The URL can be used to link to this page

1974 Planning 974 PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD Jan. Feb. M.a,,r., , April MaS June ~)ul~y Aug. Se?t. Oct. Nov. Dec. 2 15 5 19 5 19 2 16 7 21 , 4 18 2 16 6 120 3 I17 1 ? 5 19 3 17 CAMERON HERMAN OSTLUND OSWALD JENSEN ..... PAKONEN Planning Commission' - 1'- January 2, 1974' Minutes A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, January 2, 1974 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, at 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Cameron, Herman, Ohman, Ostlund and Oswald. Absent: Garin. (Entered at 7:45 p.m.). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 74-1 {Variance in Rear Yard Setback, Approval of Building Plans - Olson Concrete Co., 50th and Hillsboro). Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 74-1 until later in the meeting as the petitioner was not yet present. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 74-2 (Variance in Parking Restrictions - General Mills). Mw. Roy Watson, General Transportation Manager of General Mills, Inc. headquarters in Golden Valley, Minnesota, was present to present this case. Mr. Watson stated he had been informed by the City Manager that for General Mills to run a commuter van program they would need a variance to allow for the parking of a 12 passenger - 1 ton van in the City of New Hope. City ordinance states t~at no person shall park a truck over three quarter tons in a residential district. A truck is defined as every motor vehicle designed, used or maintained p~imarily for the transportation of property. Mr. Watson questioned.as to whether it was. necessary for the variance as people were ~ot considered property by law. Under the statutes of the State of Minnesota a twelve passenger van is considered as a bus. The program is a program which offers a solution to the transporting of General Mills' employees to work other than one person per vehicle. Basically, it is General Mills approach to do something about the energy crisis and air pollution. It is a program which has been started in five other areas, namely- Brooklyn Park, Mound, across ~18 in the Lancaster apartments and into southwest Minneapolis.. General Mills has 301 employees in the City of New Hope. Commissioner Oswald commented that he saw no objection to this request. Mr. Watson noted that many families had this type of a vehicle. There would be no signs or forms of advertising on the outside of the van. The license plates are the same as a car license, not commercial, as the vans are not used for commercial purposes. General Mills would buy the van and turn it over to an employee who would be responsible for maintaining and driving the vehicle. He will pick up the passengers, bring them to work and take them home at night. The van would be parked in his driveway during the evening. It is a non-profit type of proposition. The first nine passengers pay for the cost of the van to General Mills. Any fares collected from the lOth and llth passengers would go to the driver as a profit incentive to keep the ridership up. The individual who drives the vehicle can make money but not really a profit as such. Questioned as to if the height of the vehicle would permit parking in a standard size garage, Mr. Watson replied probably not unless larger doors were installed. Of the five vans in operation four were parked outside and one was kept in a garage. Mr. Watson commented that he thought the maximum number of vans in the City would probably be five or six. Chairman Ostlund commented that the neighbor's feelings in regards to the vans being parked in their neighborhood should .be considered. Commissioner Cameron felt there should be some kind of check as to where these vans would be parked. Mr. Watson said he could not see where the vehicles would distract or add any unsightliness to the City of New Hope as the vans would always be maintained and kept in good condition. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Herman, that Planning Case No. 74-2 for General Mills be referred to the Codes and Standards Committee for review and a report would be made back to the Commission in two weeks. Voting in favor: Cameron, Garin, Herman, Ohman, Ostlund. Voting against: Oswald. Motion carried. Planning Commission m -- 2 - January 2, 1974- Mi nu tes The question'was one of what type of precedent would be set by officially letting larger vans into residential neighborhoods. 5. Planning Case No. 74-3 {Special Use Permit - (Home Beauty Shop) - Mrs. David Budig, 4541 Oregon Avenue North). Mrs. David Budig, petitioner, stated thai they were moving to New Hope from Duluth into a home being built at 4541 Oregon Avenue North and Mrs. Budig would like to obtain a special use permit to operate a small beauty shop in' her basement. There would be no additional help; Mrs. Budig would be the only operator with one sink and a couple of hair dryers. Chairman Ostlund asked Mrs. Budig how she obtained her supplies. Mrs. Budig said she could go down to the supply house and if a person was organized a little bit there were salesmen who would call on you. There would be no truck delivery except for initial equipment and Mrs. Budig said she would probably pick this up herself. Mrs. Budig has adouble car garage and a double driveway; there%ore, they should not have a problem with traffic congestion. Mrs. Budig stated that there would be at the most only a couple of cars at their home at a time. She would only take as many ladies as she could handle which Would probably be two - one under the dryer and one being set. Chairman Ostlund asked if the neighbors had been notified. Mr. Larson replied that apparently one of the immediate neighbors had not been notified and there was an objection since the notice had been sent to Dempsey, the builder of the home. Commissioner Cameron asked if their house was being built to the Budig's specifications. Mr. Budig re- plied that it was. They were supposed to move in February lst; however, the bui)der is kind of holding off as he will finish off the basement for Mrs. Budig's occupation. The Minnesota State Board requires that the room has to be at least l0 X 12 with an exhaust fan and a separate entrance. The separate entrance would come through their garage. Asked about the plumbing and wiring, Mrs. Budig's reply was that she would need 220 outlets for her dryer and the plumbing would have to come into the room for the sink. Rather than just a small area divided off, the shop would include the whole family room so that if they were to move or be transferred the shop could be taken out and it would remain a family room. Asked if Mrs. Budig had previously had any type of beauty shop, Mrs. Budig replied that she had not. Questioned as to whether there was any way she could control the number of customers coming in, Mrs. Budig said she would have to book for one under the dryer and one being set. Hours of operation range anywhere from around 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with perhaps one night a week set aside for someone who works and is unable to have her hair done during the day. Mr. Albert Eisenbrisz, 4533 Oregon Avenue North, stated that he had not received a notice and that he was opposed to this type of operation in a home. Mr, Eisenbrisz could not understand wh~ the Commission would let a beauty shop go into a private home. He felt that businesses should be kept in a business district and residential should keep in residential areas. Mr. Eisenbrisz felt that property value would eventually be destroyed. Mr. Eisenbrisz had three primary objections: 1. The fire hazard - He felt hair sprays and other chemicals were highly flammable. 2. Pollution - Mr. Eisenbrisz felt that an exhaust fan in a private home would auto- matically create more air pollution in the immediate neighborhood. 3. The additional traffic - Mr. Eisenbrisz stated that he felt the street was not wide enough to accommodate this additional traffic. Smaller children in this particular area was' also a concern of Mr. Eisenbrisz. Mr. Eisenbrisz then stated that even if the license for the beauty shop was approved he was not going to stop fighting to get it out of this area. He did not feel it should be approved and did not want a beauty shop next to his home. Mr. Richard Chole, 4557 Oregon Avenue North, questioned the zoning and restrictions in this area. Mr. Chole asked if there could be any. type of a sign. Chairman Ostlund replied that there could be no sign except a sign wi th the Budig's name and address. There can be no indication from the outside that the home is anything but residential. Mr. Chole stated that his objections and some of the other, neighbors were basically two things: the traffic and property valuation. The operation a,s outlined did not appear to present a major problem if it did not expand and present any outside appearance of a commercial enterprise. ~-~ Mrs. Budig stated that she did realize she would not be allowed any signs advertising her place of bus,ness as a beauty shop unless she applied for a variance. 'Planning Commission -. 3 - January 2~ 1974 Mi h ~tes Mr. Stephen Remio~ky, 4549 Oregon 'Avenue North, said he felt the same way as Mr. Chole. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to recommend to the CoUncil approval of Plan- ning Case No. 74-3 with the stipulation that the special use be restricted to only the owner operator, that the hours be restricted from 9:00 a~m. to 6:'00 p.m. except for one ~n~ght per week; that the approval of the appropriate officials - Fire Marshal and Building Inspector - be given and that the permit be subject to annual rewiew. Discussion was then held. C~mmissioner Oswald moved, with approval from Commissioner Garin, to delete from the motion any reference to the hours of operation. Vote was taken. Motion carried on voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 74-4 (Variance in Parking - Benson-Orth - 4800 Quebec Avenue North). Mr. Kaye Westmore stated that they were building a building at 49th and Quebec Avenue North. It was originally being built as a spec building. Presently they have a tenant moving in, Arrowhead Industries, and are requesting to be able to eliminate part of the parking and turn it into green area since Arro~mad Industries_does not require the amount of parking i~icated. The lot is big enough to accept parking in excess of what is required for the size of the structure, etc.; however, the present tenant does not require a great deal of parking so green area is being requested. Mr~ Westmore commented that they were asking for a reduction of parking or blacktop area; 64 parking spaces, minimum, are requi-red by code; they would like this reduced to 37 parking spaces. In answer to a question about the type of operation, Mr. Westmore replied Arrowhead Industries manu- factures aluminum siding of all kinds; it is primarily an automated system and there are very few employees. There will be approximately 12 employees including the office at the maximum. Co~missioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 74-4 for a variance to permit 37 parking stalls subject to a submission of a new site plan showing the parking laid out for 64 vehicles with a Phase I paving plan, designated on the plan for the 37 vehicles, and that the fire lane along the west side of the building be reviewed by the'Fire Marshal for approval and that the balance of area not paved under Phase I be completely sodded. Motion carried on voice vote. 3. Planning Case No. 74-1 (Variance in Rear.Yard Setback, Approval of Building Plans - Olson Concrete Company - 50th and Hillsboro). Commissioner Ohman moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to take Planning Case No. 74-1 off the table. Motion. carried. The petitioner for Olson Concrete Company stated that they were applying for a variance on a-rear yard setback and also requesting approval of their site plans for a proposed building in their industrial park at 50th and Hillsboro. Commissioner Cameron asked how many parking spaces there would be and the reply was 47 which does meet the code. Presently the company has less than 20 employees and'plan on a maximum of around 30. Commissioner Herman commented that the Design and Review Co~ittee had reviewed the parking layout and found that they did not have the necessary designation of vehicle stalls although there was enough space shown. The parking layout has been revised and the proper number of stalls are now shown but there was still a question on the layout. The Design and Review Committee was concerned about setbacks; Lot 2, Block 2.directly to the north of this property also owned by Olson Concrete Company, is also an available lot and could easily be developed with another building o~ a similar size l0 feet away from the same property'li:ne,. Their concern was that you would end up with a 20 foot open area between two large size structures. ~t would be difficult to maintain such an area. The front of the building is on the west with the rear being towards the east and Mr. Herman felt it might be well to review the code for what is actually needed for open yards in relation to building location. The third item mentioned was that the applicant was not submitting plans that were designed by an architect. City ordinance requires that all buildings be designed by a registered architect. The same requirement is a matter of state law according to Mr. Herman. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Herman, that Planning Case No. 74-1 be tabled for two weeks. In the meantime the Design and Review Committee again will meet with Olson Concrete Company. Motion carried on voice vote. 7. Planning Case No. 74-5 {Rezoning - SR to ~B - Village of New Hope - Gettysburg and 42nd Avenue North). City Manager Larson presented the case stating that the City was proposing the rezoning of some property between Gettysburg and 42nd Avenues from SR to LB. 'Planning Commission -4 - January 2~ 1974 Mr. Larson then went on to explain the basic background of this property in terms of its location to surrounding development, present zoning in the area-and physical characteristics of the site. The two parcels in question are located immediately ~outh of 42nd and west of Gettysburg. Several development proposals have been made in the 40 acre quadrant over the years. The quadrant now has approximately 25 acres' left after the taking of the #18 right-of-way. There is less than 3 acres involved in the two lots included in the petition. The two lots are the subject of a law suit as a result of a 1970 case. Since 1970 the City and the 1970 petitioner (Carpenter/Collier) had been discussing various development ideas. The petitioner, Carpenter, had last met with the City.in early summer and indicated he would be willing to try to market the property based on the LB zoning use. A letter has been re- ceived from Mr. Carpenter's attorney within the last month indicating that they were proposing the City look favorably upon a commercial development that would include a restaurant, Crown Auto type store and another building, which from past discussions, would prRbably be a dairy type store. Commissioner'Ohman asked Mr. Larson if, in that one of the possible uses in a limited business is multiple, did this include the new town houses. Mr. Larson replied that there was a question with the adoption of the new TR ordinance. Commissioner Oswald asked that the criteria be reviewed by the Commission members. Mr. Larson again'reviewed the changes that had occurred in the area in terms of rezoning, street changes, etc. noting that both a major change had occurred in terms of what land uses would be reason- able and a mistake in that the two parcels in question should have been included in the 1964 rezoning. Commissioner Oswald then moved that the Commission consider the proposal for rezoning without specifying what zoning', second by Commissioner Cameron and carried. Chairman Ostlund commented on the traffic problem. He noted that with the cloverleaf on #18, traffic pulling out of Gettysburg will most likely have a blind spot of at least 30 feet at the intersection. Traffic will be backed up onto #18 before the property is properly vented. Chairman Ostlund stated tha~ given the traffic problem he could find no support for zoning other than LB in this area. Mr. William Rosen, representing Mr. Carpenter, stated that they have been attempting to make the same ~-~ points as Mr. Larson for the last four years regarding the changes in the area and that these justify the rezoning of this property. Since the law suit had been started, Mr. Rosen stated, they had con- tinued to be very patient in attempting to work out a solution with the City. When the City turned down their proposal for rezoning the City agreed that the present zoning is not satisfactory and there has · to be a change of zoning on this property. Nevertheless, there was continued total inaction so that Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Collier were faced with the need for the suit to get action. In response to a question if he represented both Carpenter and Collier, Rosen stated Mr. Collier is no longer active; however, at one time Collier and Carpenter had joined togetherF Presently Mr. Rosen is representing only Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Rosen said that after no action was taken on the part of the City the only alternative they had was to commence a law suit. They have never used the law suit as a threat to the City. They have gone along all'of the time in agreeang to continue the trial while they tried amicably to work something out with the City. Mr. Rosen also stated that they have tried not to be str ight jacketed by GB, LB or RB zoning. They have attempted tP think in terms of sitting down with the City and working out a proposed use for the pro erty in which.'the.C~t¥can work out their own restrictions with give and take on both sides. Work out something wh}~hj]iSi~.~qd~]e so that the property can be used and it will be a compromise. Both sides will not be totall~is'~{~fi!ed but at least something will have finally been done. At ~he last meeting with the Ci~ty there was again a general agreement that something has to be done to change the zoning of this property. Something like an office building with an interior restaurant use designed for the people in the office building but open if people came of~ the street had been suggested. After the meeting Mr. Carpenter tried desperately to find someone who would be interested in investing with him or purchasing the land to develop along the lines discussed at the meeting. There being a general agreement that some changes have to be made. It is not economically suitable so far as they are able to tell for the construction of an office building. No one is really interested in an office building on that small a piece of land. Mr. Rosen stated that in an LB zone you can build an office building, have multiple dwellings, medical or a mortuary or a public school by special use. They felt that none of these uses permitted in a LB zone are any more or any less adverse to any of the surrounding properties than what they have proposed. When they could not come up with any LB de- velopment they sent a proposed plan through Bill Corrick, which was discussed by the City Council where they showed a Country Kitchen, a Crown Auto Store and a third small building. Or they would be satisfied with the two uses. They would be willing to put berms and landscaping and work out any re- strictions as far as use, hours, etc. so as to make it work within acceptable limitations. Mr. Rosen ~ said they did not care about a zoning classification. They were willing to agree by contract with the City to devote this piece of property to specific restrictions. Planning Commission - 5 - January 2, 1974 Minutes Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Rosen if he would be willing to delay his law suit if the Commission did not approve this rezoning, but try to work out something on this property. Mr. Rgsen replied that he would be agreeable to.a delay. Mrs. Joyce Takkinen, 4157 Flag Avenue North, commented that she and her husband strongly objected to general business. They lived directly across the property in question. Two years ago the Takkinens wrote a letter to the City Council suggesting a use for the property. The use would have to be multiple, town houses, double bungalows or something which is not too disagreeable to their eye. They do not want a parking lot immediately adjacent to them. The property was zoned single family, part of it was acquired by the County and the County paid for the property it acquired at that time. Discussion held on the County condemnation. Additional discussion held on traffic-, compatible uses, etc. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to recommend to the Council approval of Plan- ning Case No. 74-5, rezoning of the property to LB and let the Council, at their level, along with the City Attorney and City Manager decide on the questions raised by the petitioner as to specific types of development with contract restrictions. DiscUssion was held regarding further attempts by the Commission to work out an agreeable development proposal. It was decided that the Land Use Committee would meet hopefully prior to the Council meeting with Mr. Rosen and his client to review the problems and development proposal one more time. Com- missioner Herman raised a question of if there was a specific development proposal since he did not feel it was up to the Commission to plan the actual use and layout. Commissioner Oswald indicated he could not see the use ob GB Cype development. Chairman Ostlund again indicated he felt traffic was the key and LB uses or TR type have about all the property could support. 8. Planning Case No. 74-6 (Approval of Temporary Facility and Development Concept for Minnesota Federal 42nd and Xylon Avenue North). Mr. Larson commented that Minnesota Federal had met with the Design and Review Committee last week. They had a complete development proposal now but the Design and Review Committee had only been pres'ent- ed with the temporary facility. Consequently, all that wa§ to be considered was the conversion of the house to a temporary office at this meeting. Mr. Jim Voigt with Voigt' Architects in St. Paul, representing Minnesota Federal, was present to discuss this case. Mr. Voigt stated that Mr. Muskie was also present to discuss the company. Mr. Voigt stated that they had met with the Design and Review Committee and had revised the site plan as requested. They were asking that the use of the house for an office be granted as a temporary thing while the new building was being constructed. The main reason for the haste is that Minnesota Federal has been in a program of expanding and the regulations require that after they are granted a franchise they must put the one operation in business before they can apply for a franchise anywhere else. The temporary facility would be used for about a year. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Conmissioner Garin, for recommendation to the City Council ap- proval of Planning Case No. 74-6 with the provision that the temporary office facility not be allowed to operate beyond a maximum of 18 months and that all driveways be constructed before the temporary office is open. (18 months from the date of Council approval)J Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to amend the main motion ·by adding that the driveways be signed "adequately" as to indicate one-way (entrance only) from 42nd and two-way traffic off Xylon, Vote was taken on the amendment. Amendment passed on voice vote. Vote was then taken on the main motion. Motion carried on voice vote. g. Planninq Case No. 74-7 (Approval of Addition to Penny's Bakery - Winpark Drive and Winnetka Avenue North).. Mr. Marshall Levin, Baker Associates, architects for Penny's Bakery, Stated that they were proposing an addition that was approximately 15,000 square feet to an existing 22,000~square foot bakery building on Winnetka Avenue North. They will be maintaining all required setbacks, 47 parking spaces are required and §l spaces are already provided. Planning Commission - 6 - January 2, 1974' Minutes Commissioner Herman commented on the landscaping plans noting that tree size has been increased from 1 1/4" to 2 1/2~3" and the west side planting had been increased by moving the trees originally proposed for the east side. Commissioner Herman pointed out that directly north of the property there were two church buildings and there was a rather expansive space between this project and the two church build- ings with a great deal of exposure to Winnetka. He therefore felt that brick or siding should be re- quired because of the church and the long wall exposure to traffic coming south on Winnetka or on 36~h. Mr. Levin stated that Penny's would prefer not to have brick as their existing building on the north side is already block. The west side of the building is all brick. Commissioner. Cameron questioned as to how long a building like this was expected to last. Mr. Levin said approximately 40 years. Sixty people are presently employed in the baker~y. There are three shifts and the new 15,000 square feet will be run by three people. There is no plan to retail anything from the new addition. CommiSsioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, for approval of Planning Case No. 74-7, Penny's Bakery addition, with the recommendati'on that the entire north wall and the west front exposure Of the addition be constructed of brick and that the revised landscape plan be accepted. Motion carried on voice vote. A five minute recess was called by Chairman Ostlund at 10:45 p.m. The meeting was called back to order by Chairman Ostlund at 10:50 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. Report of Codes and Standards Committee There was no report from this Committee. ll. Report of Land Use Committee Also there ~as no r~port from this Committee. 12. Repqrt .of Design and Review Committee There was no report from the Design and Review Committee as it had already been discussed during the meeting. 13. Report of Liquor Study Committee Chairman Ostlund commented that there was a Liquor Study Committee meeting on the 7th of January to discuss the public hearing. NEW BUSINESS 14. Discussion of Architect Requirements Mr. Larson stated ~hat'-there was.an apparent conflict in the local ordinances versus state law on the need for an architect stamp on building plans. After checking with the State Building Inspector, Mr. Herb Meyer, it was found that there must be an architectual stamp for all commercial, industrial or in- stitutional projects over-$30,OO0 or if it is a public building over $2,000. After receipt of this information a second call was received in which the state said either an architectural or engineer's was o.k. Commissioner Herman said there was a state regulation which is written somewhat loosely. Commissioner Herman then read this regulation of ~hich he had a copy. It indicated that no person except registered architects, engineers or land surveyors shall practice architecture, engineering or land surveyi'ng re- spectfully in the preparation of plans, specifications, report plans or other architeotural, engineering or land surveying documents or in the observation of architectural, engineering or land surveying . projects. Commissioner Herman said most people were misinterpreting the above statement as meaning that either an architect, engineer, or land surveyor could ~.k. any of the projects while he felt the intention was that each was to work only in their own fields. Some communities are accepting it; others are not. New Hope has a statement in Chapter 4 saying all principal buildings other than one and two family dwellings must be designed by a registered architect. Discussion held after which it was' decided to request a written clarification of the above subject 'from the state. The Manager was requested to follow up on this. 15. DiscussioQ of Changes in Procedure for New Buildings - Desig9 and Review MrJ Larson said the problemwas not with the Design and Review Committee but rather making the entire review procedure more effective. Several things create a problem~ One being the cutoff date. The Design and Review Committee has gone out of its way in order to get certain cases reviewed before the Commission meets. Planning Commission - 7 - January 2', 1974 Minutes Secondly, a procedure should be formalized where even if the plans are just a bare outline at least the petitioner would sit down with a staff committee prior to going to the Design and Review Committee to review the proposal for the basic building code type of considerations so that later approval of site and building by planning would not conflict with building or fire code requirements. Mr. Larson~s memo on the subject was reviewed. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Garin, that the Planning Commission accept and recommend adoption of the procedure outlined in the memo. Motion passed on voice vote. 16. Approval of Commission Minutes of December 4th and December 18th, 1973 Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 4th and December 18th. Motion carried on voice vote. l?. Review of Council Minutes of December 10, 1973 The Council minutes of December 10, 1973 were reviewed. 18. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff Mr. Larson stated that there was a 20 minute film t~ Fire Department would like to show the Commission on sprinkler systems. The Commission agreed that they would like to see the film and suggested it be shown at the next meeting. Commissioner Oswald questioned the signs and advertisement in the paper promoting Minnesota Fabrics as a retail facility. Discussion held. The Manager was requested to invite Minnesota Fabrics to come to th6 next meeting to discuss with the Commission the retail operation. 19. Announcements None. 20. Ad~ournme.nt There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Garin, and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - January 15, 1974' Mi nutes · A regular meeting of the New Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 15, 1974 at the City 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, Garin, Herman, Ohman and Ostlund. Absent: Oswald. {Entered at 7:40 p.m.). 3. The City Manager administered the oath for acceptance on the Planning. Commission to Mr. Gary R. Allen, Mr. Terry L. Jensen and Mr. R. Rodney Pakonen. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Continuation of Planning Case No. 74-1 (Olson Concrete - Variance/Development Proposal). Mr. Larson noted that the petitioner was out of town, Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Com- missioner Garin, to'postpone Planning Case 74-1 for three months or until Mr. Olson meets with the Design and Review Committee. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Continuation of Planning Case No. 74-2 {General Mills - Commuter Van). Ms. Kay Deshler was present to discuss this case. Ms. Deshler stated that one'emplJyee would be. the sole operator of the van. They would not alternate drivers. This employee would drive until- he decided that he no longer wished to or until he no longer worked.with General"Mill[. Ms...7. Deshler went on to comment that they had no way of knowing.where this dKiye~.woul'd l~.-~Hb~eyer; .... when they did find out where they would be located or if drivers were-.c~nged,.orFa-n~w man.W~i~''' be driving within the City they.would be more than ~illing to:let. t~e City kno~ Commissioner Oswald entered and was sworn in by the City-Manager. Commissioner Herman questioned as to whether the van would be marked or have any identifica~i'o~ on it. Ms. Deshler said it would be an unmarked 'v~hicle with the only type of identification;~qf any, being a cardboard sign stating what area it w~s from. Commissioner Ohman moved, second by Commissioner O~wald, to recommendJto the Council approval 'of Planning Case No. 74-2, use and parking of such vehicle, subject to approval of the staff checking each location where the vans are to be parked. Motion carried on voice vote. NEW BUSINESS 6. Discussion with Representative from Minnesota Fabrics. Mr. Bob Meeker from Minnesota Fabrics was present to discuss with th'e Commission the signs and advertisements for Minnesota Fabrics' retail outlet in the Science Center. Co)~nissioner Oswald said it was his understanding that Mr. Meeker had a zoning for industrial use with a minor, if not illegal variance, for retail use. About three weeks ago there was a sign on County Road #18 going north and also a sign on County Road #10 between County Road #18 and the first access road to Minnesota Fabrics. In addition, other Commissioners had pointed out to him that there has been advertising in the paper regarding Minnesota Fabrics as a retail site per se. Commissioner' Oswald commented that he also had understood that when the permit was granted for this particular retail use, the use was to be an auxilary minor portion of the business. If, in fact, the business was advertised or signs were put up which did not have the approval of the City, then what was Mr. Meeker running? An industrial operation or a retail operation? If it is retail then it is in the wrong location. Mr. Meeker said the signs in question were only temporary directional signs that were put up to direct delivery vehicles and customers to the site after the access to #18 was shut off on very short notice. He mentioned that before proceeding with the signs he had talked to the Building Official and showed him where the signs were to be placed. He also received a letter from the Hennepin County Highway Department who came out and discussed with him where to place the signs and received their approval. In addition, Mr. Meeker called Knutson Properties, Inc. and received their permission. Mr. Meeker stated that Mr. Muhich had explained to him at the time that the sign ordinance was being revised and that he would give them temporary permission to put up the signs until the ordinance was finalized and enacted. Chairman Ostlund questioned as to whether the access was still cut off. Mr. Meeker said it was and would eventually be permanently cut off. 'Planning Commission 2 - January 15, 1974 Mi nutes Commissioner Oswald commented that he was mainly looking at the site, the price of it, value, location, etc. and he felt it was primarily an "'industrial" zone which has been requested to carry some retail usage. Mr. Meeker stated that once the people have become acquainted and are familar with the way to get to Minnesota Fabrics the signs would definitely be removed. Commissioner Allen questioned as to how long these signs had been Up. Mr. Meeker said approxi- mately a month. Co~issioner Allen then questioned as to how long it was going to take to educate the salesmen and delivery men calling on Minnesota Fabrics. Mr. Meeker stated it was a matter of opinion. If the Commission felt four weeks was enough they would go along with them but they would like to keep the signs for at least another 60 days. There are four signs. Two on #18, one going north and one as you are coming south, one on County Road #10 and one at the rear of Minnesota Fabrics property on the corner of Gettysburg and West Research Road. Chairman Ostlund asked if these signs were anchored-in any way. Mr. Meeker replied they were steel posts. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, that Minnesota Fabrics' remove their signs by February 19, 1974 unless a variance is granted. Discussion was held. Chairman Ostlund asked Mr. Meeker if he knew presently what his company's intent would be regard- ing these signs. Mr. Meeker said that he would recommend they take the signs down immediately. Vote was taken on the motion. Motion failed forlack, of majority vote. · : ~.~ Asked if Minnesota Fabrics had expanded the retail business since they received the permit, Mr. ~L~'.,....-.-.~ Meeker replied that they had not. In fact, they had cut it down in size. They took out from the ~-~' '-' - retail sales area the space for the school approved this summer. No complaints have been received in regards to a retail operation or its size since it has been in. Everything regarding the re- ~'~ ·~ ~-~. - tail sales, its size, employees, floor area, type of materials, etc. are less ~than what was originally approved except for a small change in hours of operation. When asked if this Minnesota Fabrics. facility was advertised as being a major retail outlet, Mr~ Meeker replied that it was not. Adver.tising was in the Post Shopper not in the downtown Minneapolis papers, etc. M?. Meeker stated that after reading the minutes from previous meetings he would like to clarify the hours. Their intent was that they would not be open Sundays; they were open Saturdays, but were not open evenings. The way the minutes read is that they would not be open evenings or Saturdays. Commissioner Cameron asked if'the trucks near County Road ~18 with signs acvertising Minnesota Fabrics were deliberately parked there. Mr. Meeker said since one of the meetings in which he said the trucks would not be parked in that particular spot they have not been to the Dest of his knowledge. If they have it was not intentionally. They do have to park perpendicular to County Road #18 since this is where the receiving dock is located. No action was takenexcept to agree that the operation with the exception of the directional signs was within the limits originally approved. 6a. Texaco. Mr. Bruce Bodem from Bruce's Texaco, 42nd Avenue North and Winnetka, was present to discuss with the Commission his problem regarding renewal of a special use permit for parking and rental of trucks and trailers. Commissioner Cameron commented that Mr. Bodem had been before the Council last night in regards to continuing his present operation. Commissioner Cameron had talked with Mr. Bodem this morning in the hope that the Commission could assist him. Mr. Bodem was unsure as to what had been agreed t~ with the previous owner. There had been a site plan discussed about a year and a half ago in terms of additional blacktopping for the U-Haul business and Mr. Bodem was unsure of what he had and what the City required. Commissioner Cameron brought to Mr. Bodem's attention the fact that when the special use for Russell, which is three trucks that are allowed to be parked there overnight was given, the pre- Vious owner made a major point at the time that since Winnetka was shut down his business had suf- fered drastically and he needed some additional income. These three trucks parked there and the use of the station did give him some additional income. Planning Corrmission - 3 - January 15, 1974 Mi nu~:es Conmissioner Cameron said that Mr. Bodem probably felt that at this point Texaco is more' amenable to permitting and participating in additional blacktopping, than at the time of Gene's original proposal. Commissioner Cameron noted that he worked across the street from Bruce's Texaco and had seen many times a lot of cars parked across the middle of Texaco's driveway. This morning around lO:O0 o'clock, 14 cars were parked in the front of the station in addition to trucks. Chairman Ostlund conm~nted that he felt the Councilmen had brought out a good point at the meet- ing which was that Mr. Bodem should work out some kind of an agreement with the shopping center whereby he could park vehicles on the center's lot and get them off the front of the driveway. Discussion held on the original plans for the station which showed 25% as being blacktopped. There is no requirement for green area for a service station except that the lot must either be paved or landscaped. Chairman Ostlund felt that if Mr. Bodem got a letter from the shopping center stating that he was permitted to use their space, it would cut down on some of his parking problems. Mr. Bodem was informed that he should 'meet with the City Manager to review the orignnal plans and the proposals that had been submitted for parking, etc. 7. Review of Film on Sprinkler Systems. Mr. Jon Reedy, City Fire Marshal, presented a film entitled "Automatic Sprinklers in Building Codes" for. the Planning Commission's information. Basicall~ the-intent was to make the Planning Com- mission more aware of how sprinkler systems work, their effectiveness, etc. Questions raised~be- fore and after the film included the relationship of sprinkler and fire regulations to the Building Code and the effect on insurance rates, the benefits and-problems of adding sprinklers; current problems in the community, how the Commission could assist and what type of alarm systems were available throughout the City. Commissioner Cameron asked if Mr. Reedy knew if fire rates were lower in warehouses with sprinkler systems. Mr, Reedy replied definitely. He made the comment that when a local company expanded their operation and added sprinklers they reduced their fire insurance rates from 85¢ per hundred to 15¢ per hundred and paid off the sprinkler system in two and a' half y~ars. When asked why companies just didn't go ahead and install sprinkle~ system, Mr. Re~dy replied that the main rea- son for this was because they felt it cost too much; this was about as far as it went. Commissioner Herman commented that his firm had found, especially in the last few months, that there were very few buildings which had not had sprinkler systems installed. The Chairman thanked Mr. Reedy for his presentation. Commissioner Oswald asked if the Commission could be furnished some guidelines to assist them in working with sprinklers. 8. Election of 1974 Officers. Chairman Ostlund announced that 1974 officers would now be elected and opened nominations for Chairman. Commissioner Cameron nominated Dennis Ostlund for Chairman. Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to close nominations for Chairman. Motion carried with Commissioner Oswald voting in opposition. Commissioner Oswald nominated Commissioner Garin for Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Garin stated that he could not accept the position as he was resigning. Commissioner Herman nominated Commissioner Cameron for Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Garin moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to close nominations for Vice-Chairman. Motion carried. Chairman Ostlund nominated Commissioner Oswald for Secretary. Commissioner Pakonen moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to close nominations for Secretary. Motion carried. Chairman Ostlund then announced that the 1974 officers would be: Chairman Dennis Ostlund · 'L: Vice-Chairman Bob Cameron Secretary Ken Oswald Planning Commission ~ 4 - January 15, 1974' Mi nutes COMMITTEE REPORTS g. Report of.Codes and Standards Committee. There was no report from this Committee.- lO. Report of Land Use Committee. Commissioner Cameron said that the Land Use Committee had met with some members of the Council and Mr. Carpenter and his attorney for an informal exchange of views of what might happen to the property at 42nd and ~18. The Chairman had also met with Mr. Bodem of Bruce's Texaco as noted earlier and reviewed his problems. ll. Report of Design and Review Committee (Architect Question). Commissioner Herman commented that the Design and Review Committee only had two members and he felt there should be three again as the Committee would very likely be meeting within a week or l0 days and he would like to have three on the Committee. Secondly, the Committee was to meet with Mr. Olson regarding the new building in Olson's area. Mr. Otson had been directed to contact Commissioner Herman prior to this meeting. He had not and, therefore, the item would be delayed for another week o~ two. Commissioner Herman noted the other item was the architect stamp question. As was noted last meeting the local ordinance required an architect. Mr. Olson had objected to this requirement stating an engineer was also approved. Since that time Mr. Larson and Commissioner Herman have had a couple of discussions and feel that the State Statutes need some clarification. Presently, based on the couple of rulings by the Attorney General's Office, a registered architect or engineer can sign a plan. New Hope does have an ordinance requiring the architect however. DiScusSion held on this matter and what the Commission wished to do in terms of a recommendation to the Council or action on their own. It was the consensus that the Commission felt an architect should be required. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to recommend to' the Council that they review and affirm or deny the Commission's desire that an architect's stamp be required for building plans in accordance with the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Herman will appear before the Council in support of the recommendation. 12. Approval of Commission Minutes. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Garin, to amend the minutes of the January 2, 1974 meeting to indicate on Page 5 that the motion on the Carpenter property rezoning ~as adopted on voice vote. Motion carried. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 2, 1974 as amended. Motion carried on voice vote. 13. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff. The Council minutes were not availalbe since the meeting was held the day before. Council action takenand items which had been discussed were reviewed by the Chairman who had attended the meet- ing. 14. Announcements. New Committees will be assigned at the next meeting. Councilman Enck was present to welcome newmembers to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Oswald' moved, second by all members of the Planning Commission to accept Commissioner Garin's resignation from the Planning Commission. Motion carried. Pianning Commission - 5 - January 15, 1974 Mi nutes 15. Adjournment. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned it 9:52 p.m. by Con, missioner Cameron, second by Conmissioner Oswald, and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - February 5,. 1974 Mi nu res A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 5, 1974 'at the City 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: Allen, Cameron, Herman, Jensen; Ohman, Ostlund, Pakonen. Absent: Oswald. {Entered at 7:34 p.m.). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.' Plann~n9 Case No. 74-1 (Variance in Rear Yard Setback, Approval of Building Plans - Olson Concrete Company - 50th and Hillsboro). Mr. Larson stated that this.case would be delayed until the second meeting in February. Dlson Con- crete Company had met with the Design and Review Committee last week and were working on some addi- tional changes. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to table Planning Case 74-1 until the second meeting in February. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 74-8 {Approval of Sign Plan for Office Building - 8500 - 42nd Avenue North - Samuel son Constructi on, I nc. ). Mr. Bill Swanson of Samuelson Construction stated' that their request was for approval of a compre- hen'sive sign plan for the New Hope Professional Building, 8500 - 42nd Avenue North. The plans con- form in all respects to the City Code relating to signs specifical'ly to those parts dealing with ground signs and sign accessory to multiple occupancy business buildings. .Also p~esent was Dr. C. H. Hattstrom. In reply to a question, Mr. Swanson stated the sign will be lit from the ground. Commissioner Cameron asked if this building was strictly a d~ntal office building. Mr. Swanson replied that at the present time it was strictly a dentist off.ice. The basic intent is to keep the building a professional building; however, whether there will be doctors, lawyers, etc. moving in is still to be determined. There.will be just one site sign and this will be in the front of the building in the yard. The wall sign could relate to other uses besides dentistry. Under the plan both ends of the building will have sign space. The total amount of wall space allowed for sign use is 15% and this has been kep't down to lO or ll~o of wall area. Conceivably there will be space left. Two or three boards may be skipped below the dentists and another professional group heading added if other types of pro- fessionals use the building. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Allen, to recommend approval of Planning Case 74-8. Motion carried by voice vote. 5. Planning Case No. 74-9 {Variance for Garage Construction - 3236 Ensign Court - Thomas Graham, Petitioner}. Mr. Thomas Graham, 3236 Ensign Court, stated that he was asking for a rear yard setback to build a garage addition to his house in order that part of the present double tuck under garage can be used for a recreation room. The proposed garage is 12 feet wide and it would extend back to a 27 foot setback in the rear yard. There is a 35 foot minimum setback requirement. Mr. Graham commented that their back yard went back l0 - 12 feet and then slopes up considerably. There are quite a few trees on the back line of the house also. Mr. Graham had considered asking for a side yard variance to make the. garage flush with the front of the present house but he did not feel this would be too well received because it would encroach on the side yard and be close to the other house. Asked how long he had lived in this house, Mr. Graham replied for two years. Mr. Graham is the original owner. Commissioner Cameron questioned as to why Mr. Graham and his family needed the extra space. To this Mr. Graham said that he had not realized how much space a truck under garage took from storage space, etc. and also they .would like the addition for the children. Planning Commission - - 2 - February 5, 1974 - Mi nu res Approximately half of the present garage would be used for recreation purposes. The other half will remain a garage. Mr. Graham commented that a lot of storage wou)d be gained in the rafters of the new garage. Commissioner Cameron commented that apparently by'the design of the lot and the way in which the . structure sits, Mr. Graham was.actually encroaching with the drive onto the five foot utility and drainage easement which would come down the west side of his line. Mr. John Beasley, a professional architect, is doing the architectural Work for the Grahams. When asked if Mr. Graham could give the Commission a general idea as to how the new structure would blend into their present house, Mr. Graham stated that at the time they had not really decided. The base of the present garage ~ould carry through to the new addition, at the same elevation. There is a window just about at the peak of the new addition which will have to be taken into consideration also. Asked how long he planned to own this home, Mr. Graham replied he planned on living in this house for quite a long time. Being that the new addition would sit close to the hill, Commissioner Cameron questioned as to whether it would be an easy opportunity for kids to get up onto the roof. Mr. Graham stated that this had been conside.red and the idea they had for this was to put up a railing of some type around this part of the roof as it comes around in the back. It is also heavily planted in the back which would further make it more difficult for children to get at. Asked how high above the ground the eaves would be, Mr. Graham stated that this really had not been determined; however, it would' probably be about three or four feet. The new garage will have a peaked roof. Neighbors had been notified and no objections have been received. Commissioner Pakonen commented on the view which other people would have from the hill of this new ~-' addition. He was opposed to the affect which the new garage roof line would have on Mr. Graham's inmediate neighbors and the neighborhood in general. The cost of the addition would be between $7,000 and $8,000. Commissioner Pakonen asked if it would be possible for Mr. Graham to put the money somewhere else ending up with more of a house and at the same time not change the existing terrain of the neighbor- hood. Mr. Graham said this was possible but he preferred not to do this for two main reasons: 1. They prefer to stay where they are at and they like the neighborhood. Mr. Graham agreed that it was not the best financial move he could make but he liked it well enough where he was at to stay there. 2. As far as a view was concerned, basically there really is not much of a view. His back yard is used almost everyday for children going through using it as a corridor. Mr. Graham said he has put pretty close to $7,000 worth of work into the back yard. Mr. Graham's present driveway would be taken out and a new configuration would replace it. The window in the front where the proposed recreation room would be is similar to the window in the family room on, the side. Mr. Graham felt that the only people who would be suffering from the new addition would be his family. He was giving up part of his back yard. No one was present concerning this case. Discussion was held as to letting the Design and Review Committee review this before proceeding any further. Commissioner Pakonen commented that someone would have to show him that the new roof line was not going to hurt the two homes above Mr. Graham's, before he would vote in favor of this case. Commissioner Ohman commented that Mr. Graham only wanted to improve his home and stay in his neighbor- hood. He, therefore, did not feel Mr. Graham would be destroying the aesthetics of the neighborhood~ Commissioner'Jensen stated that in regards to the value of the house today, as opposed to the house ~-' when a project like this is complete, if it is not done in good taste a $6,000 - $8,000 invest- ment would tend to depreciate the existing value of the house and he could see-where Mr. Graham had to hire an architect. Planning Commission - 3 - February 5, 1974 Minutes Commissioner Jensen said that he would also be in favor of the Design and Review Committee looking.. at this before complete approval was given. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by commissioner Allen, for approval of Planning Case 74-9, sub- - ject to the approval of the Design and Review Committee, subject to the approval of the City Engineer on the driveway shaping and location and subject to obtaining releases from the utility companies for against future claims and problems on the easement. Discussion held on motion and it was decided that the petitionershould meet with the Design and Review Committee at their next regular meeting after which the item could go to the Council if the design was not considered objectionable. If there were problems, it would be returned to the full Commission. Motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Pakonen voting in opposition. 6. Planning Case NO. 74-10 (Variance in Parking Requirements, Approval of Bull. ding Plans - 54th Avenue a~nd Zealand Extended - General Electric, Petitioner). Mr. Erbs, petitioner, stated that the facility will house the regional distribution center for General Electric. It will be a warehouse full of light bulbs with six or so people in the warehouse and possibly about 12 - 15 people doing the administrative work relating to issuing and receiving the merchandise and various operations which they have. General Electric will use the building for two main purposes: 1. As a distribution for their products. 