The URL can be used to link to this page

1976 PlanningPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hooe, Minnesota on January 6, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN. Present: London, Christensen, Jensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson,.Pakohen, Gundershaug Also Present: Steve Ryan of Midwest Planning and Research Absent: Herman (excused), Allen PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 76-1 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE AT 7073 NORTHWOOD CIRCLE~ CARL ANDERSON~ PETITIONER Mr. Anderson stated that he had applied for a building permit to construct an addition of 172 square fee~ on the South side of his garage. He received the permit and proceeded to build the addition. .. When he had the addition complete except for the roof, he was informea by the Ci. ty nspecTor that he needed to obtain a variance because one corner of the existing garage was 31.6 feet from the back pro- perty line. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Anderson stated that the entrance to the addi- tion was from inside the garage ant that the space was to be used primarily for storage. He stated he did not intend to operate any tvDe of business from the addition. He added tha~ the siding on the addi- tion wou d be simi ar to that which is on the existing house. Commissioner Gustafson moved to recommend that the request for variance at 7073 Northwood Circle be aranted. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Jensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Voting against: None Absent: Herman, Allen Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-2 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT GETTYSBURG AVENUE AND 44TH~ DONALD SMITH~ PETITIONER. Mr. Robert Dowden represented Mr. Smith. He noted that at the time that the special use permit for the Crystal Evangelical Church had been granted, the owners had agreed to plaT the Northern portion of the parcel into single family home sites. The plan is to sell the entire platted parcel to a developer. Mr. Dowden stated that he was, at the present time, also requesti, ng that the Ci~/ of New Hope include the cost of the streets on the assessments against the property. 'Mr. Dowden introduced Mr. Donald Ripple, the site planner, stating he was also a landscape architect. He also presented a prel'minary plat including the drainage and illustrating the 34 sites. In response to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Hr. Dowden stated that they had used a maximum of three lots to an acre. He added that Mr. Ripple had been instructed to not try to get the maximum number of lots from the property, but to rather plan a development utilizing the wooded areas and trying to ao the best job from the aesthetic view. Hr. Ripple noted that it was the topography of the land that had created the design layout. Discussion followed between Mr. Ripple, Mr..Dowden and Commission~r'Christensen regarding the road position. Mr. Dowden re-stated that they had attempted to plan good sized lots that wouid support larger homes, be more attractive and also sell better. Commissioner Christen~en noted that there did appear to be problems with Lots #1, #26, #31, inasmuch as they do not meet the 90 foot requirement for corner lots. Mr. Ripple noted that the ordinance does provide special provisions for lots located on cul-du-sacs. He added that the add,itional and included in Lots 6 and 7 could not rea ly De used in any other way and thus had been included with those lots. Discussion followed about the need for care in positioning the dwelling on Lot 6. Further discussion between the Commissioners about the number of lots in the plat and the advantages or disadvantages of the layout and whether a specific developer was presently interested in the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - ~ANUARY 6, I976 4. Mr. Ripple and Mr. Dowden both restated thei~ opinions that they felt the proposed layout would encour- age a better type of home an~ also be more saleable than a plat providing the maximum number of lots on the site in a grid layout. Discussion about the marshy area and whether this might present a problem. Mr. Dowden stated that several soil borings had been made, that Lot #5 was the worst but that they felt that at most a few lots would require deeper foundations. In response to a question from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Dowden noted that they anticipated the homes to be bui t to be in the sixty to seventy thousand dollar range. Discussion followed as to the merits of constructing a lower priced development which would also f;ll an existing need in the Cit~/ of New Hope. In response to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Dowden stated that he did not feel it would take more than two or three months to sell the property ?o a developer. Discussion about Lot ~ and the reasons for lining up the intersection, as well as the need for variances on Lot #1. Commissioner London noted that he felt the only problem with the plat was in Lots #1 and #6. Further discussion about the type of house that would need to be designed for Lot #6 and the possibili- ty of redrawing the lot lines for Lot #6. In answer to a question from the City Manager, Mr. Ripple stated that as a professional designer he saw no difficulty in designing houses to fit on the questioned lots. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Dowden about the value of the surrounding homes, whether or not New Hope would be able to support such an expensive development, the high costs of leveling the land to provide for a more conventional layout, whether it was wise To tie up such valuable land for only 34 lots and whether it would be advisab e to realign the roadway. Commissioner Christensen recommended approva of Case 76-2 - ~eeuest for Preliminary Plat.Approval - with the lOTS as snown with the understandino that Lots #1¢ #26~ a~d.#31 would De developed in accord with standara setbacks and that Lots #5 and #6 be redesigned to give Lot #6 more of an averaqe depth than it now has, and that the final plat would be (lied by the first of April. Commissioner Pakonen second. The City Manager noted that the fina plat normally has to be filed within 60 days. Consequently, the action taken would provlde some extra time to sell the property. Mr. Dowden stated that they intended to finalize the plat as soon as the property was sold. Commissioner Craigie exoressed his concern over the ow density use of the properly/ noting that New Hope ~as a changing community and needed, now and in the future, more lower cost housing. He was concerned as to whether peo01e would purchase such expensive homes in New Hope when they could move further out at comparable cost. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Jensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Pakonen, Gundershaug. Voting against: Craigie Absent: Herman, Allen Motion passed. 4a. PLANNING CASE 75-62 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AT 28TH AND XYLON AVENUE NORTH - WEST SUBURBAN BUILDERS~ PET I,TIONER Mr. John Kinsell was present from West Suburban Builders. He noted ~hat wnen they had appeared before the Counci~ on December 8, 1975 the Council had recommended that they return to the Commission when they had a definite set of plans, specifically noting the buildings to go on the ots in ques.'ion. The City Manager noted that the original request had been for a waiver of platting to divide the one lot on 28th/X¥1on into two. The Plenning Commission had recommended approval, with the necefsary variances, progidin9 that the~ suomitted specific buildin9 plans for the I o ts. The Council had sub- sequentiy advised the same procedure. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, the City Manager stated that he felt the Commission should make a statement for the record that they had reviewed the specific plans. In response to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Kinsell noted that the cost. of the houses would be close to $50,000. Chairman Cameron re-confirmed that West Suburban was not requesting any variances for the houses (th~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY 6, 1976 4a. lots need variances) and that the houses would meet all setback requirements. Mr. Kinsell noted that there might be a problem with the soil condition and if necessary the plans might need to be reversed on the lots. Discussion followed about the size of the proposed homes, setback recuirements for corner ors, the value of the surrounding homes, whether or not the proposed homes were compatible with the neighborhood, and the amount of time that had been spent by West Suburban in choosing the designs for these houses. Commissioner Cr~igie moved that the record show that the Commission was satisfied that the conditions set previously had been met. Commissioner Jensen second. Voting in favor: Jensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: London, Christensen, Gustafson, Pakonen Absent: Herman, Allen Motion fai ed for lack of a maiorit.y. Further discussion was held between the Commissioners and Mr. Kinsell as to the design of the houses, the soil conditions, whether or not the proposed plans would blend into the neighborhood and whether or not the Commission was justified in determining the type of house to 3e bui t on a particular lot when they did not always take this responsibi ity. Commissioner Pakonen moved to refer Planning Case 75-62 back to the Design and Review Committee. Commissioner London second. Discussion as to whether or not Design and Review shoul~ cai a specia meeting. Concensus was that their regularly scheduled meeting on ±he 20th January was soon enough, inasmuch as there was a Planning Commission meeting that same evening. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Pakonen, Gundershaug. Voting against: Jensen Absent: Herman, Allen Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Codes and Standards Committee had nothing to report at this time but that they wished to discuss the proposed sign ordinance revision later in the meeting. 6. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 7. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. Chairman Cameron noted that Commissioner Allen would be resigning from the Commission. Discussion fol- Iowe0 about the eligibility list for new members and whether or not any new applications had been re- ceived. Mr. Larson was instructed to get the names of the two candidates the Commission had placed on an eligibility ist for the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS 8. Election of Officers for the Commission were helo. Commissioners Cameron and Herman were nominated for the positions of ChairMan and Vi~e-~hnirmnn r~n~+iv~l,/ nna ~l~+~a ;,n~nlm,,cl¥ Discussion about the need to elect a secretary to the Commission. It was decided not to hold an election for this position. 9. Chairman Cameron requested that the record show that the Council minutes of December 22, 1975 had been reviewed. I0. Chairman Cameron requested that the record show that the Commission minutes of December 16, 1975 had been reviewed. The City Manager note'd that the Acting Secretary for that meeting had done a very commendable job and made reference to the fact that she was a senior at Cooper High School and that this had been her first experience of this type. ._ II. The City Manager noted that the Planning Study was moving along and that the pace would step up soon. The ~anagement Committee will meet on Tuesday, the 13th, at 7:00 p.m. The proposed Policy Plan is finished, the Housing Study will De out by the end of the week, and the proposed Zoning Code should be out by the end of the week also. He added that notices had been sent to approximately 35 groups or individuals in town to solicit their participation in a review of the project and that a meeting had been scheduled with the citizen group for the 5th January. The citizens wi I be presented with all of the material on the 15th, hopefully will go back To their groups to discuss and obtain feedback and attend another meeting in late February or early March. He added that the Community Development Grant must be PLANNING COM~I S$ ION lVlINUTES - 4 - JANUARY 6, 1976 II. in to the County by the 17th February and therefore, iT will need to be rushed along very quickly. He added that from the present time until the end of May there would be a great deal of work to be finished. Mr. Larson also noted that the meeting tentatively scheduled for next week on the sign ordinance had been cancelled. A meeting will probably be held during the first week of February. 12. Commissioner Craigie inquired about the status of the Saliterman request. The City Manager noted that the Saliterman Clinic is in imbo at the moment until The policy statement is developed and a determi- nation made on the community center. Discussion of the revised sign ordinance was then held by the Commissioners. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug about picket signs, the City Manager noted that technically they were illegal. After discussion the concensus seemed to be that signage at service stations appeared to be a major problem. The City Manager noted that it was definitely against the ordinance to include multiple uses in a service station. During a discussion about the signage around shopping centers, the City Manager noted that the ordi~ nance was proposed to be changed regarding the maximum allowable but with imitations on the individual signs, In response to a question regarding the responsibility for notifying sign owners that their signs were non-conforming, the City Manager stated that the Building Inspector would contro this. Discussion then centerea on maintenance of signs and whether this could realistically be enforced. The City Manager noted that as a practical matter there baa simply not been enough time available to spend on this prob em. Lengthy aiscussion was Then held on language needed to permit artistic approaches to signs. Concensus seemed to be that there was a desire to encourage people to take a more interesting, artistic, or aesthe~ tic approach to their signing. Several suggestions were made as to wording but no definite language was adopted.' Concern was expressed as to the difficulties of establishing objective criteria and whether lettering could also be controlled. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the concern of the Committee was to produce a~iJlllllJJlJlle ordinance. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager noted that New Hope Ordinance designated the City Council as the Board of Appeal. Further discussion between the Commissioners, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Larson about the problems involved in try* lng to imit the use of trademarks, Iogos,. national franchise operations etc. Mr. Ryan noted that as far as court cases were concerned, it was advisable to have objective criteria included in the.ordinance, He' further-stated that he felt that in dea lng with subjective criteria, a problem could arise as far as deciding what was aesthetic, or artistic or decorative. Commissioner London noted that the more subjective the wording in the ordinance, the greater risk you take in successfully enforcing the ordinance or winning a court case. After discussion as to the procedure to be subsequently fo lowed on the sign ordinance, the City Manager noted that after all Commission and citizen input had been gathered, the Committee should meet again to draw up a final recommendation to the Planning Commission for the ordinance that would actually go public hearing. The City Manager re-stated that a meeting was tentatively scheduled for the first week in February on the sign ordinance. Mr. London, Mr. Gustafson, and Dr. Cameron will be notified as to the exact date. 4, The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Cameron at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 20, 1976 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commissio~ of the City of New Hope was held on January 20, 1976 at the City Hal 1, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota The meeting was cai led to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Herman, Christe.qsen, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Al len, Jensen(excused) Mr. Craigie arrived at 7:32 p.m., and Mr. London at 7:35 p.m. 3. PLANNING CASE 75-62 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE WITH LOT VARIANCES AT 28TH AND XYLON AVENUES NORTH~ EARL WILSON~ PETITIONER. Mr. Joh~ Kinsetl r~presented West Suburban-Builders. