes of November 26, 1973 were reviewed with Mr. Larson pointing out that the Council wished Planning Commission representation on the roof top screening requirement. 12. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff. Commissioner Garin moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, that this was the most democratically chaired meeting in the past two years. Motion carried on voice vote. 13. Announcements. Discussion held on a proposed car sales agency in Plymouth. Mr. Larson also passed out a projection on New Hope population and land use. 14. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at ll:05 on motion by Commissioner Garin, second by Commissioner Oswald, and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 1973 1. The December 18, 1973 New Hope Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Dennis Ostlund, 5 minutes late, at 7:35, at the New Hope V£11age Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North. 2. PRESENT: Ohman, Garin, Ostlund, Meyer, Cameron, Oswald, Herman. ABSENT: None 3. Motion by Cameron, second by Oswald to accept the resignation of Commissioner Tom Fulton. Motion carried. 4. Discussion held as to reduction of size of Planning Commission. Chairman Ostlund read excerpts from Resolution 56-2, Chapter I0, establishing the Planning Commission at 7 members. Cited the 'fact that New Hope is now complete as far as major development and a smaller commission could function more effectively on problems which New Hope will be facing. Commissioner Cameron spoke in favor of reducing the size of the Con~ission. He pointed out that the Commission has been operating at eight members for the past year and has had an extremely good attendance record. Commissioner Cameron added that there is efficiency to be gained by operating with a smaller group. Commissioner Oswald cited other communities and the size of planning commissions: Brooklyn Park - 12 St. Louis Park - 11 Plymouth - 7 Golden Valley - 9 Crystal - 15 Robbinsdale - 5 Minnetonka - 7 Brooklyn Center - 7 Edina - 7 Motion by Ohman, second by Garin to recommend to the Council that the Planning Commission size be reduced to eight members. Motion carried unanimously. 5. The following applicants were present and interviewed by the Planning Commission: Mr. Ronald J. Newhouse Mr. William D. Barber Mr. Richard B. Ludwig Mr. Terry L. Jensen Mr. R. Rodney Pakonen Mr. Gary R. Allen Five minute recess called at 9:25. At 9:35 the meeting was called back to order by Chairman Ostlund. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 DECEMBER 18, 1973 General discussion of candidates held. By secret ballot, Con~nission recommended that Mr. Gary R. Allen by appointed to a three year term to the Commission, and that Mr. R. Rodney Pakonen be appointed to complete the term of Commissioner Fulton, ending December 31, 1974. 6. Discussion held as to possible projects Commission might become involved in during the next few years. 7. Chairman Qstiund noted a change in the Planning Commission minutes of December 4, 1973~ pointing out that it was Commissioner 'Oswald who insulted him and not Commissioner Garin, as the minutes show. Chairman Ostlund also added that there could possibly be aa additional vacancy on the Commission. 8. Since no Council minutes were available, none were reviewed. 9. Chairman Ostlund read letter of resignation from Commissioner Meyer. Motion by Cameron, second by Oswald to accept resignation without regret. Motion carried. 10. Announcements. None. 11. Motion by Garin, second by Cameron to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:O7 pm. Submitted by, Scott D Meyer Recording Secretary 12-19-73 Resolution Nco 56~2 Chapter 10 A resol~.tion Establishing ~ Village Planning Commission, Pursuant to 'the Provisions of MSA 471o32 The Vil.l~ge Council of the Vill~ ge of. New Hope resolves as follows: section lo Establishment of Commission~ A Village Planning Commission for the Village of New Hope is hereby est~blishedo Section 2o Co~oosition.o Said Planning Commission shall consist of seven (7) memb~rs ~oooir:ted by ~h~ Village Council~ each to serve a term of three (3) y~r~ or u~'~ti! hi~ successor i~ ~opoiuted and oualif~es~ muless sooner r~mo~d bM ~ four~f~f't~s ([~/Sths) vota of tho Co~mcil~ Every a~point~d membe~ sh~ll~ be~fore enteri~g upon 0he disoh~r~e of his duties~ take ~n oat/n that ..... ~ ,~Lar~ the duties of ams office~ Of the members of the Comm'~lssior~ first appointed~ two (2) sh~ll be appointed for a term end~g Dece~0er 31~ 195~6~ ~,wo (2) for ~ te~n ending Dece~oer 31~ 1957 ~nd two (2) for a term ~d~e December 31~ 1958. ~ne seventh me~Oer sh~ll be member of the Village ~o~c~z~d s~all se~e ~til December ~I of the year in which ~Fpo~+~d by the Vil~e Co~cii. Section ~ Organization ~ Meetings, The Co~,ission shall elect one of its n~ber as C~h~Irm~n ~r~ ~not~er as Secreta~ each of ~om shall hold s~id ~sitions matil Deoe;~ber ~1 folic~inM their election ~s such. The shall hold ~t le~s~ o~e (i) regular meetin~ e~oh month~ ~h~ll ~doot ~les for the trans~ction of busi~ess~ and shall keeo ~ ~cord of it~ r~solutions~ mo'tlons~ transactions ~nd findin~s~ which reco~ sh~ll be ~ oublio retch. One (1) of the minutes of ~ch meetin~ sha~ be delivered to the Village Cle~ ~thin fifteen (15) d~ys thereafter Who shall ~co~ ~e same ~s a pe~anent reco~ of the Vil~ge~ Section 4o ~ose~ ~utborit~ ~nd Duties~ The Pl~nn~g Co~ission shall se~e as' an advisor7 body to t~e Vil~e Council~ a~ is hereby authorized and directed to carry on Village pla~ing activities ~nd to ~dopt a plan for the regulation of the fu~ ph~ic~i develo~ent of the Village~ ~nd to pre~ ~re arH adoot an official mip of ~ll proceed alterations of e~st~g and p~01ic ~paces,~ ~r~d the future deve!opmen~t of unplatted p~rties and shall reoo~e~d approval or dis~ooro~-~i of smbdi~isions of ~ndo ~e commission shall make ast, udy' of future dev'eioTments of the m~icipality ~cluding pro~s~d public buii~i~o~ street ~rrangemenss s~d ~p~vements~ public utility se~ic~s~ parks~ p!aygro~uds ~d other s~mi!~r develo~entso The results of all studies made by the Coca, lesion to~ether wi~h ~e recommendations of the Co. lesion shall be submitted to the Vill~ge Co~cilo The Plann~ Com~ssion shall upon re~est of the Vil~aee Comucll~ m~ke reco~m~enda~ions to the Co~cil ~g~rding matters affecting zor~g~ piatt~g~ the mskir~g of ~ublic imoro~ements ~nd other measures ~ffeoting the future or pr~sen~ development of the Villageo ~.~sed by ~e Vill~e Co.ell of the Viil~ge ol New Hope this 26th day of J~nu~f~ 1956~ Milan Co Hons~ Attest~ Don T~cker ~lerk