2. As a sales display area for small contractors, people who are interested in lighting devices, etc. The office p~rtion is really a sort of lighting demonstration area as well as general office. By employee load and visitor load this is a relativel~ lightly visited building. The location of the building on the site is determined by needed access to the Soo Line Railroad track on the southerly border of the building. A spur goes into the building with an enclosed siding. There is an indication of a possible exten- sion of the building in its warehouse function only. There will be no extension of the office if the warehouse is expanded. The need for locating near the tracks creates the need to' request, a variance at the front inasmuch as the parking lot is located in front of the building whereas the zoning ordinance requires it to be on the side. Mr. Erbs said that the project had been reviewed with the Design and Review Committee. Total requirements for parking on the site were indicated though they will not be paving all of it inasmuch as the small employee force will not need a large parking area. Commissioner Herman commented on the landscaping plans. The Design and Review Committee had suggest- ed that the berm area in front be raised slightly, about two to three feet. Mr. Erbs stated that there was now a continual buffer of approximately five feet above street level. Mr. Erbs said they had changed the berms to a line that goes with the slope and provides a continual five foot strip buffer visually from the street. Commissioner Herman commented that the berm was needed not only to screen the parking lot, but also to screen the loading dock. Commissioner Herman also stated that 63 parking spaces were provided. The Design and Review Committee had advised General Electric to show future parking rather than ask for a variance. However, the area shown for future parking has three major trees and a whole series of Junipers on it. The amount of parking to be provided is so much less than what is required that the Design and Review Committee felt there was a strong likelihood that some additional parking will be required. Therefore, they would like to see this landscaping removed from the future parking lot and that the trees be relocated. Commissioner Oswald commented that the original plan for 63 parking spaces, against the requirement of 108, was short 16 spaces. Mr. Erbs said he thought there may be less spaces in phase one than what was originally shown. Mr. Erbs also stated that he had met with the General Electric people and the parking was in excess of what they needed for their operation for both the visitors and staff employees. General Electric will be glad to pave the whole lot if the City requires it; however, if this particular parking area is not-to be used their general feeling was why pave it. General Electric will be glad to add more parking spaces if required, but they are not needed. Planning Commission ~ ¢- February 5, 1974 Mi nutes Asked how many peoPle would work nights, Mr. Erbs ~eplied no one; it is a one shift operation at this time. Mr. Erbs said the building basically was an all metal building on a steel frame. It will be insul- ated metal panel, prefinishedwith enamel type finish, with a small office space in front and bigger warehouse space building. The only windows occur in the'office space. The only lighting will be -soffet lighting over the truck dock areas and over the window areas in the office portion. This lighting will be straight down. The area in front where there is parking will have limited lighting for vandalism protection. The parking lot lighting would generally be pole lighting with down lighting to give half a foot candle lighting or so in the lot. No flood lighting is planned. Construction would last between 12 - 15 months. There will be no trash outside. Chairman Ostlund questioned the storage of extra skids and pallets. Mr. Erbs replied that he really did not know how they handled the light bulbs themselves, but there will be no outside storage at all. Discussion held on the possible future addition shown. The Commission by consensus indicated that only the building actually planned was approved. No future addition was approved and any request for expansion would be considered on its own merits when and if submitted. Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to table Planning Case 74-10 until the secondmeeting in February in order that a revised site plan showing the relocated landscaping can be submitted.~ Motion carried on voice vote. 7. Planning Case No. 74-11 (Variance from Sign Requirements - 2728 W~nnetka Avenue - Comstock, Inc., 'Petitioner). Mr. Ronald Heskin was present to discuss this case. Mr. Heskin stated that they had originally had approval before the Commission to have the zoning ordinance amended to permit their dry cleaning operation. After accomplishing this they ordered a ~ sign based on an ordinance they had purchased. The ordinance had been cha~ged and the sign then did not fit. A new sign was then ordered after which Mr. Heskin found that the ordinance had again been changed and his new sign no longer complied with the sign ordinance. A sign plan for the entire area is now required under the new sign ordinance. Since Mr. Heskin felt that he could not get the overall sign plan he was requesting a variance. The variance would be to eliminate the need for the overall plan since the other tenants probably would not agree to changing their signs. Mr. Heskin does not own the building, he rents space. Their proposed sign is lit with flourescent tubes inside and has a plastic cover over the front. Askedwho owned the building, Mr. Heskin re- plied that they were leasing from PDQ Market; however, he was not sure of the actual owner. Sublease payments go to PDQ. As far as the person who would be contacted if there was a problem with the building or leasing, Mr. Heskin. commented that he would talk to Mr. Sheldon, who operates this area for PDO. PDQ offices are in Madison, Wisconsin and Sam Jacobson is the President. Mr. Heskin stated that he had not talked to Mr. Sheldon about his problem. However, he has to'ld him that he is having problems with his signs. The Manager of Tom Thumb said they had no plans for changing their sign and'wanted nothing to do with Mr. Heskin's problem. Asked what kind of a lease he had, Mr. Heskin commented that he would need to review it but it probably runs three more years with some renewal. Councilman Meyer commented from the audience that if Mr. Heskin had picked up the ordinance in late summer he probably was given the right ordinance since the amendment was under study at that time. Since Mr. Heskin did not act under the old ordinance he was bound by the new ordinance and did not deserve any sympathy but should comply with the sign plan requirement. Secondly, all the Commission was asking was to see how the petitioner's sign fit into the overall plan of the center. The re- quirement for an overall sign plan did not necessarily mean that other signs would need to be changed right now. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Pakonen, to table Planning Case No. 74-11 for one month and in that period the Codes and Standards Committee set up a meeting between Mr. Heskin and ~-~ the owners of the shopping center to resolve the issue of a complete sign plan for the shopping center. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Com ission - 5 - February 5, 1974 - Mi nu res 8-. Planning Case No. 74-12 (Approval of Building Plans - Minnesota Federal - Xylon and 42nd Avenue North}. Mr. Jim Vogt presented the petition stating the reason for appearing before the Commission tonight was for the final submission of the working drawings for the new Minnesota Federal building at 42nd and Xylon. They had received approval for the temporary facility last meeting. At the meeting with the Design and Review Committee there were no real objections to anything proposed. The signing .of -the building was still in question. Discussion'held on the signing. Mr. Larson stated the north and south side signs were o.k. but the &ast and west sides could not have wall signs. The sign which is going up now is one which they have used on temporary locations. It is a 8 X 8 plastic sign which will be taken down as soon as the temporary facility is closed. There will be no ground signs except for directional signs for the permanent building. Mr. Vogt stated they would ~e submitting a sign plan and probably ask for a variance for a wall sign on the east side. Commissioner Herman stated that one area of concern which came up at the Design and Review Committee - meeting was the north 70 feet of the property. Concern expressed was the proposed "natural state" and the access to the municipal pool. It was suggested that a great deal of traffic would be genera- ted through this area and therefore a fence of some type should be erected on the property line to discourage children from walking through the ~arking lot. Mr. Vogt said he had 'several discussions with the people in the home office. They have agreed to put up a fence and landscaping if it is required, but they would like to leave the area in its natural state without a fence until a problem develops. Further discussion held as tO installing a fence. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, for approval of Planning Case 74-12, building plan approval subject to having a fence, constructed along the entire north property line. Further discussion was held. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to amend the motion by adding subject to approval of a sign plan and detailed landscaping plan. Vote was taken on the amendment. Amendment passed on voice vote. Vote was then taken on the main motion. Motion carried on voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. Report of Codes and Standards Committee. Chairman Ostlund assigned Commissioners Jensen, Ohman, Oswald and Pakonen to the Codes and Standards Committee. 10. Report of Land Use Committee. Commissioner Cameron stated the Committee has been doing a lot of thinking but has no report. ll. Report of Design and Review Committee. Commissioner Herman stated that a meeting had been held Tuesday, January 22nd at which time they had met with General Electric and Minnesota Federal. On January 28th Commissioner Herman appeared before the Council representing the Commission to discuss architecture requirements and the need for enforcement. On February 1st a meeting was held with Mr. Olson of Qlson Concrete Company. Mr. Olson made his first submittal before an interpretation was made in regards to requirements of architectural input. The Design and Review Committee had felt that since the plans were submitted before the Council discussion they should be able to pro- ceed. Since the site plan needed additional work they required'that he have some outside consultant. If some professional input was provided to the site plan the entire plan could be resubmitted wi'thout the signature of an architect. Chairman Ostlund expressed some dissatisfaction with this proposal. 12. Report of Liquor Study Committee. Chairman Ostlund commented that the election was still scheduled for the 19th of February. The two issues would be whether to have split liquor and whether to sell on Sundays. NEW BUSINESS 13. The Planning' Commission Minutes of January 15, 1974 were approved on motion by Con~nissioner Pakonen, second by Commissioner Cameron and carried on voice vote. Planning Co~ission - 6 - -~b~a~ 5, 1974 ~nut~ 14. The Council Minutes of Janua~ 28, 1974 were reviewed. 15. Additional Co~ents/Requests from Citizens, Co~issioners anU Staff. Chairman'Ostlund assigned Dr. Cameron, Chairman of the Land Use C~mittee, ~o pre'pare a feasibili~ study for the Housing Authori~ and Comissioner Mn Oswald to prepare a stu~ on theHousing Inspection. 16. Announcements. None. 17. Adjournment. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:lO p.m. on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner O~an and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submit~d, Denise Schrader ~co~i ng Secreta~ Planning Commission ~. 1 - ~ebruary 79, 1974 Minutes A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 19, 1974 at the City 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: Allen, Cameron,'Herman, Ostlund, Oswald and Pakonen. Absent: Jensen, Ohman. (Commissioner Ohman entered at 7:31 p.m. and Commissioner Jensen entered at 7:37 p.m.). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Continuation. of Plannin~ Case No. 74-1 (Olson Concrete Company - Building Plans). Mr. Bob Olson was present to represent Olson Concrete and submitted to the Planning Commission a revised site plan and landscape plan for this project. Commissioner Herman said he had Only one comment to make relative to the parking layout and that he felt the landscaping .and overall orientation of the entire development'looked .excellent except for the need to provide a 20 foot sight triangle at the street intersection. The Design and Review Committee was concerned with the parking to the east of the building where ap- proximately 56 feet have been used for two rows of parking and a center isle. Normal requirement is about 60 feet and it is possible a conflict will develop between the parking lot and trucks parked at the loading dock. A second item related to the plan is that there were no sizes indicated to the landscaping. Commissioner Ohman asked Mr. Olson how many people he anticipated would be working in the building. Mr. Olson replied that they were talking about a maximum of 30 people. Basically the building would be warehousing with some shop work, sales, etc. Presently the company has less than 20 employees with the additional employees coming with future expansion. The 41 parking stalls meet ordinance requirements but additional discussion was held on the layout and workability of the east lot. . Comm~ssiRner Cameron questioned as to wh~ther another two week delay would affect the progress of the ~"bu.ildihg,in any way. Mr. Olson replied that it would as he was trying to finalize a lease. They had originat'ly ~lanned on a winter start. ~ .1·Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to recommend approval of P1 arming Case 74-1 --...~'. con'tingent upon submittal of a plant list showing species and size of material with a minimum deciduous tree size of 2 1/2 inch caliber, subject to a revision of the parking stall layout on the east lot, to be approved by staff prior to Council approval; further subject to 20 foot setback of plant materials at the two corners and approval of the variance from 35 to tO feet along the north property line. Motion carried on voice vote. Discussion then held on the lack of an architect design input on the building. It was the consensus that this will be the last project recommended for approval by the Planning Commission without the design by a registered architect as required by our ordinance. This project is approved because the application for this project was on file under the State interpretation and' being reviewed prior to the Council action to enforce the local ordinance. 4. Continuation of Plannin9 Case 74-10 (General Electric - Building Plans). Mr. Erbs, representing the architect for General Electric, commented that the recommendations which were made at the last Planning Commission meeting were shown on the revised site plan with the plant- ing being relocated so as to not interfere with future expansion of the parking lot. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Herman, to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 74-10, the variance in parking location requirements, parking stall requirements and the overall site and building plans. The variance permitting location of parking in front of the building is felt to be justified primarily because of the need for access to railroad tracks at the rear of the lot which makes parking there impractical. Also the petitioner has offered an excellent landscaping and berm screening plan that in the opinion of the Commission created a better situation than simply placing the parking at the side of the building. Since the existing properties in the immediate area already have parking in front of.their building this property was receiving no rights in addition to those now enjoyed by similar property in the area. DiscuSsion held which indicated the consensus was that approval of this plan by the Planning Commission gives absolutely no commitment on the part of the City to allowing additional expansion of this plant. Planning Commission - 2 - February 19, 1974 ' . Minutes Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to amend the main motion to indicate that the first phase of parking is approved and that additional parking of the' total required number is shown but does not need to be installed at this time as 47 parking stalls are provided with 60 future parking spaces for a total of 107. Vote was then taken on the amendment. Amendment carried on voice vote. Vote taken on main motion. The main motion was carried on voice vote. 5. Continuation of Planning Case 74-11 {Comstock, Inc. - Sign Plan). Commissioner Oswald stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had met last Friday and reviewed the variance and need for an overall sign plan. The Codes and Standards Committee recommended to approve the request for a sign for the one hour cleaners as a variance from the requirement for an overall sign plan. The pylon sign in front of the building, a free standing sign, is at this time illegal because it has been changed without a permit and this problem can be handled separately. There are only two businesses in the building;qnd the appearance of the signs for the cleaners and market were close enough to meet the intent'of the. sign ordinance. ~n answer to a question it was stated that the gaseous. tube sign in the window of the cleaners will be taken out. Commissioner Pakonen moved, second by Commissioner Oswald for approval of Case 74-tl. Motion carried on voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. Report of Codes and Standards Committee Commissioner OsJald commented that he had assigned their several topics to individual members of the Committee and reports would be ready in the near future. 7. Report of Land Use Committee Commissioner Cameron commented that the Land Use Committee ha~ some questions. Since the last meeting Commissioner Cameron has been trying to figure out where the impetuous for a Housing Authority in New Hope developed. That is where did the idea generate, what is our rational for studying .it, how much time, effort, energy, etc, should be put into it, etc.? Chairman Ostlund mentioned that the City should look into a Housing Authority or some other equivalent that would give redevelopment authority and possible purchase authority and authority to develop and upgrade housing types as needed. The intent was not necessarily to adopt a formal housing authority but look into it, ge.t a general idea about it, etc. Chairman Cameron established a Land Use Committee meeting for Wednesday, February 27th at 7:30 p.m. at Commissioner Cameron's home. Commissioner Herman commented on the housing authority and stated that St. Louis Park has a Housing Authority which is about a year or year and a half old. They are involved in all kinds of programs and are moving ahead and doing things. If possible Commissioner Herman will try to schedule someone from this Committee to talk to the Commission. 8. Report of Design and Review Committee Commissioner Herman said there was no report from this Committee except to comment on the registration law to which he had received some interesting comments. Commissioner Herman also noted he was notified to appear before the Legislative Committee on registration in regards to the overall problems. NEW BUSINESS 9. Approval of Commission Minutes of February 5, 1974 Commissioner Ohman moved, second by Commissioner Pakonen, to amend the minutes of February 5, 1974 Page 4 to read to table Planning Case No. 74-11 for one month or until the Codes and Standards Committee had met. Motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, for approval of the minutes as amended. ~_~ Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 3 - February-19, 197.4 Mi nu tes 10. Review of Council Minutes of February ll, 1974 ~ The Council minutes of February ll, 1974 were reviewed. ll. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Chairman Ostlund, that ~he Planning Commission adopt a "no smoking" policy for their meetings and their recommendation be passed on to the Council to ban smoking in the Council Chambers during all meetings. D~scussion held with Chairman Ostlund commenting that this subject has been considered by the Council but it was tabled as there was a "turkey' involved in the Council's motion. Vote was taken on the above motion. Voting in favor: Allen, Ohman, Ostlund, Oswald. Voting against: Cameron, Herman, Jensen, Pakonen. Motion failed for lack of majority vote. Discussion was held as to changing the meeting night of the Planning Commission from the first and third TueSday nights to Monday nights for better Post coverage. After discussion it was decided to table the decision until the next meeting in order that additional considerations could be given to all aspects of the change~ 12. Announcements Chaiman OstlunJ announced the resignation of Commissioner Oswald as Secretary of the Planning Commission. Discussion was held as to the exact duties of Secretary. Chairman Ostlund outlined a proposed annual report procedure be would like to see adopted. This Work would require additional time from the Secretary. Discussion held on the need for the report, what type of report and the time and efforts involved in different types of reports. Following discussion Commissioner Allen suggested he would be willing to work with Mr. Earson or some- one on the ways in which to provide an annual report. The matter was then held over for b~o weeks in order for Commissioner Allen and Mr. Larson to meet on the subject. In the meantime Commissioner Oswald's resignation was not accepted and he would continue in office until a further decision on duties was made. 13. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Allen and carried on voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary Planning Commissioh - 1 - March 5, 1974' Mi nutes A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 5, 1974 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Allen, Cameron, Herman, Jensen, Ohman and Ostlund. Absent: Oswald, Pakonen. {Commissioner Oswald had an excused absence and Commissioner Pakonen entered at 7:35 p.m.). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Plannin9 Case No. 74-13 {Variance from Sign Ordinance - 4211 to 4313 Oregon Avenue North -.Oregon Estates). Commissioner Ohman moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to table Planning Ca~e 74-13 until later in the'meeting as the petitioner was not yet present. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 74-14 {Variance in Garage Size - 3725 Hillsboro Avenue North - Jerrold Bowdin, Peti ti oner). Mr. Jerry Bowdin stated that he has a rambler house with an existing attached garage, 20 feet wide by 24 feet long and he would like to extend this garage straight back by adding an additional 16 feet. Mr. Bowdin's reason for extending his garage was strictly for storage.~ He has a car, pick up truck, boat and two motorcycles. Mr. Bowdin has lived at the present address since December 4, 1964. He commented that he had no plans for moving. Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. Bowdin if there would be any type of shop or similar activity in the new addition. Mr. Bowdin replied there would not be; it would be for storage only. Chairman Ostlund questioned if the neighbors had been notified.. Mr. Larson commented that the neigh- m bors'had been notified and he had received no calls. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to recommend approval of Planning Case 74-14, variance in garage size. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Plannin9 Case No. 74-15 (Variance in R.B. Lot Size - 7135 - 56th Avenue North - Sambo's Restaurant, Petitioner). Mr. Larson stated that the petitioner had some additional information to submit and that it should be ready by the next meeting. Consequently, they would not be heard at this meeting. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Allen, to table Case No. 74-15 until the first meeting in April. Motion carried on voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 74-16 (Building Conversion and Site Plan Approval - S.E. Corner of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka - Mr. Donut, Petitioner). Mr. James Hennessey, J. R. Hennessey, Inc., stated that they would be the operating company for Mr. Donut, the franchisee. Commissioner Herman commented ~hat the applicant hadmet with the Design and Review Committee. The petitioner does not propose to expand the building except for adding a vestibule. Mr. Donut would basically be gutting out the interior, remodeling and modifying the exterior by adding some brick and glass and adding an illuminated fascia panel sign on four sides. Directly to the east is an existing office building, to the south is an existing single family residence. Commissioner Herman mentioned that the Design and Review Committee made some comments to Mr. Hennessey and to the construction engineer from Mr. Donut Company expressing strong concern as to the landscape design. The proposal is basically a shrub landscape plan that does not meet the needs of the site. Commissioner Herman also stated that the Committee had indicated to Mr. Hennessey their concern regarding the south side property line which abutts the single family residences. They had extreme concern about some how creating a more acceptable development on Mr. Donut's property for the residents' benefit. Preference was for trees with at least two and a half inch caliber of a deciduous variety. The Design and Review Committee had also talked about the five foot screening requirement fo~ a fence and indicated to Mr. Hennessey that they strongly recommended a higher fence, perhaps eight feet. Mr. Hennessey commented that they had talked about five feet for a fence, the plans show six but if eight feet was required it could be so constructed. He was not 'aware, he stated, of the two and one half inch deciduous tree type decision. Planning Commission : 2- March 5, 1974' Mi nutes '~ Commissioner Henlan again ,stressed that the Design and RevSew Commit~e had expressed a strong concern ~,t'~ landscape buffer betweem th. is~ ~ve~l~l~ment a~t the s~gle famdl~ residents. Commissioner Herman commented that he wanted to make it clear that they had a Design and Review Committee meeting which took approximately one hour. The Planning Commission had a plan now submitted to them that did' not correspond to the recommendations which were made at this meeting. A plant list was also asked for, but not submitted. Signing as proposed on the building exceeds the sign ordinance. It was noted that the lighting of the building would constitute a sign. Chairman Osttund pointed out that the intent of illumination is to draw attention to the donut shop and therefore it becomes part of the sign whether it ~says anything or not. Mr. Hennessey said if this was the case, it was not mentioned at the Design and Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Herman commented that they didn't get into the specifics but they had told them that they felt the fascia design was in excess of the City ordinance. Mr. Hennessey explained that he had read the ordinance and from what he had read and from the people with 'whom he had talked, he had not received the impression that the lighted panels would constitute a sign. Commissioner Cameron said the Design and Review Committee had talked with the Boston gentlemen and had mentioned very specifically that if the area in question was lighted it would be part of the sign. The gentlemen from Boston had asked if there would be any objection to putting up white plastic panels. Commissioner Cameron had told him there would be no objection as long as they were not lighted. Mr. Hennessey replied they could just strike out the lighting and logos on each side if this would solve the problem. It was noted that the site plan showed asphalt curbs in the parking lots. Mr. Hennessey said that they would just as soon put in cement curbing and concrete stops. ~ Commissioner Cameron asked if Mr. Hennessey had a fence detail. Mr. Hennessey stated that they had a closed cedar fence. Discussion was held as to putting the fence on the property line or having it in further and letting the resident maintain a three to ten foot strip or so on the south side. Mr. Hennessey commented that if they did set the fence in a little from their property line then they would create some kind of property area of theirs only accessable to the adjacent resident. He did not feel this was a good idea. Mr. Hennessey then brought up the fact that if trees were planted a few feet from the property line they would constitute a problem not only from the aspect of plowing the same way as the shrubs, but what about overhang, things dropping onto the house, etc. when the trees get bigger. Commissioner Herman mentioned that a dimJnsion from the building to the property tine was shown at 47 feet. Perpendicular parking and a drive isle could be developed on less space so there is an abundance of additional depth which could be worked with to provide an 8 - lO foot side yard. Commissioner Cameron asked about parking lot lighting. The petitioner stated the present yard lights which belong to the station will be relocated and this would give a floresent type of lighting. When questioned about lighting in front of the building, Mr. Hennessey said that they may have to look into this if they cannot have ~he illuminated fascia lighting. Mr. Dick Johnson from International Multi-Fo~s, Mr. Donut's present company, asked the Commission for a clarification of the City's oolicy, mainly in regards to signs. He was told that anything specifically designed to attract attention to the operation was a sign. Mrs. John Bauer, 5539 Winnetka Avenue North, commented on the lighting stating that she lived across the street from the proposed donut shop and the lighting would be worse on her property than anyone elses. It would shine directly onto her property. Another thing Mrs. Bauer asked was if Mr. Donut would be a regular restaurant. Chairman Ostlund said it would j.ust serve coffee and donuts. It will be open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Mrs. Bauer ~as then concerned about the noise of the cars coming and going throughout the night. ~'~ Chairman Ostlund noted that the property was zoned G.B. and consequently there was little control over the type of commercial business that could locate there. Mr. Donut will be buying the property a~cQrding to Mr~ Hennes~ey. Planning C6~[niS.sion - 3 - I~rch 5; 1974 Mrs, Barb Sucky, 5540 Winnetka Avenue, objected 'to the odor which would arise from the cooking plus the lighting. Their house abutts the property and Mrs. Sucky has three children. The light shining into their bedroom would distract them from sleeping. Hrs. Sucky was also opposed to the noise. Mr. Delbert Waterhouse, 5532 Winnetka Avenue, stated that he would also like to object primarily to the lighting'and the noise. Mrs. Bauer was strongly opposed to the hours. Mr, Hennessey explained the reason that Mr. Donut operates on a 24 hour basis is that most restaurants close sometime between g p.m. and 1 a.m. Typically after closing a janitor would most likely come in and he would probably be there a couple 'of hours. In a bakery business you start right after midnight setting up for the early morning trade. This means someone is on the premises almost 24 hours a day even if they closed the doors. If they have someone in the building, the lights on, etc. it does not cost that much more to keep a waiter in and pick up a few extra dollars between midnight and 6 in the morning. Discussion held indicating that plans were not complete enough to act on and that the petitioner should revise his plans and meet again with the Design and Review Committee. Commission.er Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to table Case 74-16 until the second meeting in March. Motion carried on voice vote with Commissioner Herman noted as being oppOSed. A three minute recess was called. The mee~ng was called back to order by Chairman Ostlund. 7. Planning Case No. 74-17 (Variance in Side Yard for House Addition'- 3657 Boone Avenue North - Robert 'Winter, Petitioner). Mr. Robert Winter, petitioner, stated that he was a commercial artist and would like to build a 12 X 18 foot addition to' the hous~ which would be used as his studio, as he works at home. The studio would strictly be used for his purposes, no outside, commercial, employees, etc. Commissioner Cameron expressed concern as to how the house would look when the new addition was built. Mr. Joe Pru from Fireside Builders said the addition will compliment the house. He explained how the roof line would follow the existing roof on both the south gable exposure and on the rear hip. Commissioner Allen moved, second by Commissioner Ohman, to reco~nend approval of Case 74-17 as submitted. Motion. carried on voice vote. 3. Pla~nin~ Case No. 74-13 (Variance from Sign Ordinance~ 4211 to 4313 Oregon Avenue North - Oregon Estates}. Commissioner Ohman moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, to take Planning Case No. 74-13 off the table. Motion carried. Mr. Ron Thomas, 4215 Oregon Avenue North and Property Manager of Oregon Estates, was present to discuss this case. Mr. Thomas stated that they had two identificatio~ signs out front which have been there for four years. It was just brought to his attention that these signs do not meet the requirements of the City at this time. Internal directional signs had been added late this fall without a permit since he was not aware of the new sign ordinance. Mr. Thomas felt these signs were attractive signs and enhanced the nature of the area and were needed. The Fire Chief had discovered the new signs. Mr. Thomas now needed to obtain a variance if he was to keep the signs. Chairman Ostlund commented that he felt the request was a good example for a legitimate variance from the sign ordinance. This complex was off the road and identification was a major factor once you got into the site. Asked why Mr. Thomas 'had put his signs up without checking with the City, Mr. Thomas replied that he was not aware of a new ordinance at the time. Mr. Thomas said they had a rather unique problem in that they were located off of 42nd and'if they do not make any money they cannot maintain Oregon Estates like they have been. Discussion held on the limitations of the sign ordinance as it pertains to apartment complexes and the affect the granting of this variance would have on others that might come in. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Allen, to recommend approval of Case 74-13, variance in sign ordinance with the variance to be qood until February l, 1977 when all signs must be in con- formance with the ordinance. Motion carri6d on voice vote. Planning Commission - 4'- March 5, 1974 Mi, nu. tes~ OLD BUSINESS 8. Discussion of Change in Day of Meetin'gs. Chairman Ostlu~d mentioned that he had again talked to Post Publishing regarding Commission news. Their management has a policy that says they do not attend Planning Commission meetings for any com- munity unless they have "stimulating" issues. So the odds are that there would not be any coverage 'except for maybe one or two meetings out of the year. Several Commission members would not be able to attend on Monday nights as well. It was decided to - continue Planning Commission meetings on Tuesday nights. 9. Discussion of Annual Repo?t. Commissioner Allen presented a chart that had been developed to keep track of the requests, variances, rezonings and special uses that would be considered each month. These could then be summarized on a regular basis. Discussion held on other items such ~as planned unit developments and sign variances that should be added. Mr. Allen indicated they could be added and he-would adjust the-form accord- ingly. The consensus was that the form should be adopted. Chairman Ostlund indicated that Commissioner Oswald wished to be relieved of the duties of Secretary. Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, to impeach Commissioner Ken Oswald as Secretary of the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Ostlund nominated Commissioner Allen for Secretary. Commissioner Jensen second the nom- - ination. Nominations closed. Commissioner Allen was assigned the position of Secretary to the Planning Commission. COMMITTEE REPORTS lO. Report of Codes and Standards Committee. Mr. Larson commented that Mr. Oswald, Chairman of Codes and Standards, had some discussion with representatives of Midland Shopping Center regarding their sign problem. A new tenant needed a sign and Midland felt they could not really do anything about a sign plan because of the leases that existed. They were willing and wanted' to bring signs into conformance with the size and location requiKements as signs were changed and agreed that all nonconforming signs needed to conform by 1977. GenOral discussion was held as to the sign ordinance a~plication in existing centers. It was agreed that the submission of a copy of existing signs with a statement that new signs would conform to the ordinance and the overall sign plan for the center would conform by 1977 would meet the need for a sign plan. Chairman Ostlund stated that if Councilman MJyer disagreed with the consensus of the Planning Com- mission he should come and talk to the Commission. Commissioner Ohman commented that he was working on the setback problem. 11. Report of Land Use Committee. Commissioner Cameron stated that the Land Use Committee had met last Wednesday evening to review the pros and cons of a housing and redevelopment authority. They are going to gather more information and meet with several housing authorities in the suburban area. They will also attempt to determine if the City needs a housing authority. 12. Rgp~rt of Design and Review Comm'ittee. Commissioner Herman commented that the Design and Review Committee had met on February 26th, the only' case being Mr. Donut. 13. The Planning Commission minutes were approved on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Allen. Motion carried on voice vote. 14. The Council minutes of February 25, 1974 were reviewed. Planning C~ommissi~n ' 5- March 5, 1974' Minutes 15. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff. Chairman Ostlund commented on the Council minutes of February 25th asking if there was a stooge on the Council; did Mr. Plufka not really resign and does Mr. Meyer only vote on those issues which are not really important. 16. Announcements. None. 17. Adjournment. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned on motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Herman and carried on voice vote at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary Planning Commission - 1 - . March 19, 1974 Mi nu res A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, on'Tuesday, March 19, 1974. l; Vice-Chairman Cameron called the meeting to orde~ at 7:40 p.m. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Cameron, Herman, Jensen, Oswald and Pakonen. Absent: Allen,'Ohman and Ostlund. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.' Planning ~ase No. 7¢-16 (Continuation of Hearing for Building Conversion and Site Plan Approval - Mr. Donut). Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Pakonen, to table Planning Case 74-16 until later in the meeting as the petitioner was not yet present, Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Approval of Sign Plan for Midland Shopping Center Commissioner Oswald noted, that he and Mr. Larson had talked with the owners of the Midland Shopping Center in regard to a sign plan in accord with the action of the Commission at the last meeting. Representatives of Midland had submitted a letter and pictures of the existing signs. In the letter they noted that all signs under the control of the center would be replaced or altered by 1977 to comply with the City ordinanceJ All new signs going up in the center would meet the provisions of the ordinance. Discussion was .held as to the sign ordinance - what w~s really needed for a sign plan, problems, with lease Control, etc. Commissioner Pakonen moved to accept the overall sign plan for Midland Shopping Center and the First Federal Savings sign as submitted. Motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion held on what was intended by the motion and the'effect on the 'sign ordinance. It was brought up that maybe the Commission could accept the letter and pictures as a temporary sign plan in order that First Federal Savings could proceed. Then the provisions of the sign ordinance could bereviewed as they pertain to existing shopping centers. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Comnissioner Jensen, to'accept the letter and pictures as the sign plan for Midland Shopping Center and that the PrOPoSed First Federal sign be included. Motion carried by voice vote. Commissioner Oswald stated that the Codes and Standards Committee would develop a written p~oposal on the sign plan question as applied to shopping centers to be submitted at the next meeting. 2. Planning Case No. 74-16 {Continuation of Heari.ng for Building Conversion and Site Plan Approval - Mr..Donut}. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, to take Planning Case No. 74-16 off the table. Motion carried on voice vote. Mr. Hennessey, the owner and operator of the proposed Mr. Donut, was present to discuss the case. The revised plans had just been received from Boston so there had been no opportunity to review them. In comparing the site layout with the survey it was ~iscovered that the dimensions did not agree. There appeared to be less space than shown on the site plan. Commissioner Jensen questioned as to how far the fence would be from the house on the south side'of Mr. Donut. Mr. Hennessey replied that it was l0 feet according to the site. However, there was two feet less distance between the building and lot line according to the survey. They could do one of two things: either reduce the distance to eight feet from the residents property and leave diagonal parking as drawn or change the parking to parallel parking and loose several spaces. Presently (Mr. Donut} is just meeting the minimum parking requirements as required by code. Discussion then held on the proposed site development along Bass Lake Road. There were several feet of difference in this area between the survey and site plan. Commissioner Herman commented that Mr. Hennessey was also missing a few detail items as discussed at the Design and Review Committee meeting. Following the discussion the Commission and petitioner .agreed that the specific dimensions must be established before approval could be given. Planning Commission - 2 - March 19, 1974 . Mi nutes Commiss~Oaer Herman moved., second by Cqmmissioner Pak~nen, to tabl,e Planning Case 74-16 until the first meeting in April which would be April 2, 1,974. ' Discussion held. It was noted that the details for construction of the screening fence were not included, nor was the pylon sign plan~ Ask&d if the neighbors had seen 'the new plans, Mr. Hennessey stated that he had~'me~t privately with the neighbors and discussed what would be,agreeable with them. The new plans.' were ,virtually the sanmas what was presented tonight. Mr. Hennessey stated he would have t~e site pl*an redone by a local firm to indicate specifically how the development would fit onto the site. Motion carried on voice vote. .COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. ~Repo. r~t ~pf ~C,~es And ~,$.ta.n,d,a~r~ds C~mm~i.~te,e Commissioner Oswald noted that Commissioner Ohman had been gathering information on setbacks. The information received m,as .not very conclusive ,and Commissioner Ohman is to check further. Any in- formation wh:ich ~may be of val~ue will try to be included in the next Planning Commission packet if received prior to the meeting. Garage sizes were discussed. Conmissioner Pakonen commented that New Hope's ordinance on garage sizes when compared with other com- munities~was the strictest in the area. He provided ~some ,examples of other communities. Commissioner'Herman commented on garage sizes his firm had proposed and felt 700 Square feet was adequate. Commissioner Oswald felt that the Commission should continue to look into the ordinance on garage sizes. ~,~ Commissioner Pakonen moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, that the committee give further review to the question of garage sizes. Motion carried on voice vote. Recr, eatiomal motor vehicle parking wa.s discussed. Some q~es,tion came up regarding the pamking of recre~.tio~al vehicles in res~i~en ti al areas. Commissioner ~Oswald said there did not appear to be any real problem in this area and it was perhaps best. not to open up the subject further at this t i me. Commissioner Jensen gave a report on fence requirments. Following discussion it was decided that the committee should bring in a specific proposal for review by the entire Commission. Commissioner Oswald .commented briefly on the St. Louis Park housing ordinance. FollOwing di~scussion it was',dec-ided to .refer the 'question of a housing ordinan:ce to the Land-Use Committee to review as part of their study on a housing authority, 6. Report of Land Use Committee There was no report from this committee. 7. Design and Review Committee Commissioner Herman stated that the Design and Review Committee had met Wednesday, March 12th at 4:00 p,m. to review Mr, Donut a second time. NEW BUSINESS 8. Appr, ova~ of Planing Comm.ission Minutes of March 5,. 197_4_ The Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 1974 were approved on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Jensen, and carried on voice vote. g. The Council,~ Minutes, ,of March ll,, 1974 were reviewed. lC, Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, _Commissionems~and S~taff None. Planning Comnission -- 3. ' March 19, 1974 Minutes Announcements None. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Jensen and carried on voice Vote~ Respectfully submitted, Deni se Schrader Recording Secretary ~ .... P.lanning Commission Minutes - 3 - Apr11 16, 1974 Mr. Egan remarked that Louisiana Avenue had no bearing on his coming ~efore the Commission asking fort a variance. Asked about access to his rear storage area, Mr. Egan replied that they just had the one entrance" primarily for security reasons. They did not want another gate or exit back into their back yard. There was about $300,000 worth of materials back there. They prefer to have just the one exit so it can be controlled. Comnissioner Pakonen asked Mr. Larson if it would be possible for the engineering problems along Louisiana Avenue to be studied. Mr. Larson said yes, they should have a definite answer by Monday. Co~m~issioner Pakonen also questioned as to whether there was a practical solution to the 18 foot wide driveway. The road was on one side and the building on the other so only a limited area is available, Com~missioner Herman asked why the north line of the 18 foot drive isle could not be moved back. While there is a ramp, there is also a separation between the proposed ramp and the building. This space would appear to be about six to eight feet by scale. If this is true, enough area could be added to give Mr. Egan 20 feet. of width in the isle. Mr. Egan said they were trying to come out and put in a scissors type ramp for the handicapped. Chairman Ostlund co~,ented on the outside storage. He did not think Mr. Egan should have this type of an operation without fencing, and keeping it in more of an orderly fashion.. Questioned as to the appearance from other sides, Mr. Egan. replied that looking from the south, there should be no view into the storage area since the building would block it completely. From the north. there is a building immediately north of Egan and Sons and the rest is parking in the back yard. Coming in from west to east, there will be more trees added along with the existing trees. In addition, the new lot added a great deal of depth so the storage would be at least 250 feet back. Commissioner Oswald questioned the fence along the east side. Would it stay behind the trees or would it be removed? Mr. Egan answered that the fence would stay exactly 'where it was. The trees would be between the fence and the traveled portion of Louisiana Avenue. The only place there would be neighbors, would be on the northwest corner. Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Allen, to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case No. 74-24 subject to the foll~¢ing conditions: 1. That a tree buffer be planted along the east property line to screen outdoor storage areas subject to approval of the consulting engineer or if the planting was not feasible there should be a provision for a wood screening application on the exist- ing fence. 2. Providing a landscape schedule showing the exact number of trees and plant mater~al proposed. Also indicating size and species. 3. That the front drive isle along the south of the building be widened to a m)nimum of 20 foot dimension. 4. Providing a handicapped parking stall to be ~ndicated on the site plan preferably adjacent to the handicapped ramp. 5. The berm and planting buffer along the south property line be ~roperly described to indicate a minimum of four foot hi§h berm and planting buffer continuous along the parking area four feet above elevation of Medicine Lake Road. 6. Dedication Of seven feet additional street right of way on the west half of the property and the extension of the City's utility easement. ~tion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission Minutes -2 - April 16, 1974 lowered in elevation. The proposed evergreens would be eight feet high plus an eight foot width at. the bottom. There would be approximately 27 planted. Commissioner Herman mentioned that one temporary solution would be for Mr. Egan to upgrade the quality of the cyclone fence along the property to get the proper screening. Right now it was a cYclone fence w(th some inserts that was in pretty bad shape. Mr. Egan said that at one time the cyclone fence had been completely, interwoven. However, .the whole fence ended up in the street due to a high wind some years ago. Chairman Ostlund asked Mr. Larson if there was any possibility of development on Louisiana in the near future. Mr~ Larson replied that there was none for this year and the future depended on Crystal and development in the area. Back to the planting of evergreens, Mr. Egan commented that they would like to plant the evergreens on New Hope property right away. The reason it was not shown on the plot plans was because they were not sure approval could be obtained from the C(ty. Commissioner Oswald commented that they were talking about screening off the rear side from Louisiana end-this was really a Crystal ~roblem. He did not see why New Hope should care about the looks or effect any screening would have from a Crystal street. Why should, a resident and property owner in -New Hope be forced to screen it for another community who is not willing to cooperate on street development and similar problems. Mr. Egan stated .that they.would be more than willing to plant the trees for the Crystal neighbors. Commissioner Herma~ said that there had been some p'roblems in parking in the southwest corner. Two rows of parking and a center island had been originally shown. This has now bee~ changed to one row and this has eliminated a dimensional problem. One other item which may need clarification. There is an arrow designation of one way traffic into the parking lot. This will create a traffic circulation problem for the trucks using the rear storage area.. This. indicates that trucks and cars would enter the property at the southe.~a~.t- c~orner and all the semis, trucks, and cars would need to drive across the lot, going wester)y~al, olng th·e entire property and then out at the southwest corner, m~ Mr. Egan ~tated that he had told the architect to take the arrows out or put them going both ways. They could not have semis going through the whole parking lot. They come in on the east side and they are to go out on the east side. Another problem on the site plan is the 18 foot drive isle immediately '- · in front of the building. This would be tight for two-way traffic. It is not only a parking isle for go degree parking, but it is also a main east-west drive isle for the entire parking area. Commissioner Uerman commented that they have a total parking and driveway depth dimension of 36 feet. Assuming that there is an automobile parked with a slight overhang and the nose in, there is no problem. However, some cars are 19 feet long and you could end up with a very restrictive drive isle. Chairman Ostlund mentioned that he did not feel Mr. Egan had enough information and he f~lt Mr. Egan should sit down and work these things out and then come back before the Commission. Mr. Egan stated that he wanted to make the building look attractive. Chairman Ostlund said if the Con~nission were to pass this case and recommend approval, there would be seven or eigi~t exceptions in the motion. Mr. Egan commented that they would be pretty minor exceptions. He did not see how an 18 foot driveway on private property could have any bearing on the Conm~ission's approval. Chairman Ostlund replied that it did, as it was beneath the minimum standards. The addition would · reduce the size of the parking lot and increase the number of employees. Chairman Ostlund said it would stand to reason that Mr. Egan would have a problem in the future that he did not have now. Chairman Ostlund went on to com:~ent that the fence on the east side of the property has to be cleaned up and the exterior storage problem solved. About three years ago, Mr. Egan and his Company had been in before the Co~,:~)iss~on and out~ide storage had been dis.cussed. Mr. Egan was going to clean it up. To this date, it still has not been taken care of. ' Pl,annJng ¢ommJs-s~on Minutes - 1 - April 16, lg74 A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Co~ission was held at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16, 1974 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Allen, Herman, Jensen, Ostlund and Pakonen. Absent: Cameron, Ohman and Oswald (Commissioner Oswald entered at 7:38 p.m., Cameron had excused absence.) Mr. Bill Clifford, State Representative from New Hope, was present to i~¥ite the Planning Commission to a meeting on Wednesday, April 17, at ll:O0 a.m. The meeting was called to meet and listen to the architect, finance people, and representatives from the Homeward Bound group which is considering putting up a facility for the mentally retarded in New Hope. It will be held at the Courage Center in Golden Valley by Glenwood Hills · PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Plannin~ Case No. 74-24 (Variance and Approval of Construction Plans - 7100 Medicine Lake Road Egan & Sons') -Mr. Jerry Egan, Egan & Sons, was present regarding a proposed addition to their building at 7100 Medicine Lake Road. The new addition would double the size of their existing office by adding office and fabrication area. Mr. Egan stated that he was asking for a variance on the parking in front of the building. Reason for requesting the variance--aesthetically they would like to continue.the parking as they presently have. i~.front of the building. They also needed approval of the total expansion~ plan. .