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron he stated that he had attended the Design and Review Committee meeting on Tuesday afternoon. He added that in response to the Committee's concern about the price range of the proposed houses, he felt that the houses would run between 45 and 50 thousand dollars and that this was comparable to the other homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Herman stated that¥in.his opinion, the houses would be in the lower end of the scale of values of the homes in the immediate area but that they would be within an acceptable range. He further stated that the Committee had been concer, ned that the houses have enough of the amenities to make them saleable in the neighborhood. He noted that the committee had suggested that the garage size of one home be increased to 20 I/2 feet in width and that the family rooms be 12 feet in width. The committee had also suggested that there be a tree buffer along the South property line. .l.n response to a question from Mr. Kinsell, Commissioner Herman noted that as far as the type of hedge to be used for the buffer, he felt that it should be something of a tree plant variety and not a shrub. He added that there were established guidelines that Mr. Kinsell could obtain from the City Manager. Mr. Kinsell stated that they intended to construct two story houses on the lots as per the plans he had with him at the meeting. Discussion lot Ioweo about the house plans, whe?ner The soil had been tested to ascertai~ whether or not, as had been suggeste~ at a previous meeting, the one plan would need to be reversed because of the soil conditions. Mr. Kinsell said that he felt they would not know until they began to excavate whether or not the soil conditions were good. in his opinion, they would need to flip the house to be placed on the interior lot. Mr. Kinsell stated that he would have the plans redrawn and would indicate on them where the tree buf- fer would De placed before he appeared before the Council on January 26, 1976. Commiss'ioner Herman moved to recommend approval of Case 75-62 - Waiver of Plattin.q Ordinance and Vari- ance in Lot Size~ sub,iect to the fol towin.q contin.~encies: I) that a deciduous tree buffer be provided aionq the South proper, t¥ line 2) that the ,qara.qe size be increased to 20'6" in width 3) that a 3/4 bath be provided for the master bedroom on the one home 4) that the famity room have a minimum width of 12 feet in the same homet and 5) that the plans be completed in finality before submission to the Council. ;Commi ss ioner Chri stensen second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Crai§ie, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Al len, Jensen Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 5.There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 6. Chairman Herman noted that the Design and Review Committee had met on January 20, 1976 at 1:30 p.m. ON-GO I NG BUS I NESS 7. Mr. Ryan of Midwest Planning questioned whether there was a set poi icy in regard to the cost of houses as to their compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Chairman Cameron stated that there was no set poi icy, since as a general rule plans for individual residences did not come before the Commission unless they were request,i, ng a variance. PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~I. NUTES - 2 - JANUARY 20, 1976 ~ 7. In response to a further question from Mr. Ryan, Commissioner Herman and Chairman Camero~ commented on the use of tree buffers. They noted that where it seemed necessary for the protection of the exist- ing neighbors trees, berms or other types of buffers were usually recommended and that almost always when a particular area contained both single family and multiple dwellings, buffers were requested be- tween the two types of dwellings. In response to another question fro~Mr. Ryan,Chairman Cameron noted that the ordinance required one garage space. The City Manager stated that the inventory report made some important statements about land use and that this report was also the basis for some of the ~uture recommendations. He added that the policy plan will be the key instrument in future planning and development efforts. Mr. Ryan noted that he wished to re-emphasize that the policy alan was to be used as a tool and was the key element in the planning process before official decision making. Mr. Ryan further stated that policies.often must be changed after a period of time -- using as an exam- ple the need for new ~olicies as a result of the present economy and it's affect on housing needs. He added that policy plans in general are designed to be flexible but still~set direction. Discussion followed about the potential problems that New Hope may face in regard to housing and expan- sion in future years and the methods used in making the projections included in the report. In answer to a question from Commissioner Herman regarding the specific role of the Planning Commission with regard to the Planning Study, the City Manager said that at the present time the intention was to gather all of the input from the a~visor¥ commissions and citizen groups, compile these recommendations and then meet again to draw up definite recommendations which will then go before Dubtic hearings pre- paratory to adoption. He noted that there is a meeting Of the community groups scheduled for February 5, 1976. Mr. Larson added that there were probably going to be at least three specific items that the Commission was going to De asked to formally adopt: the policy plan, housing plan and physical development plan, as well as the ordinances. Discussion followed as to the best approach to effectively review the reports prepared by Midwest Research. Concensus was that thorough review of the reports should be made by the Commissioners and that they should come to the next meeting prepared to discuss and recommend or comment upon the findings° Chairman Cameron noted that if necessary a special meeting might need to be held in order to effectively cover the material and still meet the time tables. The housing inventory report was then discussed including a d~scussion of the methods by which this In- formation was gathere~ and the reasons for its inclusion. ~r. Ryan stated that the areas to be reviewed had been chosen as a resutt of consultation with staff and were considered to be potential areas of concern. ~r. Ryan commented that, in his opinion, it was essential that all of the reports be reviewed thoroughly before any attempt was made to establish new policy° 8. Discussion was then held on possible projects that could be undertaken or'included in the 1976-77 Commu- nity Development Grant Application. The City Manager stated that the application for the 1976-77 grant must be submitted to the County by February 17, 1976. The Management Committee in their discussion had recommended two areas for possible inclusion in a grant: I) to attempt to identify and solve any existing housing problems, and 2) to use some of the money to encourage the. development of the community center idea Mr. Larson said that the problem had also been presented to the citizen groups an~ they were ~o retu~a to their individual groups to discuss and gather input. Mr. Larson urged the Commissioners to look very carefully at the inventory and if they had any suggestions for the 1976-77 grant to formulate them quickly. Discussion followed about housing authorities,housing ma-~n~enance codes and how such a code could be enforced effectively, the need for lower cost housing in New Hope, the problems involved in a~tempting to combine homes in a neighborhood with a wide range of valuations and whether or not there was some means of combining economic groups in a neighborhood, without including such Iow cost housing that It would devalue existing homes. In response to a question from Commissioner Pakonen, the City Manager noted that under the Community Development Grant you could not use this money for long term housing code enforcement, but that the money might be used to establish a code enforcement program and then during the following year work to bring specific areas up to code. PLANN 1NG COMM I SS ION MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY 20, 1976 8. Chairman Cameron noted that the money was to be used for improving Iow income or deteriorating areas. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager noted that the monies were to be used to assist in the upgrading of areas, not as a means of "search and destroy" Discussion followed about the possibility of a reforesting or "greening" type of project being included under the grant. The City Manager stated that the money must be used for the improvement of specific areas in connection with an upgrading. If tree plantings were part of such an effort it might be pos- sible but not on a City-wide basis. NEW BUSINESS 9. Chairman Ca~ron requested that the record show that the Council minutes of January 12, 1976 had been reviewed. I0. The Commission minutes of January 6, 1976 were reviewed. Commissioner Gustafson requested that the minutes of that meeting be corrected as follows: Page 4, Item 12, Paragraph II, should read "prc~iuce a reasonable ordinance"° I. Chairman Cameron noted that although a formal letter of resignation had not been received from Gary Allen, he had resigned and as Chairman he was declaring a vacancy on the Commission. Chairman Cameron reminded the Commissioners that Mr. Bernie Bartos, 4881 Boone Avenue North, was the person next on the eligibility list for Commission appointment. Commissioner Christensen moved to recommend that Mr. Bartos be appointed to the Commission. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent; Allen, J~>~ ~ Motion passed. Chairman Cameron requested that the City Manager contact Mro Bartos to determine whether or not he was still interested in serving on the Commission. Discussion held about the proposed volley ball game between the Commission and the City Council. Com- missioner Craigie noted that he had contacted Mr. Vomheff, of District #281~ as to available dates for this game and would be following up on this subject. After unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANN I NG COMM I SS ION MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1976 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on February 3, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401 X¥1on Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeti, ng wes celled to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Herman, London, Jensen, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 76-3 - REQUEST FOR RE~ONING ~T 7Q~9 BASS LAKE ROAD - BURGER KING. PETITIONER Mr. Jim Hayes represented Burger King. He noted that they were requesting a rezoning because they wished to add a pass-through or drive-up window on the East side of the restaurant and a drive around the building. He presented plans for the Commissioners to review. He stated that after meeting with the Design and Review Committee two alternate plans had been prepared to alleviate the clutter of the driveway. They had also added to the landscaping and eliminated the parking on the West side of the building while retaining the drive-in front. Mr. Hayes restated that these changes were made to make possible adding the window to the structure. Chairman Cameron stated that before the Commission could consider the addition of the drive-up window, they must decide whether a rezoning was warranted. He added that the criteria for a rezoning was whether or ~t there had Been a mistake in the original zoning, or whether there had been a significant change in the character of the surrounding land to warrant a rezoning. In response to a question from Dr. Cameron, regarding Burger King's proof of need for rezoning, Mi. Hayes stated that he could not speak for changes in the neighborhood because he was not here when the origina construction was completed. However, his point was that they wished the change to allow a use which had not been anticipated they would need when the building was built. He added that he did not think that anybody, several years ago, could have predicted that even banks would have drive-up windows° He added that he felt this was a need created by our changing society. In response to a question from Dr. Cameron, the City Manager noted that at the time of the construction Burger King had Been granted variances because the size of the lot was only I/2 acre rather than 3 acres, and the building was only 3000 square feet rather than I0,000 square feet required in that zone. Mr. Larson added they had been required to fence the back of the site, provide a green area and had been denied a curb cut on to Louisiana. Commissioner Pakonen doted that since the building had been constructed in 197 , he did not believe it could be proved that there had been a significant change in the area. He further stated that he felt the only way to grant a rezoning would be to prove that an error had been made in the original zoning. Commissioner Herman noted that inasmuch as there was a requirement that there be on on-site eating outside of the building, would not the addition of this window encourage this type of eating. Commissioner %konen noted that when the matter had been discussed informally before the Commission a year ago, the concensus of the Commission had been that a rezoning was needed, but that the Commission was not in favor of the rezoning. Commissioner London stated he did not feel that Burger King had met either of the criteria for rezoning. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Hayes noted that he had not expected to have to prove the need to rezone. They felt they were adding a convenience to the customer. They had been advised to request a rezoning and he questioned whether he should perhaps have requested permission to add a drive-up window in the existing zone. He added they were not requesting an upgrading of the property but were simply requesting a minor change in the operation. Commissioner Herman questioned the Chairman's charge to separate the issue of the rezoning and the ad- dition of the window. He stated he found this difficult to do, since the property is being used for a specific use now, that they were not discussing changing the use of the property, but were talking about the same basic use of the property. He felt that because the rezoning was based on the issue of the rezoning the two could not be discussed separately. The City Manager stated that Burger King had been discussing this change for almost two years° They had been informed from the first that this would make the restaurant an automobile type use, and that this use was not permitted in the RB zone. He added that there was no alternative unless the Commission determined that the use was compatible as an accessory use in RB. Even then the code should probably be amended to permit this use in RB. He further noted that it was the staff interpretation and the Commissionts earlier feeling that a rezoning was the only solution. PLANNING COMMISSION M£NUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1976 3. Discussion followed. Chairman Cameron questioned whether or not Burger King would like some additional time to obtain legal advice relative to the request for rezoning. Commissioner Herman gave his opinion that there was no criteria for a rezoning, that Burger King was an existing entity and that the rezon'ng could not be tied in to the addition of the drive-up window. Chairman Cameron noted that the rezoning would increase the value of the property several times and that a rezoning stayed with the property even though there was a change in owner° Commissioner Christensen raised the question of whether simply putting in a drive-up window changed the operation from a restaurant to an automobile service restaurant? In response to a question from Commissioner Pakonen, the City Manager stated that a special use permit of this type was not permitted in an RB zone unless the text were changed. He added that the Commission would have to determine whether or not adding the window changed the restaurant to an automobile service use rather than just a restaurant. Discussion was then held about the percentage of people who now purchase food at Burger King and eat it inside the restaurant. Commissioner Pakonen stated he felt the automobile business could ~ncrease as much as 20% with the addition of the window. Discussion followed as to the results in the future, should the Commission determine that a drive-up window did ao? change the use to an automobile type service, and the number of drive-in facilities now in New Hope. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt the issue did not relate ooly to Burger King, but that they would be changing the criteria and expanding the RB classification.if this type of facility were poermitted. The City Manager commented that a new zoning code would be presented by the planners within a couple of weeks and raised the question of tabling the entire issue for a few months. Discussion between the Commissioners about the RB zone and it's interpretation; whether or not the Bur- ger King on Bass Lake Road was only a "§it in" type of restaurant or 'n reality was both a "sit in" and "take out" restaurant; whether adding the drive-up window would compound existing problems; the need for a rezoning just to enable the addition of the window; whether the character of the restaurant would really be changed with the addition of the window; potential zoning code revisions; what constitutes automobile service; and traffic problems on Bass Lake Road. In response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the Chairman noted that the GB zoning could not be granted for a specific use and that the zoning went with the land. Commissioner London noted that a special use could not be obtained without a change in code in the R~ zone. Mr. Craig Kraft, 5513 Louisiana, stated that he represented the neighbors on Louisiana and had a petition with 130 sigaatures before the Crystal Council stating that they did not wish Burger King to install the drive-up window° He further stated that the neighborhood was very concerned about the existing situation, drag racing in the lot, partying in the parking lot, the fact that people drive over the curb to get on to Louisiana, 'the fact that the street had been resurfaced twice in the last four years for which they had been as- sessed, the early morning truck traffic at the restaurant. He noted that Burger King had said they would be a family restaurant, nos a hangout, but all summer the police of both communities had been called be- cause of problems at Burger King. He further stated that there was parking only on one side of Louisiana but customers often usea the private driveways to turn around to enable thom to park on the legal side of the street. There was also a problem with garbage in the surrounding yards from restaurant customers. Mrs. Eileen Andreason, 5524 Louisianap stated she lived directly behind the Burger King. She noted that the fence only .]oes half of her property line and stops. It is about six feet tall. She said there is no fence on Louisiana. She added that the kids were out in the parking lot every night, the drive around would go right next to her bedroom windows. She stated that she could not see adding more traffic and more teenagers, which would result if the window were installed. Mrs. ~ane Commers, 5518 Louisiana Avenue, stated she was also concerned with these issues. However~ according to a Crystal meeting, there is going to be a divider installed on Bass Lake Road from West Broadway to Nevada which would prevent left hand turns. Mrs. Comer questioned what recourse or ~ro- tection the homeowner would have if the zoning were changed to GB. In response to a question from Commissioner Craigie, the City Manager noted that as far as he could determine, Burger King ha~ completed all of the items required by the Council at the time of construction. -3- PLANN lNG COI~Nll SS [ON ' MI. NUTES FEBRUARY 3w 1976 3. Commissioner Herman made a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 76-3 - Request for Rezonin~ at 7009 Bass Lake Road from RB to GBo Commissioner Gustafson second. Discussion followed about the possibility of a table, what the petitioner preferred, whether or not Burger King should have been prepared to address the rezoning question and alternative solutions. Commissioner London noted that they were not talking about a home owner, but a large corporation that had a large staff of planners, lawyers etc. at their disposal and, therefore, a delay was not justified. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Jensen, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Pakonen Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-4 - REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF PLATTING AT 8801 BASS LAKE ROAD~ BENSON-ORTH~ PETITIONER. Mr. Kenneth Benson represented Benson-Orth. He stated they were requesting a waiver of platting for the Post Publishing site. Commissioner Christensen clarified that the Post site would use all of the property presently owned by Knutson Company between Boone and International Parkway on Bass Lake Road. Mr. Erickson confirmed the fact that they nad obtained one curb cut on to Bass Lake Road from Hennepin County. Mr. L'Herault, from the Post Publishing Company, confirmed that the company would own the entire 4.17 acre site and some day planned to use the additional property for expansion. In response to questioning from Commissioner Pakonen, Mr. L'Herault stated that they could not pr~mise never to request another curb cut, not being able to predict what might happen in ten years or so, but at the present time they had no plans to divide the property. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend approval of Planninq Case 76-4 - Request for Waiver of Platting at 8801 Bass Lake Road. Commissioner ~erman second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Jensen, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-5 - REQUEST FOR ^ VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 28th/AQUIL~ ROBERT WALKER~ PETITIONER. Mr. Walker stated he wished to construct a home on the site and because the family had three cars and three drivers, would like to build a three car garage. The house would face to the West and the garage would face South. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Walker stated they planned to position the house facing Aquila because of setbacks. He added that he had no intention of using the garage for any- thing but personal storage and the three cars. Discussion was then held about the driveway width and length; required setbacks, whether a three car garage might affect the future saleabi ity of the house; ordinance requirements regarding driveway length; and how Mr. Walker intended to handle the problem of a three car garage with the restriction to a 20 foot driveway width. Commissioner Gustafson noted that a driveway of more than 20 feet in width required special permission from the Council. Mr. Walker stated that he would discuss this with the builder as he had not been aware of this restric- tion. Mr. John Gyldenvand, 8517 29th Avenue North, requested permission to look at the plans. Eight other neighbors in attendance also came forward to review the plans. Chairman Cameron declared a recess in the meeting. Chairman Cameron reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m. After further discussion, Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Planninq Case 76-5 as proposed and allow the wisdom of the Council to go forth in terms of the curb cut. Commissioner Craigie second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - FEBRUARY 3, 1976 5. Commissioner Herman amended the motion to require that the site plan be submitted to the Qouncll show- in~ the driveway plan and an appr__~riate turn aroun~ for movinq vehicles in and out of the gara~n. Commissioner Pakonen second. Further discussion between the Commissioners and the Walkers about the driveway~ Voting on the amendment: Herman, Londonp Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafso~ Gundershaug Voting against: Jensen Amendment passed. Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor~ Herman, London, Jensen, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Pakonen~ Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-6 - REQUEST FOR WAVIER OF PLATTING AT 4741 ZEALAND - DISTRICT #281~ PETITIONER. There was no representative of the petitioner present. The City Manager indicated he had discussed the petition with attornies for both the Schoo District and Homeward Bound. It appeared to be a routine matter. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Planninq Case 76-6 - Request for Waiver of Plattin~ at 4741 Zealand. Commissioner Jensen second. Voting in favor: Herman~ London, Jenson, Christensen~ Craigie, Cameron~ Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Voting against: None Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. Commissioner Gustafson stated that his committee had met on Monday evening. In view of the time element~ a decision was made to delay the discussion on the siga ordinance until all of the input was in. Commissioner Gustafson stated that there would be a meeting of the Codes an~ Standards Committee on Tuesday, February lOth, at 7:30 p.m. to draw up the final recommendations. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 9. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. ON-GOING BUSINESS I0. The City Manager distributed the preliminary housing policy plan. Mr. Ryan of Midwest Planning and Research state~ that they hoped to have all of the input from the other commissions and citizen groups by the 16th February, and would then compiie them and finalize the Policy Plan. The City Manager noted that the important issue now was to review the ~Policy plan and be prepared to discuss this for final adoption at the next meeting. The propose~ zoning co~e would be distributed to the Commissioners at the next meeting. He noted tha~ the following items must be considered: I. Po icy Plan - review and make recommendations 2. Next meeting formal recommendation on Policy Plan 3. Housing Pla~ - ~iscussion on the 17th February. Move forward on the zoning code as soon as possible after the code is distributed Discussion held on the advisabi~i'ty of setting up an additi~nal meeting of the Commission° ~iscussion was then held on the proposed Policy Plan~ In response to a stafement from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Ryan stated that he did not feel that it was the intention of the Policy Plan to recomm~nd~the fill- ing up of all of the remaining land immediately, but to suggest the best ways to fil the land from an economic standpoint. Discussion held about the current undeveloped land in New Hope and the contention that at present New Hope had ~oo much lan~ zoned commercial or industrial. Mr. Ryan noted that the statement was based on the currenf demand for such land and on the projected demands over the next year. A considerable amount Of time was spent in a discussion about the lack of, and nee~ for, a c~mmunity focal point or civic center concept in New Hope. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 5 - FEBRUARY 3, 1976 I0. Issues covered included whether the emphasis, if such a center is created, should be on the commercial/ industrial or cultural aspects of the City. The Commissioners questioned whether or not the City really wanted a "City Center" and if so, should it be commercial and encourage additional development in the 42nd/Winnetka general area; or cultural and expanded, in the area of the municipal building and Civic Center Park. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson regarding the advantages to New Hope of a cen- tralized business district for industrial/commercial purposes, the City Manager noted that arguments"for" "for" this conce~t included: I. it would concentrate the commercial/industria endeavors into one area 2. it would oiscourage future rezonings 3. it would provide additional identification for the community 4. to control future investments for the City such as traffic signals, utilities, etc. 5. it wou d avoid the "store on every corner" concept with the traffic problems, etc. asso- ciated with this type of development. Commissioner Pakonen suggested that such a concentration might also encourage a wider range of shopping alternatives. Further discussion was held as to commercial vs. cultura emphasis for a "City Center"; the need to re- cognize the "costs" of such a concentration of industry, i.e. diminishing the business of other shopping areas, etc.; the dangers in thinking only of today when planning and not anticipating changes in need in future years; dangers of driving away future business by confining development to one particular area; and the need to encourage and then follow through, if such a concept is established. Chairman Cameron asked for a show of hands in favor of a "City Center" or community focal point. ~lmost unanimous agreement for this concept. Mr. Ryan noted that the intention of the study was not to determine that the City should establish a "City Center" but ?o concentrate on the positive vehicles of this approach rather than the negative. The irregularity of New Hope's borders, particularly at the Eastern edge was the next issue considered. Problems covered included the differing zones at some portions of the border which cause problems to the citizens, the lack of coordination in street maintenance, the social boundaries that also resulted in problems for the citizens. Concensus was that it wou d be desirable to straighten out the boundaries but no recommendations regarding implementation were formulated. Concern was expressed over the suggestion of upgrading land uses and environmental quality and whether this also implied subsequent downgrading of other areas. Mr. Ryan stated that he did not feel that the recommendation for upgrading necessarily meant up-zoning. Discussion was then held about the apparent conflicts between the recommendations for discouraging th~. removal of any additional land from the tax rolls, and the recommendation to prohibit development on wetlands and other natural environmental features that were important functions in their natura state. Considerable time was spent in discussion of the residential goals and residential policies and in their interpretation. Concerns expressed included the fear that providing housing for Iow income groups (young marrieds, elderly, large families with Iow income) would result in Iow cost housing which might be of less than desirable quality. Mr. Rvan stated that housing quality, housing type and housing cost, were three distinct issues and. should be considered separately. He added that the addition of ow income housing did not necessarily mean single family housing; that the land availability in New Hope would more than likely indicate nigher density housing (pation homes, etc.) or multiple dwelling facilities. He further stated that in his opinion, providing housing in cost ranges affordable to Iow income or elderly people did not necessarily mean Iow quality housing. The policies proposed in Item 8 (providing housing affordable to Iow and moderate incomes) and rem 9, (using cost saving building technol'ogy and less expensive building materials) were discussed at length. It was the general feeling that Item 9, was worded too strongly. Lengthy discussion followed on the methods of avoiding Iow cost or sub standard facilities but still providing housi, ng for lower income groups. Were subsidized rents or purchase assistance available; did New Hope as a City wish to encourage that entire areas be developed into lower priced housing; and was subsidized housing a realistic goal for New Hope, were also debated. No recommendation or concensus was reached on these issues. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES ~ 6 ~ FEBRUARY 3, 1976 O. Commissioner Herman commented that St, Louis Park was presently winding up a subsidy plan whereby the City put together a total plan, maintained the control of the units, and placed different types of units in individua neighborhoods, adapting them to the area, but still allowing subsidization.to the citizen. Further discussion held about high density housing, the need for, or desire for, in New Hope, the need to establish criteria to regulate pollution, including.noise po lution; aesthetic considerations in regard to housing, and how this could be controlled; additional means available To expand the housing supply; and whether specific areas should be encouraged to provide subsidized housing. Discussion was then held regarding the need for an additional meeting to conclude the review of the Policy Plan. To accommodate this need, the Codes and Standards Committee meeting was changed to 6:30 p.m. on the lOth of ?ebruary~ the Traffic Commission will meet at 7:30 p.m. and then .join the Planning Commission at 8:00 p.m. to ,iointly review the Policy Plan. The City Manager distributed copies of the preliminary draft - housing plan and requested that the Commissioners review this document before the meeting on the 7th February. NEW BUSINESS II. The City Manager reviewed the Council Minutes of January 26th, noting that the reason for the Council not making an appointment to the Planning Commission was to insure that all interested parties had an opportunity to apply for the opening. A notice will be placed in the Post requesting applications. The Chairman requested that the record show that the minutes of January 26th, had been reviewed° 12. The Commission minutes of January 20, 1976 were approved as corrected. 14. The City Manager informed the Commission that there would ae a State Planning Commission meeting held on the 25th and 26th of February. He added that the City woula pay the $25 fee for three members who desired to attend. The City Manager distributed the Hennepin County Traffic Study. He announced that there would be a meeting on March 3, on this study, at Brooklyn Center and if any comments were to be forthcoming, they should be ready for the Planning Commission meeting on the 17th. 15. Following unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman Cameron at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on February 17, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Gustafson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Absent: London, ~Jensen (excused) Commissioner London arrived at 7:35 p.m. Others Present: Mr. Steve Ryan, Ms. Barbara Sennes, Mr. David Licht arrived at 8:17 p.m. Chairman Cameron noted that he had been contacted by Commissioner Jensen who informed him that he would be resigning from the Commission due to the pressures of his job. ON GOING BUSINESS 3. Commissioner Gustafson led the discussion and review of the revisions of the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance. Discussion was held regarding the recommended removal of bench sign control from the ordinance. Mr. Ryan commented that it had been their opinion that bench signs were as a rule, regulated in size, by the bench dimensions. He added that most often, benches were placed in the public right of way, and the New Hope sign ordinance did not attempt to regulate signs in the public right of way. The City Manager stated that technically bench signs were illegal and in his opinion, they could be handled under a license type operation. Discussion followed about bench signs --- whether the benches were a public service or a money making operation, whether it was possible to control this advertising, whether the City could regulate the placement of the bench'es, and the fact that bench placement was basically controlled by one corpora- tion and not always placed by the MTC, and the fact that if the private organization were placing the benches they would include advertising or not be installed. Further discussion about the establishment of a separate bench ordinance to control the placement, care, and maintenance of the benches, as well as the signage on the benches; whether the bench and signage on the bench could be considered separately; was the issue a bench with a sign on it or a sign that included a bench; and whether the benches were placed primarily for public convenience or where the advertising would be most visible. Concensus was that the problem of benches and bench signs should be controlled by a separate ordinance° Chairman Cameron requested that the Codes and Standards Committee prepare such an ordinance. Sections of the Sign Ordinance as they. applied to Canopy and Marquee signs (2,B-9), Projecting Build- ing Signs (2, B-17); Temporary Signs, other than portable (2,B-21); Non Painted Wall Letters (2,B-21); Banners, Pennants, Searchlights, etc. (4,A); Building and Electrical Codes Relating to Wiring (4,C) were reviewed by the Commission. No recommendations were made for changes to the proposed amendments. A considerable length of time was spent in the discussion of window signs~- both permanent and tem- porary (4,D). Concerns expressed included the danger of continuous "temporary" signs (changing of lettering, but the same type, i.e. paper, weekly specials etc.) if temporary signs were not subtracted from the total wall sign footage requirement; the definition of a temporary sign; should temporary sign require- ments include a time limit; and whether or not the temporary sign footage should apply against the allowable wall sign requirements; should signs painted directly on windows be considered as temporary signs, and the problems involved should Inspectors be required to enforce temporary sign time limits° Mr. Ryan suggested that substituting the words "non permanent" for "temporary" might help to solve some of the problems. Concensus was that the Planners should assess the input of the Commissioners and make the appropriate changes in this portion of the sign ordinance. The sections pertaining to Illuminated Signs (4,E); Projecting Signs (4,G) and Signs on Unimproved Property (4,1) were reviewed with no recommendations made. Discussion then centered on the definition of "graphic" and whether a wall graphic was the same as a wall sign or whether a graphic should be considered an art form rather than an advertising sign. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the intention of the Committee had been to prohibit advertising signs from being painted directly on to the walls of a building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - FEBRUARY 17, 1976 3. The recommendation of the Commission was to change the wording to state "painted wall slgns'~ instead of "graphic". Section 5, Al and A2, relating to signs that indicated units for sa e or rent was discussed at length. CQncern was expressed as to the means of enforcing compliance, in regard to the recommendation for a designated time limit. The concensus of the Commission was to recommend the following changes be made in the amendment: Section 5, Subdivision A in~.lude "or rent" at the end of the first senTence. Section 5, SubdiVision A2 - change line #9 to read - .. building permit issuance, or when less than six (6) units remain for rent, or sale, whichever is ~ess. The next area covered was Section 5, D-I, which dealt with size restrictions on individual dwe ling unit identification signs. Commissioner Herman indicate~ his desire to eliminate the entire section. The Cit~ Manager noted that the issue was not actually enforcing such a size restriction but whether or not the City actually desired to include such a requirement. Discussion followed. Concensus was that square footage requirements should be removed from the amendment. Section 5, Subdivisions D-lb; F-4; G-2a; G-3a were reviewed. Comn~is§ioner Gustaf~on requested that the City Manager research the question of current signage 'n industrial/commercial areas and their relationship to the proposed restriction of not more than O0 square feet per sign, Commissioner Craigie requested that the Commission review Page II, Subdivision C of the proposed sign ordinance which dealt with signs at no~ profit institutions with multiple uses. He stated that, in his opinion, it was necessary for schools located in a church, for example, to at least be allowed an entrance sign. Discussion held between the Commissioners and Mr. Rvan as to whether supplementa signs for additional uses in a non-'profit primary use should be allowed and whether they should be considered as directional or as advertising. Commissioner Gustafson expressed the Committee's opinion that it did not feel these signs should be included in the ordinance but that requests for additiona~ signs should ~e considered separately under variance regulations. Mr. Licht expresse~ his opinion that ordinances should include all requirements desired and be enforced, and that if you were consistently granting variances to ordinances you no longer had control. Commissioner Gustafson suggested that Section 3~ sign permits could be amended to include .. displayed on private property for the benefit of the pub ic including signs that identify rest rooms, schools, etc ..... He further noted that the Codes ana Standards Committee would hold one more meeting before the Public Hearing on the sign ordinance. The time of the meeting to be determined. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend that the Public Hearinq on the Revised Sign Ordi- nance be held on the 16th~ of March. Commissioner Craigie second. Voting i~ favor: Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Gustafson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Herman, London, Jensen Motion passed. 4. Mr. Ryan noted that the entire Policy Plan had been reviewed at the meeting held jointly with the Traffic Commission and the Planning Commission on February loth. He added that since that meeting there had been some revisions made to the draft. The preliminary revisions to the Draft Policy Plan were then reviewed by the Commission. In response to questions from Dr. Came ro~ about analizing the undeveloped land in ~ew Hope, Mr. Licht noted that the inventory had provided the review and that following input from the committees and commissions, the Council was the final authority in the determinatio~ of the most appropriate land uses. The City Manager noted that this policy statement amendment is a reaction to the comments that have already been received from various groups during the study process. Mr. Licht noted that the next steps in the process would be to ana yze the City on an area by area basis and then present the findings to the Land Use Committee, the Commission, the Management Com- mittee and ultimately the Metropolitan Counci . The Manager noted that the Land Use Committee would be requested to review and make recommendations to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3 - FEBRUARY 17, 1976 4. The proposed revisions of the Land Use Policies, Residential Goals, Residential Policies and Commer- cial Policies were reviewed. No recommendations made for change. ..Item #2, Office, under Commercial Policies was discussed. Commissioner Gustafson commented on the fact that current development seems to be ringing the Science Center.and that if the City hopes to encourage office type development in that area, care must be taken to ensure visibility of the area. Mr. Licht noted that once neighborhood areas are defined there will be policies developed to specific problems such as the above, for each group. Mr. Ryan distributed a list of additional discussion items On the Policy Plan that the Planners felt needed clarification. He noted that at a previous meeting there had seemed to be some question as to whether the Commission wished to encourage a City Center concept. Discussion followed as to the methods open to the City to encourage this concept and how much {he City wished to become involved and how far they wished to go. Mr. Licht noted that there were indirect measures open to them such as zoning or offering advantages (i.e. parking availability) if business located in certain areas, or more direct measures through an HRA or a Community Development fund, such as trading land etc. Chairman Cameron questioned whether or not the City of New Hope was mechanically organized to do this type of thing. Mr. Licht answered that at the present time New Hope was not geared to this approach, but could be. He said thlis was one of the reasons he felt that New Hope should have a Housing and Redevelopment Commis- sion in addition toga Planning Commission. The Planning Commission to giQe the direction but the HRA to go out and do the work. Commissioner Herman stated that he felt that what the Commission should be doing was to make an assess- ment of the City needs and desires for this approach and to determine how to facilitate them. He added that he personally was in favor of a City Center concept. Discussion followed on convenience centers and whether when the review process had been completed there would be certain designated areas where they would be allowed, thus avoiding any possibility of spot zoning. Mr. Licht noted that the approach the Planners were taking was review on a parce.I by parcel basis be- cause this was the only way to have a unified development. He added that one danger in rezoning is that you may give away controls that you really wish to retain. He stated that there will be a recom- · mended plan indicating what type of business should be located in specific areas. Discussion continued on Industrial Goals and the definition of an industrial park. The City Manager suggested that a third goal might include the need to create additional jobs in the area,.for the people already in the area. Mr. Ryan called attention to the second item on the disussion list - Indus±rial Public Relations. He noted the need for New Hope to encourage new business but to satisfy the business already located in New Hope so they would to continue to operate here. The Transportafion Policies as amended were generally acceptable. Discussion held on the recommenda- tions regarding bicycle/pedestrian right-of-ways. Mr. Ryan commented, in response to a question from Commissioner Christensen, that in geHeral the recom- mended policies were a result of the input they had received from officials, staff and citizens. The policies were not the planners and should be made acceptable to the City. Commi§sioner London moved to recommend that a Public Hearing on the Policy Plan be held on the 16th of March. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: .Jensen Motion passed. 5. The Housing Policy Plan was then reviewed. Discussion centered on current trends in housing - single family and multiple. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - FEBRUARY 17, 1976 5. In response to questions from Commissioner Herman, Mr. Ryan noted that he felt that the trend toward two family homes did aot necessarily indicate less square footage in the homes, but that the total ~'~'- a~ea was divided into different types of living areas. A considerable length of time was spent on the need to increase housing density in New Hope and the types of dwelling units this would involve, and whether the need was for multiples or for single family units of higher density such as condominiums, townhouses, or patio homes. Mr. Licht noted that New Hope Code in effect penalized any type of developr.)nt other than single family in regard to land requirements. He felt it was important to emphasize owner type housing units of a higher density. The ratio of owner:renter occupied units (3:2); the need for housing maintenance codes; the need for and the means of insuring maintenance of multiple developments; and the need for insuring exterior compatibility in establi'shed neighborhoods where individual 0arcels of land might be developed into bower or more moderately priced dwellings were also reviewed. Discussion then followed on the legalities of construction requirements imposed on individual developers by the Commission when they are in addition fo Code requirements and whether or not the City has any recourse should the developer refuse to comply. Discussion then centered on mid-density/high density housing and whether er not this necessarily meant diversity of housing; whether the need in New Ho0e was for housing for a diversity of income levels, owner owned mid-density housing, or higher density housing that would be compatible with existing nei- neighborhoods what right the Commission had to attempt to fell developers what they should build; the need for a mix in housing that was necessarily controlled only Dy cost; the recommendation of the Planners that perhaps garages did not have to be required if alternatives in screening were provided and whether or not New Hope wanted the code relating to garage requirement's changed. The philosophy of the Commission and New Hope in genera in regard to either subsidized housing, Iow income housing, or basic changes from single family development was also explored. It was the concensus of the Commission that there was a great deal of work sti I to be accomplished in review of the Housing Plan and that since the hour was late an additional meeting should be scheduled. After some debate, a meeting was scheduled for 7:30 a.m. on Saturaay~ February 21~ at Sully's Cafe. This meeting to be primarily a general discussion on the philosophy and ccncepts which will serve as ~ a b~sis for ~he development of the actual ~olicies. 6. In response to questions regarding procedures to be fo lowed in the review process of the Zoning Code The City Manager noted options open To the Commission. The entire Commission rev'ew the Code as it had done the Policy Plan . The Code be referred to a Committee -- either Codes and Standards or Land Use - and then be presented to the entire Commission with their recommendations. Chairman Cameron indicated he felt that this shou d be an assignment of the Land Use Committee. The City Manager further stated that he felt the Zoning Code should be presented a? a Public Hearing no later than the Ist meeting in May. He requested that the Land Use Committee have a report for the Commission by no later than the first meeting in April. Mr. Licht noted that they would prepare a summary of the highlights of the proposed changes to the Zoning Code for the Commissioners review. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 9. The Design and R~view Committee had met on February 17th, to consider one case. NEW BUSINESS I0. The Council minutes of February 9th, were reviewed. I1o The Commission minutes of February 3rd, were accepted as printed. 12. Commissioner Craigie noted that the volleyball game between the Commission and the Council could be ~-~ held on any Tuesday at New Hope School. Tentative schedule was set for the second Tuesday in March. 14. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Respectfully submitted~ Joyce Boeddeker~ Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 2~ 1976 Io A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March 2, 1976 at the City Hall~ 4401Xylen Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7~30 2. ROLL Call WAS TAKEN: Present: Herman, London, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Christensen., Craigi~, Pakonen (excused) Also Present: Steve Ryan Commissioner Christensen arrived at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Craigie arrived at 7:43 p.m. Comm. issioner Pakonen arrived at 8:14 p.m. A brief discussion was held as to the procedures to be followed in interviewing and appointing new members to the Commission. Chairman Cameron requested that the City Manager notify all of the appli- cants for the Commission of the interviews and ascertain if they still wished to be considered, and if so inform them that interviews will be conducted on April 20, at the City Hall. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 76-7 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MUSIC SCHOOL AT 7412 42ND AVENUE NORTH~ THOMAS PEETS~ PETITIONER. Mr. Peets stated that he was requesting permission to open a small music school in the front of the building located at 7412 42nd Avenue North. He intends to be primarily teaching guitar and banjo and would sell small accessory items to his students such as: Dicks, sheet music, etc. as well as student guitars. He added that he would have only representative instruments at the school and would not have extensive stock on hand; In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Peets stated that his maximum number of stu- dents would be between 40 and 50 and that his normal hours of operation would be between 3 p.m. and S:30 p.m. on weekdays and all day on Saturday. He plans to be the only leacher an~ would have one stu- dent at a time. The lessons wou ~ be for half-hour periods. n answer to further question by Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Peets noted that there was no room in the building for extra activities such as recitals and he would need to seek other faci ities for this type of activity. Discussion then centered on the parking facilities of the building. Mr. Jerry Harrington, 7400 42n~ Avenue North, the owner of the building was present. He pointed out that the other occupant of the building was Mr. George Olson, who operated a tool and die company, specializing in custom work. He was the only person working in the shop and while he did not keep gular hours, he occupied only one parking space. Mr. Harrington added that there were 21 striped parking spaces for the two buildings with six of them located behind the building at 7412 42nd Avenue. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Harrington noted that to his knowledge there was no flammable material store0 in the rear portion of the building and that Mr. Reedy had just com- pleted his yearly inspection and found everything to be satisfactory. Mr. Harrington stated that three of the tenants of the building at 7400 42nd Avenue were Manufacturer's Reps and were usually in the building during the morning hours and would be gone before Mr. Peets stu- dents began arriving. Mr. Harrington said that when he purchased the building, Mr. Olson was already a tenant, and that at such time that Mr. Olson no longer operates his shop, he intended to use the space for storage of his own equipment. In response to question from Commissioner Herman regarding the oossibility of group lessons being of- fered at some future time, Mr. Peets noted that he had no intention of offering such lessons since he felt that the one to one lesson was more effective. He added that he had one brother and sister who arrived together but had separate lessons and that there was the possibility of husbands and wives riving together, but that they would also have separate lessons. In answer to ouestions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Peets pointed out that the imited space would not permit him to add teachers, even if he should choose to, and he restated his desire to carry a line of student guitars, with probably no more than 7 instruments at one time for display purposes, and to sell sheet music, pitch pipes, strings, picks etc., only to his students. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MARCH 2, 1976 3. Commissioner Gustafson ma~e a motion to recommend approval of Plannin9 Case 76-7 - Request for Special Use Permit for a Music School, subject to annual review By staff. Commissioner Gundershau§ second. In response To a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Peets noted that the name of his establishment wou d be the Viking Music Company. Commissioner Herman amended the motion to stipulate that the school be limited to a one to one student operation. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor of the amendment: Herman, London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Amendment passed. Voting on the amended motion. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Motion passed° Chairman Cameron reminded Mr. Peets that he would need to appear before the Council on March 8th, to present his reqJesto 4. PLANNING CASE 76-~ - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT OVERNIGHT PARKING OF TRUCKS AT 7200 BASS LAKE ROAD~ MINNESOTA-OHIO OIL CORPORATION~ PETITIONER. Mr. Eugene Braget represented the petitioner° He stated that he ran the station as an employee of the company. They were requesting permission To park three trucks on the station property overnight. The owners of the trucks are customers of the station. Discussion between Commiss'oner Gustafson and Mr. Braget ~bout the type and size of the trucks to be parked on the property. Mr. Braget noted that the truck owners were not charged for parking on the property with the exception of the Schweigert Meat Truck, who paid a portion of the electric-~ty when he plugged into a 200 outlet during warm weather. Mr. Braget stated that it would be impossible to park the trucks on the West side of the property because this was the ocation of the three underground storage tanks for the station. In response to questions from the commissioners, Mr. Braget noted that the meat truck had been parked on the property for several years and the other two trucks for a~out a month and a half. Answering questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Braget commented that there had been no complaints over the years about noise from the meat truck when it was plugged in. ~e aaded that the house to the East of the station had a six foot screening fence on his property and that there was a 5-6 foot fence between the apartment property and the station. There have been no complaints about the trucks from neighbors. In answer to questions from Commissioner Chrisfensen, Mr. Braget stated that the 220 outlet was 6 or 7 feet off the ground with no steps, and he did not feel there was any danger of children climbing, up and getting hurt. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 76-8 - Request for Special Use Permit to permit storage of not more than three, two'ton trucks, subject to annua review by staff. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Herman Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-9 - REQUEST FOR PUD APPROVAL FOR A DUPLEX AT 4601XYLON AVENUE NORTH~ R. MIDDLEMIS~, PETITIONER. Mr. Midd emist was present and requested permission to construct a double bungalow at 4601Xylon Avenue North, with the garage/driveway arrangement facing 46 I/2 and the house fronting on Xylon. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH 2, 1976 5. Commissoner Herman stated for the record and the benefit of the other Commissioners that the Design and Review Committee had indicated the items listed below as needing correction. I. Extension of the sidewalk from the garage to the front entrance of the house. 2. Proper screening for refuse containers that were indicated to be stored outside. 3. Appropriate landscape plan illustrating the particular criteria and specifications for material being proposed 4. Indication of the drainage plan 5. South side of the property was of concern both because of drainage and the lack of indi- cated finishing of the site. Mr. Middlemist stated that he had hired Calvin Hedlund to determine elevations on the property. The Iow corner of the property is at the corner of Xylon and 46th, where it is approximately 5 feet lower ., than the height at the building. The drainage was then designed to form a swale in that direction. He added that he had hired a nursery to design a landscape plan, listing trees and shrubs etc., for the property. Mr. Middlemist distributed copies of the landscape plan for review by the Commissioners. Commissioner Herman noted that because Mr. Middlemist was requesting a PUD development, the Commission was obligated to enforce the requirements for a PUD, among them a detailed landscape plan. Discussion followed between Mr. Middlemist and the Commissioners about the landscape plan requirement. The Chairman pointed out that Mr. Middlemist had submitted only a foundation planting plan and that ~ a PUD required an entire site plan designating all landscaping to be included on the site. Mr. Middlemist stated that he had.hired a professional landscape man for this plan and these were the results. He had assumed that the professional knew what would be necessary. In relation to questions regarding the soil conditions, Mr. Middlemist referred the questions to Mr. Jerry Harrington, 7400 42nd Avenue North, from whom he had purchased the property. Mr. Harrington noted that at the time of the street construction.a great deal of fill had been added to the lot. He noted that the further South you went on Xylon ?he deeper ±he muck becomes, going down as much as 27 feet. The Northern portion of the land was good soil but the Southern portion has not only the original muck but the additional fill deposited by.the "City". The soil condition does improve toward the East. Commissioner Herman expressed the committee's concern over the South portion of the lot, the drainage, the development of the site to avoid the possibility of its becoming an "empty lot" situation. Mr. Middlemist indicated that he would either mow the property himself or make arrangements to have it mowed. In answer to questions from Commissioner Herman Mr. Middlemist stated that he was bui ding the double bungalow as rental aroperty and hoped to rent the units for from $300 to $325 a month. He added that he felt that rentals would seek their own rental evel. Responding to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Middlemist stated that the units would be approximately I000 square feet per unit. He was hoping to construct units that would not only rent, but that would stay rented. Discussion followed concerning the size of the proposed duplex, City Codes, the rentability of units of this size, cost of the units, and previous plans that had been submitted for this property. Commissioner Herman indicated his feeling that the concerns expressed by the Design and Review commit- tee had not been met in regara to the landscape plan and specific plantings, the drawing indicating screening for the refuse containers and that the entire site was to be sodded mainly because of the drainage prob ems. Mr. Middlemist expressed his desire for a reference of some type stating what was required by the City, to use in preparing such a landscape plan. Discussion about the requirement for a andscape plan, with the Commissioners commenting that this was part of the requirement for a PUD and pointing out that Mr. Middlemist was gaining some advantages by requesting a PUD i.e. the square footage requirements, etc.. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Harrington as to the required landscaping plan and the other PUD requirements not as yet submitted. Commissioner Christensen pointed out that the requirements for the PUD had been explained to Mr. Middlemist, along with the Design and Review Committee recommendations at the meeting on February 17th, and expressed hi.s opinion that the Commiss'on had gone as far as it could go at this t.ime. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH 2, [976 5. Mr. David Micka, 8300 46th Avenue North, stated that ne had attended the meeting because he was the neignDor to the eft of the property and he was concerned about the drainage since he ha~ water in his basement the previous weekend. He stated that there is approximately 20" difference between his lot and Mr. Middlemist's lot. Mr. Mid~lemist commented that his intention was to cut down the incline be~een the ~wo lots and haw[ the material away. In response to a Question from Chairman Cameron, the City Manager stated that before a building per, it were issued, the City Eng'neer would review the drainage problems of the site. Discussion followea regarding the possibi ity of a two week delay in the reauest, the reasons for the original zoning of MR, and the costs of compacting soil anG piling in building construction~ Mr. Dennis Martinson, 8140 46½ Avenue, commented that when ne purchased his home he had been under the impression that the zoning was only for a limited time. Chairman Cameron commented that zoning was permanent and not restricted to a specified number of years. The City Manager stated that the property had been ~oned in '68 or '69 to MR ~ecause that was the only way that a euplex could be accommodated. Further discussion held about the possibility of reposi~ioning the duplex to avoid the large open space to the South; the additional costs involved should the duplex be placed -in the center of the lot the amount of soil that would have to be compacted; the lack of a proper landscape plan; the construc- tion requirements for ga~ges~.v~sus houses i~ regara to compacting and piling; the reasons for such a large garage area when ~e duplexes .were re.latively sma i; the width of The driveway; whether or not the addition of patios would make ~he property more rentable, the total value of the building when co~- plete~; how a double bungalow would fit in the general single family neighborhood; and whether a dou~te unit could be built that would ~e compatible with the neighborhood value wise. Mr. Middlemis± commented that it would be necessary to position the house toward the North to obtain any type of financing since ~he property could not obtain EHA approval and his feeling that ~ne plan f~ the property with the best use of the site. Mr. Ken Jensen, 3500 Boone, stated ~e was with Edina Realty and worked with Mr. Middlemist. He he felt that the type of construction proposed, ~asically a Colonial, was designed to minimize the con- struction costs and maximize the living space. He oointed out ~hat in his business value was deter~in~t by multiplying the monthly rent by I00, in this case a total of $650. To build a more expensive ~ype home wou d necessarily increase the rent. In his opinion, New Hope was not a $400 a month rent ~ype of area. He felt that Mr. Middlemist was trying to make the best of'a bad situation on a propert]/ that would not ~e able to p'ut much more than a $65,000 ~tructure on. Mr. Martinson commented that in his opinion, as a neighbor, he would rather see nothing built on the pro- perty rather than the proposee double bungalow. Commissioner Herman made a motion to recommen~ denial of Planning Case 76-9 - Request for a PUD Approval for a duplex aT 4601Xyton Avenue North, with the comment that the Council may evaluate different cri- teria, but from a purely planning standpoint and a concern for the residential area which is predominantl~ single family and ~ne very limited aspect of the proposal, deniat seemed to be the only direction the commission could gp. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Motion to deny passed. Chairman Cameron informed Mr. Middtemist that his case would be considered by the Council on March and that he should appear with the changes recommended by the Commission. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-10 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACKS AND GARAGE SIZE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AND ~OONE~ WARREN NANSON~ PETITIONER. Mr. Hanson said he was proposing to construct a sizeable house on the lot, which would reauire'a front variance of 5 feet and a side variance of 2 I/2 feet. They were also requasting a variance in garage size of 85 feet. He stated they were requesting the front variance ~o provide a larger back yard. ~u~- chase of the lot is contingent upon the obtaining of the variances. In answer to question regarding the size of the proposed home from Commissioner Gus~fson, Mr. Hanso~ recuested his builder, Ms. 5erri Pieper, to speak. She stated that the upper level would be 28 x ~2 an~ the lower level 28 x 40 feet. It wi I be a split entry with a triple garage facing 28~h avenue. The garage had been placed facing 28th to avoid the nee~ To exit on TO Boone Avenue. The distance fro~ the curb to the garage would be 31 I/2 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MARCH 2, 1976 6. Mrs. Pieper presented a drawing similar to the proposed house for the benefit of the Commissioners in response to a request from Commissioner Pakonen. She explained the drawings to the Commissioners. Discussion followed about the setback requirements; the position of the sidewalks were they to be in- stal led at a future time; and the problem of cars being parked on public property, if the driveway were too short. In answer to a question from Commissioner Pakonen regarding the plans of Mr. Donahue for the remaining lots, Ms. Pieper noted that he was hoping to sell them to her. Discussion followed about the possibility of repositioning the house on the lot; the driveway limits and the need for approval of the Council for a wider driveway; the use planned for the oversized garage;' and whether the traffic on Boone was a problem for a large portion of the day as a consideration~ for re-p'ositioning the garage to exit on to Boone Avenue.' Mr. Hanson stated that he did not intend to conduct any business from the garage~ that he was an accoun- tant and a controller and simply wanted more room at the back of the garage to avoid the necessity .of storing lawn mowers etc. on the side of the garage. Mrs. Wm. Shephered, 2801 Aquila Avenue, stated that she felt that an oversized garage on a small lot was going to look hideous. It will not do anything for the property around, the house was too big for the lot and she didn't think the people across the street would like to look at a three car garage. In answer to a question from Commissioner Pakonen, Mrs. Shepherd said that they did have a large lot ' and that there was quite a distance between her house and the garage. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 76-10 - Request for Variances in Front and Side Setback and Garaqe Size at 28th and Boone. Commissioner Crai.qie second. Discussion resumed regarding the garage size, the width of the driveway and the fact that they were per- haps proposing to construct too large a house on a small lot. Voting in favor: London, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Herman, Christensen, Craigie Mot i on passed. Commissioner Herman noted that his objection was based on the 17 I/2 foot dimension of the driveway, and because he felt that a limited amount of adjustment in the floor plan could pick up 2 I/2 feet in the cor- ner to avoid a veh~i-cle parking on City. p~opert_y]. There is a legal implication that he did not want to si ide by. 7. PLANNING CASE 76-13 -'REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT ON FLAG AVENUE EXTENDED BETWEEN 42ND AND 45TH AVENUE NORTH~ DR. IRVING HERMAN~ PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that because the proposed plat faced on to a County Road the plans for the plat had been forwarded to Hennepin County for review. There were two major items that the County had ex- pressed concerns about. I. That there would be no access from the lots on 42nd Avenue on to 42nd Avenue. 2. That the driveway for the existing house to the West be realligned to properly join the street, when the street is built. Dr. Herman stated that they were proposing to plat the three blocks from 42nd to 45th on Flag Avenue extended. In response to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Dr. Herman noted that he would have no objec- tions to slanting Flag AVenue as it approached 42nd, so that it would line up with Ensign Avenue,South of 42nd. He stated that he had requested the plat be prepared with an eye toward avoiding the necessity of obtaining variances. All lots meet minimum standards. Mr. Gary Johnson, 9000 Rockford Roa~l, commented that he had been informed by the County that the present opening at Ensign/42nd was an error and that Mr. Herman's positioning of Flag at 42nd was correct. The City Manager noted that the streets on the South side of 42nd had been platted by the City of New Hope. The County had condemned the portion of road when they were obtaining right-of-way when 42nd was widened because it was more practical for the streets to line up with each other. Discussion about the possibility of creating a cul-du-sac. The City Manager noted that there might be some problems with a cul-du-sac because of the slope of the property. PLANN I NG COMM I SS ION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH 2~ 1976 7. Commissioner Herman noted that there might be some minimum requirements relating to grade before financing could be guaranteed. Dr. Herman noted that he was not concerned with obtaining FHA financing as he had other financing avail- aele. He added that he intended the homes to be in the $60 to $65 thousand dollar range and that he in- tended to build the houses himself, perhaps building one first off 45th this spring. The City Manager commented that the City Engineer felt drainage could be handled without problem. Further discussion about I'ning up Flag Avenue with Ensign, South of 42nd, the access on 42nd versus a cul-du-sac, the traffic problems that could arise if 42nd were opened up at Flag Avenue. The City Manager noted that opening up Flag and 42nd, would provide another access for the entire neigh£ borhood, adding, however, that in the past there had been neighborhood opposition to this road being open to 49th. There had also been some discussion of signalizing this interesection (42nd/Flag) rather than 42nd/Gettysburg. Mr. Gary Johnson noted that it had been his opinion that the City had a particular desire about the in- tersection and signalization ocation. Chairman Cameron commented that this access on 42nd might be prefereable To directing a I of the traffic on to the hil s that approached Boone Avenue° In answer to a question from Mr. Andy Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue, the City Manager stated that he did not remember a specific recommendation at the time of the construction of the 49th Avenue Ball Park, that the 42nd/Flag not De opened up, but that at the time of the traffic study there had been a great deal of neighborhood opposition to the opening up of 42nd/Flag. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend approva of Planninq Case 76-13 - Approval of Preli- minary Plat between 42ha anG 45th and Flag Avenue extended~ with the stipulation that there De no driveway access from the two lots to 42nd Avenue, and that Flag Avenue De linen up with Ensign Avenue South of 42nd. Voting in favor: ~erman, London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Motion passed. Chairman Cameron declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Commissioner Christensen noted that they would shortly begin their review of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. In response to a reeuest from Commissioner Christensen, Chairman Cameron requested that Commissioner Craigie act as a member of the Land Use Committee for this particular assignment. Commissioner Christensen noted that they would attempt to have their review of the zoning ordinance_, completed by the second meeting in April. 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. I0. Commissioner Herman reported that the Design and Review Committee had not met since February 7th, 1976. ON-GOING BUSINESS II. Commissioner Craigie distributed a summary of his persona feelings and suggestions in regard to the needs for housing for Iow/moderate income famil'es. Commissioner Craigie stated that, in his opinion, New Hope had a responsibility to fill the need for owner-type housing for Iow and moderate income families,i.e, the young people who have grown up in New Hope and are facing the need to move elsewhere as they begin their own fami les, the elderly, ~he people who come in to New Hope to work and single parent families. He also felt that it was important that the undeveloped land suitable for mid density housing be developed into owner housing rather than rental housing. Discussion followed as to what New Hope's responsibilities should be in regard to providing this type of housing; whether or not the City should go out and seek people to move to New Hope by taking the responsibility of providing such housing; whether or not the goals as suggested by Commissioner Craigie had already been covered in the housing bo icies as suggested by Midwest Planning; whether the control of such housing should be the City;s or the function of an HRA, as had been suggested be established; PLANNING COMMISSION ~ MINUTES - 7 - MARCH 2, 1976 II. the number of acres still available to be so developed (400 approximately); and was it practical for New Hope to attempt to control future resident types. Discussion then centered on the need for diversity in housingt and housing to serve all age groups, young adults, beginning families, mature families, and the elderly. Mr. Ryan noted that a large proportion of the rental units in New Hope were already geared to serve the low and moderate income groups, if by no other criteria than the rental scale. Future housing trends that could be expected were then discussed, what type of federal assistance might be anticipated in regard to subsidized housing and whether in a few years the emphasis would be away from single family housing either because of desire for, or availability. Concluding the discussion on the goals, the Commission directed that Mr. Ryan ~nclude an identification phrase in the first goal relating to diverse population profile. The concensus of the Commission was that Mr. Craigie's statement regarding undeveloped land would become Item #28 of the Housing Policies. "Parcels of undeveloped land rezoned for mid-density housing shall be developed into owner-type housing rather than rental unit developments." Discussion of the Housing Policiy was resumed where it had ceased at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Item 5 Concensus was that this item should be dropped from the Housing Policies as it was felt to be unnecessary because the area (parking requirements) was controlled by Code. Items 13~ 14~ 15 No recommended changes Item 16 Recommendation to specifically define mid-density development as: townhouses, condominiums, four-plexes etc. Item 17 and 18 No recommended changes Item 19 Following discussion as to whether there was sufficient land available in the City to warrant directing development specifically toward Iow-income housing, the concensus of the Commission was to drop this item. Item 20 Recommendation was to add "low" and moderate to the policy statement Item 21 Following discussion regarding the specified employment centers and the goal of integrating Iow and moderate income housing within general areas rather than isolating them or causing them to be easily identifiable, concensus was to drop this item. Item 22 In relation to coordinating housing with transit availability, the Commission recommended substituting "mass transit" for "Metropolitan Transit Commission" in this policy. Item 23 No recommended change Item 24 In regard to the establishment of an HRA, the recommendation was to substitute "establish" for "utilized" to implement Iow and moderate housing goals .... Items 25, 26~ and 27 No recommended changes. The City Manager aoted that the 16th of March, Planning Commission meeting would include public hearings on the Sign Ordinance, the Policy Plan, and the Housing Policy Plan. OLD BUSINESS 13. The scheduling of interviews for interested applicants to the Commission was covered earlier in the meeting. NEW BUSINESS 14. The Council minutes of February 23, 1976 were accepted. 