- ..... A meeting had been held last Thursday between Egan & Sons, the Design and Review Committee and City staff. Mr. Egan said they had cleared up all the interior elements~ such as sprinkler, security, security lighting, drainage system and interior security lighting. Questions were then raised by the Planning Commission on the dimensions of the parking area compared to the code and the details of the landscaping. Commissioner Herman commented that the Design and Review Committee had requested a landscape schedule from Egan & Sons; only part of this was presented. One other area of concern by the Design and Review Comnittee was that the variance to be juStified for parking in front of the building would require a substantial enough of a buffer to screen the 'vehicles.. Mr. Egan stated that as an owner of the property, they were 'go~ng ~o put a buffer in as the Commission was requesting. It would be a b~rm of two feet with. lan~c~pi~'g.~.~-'Th~.~would have to tear up their present development along Medicine Lake Road a good 200 fee% to build ~'~ b6rm towards Louisiana Avenue since this was where Medicine Lake Road and the existing parking lot are at equal elevations. Going towards the west, or Winnetka, the elevations drop considerably, and a berm and planting would probably not even be needed for screening. Mr. Herman comnented the Designand Review Committee had asked for an earth berm that would give the grade height differential of four feet from any parking area. Commissioner Herman also commented that they had identified the high steep bank along the east property line, which is almost a 60 degree angle, as a problem area. Vehicles moving up Louisiana Avenue get a £remendous exposure of the rear storage area of this property. It was suggested by the Design an~ Review Comnittee that some form of landscaping, or tree plan~n§, to screen the storage area, be developed in conjunction with the improvements. Nothing was shown on the plans. Mr. Egan commented that this was correct. However, he had been in contact with Mr. Larson and they were attempting to reach Glenn Cook and Bob Rosene. The only ~.~ay trees could be planted at this particular spo.t would be to put them on New Hope property between their fence and Louisiana Avenue. There is about 15 feet of area in which Egan and Sons are prepared to olant year round evergreens for screening if the City Engineers would approve. At this point in time~ though, they have to get the approval of the Engineers ~ ~ before they can do this. It has been looked into. Asked why the trees could not be placed on his property, Mr. Egan replied that nothing would grow on a 45 degree hill. Mr. Egan co~m~ented that he understood that Louisiana Avenue would be improved some time in the future. It would be widened and Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April. 16, 19~4 4. Mr. ~lim Mills of the Youth Commission was present to seek input from the Planning Commission regarding a bikeway system in conjunction wiLh communities in surrounding areas. Discussion was held. Mr. Mills commented that presently Plymouth has a bikeway system planned for .around Medicine Lake. Crystal and Golden Valley are also working on a system. New Hope is still in the thought process. The Co~ission agreed that the bikeway, peuestrian path system was needed and the Youth Commission had their support; CO~LMITTE E REPORTS 5. Reports of Codes and Standards Committee Commissioner Oswald commented that the Codes and Standards Committee had not~ met and he had no report. Chairman Ostlund mentioned front yard fences. Commissioner'Jensen said he had a firm recommendation in mind, but had not had a chance to put it in writing yet. He intended to have it for the next meeting. Garage sizes were brought up. Commissioner Pakonen moved, second by Commissioner Oswald that the problem regarding the. current garage sizes does not seem to be significant enough to warrant further discussion and no amendments should be made at this time to the current ordinance restrictions. Motion carried on voice vote. Chairman Ostlund conmented that he felt the sign'ordinance was far too liberal on the amount of ground signs permitted. He asked Codes and Standards to review this provision. 6. Report of Land Use Committee There was no report from this committee as the Chairman was absent. Short discussion held on the Housing Authority. 7. Report of Design a~d Review Committee Commissioner Herman comnented that there was no report other than the Design and Review Committee had met on Thursday, April ll, at 9:00 a.m. with Jerry Egan to review Planning Case No. 74-24. NEW BUSINESS 8. -The. Planning Commission minutes of April 2, 1974 were approved on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Jensen and carried on voice vote. 9.' The Council Minutes of April 8, 1974 were reviewed. Chairman Ostlund commented.that the Counci~ had over-ruled the Commission's recommendatio,n for denial of Sambo's Restraurant not necessarily based on planning, but based on legal problems because of the other development that had been permitted in the area. lO. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff Mr. Larson stated that the Con~ission had been invited by Mr. Wayne Sueker who suggested a rematch of last year's volleyball game. Discussion held after which it was decided that the Colr~ission was 'not interested in volleyball, but would like a golf match. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Chairman Ostlund, that the Planning Commission, in its weak and emaciated condition would strive to put forth a team which would match the mighty City Council on any golf course they should so desi~e or choose outside the confines of the City of New Hope for any stakes the Council may wish to propose that they can economically afford to lose. Motion passed unanimously and Mr. Larson was asked to pass the challenge on to the Council. ll. Announcements Chairman Ostlund announced that the second meetings in June, July, and August would follow the same as last year's format and be suspended unless there was ~ public hearing needed. If the Council has any objections they should let the Planning Con~;~ission know. 12. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. by Comnissioner Oswald, ' '~ second by Co~;missioner Jensen and carried on voice vo.te. Respectful 1 y oS ubmi tted, Denise Schrader Recording Secretary '- Planning CommisSion- - 1 - April 2, 19~4 m . -- Mi nutes ' A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning.Commission was held on Tuesday, April 2, 1974 at the City 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: Allen, Cameron, Herman, Jensen, Ostlund and Oswald;. Absent: Ohman, Pakonen. {Commissioner Pakonen had an excused absence). PUBLIC HEARINGS ' 3. Planning Case No. 74-15 {Variance, Approval of Construction Plans, 7135 - 56th Avenue North - Sambo's Restaurant. Mr. Bruce Newton, Sambo's Restaurant, was present to present the case. Mr. Newton presented several pictures and a plot plan of the property to the Commission. Sambo's Restaurant has their head- quarters in Santa Barbara, California. They have been in operation 17years. At the end of last year they had 338 restaurants in operation in 32 states. Currently they have three in operation in the Twin Cities and one more opening up this coming Sunday in Spring Lake Park. They are not a franchise company but rather the company owns and operates the .units. Mr. Newton stated that the company is very solid and has a good history. In 17 years they have never had a restaurant that has lost money. Commissioner Herman commented that the Design and Review Committee did have a chance to review this project and the one main element which the Commission should consider was the variance in lot size. While it was zoned properly it is less than a'lot size of three acres and a building size of 20,000 square feet which is reouired by ordinance. Commissioner Herman asked Mr. Newton what had been re- solved with Crystal in regards to the egress and access from Maryland Avenue. Mr. Newton replied that at this point he had met with the City of Crystal. He had been told to meet with New Hope and get things in New Hope taken care of first, then come back to see what coul¢ be worked out on curb cuts. They have also talked with-Hennepin County. Hennepin County may have to grant Sambo's an extra curb cut. At this point, Mr. Newton explained, they did not have the curb cuts resolved on Maryland. Mr. Newton commented that the City of Crystal had held a meeting on March 6, .1974, but neither he nor anyone else concerned or interested in the project had been notified. Mr. Dick Jewett, reoresenting his mother who owns the property in quest)on, stated that they had gone to the City of Crystal and talked to the City Manager who told them to appear for a meeting on. March 6th. The day after the Jewetts had visited the City of Crystal, the City had a meeting in regards to 'this without notifying or even asking if anyone would come over and try to explain what the restaurant is, what type of an operation it would be, etc. The City of Crystal sent a letter to New Hop'e'S Planning CommissionJ Commissioner Herman stated that another thing which was mentioned at the Design and Review Committee meeting was the exterior 'or parking lot lighting. Mr. Newton replied that there have been some items which were changed regarding this and he just received these changes back yesterday. Asked if Mr. Newton was familiar as to what has been done to the site plan in terms of exterior lighting, he re- plied that he was not, on the revised plan. Commissioner Herman commented that the main concern of question was that there were three poles mounted on the corners of the building shining or illuminating southward toward the Crystal res- - idential area. The Design and Review's main concern was: l) aesthetic and 2) improper illumination to the south or rear portion of the site. This has been corrected by omitting the pole lights on the building and providing two standards with double fixtures each located along the west property line. This appears to be satisfactoryl in terms of the concerns of the Des.ign and Review Committee. 'It'now provides adequate illumination and would appear to protect the rear of the site. Another item which had been asked for was the landscape plan. The setback requirement has been met. Originally on the plan it was shown as 42 feet, now it is in- dicated at 50 which is requir&d. The pylon .sign which was in excess of the 25 foot height restriction was another concern. Mr. NewtOn ~ ~ replied that Santa Barbara was probably not aware that New Hope had a height restriction of 25 feet. The pylon sign will meet the limitations of the City's code. Planning Commission -'~ - April 2, 1~74 Ninutes lwo other i~ems were mentioned. to the trash container area. lhey have added another one however. 2)Changing the exposed concrete block to a square block or an 8-X 8 pattern. Chairman Ostlund commented that the Commission had received ~ letter dated garch ll, 1074 signed by gr. William Sherburn, City Engineer for Crystal, urging Ne~ Hope to deny the request for variance on Sambo's Restaurant curb cuts. A letter was also received from Attorney gichael B.' Gob]linch and read b7 Chairman Ostlund. gm. dewett's intention is to dispose of the other half of the parcel of land, approximately 1 acre, as one piece without any further division or dividing of the property, lhe present large lot with the house and car wash would then end up in two parcels b6th just over 1 acre in sixe. Chairman Ost]und commented that he thought the Sambo's Restaurant was an Outstanding type of business. -However, he felt the variance request was too much. He felt that obviously this piece of property did not fit the restaurant. He did not feel the Commission should design the restaurant to fit this particular piece of property. Mr. Jewett explained how this particular piece of property came into being. Mr. Jewett stated that the car wash land was leased by his mother for about 7 - 8 years with no option to renew. The piece of property Sambo's would be using is also owned by her and the taxes, assessments, etc. are be- coming too much for her to handle. She would like to sell the land as soon as possible. Mr. Jim Harry, 5609 Nevada Avenue North, said.that he was here to speak not only for himself but several of the neighbors in opposition to. the use of this particular piece of land. Mr. Harry said that.Crystal residents near this piece of property, are aware that the property is zoned commercial and that some day it will be developed with some type of commercial use. Their opposition is that they feel Sambo's Restaurant, if built on thi~ piece of land, would be inconsistent with what is essentially a residential neighborhood in spite of the presence of Bass Lake Road. Mr. Harry com- mented that he thought many of the people in the neighborhood would tend to go along better with the property owner if he were to seek some consideration-from the Crystal City Council for a development (commerical use) of this land which they felt was more compatible with the residential ~'~ neighborhood. ~r. Herman Nelson from the Crystal Planning Commission said that this petitioner must have investi- gated this piece of property before he entered into an option to buy. He would have known that it would not comply with the City's ordinances and that he would have to have a variance. He also should have found ou~ very easily that Crystal would not grant him any access to Maryland Avenue. Mr. Nelson commented that it has been their experience that allowing commercial traffic on residential streets around Bass Lake Road creates an awful lot of traffic on them because people are just afraid o~Bass Lake Road. A variance, if granted, should be granted for the public good, in general, with traffic and the good of the. neighborhood in mind. If any hardship is crea~ea here Mr. Nelson said it was self inflicted. Traffic wise, another restaurant would only create more problems and accidents. Mr. Nelson went on to state that he had noticed that the Planning Com- mission has granted similar variances to other uses in the City. Chairman Ostlund commented that each variance had to stand on its own merit. Chairman Ostlund felt that without curb cuts on Maryland a restaurant operation on this piece of land would be too dangerous. gr. Jewett said that this restaurant was unique from the rest of the operations along Bass L~ke Road in that people do not just rush into the place, grab a dozen hamburgers, and rush out again. People come into Sambo's and sit down. The problem with Bass Lake Road will always be there. Mr. Goblirsch said he would be interested in looking toward the future. The property is zoned commercial. Would it be conceivable that when the lease runs out on the car wash and it turns in{o a piece of property, the entire parcel could be used for a use such as retail? Chairman Ostlund replied that it was possible. Commissioner Cameron questioned as to whether others had shown an interest in developing or buying this property. Chairman Ostlund commented that he thought Mr. Jewett should consider other uses for the property and come before the Commission with more moderate variance requests being that this was the first case brought before the Commission for this particular piece of land. Planning Commission - 3 - April. 2, 1974 · -, Mi nu tes · Commissioner Cameron moved to table Planning Case No. 74-15 for one month to give the petitioner time to think over whether he wanted to use the land for Sambo's or whether other uses could be checked into. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Oswald asked how large the piece of property was on 64th and Penn. Mr. Newton said it was 34,440 square feet, this property was around 50,000. Asked if the lessee of the car wash operation had been approached to see if they would be terminating the lease early, Mr. Newton re- plied that the man was here at the meeting and he was going to keep the lease for the full eight years. Commissioner Allen moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to recommend denial of the request for a variance in Planning Case No. 74-15 due to the fact the lot is totally undersized for the use proposed. Commissioner Herman commented that he felt the parceling problem was one of the items the Com- mission should really look into, where there was a waiver of platting involved. Commissioner Cameron commented that the case may really be that there was not adequate evidence for a variance presented. Mr. Gary P. Wiederhold, 5519 Maryland Avenue North, said he had known Mrs. Jewett for over a year and a half while living in Crystal and he had a great deal of respect for her. He also felt that Sambo's Restaurant was an excellent restaurant. However, he felt from a planning standpoint there should not. be uses having a moderate to high volume within close proximi%y to a residential area~ There will be traffic, business and some amount of noise at all hours of the night which is very imcompatible with the planning standards which should be incorporated in any community. Mr. Wiederhold said he had heard some discussion about possibly rezoning the property for other uses. He felt that this point should be considered later by all parties involved. Mr..Leroy Gertger, 5424 Nevada Avenue North, commented that the property on Maryland and Nevada is surrounded by Crystal residents. The property is in New Hope and he was wondering in the future if there was any way that the Crystal residents would be notified of any meetings, or action taken on this property. Chairman Ostlund stated that New Hope would and does hotify Crystal City Hall and the City.of Crystal would notify, their residents. Motion to recommend denial to the Council was carried on voice vote. At 8:1§ a three minute recess was Called .by Chairman Ostlund. The meeting was called back to orde~by Chairman Ostlund. 4. Planning Case No. 74-16 (Building Conversion,.Site Plan Approval, Winnetka and Bass Lake Road - Mr. Donut). Commissioner Herman noted the revi~ed plans had just bJen received and had not been reviewed for conformance tO th~ items suggested earlier.~ Commissioner Oswald moved to table Planning Case No. 74-16 for 30 days. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Chairman Ostlund, to table Planning Case 74-i6 for 15 minutes or until the next case was heard at yhich time the staff would have had a chance to look at the most recent plans. Motion carried on voice vote. 5. Planning Case No. 74-18 (Variance'Garage Size - 3430 Yukon Avenue North - William Donald). Mr. William Donald, 3430 Yukon ~venue North, petitioner, stated that he was applying'for a variance to extend his double garage 20 feet backwards to be used as a storage area for two other automobiles. Commissioner Cameron questioned as to the reason why Mr. Donald had so many automobiles. Mr. Donald replied that it went back a couple of years. He was 29 and for many years he and his father have had an extreme interest in automobiles. At the present time Mr. Donald has four automobiles, one of which he uses daily and three of which he has as antiques. They are professionally restored so there would be no restoration in the garage. It would simply be a place where Mr. Donald could walk out to his garage and his cars would be there. He would not have to go to someone else's garage in North Minneapolis to look at his cars. He would just like to have his cars on his own property. It is totally for storage and he is allowing no other space in the garage for a work -area or anything. There will be a couple of feet in front. There will be no comnercial operation. At the present time the garage will not be heated. It will, however, be insulated. Planning Commission - 4- April 2, 1974 ~Minutes Asked if Mr. Donald has had any professional help on matching the roof line, Mr. Donald replied that he has had professional help and it is feas'ible. The lower peak would go right into the too peak of the garage. This is technically feasible. Mr. Donald has the support figured odt so that it will not cave in. The peak would not be seen from 'the front. Siding bould go straight back with no dentations. There have been no objections from any of the neighbors. A tree in the back will also be removed. Asked if Mr. Donald's neighbor knew the addition would be going straight back, Mr. Donald replied that he did. The back wall will be aligned with the extension of the patio fence. There will still be a 46 foot rear yard setback. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Comnissioner Allen, to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case No. 74-18, variance in garage size. Further discussion was held. Con~nissioner Jensen asked Mr. Donald if he planned on living in this neighborhood for a considerable period of time. Mr. Donald said that he had moved in three years ago and found the neighborhood a very appealing place. As far as his wife and he were concerned they had absolutely no plans to move. Mr. Donald went on to comment that he had also talked with the neighbors as to whether the addition would pose an aesthetic decrease in their property. They all unanimously agreed that they did not think there would be any problem as far as obstruction of view from their back yards. Mr. Donald has also talked to several other people and they seem to think the garage-addition would ' ' not detract from the value of his property or from the value of the property directly around it. Motion to approve was carried on voice vote. 6. Plannin9 Case No. 74-19 (Variance, Construction Plan Approval - 4125 Oregon Avenue North - First Line Engine Service). Mr. Reino Kyrola,lst Line Engine Service, owner of the building at 4125 Oregon Avenue North, was present to discuss th6 case. Mr. Kyrola said he was requesting approval for a small addition on the building at 4125. Oregon. In order to build the addition a rear yard variance was needed. Mr. Kyrola presented the revised plans of his proposal to ~he Commission. '.,~. K~dla was proposing 50 feet of green space and two twelve foot wide driveways along Oregon. Parking can come to within three feet of the boulevard. Some type of curbing would need to be put in. Concrete was suggest- ed. Mr. Kyrola had proposed portable curos. Chairman Ostlund questioned as to why Mr. Kyrola could not just blacktop the whole thing and put a curb in. ~ommissioner Cameron commented that this was Mr. Kyrola's initial request; however, the Design and Review Committee felt there should be some green area and a couple of trees to dress up the boule- vard as the street runs into a residential neighborhood. No specified amount of parking is necessary. . Commissioner Jensen questioned as to if the sign on too represented on the plans was the actual size according to scale. Mr. Kyrola replied that it was. Mr. Kyrola was asked if the entire mansard area would be considered as the base of the sign. Mr. Kyrola said he would consider it as the base of the wall. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Allen, to recommend to'the Council approval of Planning Case No. 74-19, variance in rear yard setback and approval of the site and building plan~. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Planning Case No. 74-16 (Building Conversion, Site Plan Approval - Winnetka/Bass Lake Road -.~r. Donut). Mr. Hennessey, owner of Mr. Donut, stated that since the last meeting a survey has been completed and the plans, parking, lot size, etc. have been readjusted to conform to the survey which not only in- cluded the Bass Lake Road side but also the south side where previous plans had not been drawn accurately. The fence winds up about 7'~ feet from the house. The neighbor's property line is about 2½ feet from the property line to the house. Mr. Donut agreed to set their fence in on their property about five feet to give the residential owners more room. Mr. Hennessey said he had dis- cussed this with his attorney and it may be necessary to have a formal easement signed as part of ~tYae closing on the property. ,~) Planning Commission -'5 - April.~, 1974 Minutes . Commissioner Herman con~nented that the Design and Review Committee still felt disappointed in the quality of what Hr. Donut has submitted. There still are a number of items which could be clarified on the site olan - parking for instance. Eventhough six or eight cars are shown the stalls are not dimensioned. A fence on the south property line adjacent to the single family residents was dis-' cussed but n~vhere on the site plan or landscape plan is there any indication that a fence will be there. There is a detail of a fence on one of the back sheets but nowhere on the site plan or land- scape plan can it be ascertained that the fence will be constructed at a specific location. Mr. Johnson, planner for the ~roject, said that the fence would continue right around the property. Mr. Johnson commented that th~ Design and Review Committee had never mentioned marking off the dimensions or depth and width of the parking stalls before. He felt this was just another delay as the parking stalls did meet ordinance requirements. The drive isle width on the Winnetka side was also reviewed. While the plan shows a 35.4 foot dimension from the property line to the building it is only 21 feet because of the eight feet for the planting strip and six feet for the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson commented that they had put in six feet of .grass area before and the Design and Review Committee had asked them to move it up to eight feet. There are several trees shown in the parking lot. Diagonal hatch lines are also shown alongside these trees with no designation .as to what is meant by the lines. Questions arose as to if this would be sod, gravel or curb around the trees for protection. Mr. Johnson stated that it would all be paved. Mr. Johnson said the only thing that changed at this point in regards to parking was the nature of the one line on the north side of the property which came up when they got a registered survey. At that point they lost two parking spaces reducing the amount of parking spaces from 19 :o 17 - 15 spaces would meet the code. Chairman Ostlund mentioned that he had noticed in Mr. Donut's annual report that the biggest problem ~hey had in the entire business was parking at everyone of their sites. Commissioner Herman asked who had drawn the plans. Mr. Johnson replied that he had. Asked 'if he was .an engineer or architect, Mr. Johnson stated that he was not, but he had drawn the plans for a lot of people. Questioned if he was going to buy a stamp, Mr. Johnson said he was not.' The plans would be reviewed by aa architect who would approve them. All Mr. Johnson did was act on a con- sultant basis. However, the plans were drawn up-under the supervision of an architect who would be the final authority. Mr. Richard Sucky, 5~40 Winnetka Avenue North, stated that he had a few complaints about the Mr. Donut operation. F~rst, Mr-. Donut was to be.open 24 hours. If it was open until 12:00 fine, but when it gets to be 3:00 o'clock in the morning and cars are still pulling in it will be difficult for his children to sleep. The lighting in the back ~as also a concern of Mr. Sucky's. He questioned Mr.'Hennessey as to if they would be shining on his house at all. Mr. Hennessey sa~d he did not think they would shine into or onto Mr. Sucky's home. Mr. Hennessey said economics were ~he reason that Mr. Donut went to the relocated existing florescent fixtures. Mrs. Helen Bauer, 5539 Winnetka Avenue North, commented that Mr. Donut had promised that the lights would not be shining into her bedroom windoW. Chairman Ostlund said they promised to the degree that they would abide by the City ordinances. The pylon and roof top signing is within City code. Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to recommend approval for' Case 74-16 subject to the indication of an eight foot high wood fence on the south property line and subject to a final set of plans and specifications for submittal to the Council which will be properly certified by a registered architect or a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Case No. 74-20 (Construction Plan Approval - International Parkway - Custom Mold). Mr. Duane Treiber, Custom Mold,.stated that he presently operates and owns Custom Mold and Design. Mr. Treiber is proposing a building to be built on International Parkway, in an industrial area, on a one acre site. The company designs and builds tools of the small intricate nature. The pur- pose for the variance was the fact that Mr. Treiber had proposed a little less than lO,O00 square foot building - 6,300 square feet. The type of operation he has does not require a large building. Secondly, Mr. Treiber would propose to build a building that he thought would be an asset to the community as far as appearance. About 1/3 of the employees Mr. Treiber has live in New Hope and he Mr. Treiber pointed out that he would propose no outside storage presently resides in New Hope. of any type. He has proposed an area for storage within the building. Mr. Treiber has consulted with the Pol.ice Chief and Fire Narsh~l and the building is proposed to be sprinkled ~nd connect into the New Hope alarm system. Hr. Treiber stated that he felt all the requirements of the Design and Review Committee had ~een met. The Design and Review Committee had requested that Mr. Tre.iber shift :the building a li'ttle to the north on the lot to allow a larger driveway and parking area. They have provided facilities for the handicapped and trees of a 2 inch dian~ter have been added to the front. Mercury vapor lights have been added to the lights, one to the rear, one to the side and two · to the front. Plannfng Commission -6- /tprt1.2, 1974 Hi nutes Mr. Treiber went on to comment that he had moved into the area five years ago out of a basement operation. He had built the operation up to where sales have increased almost SlO0,O00 every year. Mr. Treiber felt this building should be adequate for his operation for possibly five to eight years. He did not see that it would be feasibly wise to put up a lO,O00 foot structure when a smaller well designed building would do the job. 8y being the sole operator he would not have to worry with a lease problem. Commissioner Herman commented that the Design and Review Committee had also mentioned that they would prefer some sod along the north side of the building rather than seed which is also in com- pliance. A future expansion was also indicated. However, even with an addition the building would still meet all requirements without a variance. The site and building will still comply with the ordinance. Mr. Treiber conunented that the operation they now had consists of approximately eleven full time employees plus himself. They operate out of 3,000 square feet. Mr. Treiber stated that he had never advertised since he had all the business he could handle. He felt 13 men was his limit. The front entry way lighting is permanent type lighting. The ~.~o lights on the front of the build- ing are of the cylinder down type. Asked if Mr. Treiber was still planning on putti-ng in 2 - 3 inch trees, Mr. Treiber replied that he was, probably the three inch trees. There will be no sign- ing on the site at this time, though a small ground sign may be added later. Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, to recommend approval of Planning Case ~. No. 74-20, a variance in building size from lO,O00 square feet to 6,300 square feet as proposed, subject to the addition of one additional light on the exterior and the increasing on size of the trees indicated from 2 inch to 2½ inch minimum caliber. Motion carried on voice vote. 8. Planninq' Case No. 74-21 {Variance, Construction Plan Approval - 5621 International Parkway - Capp Homes). Mr. Jim Hannen with C~p Homes stated that they were asking for a variance of the required green area for their warehouse on 5621 International Parkway. Originally it had 36 -37% greenery. Capp Homes feel they need to cut it down to 17% in order to have enough parking, m~neuvering and loading space for their facilities. Commissioner Herman stated that this was primarily a site improvement project. It requires pro- viding a new overhead door on the southwest corner of the building, 16 X 16 in size. It involves blacktopping the entire balance up to the area shown to be planted on the west or rear part of the building, construction of a concrete retaining wall which is an extension of the south wall moving to the west, and additional blacktopping alohg the north property line which is a swatch about 42 feet wide for employee parking space. The Design and Review Committee, in looking at this, felt that with the additional paving which would be going in and with the site having two exposures to traffic and community view, one along international Parkway and one along the exit ramp drive off County Road 18, it would be appropriate ~o provide landscaping along these b~o areas to act as proper buffers. The green area is reouired to be 35~, would, after the paving operation takes place have only 16.7% landscaping. The trees shown along International Parkway do not have a specie indicated. Mr. Hannen said they would like to out in a 2½ inch diameter tree of whatever type the City would require. The specie and the size of each specie should be designated on the site plan. Commissioner Herman commented that he did not feel particularly satisfied with the ouantity or even quality of the plant material Mr. Hannen had proposed. Along the west side Russian Olives were shown. Russian Olives grow up to about 12 - 18 feet. Along the east side Commissioner Herman thought there could be a more imaginative use of landscape material in terms of tree. clusters. Commissioner Cameron commented on the blacktop to the west which appeared to be about three feet higher than the present parking lot. Mr. Hannen stated this area would be sloped to meet the ~ .-.]~:.present parking tot. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Herman, to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case 74-21, subject to a complete detailed landscape plan being drawn up of adequate quality. Further discussion held. Commissioner.'Herman stated that he felt the green area on the plan should be designated as being sod. MOtion cafriedoh voi~e v6te. 9. Plannin9 C'a'~ No~ 74-22 (Variance Sign Ordinance - Xylon and Rockford Road - Minnesota Federal). Planning Commission - 7 -. April 2, 197.4 Minutes Mr. Jim Vogt, architect representing Minnesota Federal, said they were not asking for really a variation of the sign code but rather to us'e the signage permitted somewhat differently. Mr. Vogt stated the code would allow 200 square feet of sign on the face of the building and possibly 200 on the rear. The signs as Minnesota Federal shows them are on all four faces of the building with each face having 94.6 square.feet. Minnesota Federal feels their signs are an intricate part of the building design. They have become a oublic image for Minnesota Federal. They have several of these buildings around the metropolitan area. They feel that the public has begun t~ recognize it as their building and they woudd like to have the signs on all four side~ of the building. There will be no pylon or ground signs although they would be allowed to have one. The present sign for Minnesota Federal on Rockford Road will be removed and used as a sign at some other temporary location once the new building is complete. Mr. Vogt felt the signs enhance the appearance of the building. The signs would have 20 inch high letters. Commissioner Cameron asked Mr. ¥ogt if there would be any kind of lighting. Mr. Vogt answered that the signs would be internally lit. Each letter is lighted independently. A time clock controls the hours which these lights Will be lit. Sometimes they have a solar control. Lights come on about dusk and will usually run until about midnight. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 74-22, variance in sign ordinance to allow Ninnesota Federal to put up the signs as proposed on all four sides of the building subject to no ground signs except for the b~o small traffic con- trol signs. Further discussion held. Commissioner Oswald co~ented that the Commission would not normally take such an easy approach. to a massive sign ordi)iance change e~cept that this sign is done in' such good taste and the total signage is much below what could be permitted. Motion carried on voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS lO. Report of Codes and Standards Committee Commissioner Oswald presented a proposal on a policy statement regarding an 'approach to take on future requests for shopping center signing. Discussion was held. Commissioner Cameron expressed concern over Item B, the submission of an overall long range sign plan. Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, to accept the proposal as submitted for staff guideline. Motion carried on voice vote. Commissioner Jensen reported on his findi-ngs regarding fences. Discussion held. No action taken subject to additional review. 'll. Report of Land Use Committee Commissioner Cameron commented that they were still investigating the Housing Authority. 12. Report of Design and Review Con~ittee Commissioner Herman stated that the Design and Review Committee had met on March 26, 1974 and heard four cases adjourning their meeting at 6:00 p.m. The next meeting will be on April 23rd. NEW BUSINESS . 13. Approval of Commission Minutes of )$arch 19, 1974 The Planning Commission minutes of March 19, 1974 were approved on motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Cameron,land carried on voice vote. ' 14. The Council minutes of March 25, 1974 were reviewed. 15. Additional ~omments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff Commissioner Oswald moved, second by Chairman Ostlund, that the Council Chambers be recommended to the Council to be proclaimed as a no smoking area. Motion carried on voice vote. Chairman Ostlund commented on the "fraud" in which some of the gas stations are using their out of gas signs when actually their pumps are full. Planning Commission -'8- AprJl 2, lg74 Minutes 16. Announcements .'' -~ ' None. 1'7.There being no further business, Commissioner cameron moved at. 10:30 p.m., second by Commissioner Oswald, for adjournment. Motion carried on voice vote. Respectful ly submitted, Denise Schrader - Recording Secretary t Planning Commission - I - May 7, 1974 leinutes 1.A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the City Hall. 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City, on Tuesday, May 7, 1974, at 7:30'p.m? The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Allen, Herman, Jensen, Ostlund, Pakonen, Cameron, Oswald. Absent: Ohman. PUBLIC HEARINGS '3. Planning. Case NO. 74-25, request for variances in garage size and rear yard setback to permit con- struction of an addition to existing detached garage at '3001 Cave11 Avenue North (Lot 5, Block 4, West Winnetka Park), was heard by the Planning Commission. The petitioner, Mr. Thurston Zettel, was present to discuss the plans with the Commission. Mr. Zet,tel said that he is ~lanning to build a 31 X 16 foot addition to the house and a 16 X 24 foot additi'on to the north end of the existing garage. The addition to the home will be used for ad- ditional bedroom space and will extend to the west. The proposed garage addition will be used as a third garage stall. The garage roof line will be the same as it ne~ is. The driveway wilt remain at 16 feet at the street line and will be widened in front of the garage, matching up with the angle to the car port, so as to accommodate the third stall. The garage will have a total square footage of I ,008 enclosed square feet. Code requirement is 700 square feet, The neighbor living to the west of the Zettel property said he had no objections to the variances as requested. No one else appeared regarding the matter. Discussion was held as to which yard would be consi'dered' the rear yard. The City Manager advised that the City code would permit recognizing either the north yard or the west yard as the rear yard.. It was then determined that the front yard would be the 30th Avenue side and that the north line would be the rear of the property. Thus, a variance in rear yard setback is not required for the addition to the house. A variance is needed for the rear yard setback for.the garage addition. Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Allen, to recommend to the Council approval of variance in garage size and rear yard setback for garage addition for the property at 3001 Cavell Avenue, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-25. It is understood that the front yard faces 30th Avenue. Motion carried by voice vote. 4.Motion by Conmdssioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Jensen, to table Planning Case No. 74-26 un- til later in the meeting. Motion carried by voice vote. (Petitioner not present at this time). It was noted that the meeting was running'ahead of schedule and tbe next planning case could not be heard until 7:45 p.m. as provided by notice. The Chairman then called for committee reports, 16. Commissioner Cameron reported that the Land Use Committee will be ready to present its report per- taining to a housing authority for New Hope at the meeting of May 21, 1974. Committee will meet next Monday night to finalize the recommendations. 17. Co~missioner Herman reported that the Design and Review Co~mi'ttee had met On APril 23rd and con- sidered two proposals which will be before the Planning Commissio~ this evening. The next De6ign and Review meeting is scheduled for May 21, 1974. 5. Planning Case No. 74-27, request from James Putzke for a.variance in garage space for the property at 8001 -,60th Avenue North, Lot l, Block 4, Moen's 2nd Addition, was heard -at this time. Mr. James Putzke was present to discuss the proposal. The petitioner now has a tuck under garage which is 12 × 26 feet er 312 scuare feet. He is proposing to construct a new detached garage on the southeast corner of his lot. The new garage would be 22 X 24 feet or 528 square feet. Future plans call for the conversgon of the tuck under garage into a utility room. The conversion will take place at a later date. ~ntil the existing garage is con- verted there would be 840 feet of garage space which is in excess of the 700 foot limitation. Mr. Putzke said he needed a larger garage to accommodate bicycles and so forth. He said he does in- tend to close the tuck under garage up but at this t-ime he is n~t ready financially nor does he have a plan as to how to close it up and make it look good. Masonar~work will be required. Commissioner Cameron noted that there would be two separate driveways and room for three cars on the property. He then inquired as to the plans for the use of the ~esent- garage. Planning Commission - 2 - May 7, 1974 Mi nutes Mr. Putzke stated that he intends to build a sauna in back. This will be done this fall. This will then make the existing garage unusable for a car. He said he did not intend to ever finish off the existing garage area to make it part of the house - such as paneling. He said he would like to move his present woodworking tools out of the basement into the garage and finish off the rest of the basement and at that time he would close off that garage door.' Closing off the garage door would make the house easier to heat. He said he. had seen one home where the driveway came up to a 36 inch door and a window and he did not particularly like the way that looked. He said he is giving con- sideration to a planter instead. Upon questioning, Mr. Putzke said the existing drivmvay is in need of repair and if it were required he wouldn't particularly object to doimg away with the driveway. He thought it might look odd for guests to come .to his house and have to park their car in the back yard. Mr. Putzke said that he wanted to use the existing garage while the new garage was under construction~ The Commission pointed out that if they could be assured that the existing garage would be closed up at the time the new garage is ready f6~ use the~e w6uld b~ no probl~. be required to do that since there is masonry work required and he~ needs more time to consider the enclosure treatment. Mr. Putzke indicated that he would need a year to close off the garage and that he had been planning on leaving the existing driveway. He suggested that the Commission look at the house on Virginia and 60½ Avenue, which mas this type of situation. Discussion held as to setting time limitation for closing the tuck under garage. Mr. Putzke asked for a year plus a month or two to close off the garage so to get into the 1975 construction season. No one appeared regarding the requested variance. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Jensen, to recommend to the Council approval of variance in garage size for the property at 8001 -'60th Avenue North, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-27, with the restriction that the present garage door be converted to a finished front of the home, matching the rest of the building, by July l, 1975. Further discussion held with Commissioner Herman saying that he did not feel that it would be unreason- able to request that the existing garage be closed off at this time. Discussion was held as to feasibility of requiring a temporary closing of the existing garage. It was decided that a temporary covering would not be a suitable solution, feeling that it might be preferable to look at the garage door until the front could be properly finished. Voice vote was then taken on the motion. Motion carried. 6. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Allen, to table Planning Case No. 74-28 until later in the meeting. {Petitioner not present at this tirme), Motion carried on voice vote. 7. Planning Case No. 74-29, request from Robert Chamberlain for a variance to side yard setback re- quirements to permit placement of a detached garage ll 1/2 feet from 42nd Avenue, was heard. The property in question is located at 4201 Zealand AvenueNorth - Lot 14, Block 3, Sandra Terrace. Mr. Chamberlain was present to discuss the proposal. Mr. Chamberlain said that he does not have a garage at this time and that he does not want a garage attached to his house because of oil fumes, etc. The garage is to be 20 X 24feet. It is also pro- posed to construct a detached 14 X 24 foot car port in line with the house. The house, garage and car port structures will be six feet apart. However, the roof overhangs of the car port and house will be about t 1/2 feet apart. Mr. Chamberlain said he wants to align the garage with 42nd Avenue rather than with the house. The garage will be 65 feet from Zealand Avenue curb line and it will be set on the same line as the row of pop)ars. Discussion held as to whether the location of the detached car port would complywith fire code regulationS. Mr. Chamberlain said that he.wanted the requested garage placement so as to maintain the back yard as a recreationand family area. It was noted that the New Hope fire trucks use Zealand Avenue to come out onto 42nd Avenue and con- cern was expressed as to line of sight for the fire trucks as well as all other vehicles using the route, Mr. Chamberlain noted that the poplars were now in existence. The poplars are to remain with the garage to be located just to the north of the poplars, Planning Commission - 3 - Nay. 7, 1974 Minutes Discussion then held as to why we do not have a fire light on 42nd Avenue to let our fire trucks out. The City Manager advised that it has been discuSsed, and the County haq objected when the matter has come up. They feel that the problem is not big enough yet. Discussion held as to the width of the garage door. Mr. Chamberlain replied that a 12 foot door would be used. Maneuverability of cars in respect to the proposed car port was discussed. Mr. Chamberlain replied that the driveway, car port and garage ~door will all be in a straight line. Discussion held as to whether the garage should be parallel with the property line rather than with house. Mr. Chamberlain said with the small amoun: ofdifference involved, he believed it would look better aligned with the street andwould not be noticed by anyone other than himself. Also iT he were to align with the house one corner of the garage would extend at the southwest corner to within 8 feet of 42nd Avenue. The garage will also be aligned with the trees. There was no one in the audience concerning this case. Motion by. Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Pakonen,-to recommend approval to the Council of Planning Case No. 74-29, request for variance in side yard setback to permit location of a detached garage at 4201 Zealand Avenue to come within ll.5 feet of 42nd Avenue. Motion carried on voice vote. 8. Planning Case No. 74-30, request from He~tt Peterson for approval of a preliminary plat of the property at the s'outhe~st corner of 36th and H~llsboro Avenue, was heard. Mr. Hewitt Peterson and Hr. Bob Lone, Attorney with. Brill and Associate~, were present in regard to this request. Mr. Hewitt'Peterson said that the plat approval is requested so that taxes can be divided. ~he proposed plat contains two lots, one of which has beensold to Dr. Saliterman. Mr. Peterson said that he had been asked to plat the property as a requirement for getting separate tax statements. Discussion held regarding the use of the triangular parcel at the northeast corner of 35th Avenue and Hillsboro. Mr. Peterson pointed out that he did not own this particular parcel and that he thought National Funds was the title holder. Inquiry was made by Commission members as to why the platting or a waiver of platting had not been obtained prior to the sale to Dr. Saliterman. Commissioner Ostlund said that the division of taxes appeared to be an internal problem between the two respective owners and the City's concern is that the platting must tie into the proposed de- velopment. 'It was noted that the property is zoned SR. Mr. Peterson replied that he was not re- questing rezonlng, only platting. The concensus of the Planning Commission was that the entire tract as it now exists should be plan- ned. Mr. Peterson replied that both the proposed parcels were large enough that it Wouldn't create any problem in the development. The parcels were large enough to accommodate things.- Mr. Robert Lowe, Attorney, said that since this was just a request for the platting of the land and not a request for any special use of the property, the platting would provide lot and block legal descriptions rather than the metes and bounds descriptions and would also facilitate the tax division. It would still be the same property with no difference in use. It is residential and will remain single family residential. The plat will not affect that use. Then the two - 2 1/2 acre tracts would be platted for residential instead of the five acre tract. Commissioner Cameron stated that platting of two separate tracts with different owners could result in a different street configuration. As long as the property is one tract the two owners would have to work together in planning the development. The Planning Commission again asked to see a development plan prior to giving consideration to the plat. Dividing the two parcels at this time would limit the flexibility of the development of the total site. Mr. Lowe said that it would not make any difference as to whether owners of metes and bounds de- scription property or owners of "lots" needed to get together for development of the property. Commissioner Oswald said that at this time the property is one tract of land and has not been split by the City. Further discussion held with Hr. Lewe stating that this was a preliminary plat with platting pur- suant to the ordinance. Commissioner Oswald replied that the plat is .not laid out for single family development and all that is really being asked for is to divide the property based on sale of the one lot. Planning Commission - 4- May 7, 1974 Mi nutes No further comments were offered. ~ Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Jensen, to recommend denial' of Planning Case 74-30, request for approval of preliminary plat at the southeast corner of 36th and Hillsboro Avenues because the proposed plat is not correlated to the use.of the property as single family development. Motion carried on voice vote. 9. Plannin9 Case No. 74-31, request from Carl Nagell for variance in side yard setback for the property at 2700 Ensign Avenue North, Lot 6, Block 2, West Oak Terrace, to permit construction of a single family home to come within 28 feet of Medicine Lake Road, was heard. Mr. Nagell was present to discuss the proposal. The code requires that a 35 foot side yard s'etback be maintained along Medicine Lake Road. A build- ing permit was issued by staff without taking into consideration the side yard requirement for a major thoroughfare. Construction had started with a side yard setback of 28 feet. Mr. Nagell stated that if he had known this at the time he could have revised the plans to fit the lot. The house will face Ensign Avenue. The City Manager stated that at the time West Oak Terrace was platted an additional seven feet was given for 27th Avenue. Presently a 40 foot street width is provided on the New Hope side. Discussion held as to whether eventual improvement of 27th Avenue would require more than the 40 feet now 'dedicated. The City Manager said that the County was satisfied that the 40 feet provides ~:e~o.ugh room for the street i'mprovement. Further discussion held. The house has a tuck under garage toward 27th Avenue with bedrooms above the garage. Upon question- ing, Mr. Nagell said the house had been sold and that the buyers were aware of the variance. No one appeared in regard to this planning case. Moti on by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Allen, recommending to the Council approval of the variance in side yard setback requirement to 28 feet for the location of a house at 2700 Ensign Avenue, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-31. ~-~ Commissioner Ostlund spoke against the motion saying that it would be cheaper to correct the error now than to wind up with a house in the sight line of Medicine Lake Road. The City Manager noted that the 40 foot right of way is already dedicated, while this was not true in respect to the homes on 42nd Avenue. Further discussion held. Voice vote was then taken on the question. Motion carried. lO. Planning Case No. 74-32, request from Richard Rabe for a variance in side yard setback to permit placemenl~ of~-n'attached garage within 9 feet of Boone Avenue on his lot at 3625 Boone Circle North, Lot 8, Block 5, Northwood Terrace 1st Addition, was heard. Mr. Rabe was present to discuss the request. Two proposals were presented, one locating the garage to the east side of the home extending to within nine feet of Boone Avenue and the second proposal locating the garage at the west'side of the nome toward the. Circle, which would also require a variance in side yard setback. The garage proposed to be located toward Boone Avenue would be 16 feet by 26 feet. If the garage were to be located toward the Circle a 22 X 26 foot garage is proposed. Mr. Rabe said he preferred to locate the garage to the east of the house toward Boone Avenue. This location fits better with the traffic pattern of the house. The driveway would be off Boone Circle. The garage would have a hip roof line blending with the roof line of the house. Mr. Rabe stated the existing gravel driveway off Boone Avenue will be sodded. He stated that he was asking approval of the variance to locate the garage to the east of the home within 9 feet of Boone Avenue. No one appeared in regard to this planning case. Motion by Commissioner Pakonen, second by Commissioner Oswald to recommend to the Council approval of variance in side yard setback to permit an attached garage to be attached to the east side of the home at 3625 Boone Circle and to extend to within 9 feet of Boone Avenue {Proposed Plan I), as requested under Planning Case No. 74-3t, subject to sodding over of the existing gravel drive off Boone Avenue. Motion carried on voice vote. - ~'~- ll. Planning Case No. 74?3, request from Homeward Bound, Inc. for a special use permit to allow con- struction 'of a "ca~e facility on the School District #281 property at the northeast corner of Boone and 47th Avenue, was heard. Planning Commission -'5 - May 7, 1974 Minutes Mr. Roger Johnson, architect, represented Homeward Bound on their special use permit application. Mr. Johnson then presented preliminary drawings of the proposed development. Ownership of the property was discussed. The City Manager stated that presently the property is owned by School District #281 but that the Voc Tech District has the obligation to take over the Highview School operation and they have first option on the use of the balance of the property. Mr. Johnson said that Homeward Bound is concerned with severely and profoundly retarded children. The proposal at this time is to build a residence for 64 children. This would be a maximum number and the facility would be operated under Rule 34 which is a Department of Welfare regula- tion which basically says "normalization for'children ~'f this type". The idea is to build four - 16 b'ed resident$al units with some 'common faciliti.es such as a common kitchen, administrative spaces, day rooms, living rooms and some educational and training areas. Mr. Johnson said the proposal, as it'is drawn, provides for entrance off Zealand for the limited amount of traffic and has the four residential units facing to the south and west-toward Boone Avenue. The administrative and common areas would be to the east of the residential buildings backing up to House of Hope Church. Mr. Johnson said that the children that will live in-'the facility are essentially nonambulatory or semi ambulatory children. When they move around they are either crawling, using a wheel chair or being assisted. Many are confined to cribs. Each of the four uni.ts will house four g-bed rooms and one 4-bed room.. They would have their own living and dining and bathing facilities in the unit with space for a staff person. It is proposed the educational needs of the children will be met by some of the children going out to other facilities in the metropolitan area and some of the teachers from the educational system in the community coming into the facility. Since the children are essentially unable to move about by themselves there would be outside'Courts and play area which would be confined for their use. The courts are created by the configuration of the building. There would not be a play area, per se, out toward the street and any play'area would be enclosed. -- The architect said that the amount of parking that is required for a facility of this type is very minimal. You have a few service trucks for the kitchen. You have a few staff persons that are coming in. That is why the driveway has been placed in a circular fashion off Zealand. The land- scaped areas then face out to Boone and to 47th Avenue. Inquiry was made as to the approximate number of employees that would be there during the day and also that would be full time and live in employees. Mr. John Mooney, board member of Homeward Bound, replied there would be no live in employees. There would instead be three shifts. Mr. Mooney said that staff ratio would be about 1 to 4 and they are tal~ng of a little over 20 at any one time. There would not be 20 staff there at night.. Mr. Mooney said there would be staff shift change of about 28 to 30. Further discussion held as to how the vehicles of 20 to 30 people would be accommodated. Mr. Mooney replied that they had discussed this with the adjoining church which has ample parking. There is also the probability that more parking can be provided on the site if it is felt that this is necessary. Mr. Mooney said the greatest number of staff people are "child care workers". These people use public transportation or ride to work with someone else. The Commission Chairman then requested that the comments be addressed to whether the proposed 'use met the criteria for a special use permit in the SR district. The five criteria were then reviewed for the benefit of fhe interested citizens as follows: 1. Non-residential traffic is channeled onto thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets. 2. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from ad- jacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterence to development of vacant land. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse ef- fect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. There shall be no signs visible to abutting dwellings. Planning Commission 6 - May 7, 1974 Minutes 5. With the exception of two-family dwellings, the property is' located in~nediately adjacent to a commerci al area, industrial area, intersection of thoroughfares, intersection of thoroughfares and railroads or, in the case of churches or apartment buildings, a thoroughfare. The feeling of the Planning Commission was that while the drive was shown entering from Zealand, it could be from Boone Avenue, if that was found to be a better solution. Commissioner Oswald stated that the criteria could be met and that he thought the plan could then be discussed. Question was raised as to whether the court play areas would be enclosed. This question was asked in respect to criteria 2. The architect then reviewed the setback require- ments and said that Homeward Bound was well within the limits especially on the side of the build- ings bordering onto the residential. The thought is, with this type of child, they would have protected play spaces. Most of the play spaces that you have would be in courts off the day rooms and adjacent to circulation patterns. There might be a play area where there might be some group activity. Most of the play would occur in the court spaces. The children are semi-ambulatory at the best. The whole program of Homeward Bound is such that when they develop to the point of being ambulatory, they probably would be transferred to another facility which could better deal with them at that point and then Homeward Bound would take another child that needed its facility. Discussion held as to the teaching program. The representatives of Homeward Bound said they could not get definitive in this area because #287 was just going "into business" here. By law #287 would be charged with the education of these children. Provision is being made so that #287 can send in a teacher since all the children could not be transported. Mr. Bob Reed, 4725 Boone Avenue North, said he questioned whether the criteria for access onto a main thoroughfare was met since the drive was from Zealand. It was pointed out that the plan could be modified to make access to Boone. Mr. Reed then said he would object on the grounds that it would detract from his property which is right across the street on Boone. He also objected to the proximity of the buildings to the street and with the slope of the property, unless it is built up by Boone, the buildings would necessarily have to be quite high. The architect state~J it basically would be a single story building and that they are trying to establish a residential character and it would not be much higher than a house. On the question as to how the slope of the land would be handled, he said the plans have noi~ yet been developed for landscap- ing and handling that problem. It would be possible to actually create~ mounds to give privacy to the person within also. Mr. Reed then asked what the.distance was of the first building to the edge of the right of way. The architect said this distance was 50 feet approximately. Mr. Reed then questioned as to whether criteria 5 was met. It was noted that in respect to criteria 5 it would have to be determined whether this proposed use was any different than a church or an apartment as to proposed use was any different than a church or an apartment as to traffic generation. Mr. Reed said the letter of criteria 5 was not met and whether ~t was weighed by. the "letter" or not is another matter. Mr. Dwayne Crosaire, 8617 - 48th Avenue North, questioned in respect to the second criterion whether the Commission was concerned with the physical aspects of the building or about anything else that might depreciate the value of the neighboring houses. Commissioner Oswald said he thought that could be clearly defined as distance or screening-physical aspects only. Mr. Jorgin Stribel, 8616 - 48th Avenue North, said that it was his understanding that the property in question had not been sold to Homeward Bound and asked if there wasany point in discussing this matter at this time when the property may not be sold to them. He was informed that the question is whether a special use permit Could be granted for the property and it was proper to discuss this matter at this time. Homeward Bound needs to determine whether the use would be permitted before they enter into a purchase agreement. Mr. Jorgin Stribel asked whether any type of structure would enhance the neighborhood or possibly depreciate the neighboring houses in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Ostlund said that the Planning Commission has been advised that there is no property loss because of nursing homes, schools that can go into residential areas. It was also noted that District ~281 could build another facility on the site. · Planning Commission - 7 - May 7, 1974 Mi n utes Mr. Stribel said a potential home buyer looks for schools, hospitals, not too far away, but not for an area too close to an industrial area or some other kind of a building other than just stated. He would not move in next to such a building and that other people felt the same way. He said he would oppose anything other than a "straight" educational facility. Mr. Stribel said this matter had only come to his attention 3 or 4 days ago. He said he understood there was a mailing con- cerning this but he didn't see it. Mrs. Clausen, 48th and Aquila, said there was a grade school adjacent to Cooper High School. She said Cooper High School had directed their traffic in and out quite well. The children are cross- ing Boone, they are coming from 48th Avenue. Zealand happens to be the entrance to this proposed home. The playground is used during the summer by the children. The children do have to go that way to get to the New Hope swimming pool. Some consideration should be given on this point too. Commissioner Oswald suggested that alternatives for traffic be looked at. He then inquired into the size and shape of each of the four units. The architect said the units were about 18,000 square feet. Inquiry was made as to whether the center area was enclosed or if just the walkway around it was enclosed. The architect replied that this had not been determined. They have talked about a play space for inclement weather. The architect said the size of the main structure was also open at this point because it has not been determined how much educational space will be provided by the facility and how much by the school district. Commissioner Oswald commented that the main building seems to be a huge building for that particu- lar portion of the s~te. The architect said that.part of the configuration of the building was for the purpose of providing court yards for the children to play in and also for giving privacy to the neighbors. This configuration also 9ives a human scale rather than a great big box. Further discussion held as to locations of play area. Dr. Allan Beneson with Homeward Bound said the children were non-ambulatory generatly,-a good per-' centage of the time the children would not be out, and a lot of thought had been given to location of the play areas. Dr. Beneson said that if ~he concern was about how the normal children would react, the parents should then talk to their children. Dr. Beneson said there is no need to be concerned for the children in the home in connection with "cruelty" from the other children in the area. Dr. Beneson said the board feels this will be a comfortable situation for the children in the home. Otherwise this location and this 'type of structure would not be proposed. 'Further discussion held as to whether staff was ample for constant supervision, br. Benson stated that the ration of 1 to 4 handles this very nicely. Mr. Wayne Larson, President of the board for Homeward Bound, said that within any one living un'it with 16 children, during the day when the children are awake there would be 4 staff people'on duty in the wing. After bed time, there will be two people on duty in each living unit. This is in addition to supervisory type personnel. Mr. Stan Oliver, 4718 Zealand Avenue North, said that information given this evenin§ was contradic- tory to literature previously furnished by Homeward Bound. He noted that the children were defined from 0 to 21 years of age. The printed literature was made available by Homeward Bound to the Plan- ning Commissioners. Proposed parking facilities are based on experience at Hammer School. There is more room available for parking but we are trying to provide from past experience what appears to be acceptable parking space. Mr. Mike France, 4642 Boone Avenue North, inquired as to who set the ratio of 4 ~ 1. Mr. Wayne Larson, Homeward Bound, said the rule by which Homeward Bound is governed is Rule 34 - Department of Public Welfare. There also are rules by the Department of Public Health. The Metropolitan Council also has input in terms of this facility and the total metro scene. In general, the staff ratio recommended varies according to the type of client. He said that there have been many discussions with the State and they feel the staff ratio proposed (this being the ra't~o under which Homeward Bound is operating 'thei~ present interim facility) is appropriate for these ~eople. Question was raised as to whether Homeward Bound could deviate from the 4 to 1 r. atio. Homeward Bound'said whiie the're' is not~a specific'requirement on st'a'ff ratio, it is'reviewed by the' Department of Public Welfare and pay is on a per diem rate under Title 19, Rule 52. Payment is made. for the cost of care. If you provide too little care your license will be revoked and if you provide too 'much care they will not pay you for the services you are trying to deliver. Planning Commission -'8 - May 7, 1974 Minutes Barbara Naetch, Homeward Bound, spoke on rules regarding staff ratio. Staff ratio is broken down to the classifications of retarded children. Less involved retarded children have a much lower staff ratio. The rules do specify one staff person for four children at a facility such as Home- ward~Bound proposed. She said ~hat the rules de no% specify the type of staff. Rule 34 is licens- ing of residential facilities for mentally retarded. This is different than the requirement for staffing for schools. Further discussion as to the number of teachers that would be coming to the home. A representative of Homeward Bound said that about 50% of the children should qualify for going to other facilities for training. Mr. Dwayne Anderson, 4822 Aquila Avenue North, s~aid most of the people did not know anything about the plans for Homeward Bound until 2 or 3 days ago. He said criteria provides that there should not be 'an adverse effe:t on r~sidenti, al properties and that when he goes into his yard he expects to see homes, not a complex as proposed. He asked if consideration should not be given to what the residents would like or not like rather than being concerned only with the five criteria. He said he thought the appearance would have an adver, se e~ect on :he ~residential properties. He said to putan apartment on the property would require rezoning and he did not consider this facility any different than an apartment. He questioned why a complex has to be in a residential area if these children are not going to be out in the area. He inquired as to where these people were all from and why another area had not been chosen. He then asked the Planning Commission to give con- sideration as to whether this does or does not adversely effect the homes. Further discussion held as to whether this facility would have an adverse effect on the value of the residential property. Mr. Mike France, 4642 Boone Avenue North, said he l~ved up on the hill and that as he walks Out his back door he will be looking right down to where the project will be, regardless of how high a fence might be. He said he does not want to look at this project. Upon questioning, Mr. France stated that he had bought his home 2 1/2 years ago. It was noted that Cooper High School was there at that time. Mr. France replied that Cooper High School and Highview School were higher. He said up to this project he had never had any knowledge of a retarded patient center being located here. Mr. France then asked what would be wrong with the home being located on the site. It was again pointed out that the high school had been-built sometime ago and the talk was that the lot in question was going to be used for some other type of educational facility. Dr. Cameron interjected that, as a point o? history, the reason School District #281 had bought the property under discussion was for an indoor hockey facility. That was the intended usage. Mr. Pete Scott, 4833 Aquila Avenue North, said he agreed that the people should be a little bit more open minded as to what they are going to see on the property. He then said he would like to see a picture of the building or at least a little more detail. He compared this presentation to the detail presented in connection with the planning cases heard earlier during the meeting. Commissioner Oswald pointed out that he would have to see the total plans before he could vote on the actual special use permit. He thought the request this evening was for HomeWard Bound to get a feeling for whether a special use permit would be allowed if the criteria were met and the objections were not insurmountable. He said he would look at this the same as a'planned unit development~ If Homeward Bound cannot reach that point then there is no need to go to detailed plans The City Manager advised that the request tonight is for ~ special use permi[ and the Planning Com- mission needs to decide whether the criteria is met. If the Commission feels they need complete plans to make this determination then they have the right to ask for detailed plans. Mr. Jorgin Stribel asked if Homeward Bound would meet with the concerned citizens to find out possi- ble differences, what the feelings of the citizens are, the reasons behind this, etc. It was pointed out that this type of meeting had been held last Sunday. Homeward Bound said they sent out llO letters and about 20 people came to the meeting which was held at House of Hope Church. Dr. Cameron inquired as to the Homeward Bound organization. The Chairman of the Board said that Homeward Bound is a non profit corporation organized in July, 1973 for the purpose of constructing and operating a new facility for severely and profoundly retarded, multiple handicapped children and youth, ages 0 to 21. It was founded because initially a group of parents could not find suitable alternative placements for their children. The alternatives were State institutions that are being closed down, phased out or they were to keep the children at home with-them which just is not feasi- ble after a period of time. You do need professional help in order to give that individual the · Planning Commission - 9 - May 7, 1974 Minutes greatest degree of experience possible and growth toward as normal a life as their handicap will allow. The board was expanded in July from the initial 4 or 5 founders of the non profit corpora- tion and now there are 17 people -- 1/3 parents, 1/3 citizens and 1/3 professionals. The pro- fessionals~.re people like Dr. Beneson Director of the day time Activities Center Association of Hennepin County. The .citizens are people like Douglas Head. The President of the Board said he was one of the parents on the board. He said the group had been asked by Hennepin County to take in about nine children who were at Hennepin General Hospital at that time because there was no other place for these people to go. The State hospitals could not accept them because they were "loaded". So Homeward Bound formed an interim organization to handle these people. Now there are 16 .children. The group now holds a temporary license. The facility that is used is not licensed. The program is licensed. He said the organization needs the type of family living situ- ation that 'they are trying to create in New Hope in order to be licensed. He said they do have the support of the direction they are going from the E)epartment of-Public-Welfare and Hennepin County and orthersimilar organizations. There is a need for this. The state hospitals are being depopu- lated. They are trying to get these people back into a normalized life style. These are people that have some capacity to enjoy life. He said Homeward Bound is trying to create an environment here ,that~will enable them to do that. He.~said that in Golden Valley, Bloomington,.Fridley, Hopkins and in Minneapolis there will be other facilities like this that will be required in order to absorb the people that are being moved from the State hospitals back into the community. This is the process of normalization that is. happening. This organization formed because they were involved and they found other people that wanted to be involved. Dr. Cameron noted that this was a non-profit corporation taking non taxable land. This land is not now on the tax rolls. Mr. Wayne Larson said this point had been considered. About 60 pieces of property had been con- sidered. They did not want a siteSO miles away from here because that is against the idea of normalization. There were 8 criteria used in selecting the site and the site in New Hope came out number 1. Dr. Cameron asked if the board was self perpetua:lng. Mr. Wayne Larson said it was self perpetua- ting but they do need-approval from the State. The portion of parents, citizens and professionals on the board is a requirement. Upon question, Mr. Wayne Larson said that the funding for operations is provided under Title 19, Rule 52, Cost of Care Income and is similar to nursing home payments on a per diem basis for the care of residents. About 90% is provided by the State and County and 10%, up to a maximum of $60 comes from the parent or guardian of that particular child. This depends upon the financial status of the family. Discussion held as to what the nature of the operation might be ten years hence. Mr. Wayne Larson said that the Board of Directors could change the operation, but only with the approval of the State of Minnesota, because of the licensing requirement, payment contro) and charter also governs the operation. The nature of the facility could not be changed overnight. Homeward Bound is organized for a specific purpose as provided in the Articles of Incorporation. Mr. Wayne Larson said Homeward Bound could be considered a Hennepin County organization rather than metropolitan or local. Dr. Cameron inqbired as to whether the Homeward Bound operation would impose any special or unique demands on municipal services. Will there be any special need for police, fire, health, sanitation or other services Which the City is not aware of. Mr. Wayne Larson said, that from his knowledge there are no special things that are required. The only special requirement should be from the educational system. It was noted that the group had discussions with the Northwest Human Services Council because they are funded by a group that gave Homeward Bound a grant. The architect was asked whether he thought the elevation of the site would create a problem. He replied that he did not see any problem with the site at all. Basically they are talking about a one level building but this does not preclude a basement area or two level area. The architect was then asked whether the entire area would be fenced. The architect replied that he would say 'mno". He thought that would be detracting to the people in the neighborhood and there is no need for the fencing as far as the occupants are concerned. Fencing is not planned. Mr. Dwayne Ellefson, 8609 - 48th Avenue North, expressed surprise that the architect did not know the square footage of the project he was presenting. He said that it was published in the paper that this was a 2.9 acre site and that the building was to cost $1,000,000. Mr. Ellefson said that it was a private non-profit corporation, not a public non-profit corporation which means that they can select whoever goes in. He said he thought there would be need for special police, rescue or ambulance service since there would be 64 retarded children. Planning Commission l0 - May 7, 1974 Minutes Mr. Bob Reed, 4725 Boone Avenue North, questioned whether a new occupancy would need a new special use permit. He was advised that the permit runs with the land. If the use is changed a new permit would be required although legal problems might be encountered. Mr. Jorgin Stribel, 8616 - 48th Avenue North, said that Homeward Bound likes this area in the sub- urbs for normalization of the people involved yet it was stated that these children were barely able to crawl. He said he did not see the logic of the Combination of these two things. What advantage does the suburban area have for these particular children? The process of normalization was discussed. Mr. Jorgin Stribel then asked why this happened to be the only site for this particular purpose ou.t of all the site~ considered. He then said since this is a private corporation, service provided would be selective on their part. The Chairman of the Board said that there is an admission committee. He named some of the members of this committee. There is a member from Hennepin County Welfare, a doctor from Children's Hospital, two Board me~ers, parents and other professionals from outside the Board of Directors. He said there are more outside members on this committee than inside members. There is criteria for admissions. One of the criteria is that since normalization is one the purposes people from the northwest area will have priority so that parents can come and visit their children without having to drive a long distance. Also they cannot be discriminatory according to their license. Mr. Ken Cook, 48th and Aquila, expressed concern with what would be in this facility in one year, two years and on. He said Homeward Bound said they were governed by their charter. Mr. Cook then asked how hard it would be to change the charter and how do we know that they will not want to expand. The City Manager advised that the special use permit could describe the use to be made of the property - as wide or narrow as the Commission wanted. If Homeward Bound went out of business, the buildings would be there and could be used for anything that is permitted in the district or they could come back and apply for any of the special uses listed in the code for a residential ~ district. A new hearing would be required. The operation could be restricted by number of resi- dents in the facility and another hearing would be needed for any change. Mr. Ken Cook noted that the literature from Homeward Bound said that the third priority would be ambulatory patients. He sai.d a broad overlay was being given and there was a need for considera- tion of mere than the broad overlay. It has been established that these people will not be com- pletely confined, but will be out on the grounds. He feels that would depreciate the property in the area. Mr. Stan Oliver, 4817 Zealand Avenue North, said District #281 gave District #287 (last night) sixty days to decide whether they want to use the property. At the end of that 60 days, if #281 wants to sell it, it will go out for bids and be sold to the hi'gnest bidder. He said that to say they could have a special use permit at this time would not be academic. Commissioner Ostlund stated that the Planning Commission would actually be acting on a special use permit this evening but rather on concept approval. The permit would have to be based on site plans for the actual structure itself. Mr. Jorgin Stribel, 8616 - 48th Avenue North, asked if this matter could be tabled so that the property owners could get together with the corporation so that differences could be discussed. He also said that consideration based on the five criteria did not take into consideration th~ feelings of the citizens. He said there should be more consideration as to the total effect on the residential property. Commissioner Ostlund stated that nothing new or constructive had been added in the last few minutes. He then advised the audience that at this point a motion would be in order and after the motion was offered discussion would no longer be open to the floor. He pointed that the Planning Commission recommends to the Council and that the comments offered at the meeting will be forwarded to the Council. He pointed out that the People would again have the opportunity to speak again at the Council meeting of May 13, 1974. He also noted that in the time between this meeting and the CQuncil meeting the citizens have the opportunity to ask the Homeward Bound people to meet with th'e citizens. Commissioner Ostlund then said he did 'not feel that the Planning Commission should be asked to table ~-~ the matter if the Commission felt they were able to make a decision at this time. He discussed the problems that occur as a result of tabling a matterof this kind-. Planning Commission - 11 - May 7, 1974 Mi nutes Mr. Jorgin Stribel again said that a decision based on the five criteria did not take into con- sideration the feelings of the citizens. He said he thought it was proper then to ask that the decision be postponed until the next meeting. Further discussion held on the practicality of tabling the matter. Discussion then centered on the fact that the schools had been in the neighborhood for some time and that the petitioner did have a legal right to request a special use permit. It was also noted that at a later date, Homeward Bound would have to come forward with complete plans prior to actual issuance of a special use permit, the concept being under consideration at this time. Mrs. Clausen, 48th and Aquila, said that while it was true that the people had moved into the area with the. schools, they had checked out who owned the property and the people did not expect a 24 hour day, seven'day a week operatiQn. She said this should deserve some consideration. The architect spoke on other similar facilities such as Hammer School and said there was no adverse effect on the neighboring'properties~He nbted that if the concern is with the retarded children, at the Hammer School in Wayzata the people range up to 60 years of age and they run free on the grounds. He said the Hammer School had been there for some time and the children are no problem to anybody. He noted there were some very nice homes in close proximity to other facilities in Wayzata, Richfield, West St. Paul and that in hi's opinion the New Hope facility would not de- valuate the neighborhood. He said he thought apartments would be more objectionable-with the traffic generated, parties and so forth. Commissioner Herman noted that the hearing had been going on for two hours and the Commission was receiving nothing new and he asked if the chair would consider a motion. A citizen said they agreed they were not against ~etarded children but he said he had read in the Homeward Bound literature that this was a pilot-new concept-new idea. He said he did not under- stand how this could be related back to an established facility then. A representative from Homeward Bound said that from the standpoint of providing a community residential facility for the severely and profoundly retarded and multiple handicapped children, it is new, because these children have all been in places like the State institutions. This is a new approach to try to provide a normalized living setting for this type of person. Before this, nobody has been willing to spend the time, the effort or the money to try to serve these particular types of people. ~ citizen said there was no way the architect ~ould make a value judgment as how the property might be affected. He said this facility does not relate to the established facility which the archi tect referenced. A citizen said you could go down Highway 12 by Hammer School and not know that it is there, it ~s that secluded back in the woods. He said this would not be true on Boone Avenue. Commissioner Herman said he would introduce a motion by making the following comments: 1. First, the subject at hand is a very sensitive one and there is a lack of education and information on all our parts about it which makes it very difficult. 2. It should also be mentioned that, even if the concept were approved which is all that is being heard this evening, the proposal itself could be re- jected. As we analyze the concept and the proposed solution for many of the problems that have been discussed tonight, i f the proposal does not satisfy those considerations, it could be rejected. 3. Also we have to look at the five. criteria set before us and we have no reason to think that none of those would not be satisfied by the proposal we have heard. Accordingly, it seems fair that this be given a chance for further development. -On this basis, motion was made by Commissioner Herman to recommend approval of the general' concept for the special 'use permit for the-institution, Case 74-33, Homeward Bound, subject to submittal and review of completed architectural ~lans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Allen. Chairman Ostlund said he thought Homeward Bound should operate under the planned unit development concept and through the Design and Review committee as well as through staff so all the facts can be determined beforehand. The establishment of minimums and maximums will be necessary. Planning Commission - 12.- May 7, 1974 Minutes Commissioner Cameron. noted that this motion was just action on the concept and the entire matter would have to be back before the Commission before there would be further action. The Commission would then have to very.specifically tie that special use permit down to Homeward Bound, 0 to age 21,prefoundly retarded so that they could in noway change.the nature of the facility without coming back for approval. Right now they are just talking concept and the Commission is just con- sidering concept. Discussion held as to time limitation so that we can see plans within a reasonable amount of time. Homeward Bound representatives can stay where they are until January, 1975 at which time renewal would be required. They would like the new facility as soon-as possible. Voice vote was then 'taken on the motion for concept approval. Motion carried on voice vote. 12. P!annin9 C.ase .~o.74-3~, request for approval of planned unit development to permit construction of a double bungalow on the property at Xylon and 46th Avenues, was heard. Mr. Bruce Anthony repre- sented the petitioners. The plans were reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Herman said the Design and Review Committee had asked primarily for a fe-submittal in terms of landscaping. Mr. Anthony said that that the changes had been inked in on the plans. The Designand Review Committee had also been concerned with the need for a 20 foot setback on the SE corner. The shrubs would have to be moved back on a diagonal line 20 feet from the corner. Commissioner Herman said other than that the project appeared to be in good order. Upon discussion Mr. Anthony said the storage would be provided in the area between the living units and the garages. Mr. Anthony said the zoning was MR and they wanted to put a double bunga- low on the property. The PUD is needed so as to meet lot area requirements. Discussion held as to the origination of the MR zoning for this lot. The landscaping plans were reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Anthony said he was under the impression that corrections were to be made by the time the Council considered the matter. Commissioner Herman said they had looked at the landscaping in terms of a single family residence. Mr. Anthony said ~-' ' that he and Mr. Jacobson had originally designed the landscaping but the professional landscaper did not like their approach and had changed it. That is why there were penciled notations on the landscaping proposal. Further discussion held as to whether the landscaping proposed was adequate. It was noted that Mr. Anthony and Mr. Jacobson would be the owners. The concensus of the Commission was that the proposed landscaping was appropriate for the area. No one appeared concerning this case. Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Herman to recommend to the Council approval of the PUD as requested under Planning Case No. 74-34 subject to approval of the City Engineer as to the drainage and grading on the West side and that a f~nal landscape plan be submitted to the Council. Motion carried-by voice vote. 13. Planning Case No. 74-35, request from Ware Manufacturing for waiver of platting requirements and approval of construction plans for an industrial building to be located just North of- the exist- ing Ware Manufacturing building at 4300 Quebec Avenue North, was heard. Mr. Ken Benson represented the petitioner. Mr. Benson said the entire parcel was five acres with 680 feet frontage on Quebec Avenue and it is proposed to divide off the North 150 feet of the tract to create a separate parcel for the erection of a separate structure. Discussion was held regarding the roof top screening which is proposed for the new Ware Building. The Chairman directed that the record show that the Planning Commission recommends that an ordi- nance be adopted to cover roof top screening requirements. Commissioner Herman said that the Design and Review committee had recommended four or five ~ areas of change. A request had been made for 2½ or 3 inch caliper trees. The parking was mentioned. A split easement is required for traffic between the two proposed tracts. Planning Commission - 13 - May 7; 1974. Minutes Mr. Benson noted that the same firm will actually use both structures. Mr. Herman said that since there actually will be two buildings one could be sold and there would be a potential difficulty with the new building because there wouldn't be adequate dimension from the property line to the building line in terms of parking and drive by. The cross easement would take care of this problem. Commissioner Herman noted that there was 41 feet provided and that the code might be interpreted to require 43 feet. Mr. Herman said he did feel the 41 feet was sufficient. Question was raised as to the requirement for an architect's stamp. Mr. Benson said the plans were not finalized and they will be certified. TherCity Manager advised that the property was zoned GI and as such there was not a requirement rotan ~rchirteCt's stamp. Commissioner Herman was asked to come back to the Planning Commission with an 'evaluation of the code in respect to this matter. Dfscu~sion was 'held regarding the housekeeping on the Ware site. The City Manager was asked to send a letter to the owner asking that it be cleaned up and to suggest landscaping of the present site. Motion by Commissioner Herman, second by Commissioner Oswald to recommend to the Council approval of the request for waiver of platting requirement and approval of construction plans, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-35, subject to filing of joint easements in connection with the waiver of platting and also subject to increasing size of boulevard landscaping trees to 2½ or 3 inch caliper. .Motion carried on voice vote. 14. Planning Case No. 74-36, request from L. Scott Gustafson for a variance in setback requirements to construct a single family home.on the undersized lot at 4425 Nevada Avenue North, was heard. The lot originally had 79.5 feet of frontage but l0 feet had been given to the City for street purposes. The house ~roposed is a split level 45 x 26 feet. All setbacks with the exception of the 35 foot rear yard requirement are met. 33 ~eet is proposed instead of the 35 feet on the West side -- rear yard. The petitioner was present to discuss the case. No one else offered any comments. Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Oswald to recommend to the Council approval of request for variance in rear yard setback for the property at 4425 Nevada Avenue North as re- quested under Planning Case No. 74-36. Motion carried by voice vote. 4. 'Motion by Oswald, second by Cameron to take Planning Case No. 74-26 off the table. Motion carried by voice vote. Planning Case No. 74-26, request for sign plan approval for the office building at 7400 42nd Avenue North, Jerry Harrington, petitioner, was heard. Mr. Harrington said that he wanted to put up a sign in front of the building. It will be similar to the sign in front of the professional building just South of the City Hall. The setback from the street is l0 feet. The sign is 8 feet long by ten feet high. There will be some shingles I foot by 3 feet down the face of the building with the individual tenants on them. The sign that is sitting out in front of the building, vertical to the building will be the Lions Club sign. The Lions Club has rented space for five years. The individuals' signs on the front of the building will be to the right of the door, coming down from the overhang and be made of rough sawn cedar and stained dark with the letters routed out. There would be three or four of these signs. Discussion held as to the need for the individual signs. Mr. Harrington stated that the request was for less than would be permitted under the code. No one appeared in regard to this Planning Case. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Cameron to recommend to the Council approval of the sign plan as presented under Planning Case No. 74-26. Motion carried on voice vote. 6. Planning Case No. 74-28, request for a temporary special use permit to operate a carnival at the New Hope Shopping Center from hiay 20th through May 27th, 1974. Motion by Commissioner Ostlund, second by Commissioner Oswald to recommend approval of the temporary special use permit to operate a carnival at the New Hope Shopping Center from May 20th through May 27th, 1974, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-28, and further recommending that the zoning ordinance be amended to delete this provision and then to provide for a licensing re- quirement for temporary carnivals. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 14 - May 7, 1974 Mi nutes COMMITTEE REPORTS 15. The report from the Codes and Standards Co~ittee was given. 'Mr. Terry Jensen reported on proposed code amendments to permit fences in all yards and on the construction of chain link fences. The matter was held for consideration at the next meeting. 16. The reports from the Land Use Committee and the Design and Review Committee were heard earlier and during the meeting. 17. NEW BUSINESS 18. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Herman approving the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 16, 1974, as presented. Motion carried. 19. The minutes of the Council meeting of April 22, 1974 were reviewed. 20. Item 5 of the Criteria for Special Use Permit in Residential Districts was referred to the Codes and Standards Committee for clarification. Discussion held regarding need for light at Zealand Avenue to permit easier entry onto 42nd Avenue to permit easier entry onto 42nd Avenue by our fire vehicles. Commissioner Herman called attention to an item on zoning changes based on mutual benefit. 21. A letter of resignation from Commissioner Ohman was received by the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Jensen to accept the resignation of Mr. Ohman with regrets. Motion carried on voice vote. It was noted that Mr. Ohman had been with the Planning Commission for a long time and Dr. Cameron was requested to suggest an appropriate momento. Chairman Ostlund said that the City'Council had accepted the challenge of a golf match with the Commission. He then said that he had played golf with one of the Councilmen recently and he felt confident that the Planning Commission would win unless the Council brought in too many "ringers~ June 12th, 2:00 p.m. at Hollydale Golf Course is the tentative date. "Whimpering Hour" will follow the match. ADJOURNMENT 22. Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Oswald and carried to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 midnight until May 21, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. City Clerk-Treasurer Planning. Commission - 1 - Ray 21, 1974 Mi nutes 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission w~s held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North in said City, on Tuesday, May 21, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Allen, Herman, Jensen, Ostlund, Cameron. Absent: Pakonen, Oswald. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case No. 74-37, request for variance in garage size. The petitioner, D. J. Butler, was present. He stated he had tentatively sold the home, but the buyer wanted extra garage space. Chairman Ostlund asked what the garage would be used for and what was the distance on the setback on the proposed addition from the front of the house. Mr. Butler stated the addition would be for storage of a boat and similar recreational/outside equip- merit. The setback distance was not specifically shown but it appeared to be 30+ feet. Commissioner Cameron asked for details on th~ roof line. Mr. Butler explained how the rear portion would join with the present line. Commissioner Cameron indicated his concern was more with the re- lationship of the rear roof height to the ground and porch in regard to kids having access to the roof. Chairman Ostlund asked if it would be possible to bring the addition up to the front of the present garage, splitting off a portion of'the adjacent lot to provide additional width~ Mr. Butler did not feel this would work. Commissioner Cameron asked if Butler designed the original house - the answer was yes. He then asked why the change now..The buyer knew what he was getting. Mr. Butler.noted again the need for additional storage area. Commissioner Cameron then noted that he could understand the desire to have the additional space, but he felt the addition was asking for too much. The Commission needed to consider the overall effect on the area, not the interest of the individual developer. The house would be there for 50 years and the addition just did not fit. Commissioner Herman then commented that the real problem was with the site planning. He did not feel that the Commission, charged with the planning responsibility, could be a party to permitting the ad- · dition as proposed with the angle requiPed for the drive, etc. Discussion then held on the petitioner's need to move the house~ the general problems with the area in terms of the large homes and not being able to sell them~and the need to move this house now. Additional discussion held on the possible use of land from the adjacent lot to straighten out the driveway and the problems that could occur if a fence were placed on the lot line, unskilled driver maneuvering around the corner, etc. Motion by Cameron, second by Herman, to recommend denial of Case 74-37 as presented. Motion carried on voice vote. Discussion then held with the developer as to the need to document his case better before the Council and desirability of preparing some alternatives. 4. Planning Case No. 74-38, request for variance to perm(t attached screened po~ch on non-conforming garage. The petitioner, Lloyd Johnson, was present. Mr. Johnson explained that he wished to construct a lO X 18 screened in porch on his existing garage on an existing slab. Commissioner Cameron asked, for the record, if the only use of the porch would be family outdoor type activities? The petitioner assured him this would be the case. Consensus of the Commission was that the porch would create no problems for the lot or neighborhood. Motion by Cameron, second by Jensen, to recommend approval of Case 74-38, construction of screened in porch. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - Z - May 21, 1974 Minutes 6. Report of Land Use Committee. A written report on the need for a Housing Authority in. New Hope was presented. Commissioner Cameron reviewed the report.and answered questions about the other three com- munities noted. Commissioner Herman commented on the ladk of Federal assistance in housing at this time. Motion by Commissioner Allen, second by Herman, to accept the report, to accept the recommendation contained in the report as the official position of the Commission as to a need for a Housing Authority and that this recommendation be forwarded to the Council. Motion carried on voice vote. Discussion then held on a need for minimum housing code. The Land Use Committee would study this as thei~r next project and would plan on a report to be ready by October. 7. Report of Design and Review Committee. Commissioner Herman reported that the Design and Review meet- ing scheduled for earlier this day had been cancelled due to the fact no cases presented required Design and Re.view action. 8. The Commission minutes of May 7, 1974 were approved on motion by Herman, second by Allen, and carried on voice vote. g. The Council minutes of May 13, 1974 were reviewed. 10. Miscellaneous. Chairman Ostlund answered some questions regarding the Liquor Committee. Chairman Ostlund noted that the annual meeting with the garbage/rubbish haulers was scheduled for the 29th. Discussion held as to the need for similar meetings on the sign ordinance. Agreement that the idea was good, but no specific action was taken. Commissioner Cameron raised a question regar, ding Bdone Avenue as to its width and possible use as bike route. Discussion held after which Chairman Ostlund appointed Commissioner Cameron as coordinator of a review of possible changes in Boone Avenue to provide for bike trails, striping for parking, etc. It was noted that several of the other commissions - Youth, Park and Environmental, are also in- terested and would probably assist in such a study. Chairman Ostlund reminded the members of the date and time for the golf challenge match with the Council. He also noted the Industrial Development Commission had challenged the Commission. Discussion held after which it was decided to send a letter to the IDC noting that the present competition was limited to acknowledged City leaders and if they were interested the IDC would need to work its way up by meeting the Council. Commissioner Allen asked, if since challenges were being given, would it be possible to have the Com- mission meet the fire department in waterball? Decision was that the fire department should be challenged providing at least one practice session could be held by the Commission before the contest, ll. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. on motion by Herman, second by Jensen, carried on voice vote. Respectful ly submitted, Acting Secretary April 26, 1974 TO: New Hope Planning Commission '~' FROM: Land Use Committee -- B. Herman G. Allen R. Cameron, Chairman SUB J: Report on a Housing Authority for New Hope The committee has spent several weeks examining the many aspects of a Housing Authority for the City of New Hope. Our major source of information was visits to three other communities which do have Housing Authorities -- Brooklyn Center, St. Louis Park, and Hopkins. Copies of these reports are attached. Basically, what we found was that in older communities (St.Louis Park and Hopkins) the reason for the creation of an Authority was to super- vise and direct major urban renewal projects. As a consequence of renewal, both communities have established authority-owned public housing projects for low-income and elderly. Both authorities were created several years ago, largely at the direction of the City Councils and City Planners. Neither has encountered any public opposition to their creation or to their operation. Both authorities are apparently successful and are meeting the needs of the community. Brooklyn Center has taken a different route and has establfshed a Housing Commission which is advisory to the Council, as well as a Housing Authority. The Council, by special legislation, is also the Housing Authority. This system is really so new (The Housing Authority has yet to hold its first meeting) that very little can be learned from their experience. The question for New Hope appears to be: What need would a Housing Authority meet? The community is relatively "new," with most homes and apartments being less than ten years old. New Hope has always had a quality building code and this should safeguard most areas of the city for many years before urban blight is a substantial problem. Yet, there are a number of older homes, apartments, and other buildings which might need attention during the next few years. A Housing Authority might be an appropriate vehicle for insuring the rehabilitation or removal of these structures. Obviously, there is no large area of New Hope which requires a major urban renewal program. A second major activity of a Housing Authority would be to construct and maintain public housing projects. While there is much present con- fusion over the future of federal activity in the realm of public hous- ing, undoubtedly, there will be some federal programs to subsidize the construction of housing for low-income families, or for elderly persons, (although all such housing must be made available to any qualified ap- plicant and could not be restricted to New Hope residents.) The State Housing programs, and new federally subsidized leasing programs do not require a Housing Authority. It is the recommendation of the Land Use Committee that, at present, there is no substantial need for a Housing Authority for the purpose of urban renewal in New Hope. City codes and ordinances, properly implemented should be able to maintain the high quality of housing in the community. Should the City consider the need for public housing in New Hope to be substantial, then serious consideration should be given to the creation of a Housing Authority. This is a public question to be decided by those who represent the people of New Hope -- the City Council. April 30, 1974 TO: Land Use Committee, New Hope Planning Commission FROM: Gary Allen Brooklyn Center Housing Authority Organization - The Authority has been in existence about one year. - It was formed because of the City Council and Staff's concern for City appearance 10 to 15 years in the future. - The City Council is actually the Housing Authority for Brooklyn Center. Special legislation was obtained to allow elected officials to act as the Authority. - A Brooklyn Center Housing Commission, made up of eight representatives from six neighborhoods, plus an appointed at large chairman,-advises and recommends to the Authority members (Council). Attached is a copy of a resolution establishing the Commission and defining their respon- sibilities. - Staff assists both groups in the decision-making processes. Actions and Decisions to Date - The Housing Authority has not yet met as a group; there- fore, no official actions to date. - The Housing Commission is in the process of establishing a housing maintenance code. It is their considered opinion that this code will handle the majority of the problems which Brooklyn Center will face in the future; e.g., single and multiple dwelling deterioration. - The Housing Commission has taken no action to obtain funding for housing projects. They are awaiting decisions on the Federal level before proceeding with any investi- gation of feasibility. Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-140 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING COMMISSION AND DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES THEREFOR WtiEREAS, 'the housing situation in Brooklyn Center has reached a point in its development which requires a concentrated effort in the developmen~ of housing stondards to protect the quality of life in the community; and ~¥I-tEREAS, Brooklyn Center shows the beginning of some housing deterioration and it is a common fact that deterioration can quickly reach a point where repair is no longer feasible and deterioration will then spread to the entire neighborhood causing blight; and WHEREAS, for a housing program to be successful, it must involve citizen participation to tailor the program to the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and V~HEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center being a progressive community, must commit itself to the maintenance of quality housing for its citizens: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center City Council that there is hereby established within the City of Brooklyn Center an advisory Housing Commission as follows: Subdivision 1. TITLE: This organization shall be known as the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission. Subdivision 2. SCOPE: The scope of activity of this Commission shall consist of advising the City Council and other Brooklyn C]ente£ advisory commissions regarding matters relevant to housing. Subdivision 3. PURPOSE: The general purpose of this Commission Shall be to afford citizen input in the development of a housing program to supplement the activities of the City Council. Subdivision 4. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: In fulfillment of its purpose, the duties and responsibilities of the Commission shall be to: .. (1)Advise, investigate,' and review relevant matters for the City Council. (2) Develop an overall plan for housing in line with the comprehensive plan for Brooklyn Center and the needs of the metropolitan area. Resolution No. 73-1~0 (3) Serve as a forum for the citizens of Brook'lyn Center %o voice their opinions regarding housing matters. (4) YVork closely vgith the Planning Commission and all other commissions on matters regarding housing. ($) lA;ork with the neighborhood advisory committees of the Planning Commission to understand the housing needs of each area of Brooklyn Center. (6) Develop and recommend standards for occupancy and maintenance of housing for the community. (7) Study the feasibility of establishing an occupancy permit program in conjunction with a housing maintenance code in Brooklyn Center. (8) Investigate new and innovative concepts in housing for the community. (9) Develop and recommend programs which will provide quality housing for low and moderate income citizens. (10) Develop and recommend a rehabilitation program as needed for existing housing in Brooklyn Center. (il) Understand the financial resources available to the citizens in Brooklyn Center as it relates to housing, (12) Investigate all housing programs in terms of life safety. (13) Provide education seminars for the citizens of Brooklyn Center in matters of housing. Subdivision 5. COIViPOSiTION: The Commission shall be composed of a chairman and eight members. Subdivision 6. MEk4BER~ METHOD OF SELECTION - TERh4 OF OFFICE - REh4OVAL: Chairman: The Chairman shall be appointed by the iVlayor vgith - majority consent of the City Council. The Chairman may be removed by the Mayor with majority consent of the Council. The Chairman shell assure fulfillment of the following respon- sibilities in addition to those otherwise described he£ein; April ltl, lq7m Tn: ;ir. ~%ob Cameron Re: Flew Hope Planninq Commission From: Bernard llerrlan On Tuesday, April lC, 197r.,, I ,met with '~!r. Joel Glotter, Chairnan of the St. Louis Park Housinq ?, Redevelopment Authority to '~scuss particulars related to formation and operation of that Authority. The St. Louis Park lIRA is an~roxi,matelv four years ~.ld. The impetus for creatinq an Authority came from the Citizens F~dvisorv Commission of which 'Ir. qlotter was a member. Their cnncern was to deal with the followinq housinn-tvne problems: a. Low income housing, for fa,milies b. Lo,., income housinq For the elderlv c. ~leiqhborhood rcdevelonment Droqrams The St. Louis Park tlPA consists of five members. In theor.v, no mem- ber cnn hold a public office althnuqh there are some special excep- tions for members of city councils. Their a, uthoritv is oiven a yearly budmet and allowed to utilize staff people in th~ City tlall as necessary. '~r. Clotter indicated that a smecial assistant to the City .Dlanninq Director was hired primarily because of the tlousinn Authority. Tl~ere were no nrou~s in onnosition to the %rmation o~ n Housinq Authority. The City Council did have serious reservations since they felt there would be loss of Dower or control n,~ housinn related co,mmunitv problems. However, the Authority has established a monthly ,meetin~ witi~ the City Council for familiarization reports and proqress discussions. The St. Louis Park HRA presently has a reservation for 250 units of Iow income housine of which 200 are allocated for elderly and 50 for family. In additimn, a maximum of 20 units has been provided %r renewal of existinq residential orooerty. The latter involves pur- chasin~ a house which is caused to be remodeled by the liRA and then rented to a low income family. This nromram is most effective in Paqe 2 ~emorandum to ,"lr. Bob Cameron April 16, 1974 stonninn hlinht in residential areas but is extremely slow and time consuminm. Perhaps the most widely implemented oro~ram is Section 23, Leasino. This involves subsidy money to low income Samilies in the way of rent reduction. Their Authority has 125 such, units under lease at this time. The tiousinn Anthoritv functions as an indeoendent body and establishes it's own oriorities for the problems Drpviouslv identified. It attempts to work closely with community an~ citizens ~rouns, particularly when their efforts affect neiqh- borhood redevelopment or olanninq. Perhaps the most sionificant problem is that the movernment makes it illeqal to have 'resident requirements" In other words, anyone from the overall metropolitan community or even the State of Minnesota is eliqible for any of the local ~ro- orams in effect. St. Louis Park reDorts that 45~ os their leasinm Dromram consists of people from outside the community. DH/fa April 30, 1974 TO: Land Use Committee, New Hope Planning Commission FROM: Robert Cameron SUBJ: Housing Authority - Hopkins, Minnesota Mr. Phylip Hagedorn, Director of the Hopkins Housing Authority, and I met on Tuesday, April 9 for a two-hour discussion of the Hopkin's ex- perience with a Housing Authority. He reviewed briefly the history of housing legislation in the State of Minnesota beginning with the major statute enacted in 1947 which outline~ the two significant ta~ks of local authorities 1) renewal, and 2) public housing. Hopkins first organized a Housing Authority in 1965 and reorganized in 1969. By statute, there are five commissioners on the Housing Authority appointed by the mayor, and with staggered terms. In Hopkins, the mayor serves as an ad hoc, informal member of the Authority. Staffing is a "difficult problem" with little authority as the City of Hopkins contrib- utes very little to the Authority. Most of the staff is paid by the urban renewal project which is actually a separate department within the Authority. The Authority, since it has its own mill levy (1/3 mill) and budget, actually contracts for services of the city staff. Initially, the city did provide start-up funds of about $50,000 per year. Impetus for a Housing Authority came from the council, the city planners, and real estate interests. There was no opposition to the initial Authority, to the urban renewal project or to the public housing projects° The major reason for establishing an Authority came from a need for re- development of downtown Hopkins° In 1967, Federal grants for planning and re-development were available, and Hopkins applied for renewal funds. Out of the renewal project came the need for public housing (relocation of families). The Authority had to begin low-rent housing projects (for elderly and low-income) in order to proceed with downtown renewal. In 1972 the first public housing was opened and there is presently a waiting list of 80 families° Most of the public units are presently rented to Hopkins residents, but HUD guidelines must prevail and the housing units must be open to anyone who applies. While the original intent of the Housing Authority was not to own and operate low-income housing, this has become a significant operation° The Authority is committed to operating the housing units at break-even costs. The City is not technically responsible o= legally liable for any financing which the public housing units might need (some confusion here, but apparently HUD is finally to be responsible). Construction costs and finmncing of public units totally federal. Operation (maintenance, repair, etc.) is responsibility of the Housing Authority. The priorities for the Hdusing Authority were established by the Authority. Although there is a good deal of discussion between the Authority and the Council--concensus is usually reached. The first project was urban renewal and this dictated that low-income housing be developed and thus necessitated the purchase of land, demolition of building, and the construction of apart- ments and housing units. The Hopkins public housing is under Law 236. The same alternatives are available to private developers. Also, the new State Rehabilitation program will not require a local housing authority. There appears to be very little community involvement in the deliberations and decisions of the Hopkins Authority. Not that it is discouraged; it simply isn't there. The only advice received was that before a Housing Authority is created be sure it has identifiable and agreed-upon tasks. There is nothing more frustrating than to have a committee/commission or Authority with no particular job to do or function to perform° Planning Commission - 1 - June 4, 1974 Mi nutes ~ 1. A'regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North in said City, on Tuesday, June 4, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Cameron. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Herman, Jensen, Cameron, Pakonen, Oswald. Absent: Ostlund and Allen. {Both arrived later}. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. ~lagnin9 Case No. 74-39, request from Marion E. Sutherland, 5343 Pennsylvania Avenue North, for a side yard variance to permit construction of a 22 X 22 foot detached garage toward the rear of the lot within 3 feet of the side lot line, was heard. Mr. and Mrs. Sutherland were present to discuss the proposal. Mr. Sutherland stated that there were no buildings in close proximity on the neighboring lot. The garage on that lot is on the other side of the yard. Mrs. Sutherland said that they wanted to utilize the five foot setback area and that their existing fence was inside the property line by one foot. She also noted that the garage would be separated by tO feet from a future planned addition. The City Manager advised the petitioner that if the fence was one foot within the lot then the garage could legally come within four feet of the fence and still comply with the five foot side yard setback require- ment. Commissioner Pakonen inquired as to whether there would be any damage to the trees in the rear yard if the garage were to be placed two feet further to the north. The petitioners felt that the trees would not be a problem. Upon questioning, Mr. Sutherland stated that the existing driveway would be repaired. Commissioner Allen arrived at 7:46 p.m. Mr. Sutherland stated that the basic reason for the request was to have additional space in the back yard. Discussion held as to whether the access to the garage would be workable with the placement as proposed. A smaller garage was suggested. Mrs. Sutherland said that the double garage was needed. No one appeared in regard to this case. Motion by Commissioner Pakonen, second by Commissioner Oswald, that, inasmuch as the petitioner had not met the requirements for a variance to be granted, the Planning Commission recommends to the Council that the variance in side yard setback as requested under Planning Case No. 74-39 be denied. Further discussion held. Commissioner Oswald noted that the Codes and Standards Committee has been debat- ing recommending a change in side yard setback from five feet to three feet, but that no decision had been reached. At this point we have no reason for the variance to be approved. Commissioner Cameron stated that the State Code called for a three foot setback and that he thought New Hope code would be brought into conformance with the State Code. Mr. Cameron noted the amount of space between structures and he could see no reason to make the petitioner move the garage two feet over because of the existing ordinance. However, he said moving the garage to the north two feet would not affect the trees. Commissioner Herman noted that it did not appear likely, since there is a developed lot to the south with a detached garage to the opposite side of the lot, that there would ever be a problem with space between garages. It was noted that this was a 751foot wide lot rather than an 80 or 90 foot lot. Roll call vote was then taken on the question. Voting in favor: Pakonen. Voting against: Herman, Allen, Oswald, Cameron, Jensen. Motion failed. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Herman, that regardless of the fact that the proponent did not supply any reasonable case for this variance, the Planning Commission recommends in favor of the variance as requested under Planning Case No. 74-39. Planning Commission - 2 - June 4, 1974 Minutes Roll call vote was then taken: Voting in favor: Herman, Allen, Oswald, Cameron; Jensen. Voting against: Pakonen. Motion carried. 4. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Herman, to table Planning Case No. 74-40 until later in the meeting, pending the arrival of the petitioner. Motion carried on voice vote. 5.' Planning Case No.~7~-41, request from Thomas D. Horn for a variance in side yard setback to permit a 13 foot wide addition to the garage side of the home to serve as garage space with living quarters above, lot at 7624 Angeline Drive, was heard. The petitioner is asking to come within 4 feet, 4 inches of the property line with the addition. Code requires l0 feet. Mr. Thomas Horn was present to review the pro- posal. The petitioner now has a split level home with ~ tuck under single garage. Mr. Horn said that the addition- al space above the garage is needed for his family. He presently has a two bedroom home and does need the additional bedroom space. At the front corner the addition would extend to within 4 feet, 4 inches of the lot line. At the rear corner it would be ten feet from the lot line. Mr. Horn said he had talked to the people next door and they had no objections. Upon questioning, Mr. Horn said there would be two win- dows toward the neighbors. The first window was so placed that it would be 8 to 9 feet from the property 'line due to the shape of the lot. The back window would be over l0 feet from the lot line. The neighbor- ing house is approximately l0 feet from the lot line. Discussion held regarding the grade in relation to the neighboring property. Mr. Horn said it was level. Upon questiong, he said that the second garage space would be used as a garage. It was noted that the 4 foot, 4 inch setback only occurs at the front corner. Commissioner Pakonen said he had talked to the neighbors {Anderson} and that the neighbors said they favored the variance. Mr. Richard Blair, 7612 Angeline Drive, stated that he was in favor of the'proposed variance. Mr. Bill Bethke, 7601 - 53rd Avenue North, spoke in favor of the variance. Motion by Commissioner Allen, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend to the Council approval of side yard Variance for the lot at 7624 Angeline Drive, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-41. Rol'l call vote was taken: Voting in favor: Herman, Allen, Oswald, Cameron, Jensen, Pakonen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. 6. Planninq Case No. 74-42, request from Mrs. Agnes Olson for a variance in lot size and waiver of platting ordinance to permit the combination and subsequent division of a 129.75 foot by 130 foot total parcel into two 64+ foot lots, was heard. The property now exists as two lots, one of which has 49.75 feet of frontage and the other 80 feet on Nevada. There is an older home and a garage on the property. The original platting was done under an auditor's subdivision prior to existing codes. The existing house would be about 12 feet from the north lot line of the proposed new line. It is proposed that the garage would be moved onto the back of one of the lots to make room for a house. The proposed lots would be 8,320 square feet (64 X 130), while the code requires 9,500 square feet with a minimum frontage of 75 feet and a depth of 125 feet. Mrs. Agnes Olson was present to discuss the matter. She said she did not have a buyer at this time. She said the garage would be sold or moved back and that she might sell her present home and build on the new lot. Commissioner Pakonen suggested that the matter be tabled until such time as someone comes forth with a definite building p~ogram for the two lots. Commissioner Oswald stated at this time there are two lots, one of which has 49.5 feet of frontage. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Allen, recommending to the Council that the variance for undersized lots and waiver of platting requirements be approved for the property at 4415 Nevada Avenue ~ North, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-42, with the condition that both new lots be subject to existing code requirements for setbacks for any new construction, Further discussion held. Planning Commission - 3 -' ~lune 4, 1974 Minutes Roll call vote was taken on the question as follows: · All members voted in favor. Motion carried. 7. Planning Case No. 74-43, request from Melvin Wigg, 2864 Valle Vista, for a variance in rear yard setback to permit the addition of a porch onto his existing home to come within 21 feet, 4 inches of the rear lot line, was heard. The lot is 100 by 100 feet. The home was built in 1957 and extended to within 33 feet, 4 inches of the rear lot line. At that time the code provided that the dwelling could not extend into the rear 1/3 of the lot. Mr. Bob Norberg, contractor, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He said it is proposed to build a 24 'foot by 12 foot screened porch and that a 14 foot variance i~ needed. The porch is just for warm weather use and will not have heat or electricity. The porch cannot logically be attached at either end of the house. There is a garQge at the one end of the home and at the other end is the dining room fireplace. Mr. Norberg said combination windows would be used on the porch and there will be a three block concrete build up to the sill with a concrete floor. The City Manager advised that if the combination windows are used instead of just screening technically a variance is required. Mr. Hinitz, 2880 Valle Vista, Said that he does endorse the request. He said he thought the other neigh- 'bors were also in agreement and they have so stated in writing. Mr. Hinitz said that the neighbors agree that this is the only practical place to put the porch. The house to the rear of the Wi gg property is some distance from the lot line since that lot is triangular in shape. Mr. Hinitz also noted that there were lilacs ~nd honeysuckle screening to the back of the Wigg property. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Herman, to recommend approval of variance in rear yard setback for the property at 2864 Valle Vista, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-43 on the basis that the peculiar shape of the tot and the location of the structure is such that no other type addition would provide this maximum utility. Roll call vote was taken: All members voted in favor. Motion carried. 8. Planning Case No. 74-44, request from Thomas Frondell for variance for an oversized garage at 3342 Xylon Avenue North, was considered. The petitioner has an existing house with an attached 24 X 20 foot garage. He is proposing to add a 20 X 17 foot addition directly behind the existing garage. This will increase the garage area from 480 feet to 820 feet. Mr. Frondell was present. He said that the extra garage space is needed to store his snowmobile trailer and tent trailer. The addition will have siding to match the house, the overhang will be the same as on the house and the roof shingles will also match. Mr. Norberg, who had represented the petitioner on Planning Case No. 74-43, is also to be the builder for this addition. Mr. Norberg said there will be no problem with the roof line. It will be a gable roof and will blend in nicely. No one appeared in regard to this request. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Herman, to recommend to the Council approval of the variance for oversized garage for the lot at 3342 Xylon Avenue North, as requested under Planning Case No. 74-'44. Roll call vote was taken. All members voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Herman~ that it is the concensus of the Planning Cemmission, that, in order to properly ~evaluate a variance request, information must be furnished as to the location of the structures on the adjacent lots. Motion carried on voice vote. Chairman Ostlund arrived. Planning Commission - 4 - June 4~, 1974 t, ti nutes 9. Planning Case No. 74-45, request from Jack W. Kornberg for rezoning of Lot 6, Block 8, Howland Heights from Multiple Residential to Limited Business, was heard. Messrs. Kornberg and Robert Miller, Attorney, for the petitioner, were in attendance. Mr. Robert Miller said that when the land is zoned residential, in his opinion it was de facto zoning - single family residential. It has been single family home since at least 1954. Economically there is just no way for this to be come a multiple family tract of land, at least for a considerable period of time. There is approximately 36,000 square feet of land that would support about 14 units. The property is assessed at $37,000. The land for multiple would be worth about $14,000 leaving a $23,000 gap which is basically the single family structure. So if it remains MR, the property will, in fact, have to be used as a single family home because no one can take a $23,000 loss. Mr. Miller said then when the City rezoned this property from SR to MR in 1963, there was either a mistake in that zoning or suf- ficient attention wasn't paid to the then existing structure andits economic value. At such time as the house depreciates down to a $14,000 value, then the land£ould be converted to multiple use. Mr. Miller said apparently~'th~ City agreed that this is not ideally SR environment, since it is surrounded by apartments except for the Bartlett home. In Golden Valley to the south it is zoned commercial. Son~ of the property just south of the subject site is zoned fora church. Part of the property is across from a commercial site where the single family home is now being torn down. Mr. Miller said he thought there had been a mistake in zoning from SR to MR and also a change in the surrounding property. Mr. Miller said the City had imposed an economic burden on Mr. Kornberg. Mr. Miller said that back in 1954 the property was zoned industrial and with the comprehensive zoning in 1960 it went to SR..In 1963, it went to MR and at this time Mr. Kornberg is requesting LB for a business that would be a very light intrusion into the neighborhood. Question was raised as to who requested the MR zoning in 1963. Mr. Miller stated that to the best of his knowledge the request had been made by Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Miller said Mr. Bartlett did not-at that time own the property under consideration at this time. Mr. Bartlett owned the~surrounding property; There was a slaughter house there. As the land was rezoned to multiple the slaughter house was to be torn down or changed into some other use. The owner did not request the rezoning andhis clients had informed him that they were not aware of that rezoning. Further discussion held as to the request for the 1963 rezoning. The City Manager confirmed that the 1963 petition was for all of Block 5 and Block 8 of Howland Heights, which does include the Kornberg property and the petition was submitted by Mr. Bartlett. The City Manager said that our ordinance requires that the petition for rezoning must be instituted by the Planning Com- mission, Council, property owner or someone with a substantial interest. Mr. Bartlett, 9398 Medicine Lake Road, said he had initiated the rezoning based on the comprehensive zon- ing plan of the City at that time. The petition did include the Kornberg property. They were consulted at the time and they had no objection. Mr. Bartlett said they approved of the rezoning from heavy in- dustrial at that time to MR. Mr. Robert Miller stated that in 1963 the zoning of the Kornberg property was SR not heavy industrial. The City Manager stated that the property was zoned SR for a three year period prior to the MR zoning. Mr. Bartlett disagreed as to the zoning that existed prior to the MR zoning. He said the initiation of the rezoning from heavy industrial to MR was brought about by ment~ers of the Council asking that he petition for the rezoning. Mr. Kornberg stated that he had not agreed to the rezoning to MR. It was noted by the Planning Com- mission that the MR zoning had existed for 14 years, during which time Mr. Kornberg had not objected which would appear to be implied consent. Mr. Robert Miller said he did think the rezoning to MR was a mistake because the Kornbergs had one tract of land for a single family home. The City Manager again stated that in reconstructing the record it was determined that the land in question was SR prior to the rezoning to MR in 1963. Mr. James Bartlett then stated that the property was not, with his knowledge, ever zoned single family. He said there was talk about SR, he had opposed it and the compromise was multiple dwelling. Mr. Bartlett said that the Kornberg's purchase agreement alleges that the property was zoned commercial. Mr. Robert Miller again stated that the MR zoning was a mistake because the property was in use for SR. Discussion held on this point. Mr. Miller again stated that the value of the Kornberg property for MR was roughly $14,000. Mr. Miller also said that a fourteen unit apartment on this site would not be able to support any amenities. Planning Commission - 5 - June 4, 1974 Mi nutes Mr. Kornberg again stated that he was not aware of the rezoning to MR and that he had not been .at the public hearing pertaining to same. Further discussion held as to whether the criteria for rezoning was met. Chairman Ostlund stated that the fact that the City had .not heard from Mr. Kornberg in the 14 years since the rezoning to MR, it would appear that the intent had been to stay with the MR. Mr. Robert Miller said since 1963 the area has developed MR but it does not support this tract of land. Mr. Kornberg cannot sell the property for MR without taking a $23,000 loss. The property Could be con- vetted to the propose'd limited business use - interior decorator shop. The exterior would not be changed dramatically. We have this same type of compatible usage other places in the City. The property is not desirable for a single family home. There is a change in the area. If the Council had thought it was properly SR., they would not have rezoned it to MR. Chairman Ostlund said that a single family home was permitted in a MR district. Mr. Miller stated that the home had been built around 1953 and not after the property'was zoned MR. Mr. Miller said if the land were vacant, he would sQy MR zoning would be proper. Question was raised as to whether this request could be handled through a special use permit. .The City Manager advised that the zoning code would have to be amended to permit interior decorator studios as a special use in an MR district. It was noted that the business proposed would not include retail sales. Commissioner Herman spoke on the criteria for rezoning, with three factors mentioned: (1) Mistake in the previous zoning, (2) Are there any hardships related to the zoning of this property that are not financial .or related to financial benefits, (3) Is this rezoning in the best interest of the City? Mr. Herman said he did not believe .any of these criteria had been met. Mr. Robert Miller said that he does not think it. is a function of a City, through a Zoning Ordinance, to impose an economic hardship on an individual and this is really what it ddes in th~s case. He said the property is de facto zoned single family residential and keeping it zoned MR, the City creates a hard- ship. Across the street in Golden Valley there is commercial zoning so the spot zoning does not apply to LB. Mr. Bartlett said that he did not object to an interior decorating studio going on the lot in question, but that he did object to rezoning because they have a sizable investment both to the east, west and no~th. Rezoning might effect a detrimental effect. Mr. Bartlett said he was not against special use for that property. Question was raised as to whether a decorator's studio would be serving the needs of the immediate com- munity or would this constitute spot zoning. Further discussion held as to whether there had been a mistake in the zoning. Itwas suggested that the petitioner explore the possibility of applying for an amendment to the zoning code to permit an interior decorator studio in MR zoning and then apply for a special use permit. Mr. Robert Miller said he would have objection to this approach if the Planning Commission would, in fact, react favorably to it. As a point of clarification, the City Manager advised that the ordinance as now written does not require that the special use be given tq an individual, it can go with the land. Mr. James Rogers of Gallery of Homes said he handled the transaction of this property so far. They do have a closing date set up for July 1st. There is also a problem with a September 1st lease program where the buyer is now located. Mr. Rogers inquired as to whether the problem could be cleared up by August 1st. Chai~nan Ostlund skid that he thought an answer could be given, for or why or the other, by August 1st, if all of the facts were given. Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by CommisSioner Oswald, that we table Planning Case No. 74-45 until the first meeting in July in order to allow the petitioner time to correct his petition and allow for a change in the ordinance. Motion carried on voice vote. 4. Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by CommissioneP Oswald, to table Planning Case No. 74-40 until themeeting of July 2, 1974. Motion carried on voice vote. Planning Commission - 6 - .. June 4, 1974 Mi nutes COFf4I~EE REPORTS 10. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 11. Commissioner Cameron, Chairman of the Land Use Committee, said that at the last meeting that he had been appointed to study Boone Avenue as it relates to bicycle trails. He noted that the City Council had endorsed this study, that the City Manager had sent a memo to the Environmental Commission and Youth Com- mission, asking each of those groups to contact with him with some representation into this committee. Mr. Cameron said he had only heard from the Youth Commission so far. The City Manager stated that he would ask the other Commissions to reply as soon as possible. 12..There was no report from the Design and Review meeting. NEW BUSINESS 13. The City Manager distributed copies of the proposed Flood Control Ordinance to the Commission men~ers. A public hearing on this matter was scheduled for July 2nd. 14. The matter of the amendment to the zoning text pertaining to special use permits for carnivals was tabled until the meeting of July 2nd. 15. Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Herman, to approve the minutes of the Planning Com- mission meeting of May 21, 1974, as presented. Motion carried on voice vote. 16. The Council minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1974, were r6viewed. 17. Commissioner Jensen noted that Codes and Standards was still working on the requirements pertaining to fencing. Chairman Ostlund reminded the Commission of the golf match, with the Council scheduled for June 12, 1974. The consensus of the Planning Commission is that they will be victorious. 18. The City Manager reminded the Commissioners of the Housing Rehabilitation Seminar to be held in Brooklyn Center on June 25, 1974 at 7:00 p.m. 19. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Pakonen, and carried on voice vote to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Pouliot Acting Secretary Planning Con~ni~ssion - 1 - July 2, 1974 Mi n utes 1. A regular meeting of the~New Hope Planning Commission was'held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North in said Cityon Tuesday, July 2, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Herman, Jensen, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund. Absent: Pakonen, Allen. {Excused absences). Discussion held about the manner of recording vote. Decision made to have a roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Plannin9 Case No. 74-40, request from Mr. Jerry Bofferding, 3824 Maryland Avenue North, for a side yard variance. Mr. Bofferding wishes to add four rooms on top of an existing garage. Mr. Bofferding stated that in his opinion the addition would improve the appearance of the house. Commissioner Cameron asked if the addition would be the same size a~ the present garage. Mr. Bofferding stated that the back would be extended about four feet, and the storage area would be all enclosed. There will be windows to the north and side. The lines of the addition will be the same as the house. There was no one in the audience regarding this case, Motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend approval of Case 74-40 as presented. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. 4. Plannin9 Case No. 74-45, request from Mr. Jack W. Kronberg to rezone the p~operty at 9390 Medicine Lake Road from MR to LB. Mr. Ostlund read a letter which had been received from Mr. James Bartlett regarding this case. (Letter is entered in official minute book). Mr. Kornberg was accompanied by his Attorney, Mr. Miller. Mr. Kornberg stated that he knew nothing about the 1963 rezoning of SR to MR. He is now stuck with a s.ingle family home in a MR zone. Dis- cussion between Mr. Kornberg and Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Ostlund requested that Mr. Kornberg stick to the case, and keep personal problems out of the issue. Mr. Miller stated that the prospective buyer did not feel that a special use permit would permit her to purchase the property, as it might limit future sale of the property. Consequently, his client had decided to continue with the request for rezoning. Commissioner Cameron asked whether there was anything new to add to the discussion of one month ago. Mrs. Kornberg stated that they were not aware, and had not been a party to the rezoning to MR. There was no one else in the audience regarding this case. Mr. Bartlett requested permission to speak. Mr. Bartlett again outlined the history of the property noting that the Kornbergs were aware and concurred in the request to rezone to MR. He also outlined the development in the area. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Ostlund, that Planning Case No. 74-45, request for rezoning, be denied since the petitioner had not developed any case for rezoning in terms of a mistake in the the original zoning or changed in development. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. Mr. Herman suggested that if the position seems clear to the petitioner and if they definitely feel that they have a case it might be advisable to have an expert assess the project. A detailed study might warrant a table. Commissioner Ostlund commented to Mr. Miller that he must realize that the case for a rezoning was very weak. Mr. Miller stated that he thinks that the City has caused a hardship for Mr. Kornberg by the rezoning. Commissioner Ostlund stated that in no way could he go along with spot rezoning. 5. Planning Case No. 74-46, request for a special use permit to conduct art classes as a home occupation. Commissioner Ostlund read a statement from Mr. Smith, the petitioner, which described the classes, the facilities, and included signatures from 8 immediate neighbors indicating no objections. Planning Commission - 2 - Ouly 2, 197Z~ Minutes Commissioner Herman questioned the fact that if there were no objections, why was the petition before the Commission. Commissioner Ostlund stated he had no.idea why no one objected. In any case the facts were the key not the objection. Discussion about the number of classes, the size of the classes to be held. Commissioner Oswald was concerned about the traffic and parking problem but after discussion With Mr. Smith, he felt that Mr. Smith is fairly well meeting the requirements of a special use permit. Commissioner Cameron questioned how long the classes had been conducted in the home'. Mr. Smith re- - plied that they had been having classes for about 2 years, but were unaware, of the requirement for a permit. Commissioner Cameron questioned whether he knew how long they would be conducting these classes in the future. Mr. Smith replied that there was no way he could predict this. Mr. Smith stated that the classes were held from 7 - l0 on Monday and Wednesday evenings, and on Tuesday afternoon during the winter. The classes were in oil painting and drawing techniques; no supplies were kept in the home, and they at no time used other instr~uctors for the~classes. In re-' SPonse to a qUestion from ~ommi'ssi.oner ~ameron, Mr. Smith stated that it would be an economic incon- venience to move to anbther location. Commissioner Ostlund questioned the number of cars involved, and the possibility of the students forming car pools. On-street parking could not be allowed in a single family area. Commissioner 0stlund moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 74-46 with the s.tipulation that the petitioner would not be allowed to have cars parked outside of his driveway. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, 0stlund, Jensen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. 74-47, request from Sir Vend, Inc. to permit front yard parking at 3241 Winpark Drive. Mr. Thomas Thompson appeared for Sir Vend. Mr. Thompson stated that they were requesting this parking to be used as an employee parking lot, to avoid the on-street parj<ing used now. The parking lot in the rear of the building is used almost entirely by the company vehicles because they must be plugged into the building to activate the re- frigeration units. Mr. Thompson stated that they have tentative plans to add 10,000 square feet to the size of the building sometime in the future. Mr. Thompson stated that he would like to present an approximate plan as to the concept of the land use. Mr. Thompson stated that the maximum number of employees at any given shift would be 60. Mr. Thompson stated that they could perhaps anticipate adding 2 or 3 new employees each year. Discussion between Mr. Oswald and Mr. Larson about the City Code regarding parking stalls. Mr. Oswald questioned what alternatives there might be to parking in front of the building. Mr. Thompson stated that the spaces that they were requesting now, could be converted to customer parking at a later time. Commissioner Oswald commented that the parking seemed to him to be very close to the street, with no screening, or proposed screening toward the s~treet. This is not too attractive. Commissioner 0stlund stated ~that he was concerned about the adjacent property. We would be setting a precedent if this is allowed and could lead to future legal hassels. Commissioner 0stlund sug- gested that perhaps they could use a crushed rock parking lot to the north. Commissioner 0stlund stated that he is totally against front parking. Commissioner 0stlund suggested that perhaps an overall cleanup operation would benefit the company more than front parking. Commissioner Herman stated that there were a lot of problems with the parking including a too narrow driveway. Commissioner Oswald moved to table Planning Case No. 74-47 until the first meeting in August, With the request that Mr. Thomps~on meet with the Design and Review Committee for purpose of looking at some of the alternatives, which will meet on the 23rd of July at 4:00 p.m. This would give Mr. Thompson almost two weeks to effect changes before the next Planning Commission meeting. Second by Commissioner Cameron. ~-~ Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, 0stlund, Oswald, Jensen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. Planning Commission - 3 - July 2, 1974 Mi nutes Commissioner Ostlund requested that Commissioner Herman include the entire site in the Design and Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Herman suggested that Mr. Thompson co~tact Mr. Larson to arrange to attend this meeting. 7. Planning Case No. 74-48, request from Mr. Ronald Graves for a variance to extend his garage width to 22 feet, which would then come within 3 feet of the lot line. Commissioner Oswald questioned the number of feet existing between proposed addition and the neigh- boring property. It is presently ll feet. Discussion regarding the lot next to Mr. Grave's property. Commissioner Ostlund questioned whether or not it would be possible for the City to level the lot and assess the costs on taxes. Mr. Larson stated that they had been advised by the attorney that they-could not legally do this, because it was not considered to be dangerous enough to warrant this action. Mr. Larson stated that it would definitely be a public service. Everyone agreed that the problem was very bad, but at this time it apparently is just not bad enough. Mr. Graves stated that he had been advised to take legal action against Mr. Yesnes. Commissioner Ostlund commented that he thought that the community should do something. There is presently four feet of water in the excavation. Mr. Larson agreed that the situation is very bad and that he would ask the attorney to look at the property again after all the rain - perhaps washing had occurred, etc., to the point where it would be taken care of. Mr. Larson also noted that it appear- ed a house may be started soon since the various people involved needed to get their money out. This might take care of the problem. Following discussion, the Commission agreed that Mr. Graves should be able to proceed if he could' protect his own addition without being involved in the problem with the lot. Motion by Commissioner Dswald, second by Commissioner Cameron, to approve Planning Case No. 74-48. Voting in favor: Herman, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen, Cameron. Voting against: None. Motion carried. 8. Planning Case No. 74-4~, Amendment to Zoning Code to provide for a flood plain district. Mr. Lynn Cramer of the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission was present to answer questions. General discussion followed. Mr. Cramer stated that the district regulates all development {new development of the flood plain, also all changes to existing property are subject to review by the Commission). Commissioner Cameron asked exactly what areas of New Hope were involved. Mr. Larson stated that there were two areas involved, Northwood Creek and the ponding area at 31st and Louisiana. Commissioner Oswald questioned what type of restrictions there would be on existing structures and what restrictions would be put on the home owner. How would it restrict future change on the part of a home owner, on his property. Commissioner Ostlund wondered what restrictions there were going to be for the owners now on North- wood pond. The answer was that they must get a special use permit from the Bassett Creek District to permit permanent changes, such as fences. Commissioner Ostlund stated that he felt that no vote could be taken until the home owners to be af- fected are notified. Decision made to notify home owners that there would be a public hearing at the first meeting in August. Requested that Mr. Cramer return at that time to answer any questions. Commissioner Oswald asked whether or not the City is required to adopt this ordinance. Mr. Larson stated that we must either adopt it, or prove why we don't want it. We are required to adopt some- thing to meet State DNR standards. The staff sees no problems with the ordinance as proposed. It will provide some restrictions, but at the sametime insurance protection would become available at a reasonable rate. Commissioner Ostlund requested that information about the tax question be available before the next meeting. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, to table Planning Case No. 74-49 until the first meeting in August. Planning Commission - 4 - July 2, 1974 ~ Mi nutes Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen. Voting against: None. Motion carri ed. g. Planning Cas-e No. 74-50, amendment to zoning code, permitting carnivals or circuses as accessory uses in commercial districts. Commissioner Cameron questioned the advisability of including a mention of a specific grou~, such as the Lions Club, in an official ordinance. Mr. Larson answered that it was appareh-i~· for the purpose of making the ordinance more understandable to the citizens. It appeared to provide a practical example and removed the need for a long, detailed definition in ~the ordinance. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Herman, that Planning Case 74-50 be approved as recommended by sta~ff. Voting in fa~or: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. lO. Planning Case No. 74-51, request for approval of plans for a building addition at Ware Manufacturing Company, 4300 Quebec Avenue North. Mr. Benson was present to answer questions about this request. He brought plans for the Commission to review. Commissioner Herman stated that the D and R Committee had the following items of concern: 1. Landscaping - there is an attractive, welt maintained green strip on the west side. The Committee had recommended adding 3 trees to add to a line of continuity in the boulevard-area (trees are actually between the curb .tine and the building) but these were not shown on the plans. Commissioner Ostlund recommended that a minimum of 3 trees be required. 2. The parking l~yout was not good, since it created conflicts with loadi'ng docks, etc. on the'south side. It was suggested that they revise the layout to make it more feasible for truc~k movement. This has been done. 3. Refuse storage - primarily dumpster containers on north and east side. The petitioner had agreed to indicate specific areas for these with screening. This was not shown. This should be indicated on the plans by the time that this case goes before the Council. Commissioner Herman moved, second by Commissioner Cameron, to recommend approval to the Council of Planning Case No. 74-51, subject to the following requirements: 1. Three additional green ash boulevard trees, a minimum of 2 1/2" caliber,'be planted along the west plan~.ing boulevard area. 2. That the applicant provide a detailed drawing of screen enclosures for all rubbish containers with locations indicated on the site plan. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. ll. Report of Code and Standard Committee. There was no report. Discussion of review of signs in connection with community wide events. Mr. Larson stated that the sign ordinance does not permit such signs at this time. The Lions Club, for example, used signs to advert'ise their event. The Council has granted approval for this year, but the ordinance should be reviewed to provide specific direction for this sort of use. 12. Report of Land Use Committee. There was no report. 13. Report of the Deisgn and Review Committee. This Committee met on June 25, t974 to review one case - Ware Manufacturing Company. Planning Commission 5 - July 2, 1974 Mi nutes 14. Commissioner Cameron moved, second by Commissioner Jensen, that the Commission minutes of June 4, 1974 be approved. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. 15. The Council minutes of June 24, 1974 were reviewed. Commissioner Ostlund corrected the minutes in that they stated Commissioner Cameron had been ap- pointed coordinator of a bicycle.trail committee. Actually Commissioner Cameron had volunteered to work out something for Boone Avenue. Chairman Ostlund then read a letter from Commissioner Cameron in which Commissioner Cameron resigned as Chairman. He noted that he had been interested only in the Boone Avenue situation. He did not have the time for a wider study and to date had .received no response from the other Commissioners as to assistance on even the limited Boone Avenue project. 16. Miscellaneous Commissioner Ostlund announced that the Council will be meeting at 6:00 p.m. on July 22, 1974 to re- view all Commissions and discuss changes in these Commissions. Commissioner Ostlund requested that if any member of the Commission has any items that he wishes forwarded to that meeting, that they contact him before the meeting. Discussion held on St. Jacob's Hall - specifically Mr. Dunwiddie's participation. Commissioner Ostlund noted that the GI district di'd not have the same requirements for development of the LI. Perhaps this should be reviewed. Short discussion held, after which the Chairman assign- ed a review of the ordinance to the Codes and Standards Committee. Commissioner Ostlun~ noted that a practice session held so that the Planning Commission could meet the fire department for water hose competition had a poor turn out. Commissioner Ostlund questioned the New Hope'Shopping Cen%er exterior walls. Mr. Larson stated that this building had'been built before the code required brick. New construction would come under the State Code and the City could require only as much as the petitioner would accept. Commissioner Ostlund presented a summary of the Planning Commission Report which had been prepared by Commissioner Allen. Discussion of findings of report. Commissioner Cameron commented that it was dangerous to look at statistics and determine whether they were always liberal, since each case muse be considered on its own merit, and if there are no objections, there is sometimes no reason for denial. Announcements. There will be no second meeting in July. Discussion about bicycle paths and dangers with increasing bicycle riders was held. Commissioner Ostlund wondered why sidewalks could not be used and the curbs broken down to permit easy access. Liquor Committee has picked model ordinance, which is from Bloomington~ and is now in the process of deleting what is not pertinent to New Hope. There is a meeting scheduled for Thursday evening with Mr. Corrick and his staff. This ordinance should be ready for the Council by early fall. Commissioner Herman asked if the weeds on vacant lots - 28th - Zealand to Boone - Could be checked. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourn- ed at 9:45 p.m. o~ motion by Commissioner Cameron, second by Commissioner Ostlund. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen Voting against: None. Motion carried. Commissioners Cameron and Oswald will not be at the meeting in August. Respectfully submitted, doyce Boeddeker Acting Secretary C,a. e. JANES H.-'BARTLETT & BLANCHE 0. BARTLETT 9398 Medicine Lake Road New. Hope, ~Iinnesota 5542,7 PRESIDENTIAL T0~NHOUSE COURTS, INC. 9398 .Medicine Lake noad New Hope, Minnesotm 85427 July 1, 1974 M~. Dennis 0stlund, Chairm~n Planning Commis sion City of New. Hope, Minnesot~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 In R~e: Re-~oning of Lot~ 6, Block 8, Howland's Heights. ,Addition - commonly known as 9390 Medic~ine L~ke Ro~d, New Hope, Ninnesot~ Gent lemen:~ At the Planning Commission of New; Hope~ hearing of the ~bove captioned matter on June 4, 1974, the question of ~ possible con- sideration of ~. Special Use Permit was brought~ up ~nd the matte.r- postponed to the Planning Commission hearing of July 2~, 1974. ~_. Xl-)'now~ ~' c~omes to the attention of' the undersigned that the petitioner prefer-m to proceed ~ith the origin~ rez~oning request from MR to LB ~t s,aid July 2~, tg7~LL hearing. In connection there- of, I w. ish to make the Following statement in addition to my let~ teu- to t~e Pl~uning Commission under da.ts of M~y 22, 19745 m~hen i~ cmue to my attention that Blocks 5 & 8, Ho~land's Heights A~Hition ~as rezoned from Heavy Industrial Zoning ~o Single~ Family Residence~ Zoning under the Ne~-Hope~ Comprehensive~ Zoning Plan enacted June. 14, 196G, I contactJed ~lembers of the Village Council ~nd objected. It w~as suggested by them that I petition for ~ rezoning to Multiple Dwelling and abandon ~ny interest in Industri~l Zoning as an inducemen~ for the remidential deve~lopmen~ of the. Southw~est ~rea o£ New~ Hope.. Accordingly, under date of November V, I96~, I petitioned the Villag~ of New. Hope for rezon- ing From °ingle, F~mi~y Dw-elling to Multiple Dw. elling Zoning.Thnzs' was discussed with Mr. Kornberg on several occasions and he~ stzte~d ha w~as in favor of such a. petition ~ud t~t I w-a.s authorized by hL~ no ao~ in D_is 0ek~Lf and inc.!u~ i~ia Lot 6. Olook 8, iqow. iand~a Heights in said petition. Shortly thereafter the Ne~ Hop~ Vil~g~ Council rezoned s~id subject property ~o NultiDla Dwelling. ~ro Kornbsr~g knew of this re~oning ~nd ~pproved of same. He stated to me on several occas- ions~, t'~at he considered said re~oning to MultiDl~ Dwelling ~s improvement in v~lu~, ~o his property as compared to Single Family Zoning o In coanection ~ith plans submitted to the~ Village Council for' Multiple Dwelling unit~ by the undersigned, Mr. Kornberg was For~ed of the need For a drainage easement on the East l~ Feet his property. Accordingly he a. nd his w~ife~ signed ~n instrument, providing dedication of a drainag~ easement to the Village of New~ Hope. Mr. Ko~nbemg has ~lways known of the re=oning to Multiple Dwelling of the subject property and has never objected to such ~ezoning to my knowledge. On May 18, t98~, Mr. Kornbe~g signed as ~ w~itness to my sig- natur~ on a development contract of the subject property which ~I e~ntered into with the Village of Nevz Hope ~nd thereby indicati~ knowledge of the proposed development of the said propert~y to Multiple Dw. elling use. I respectfully submi~ this additional information ~nd reques~ that the petitio~ for re~oning of s~id Lot 6, Block 8, commonly known as 9Z98 Medicine L~ke Road , New~ Hope, Minnesota from Mul- tipt~ Dwelling to Limited Business be, denied° Respectfully yours, /~ J~mes H~ Bartlet~ For James H. & Blanche~ ). Bartlet~ ~nd Presidential Townhouse Cou~ts, Inc ~ Planning Commission August 6, 1974 Minutes - 1 - 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held ~t the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North in said City on Tuesday, August 6, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Pakonen, Ostlund, Oswald, Allen Absent: Herman, Jensen, Cameron 3. Planning Case 74-47, Sir Vend Inc., Mr. Thomas E. Thompson, with Sir Vend spoke, outlining his proposal for a new parking lot for employees. Mr. Thompson stated they met with the Design and Review Committee who turned them down with regard to requested parking area in front of the building and suggested they design an area along the side of the building. He stated that because of possible future plans to add to the building, this parking lot would be a temporary lot and it would not be blacktopped, and would be adjacent to the building on the north side. He stated it was also suggested they could have a tem- porary parking lot on property that they purchased {½ acre) adjacent to their building. He submitted drawings on the two areas which could possibly be used as parking lots on a temporary measure for Sir- Vend. Mr. Larson asked if the lot next to the building included a drive tied to the rear of the lot. Mr. Thompson stated yes. Mr. Ostlund asked if they were proposing both plans now or if the choice was one or the other. Mr. Thompson stated they were proposing one or the other but they preferred the smaller lot by the building. The northern lot would add considerable expense because of the grading and they did not wish to construct it unless really needed. Mr. Pakonen stated the preferred plan would not give them enough room and would still cause parking in front of the building, which they did not want them doing. He suggested it would be better to have a parking lot placed so when expansion took place, they would not have the same problem again as they have now. He suggested using land on the lot next to them for future expansion plans. Mr. Allen stated that the variance could be worded so that the variance expired upon any request for building expansion. Mr. Thompson stated that putting the parking lot in as proposed did coincide with their plans for the expansion of the building, and showed a tentative plan for parking for at least 20 cars. Mr. Ostlund stated he would still be opposed to starting parking out in front of the building. He felt a plan should be implemented for parking along the back of Sir-Vend property, using the current driveway and going behind the building, and moving the parking out to the right side of the building. Mr. Pakonen stated that he understood Sir-Vend was willing to go with the second plan without blacktop, and using crushed rock. Mr. Ostlund suggested that they.clean up the land next to them and go from the existing driveway to the back of the building, grading the land, and they would then have ample room for parking. He stated he would not like to see them put a lot of money into a short term thing and stated the preferred plan would only handle half the problem. ~ Mr. Oswald asked if they would be cutting into the sewer line if they went further north. Discussion then held on the possibility of expanding the area next to the building by using a portion of the easement area so as to have two rows of stalls. Mr. Oswald recommended approval of Case 74-47, variance in parking stalls, to accept 18 stalls placed entirely on the north side of the existing building with a curb cut and drive and access on the east side, into the center part of the proposed parking area, with the requirement that the parking area as designed meet our code for dimensions, that the plan be submitted to Mr. Larson prior to the Council Meeting for approval and that the variance shall not exceed two years or shall terminate upon building expansion request approval. Motion seconded by Commissioner Ostlund. Mr. Ostlund stated on clarification that the variance they are making which allows crushed rock on the parking lot is temporary for not more than two years, and that if expansion is not made, a change would have to be made at the end of the two years. Planning Commission ; - 2 - August 6, 1974 Minutes Voting in favor: Pakonen, Ostlund, Oswald, Allen Voting against: None Motion carried. 4. Case 74-49, Flood Plain District Mr. Larson stated a representative from the Bassett Creek Commission was present. Mr. Larson presented the background of this ordinance noting the history of flood control regulations and noting that the proposed ordinance met all the legal requirements and also carried out the control plan of the Bassett Creek Commission. For the last several years the Federal Government had been pushing a programof flood control in areas described as flood plain. The Communities in the Bassett Creek water- shed have looked at various flood control programs for the entire Bassett Creek area and have been working on various recommendations', and working on an ordinance to meet the national standards~ Mr. Lynn Cramer from the Bassett Creek Commission discussed insurance coverage and what it may cover on flood damage and stated there were some disagreements at this time on what would be covered as to sewer backup~ He gave the flood levels for three different areas in New Hope. . Mr. Larson stated that he would like him to cover two things, what is permitted below that elevation by right in the flood plain and what is special use and what is procedure to build something in the flood plain. Mr. Cramer stated that the ordinance was intended to preserve the areas below the flood line and there were many uses compatible with flood plain storage and discussed various uses such as playgrounds, badk- yard gardens, etc. He stated a person would first have to apply to the City, the DNR, and Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission for permits to build on land below the flood storage level. Mr. Larson stated there were three types of things people were interested in putting in the flood storage area and these were 1) small storaae sheds, 2) fences, and 3) a retaining wall or piling along the bank of the creek to prevent it crumbling away. Mr. Cramer stated these items would probably be permitted. Mr. Oswald questioned the proposed ordinance as to the description of the area of the flood plain and ~-- how a person would know if their property were involved in the flood plain or close to or out of it. He asked if a survey would have to be made, would Bassett Creek Commission provide a survey or the City provide this, or would the person themselves have to get a survey made of their property. Discussion followed on the Flood Plain area, uses requiring a special permit, when a survey of land would be required, fees for special permits, improvements in 'a basement area that would be within the flood plain area, etc. Mr. Allen inquired as to the procedure if a party wanted to put in a retaining type wall to prevent land from being eaten away each year. Mr. Cramer stated this type wall could be put in if there was no flood stgrage loss and~if the structure was sound,by permit from the Commission and DNR. Mr. Doug Larens living on Northwood Parkway stated his backyard was in the Flood Plain as described. He asked if he could erect a retaining wall to prevent water from entering his backyard after a storm. He also questioned if he would be allowed to fill in land lost by erosion when building a wall. Mr. Cramer informed him that he would not be able to fill in land lost. People could not restore the channel to what it used to be, but would only be allowed to install erosion control methods along the. water line as now exists. Commissioner Ostlund inquired if it would'be in the interest of the City to put a retaining wall on North- wood. He suggested that this be suggested when the hearing on the dredging of Northwood come up. Possibly a wall could be put up now and assessed to the homeowners, doing it all at one time. He asked Mr. Laren$ if there would bean interest by his neighbors. Mr. Larens stated yes and that the neighbors have already looked into contractors for such a wall. Commissioner Ostlund moved for approval of the suggested model flood plain management ordinance as submi.tted to us dated April 16, 1974, with the request that the City Manager review and substitute names of city boards, officers, etco as they are appropriated. Seconded by Commissioner Allen. Roll call vote was then taken on the question. Voting in favor: Allen, Oswald, Ostlund, Pakonen. Voting against: None Motion carried. Planning Commission - 3 - August 6, 1974.. Minutes 5. Case 74-52, Variance Rear Yard Setback, 3530 Aquila Avenue No~th, Howard Berg, petitioner. Mr. and Mrs. Howard Berg were present to discuss the proposal.' Mr. Oswald asked Mr. Berg if he had looked at alternate locations for this porch. He stated he had. Mr. Ostlund inquired as to the reasons the porch would not work to their satisfaction by putting it on the east side of the existing house. Mr. Berg indicated that putting the porch on the east side of the home would require extensive remodeling of their dining room and would also have to ask for a variance using that location since it would need to extend into the back yard to keep the basement windows clear. Mr. Oswald inquired if he would damage the trees or roots of a tree. Mr. Berg stated no, it would not destroy the maple tree if located as now proposed. Moving the location could result in root damage. Mr. bstlund stated his only concern would be the possible invasion of the privacy of the people below their lot, especially in the winter time when the existing hedge would thin out. He asked Mr. Berg if this would become a problem of privacy, would he be willing to put up a privacy fence. Mr. Berg stated yes, he would ~ut a privacy fence up if it should ever become a problem. Mr. Oswald inquired, since none of the neighbors have questioned it or been concerned about it, and since' we have a reason for the variance, should the planning commission be concerned about it. Mr. Oslund and Mr. Oswald stated yes, the commission should be concerned. Discussion followed on the problem of invasion of privacy, if a new owner would be required to follow this privacy requirement, future problems, etc. Mr. Oswald moved for approval of Case 74-52 for variance to' the rear yard setback, seconded by Pakonen, because of our extreme concern of loss of maple trees should the porch go on the side. Roll call vote was then taken on the question. Voting in favor: Allen, Oswald, Ostlund, Pakonen. Voting against: None Motion carried 6. Case 74-53 - Coachman Property - 8801 East Research Center Road The Coachman representative presented a comprehensive sign plan for the building.~ Mr. Larson stated this was a multiple occupancy building with the stipulation all businesses with exterior exposure could have signs. Since no doors were on the ends, he questioned the signs in the middle of the east and west sides. Discussion followed reference to square footage of signs, and tenants in the building now. Mr. Oswald questioned if the signs would be put up by the tenants. The Coachman representative stated the signs would be under the control of Coachman Property and that the signs on the ends could be eliminated. Mr. Ostlund commented that the preparation and planning of putting together a sign plan was excellent and well thought out and he was very encouraged to see that for an industrial building. Mr. Allen moved for approval of Case 74-53 sign plan for Coachman, Inc., subject to the elimination of the signs on the east and the west sides, seconded by Oswald. Roll call vote taken on the question. Voting in favor: Oswald, Ostlund, Pakonen, Allen Voting against: None Motion carried. 7. Case 74-54 Federal Tool Sign Request. Mr. Larson presented the proposed sign plan and asked the company representative to come forward to answer some questions. Planning Commission . - 4 - August 6, 1974 Minutes ., Discussion followed as to the businesses in the building now and their need for signs on each elevation and sides of the building. Signs on three sides fronting on streets were proposed. Federal Tools main sign is to be on the east side toward Highway #18. The Hillsboro side is to be the main entrance for Midwest. The south side sign is to be restricted to g square feet. Mr. Oswald moved for approval of Case 74-54 subject to l) the east side sign may. be enlarged, 2) the south side signs for the business identification shall be reduced to no larger than 9 square feet and 3) that the petitioner will submit a revised set of plans prior to the Council Meeting next Monday, seconded by Allen. Roll call vote taken. Voting in favor: Allen, Oswald, Ostlund, Pakonen Voting against: None Motion carried. 8. Discussion of possible amendment of use list for MR property. Discussion held on the confusion that existed with the use list i'n the MR district. Mr. Ostlund asked if they couldn't recommend to the Council tonight that the provision which allows for office and medical buildings in the MR zone be removed and make it retroactive to the date of the ordinance, implying that there was an obvious error, and that these uses were not intended to be there. Then send a letter to Mr. Miller thanking him for calling the error to our attention. Discussion followed on the alternatives available. A question, was raised if a public hearing had to be held on any change even if to state this was an obvious error that was never intended. Following the discussion the concensus is that the Planning Commission feels MR should be strictly MR and the use lis~ be amended accordingly. 9. Review of swimming pool ordinance. Mr. Oswald suggested New Hope look at the American Public Health Association model ordinance being adopted by several communities. Further discussion on the'height of a fence required and to the footage distance required from the pool itself and with a notation that the proposed ordinance, did carry out the APHA proposal. Mr. Oswald moved to recommend approval by the Council of the proposed ordinance relating to fencing for swimming pools as now written. Seconded by Allen. Roll call vote taken: Vo'ting in favor~ Ostlund, Oswald, ~llen, Pako~en Voting against: None Motion carried. 10. Report of Land Use Committee No report. ll. Report of Design and Review Committee Mr. Ostlund reported one meeting with Sir-Vend. Mr. Allen asked questions referring to the bicycle paths with Mr. Cameron's resignation being clarified. 12. Mr. Ostlund stated that the Liquor Commission met with the attorney last week and plans to submit to [he Council an ordinance in September. 13. Approval of the minutes of July 2, 1974. Mr. Ostlund commented he had one objection to the minutes on page 3, under 7) Planning Case 74-48. The sentence reading "Everyone agreed that the problem was very bad, but at this time it apparently is just not bad enough. Mr. Ostlund stated that this fact was not a concensus of this committee. The comment was Mr. Larsons in terms of why legal action had not been taken earlier. Vote for approval of the minutes as amended by Pakonen, seconded by Allen. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Oswald, Allen, Pak~nen. Voting against: None Motion carried. Planning Commission - 5 - ' August 6, 1974 Minutes 14. Review of the Council Minutes July 8 and 22, 1974. The minutes were reviewed.' 15. Additional Comments/Requests from citizens. Discussion held on the Council recommendation that the Industrial Commission be abolished with three members of the Industrial Commission moving to the Planning Commission. Chairman Ostlund noted that he had discussed this issue with the Mayor who agreed that all the members.of the two commissions should not be looked at, but that the Planning Commission should interview and make recommendations to the Council for appointments from the IDC members to fill the openings on the Planning Commission. The time of the Council meeting on the advisory commissions was discussed - it is 6:00 p.m. on August 26, 1974. Mr. Ostlund brought up our ordinance in regards to billboards in New Hope and discussion followed whether they should be allowed on County Road #18. It was noted that the Sign Committee did review the ordinance within the last year and the Planning Commission accepted the recommendation not to allow billboards in any area except GB so County Road #18 was not included. Discussion on the semi-annual report submitted last May. Mr. Allen stated that he felt he saw a need for enlarging of the garage size minimum based on activity to date. Garage size came up 8 times, seven being approved, one denied. Discussion followed - stating reason for size minimum was to prevent businesses from going in and limiting truck storage. It was noted that the Council had rejected any changes at this time. Mr. Allen still felt a review at the end of the year might be in order. Discussion held on the waterball match with the Fire Department. It was decided to wait until full membership to do anything further on this. Motion by Commissioner Oswald, second by Commissioner Allen, and carried on voice vote to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irene Linden Acting Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 1 - September 3, 1974 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue No~th in said City on Tuesday, September 3, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund. 2. Roll call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Oswald, Allen, Herman, Jensen, Cameron Absent: Pakonen (Pakonen arrived shortly afterward) 3. Planning Case 74-55 - Proposed Amendment to the Special Use Catagories to permit YMCA in GI district. Mr. Larson presented the case. Mr. Oswald requested some background information on the proposed site, including whether or not the City had encouraged the use of this particular site. Mr. Larson answered that in 1969-70 the original plan for the site was a restaurant. This fell through in early 1971. It was about this time that the YMCA began looking for a site. They approached the City, were informed of several sites available and chose this site. Mr.-Oswald questioned whether the site was adequate for their proposed plans. Mr. Larson stated that it was, and that preliminary plans were for development of about half the site. Mr. Oswald questioned whether specific criteria have been established for the Y to meet before they get the special use permit. Mr. Larson stated that they must: 1. Have property zoned GI. 2. Have access onto a county arterial. 3. They must provide a broad based family and individual program. 'Dr. Cameron stated that the school distr.ict has agreed to give. the Y-access'to Winnetka from the bus garage side so that a s~cond access other than 42nd is avai.lable.'. ~.~; '~_ '.. ~'~ .~-.~ Mr. Larson introduced Mr. Douglas Herman from the YMCA who had arrived, noting Mr. Herman could answer questions regarding the Y's operations if the co~mission had additional questions. Mr. Oswald moved that Planning Case 74-55, Request for Code Amendment to Permit YMCA in Industrial District, be recommended for approval to the Council, seconded by Dr. Cameron. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Jenson, Herman, Cameron, Allen, Oswald Absent: Pakonen Mution carried. 4. Case 74-56 - Variance - Front Yard Set back. Mr. W. A. Cassen, petitioner, was present and presented the request to provide only a 25 foot front yard. Dr. Cameron questioned whether he had considered moving the garage back further on the lot. Mr. Cassen stated that there was going to be 14 feet of living area immediately behind the garage. Mr. Pakonen arrived at 7:40 p.m. Dr. Cameron asked if any neighbors had been contacted. *- Mr. Cassen said that he had spoken to Mr. Ellis. Mr. Ostlund noted he had spoken, to Mr. Ellis who agreed that the variance was the only way that a house could be put on this property. Mr. Herman asked what the result would be if the garage and living space were moved back. Answer was that the lot dropped off sharply and that there were trees that would be lost. Mr. Oswald asked whether the Park Commission had been notified about this case. Mr. Larson stated that the Park Commission had not been formally notified but that it could be referred to them at their next meeting on Wednesday the 4th. Dr. Cameron moved to recon~nend approval of 74-56, Variance in front yard set back. -Mr. Oswald seconded. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Jenson, Herman, Cameron, Allen, Oswald, Pakonen Voting against: None Motion carried. ~- Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September.3, 1974 5. Case 74-57 - Request for variance in sign ordinance at the Church of the Epiphany. Dr. Robert Hoover was present to represent the church. He stated that he was there to request pemisston to place a new sign, a safe distance from their driveway, and also visible from Boone Avenue on the church property. They wish to consolidate the existing signs. He felt that the ordinance would allow four signs on the property which would total to more than the area of the sign that they were requesting. The other problem was the set back from the street. They wish to have the sign about six feet from the street because of the hill. He presented pictures to the commissioners of the site. Dr. Hoover stated that he would like to make one change in the original request. They had asked for a location twenty feet south of the driveway but would like the sign to be thirty feet south of the driveway. Mr. Oswald questioned the need for a 48-square foot sign on a collector street where the speed would be posted at thirty miles per hour. He wondered why a twenty square foot sign would not be sufficient, Dr. Hoover stated that there was quite a bit of information that they wanted on the sign. They felt that the ordinance does allow them a total of eighty square feet of sign and that by consolidating into one sign with a-small identification sign off of 55th, where the mail box was located, they were conforming with the spirit of the law. The sign would be of rough-sawn redwood, routed and stained to give a rustic appearance. Mr. Oswald and Dr. Hoover discussed interpretation of the sign ordinance. Mr. Larson stated that the ordinance says they can have two signs, one facing each street. Since there are streets on three sides of the property a case could be made for three signs, but not four. Mr. Oswald questioned why the set backs could not be met. Dr. Hoover stated he felt the set back on 55th could be met, the hardship involved on Boone was that of. the hill; also meeting the set back requirement would actually place the sign in the parking lot-. Mr. Oswald questioned whether they felt that the size variance, or the set back variance was the most 'important to them ? . Dr. Hoover stated he felt that the variance on the set back would be the more important. Mr. Oswald questioned whether by asking for this sign permit, they were in effect going to eliminate all of the other signs. Dr. Hoover introduced Mr. Edward Ashley to speak on this point. Mr. Ashley stated that'there was a yearly con~nitmbnt with Mrs. Johnson for the nursery school and he felt that at least through this year it would be necessary to keep her sign in place. When the church renegotiated with Mrs. Johnson next year, the sign could be discussed. Mr. Oswald questioned whether Mr. Ashley would consider joint use of a sign as a possibility for'the two operations. Mr. Ashley stated that at some time in the future the church might want to operate a nursery school, and at that time they could consider making it an integral part of the overall church sign. Mr. Ostlund stated he felt that they were proposing to have a separate set of standards for a Church than for a business. They would never allow a business %o proliferate the area with signs in this manner. Dr. Cameron asked Mr. Ashley whether he thought Mrs. Johnson's sign was primarily advertising or informa- tional. Mr. Ashley stated he felt it served both functions. Discussion followed about the Nursery School sign. Dr. Hoover stated that it was possible that.the NS sign could be moved to the north side of the driveway until their contractual obligations to Mrs. Johnson had been fulfilled for this year. Mr. Larson stated that Mrs. Johnson was apparently planning to apply for a special use permit. Further discussion about Mrs. Johnson's sign, and the proposed size of the Church of Epiphany sign. Mr. Ostlund stated that ~e felt there would be no problem with the variance as far as set back was concerned~ but that he did not feel they (Epiphany) could expect to declare hardship as far as the size of the sign was concerned, Planning Commission Minutes - 3'- September 3, 1974 Discussion followed between Mr. Ostlund and Dr. Hoover and Mr.. Oswald about size of signs (one large sign versus three signs). Dr. Cameron moved to table case 74-57 for one month so (hat at that time the entire signage for the church property could be considered. Mr. Allen seconded. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Jensen, Herman, Cameron, Allen, Oswald, Pakonen Voting against: None Motion carried. 6. Case 74-58 - Valspar Corporation request for variance in parking stalls and approval of construction ~lans. Mr. Jerry Gorder represented the Valspar Corporation, He stated that Valspar was proposing an addition to the existing warehouse, and requesting a variance to permit only forty parking stalls. This is less than required by ordinance, however the plans include auxiliary space which could be used for expansion of parking area. Mr. Herman led the discussion indicating that the D and R committee had requested deeper stalls on one aisle. Mr. Gorder agreed it would be possible to lengthen the striping to twenty feet if required. Mr. Herman then suggested that directional signs might be installed to assist with the traffic flow. Mr. Herman then asked whether the landscaping plans had been changed to require trees of a larger caliber. Mr. Gorder answered that one species had been increased to 2~" caliber and one species to one inch caliber on the advice of their landscape a~chitect. The reason for these changes was that they were dealing with nursery who guaranteed their trees, and the price increase on some species was substantial between ~" and 2½" caliber. Discussion followed about the size of the variance requested in regard to required parking stalls. Mr. Ostlund raised the question that if they were being reduced from 108 to 40, perhaps the ordinance was too restrictive. Feeling of the commissioners was that the area was thus provided, in green area if not in parking space, and could be adapted as use of the building might change. Mr. Larson stated that he felt it was both to the company's and the City's advantage to retain the green area i~ in fact, the parking was not needed. Mr. Gorder stated that at the present time the company had 17 employees and they are planning to add perhaps ten more employees in the future. They felt that the forty spaces would be adequate for this reason. The company is strictly warehousing in nature and there are few, if any visitors; consequently visitor parking is not needed. No one was present in regard to this case. Mr. Herman moved to recommend to the Council approval of Planning Case 74-58 with the condition that the variahce be to provide only the parking shown as phase one, showing phase two for future completion when and if the employee load changed or if the use of that facility changes. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Jansen, Herman, Cameron, Allen, Oswald, Pakonen Voting against: None Motion carried. 7. Planning Case 74-59, Request for Variance in Parking location, Hork and Associates. Mr. Mork was present in regard to this case. Hr. Mork presented plans to the Commissioners. He explained that they were re- questing approval to allow them to go ahead on plans to construct a building that would front on Interna- tional Parkway. The site has frontage on two streets (International Parkway and Boone Avenue) and they would like to put parking in front of the building. Soil conditions prevent construction as they get close to Boone Avenue. They would like to put the majority of parking and loading docks on the Boone Avenue side of the building and through berming and dredging come up with a duck pond and landscaped area that would screen the parking from view of the street. The front of the building would contain the offices, and would need parking. They also plan to berm the front area. Heights of berms to be a maxi- mum of four feet on the front of the buildinq and a proposed seven feet high at the rear of the building. There was not direct access between the two lots; consequently, because of the size of the proposed building there would be employee parking on both street sides. Mr. Herman pointed out that the Design and Review committee had pointed out to the petitioner that plans 'must have an archi.tects stamp. The petitioner had agreed to this condition and therefore was asking for site plan approval rather than concept approval. Mr. Ostlund pointed out that the Council had directed the Commission to not consider a~y plans withoui an architects stamp on them, as ~his was the ordinance. Dr. Cameron questioned the lack of the stamp on the plans that had been presented to the Commissioners. Mr. Mork answered that they were not. applying for building plan approval, they are interested in coming - 4 - Plannin~ Commission Minutes September 3, 1974 into New Hope~ they have a question as to the parking requirements and he would like preliminary approval before he spent any more money on the plans to then discover that there was no chance of approval. Fur- ~-~ ther discussion about the number of parking spaces proposed, and whether there was any more space suitable for parking expansion, should a tenant require them. Mr. Herman pointed out that the Design and Review Committee had been quite critical of the tentative building plans. They realized that Mr. Mork had a problem with the site but felt that the building ex- terior was rather monotonous. Design-and Review hoped that after consulting with an architect, the building exterior plan would be changed to become more acceptable to the commission. Mr. Wil~fred Wahl was present and commented on the poor soil conditions on the site, noting there were indeed problems as far as placement on the property, and that essentially when soil is bad it is not economically feasible to build on it. He also stated that in his opinion if the site was ever going to be developed, there were going to have to be some concessions made. The Commissioners agreed it would be preferable to have the site developed to having it sit the way it is now. Mr] Ostlund suggested that Mr. Mork consult with the Police and the Fire Marshal on the access problem and spend some time with Mr. Larson in an effort to get the proposed project to conform with New Hope ordinance. No action was taken with the consensus being Mr. Mork should start the review process agqin when he was ready to proceed. 8. Planning Case 74-60 - Approval of Construction Plans - Homeward Bound, Petitioner. Chairman Ostlund reviewed the history of Homeward Bounds' appearances before the Commission. Previously Homeward Bound had requested a special use permit and was given concept approval subject to approval of final plans and the formal granting of a special use permit. Mr. Oswald questioned whether or not. the surrounding neighborhood had been notified of the appearance of Homeward Bound. The City Manager responded that a large area had received notices of the meeting, in fact a larger area than had received the original notice. Mr. Wayne Larson, Director of Homeward Bound was present to discuss this case. He introduced Mr. Roger Johnson, who is the architect of the proposed complex. Dr. Cameron requested that the architect give a presentation of the plans. Mr. Johnson stated that they had already submitted a set of plans to the City officials'~'that'tbe model had. been seen b9 the Design. and Review Committee and that the drawings and mddei he was presenting were supplemental. He reviewed the.model briefly for the Commissioners. There will be four 16 bed self contained living units, all oriented toward a court. Classroom facilities and administrative functions will be separate from these units, attached by walkways. All living areas, and major activity areas open onto a sheltered area or court. They feel this will be of benefit both to the children and to the people of the community. There are 36 parking stalls provided, which meet ordinance requirements for a nursing home. In their opinion this exceeds the number necessary in this type of facility. The buildings themselves are of wood frame construction, with sprinkler systems throughout the entire complex. There is about 23,000 square of building on grade, and about 1,000 square feet below grade. Dr. Cameron requested information as to who had reviewed these plans. Mr. Johnson said that the following people hadbeen consulted: 1. Minnesota Department of Health (Mr. Hans Larson) 2. Minnesota Department of Welfare 3. State Building Code Office (Mr. Gerhard Peterson) 4. Local City authorities (Building, Fire, Po)ice) 5. Mr~ Larson Mr. Johnson stated that there is a new regulation being put together now through Boarding-Care and SLF and that they have been trying to follow their guidelines also. They have been trying to achieve a'level a little bit above these regulations. Dr. Cameron asked approximately how high above Boone Avenue the cottages would be. ~ Mr. Johnson replied that the first cottages would be approximately 100 feet back from Boone. Height will be l0 feet plus or minus above Boone. Mr..Johnson stated that they have retained a landscape architect and that the patios are solidly'fenced, no chain link fencing. - Planning Commission - 5 - September 3, 1974 . Mi nutes In reply to a question about the Design and Review request for more evergreens, Mr. Johnson stated that they were trying to achieve a screen that would be there 12 months of the year by using a variety of species of tree. The evergreens could be put in if it is required, they would prefer not to, but it could be done. They are trying to achieve a heavy deciduous planting. In response to a question from Dr. Cameron, Mr. Larson stated that there would be 16 people working with the children, and 4 people working in the professional areas, a maximum of 20-24 people at one time. During the time that the children were in school there would be fewer employees present. Discussion was held as to the number of cars involved at shift change times. It was also stated that there would probably be a maximum 4-5 parents visiting in one day, and most of the parents would visit during the evenings or on weekends. Commissioner Allen commented that the Design and Review Committee had suggested the-possibility of remov- ing some of the trees to provide a larger parking area. Mr. Johnson agreed that this could be done. Staff parking and the delivery area are separated by curbing and .are not counted in the number of parking stalls provided. Discussion about the trees (type and size used in the landscaping.) Feeling seemed to be that while the landscape architect was projecting a long range plan, they should direct themselves to providing immediate screening, thus the addition of evergreen trees. The plans should include the type and size of trees and the number of evergreens to be installed before they are presented to the Council. Mr. Johnson spoke in favor of hardwood trees, and the type of screening they will ultimately provide. Mr. Herman commented that he felt they should be aware of the fact that the landscape plan would be a critical point of the presentatio~ before the Council. A meeting was set up for Friday, September 6, at 8:30 a.m. for Homeward Bound to meet the Design and Review Committee to iron out these problems before the Council meeting. Mr. Johnson's partner will attend thi~ meeing. Mrs. Leanne Thomas, 4809 Zealand Avenue North~ was present and expressed her concern with the entrance and exit being placed on Zealand Avenue. She felt that it was hazardous to the elementary school children that must walk to New Hope Elementary along this street, and cross at 47th Avenue North. The parking situation existing on 47th at Zealand was also discussed.' Mr. Allen questioned Whether greater controls over on-street parking would help the situation. Mr. Ostlund commented that private industry and even individual homes would create more traffic. Feeling was that a good deal of study had been made on the problem. Mr. Herman suggested that perhaps if.it proved necessary, time of shift changes could be adjus(ed to avoid a conflict with the school schedule. Mrs. Ann Goodwin, 4657 Louisiana Avenue North, asked to speak in support of the Homeward Bound facility. She stated that she wished to express complete support of the concept. Mrs. Thomas also expressed her agreement with the concept of the facility, but again noted her concern with the traffic problem in relation to the small children. Dr. Cameron moved to recommend approval of Case 74-60 - Acceptance of the development plan and issuance of the Special Use Permit, to the Council, with the provision that the architect meet and confer with the Design and Review Committee. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Pakonen, Allen, Jensen, Oswald, Cameron, Herman Voting against: None Motion carried'; Short discussion held - confirming that Design and Review.could meet at 8:30 a.m. on Friday. 9. There was a discussion about the possible changing of zoning in some MR districts. Mr. Larson noted Council felt additional study should be done on this question and simply amending the MR Use List was not meeting the problem. The question was referred back to the Land. Use Committee, with Dr. Cameron to make a report back to the Commission in two weeks. Mr. Larson noted tha~ Dr~ Cameron should let him know what type of information the Committee wanted so he could have it p~eopared.. Mr. James Bartlett was present to discuss this issue. Mr. Ostlund informed him that the matter had been referred to Committee and that he should return to the COmmission when it was on the agenda again. 10. In reference to the Planning Commission vacancies, Mr. Ostlund stated that the Planning Commission was actively seeking new members. ll. Mr. Herman reported that the Design and Review Committee had met o~ August 21, 1974. Three cases' had been presented to them, and all had been before the Commission this evening. - Mr. Herman questioned .Mr. Larson as to follow up on construction projects, par~cicularly in' regard to landscape requirements. Mr. Larson answered that before before a final certificate of occupancy is issued, all of these required ~-~ items must be accounted for. Discussion followed regarding the fact that landscaping does not always survive the first year's occupancy. Mr. Herman questioned whether or not a condition of approval could be added that the owner would be res- ponsible for the survival of landscaping through the first year. Mr. Ostlund suggested that there be a mandatory inspection after one year. Feeling was that you must make certain that you were not straining staff --- could there be a certificate from the owner? Mr. Ostlund wondered if the ordinance should require a minimum 2½ inch caliber tree. Mr. Herman stated he felt that in the absence of a landscaping ordinance, all the Commission could do would be to establish guidelines. Mr. Ostlund asked Mr. Herman's Committee to prepare a formal recommendation on this matter. 12. Codes and Standards Report was deferred to the next meeting. 13. Land Use Committee had no report. 14. Mr. Larson reviewed the Traffic Control Plan which will be presented to the Council on Monday evening. He pOinted, out the..need to correlate the ~treet classification system ~ith the major a~te~i~l regulations provided in the zoning code. The manager also pointed out several of the more controversial proposals in the study with particular emphasis given to the proposed closing of the median on 42nd and Gettysburg. Chairman Ostlund stated he would like to consider the down zoning of the MR property. Some discussion held on this matter, no specific action being taken. 15. Dr. Cameron moved to accept the Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1974. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Pakonen, ~llen,Jensen, Oswald, Cameron,~ Herman Voting against: None Motion carried 16. Mr. Ostlund moved to approve the Council minutes of August 12, 1974. Mr. Jensen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Pakonen, Allen, Jensen, Oswald, Cameron,Herman. Voting against: None Motion carried: 17. Mr. Ostlund reminded the Commission that there will be another meeting of the Commission on September 17, 1974. He asked Mr. Herman if he wanted to reschedule the Design and Review Committee meeting since it was now set for the same day. After some discussion, it was decided to reschedule the Design and Review Committee meeting since some of the members had a conflict. Mr. Larson to set a new date after finding out how many cases were involved. Mr. Ostlund reminded the Commission that the second meeting of the month is no longer suspended and wil! be held for the rest of the year. Mr. Oswald questioned whether the City required an extra curb cut on a given property to be closed (37th and Boone garage addition). Mr. Larson answered that it was not required unless it had been a stipulation of the granting of the variance. Mr, Oswald rai~ed the question of a signal being installed at 42nd and Xylon. Mr. Larson commented that the County was taking a new count but he did not know if it met the requi~rement~. Mr. Herman raised the issue of the many signs that exist at the Standard Station on Medicine Lake.Road and Winnetka Avenue. Mr. Ostlund reported that the cleaner on Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road once again had a gaseous tube sign in their window. Mr. Larson stated h6 would have the problems ]mhecked. 19. Dr. Cameron moved to adjourn themeeting. Oswald second Voting in favor: OstlunU, Pakonen, Allen, Jensen,'Oswald, Cameron, Herman Voting against: None MOtion carri~ed-: The meeting was adjouPn'ed at ll:14 p.m. until Tuesday, September 17, 1974 or the call of the chair. Respectfully submitted Joyce Boeddeker Planning Commission September 17, 1974 Minutes - 1 - 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North on Tuesday, September 17, 1974. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Allen, Jensen, Cameron, Pakonen Absent: Herman, Oswald $. Planning Case 74-47 - Parking - Sir Vend Dr. Cameron moved to table this case since Sir Vend had requested additional time. Mr. Jensen, second. Voting in favor: Oastlund, Allen, Jensen, Cameron, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Herman, Oswald Motion carried. Sa. Discussion regarding expansion plans for House of Hope Lutheran Church. Mr. Howard Amborn and Mr. Robert Pray were present as representatives of House of Hope Lutheran Church, 4800 Boone Avenue North. They requested permission to present two questions before the Commission. Mr. Ostlund pointed out to the gentlemen that they must understand that they must go through the formal process of presenting plans and securing special use permits etc. before the Commission could act on their proposal. Mr. Amborn presented the plans and gave a general description of what the church hoped to do at this time. He stated that he felt that their situation was unique in that their architect had died recently, before all of the required items could be ~6mpleted on their plans. He stated that they had been before the Design and Review Committee and while they:realized that they did not meet the landscape requirements, they were in desperate need of additional room, and were hopi~g~to~] be able to start construction on the initial phase --- an education room, and the enclosing of a pie shaped section of the existing building --- before the end of the year. They were requesting conditional approval of the construction plan~, subject to any minor changes {in electrical and mechanical areas) that staff felt were necessary. Secondly, they were requesting a tem- porary waiver of the Commission policy requiring a detailed landscape plan. Mr. Pray added that they had developed a total concept plan of expansion to present to their congregation (900+ people), but with the present money and interest situation they realized that they could only hope to complete the first phase of this plan at the present time -- a matter of $50,000 - $60,000 dollars. They were hoping to complete this phase with the funds available, with the hope that the money situation would improve by Spring. He stated that he felt that they had lost their attention at the Design and Review Committee meeting because the special use permit could not be located in the City records. Today they had confirmed the fact that a special use permit does exist, it is merely a matter of finding it in the City records. Mr. Ostlund asked Mr. Larson if that was indeed true, that the special use was on file at the City. Mr. Larson stated that the record did not show a special use permit, even though a building permit had been authorized. Mr. Pray stated that the original contractor (Franzen) did have records to indicate that he had turned the special use permit back to the City in order to get his final payment, after he had completed construction. Mr. Pray stated that they were unaware of the landscaping requirements when they started the project, and they felt that it was not in the best interests of the church or of the City to throw something to- gether at this time to simply satisfy this requirement. They also feel that they owe the architectural firm the opportunity to come up with additional staff to finish existing plans and this would add at least six weeks to the process of completing the plans. Mr. Ostlund questioned, whether there was anything the Commission could do without knowledge of the exis- tence of a special use permit. Mr~ Larson stated that while no legal requirement existed to notify the adjacent property of expansion plans it was City policy. In any case, since a new concept was being presented, the special use ques- tion needed public review. Planning Corrrnisston - 2 - Minutes September 17, 1974 Mr. Ostlund questioned whether the church was planning to sell their frontage on Zealand. Mr. Pray answered that they were going to sell five lots. Mr. Ostlund then stated that the Commission would'like to see them present a total package, so that 'the Commission could help them planand all work together toward something compatible for the neighbors. He also questioned the Commission's ability to do anything without proof of a special use permit, since any approval given would not be valid if it did not turn up, and the entire process would again have to be started. Mr. Amborn questioned whether this approval could not be given on a contingency basis, the one, subject to the staff giving final approval to the mechanical and electrical changes, and two, c~ntimgent'.upoD the location of the special use permit. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and the representatives of the church, regarding the time element involved, the reaCtion of the Design'and 'Re'vl~wCom~i%te~ ~o the prop~sed'~la~s, and the fact that the staff had not had an opportunity to prepare a staff report on the subjeCt. Dr. Cameron stated that the members of the Design and Review Committee had not had. any qualms about the initial construction phase -- a 26 x 70 slab on grade. The exterior to be completed as in the original plans, matching the existing building. Further discussion about the problems involved in getting the staff, Designand Review, and the represen- tatives of the architectural firm together during the Planning stages. Dr. Cameron stated that he felt all the Conrnission could do at this time was to gi~e them a green light informally for the two elements of the first phase plus a preliminary landscape plan. Further discussion about the advisability of presenting a complete plan and following the proper chrono- logical order of appearing before the Planning Commission, the legality of acting without proof of an existing special use permit and the-necessity of notifying neighbors etc. Following this discussion Dr. Cameron moved informally to table the informal presentation until the first meeting in October. Mr. Pakonen second. Voting in favor:-Ostlu~d, Cameron, Jensen, Allen Voting against: None Abstaining: Pakonen Absent: Herman, Oswald Motion carried. Mr. Amborn requested a copy of the motion to report to the members of the report. Mr. Ostlund suggested that he obtain a copy of the minutes of the meeting when they were available. 4. Discussion regarding problems with MR zoning district use list. Mr. Bartlett was present in regard to this discussion and wished to state that he was in contact with Mr. Miller, attorney for the adjacent property, and they were planning to attempt to work out an agree- ment between them. Dr. Cameron requested that Mr. Larson or the Chairman review the events that had led up to this review and concern over the MR property. Mr. Ostlund and Mr. Larson reviewed the history starting with the request for a rezoning of the Kornberg property from MR to LC. Dr. Cameron stated that the Land Use Committee had studied the problem. Mr. Larson had submitted to them a list of the properties in the City that might be effected by this rezoning. There are twelve areas that might be effected by the change in zoning ordinance. He felt it was the Land Use Committee's feeling that the problems could be solved by amending the MR use list, to take out the three categories ---churches, medical, and offices -- but allow them on a special use permit, in the MR areas, just to protect the rights of the people who purchase property or have an interest in it and may have purchased property with the idea that this might be an option. The special use process still gives the City adequate control because of the conditions that can be applied. Mr. Bartlett requested clarification of ~he legal'effects of changing the zoning -- on the basis of what assurances the owner has that with a special use permit it can be used for the purposes that are outlined in the pr6sent ~R zoning. Mr. Ostlund stated that first of all Mr. Bartlet must come to the Commission with a plan. Mr. Bartlett restated his objection to the possibility of a mortuary or small pet hospital being allowed on .the property under a LC zoning and his concern with his investment. Planning Commission -'3 - Minutes September 17, 1974 Discussion followed regarding the possible error in the or. iginal ordinance and the effect on action that may be taken now. Mr. Bartlett stated for the record that he felt they were overlooking the fact that at one time all of this property was zoned heavy industrial and that it was by request of the Council at that time, that he work with them to rezone that area. Dr. Cameron moved to ask the City Manager draw up a new ordinance amending the use lists as discussed. Mr. Bartlett stated he would object to LC zoning and asked if it would be possible to permit some time to see if he and the adjacent property Owners could develop a prop6sal suitable to both parties. Dr. Cameron moved to table the consideration of the changes in zoning until the 2nd meeting in October, Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Cameron, Jensen, Allen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Herman, Oswald Motion carried. 5. Mr. Jensen of the Codes and Standards Committee reported that the committee would be ready to present a .recommendation for a fencing ordinance at the next meeting of the Planning Commission (October). 6. Dr-- Cameron stated that the Land Use Committee had been very active. He also stated that they have been making progress on a Occupancy Renewal Permit. 7. Design and Review Committee had no report. 8. 'Dr. Cameron moved to apI~.rove th~ Commission minutes of September 3, 1974. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Cameron, Jensen, Allen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Herman, Oswald Motion carried. 9. Mr. Larson reviewed the minutes of the August 26, 1974 Council meeting. In .response to a question from Mr. Ostlund, Mr~ Larson stated that the bids on Northwood were to be let on Friday, the project must be completed by November 15, 1974. Mr. Larson reviewed the minutes of the September 9, 1974 Council meeting. The minutes were accepted by the CommissiJn. 10. Chairman Ostlund announced that he was in receipt of an application for appointment to the Planning Com- mission. He reviewed the resume of Mr. Christensen, the applicant. Discussion as to whether applicants for the Commission should be interviewed separately or as a group. Consensus was that all applicants should be invited to the second meeting in October and that they be interviewed jointly. All resumes must be submitted to Mr. Larson prior to this meeting. Further discussion as to the criteria to be used in these interviews. Mr. Ostlund and Mr. Larson are to work together to establish guidelines for the interviews. Mr. Allen requested that he also be included in this planning. Dr~ Cameron made a motion to change the date o~ t~J second Planning Commission meeting of October to October 16, 1974 because of the conflict with the Council meeting. Mr. Jensen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Cameron, Jensen, Allen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Herman, Oswald Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes ? - 4 - September 17, 1974 ll. The meeting to establish interview guidelines for applicants to the Planning Commission was set for ~'~ September 25, 1974 at 8:00 a.m. 12. Mr. Pakonen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Jensen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Cameron, Jensen, Allen, Pakonen voting against: None Absent: Herman, Oswald Motion carried: The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. until Tuesday, October l, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Acting Secretary Planning Commission Minutes October l, 1974 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, October l, 1974. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call was taken as follows: Present: Ostlund, Oswald, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron, Allen Absent: Jensen 3. Planning Case 74-47 - Parking Variance - Sir Vend, Inc. Mr. Larson informed the Commission that Sir Vend would not be appearing. Mr. Oswald moved to table Case 74-47, Sir Vend, Inc. for 30 days. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund,Oswald, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron, Allen Voting agai'nst: None Absent: Jensen Motion carried. . 4. Planning Case 74-57 - Sign Variance - Church of the Epiphany - 5520 Boone Avenue North Mr. Allen moved to table Case 74-57 until later in the meeting. Mr. Pakonen second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Oswald, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron, Allen Voting against: None Absent: Jensen Motion carried. 5. Planning Case 74-6] - Preliminary Plat Approval - 59th and Wisconsin North, Beryl Jette, Petitioner. Mr. Beryl Jette presented his proposal to the commission. Dr. Cameron questioned the feasibility of building on all of the lots in the plat because of the odd shapes of some of them. His concern was that the Planning Commission, in the future, would have to grant some variances to ~ermit building. Mr. Jette answered that his engineer felt that all of the lots could be built on. The plat had been drawn with the New Hope Code requirements being considered. Mr. Larson noted that if the houses were pl)nned for the lots, they were technically usable. Dr. Cameron questioned the easement on Xylon and whether or not there was any possibility of Xylon being extended. Mr. Larson answered that the possibility of a road was very remote and that all that might be expected was a path to the lake at some future date. Dr. Cameron asked if the utility easements on lots 5, 6, 7 would present a problem. Mr. Jette could foresee no difficulty, easements w~uld be provided. The present plans are for the utili- ties to be buried. Mr. Pakonen questioned whether Lot 5 was deep enough at 97 feet to peri, it building on it without a variance. Mr. Larson commented it should be possible to place a house on every one of the lots with a normal setback. Further discussion followed about the possibility of removing one lot from the plat. Feeling was that the area was a quality area and would lend itself to some very expensive homes and that more space between set back lines would allow better structure placement and perhaps even improve the marketability of the lots. Mr. Jette stated that he did not plan to sell the lots at once, but would put them on the market over a period of time, probably keeping at least 6ne of the lots in addition to his ~ome site. Dr. Cameron moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of 74-61, Approval of Preliminary Plat, with the reminder that the necessary utility easements should be a part of whatever the final plat looks like. Mr. Pakonen,.second. Voting in favor: Allen, Herman, Cameron Voting against: OstlunE, Pakonen, Oswald Absent: Jensen Mr. Ostlund stated that the case would go before the Council, with the recommendation that the vote of the Planning Commission was split. - 2 - Planning Commission ~ Minutes October l, 1974 Mr. Herma~ questioned whether or not the Planning Commission was meeting its responsibility if it sends a case to the Council with an equal or a split vote. Mr. Ostlund answered that he had been 'informed in the past, they the Commission had to send the case for- ward with the split vote. Mr. Ostlund further commented that the only way the Planning Commission could give Mr. Jette a more affirmative answer would be to sit down with him and literally plan with him, and he did not feel that they had the expertise to warrant this. Mr. Ostlund commented that in his opinion, Mr. Jette was not doing himself or the community any favors with this development. His feeling was that the lots would, in the future, come before the Planning Com- mission with requests for variances and it would end up with a mess. Further discussion as to the possibility of replatting, with one less lot. Mr. Ostlund informed Mr. Jette that the case would appear before the Council on the 15th October, and added that if he wished to make any changes, he had two weeks in which to do so. 4. Mr. Oswald moved to remove Planning Case 74-57 from the table. Mr. Ostlund second. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Oswald, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron, Allen Voting against: None Absent: Jensen Motion carried. Dr. Robert Boover was present in regard to this case. He'stated"that the Church.of the.Epiphany h~d changed some of the dimensions of their signs and.some of the concepts, since they had appeared before the Planning Commission in September. They are presently proposing a 10 x 3 foot sign for BOone Avenue with an 8 foot width between posts. The lettering will be 8 inches high on an ll½ inch rough sawn cedar or redwood board. They are then changing their request for a variance to 30 square feet on the sign on Boone Avenue. They also feel that some of the information, such as minister's name, time of services etc. is essential and they are proposing to put an internal site sign at the junction of the parking lot and the sidewalk by the church. This sign would probably by 6 × 3 feet. It would not be visible from the street and this would replace the information that they were deleting from the Boone Avenue sign. He was including this internal sign as part of their request. They were also requesting a change in the size of the sign on the South side of the proPerty, to a sign of the same style, but 1 x 6 feet (one line stating "Church of the Epiphany". Mr. Oswald asked whether the nursery school sign was to be incorporated into the proposed sign. Dr. Hoover stated "no", they would like that sign to be separate, as it is not a part of the entity of the church. They have a contract with Mrs. Johnson for this year. If the Commission would allow it, they would like to place the nursery school sign on the North side of the driveway for a period of nine months. Discussion followed about the requirement for a special use permit for the nursery school, whether or not one is going to be applied for, and the possibility of the nursery school remaining at this ~ocation after this year. Mr. Oswald then questioned if the removal of the nurs,ery school ~ign for the remainder of this year would have any effect on the operation of the nursery school, if they were not planning to continue after this year. Discussion followed about the setbacks and the size of the proposed sign on the South side of the proper- ty. Dr. Hoover noting the setback would be 6 feet because of the shorter length of the sign. Mr. Oswald 'stated that he felt that the request for a variance on the setback to 6 feet on Boone was a"reasonable one, but that he felt that Mrs. Johnson's sign should come down., Mr.. Oswald moved to recommend to the Council, approval of Planning Case 74-57 as amended to allow a ten foot variance (3 x 10 foot sign) in the size of the sign, a 19 foot variance in setback (6 feet) with the provision that the nursery school sign be removed'and, that this approval recognize that an additional ~'~ internal ground sign, hidde~ from the street, will be constructed. Mr. Ostlund second. - 3 - Planning Commission Minutes October l, 1974 Mr. Pakonen raised the question of whether the metal sign on Bass Lake Road will be taken down. Discus- sion held as to if consideration of these signs, should be included in this consideration. Dr. Cameron commented on the sign on Rockford Road. Dr. Hoover reviewed the background of the original four signs that had been put up with the City's per- mission. Two o.f these signs had been confiscated by someone, which he felt was unjusti~fied. Dr. Hoover stated that this permit was valid until 1977. Dr. Cameron moved to amend the motion to provide that all off-premise signs would be removed when the new signs are ~ut up. Mr, Pakonen second. Vote on Amendment. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Oswald, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron. Voting against: None Abstaining: Allen Absent: Jensen Motion carried. Dr. Cameron requested that the Church of the Epiphany present a completed document to the Council, with the changes noted. No further discussion. Vote on original motion as amended. Voting in favor: Ostlund, Oswald, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron. Voting against: None · Abstaining: Allen Absent: Jensen Motion carried. 6. Report of the Design and Review Committee. Mr. Herman distributed and the Commission reviewed a proposed landscape guideline prepared by the Design and Review Committee. Discussion regarding recommended tree sizes, proper time to plant, and the possibility of requiring that all trees must be alive After one year, or be replaced, and should trees be classified by type rather than specifically' named. Dr. Cameron questioned whether the City would allow a request to delay plant- ing to another season? Mr. Herman noted that the proposal was a guideline; if an ordinance were desired t~e wording would'need adjusting. Mr. Larson stated that he felt there was now some flexibility, and suggested that they try the guidelines first and if this does not prove effective, then consider adopting an ordinance. Mr. Ostlund requested that a copy of the guidelines be sent to the Council with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Oswald questioned whether the Commission should not take some action on this issue. Dr. Cameron recommended that adoption of the guidelines be postponed for two weeks, to allow Mr. Herman to incorporate into them, the ideas presented at this meeting. Design and Review met on the 6th with House of Hope Lutheran Church Discussion followed about the procedures to be followed by House of Hope with Chairman Ostlund noting that he, the Mayor and Mr. Larson were meeting with the church the morning of the 2nd. 7. Report of Codes and Standards Committee. No report, the person responsible for the fence ordinance was not in attendance. 8. Report of the Land Use Committee. Dr. Cameron stated that they are continuing to work on a housing ordinance. Mr. Ostlund asked if anything had been done as to .the possibility of downgrading the zoning on the South quadrant of 42nd and #18. Discussion followed with no action being taken. Mr. Ostlund requested,'thaYc Mr. Larson ask the Council to indicate to the Planning Commission their feel-- ings toward the Land Use Committee looking into the possibility of downgrading the zoning on the South quadrant of 42nd and #18. -4- Planning Commission o October l, 1974 Mi nutes 9. Mr. Allen moved to approve the Planhing Commission minutes of September 17, 1974. Mr. Pakonen second. Voting in favor: 0stlund, Oswald, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron,.Allen Voting against: None Absent: Jensen Motion carried. 10. The Council minutes of September 23rd, 1974 were reviewed and accepted. ll. Mr. Ostlund announced that the candidates for the Planning Commission would be interviewed at the meeting on the 16th October. He requested that if the Commissioners had anyone else in mind, they should have them send their applications, or letters of intent to Mr. Larson within the next week. 12. The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on Wednes.day October 16, 1974 because of 'the Change in the Council meeting date. 13. Dr. Cameron moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Oswald second. Voting in favor: 0stlund, Oswald, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron, Allen Voting against: None Absent: Jensen Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m., until Wednesday October 16, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary Planning Commission ., Minutes October 16, 1974 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Con~nission was held'at the City Hall., 4401Xylon Avenue North, on Wednesday, October 16, 1974. 2. Roll Call was taken as follows: Preset: Herman, Cameron, Allen, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen Absent: None 3. Planning Case 74-62 - Special Use Permit and Construction Plan Approval of Phase I - House of Hope Lutheran Church - 4800 Boone Avenue North. Mr. Herman requested that Mr. Pray, who was present representing the church, review the proposed plans for the benefit, of the Planning Commission. Mr. Pray reviewed the problems that the church has experienced in the planning process for this proposed construction. Ne reviewed the plans with the Commission, explaining that they had developed a total scope plan. At this time they are planning to complete only Phase I -- enclosing a pie shaped area and construct- ing a 26 x 70 slab, on grade, multi-purpose room, of the same roof height, and same brick finish,'fixing up an entry to allow them to continue the use of the church as they start construction. This room is to be used for a Sunday School room. The tight money situation has made it impossible to complete more of the plan.- at this time. They are hoping to gain badly needed space in as-short a time as possible. The time table for the rest of the project is dependent upon the economy straightening out, and the availability of financ- ing at a reasonable figure. The plan is to complete the entire project as soon as possible. Mr. Pray further reviewed the church's plans to dispose of some of the land on the East side of the pPoperty, The church presently plans to sell the piece of land without platting. Mr. Ostlund commented upon the fact th'at this property had been discussed at a morning meeting, held earlier, and that if the church were to plat this property they would then be responsible for the platting fees and survey, and water and sewer hookups and they were financially unable to do this at this time, and were planning to sell the property under a waiver of the platting ordinance. Mr. Ostlund in answer to a question from Mr. Herman, stated that there was not a special use permit in existence at this time. That this was a formality and that the property owners in the area had been notified. Mr. Herman stated that the Design and ReUiew Committee had met with the church representatives on two differ- ent occasions. He added that the landscaping of the property was of major concern to the Design and Review Committee. He further stated that the landscaping on the plan before the Commission was the overall plan. The Design and Review Committee felt that some landscaping should be included in the initial phase of con- struction. Ne further stated that with the residences on the North and. the proposed residences on the East, there are two areas which come under thellandscapin§'~PeqOir~me~ts for screening. He stated t~at it W~s his feeling'that the..Planning Commission concern themselves ~ith wh~t~the-appTicant was going to do about this screening at this time, as well as being concerned with the overall landscape plan. The Design and Review committee felt that some additional landscaping should be provided with the initial phase. Mr. Ostlund commented that it was impossible to tie a landscaping.plan to Phase II of the construction, . and he strongly urged all of the members to tie a landscaping plan to the initial development. Ne felt that the cheapest way for the church to solve the screening at the rear would be to do it now with small evergreens, rather than wait five years and then have to put bigger ones in when they decided to sell the property. In his opinion, landscaping being tied to Phase I was mandatory. Discussion between Mr. Pray and Mr. Ostlund as to the church getting together with Homeward Bound, to com- bine some of the necessary earth moving. The question of changing the grade at the front of the chqrch was discussed, with Hr. Pray stating that finances prohibited this at this time, in spite of the fact that it would be more costly at a later date. There will be no change in the parking lot at this time. Mr. Pakonen questioned whether the church congregation had voted on just Phase I or the entire plan. Mr. Pray stated that the church had approved the whole concept plan, and authorized the construction of Phase I at this time. Mr. Allen commented that he felt that a target date should be set for the completion of the landscaping on Phase I. Mr. Ostlund stated that the Planning Commission could require that a satisfactory landscaping plan be pre- sented, before the church could obtain a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Reimer asked whethe~..they h&d .ineluded the drainage changes in the revised plan. Mr. Dan Klecker was present to assist Mr. Pray in this discussion. Mr. Ostlund pointed out to Mr. Pray that the iandsceping of the property was of major consideration. That when the parki'ng lot is moved, screening must be provided to protect the residences from headlights, et=. Planning Co~tsston - 2 - Minutes _, ° October 16, 1974 Further discussion about the necessity of changing the grade and providing the drainage with Phase I. Mr. Reimer further stated that it was the recommendation of the City Engineer that the property be swaled to provide drainage out to Boone, and that it was his understanding that the church had agreed to this at an earlier meeting. Mr. Ostlund commented that in his opinion, Phase I would have to include changing the grade. Mr. Oswald commented that in his opinion there was no need for landscaping on the Ease side of the property, until such time that the church planned to sell the outlot. He agreed that the North side, with existing residences was an entirely different problem. Mr. Ostlund stated that if the church decided to replat the property'and sell it, then they would have to come back before the Commission, and at that time it would be necessary to screen or fence'that line. Discussion between Mr. 'Herman and Mr. Ostlund about the screening requirement as far as selling the outlot. Mr. Herman felt that at the time the property was sold, it would no longer be the church who would have to come before the Commission. Mr. Ostlund stated that when a property has a special use permit, they can make no changes to that property, such as dividing, without coming before the Commission again, or they would be in danger of losing their special use permit. Mr. Pakonen questioned what control the Commission would have over future screening in the event that the property was sold as one piece, and the church refused to screen? Mr. Ostlund restated that if this should happen they would be in danger of losing their special use permit,. lose their certificate of occupancy and the churc~ would be closed. He did not see that this would ever happen however. Mr. Reimer raised the question of the drainage again, stating that once the sod was in, it would be diffi- cult to come in and change the sWale. Mr. Pray stated that he felt he could speak for the committee and the congregation accepting a motion stat- ing that the drainage mu~t be provided as recommended by the City Engineer. In response to a question from the Chairman, no one in the audience wished to speak in regard to this case. Mr. Oswald recommended approval of the Special Use Permit for Case 74-62 - House of Hope Lutheran Church, subject to the meeting of the five criteria of a Special Use Permit. Dr. Cameron second. Discussion followed between the commissioners and Mr. Pray about the required landscaping and th~ sign plan, which conditions must be met before the Council could act on this case. Mr. Ostlund stated that these things must be done before the 28th October when the Council meets. The Council cannot approve, unless the criteria are met. Mr. Ostlund reviewed the criteria for a special use permit~ He further stated that the Commission could not tell the church what to put into their plan, but that according to the ordinance, the Commission had to shOw them that they'must put something oh paper to tie into Phase I.. Theymus~ know what thEY plan to do in the Spring as far as landscaping. Mr. Pray stated he could not speak for the congregation and say that this landscaping would be included in Phase I, because it was not presented to them as such. Discussion about the existing sign. Mr. Ostlund stating that the unconforming sign must be brought into conformance by 1977. Mr. Pray stated that there had been no discussion about changing the sign. Mr. Oswald made a motion to move the question. Dr. Cameron second. Voting in favor of moving the question: Cameron, Allen, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen, Herman Voting against: None Motion passed. Votingin favor of the original motion: Pakonen, Jensen, Oswald, Cameron Voting against: Herman, Allen, Ostlund Motion passed~ -3- Planning Commission y Minutes October 16, 1974 Mr. Herman moved, second by Dr. Cameron, for Approval of the Construction Plans for Case 74-62 - House of Hope Lutheran Church, subject to the following conditions being met: 1. That the drainage along ~he North property line and the dividing line on the East of the church property and future outlot, be~met in conjunction with recommendations made by the City Engineer. 2. That acceptable landscaping or screening be provided with Phase I construction along the North property line and the East division line separating the church property from the future outlot. 3. Subject to approval of a sign plan by the Staff. Mr.'Ostlund stated that the sign plan must meet the ordinance, or come back for a variance. Discussion followed. Mr. Ostlund stating that it was his feeling that the landscaping on the East dividing line must be completed before they attempted to sell the outlot. Further discussion about landscaping on the North side of the property. Mr. Ostlund mentioned the possibility of the church meeting with the Design and Review Committee again on OCtober 22nd, which would still allow them to appear at the Council meeting on the 28th. Mr. Oswald made a motion to amend the original motion to delete the North and East landscaping~ being com- pleted as part of Phase I. Chair ruled that the motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Ostlund stated that he felt that the Commission and the petitioners had a difference of opinion on the value of landscaping. No further discussion, the vote was taken. Voting in favor: Allen, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen, Herman, Cameron Voting against: None Motion passed. Mr. Ostlund reminded Mr. Pray that they must come back before the Design and Review Committee at 4:00 P.M. on the g2nd, with the final landscape plan for Phase I. 4.. Mr. Paul Gustafson and Mr. Wayne Christensen were presJnt to be interviewed about the vacancies on the Planning Commission. The Commissioners reviewed the applications at the request of Mr. Ostlund. Mr. Ostlund informed the applicants that there were at the present time three vacancies on the Planning Commission. He further stated that at this time, the Commission did not know how many of the vacancies were going to be filled. At the next Planning Commission meeting, they would vote upon additional members, inform the Council of their recommendations, and the Council would make the final selection at their meeting on November 12, 1974. Dr. Cameron asked Mr. Gustafson if he would care to comment in terms of what he sees in New Hope, and whether he had any particular thoughts about the City and how the City was developing. Mr. Gustafson stated that he had been a resident of New Hope for 4 years. He had originally applied for the Park Commission, primarily because he lived across from Liberty Park. He had taken a rather sorrow- ful view of the conditions of that park. He stated that the City of New Hope had limited space l~ft, and for that reason, in his estimation the space should serve the best possible purpose. He stated that his feelings about the city are on the whole quite favorable, otherwise he would not be a resident. Dr. Cameron questioned whether there was any chance that Mr. Gustafson or his employer {Honeywell) might possibly be involved in any cases that might come before the Commission. Mr. Gustafson~stated that he could not forsee this possibility, and that his only vested interest was in his residence. Mr. Pakonen asked whether either of the two candidates had any feelings for or against the granting of variances. Mr~ Christensen responded that he had had experience befcre the Commission when he had applied for a vari- ance. He stated that in his opinion it might be helpful to have someone who had been on the other side of the fence on the Commission. He did not want to see a lot of things come into the City that would be unat.tractive, but he felt that the most important thing needed on the Commission was the backing of the people of New Hope. For example, if someone was asking for a variance, and no one objected to this vari- ance, he did no~ feel he would vote against it. However, if there was even one objection, the Commission should jump in and advise further thought on the issue. Mr. Ostlund commented that their attitude was that they were not there to protect the ordinances, but to protect the neighbors. Mr. Ostlund asked the candidates if either of them had time problems that would prevent them from attending two meetings a month, as well as-some special meetings, such as Design and Review. ~They both felt that this would not be a problem. - 4 - Planning Commission y ° Minutes October 16, 1974 Mr. Ost]und asked if either of the gentlemen had any particular political attitudes or were running for anything. They replied negative]y, Mr. Ostlund thanked the gentlemen for coming, and informed that they wou]'d be notified later as to their appointment. The Commission would forward their comments to the Council in their regular minutes, and the Council would probably act on the appointments on the 28th, 5. Report of the Land Use Committee, Dr. Cameron reported on the Committees' meeting with representatives of St, Louis Park, the Asst. City Manager, and the Acting Director of Special Services, on St. Louis Park's housing maintenance program. 'He then briefly reviewed the history of St. Louis Park's efforts in this area. Their current program, which is a housing maintenance program, has been in effect for twO years now. The way it works is that an individual home must be inspected before it can be sold. [t is the owner's respon- sibility to obtain a certificate from the City, at a cost of $10. An inspector goes out to the home, gives it a thorough inspection. Two categories are listed: Major, of the type of a serious hea]th hazard, or defective flues, etc. and Minor, which may be of the too few electrical out]ets variety. Major improvements must be made before a new tenant can move into the house. The responsibility is on the owner. The certi- ficate must be approved by the inspector before a new owner can take possession, They have also developed implementation standards, which ~e]ieved citizen concern about minor problems de- laying certification and also built in an appea] condition, They had found cooperation and support from realtors and lending institutions. Mr. Ostlund left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Dr. Cameron assumed the Chairmanship of the meeting, St. Louis Park had estimated the cost to the City of this plan as one additional full time inspector and a half time clerk. A second aspect of the maintenance plan was involved with apartments. This phase of the plan is fairly recent and the feeling was that a number of owners of apartments appreciated the service. There are times ~-~ when the owners are some distance from the apartment management and are not really sure of existing con- ditions. They use' fire fnspe~tors, specially trained,.for the apartment inspections. Dr. Cameron stated that the Committee would now l~ke to know what the Commission thought should be done in this area at this time. .Discussion followed. Mr. Pakonen was concerned wi.th if the Ci'ty became involved with certification, could it then be held liable if something happened to the structure or equipment shortly thereafter. Mr. Herman questioned whether or not the Planning Commission should be concerned with this type df issue at this time. He felt that to get into the potential problems was not necessary at this time. The.Com- mission should be concerned with whether or not they wanted to recommend a program like this for New Hope° Further discussion about code requirements; how far in the future might this type of code be practical for New Hope; could such an ordinance be implemented; and the degree of requirements included in a housing code. Mr. Pakonen questioned whether or not the pros and cons of such an ordinance had ever been presented to the Council. Discussion between the Commissioners about the advisability of publicity, meetings between the Commission and the Council, and obtaining the feelings of the citizens, before any more work is doneon the prospec- tive ordinance. Mr. Hermanmade a motion that the Planning Commission recognizes the need for a housing maintenance ordi- nance and recommends that the City Council direct or initiate action to create that ordinance.' Mr. Allen second. Dr. Cameron commented that he felt that this was one vehicle for getting initial reaction. He stated that he would write up what had been reported at'tonights' meeting and forward it to Mr. Larson for some inter- pretation of how the Planning Commission feels, and for review of the St. Louis Park program. Mr. Herman commented that he. felt that. all that was. necessarry was to let, the minutes record the disCuSSion of tonight's,meeting. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Allen, Oswald, Jensen,,Pakonen. Voting' against: None Absen't: Ostlund Motion passed . Planning Commission ~, Minutes October 16, 1974 6. Report of Codes ai~d S~Jndards Committee Mr. Jenson distributed copies'of the proposed changes in the fencing ordinance. He stated that he had met with the City Manager in regard to the changes in the ordinance that might further clarify the ordinance. He further stated that the main purpose~of the study was to liberalize the ordinance, but maintain the safety standards of the present ordinance. Discussion followed between the Commissioners about the definition of decorative fencing. Sa. Mr. James Bartlett asked for permission to speak in reference to the MR District U~e List. He requested information from the Commission as to whether or not this discussion was going to take place. Dr. Cameron stated that he did not have any further information on this issue. Mr. Bartlett stated that he had been called and informed that the MR Use List was on the agenda for this meeting and that he and ~4r. Miller had both planned to attend, but a family emergency had prevented Mr. Miller from appearing. Mr. Bartlett was concerned that the discussion might be held after he had left the meeti rig. Mr. Bartlett stbted that kit. Miller had called him at his home at 6:30 p.m., explained the emergency and requested that Mr. Bartlett speak on his behalf. He further stated that he and Mr. Miller had come to an agreement between them, and that he had discussed the matter with blt. Larson and that their feeling was that they had reached a reasonable agreement. Mr. Bart).~tt' further stated that his only objection to the list had been the inclusion of a mortuary or small animal clinic on the premises but if there could be an exclusion made of this and it could be put on a special use basis, he then would have no objection to the rezoning. Dr. Cameron stated that he felt that without Mr. Larson in attendance he would be very reluctant to take any action on the matter. Discussion as to the advisability of tabling the matter. Mr. Bartlett requested that the record show the reason for the delay. 'He wished the record to show that he had been in attendance and that he and Mr. Miller were now in accord with the thoughts suggested by Mr. Larson in the memo that he had sent to the Land Use Committee, with a copy to Mr. Bartlett, on September 17, 1974. Mr. Allen moved to table the MR District Use List discussion until the second meeting in November (the lgth) Mr. Jenson second. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Allen, Jenson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ostl und 6. Discussion about the fencing ordinance changes resumed. Mr. Pakonen commented that perhaps it was better procedure to continue to granl~ variances than to change the ordinance. He stated that he felt that it was more desirable to give variances to the people on Boone and Winnetka then to change the ordinance to enable everyone to put up four foot fences as they chose. Dr. Cameron questioned the advisability of home owners needing to come into the City to get permission to put up a decorative fence. Dr. Cameron noted that if it was necessary to grant too many variances, the validity of the ordinance was in question. Mr. Jenson suggested changing the wording to allow 3 foot fences, within lot lines without restrictions. Discussion as to whether this would discourage chain link fences, with Mr. Oswald suggesting that the re- striction be 30 inches. Consensus was that the proposed changes to the fencing ordinance should be sent back to committee. 7. Report of the Design and Review Commimttee Mr.. Herman pointed out the changes that had been made in the landscaping guidelines, mainly Item #4 on page 3, the guarantee factor. Discussion followed. In reference to the growing season guarantee, Mr. Herman pointed out that nurseries usually guarantee trees for the growing season. Mr. Oswald moved to recommend the adoption of the amended guidelines. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, ATlen, Oswald, Jenson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ostlund 8. Mr. Oswald requested that the Planning Commission minutes of October l, 1974 be amended to include that the reason for granting the variance in Case 74-57 - Church of the Epiphany - was the steep slope' on Boone Avenue. Planning Commission - 6 - Minutes October 16, 1974 Dr. Cameron then stated that the minutes stand approved as amended. 9. Mr. Oswald made the suggestion that the Commission take no action on the applicants for the planning Commission at this time. He felt that more applicants should be solicited through advertising. Discussion followed as to the reasons that the present commissioners applied for ~he Commission. The questioning pre- cess that had been followed at this meeting was then discussed. Mr. Herman suggested'that perhaps the commission could determine what kind of qualifications might be help- ful to the commission, in an effort to'maintain a cross section of qualified people. He added that in his opinion the more expertise they could get, with a wider base of knowledge and training, the better the commission could solve the problems that arise. Discussion followed on methods of obtaining new members, the advisability of looking for people with specific skills, and whether new members should be advertised for generally or whether only people with particular skills should be encouraged toapply. Concensus was that at the next meeting, each Commissioner bring a list of the kind of people that they think should be on the Commission, with a discussion to follow at that meeting as time allowed. At this point Dr. Cameron stated he would talk to Mr. Larson about advertising for members and that a deci- sion/discussion of new members would be considered one month from this mmeting. ll. Mr. Jensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Allen, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ostlund Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at lO'lO p.m. until Tuesday November 5, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Joyce Boeddeke~ Secretary Planning Connniss. ion Minutes November 5, 1974 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, November 5, 1974. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call was taken as follows: Present: Herman, Cameron, Allen, Ostlund, Pakonen Absent: Oswald, Jenson 3. Planning Case 74-63 - Variance to Permit Addition 'to Apartment Unit - Royal Oaks Apart- ments, 3509-11 Winnetka Avenue North. Mrs. Nancy Erickson, property manager for Sage Corporation (owner and manager of Royal Oaks Apartments) was present in regard to t~i'sfc~se. She stated that since the apartment complex presently had two party rooms, neither of which was used to a very great extent, they were proposing to turn one of the rooms which is on the third floor into an effi- ciency unit. The room now has a bathroom ahd kitchen. They were proposing to add a shower stall, a window as is required by code, a stove hood, and a built-in closet unit. They were requesting a variance because of the required 500 square feet (unit has 476 square feet). Dr. Cameron requested a brief description of the existing room and expressed surprise that it was not being used. Mrs. Erickson distributed plans of the present room, stat. ing.that it basically had furniture, and the kitchen, but no special game type facilities. She estimated that the room had been used perhaps twelve times in the last five years. The second party room in the other building, will remain as is, for the use of the tenants if they so desire. There is also an available garage for the unit. Discussion between Mrs. Erickson and Mr. Pakonen about the other party room, its rate of use, the reasons for the party rooms being placed on the third floor and the lack of games etc. Mrs. Erickson restated that she felt that part of the lack of use was caused by 'the fact 'the rooms were on the third floor and not accessible to the pool. Mr. Pakonen asked the City Manager if there was any type of regulation requiring that large apartment units have any type of recreation area. Mr. Larson stated that the PUD ordinance only requires that they show what type of amenities are to be included in order that the decision can be ma~q Whether.o~ no% it iw worthwhile to go the PUD route. In both PUD or general d~vel~pm~ there Were no specific requirements. Mr. Iierman questioned whether the dimension~ on the floor plan, 26 x 19 were accurate. Mrs. Erickson stated that she had made the measurements and felt that they were close. Mr. Ostlund stated that it was mandatory that the unit would meet fire inspection requirements. Mrs. Erickson stated that there was a sprinkler system, and an alarm system and they felt it did subscribe to the fire requirements. Discussion about the availability of the party room, was it open for tenants to use at will -- for example if they jus~ wanted ~o go and sit. Mrs. Erickson replied that the policy was that if zhe room was to be used, the tenants must reserve it, pay a fee, and if the room ~s cleaned up properly after the use, the fee is returned to the tenant, thus the management has control over who uses the rooms. The Commissioners discussed the potential increase of 'the parking area. Mr. Larson painted out that since it was not a.'PUD, they could change anything they wanted to as far as parking, as long as they observed setbacks, and minimum green area require- ments. Mr. Lkrson further noted that notices had been sent to the surrounding pro- per~y owners. Dr. Cameron moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Council, of Case 74-63, the granting of the variance on square, footage and total development parking requirements. Mr. Allen second. Mr. Herman amended the motion to be subject to conformance to the applicable codes and ordinances for resident occupancies. Dr. Cameron second. There was no one present to discuss this case. Voting on the amendment: Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Alien, Ostlund, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Oswald, Jansen Amendment passed. -~he original motion was then voted on: Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - November 5, 1974 Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Allen, Ostlqnd, Pakonen Voting ag:Alns~: None Absent: Oswald, Jenson Motion p~ssed. Mr. Ost!und informed the petitioner that this case would appear before the Council at ~he meetin~ of November 12, 1974, and that the petitioner should a~tzend. Dr. Cameron requested permission zo leave the meeting an 7:55 p.m. He had another meeting to attend. 4. Plannin~ Case 74-64 Waiver of platting, construction plan approval - International Parkway and Wesu Research Center Road. Mr. Kaye -?festerlund was presen~ uo discuss this case. Mr. Herman pointed ouz that since zhis case had been before the Design and Review Committee, the building had been changed to the West lot instead of the Eastern one. There have also been some modifications zo vhe building design. Design and Review had not had an opportunity 'to review the revised proposal. ~3r. Leste~ ~_u~d exp].~ined that zho reasons for chnmg~ng the site was thet the engineer- Jug department of the Soo Line Railroad had informed him that it would be ~mpossible '~o service a building with rail. The only way tha~ they could get r~il service, which was a requirement of the proposed user, was ~o bring zhe track up '~o the Ease side of the building. Basically what they were proposing was zo take the original building aad ~!ide it from the E~st side to the Wes~ side of the proper~y and move the tr~ck aion ~ .,itt it, Mr. La~:son cor~ented ~hat the basic figures had also changed and th~zt the office area had been c.uu down and the warehouse are increased. Mr. Westerlund sz. ated that they had provided trees as requested by the Design and Re- ~.ew Comm'L!:toe uud provided zor ~ sprinkler sys-uem as a',.~qnL'st:~d by Lbo '?i~, t,h_ ~f. of the ori,12nat, 3 , gIiCt a birch clump aad ~hftc they have ........ gdded some small el;,es= ... because of tile change ~n the ennry. 'they have also recessed the engry, which has been {;hanged '~o the side of ~he building, as suggested. Mr. Herman communique that Design gnd Review bad not been as concerned wi. th the ensry as with tko lol?g ex¥osure of flo. 6 wa. Il, u. nd t.};i~ they felt tha~i5 as ].on[,~ ,~ there *n entry there, it should be hotter defined so relieve the single plain quality oi the fron~ elevation. He ss~ted his feelin~ tha~ in this climate par'~(u~arly, some pro~ee~mve c~nopy ohouid be provided The concern oi the Design and Review Committee was prl. raRriiy for th~J appearance. Mr. Westerlund stated '~he[3 the front eiev~tion h~d been changed, se that shore was no~ as much exposure above the ~round. r_ Al. Leu ques~!oned he !ack of the ,"eq~?-,., ..... ,.~.~at~,2'l }~a ...... ~- ~c~.,.~ p;.t.uking area. }Ir~ Wester.~ ramp and hhat a lane tv[il also be mRrked ~o ~he en-~ry so thaB the ["ire DepartmenB could could ge~ into the special sprinkler room. Mr. IIerman stated that cae other problem was the necessity of granting a variance for parkiny. Re fucther requestud '{:h~t thoro be a ~zo~e indicating future park1, ng stalls with adeq ~.ace spaces Atown zo meev the 'coral n,~,o,ls of zhe ;;u:i. lding, Ois-.',;sston be- ~.,,veon Mr. Wester!uud, }Jr. Allen and ],iF. [{orman aboat the [wick ~-,~.~-~.,~3 area. ~'ad the d[f[ictllty 4hrtt ~nl~ht nrise with ~:.zud~ access Lo ~he HashocJy sta].l. ~dr. ¥,'ester].ut!d seated that he had discussed zhis with zi~e o'~ner (Da~a D.ocuments) and they did not forsee any problem in this area. Mr. !ierman felt that they were cuttin~ the pave- merit a little too thin, and there might be problems of maneuverability. In answer to a ~equ~..~ from Mr. Ostlund [,,Ir. Westeclund restated that they were dis- cussing the maneuverN~S area a't the South end ~'~' the building to ~llow trucks (semis) to get into the most Easterly dock. The e ,'nors feel that with the fuequency of use of that particular stall., they wilt have the drivers pull up into the street and back all the way kn, rather than 2tying to drive in and park. [~Ir. Allen repeated his concern for the need of a ~reater black top area. [4r. Wes- terlund seated that if shis was to be a condition, then they would blac. ktop it. He requested a recommendmtion' as to the extent of the extension necessary. Mr, Iterman asked Mr. Westerlund whether they were plannin~ on havin~ any mechanical Planning Conm~iS'sion Minutes - 3 - November 5, 1974 equipment on 'the office roof and if they were planning on screening this equipment. Mr. Westerlund replied that they were planning on having equipment on the roof and plans were to screen it. The Commissioners requested that the record show that the petitioner volunteered to screen the roof equipment. There being no one present to discuss 'the case, Mr. tIerman made a motion to recommend 'to Council, approval of Case 74-64, approval of construction plans, waiver of platting ordinance, and variance in parking subject to the following conditions: 1. That a future parking area be shown and designated as such on the document, indicating a total number of stalls sufficient to meet the parking ordinance. 2. That a handicapped stall be provided adjacent to the main entrance sidewalk. 3. That some modification of the Southerly paving area be made to facilitate semi-truck maneuvorability. Mr. Allen second. No further discussion. Voting in favor: Herman, Allen, Ostlund,Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Oswald, Jensen Motion passed. 5. , Planning Case.74-65 - Variance to sign ordinance - 7181 42nd Avenue North, Sully's Cafe.- Mr. A1 Hornet was present to discuss this case. He explained that he was requesting a variance from the sign ordinance because the sign he is proposing is for a building with with a multiple use. The cafeteria and the barber shop and the sign he intends will designate both the cafe and the barber shop. Mr. Ostlund suggested to Mr. Horner that the proposed sign would be apt to cause a great many problems to the City because 6f the congested area, and the speed of the cars on 42nd. He stated that he felt what was needed in front of the cafe was a simple sign telling people that the cafe was there, not advertising chickens or any- -thing else. He felt that the more information that was included on the sign, the more people were going to miss the general theme, grab all of the little st~ff on the sign and it would lead to a congestion problem. He further stated that he v~as really opposed to the sign. Mr. Homer questioned whether Mr. Ostlund was opposed to just the message part of the sign. Mr. Ostlund replied 'that he felt it would cause acci- dents, and i.f anything make the cafe unpopular because of the confusion being caused. Mr. Homer stated that he felt that the coffee cup and the chicken were not going to distract, and that he felt that because of the heavy traffic, the message portion and the announcing of the daily specials would draw quite a number of customers that would not otherwise stop. Mr. Ostlund restated his feelings about a simple sign, mentioning the problem of the angle of the sun during heavy traffic hours on that stretch of road. Mr. Horner agreed with the suu in the eyes problem, but stated that it ~vas his under- standing that there was to be a semaphore on that corner. The City Manager stated that it had been a recommendation of the traffic study committee to upgrade the in- tersection,including a semaphore but that the area was under the jurisdiction of the County and any changes were a long way off. Further discussion was held. Mr. Ostlund reviewed the reasons for the sign ordinance forbidding moving signs -- because of the distraction 'that they cause. Mr. Allen asked the City Manager what exactly could be contained on a pylon. He replied that for a multi-purpose building the sign was supposed to only identify the buiIding, every tenant could not be listed. Mr. Allen then stated he tended to agree with the messages on the sign being distracting because of the busy street. Mr. Herman remarked that his feelings were persoml but'ue felt the si~n was an example of poor sign planning with no discipline or balance. He felt it would help create a feeling of no sign discipliue similar to the Crystal area on Bass Lake Road. Mr. Horner asked whether the barber shop sign was acceptable and Mr. Ostlund pointed out that this was also an illegal sign. Mr. Pakonen questioned whether or not there was any real reason for the granting of a variance. Mr. Ostlund repl'ied that 'there was no hardship involved and suggested that the sen- timent of the Planning Commission would be to recommend denial to the Council. His Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - November 5, 1974 ~ opinion was that the sentiment of the Council would also be to deny. He stated that he felt it would be self defeating for Mr. Homer and su~ested that the matter be tabled, nnd that Mr. !lerner ~o back and work wi.N~ staff to find out exactly tvhat was ~ !e~4'at and what was not 1. egal and thus not lose the time and mo~ey coming before the Conu~ission with a proposal that would not be accepted. He recommended that the matter be tnb'led to allow Mr. Homer [o puz the plan together again. Mr. Hornet questioned whether o.r not Bob's Barber Shop would reuire a completely sep- arate sign and Mr. Larson answered that the barber shop could have a wall sign or a window sign. Mr. Horner commented that he felt he did have a time problem with Winter corning. Fur- ther discussion followed. Mr. Pakonen made a motion to table Case 74-65 until the 19th November. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Herman, Allen, Ostlund, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Oswald, Jensen, Cameron Motion passed. ~,Ir. Os'tL:.~:~d sug~;:ssted that Mr. Homer contact Mr. Larson before the meeting on 'the . 10th to ace if some a!tez~na'tive cou]_d be worked eat. 6. Planning Case 74-56 ~- Approval of Sign Plan - S700 East Research Center Road, Boone Partners, Petitioners. The City manager stated that the petitioners were not present and that they had been called and informed that 'they were on the Agenda for the meeting. He fur%her pointed ou~ to th ~ Commissioners theft the building landscaping was done. He further explained that she owli~rs wore planc, i. ng to pa~. a simp'!e s.isu on tho corner, statins Boor~e Ois- vribution Center, approximately 6 feet long and 3 feet high. Each individual zenanz will have a small identification sign on the building by their en-crance. The ques- zion of ~ow many will depend upon the space they take. Mr. Allen moved ¥o recommend approvn, i of Case 74-66 - Approv'zl of Sign Plan for Mul--- ~ n~p[e Occupancy :,r~.J.f~a~ a~ ~'fO0 ?;as~ [~ese~rc~.~ Cenler HoA{t. [~ir. !furman second. VoSing in favor: Herman~ Allen~ Osh!und~ Pskonen Votin~ e~lnst: None Absent: Oswald, gensen, C~meron Met ~on p~ssed. 7. REPORT OF COD'~8 AND ~:TANDRRD8 CONiP~{'[T~i'EE Mr. Larsen distributed eepies of the revised fencing re~ulatiens that he h~d received from Mr. Jensen. Discussion followed re~ardtag the proposed ordinance. Mr. Pakonen aluesEioned whether the erdinance had been pu~ together by Mr_ Larson. Mr. [,arson replied yes, he had attempted to incorperaze the items 'that had bee~l previously discussed. Hr. Herman asked if Mr. [,arson saw anything 'ch~t was ~rossly ou~ of line: or inade- quate in crc proposed ordh~ance. Mr. L~rson mentioned that there had been seme concern about specifically regul~tin~ · nssall~tien of chain link fences. Mr. Ostlund requested clarification of the Bo~rd of Adjustments. The City Man,get replied that the City Council was the Board of Adjus zmen~. Chairman Ostlund tabled the discussion en the ~ence ordl~anco un'til ~[nvembeF 18th, v. kth the request that any additional commen~s be forva~rded '~c NF. Larson before ':3 .... t meeting. 8. REPORT OF THE LAND USE COMMITTEE Mr. Larson reported that t}~e Council was interested in the idea of a housi:,~[ code, but that they had requested that it be a practical code. In resard to the rezontng of 42nd and ~18, Mr. Larson sZs'ted that he h~d discussed ~ currene plans with the v~rious parties involved. M~rv Gordon %s developins plans fop multiples, Krause is workin~ on putting together ~ p~cka~e for 'the corner Collier- C~rpenter property ~nd his property. It appears that multiples will be proposed be- cause of investment. On the Nerth side, the Crystal Free Church is looking ~t the South eleven ~cres next te 42nd. Mr. Larson further stated -that ~he Cou~lcil had re- quested a future meetin~ with the church to discuss 'their plans. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - November 5, 1974 Mr. Ostlund said that he felt that there was no better time than right now for the City to institute a rezoning for that proper'ty to remove the multiple density. Lengthy discussion between the Commissioners and the City Manager about the possible rezoning of the area, the ~ossibility of law suits involving rozoning, the degree of traffic problem there might be with multiples in the area, and whether or not it was proper for the Conmnission to identify a piece of property and decide what' could or could not be done with 'the property and then rezone the land, and the role of the Commissioners in future property development. No concensus was reached on :future action. 9. REPORT OF DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMITTEE a. Landscaping requirements. Mr. Larson informed the Commissioners that the Council'.had approved the guidelines and staff would begin to use them. b. Mr. Herman reported that the Design and Review Committee had met on 'October 22, at which time 'they reviewed the House of Hope Lutheran Church palns and the project by Benson-Orth for the office-warehouse. The Design and Review Coum~ittee had also met on November 5th, at 7:00 p.m. to unofficially acquaint themselves with the site plan and project proposal for the Ice Arena in preparation for a formal meeting with the proponents on the 14th November. Discussion between Mr. Larson and Mr. Ostlund about the architect for the proposed Ice Arena and whether or not he was a registered architect and if the plans had an official stamp on them. Mr. Larson informed Mr. Ostlund that they did have a stamp and the architect was certified. Mr. Herman wished to state that he takes vehement objection to the whole process with which this project was e×ecuted~ He furthe? e~?lained that the City had hfred its consulting engineer, who does not have an architect on staff, to design and provide construction documents for the Ice Arena. The city engineer in turn has an agreement with an architect, who is an associate 'that is a qualified archlect(Ackerman), ttis quarrel was with the fact 'that the City had hired Bonestroo as consulting engineers on sewers and streets, 'to design art"ice arc,tn,and that he did rot feel comfortable with them s~.ring a fee. ~r~ l~erman restated thkt his ~vas a personal re~ttio~ but that he did ~w)t fee! comfortable with the arrangement and that he :felt it had been poor judgm~.~at on the part of -the City. He stated '~at he was also upset that the City would make a practice of hiring con- sultant~:; :ther than following an interviewing process. In his opinion, in any pro- ject tb:~. s to be done within 'the City, a judgment s~ould be made after interviews with th~!. ;ment made according to qualifications and merit, not on convenience. Mr. Allei; ,:,:::pressed strong concern about the parking problems feeling that the use of the adjace:.t property was dangerous because of the railroad tracks etc. Mr. Larson~ commented that at the present time his only concern is that the project has been approved and ordered by a vote of the people. His feeling was that the Plan~ nine Commission now had a responsibility to make the project work, since the decision had already been made, regardless of whether people agree or disagree about -the pro- jest, the bond issue, the hockey program or whatever. Mr. Ostlund suggested that the Design and Review Committee approach the Ice Arena pro- ject as they would any normal construction project, and that the Planning Commission would treat it in the same way, and send it to the Council with what the Planning Commission would recommend for charges and see what could be worked out. Mr. Allen questioned what would happen if as a Planning Commi.ssion they found the pro- ject unworkable. Mr. Larson answered that then they should say so. Mr. Ostlund requested that the Commission set 'themselves on record as reviewing and studying the project with a positive attitude. The next meeting will be on -the 14th at 4:00 p.m. 10. A discussion about candidates for anpointment to Commission was held. Should the seats on the Conm~ission be fill6du~i~h people who have areas of expertise that would be beneficial to the Commission. This was the reason for the attempt to identity backgrounds that would add to the Commission and then look for people that would qualify. Mr. Ostlund requested that Mr. Larson put an ad or notice in the paper asking for in- terested candidates. Mr. Allen pointed out that he felt it was important to give the interested candidates the benefit of a private interview. Mr. Larson asked whether the Commission wished the previous applicants to be notified that the Commission was again looking for members. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 5, 1974 Discussion between the Commissioners about the requirements for membership, in regard to attendance at meetings etc. How many meetings could be missed and still retain membership. Chairman 0sttund noted that he would discuss the attendance problem with Mr. Jansen,. 11. Mr. Allen moved that the Planni.ng Commission minutes of October 16, 1974 be approved, Mr. Herman second. Voting in favor: Herman, Allen, Ostlund, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Oswald, Jensen, Cameron Motion carried. 12. Mr. Larson reviewed the minutes of October 28, 1974. The Commissioners then discussed the fact that the Council had apparently rescinded the recommendations of the Design and Review Committee and the Planning Commission in relation to the tIouse of Hope Lutheran Church. Mr. He~man stated that there was no justi;fication defining this in 'the minutes and that he felt it should be incumbe~t upon ~ Council, 'that if they were uot ~oing to follow the recommendations of their PLanning Con~ission they should at least, for the record, indicate their reasons, lle stated that he was doubly concerned about this case because he felt that the Design and Review Committee and Planning Commission should' put a value on their time and services. He added that he did not like to have to at- tend emergency meetings and come down on special occasions for the convenience of the applicators and get involved with detail with projects and then have the fruits of that labor just disreg~trded without explanation, tie felt that the Planning Commis~ion 'tad committed themselv.:s as repzesenta'uives of 'the City seaward an opinzon which they had ended up taking a stand on, and it was not backed up by the Council. Mr. Ostlund stated he felt it appeared it had not even been considered by the Council. Mr. Herman added that it may have been considered, and if it were then he would like to have re- corded what discussion had taken placc and why it wasn't acted upon, or why tl[e re- co~mendations wore di. scarded. ~- Further discussion about the fact that the church was ~o'~ now presently required to do anything about a landscaping plan, except hie it to future development. Mr. Herman questioned whether or not they wer nov required to submit a landscape plan and is she intent of that submzssion supposeu zo be the incorporation of same in the projecv in question. He further stated that he felt .he Council had violated the or- dinance and that if there was an official way that he could contest this, he would like to do so. lie would like zo know what the conditmons were for approving this case. or waivzn~ the requirements of the ordinance, s~.nce there was specific ~erm~.no- logy in the ordinance, for House of Hope Lu'theran Church. Chairman Ostlund stated 'that he felt that the Commission's feelings should be conveyed to the Council at its nexv meezin~ and in his opinion shay should respond to it, be- cause i.t is in effect establishing a orecedent. They have established a precedent t~at that portion of the o~dinance is nov valid, or that the judgment of the Planning Commission is not needed. There was a grea't dealt, of time spent on this case. Mr. Herman stated that he felt that one good thing that the Commissmon had done was the Desi~;n and Review Committee, and he had previously thought that they had the backing of not only the City Manager and the Planning Co~ission but also the Council. ~/. Ostlund staved that he felt 't[~at 'the at, tire conn~i~:sion agreed vi. th Mr. Herman in that it was an exex'cise .kn futility to attempt to do a good job, aud have the advice that was given treated as a joke. he felt it was a waste of uheir sime. 13. Mr. Larson introduced the question of "liquor" in regard to the zoning ordinance. IIe stated that the IDC had discussed the problem and the question is now whether ad- ditional controls should be imposed above the zonmng code on liquor establishments. The IDC feels -that there shonld be some additional restrictions to the zonmng code in regard to liquor serving establishments. Mr. Larson then asked the Commissioners if 'they wanted ~o take a look au this situation or if they wanted him to Snitially ~- draw up some additional restrictions for review. Mr. Ostlund stated that in his opinion that a special use situation involving liquor would leave the City no legal background, tie further stated that the Ci-ty's special use Plannin[~' Co,~.~mli s s ion Minutes ~ 7 - November 5, 1974 ~v':cord is weak aad ~hat the City m~y ~.vL~d up with more lethal troubles than they can handle. The liquor situatiot~ in his opinion should be handled throu~ zon~ and ordinance rather than special use. ~Ir. Larson stated that with the ordinance as it is written now, ~hey might have pro-- blems, the question is do they. want additional control, and if so what specific set of requirements should be included in the ordinance. Diseussion between Mr. Ostlund and Mr. Larson in regard to this problem. ~r. Larson pointin~ out that the two general approaches would be to create a new zonin~ district or to provide additional per[ormance standards as special use criteria within the presen~ code. Mr. L~rson stated that his personal feeling was that the restrictions should be han- dled within the ~eneral outline of the existing ordinance, rather than tryin~ to erea~e a new district since then rezoning decisions would be .necessary ~nd the ques- tion of increasing proper~y values for a few selected sites would present some real problems. (Jhai~ma.n Ost!~nd requo~ted that M~~. f_'~.~'soa d~aft a proposed regulation fo.~' ~:.ons'[dera'tioa. Mr. Allen made a motion to ban smokins~ particularly of cigars, in the Council Chambers. Discussion followed. The chair ruled that the motion died for lack of a second. There being no further business to come before the meeting, Mr. Her~nan moved to adjot~rn. Mr. Allen s~ecoud. Voti~g in favoz': Herman~ ;~].le'a, Ost'Lu.ad, f~akonen Votin~ against: None . Absent: Oswald, Jensen~ Pakonen The meet2'~g was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. until Tuesday Novembes 19, 1974 ~_t 7::~0'p.m Respectfully submitted, /Joyce Boeddeker Secretary Planning Commission Minutes November 19~ 1974 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, November 19, 1974. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call was taken as follows: Present: Herman, Oswald, Allen, Cameron, Jensen, Pakonen Absent: Ostlund 3. Planning Case 74-65 - Variance in Sign Ordinance - 7181 42nd Avenue North, Sully's Cafe. Mr. Al Horner was present in regard to this case. Mr. Horner distributed copies of his revised sign request. He stated that he had removed the message board from the sign and made the building a center in order to be able to include both the cafe and the barber shop on the sign with permanent lettering. Dr. Cameron asked Mr. Horner if any of the building signs had been changed, and he replied that they had not. He had also removed the barber pole from the pylon sign. As proposed it will be a permanent pylon sign that will be lighted. In answer to a question from Mr. Oswald, the City Manager stated that the sign did meet the set back re- quirements and the square footage requirements. Mr. Pakonen questioned whether there was any problem with the window sign and Mr. Larson replied that there was a problem with the size of the letters , but that if the sign was considered separately it could remain until t977. Mr. Allen wondered if it was necessary to include the name of Bob's Barber Shop on the pylon sign. Mr. Horner replied that the building was set back from the street and he felt it was necessary. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Horner. Mr. Pakonen questioned how many people driving down 42nd, would see the barber shop sign and decide t~ stop to have a hair cut. Mr. Horner answered that perhaps not then, but that in the future, they would remember that there was a barber shop in that area. Mr. Pakonen further stated that in his opinion, hardship had not been proved and there was no justification for granting a variance. Mr. Allen stated that he had no objection to one or the other, A and D Cafe, or Horner Building being on the sign as the main identification. Mr. Horner replied that Bob's Barber shop as a business had a right to advertise, as much as any otheP business. In reply to a statement from Dr. Cameron as to the necessity to prove hardship in this case, Mr. Horner questioned whether the possibility of going out of business was a proper hardship. Mr. Allen stated that it would be acceptable to have the sign read A and D Cafe or Horner Building. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Horner, and Mr. Larson about the reasons behind the sig~ ordinance, the attempt on the part of the City to eliminate the proliferation of signs, and the fact that in 1977 all City signs would be required to conform to the ordinance. There was no one in attendance to discuss this case.. Mr. Pakonen made a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 74-65 - Variance of Sign Ordinance at 7181 42nd Avenue North. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Herman, Oswald, Allen, Cameron, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None ~bsent: Ostlund Dr. Cameron informed Mr. Horner that he should attend the Council meeting on November 25, to answer questions regarding his request. 4. P+anninq Case 74-67 - Special Use Permit - Recreation Center - Post Haste Shopping Center Mr. Blake Spence stated that he and his partner Mr. Herb Sherratt were present to request a special use permit to establish a family recreation center in the Post Haste Shopping Center. They had an agree- ment to ease approximately 1500 square feet from the center, on the West side of the center next to Stretch and Sew. They would have an entrance only from the mall. Mr. Spence stated that they planned to have five 4 1/2 x 9 Brunswick Pool Tables, four foosball games, one air hockey game, four pin ball games, and two electronic games. Mr. Oswald asked whether he was correct in his understanding that unless there was a change in the licens- ing restrictions, only those over 18 years of age would be allowed to use the center -- Mr. Spence replied that this was so. He stated that he and his partner had already attended two Council meetings to deter- mine whether or not the Council would be willing to change the ordinance to allow the age to be lowered to 4. He added that it would not be possible for them to operate a profitable business of this type unless the age limits were lowered. Planning Commission Minutes 2- November 19, 1974 Mr. Oswald then aske~ about the proposed hours of operation. Mr. Spence replied that they were presently planning to be open from I1:00 a.m. until t:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 2:30 p.m. until I1:00 p.m. Mr. Oswald asked Mr. Spence whether he felt that the after 9:00 trade was important TO the success of the business. Mr. Spence agreed that business uid tend ~o drop off after 9:30 p.m. except on weekends. He added that they were trying to copy the very successful operation of the center in Coon Rapids, and these were the hours that this center was n omeration. He stated that he had also consulted with the business owners surrounding the center in Coon Rapids and ~-~ey did not feet that the cen~er was harming their businesses, and in some cases the center had even cut mown on the problems of loitering. He fur- ther stated that they intended to always have an adult on duty. Mr, Oswald questioned the oossiblity of properly supervising 16 games in an area of t500 square feet. Mr. Spence felt That it wou d not be a problem. Discussion about tt~e curfew of the City which was determined to be 10:00 p.m. ~or 14 years and under, 12:00 p.m, midnight for 5-17. Mr. Oswald also stated that places of amusement were required to main- tain these curfew restrictions. Mr. Spence did not feel that they would have any difficulty in enforcing the law and that their hope was to eventually know a good percentage of the young people using the center anm Tha'~ he hoped that he would be aole to operate in the same manner that the operators of the Club Billiard mid in Coon Rapids and be able to handle these types of prob ems himself, without having to involve the police. Mr. Spence, 'n response to a question from Dr. Cameron, stated that he or his partner intended to be at the site during the evening hours and that their wives would De there during the daytime hours. He also stated that effective rule compliance had aeen enforced at the site in Coon Rapids Dy the exclusion of trouble makers for certain periods of time (one to two weeks). Dr. Cameron asked whether the partners were aware that 3600 students attended school within a hal~ a mile o of the proposed center. He wondered how they intended to handle the problem of students who were supposed to be in school coming to the Center, Mr, Spence felt it was not his problem, but That he would certainly cooperate and would not cater to anyone actua.ly skipping school, but that he did not feel he could. promise that it wouldn't happen. Discussion between Dr. Cameron an~ Mr. Spence about the aossible oroblems of his operating a potential ~ nuisance that close to the schools, and the possibi ity of his upsetting schoo administrators and espe- cially parents. Dr. Cameron asked wny they could not open up am 2:30 in the afternoon. Mr. Spence s~ated taat ~he oaeraTion in Coon Rapids found it ~rofitable fo open at I:00 a.m. ann that Tney had not had any problems with scnool chi'~ren. He further stated tha~ he felt that there would be adults playing pool on days .off and That while they were catering to the 4 and up students with the foosball, they felt that the poe tables would be primarily used by adults. Dr. Cameron wished further clarification on the fact that they intehded to have full time a~ult supervi- sion in the center. Mr. Soence stated that this was so, ann ~hey intended the supervision to be .by the partners and their wives and were not planning to hire help. In ~esponse to a question from Dr. Cameron as to why they had selected Post Haste, Mr. Spence said that the main consideration was that the space was available. He added that they were considering aerhaps having a pop and candy machine but no other snacks and no cigarette machines. In answer to a qeustion from Mr. Pakonen~ir. S0ence stated that he felt that there would probably be a maximum of 50 people in the ;enter at one time. ~e further stated that he did not feet that even this many people would be a problem with a woman in supervision, because they felt that by setting strict rules, an~ enforcing them, the customers would resnect the rules and there should not be too many problems. In answer to a question from Mr. Jensen, Mr. Spence stated that they hoped to police the area immediate to their es~ablislament themse yes as much as possible in regard to loitering etc, but that they really hoped to gain the cooperal'ion of the kids. in answer to a ~'u~sTi. oa from Mr. Allen,Mr. Spence stated that in the event students came in during the daytime hours, and they were.obviously skipping school, and he knew this, he would not allow them to play the games. He restated that there would be definite rules to be abided by, and if the students did not conform, they would not be allowed to return. Dr. Cameron questioned whether they had considered the issuance of permit car~s that could be reclaimed as'a method of controlling behavior. Mr. Spence agreed that this was a good idea but he felt the problem/'-~ kids would be in the minority --- that 99% would appreciate the area and try to take care of it. He added that the proposed ease was for a term of 18 months. Discussion between Mr. Spence and the Commissioners about the car traffic that could be anticipated, what type of problems might arise, and ~he adequacy of parking space. Mr. Spence stated that from inside t~e center they could not see the parking lot, but that if they received complaints They would certainly at- tempt to den with them. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1974 In answer to a question f~om Mr. Oswald, Mr. Spence stated that he felt that only PDQ and Ole Piper remained open after 11:00 p.m. He felt that the mall would be closed when they closed. Mr.Oswald asked Mr. Higgins, from Thorpe who manage the center, if he felt it would be a problem with the mall being open for just one operation. Mr. Higgins stated that he did not feel. it would be a problem as long as there was someone in the center. In the past, the mall had been open and there had been problems because there had not been any supervi- sion and that tenants currently had their mall doors locked. He felt that a recreation center would put an adult, or more, in an area where they were needed. He felt that the mall had been a problem because of the loitering, and they would like to keep the mall open for the other businesses but it had been im- possible. He further stated that the recreation center would have little or no control over the park- ing lot, any more than Thorpe did. He felt that anyone in New Hope that had a car, could go anywhere and do anything and he didn't anticipate that this parking lot was any different from any other parking lot in New Hope. In answer to a question from Mr. Oswald, the City Manager stated that the fire department had looked at the operation and as far as he knew didn't anticipate any problems with the numbers of people that would possibly be in the space at any given time. He stated he would check again specifically on the occupancy load. Mr. Larson explained that at the present time all that was needed was a special use permit, the problem was that under the present ordinance, pin ball machines could not be operated by anyone under 18. If the proposed license ordinance is not passed by the Council they would have to operate under those re- trictions. Mr. Oswald stated that in his opinion, and experience, the center could be good or bad, depending upon the on-site manatement. He felt that often in the case of a bad operation it was a result of something other than supervision taking the attention from the ~n-site manager~ Mr. Jensen asked Mr. Higgins if he was in a position to increase the height of the existing fence at the rear of the shopping center. He felt that the fence today is not high enough, and that it is a trouble area now. He stated that this fence is consistently being jumped by people rather than going around. In response to a question from Mr. Pakonen, Mr. Higgins stated that all of the tenants were aware of ~he proposed recreation center going into Post Haste. He stated that there had been discussions similar to those of the meeting regarding supervision etc. There had been concern of course about the problems of the last six months when there has been no supervision. Mr. Larson added that all of the tenants had been called on Tuesday and notified of the proposed hearing on this issue. Dr. Cameron asked Mrs. Marcia Hinitz, Co-chairperson of the Youth Commission, if she had any comments to make on this issue. She stated that she had spoken to one of the principals at Plymouth Jr. High School about the potential problem of students skipping school to come to the center and had been told that they did not feel it would present a problem. She felt, that knowing the administration at both Armstrong and Plymouth, that they keep close tabs on the students and that she did not feel the kids would be skip- ping school in great droves to come to the center. She added that members of the Youth Commission had offered to help in any way they could to see that this place would go over and try to get ~e coopera- tion of the kids involved, and that she felt that the Detached Worker would try to do the same with the kids that she worked with. In answer to a question from Dr. Cameron regarding the 5/4 vote taken by the Youth Commission on the idea of the center, Mrs. Hinitz stated that there had been six people absent at that meeting, and that most of the objections had been to the 'location, the Commission feeling that perhaps New Hope Center or Midland Center would have been a better location. Dr. Cameron asked for comments from members of the audience on this issue. Dorothy Jordan, who operates the Pilgrim Cleaners and gift shop at the Post Haste Center stated that she had come to the meeting to find out what would be done about the center. After listening to the com- ments, she felt that perhaps it would be a good thing for the center if it .is well run. She felt that perhaps some of the other merchants would agree. She asked if there was anything that could be done if the kids did get rowdy, or if it wasn't being run well. Mr. Spence stated that the present plan was for both he and his partner, Mr. Sherratt to be on the premises in the beginning at the same time, to help establish the rules. Dr. Cameron stated that the one handle the City had, was in the renewal of their operating licenses. Mr. Oswald asked if the special use permit could be revoked in the event that there were problems in the center, and Mr. Larson stated that this type of concern should be so worded in the motion. Mr, Vern Halvorson, 3615 Jordan Avenue requested permission to speak. He stated that his back yard butts toward the mall. He stated that he was not against the idea of the center, but not there. He felt that originally the center was to be a convenience center. He mentioned the fact that the mall had had to Planning Commission Minutes November 19~ 1974 be closed because of vandalism, he invited tile Commission to come and sit in his back yard and listen to some of The conversations and abusive language heard from people sitting on the berm. He has had to repair his fence four Times. He was also speaking for his neighbor who was unaale to attend the meeting. The noise problem was especially bad with cars leaving the shopping center in the middle of the night, and he felt that magnifying The number of cars would increase the problem. He felt that you could not consider that only kiGs from New Hope would come there, but that they would come from a I over. He stated that he had spoken with The owner of the 01e Piper Inn, and that he did not ike the idea of The center at all since he felt he had a nice family business. From a no~se abatement and a vanda ism point of view, this in his opinion was not a good location. He stated that he had been brokea into twice since the center opened up and he Thought that this attractive nuisance would create greater problems, especially with the 3.2 beer so readily available. He was very ~uch against the center. Mr. Pakonen stated that as a result of listening TO the discussion, he was becoming in favor of the center, and was it possible that given the existing problem, there might be an improvement in, or eli- mination of the problems with the addition of the facility. Did they not owe it to the young people in New Hope to try this Type of thing, n his opinion, the only person that was real y gambling any- thing at this time was Mr. Spence and his partner Mr. Sherratt. Mr. Halvorson again mentioned the noise, the language, and als inability to use his backyard in the sum- mer. He stated again ~hat he was speaking only for himself and ais adjacent neighbor to the West. Mr. Christ~nsen, 3639 Jordan Circle then stated that his lot line was Ii0 feet from the oack end of the building. He was against the recreatioz cenTer because o~ the noise. He commented that when the sho~- ping center had gone into the area they had been assured that the back door would be used for del'veries only, and he would not ike to see it ooened up for an entrance or exit. He stated that The heated mall would Graw kids in the winTer. He mentioned that he had had to ~e0air the fence twice himself. The ~ence had been completely torn out, so that they could walk through rather than climb over. Mr. Sherratt, Tne other partner, in the proposed center, stated that they had asked the operators of the center in Coon Rapids to attend the meeting to answer any questions there might be about their type of operation. He asked about the closing hours of' 01e Piper? Mr. Halvorson said that he thought it was a mistake to assume that the people would leave the premises immediately wnen fhey closed. It was ~rne loitering after the establish ment was closed that would cause the problems. Mr. Christensen added that the spot lights are on the front of the garbage area, and it was at the rear that the kids smoke and drink. With beer available at PDQ, it was an ideal spot for them to drink. Mr. Higgins stated that in his opinion the situation could not be much worse than it already was. When there were two establishments dispensing beer during much longer hours than these gentlement were planning to be open.. He stated that he ~new exactly what went on in the mall and what goes on in every other shopping area of New Hope, and he felt that these fellows were pretty courageous to even tackle~ this, because they were going to get hung for every little swear word that is uttered in the parking lot. It was impossible to have a patrolman there all day long and all night long, and that these gentlemen were offering help, and he felt that they should be given a chance, kick them out if the center doesn!t work. He felt that the situation was really bad now, during the day also, and that they did not call the Police every few hours to guarantee that they had something to do, and that the center just might help the situation. Mr. Sherratt asked whether or not 01e Piper and PDQ while both were selling beer, were expected to have special policing privileges. Mr. Allen asked Mrs. Hinitz what kind of commitment she felt the Youth Commission would be willing to give to this particular establishment? And what type of help did she think they would give it? Mrs. Hinitz stated that her feeling at the meeting was that the kids on the Commission would go up there and try to get the cooperation of the o~her kids by talking with them. She felt that kids would listen to their peer group. Mr. Allen asked how effective she felt the Youth Commission and the Detached'Worker had been in New Hope. Mrs. Hinitz felt that they had been very effective. She stated that New Hope was the first community in the area to obtain a Detached Worker and that they had been watched closely by the state to see how successful it had been. Apparently they had been satisfied because the program had received Crime Commission money. In answer to a question from Dr. Cameron, she stated that she felt that the Youth Commission did have a committment to make this center work. Mrs. Cathy Lundquist, 3619 Jordan Avenue North stated that her backyard also adjoined the shopping center. She had several concerns: while she agreed that the young people really did need to have a place to go, she questioned the choice of the location with the close proximity of residences. One thing she really did question was the fact that they were only going to have one person to supervise. She felt that they were definitely going to need more than one adult at a time to supervise with fifty kids inside, and more waiting to get in, what were they going to do with the overflow and the ones running around PLann ing Commi ss ion Minutes November 19, 1974 in the parking lot, and was this space large enough to handle all of the kids that would come from outside of New Hope? If something like this were put in, she would like to have a different type of fence. First of all, you can see through the chain link, and she would like to see something that would give you more pri- vacy in the yards. Another concern was that the establishement would not be able to be seen from the road. Mr. Herman asked about the possibility of posting expected rules of conduct. He brought this up because he felt that if people know what their limits are, they are better able to conform. It also makes it much easier to enforce, if such rules and regulations are easily identifiable and known to all. After the first or second violation they are out, and they all know why. He wondered if this idea had any merit at ail, but he did feel that most of the expressed concerns had been behaviorial. Mr. Pakonen stated that he felt that the concern was not so much what was going to happen in that 1500 square feet, but that the concern of the neighbors also, seemed to be what was going to happen when they left the area and went into the parking tot,and this was something over which the people in the recrea- tion center had no control. Mr. Herman agreed that this was tru~ but stated it was a fact that when there was a certain expected level of conduct, when customers left these places, did they not feel that this would still contribute to a more controlled situation. Dr. Cameron agreed that inside behavior would carry out to the exterior. Mr. Oswald moved to recommend approval of Special Use Permit 74-67 under the following conditions: t. That the rear door not be used as a primary door,.but as aH emergency exit only. 2. That the length of the Special Use Permit shall be 6 months, or coexistent with the licensing pro- cedures as set by the Council. 3. That the Special Use Permit shall be valid only as long as there is not substantial violation of the criteria for [s§uing a special use permit. Mr. Pakonen second. Mr. Herman stated that he was concerned about the chain link fence, his feeling was that it was not quate as a separator of the commercial and residential area. He added an amendment to the motion that would require the owners of the shopping center fo provide a solid wood fence, in place of the chain link fence or otherwise modify the chain link in such a manner as to provide an opaque or solid screen between all single family residences and the parking lot of the center. Mr. Jensen second. Mr. Allen questioned the appropriateness of the amendment to the motion. Could the amendment be ~ade a condition of the Special Use Permit when they were dealing with a tenant rather than an owner. He wondered what legal right the Commission had to call the land owner or the leasing agent before the Commission and request action. He felt that this became a completely separate action. Discussion between the commissioners with Mr. Allen stating that he felt the problem was a concern of all of the tenants of Post Haste and not just the petitioner. Mr. Pakonen agreed with this, but felt that at this time, the special use provided a lever to get the fence changes. Further discussion between the commissioners and the City Manager on the legalities and appropriateness of calling the owners of the property before the Commission to discuss the existing problems. Mr. Halvorson stated that he did think a fence would help, that it would certainly please him, not in the current location, but if it could be moved up on the top of the berm. Mr. Halvorson also wondered about the possibility of putting a spped hump in the parking lot, to curtail some of the speeding. Dr. Cameron stated that he did not feel it was proper to hold up a special use for a tenant in order to get a hold on the property owner. Further discussion between the commissioners, about the effec- tiveness of increasing the size and changing the type of the fence, and the possible attitude of the landowner toward making the suggested changes. Mr. Spence commented that in his opinion, if they were going to tie him into a six month lease, with the condition that the landlord improve the fence, it did not make much sense for the landlord to go ahead and do this. He felt that from the owners standpoint they would say, let's just go ahead and find another tenant that doesn't need a special use permit. Mrs. Jordan asked if it was not illegal for the people committing the vandalism etc to do so and if so, wasn't this then a separate problem. Mrs. Jordan wondered if they were perhaps not looking at the wrong solution. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1974 The owner of the recreation center in Coon Rapids ( Club Billiard) requested permission to speak. She stated that there are residences right behind the shopping center where they are, separated by a cyclone fence, and the neighbors there are very favorable to the center. They have been told by the neighbors that there were no problems created by their moving into the center. The feeling was that they filled a need for the kids in the area by giving them a place to go and that they had not received one complaint from parents. Voting on the amendment: Voting in favor: Herman, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: Oswald, Allen, Cameron Absent: Ostlund The chair ruled that the motion failed because of a 3/3 tie. Voting on the original motion to recommend approval of Case 74-67. Voting in favor: Oswald, Allen, Cameron, Pakonen Voting against: Herman, Jensen Absent: Ostlund Motion passed. 5. Planning Case No. 74-68 - City of New Hope - Ice Arena Mr. Larson introduced Mr. Bradford, project manager, from the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates Inc. to present the site plan for the arena~ Mr. Bradford distributed plans for the commissioners t~ review. He stated that some revisions had been made on the berms around the South and East periphery pf the project along Louisiana and 49th, in order to provide additional parking, by 10 cars on the Southeast and 20 cars on the West. There were now 237 total parking spaces, (134 on the West side and 103 on the East side) They have also added a passen- ger unloading area along the front entrance of the building. They had included birch, blue spruce, black hills spruce on the berm section with some alpine current near the driveway as landscaping. There will be some beautification type trees such as lace junipers, sugar maples, and fire buses on the Southeast corner. He stated that the bituminous surfacing and plantings were not going to be included in this project, but will be done at a later time, under a separate contract. The berm on the South had been re- duced to 20 feet. Mr. Bradford introduced Mr. Bob Anderson from the architect's office and Mr. Russ Troy the mechanical engineer, and Mr. Jim Wagner the electrical engineer. The commissioners reviewed the plans. Mr. Anderson gave a brief explanation of the architectural draw- ings, for the benefit of the commissioners and the audience, and answered questions from the commissioners as to materials to ae used in the construction process., including cedar siding on the upper sections and an asphalt shingle roof. Mr. Herman stated that the Design and Review had met on November 4th, to review these plans. He stated that of particular concern to the Design and Review Committee had been the tight layout of the parking lots, and the space betwen smalls, and the fact that cars seeking parking spaces would wave to leave the area and come back in if they did not find an empty sta I. He stated that Design an~ ~egiew had ~lso raised the posibility of having one way traffic to help control the situation. Design and Review had also been concerned with the andscaning and the safety of using property on ~he other side o~ the tracks for overflow parking. They were also concerned with the [ack of parking lot lighting, and felt that this was a necessity. Mr. Jim Wagner presented a proposed electrical layout plan for the parking lot and explained it for the commissioners. Mr. Larson stated that one way or another, there would be lighting in the parking lot, even if it became necessary to use general security lights for a couple of years, such as can be obtained from NSP, in order to live within the budget. Discussion followed about the type of lighting, the lighting spillover into the residential areas, types of fixtures, an~ heights of poles to be used. In response to a question from Dr. Cameron, Mr. Wagner stated that there would be security lighting the entire length of the building on time clocks for all night security. These lights would be twelve feet above the ground, hopefully high enough to prevent vandalism. Mr. Herman pointed out that the Design and Review had been concerned also with the fact that the land- scaping might not be put in for one to two years,although a 3 - 4 foot high buffer (berm barrier) had been planned, because of the residences that were located so closely to the arena. Mr. Larson answered that if the landscaping becomes a ~riority item, it would have to be moved up from the original time schedule. · Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1974 Mr. Allen stated that he wished to go on record as feeling that in his opinion the landscaping should be in at the time of opening, to protect the neighbors from the glare etc. Discussion then followed between the commissioners and Mr. Bradford about the surfacing of the parking lot. Mr. Bradford stated that he would not recommend putting on a final surface the first year of opera- tion, because there was a definite advantage to having a winter to season the Iot~ which would perhaps prevent the parking lot from falling apart after the first winter. Discussion followed between Mr. Oswald, Mr. Herman and Mr. Bradford about the advisability of a two phase installation of the parking lot, snow plowing on an incomplete surface, and the need for using police and fire reserves for large crowds to handle the parking situation, and the need for immediate striping. Discussion followed between Mr. Larson, Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Johnson, and the commissioners about the potential size of the crowds that might be expected -- how many of the people attending would be drop off traffic and bus traffic. Mr. Johnson stated that if it became necessary, it would be possible for the district buses to run back to Cooper or even to the garage if parking was unavilable. Mr. Johnson adding that the biggest crowd they had had was about 900. Mr. Enck asked if the grading and bituminous surfaces would not be a part of this present plan. Mr. Brad- ford re-stated that the surface was not to be bid on at this time, and pointed out that there were advan- tages to having a separate contract for the surfacing, including the fact that it might be possible to obtain a better bid in the spring. Discussion between the commissioners as to what their "charge" was in regard to the proposed ice arena plans. The concensus of opinion was that it was their responsibility to make recommendations to the Council as a result of their review of the plans. Mr. Herman moved that the Commission recommend to the Council the following conditions for the development of this project. I. That landscaping of the berm areas adjacent to or exposed to the single family residents be installed at the opening of the building and that further Phase Two landscaping for internal areas can be done as a future project. Also that the landscape plan be referred back to Design and Review for further consideration. 2. A minimum of First Phase paving be installed at the opening of the building to provide adequate park- ing and maintenance. 3. That parking lot lighting be incorporated with the First Phase development and available at the open- ing of the facility (minimum lighting also could be in two phases )highlighting specific areas and completing the lighting the following year. Mr. Pakonen second. Further discussion about on-street parking, off-street parking, and the necessity of providing an area for overflow parking. Voting in favor: Herman, Oswald, Allen, Cameron, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ostlund 7. Report of the Land Use Committee Dr. Cameron announced that because of the length of time that Mr. Bartlett had already been waiting, he was rearranging the agenda slightly. Mr. Larson presented copies of the MR Use Lists to the commissioners. He then briefly presented a run down on the undeveloped land that was in New Hope that would be effected by this change. He added that they were actually proposing to rezone only two properties and remove churches, medical buildings and offices from the permitted MR Use List add make the~ subject to a special use permit, the two ~i~gle family buildings would become non comformi'ng uses. Mr. Herman made a motion to have an ordinance drafted for public hearing to remove churches, medical buildings and office as permited uses from the MR Permitted Use List, changing them instead to special uses. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Herman, Oswald, Allen, Cameron, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ostlund Chairman Cameron then opened discussion on the second item -the proposed rezoning of the two MR lots in the S~uth end of the City. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1974 Mr. Bartlett was present to discuss this case. He gave a brief history of the proposed rezoning, and added that at the present time he' and Mr. Miller, the representative for the adjoining property owned by Mr. Kornberg, were in agreement. Mr. Allen moved that the Commission initiate the rezoning of the two MR lots to LB. Mr. Jensen second. Further discussion, with Mr. Larson advising that the matter would be presented at a public hearing at the first meeting in January. Voting in favor: Herman, Oswald, Allen, Cameron, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ostlund Motion passed. 6. Report of thecCodes and Standards Committee A brief discussion was held on the proposed fence ordinanc~ revisions. Mr. Oswald moved to recommend the approval of an amendment to the City code adding a new Section 4.80 on fencing requirements. Mr. Herman second. Voting in favor: Herman, Allen, Oswald, Cameron, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ostlund Motion passed. 8. Report of the Design and Review Committee Mr. Herman reported that the committee had met on November 14, to review the plans for the ice arena. He further stated that there may De an emergency meeting at the end of the ~eek. Brief aiscussion roi- owed as to the best day for this meeting. The meeting was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on Friday, November 22. The commissioners held a brief discussion on the appointment of new members to the Commission. There had been an article in the Post advertising for members, but it had provided limited response. Dr. C~meron stated that~he felt that the Commission had an obligation to act on the app icants that nad already applied for membership. Mr. Larson suggested that because of the limited number of cases that might be expected to appear before the Commission at their second meeting in December, perhaps the commissioners might prefer to cancel that particular meeting. Discussion fo lowed. Agreement reached to cancel the meeting of December 17, 1974. 9. After discussion, Dr. Cameron moved that Mr. Oswald be appointed as a member of the Hennepin County Transit Study Committee. Mr. Jensen second; Voting in favor: Herman, Oswald, Allen, Cameron, JEnsen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ost und Motion passed. I0. Mr. Herman moved To approve the Commission Minutes of November 5, 1974. Mr. Oswald second. Discussion held on the wording of Mr. Herman's comments 'n regard to selection of the Ice Arena engineer and architect. No changes made. Voting in favor: Herman, Oswald, Allen, Cameron, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Ostlund Motion passed. 12. Mr. Oswald made a motion to ban cigar smoking from the Counci Chambers. Dr. Cameron second. Dr. Cameron ruled that the motion failed for ack of a quorem. 13. Mr. Jensen moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary Planning Commission Minutes December 3p 974 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was ~eld on December 3, 1974 at fhe City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue Northp New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call was taken: Present: Herman, Cameron, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen Absent: Oswald, Allen 3. PLANNING CASE 74-69 - Ordinance Amendment on Vehicle Maintenance in MR Districts. Mr. Larson gave a brief explanation of the reasons for amending the ordinance, including the fact that at the present time, owners could not even legally change their oil, conduct minor tune ups, or change their points and plugs on private vehicles in MR parking areas. The City Attorney had also indicated that the ordinance was probably unconstitutional since it applied only to MR. Discussion between the commissioners about further restrictions on single family residents doing car repairs in their driveways. In answer to a question from Mr. Jensen, the City Manager stated that the ordinance had been in effect since the mid 60's. Mr. Ostlund suggested that the ordinance prohibit repair being done in garages, since he felt that most garages in apartment complexes were too small for this, and this presented a fire hazard. Further dis- cussion among the commissioners as to this item, the definition of mechanical repairs as related to au- tomobiles, the length of time that a car could be in ~he process of repair in a driveway, who would in- terpret the law as far as defining major mechanical r~pairs, and whether 48 hours was a reasonable length of time to allow a car to be dismantled in a driveway. Mr. Oswald moved to recommend the approval of the proposed ordinance as drafted, amending Section 4.78 subd. C3) of the City Code relating to the maintenance of parking areas for apartments with three or more units. Mr. Herman second. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: Ostlund Absent: Allen Motion passed. 4. REPORT OF CODES AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE The City Manager pointed out that there would be four ordinances to be considered in January: one on the fence ordinance, the Council had requested that the Planning Commission look at the possibility of permitting retail sales in industrial areas (relating fo Minnesota Fabrics), the ordinance revision re- garding restaurants servi~g~, liquor, and the MR permitted uses. A short discussion followed as to whether the State Legislature had passed a wine ordinance, and how this would affect businesses in the New Hope area. The City Manager agreed to have this item checked. 5. REPORT OF THE LAND USE COMMI~EE The City Manager reported that Mr. Krause was again reactivating his plans for an office c~mple× on Louisiana Avenue and was to meet with the EDG on what type of office space was needed in this area. 6. REPORT OF DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMITTEE Mr. Herman stated that the Design and Review Committee had not met since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Larson informed the commissioners that there was the possibility of a proposed apartment c~mplex, to be ocated on Wisconsin and 56th~ being ready for their consideration this month. Discussion fol- lowed as to the best time to reschedule the'December 23rd meeting. Consensus was, that if necessary, a meeting could be scheduled for the afternoon of the 19th, or morning of the 20th. Discussion between the Chairman and the Design and Review committee about the possibility of their assisting in the planning ~f a landscape ~'lan for the aroposed ice a~ena~. The Chairman reviewed the background of the Planning' Commissions' responsibilit'ies with regard to the ice arena. He further stated that ~erhaps this had been misunderstood, inasmuch as there had not been any choice in the matter of a site, or in view of the referendum, of an ~ce arena. If was the Planning Commissions' responsibility to make the best of what was available. Mr. Ostlund further stated that in his opinion the commission should strongly recommend fencing at the ~ack of the site. Planning Commlsslon Minutes December 3, 1974 Discussion about the cost of such a fence, and the threatened law suit from the City of Crystal relatlve ~'~ to the access on Louisi~ana, and the necessity of changing the present parking plan. The City Manager stated that the Council had instructed that there be access only on 49th, and had also requested that the original berm proposals be again reviewed. A new site plan is to be develop, ed for approval at a later date. Mr. Herman stated that the Design and Review committee would like to continue to participate in the re- view of the landscaping etc, but that it would not be proper for them to get involved in the planning process. 7. The City Manager stated that Burger King on Bass Lake Road is proposing a drive-up facility. He asked for the Commission's feel.lng on this in terms of the original variance and the zoning code violation~ on automobile faciliti-es. Discussion between the commissioners about the necessity for a rezoning in this case and the volume of cars that such an operation would generate. Mr. Ostlund requested that the City Manager relate to Burger King that the concensus of opinion of the Planning Commission was that they would have to apply for a rezoning to GB if automobile services were to be provided. Mr. Ostlund asked the Land Use Committee for a progress report on the possibility of an ordinance requir- ing inspection and upgrading of homes before they could be sold. Dr. Cameron stated that he had not felt that there was a strong commitment on the part of the Council, as far as such an ordinance being good for the City of New Hope. Mr. Ostlund stated that he had been present at the Council meeting and it was his feeling that the Council had endorsed it. Mr. Larson added that it was his understanding that the Council agreed with the idea, but were concerned about how restricting it might be --- should it be concerned only with basics or more specific restrictions. Discussions between the commissioners about the necessity of writing an entire new code, or simply follow- ing the restrictions existing in the state code. Question was raised as to how the inspector would know exactly what code the ordinance was meant to follow. Chairman Ostlund requested that Dr. Cameron and his committee get together with ~lr. Larson after the first of the year to further explore the idea of such an ordinance. Chairman Ostlund then indicated that the Commission should make a recommendation as to filling the three openings. 8. Mr. Michael London, 4052 Cavell Avenue North, was present as a new candidate for the Planning Commission~ In answer to a question from Dr. Cameron, Mr. London stated that one of the things that had attracted he and his wife origiaally to the New Hope ~rea was the development, and the mix of residential and in- dustrial. He further stated that with regard to variances he felt that they must be taken on an indivi- dual basis, and that the particular site~ and the effect on the area would have to be considered. He further stated that with regard to home occupations, he would probably wish to imit the types of of occupations that would be al lowed. Mr. Ostlund asked whether or not Mr. London would be bothered by the fact that often the commission was involved in decisions which would be made on a compassionate basis rather than a strictly legal one. Mr. London stated that he felt that this would not be a problem, and that there was no problem that he could forsee as far as his being able to attend the necessary meetings of the commission. He further stated that consistent morning or afternoon committee meetings might be a problem, but as far' as even- ing meetings, there would be no problem. Mr. London stated that he was interested in becoming involved in the community, and in his opinion the Planning Commission was one of the best ways. He planned to stay in this community and raise a family here and was concerned with future development for this reason. He also noted he was being considered for the EDC but preferred the Planning Commission. There being no further questions Mr. London left the meeting. Discussion followed in regard to the candidates for commission appointments. Chairman Ostlund noted that he had heard from Scot~ Craigie who was still interested, but could not accept an appointment at this time because of a personal commitment he had just made. None of the other earl ier candidates had repl ied to the etter, so it was assumed they were no longer interested. -3- Planning Commission Ninutes December 3, 1974 Mr. Oswald moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that Mr. Wayne Christensen, 3436 Yukon Avenue North, Mr. Paul Gustafson, 5961 Gettysburg Avenue North, and Mr. Michael London, 4052 Cavell Avenue North, be appointed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Herman second. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Allen Motion passed. Mr. Ostlund requested that Mr. Larson send The resumes of these gentlemen to the Council. 9. APPROVAL OF COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 1974. Chairman Ostlund noted that he was concerned about the action on the special use for the recreation center. A general discussion followed about the criteria for a special use; the problems existing at the Shopping center, and whether or not they should have been an issue in the granting of the special use permit for the recreation center. Further discussion about the fence that is now at Post Haste. Feeling was that the present fence had been put in with the approval of the neighbors, both as to type and position. Mr. Ostlund questioned whether or not it would be possible to invite the owners/managers of the Post Haste Center to appear before the Commission to discuss the fencing problem, and whether the Commission had any right to request that the situation be changed. Mr. Larson agreed to talk to the owners/managers of the center to see if they would be willing to make some adjustments if agreeable to the neighbors. Chairman Ostlund noted the discussion on the surface for the Ice Arena parking area and questioned whether the Commission should recommend a staged development for commercial development if there were problems in installing lots late in the year. No action taken. Mr. Ostlund reported that Mr. Rod Sanders, of the Economic Development Commission, had proposed a joint meeting between the EDC and the Planning C~mmission. Consensus was to schedule the meeting for the second meeting of the month in either January or February. Mr. Oswald moved approval of the Commission minutes of November 19th. M~. Herman second. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Allen Motion passed. I0. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12th and 25th. Mr. Larson gave a brief review of the minutes of November 12th and 25th. Mr. Herman expressed his concern over the fact that frequently of late, the plans that had been presented to the Planning Commission, or the Design and Review Committee and received suggestions or direction for change, would then come before the Council without the changes having been made. Discussion about the costs involved in making required changes on plans, and the procedures used by the Building Department as far as the recommendations made by the Commission and the Counci Mr. Larson stated that when the plans have not been changed before they come back to staff, it leads to more hassles at this level. However, permits are not issued until the recommended changes have been made. Dr. Cameron made a motion that in the future a final set of plans or prints be corrected or amended be- fore they are presented to the Council. Mr. Jensen second. Voting in favor: Herman, Cameron, Oswald, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Allen Motion passed. Question was raised on Council action in regard to the House of Hope project. Chairman Ostlund noted that Mayor Erickson was going to contact Mr. Herman to explain the Council's action. Mr. Larson pointed out that there had been amendments to the ordinance for the Environmenta, Commission, and that there was to be a liaison member from the Planning Commission on that Commission after the first of the year. Dr. Cameron is to serve as the Planning Commission iaison member. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1974 Mr. Ostlund requested that the record show that the minutes of the Council meetings of November 12th, and November 25th had been reviewed. 12. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. until January 7, 1974 on motion by Cameron, and second by Herman. Motion carried by voice vote. Respectfully submitted, ~oyc~ Boeddeker Secretary