15. The Commission minutes of February 17, 1976 were accepted. 17. The volleyball game between the Counci and the Planning Commission was confirmed for Tuesday, March 9th, at Noble School. 18. The meeting, was adjourned by Chairman Cameron at 11:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddek'er ~ PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON M&I~UTES] . MARCH 16. 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March t6, 1976 at the City Hal 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson Gundershaug Mr. Steve Ry.an and Mr David Licht from Midwest Planning and Research Absent: .Craigie, Pak~ne~.(~xcuse~)~ . Mr. Craigie arrived at 7:40 p.m, 3. Chairman Cameron declared the Public Hearing on the Sign Ordinance open and invited Mr. Ryan of Midwest Planning to make his presentation. Mr. Ryan noted that the suggested revisions to the sign ordinance were the result of meetings and con- versations that had been. held with citizens, civic groups, commissioners and staff and had been designed to answer the concerns expressed by these groups. Mr. Ryan then reviewed the final draft of the recommended revisions. These included: a) Definitions - the elimination of "bench signs"; clarification of "canopy" signs to mean any message or identification affixed to a canopy or marquee; adding a 12f projection requirement in the desig- nation of "projecting signs"; designation of temporary signs as other than a portable sign; and wall signs as individual "non-painted" letters. b) S_]~ign Permits - 3,A~d - the addition of time limits (5 oays before, I day after) relative to small convenience signs (2 square feet) including directional or identification signs. c) General Standards - 4~A - allowing banners, pennants, etc. for seven consecutive days for a grand opening, within 30 days of the change of ownership; 4~D - limiting window sign size to 25% of the area up to a maximum of 200 square feet; changing permitted letter size of interior window signs to up to 9 inches (top to bottom); 4~E-requiring the shading of il uminated signs were necessary, and prohibiting illumination between I1:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m~ when the use is not open for business; 4~ - prohibiting "projecting signs"; 4~1 - prohibition of signs on unimoroved property except for signs advertising the premises for sale or lease; 4~L - oainted wall signs not to be permitted. d) Special Standards - 5,A,I - square footage of allowable signs reduced to six square feet; 5.A,] - re-' duction of a Iowable sign size to 40 square ~eet, located at least 130 feet from any pre-existing home, requiring removal within one year of building permit issuance or when less than 6 units remain for sale or re~t; ~- limiting dwelling unit identification signs to one name plate, not to ex- ceed two square feet. 5,D.Ib - allowing two signs on corner lots (each facing a separate street) for identification, not to exceed 25 s~uare ~eet; 5,E.la - limiting front wall signs to up to t5~ of the area in LB. RB and GB districts anO 10% in LI and Gl districts - signs no~ to exceed 125 square feet; 5,E~2b - establishing a maximum of 125 square feet in total sign area and allowing signage on the frontage of front or rear wall in accordance with E I; regulation of ground sign size according to street classifi'catio~ as stated in the Traffic Plan; 5~F~4 - limiting the area of price signs to not more than 16 square feet on either side~ affixed to a ground sign or light fixture when accessory to service stations; 5.Go2.a - limiting the allowable sign area for multiple occupancy structures to not more than 15 % of the combined wa I surfaces in LB, GB and 10% in LI and Gl districts; 5,G,3a - allowing shopping centers with more than 4 uses to erect one ground sign per street frontage not to exceed 200 square feet or 30 feet in height, setback a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines. d) Non-conforminq siqns and siqn structures - the establishment of an amortization schedule for signs installed between ~ne adoption of the sign ordinance (4.67) in 1972 and the revisions to be adopted in 1976, based on the cost of the sign in relation to the amount of time to be allowed for compliance. Chairman Cameron asked for comments from the assemble~ citizens regarding the proposed ordinance revisions. Mr. Mike Kline, of the Nordquist Sign Company~ expressed his concern about the ordinance limiting the size of letters, and expressed his opinion that it was a hardship for the small business to be so restricted. He questioned the need for such a restriction. Mr. Ryan replied ~hat New Hope has had a restriction on letter size for window signs for some time and that~the proposed revision increases the size limit of the letters. Mr. Ktine commented that in his opinion, you limited the value of the sign when you limited ~he size of the letters, hurting the small businessman by not permitting him to identify and attempting to zone the small business man out. Mr. Ryan noted that window signs have been a problem in New Hope and the revision was' an a~tempt to direct the signs to the pedestrian and not the person driving down the street. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the primary goals in the establishment of the ordinance had been to protect aQd promote the general health, safety and we tars and to establish order within the City PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2 - MARCH 16, 1976 and to encourage the opportunity for effective orderly communications by reducing confusion add hazards ~-~ resulting from the unncessary or indiscriminate use of communications facilities. Commissioner Gustafson further stated his feeling that the Commission had been attempting to direct the signage at the pedestrian or the person already in the shopping area, rather than to attempt to attract those people driving past. They had also felt that the communication should not stretch out into the public thorofare. Mr. Kline state he was also concerned about the restrictions as they applied to free standing signs on secondary streets. Mr. Dave Sorenson, 9315 59~h Avenue North, stated that he felt that in view of the State Energy Code, that recommended ess window area to conserve energy, the City was encouraging more window openings by restricting window s~gns to a percentage. He questioned why window signs could not be treated as wall signs, adding his opinion that if new buildings were forced to restrict window area,in effect the older buildings would gain an advantage. Mr. Jim Shaw, of Naegele Outdoor Advertising, asked whether the square footages in regard to heigh~ re- quirement included in Section 5,#,3,c - were maximums and if soj what the reasoning was for these maximums. He felt that since the ordinance only noted the sizes, these wou d mean they were the only size that could be used. In response to Mr. Shaw's question as to the reason for billboards being limited to unimproved GB areas~ Mr. Ryan noted that this particular portion of the sign ordinance was the same as the original ordinance. Lengthy discussion then followed as to whether the ordinance was "prohibiting~ or Nrestricting" toward the outdoor advertising business. In answer to ~ qaestion from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Shaw noted that he presently had four signs in New Hope that would be eliminated in February 1977, under the present ordinance. Mr. Jack Lawrance, President of Sign Crafters, wondered why the Commission was proposing such drastic changes in the sign ordinance when i~ was not very old. He added that this was disturbing the business people in New Ho~e. He was very concerned about the restrictions on the size of letters on signs, stat- ~-~ lng that small business men could ~o~ afford to go ou~ and change their sig~; so ~fte~. He a~ded that in his opinion, if the present s gn-ora nance were po ~ced properly, the prob ems would take care of them- selves. He felt that maintenance shou d be enforced and ~f a s~gn were not maintained propertly ~t should then be removed. Discussion then fol owed about Iogos, collector streets, how many businesses were actually Iocatea on col- lector streets in New Hope, which strrets were designated as collector, minor arterial, and major arterial, ground signs and window signs. Commissioner Gustafson pointed out that when the ordinance had been revised, the size of allowable letters on window signs had been raised from 5 inches to 9 inches. Mr. Loren Schiebe0 DJ'rector of the Northwest Chamber of Commerce, commented that very often small 'busi- nessmen received advertising materials from the national suppliers, and that because, of cooe restrictions they were not permitted to use these materials. He also commented that he fel*:the amortization schedule was unfair ($5,000 sign - 7 years to conform) since most signs were guaranteed by the supplier' for up to 15 years. He added that if a sign was maintained properly he did not understand why it shoul:d have to be removed. Further discussion between the Commissioners, Mr. Schiebe, and Mr. Shaw about amortization, alternative me~hods of controlling signs, enforcing the maintenance of signs~ time and temperature signs, ahether or not there haC ever been a law suit against the City as a result of accidents caused by excess signage~ the changing trends in sign construction and whether ordinances would again be changed to conform to trends existihg ~n a few years. Mr. Shaw expressed his. opinion that if the City had a very strict maintenance code regarding.signs, they would in effect bring about the desired changes. Mr. Bill Olson, who operates a small shopping center on 62nd/Winnetka wondered whether the new ordinance revisions would allow him to have individual signs on his building. Mr. Ryan noted that the ordinance does allow for individual signs in businesses with less than 4 uses. Mr. Olson commented that, in his opinion, the suggestion to enforce proper maintenance of present and future structures was the best suggestion, and they should forget all other restrictions. Mr. Don Murphy, 7725 ~5½ Avenue North~ noted that a traffic study completed in May 1974 by Barton-Asch- man had noted a serious conflict between advertising signs and traffic sign visibility in the Westbound approach at 42nd/W~nnetka. .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH 16, 1976 3. Further discussion between Mr. Lawrance, Mr. Murphy, Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Schiebe about the ordinance requirements in relation to the small businessman, the fact that Winnetka had be~n widened after the installation of some of the signs, the need to enforce sign maintenance, the differ- ences 'n the ettering requirements for wall signs and window signs. Commissioner Gustafson restated that the only signs that would come under the amortization schedule were the signs tha~ had been become non-conf~rming under the new ordinance. In response to a comment from Mr. Schiebe about suggestions from citizen groups that had not been incor- porated in the revisions, Commissioner Gustafson noted that all comments and recommendations had been con- sidered at more ~n one meeting and comments from all groups had been considered before the revisions had been drafted. Chairman Cameron noted that not only had the Committee been studying the problem with the various groups~ but that the City had also hired a consultant to work with them on these revisions and that if certain suggestions had not been incorporated into the ordinance, the Public Hearing was the opportunity for the citizens to include their feelings on the pub ic record to be sent forward to the Council~ Chairman Cameron closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. Commissioner London noted that he felt that the square footage requirement included in the section on Ground Signs should be designated as the maximum square footage, stating that any size up to the maximum could be used, for purposes of clarification. Chairman Cameron requested that the language regarding ground signs for smaller centers be clarified to state that individual signs for each office er space, not each individual were allowed. The City Manager noted that the sign ordinance had been given to the City Attorney and that. the principle of amortization had been-upheld in various state courts. The question was generally on the basis of was the proposed schedule reasonable, not the actual principle of amortization. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr Ryan about the amortization schedule and the possibility of granting compensation for sig~s ~hat were forced to be replaced. Mr. Ryan aoted that the ma]or difference in the ordinance was that now a consideration of the value of the sign was established. C~issioner Craigie suggested that the amortization schedule be revised signs of up to $3~000 36 m~nths · o comply. The Commissioners then considered the energy code which was adopted as of January 31, 1976 by the State and whether or not these requirements should be considered ~as a justification-for allowing credit to a person who had built under these conditions and now may suffer in terms of allowable window signs under the New Hope code, thus avoiding the penalization for c~nserving energy. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether the concern over window signs was energy conservation or the amount of signage. After discussion about the restrictions and how they varied in regard to letter h~i§ht on different street designations, Mr. Ryan noted that at a corner where a minor arterial and a colleQtor met, the regulations for the higher class street would apply. ^ considerable amount of time was spent on the discussion of loges, whether they were letters or designs, whether they should come under the same restrictions as signs. Concensus was that the definition of should be clarified in the ordinance - perhaps in a separate section. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table the fina d sc~.s~ and ~roval of the Siqn Ordinan~ two weeks. .Chairman Cameron declared the motion out of order unti the entire si~n ordinance had been review~ in reference to other recgm~ended change~. Discussion then held about time and temperature signs and Whether they were actually a public service or merely advertising; how you could control who would be allowed to install such signs. Commissioner London noted that this type of sign had been covered extensively in Committee and Co~i~ssioner Gustafson noted that ~e felt this type of sign was covered under the flashing sign regulations. Both felt - the ordinance should not be amended to permit this type of sign. Commissioner Gustafson moved to table the discussion of the Siqn Ordinance unti the meetinq of April 6th~ at which time a final copy of the Si~n Ordinance would ~e ~resented. Commissioner Herman second. ~ PEANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4 - MARCH 16. 1976 3. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, GustafSon, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Motion to table passed. Chairman Cameron declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:58 p.m. 4. Chairman Cameron declared the Public Hearing on the proposed Policy Plan for the City of New Hope to be open, Chairman Cameron noted that inasmuch as the Policy Plan as proposed had been printed and available at the City Hall for review for some time, the Commission would not review the plan item by item. He then re- quested that Mr. Licht, of Midwest Planning, review the proposed revisions (as attached to the official minutes). Ms. Marge Eichenberger, 9241 59th Avenue North, stated she represented the homeowners of her area and made the following recommendations: a. That there was no advantage to the City of New Hope to encourage providing homes for Iow and moderate income families and that this section should be eliminated ( #22 - Residential Policies¥. The City should 'pursue a program which will insure existing residential properties from adverse effects from the future development and rehabilitation of surrounding areas (#26) b. Eliminate all commercial policies except the following: Discourage any further convenience centers, but encourage the development of additional neighborhood centers only when there is clear and demon- strabie evidence indicating a need for the uses proposed and then require the approval and discussion with the residents of the neighborhood. Change #4 under Transportation Policies to read "provide for more efficient and safer access to proper- ty from major streets. Add #14 to provide adequate and equal snow removal and street maintenance for all 'areas of the City, insure that equ-ipment is well maintained and replaced when necessary d. Add an Item #12 under Community Facilities to insure that each park takes a yearly inventory of main- tenance needed and that yearly improvements are dons to insure the quality of each neighborhood parks standards and facilities. e. Add an Item #10 under Governmental Buildings to establish a marketing pla~ for New Hope to help sell industrial/commercial sites and promote the communi, ty as a desirable location for single families to reside. Mr~ Licht recommended that this recommendation might be better included on page 21, if it were. to be considered as an addition. Discussion between Mr. Murphy, Ms. Eichenberger, Mr. Licht and Mr Sorenson about Ms.' Eichenberger~s recom- mendation for greater access from major streets and the methods of providing access to general areas i.e. shopping centers, without the necessity of access to individual shops from a major street. Mr. Licht noted t'hat the intent of the policy was not to imit access to an area but to limit access from major streets to eliminate the safety factor. Mr. Murphy noted that it was important to provide access from major streets, but not necessarily direct access. Mr. Frank Pichelman, C6airman of the New Hope Economic Development Co~miss~on, noted +hat hi~ commi'ttee had been contacted by a private party relative to the building o~ a grocery store and shopping cen;er on 36th/#18, and had been requested TO assist them in ascertaining if the neighborhood would accept such a development. To accommodate this business, the property would require rezoning. His question was whether.or not., with the recommendations of the Policy Plan to establish a City Center and the encour- agement of this development of this type ~ the City Center, there might be any chance of obtaining'suc~ a rezoning. The City Manager commented that under the Commercial Goals of the Policy Plan, the emphasis would be toward a commercial center in the City Center, with the discouragement of commercial development.~in .other areas. Mr. Licht noted that such development would be reauired to ~emonstrate a'aeed and that it would not'be in direct competition with the City Center. He added that the recommendation of the Policy Plan was that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 ~ MARCH 16, 1976 4. the City should support a focal point of intense commercial activity. Further discussion held with the concensus seeming to be that the City Center plan did not preclude other commercial development but that other development would have to be proven to have an economic need and that the area could support the additional development. The same basic rezoning criteria would apply and now. Discussion held about maintenance and landscaping code requirements in relation to apartments and com- mercia establishments. Ms. EichenDerger expressed the opinion that she felt it would be wiser to concentrate on health and safety requirements 'n regard to apartment maintenance rather than landscaping..improvements, Mr. Licht noted that there had been an increasing emphasis on the attractive landscaping of business and commercial establishments in New Hope in the last few years. Chairman Cameron closed the Public Hearing at 10:57 p.m. Commissioner Herman noted his concern about the reference to the City a~ only a commercia centers and wondered whether or not it should not be simply know as "City Center" in the attempt to also encourage cultural and other development in the area. Mr. Licht commented that while the emphasis was on commercial activity, the policy included the encour- agement of complimentary activities in the City Center. He added that such a definition could be included in the Policy Plan by the time of the Management Committee meeting to be held on Thursday evening. Commissioner Herman moved that the Commission recommend the approval of the Policy Plan with the proposed amendment relative to the City Center to be drafted on Thursday evening, Commissioner Craigie second. Discussion then followed about the policy as suggested by Ms. Eichenberger with regard to equalization of park maintenance and capital improvements. CommisSioner Gustafson noted that he personally would like to see this become part of the City policy but clarified as equalization of capital improvements within classifications. Chairman Cameron requested that Commissioner Gustafson put this requestWin the form of a motion_ Commissioner Herman noted that in view of the fact ~hat staff, City Manager and Park Commission were in charge of managing City government based on available ~unds, he was not sure that the Commission s~ould isolate one area of concern. Discussion followed between the Commissioners. Concensus seemed t~ be agreement with Commissioner Gustaf~ son's proposal. Commissioner Gustafson moved to amend the motion to ~ovide that. the Policy Plan include that it be the intention of the City to equalize the capital improvement actions within the recreation system classifi- · cations between individual areas. Commissioner Christensen second. Discussion followed about equalization within classification., and the desire to have equal facilities and development of the parks in the future. Voting in favor of the amendment: Eondon, Christensen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Herman, Cameron Absent: Pakonen Amendment approved. Voting in favor of the Original Motion: Herman, London, Christensen, Craigie Cameron, Gustafso~. Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Motion passed, 5. Chairman Cameron declared the Public Hearing on the proposed Housing Plan to be open, Mr. Licht reviewed the revisions proposed for the Housing Policy Plan. These included~ a) The expansion of housing choice in terms of cost and type to achieve a more diverse population profile. b) Density incentives to be offered for the development of mid-density owner-type housing units c) The development of e~isting single family residential parcels in a manner compatible with surrounding development. d) The encouragement of the development of the larger parcels ~f undeveloped single family residential parcels into mid-density housing. PLANNING cor4vI[SSION MINUTES MARCH 16~ 1976 5. e) Encouragement of any commercial or industrial zoned land converted to residential classifications to be developed at mid-density, f) The encouragement of the development of owner~type housing for Iow and moderate income households. g) The coordination of Iow and moderate income housing programs with the efforts of the transit com- panies to improve Bus service. h)The establishment of a HRA to be utilized to implement Iow and moderate income housing goals and housing rehabilitation goals. Discussion followed between Mr. Licht, Mr. Larson, Mr. Murphy and the Co~miSsion~rs about PUD development, density requirements, the availability of mid-density housing in New Hope. The Public Hearing was closed at 11:22 p.m. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve the Housing Policy Plan in it ls amended foremat. Commissioner Crai~ie second. Voting in favor: Herman.,London, Christensen Craigie, Cameron,.Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None - Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. COMMIT-~EE REF~3RTS 6. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Commissioner Gustafson noted that there woul~ be a meeting of the Committee on Tuesday, March 23 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall to finalize the sign ordinance. 7. The Land Use Committee met on Tuesda~March 1.6, to begin ~he review of the Zoning Ordinance Commissioner Christensen noted that there would De a meeting of the Committee on March 30th. at 7:00 a.mo at the Tally Ho restaurant. ]- ~ @. There:~as no report from the Design and Review c°mmi?tee. ON-GOING BUSINESS 9. Mr. Licht reported that the neighborhood statements would be ready for the Commission a~ the meeting of April 6th. He aaded that Miawest had begun preparation of the Housing Action Program which should be available in approximately a month and a half, that the first draft of the Zoning Ordinance was already being studied by the Land Use Co~ittee and that the Sub-Division Ordinance would be available shortly to be followea by the Housing and Maintenance Code Draft. NEW BUSINESS I0. The Council minutes were unavailable for review, II. The Commission minutes of March 2, 976 were reviewed. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron regarding the proposed plat on Flag Avenue extended and 42nd, the City Manager noted that the. petitioner had not appeared at the meeting and'Case 75~13 has been tabled for two weeks. He added that a large delegation of the neighbors had been ~resent objecting to the opening up of Flag Avenue and recommended a cul-du-sac. 14. The meeting was adjourned at 11:31 p.m. Resoectfully submitted,. ~oyce Boeddeker Secretary MEMORANDUM . o TO: New Hope Planning Commissi n . DATE: 5 March 1976 SUBJECT: Summary of Suggested Revisions. to the General Community Development Policy Plan and the Housing Policy Plan Attached is a summary of suggested revisions to the general Policy Plan and Housir~:j Policy Plan. These revisions have been suggested by members of the PJann|ng Commission, Traffic Commission and representai'ives of the-various citizen's groups as well as City Staff. during the several review sessions held to date. In the margin of the attachment, primary sources of these revisions are indicated according to the Fo! I owing abbrevlations: PC Planning Commission ' TC Traffic Commission CG Citizen's Groups MPR Midwest Planning and Research In order to Facilitate better comparison with the initial drafts of both the general' Policy Plan and the Housing Policy Plan, new and revised goals and policies are typed in Full (referenced by page number and policy number) in this attachment, even in cases where the change to the original statement is minor. The initial drafts should therefore be utilized in reviewing the changes in order to both compare differences and to help ensure that the revised policies will not be considered out of context. cc: Members of the Community Development Program.' Management Committee - Members of the Traffic Advisory Committee Memaers of the City Council ... · Attachment " : ' GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICY PLAIN LAND USE POLICIES PC ; P.5, New Policy. Establish planning districts within the community based upon ~(~ homogeneous or comptatible land use characteristics and/or division by physical barriers. MPR , P.5, New Policy. Analyze all remaining undeveloped land parcels on an individual --~'..' f~' basis from a physical ~ economic and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate uses within the context oF the planning district in which it is located and the community as a whole. CG P..5, No. 4. Consider the removal ot: additional land from the tax rolls 0nly ~vhen. it can be clearly demonstrated that such removal is in the public interest. CG P.6, No. 7. Protect integrated use districts (e.g. residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, industrial parks) from oenetraNon by through traffic. Where through traffic problems are identified, correct such problems as opportunities arise. RESi DENTIAL GOALS PC P.7, First Goal. Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which oFFer a broad and full choice of housing types. PC~ CG P.7, Third Goal. Provide suFficient housing and suFFicient housing slzes~ types and styles to meet the needs of all segments of the population, notedly groups'with specialized housing needs, such as the elderly.. PC P.7, F]fth Goal. Provlde housing in cost ranges affordable to low and moderate income households (as reglonally defined). RESIDENTIAL POLICIES ' ' ' PC P.7, No. 1. Plan and develop residential neighborhoods according to establlshed planning district boundaries. PC P.7, No. 6. Protect residential development from adve['se environmental impacts, including noise, air and visual pollution. New residential development shall be prohibited when noise and/or air pollution exceed accepted standards and the negative impacts ar.~ not correctable by construction., site planning or other techniques. PC P.8, No. 9. Delete in I~uil. CG P.9, No. 19. Ensure the uniform application of rental housing standards which require adequate landscaping and building and grounds maintenance. Periodically review sucl~ standards in order to ensure that they are effectively meeting their intended purposes. COMMERCIAL GOALs CG P. 10, First Goal. Provide safer convenient, attractive and accessible commercial development within New Hope. COMMERCIAL POLICIES · · PC P. 10, General 4. Strongly discourage any further spot or uncoordinated linear commercial development, in favor of a unified development pattern. CG, PC P. 11, City Center 1. Establish the 42nd and Winnetka commercial center as the primary retail and service Focal point of the community and promote and facilitate through direct public involvement Further complementary development in the area.- PC P. 11, Office 2. Encourage major regional multi-tenant office development to locate within existing industrial porks, when such development is complementary to existing industrial uses. i N DUSTR1AL GOALS' P. 13, New Goal. Concentrate industrial development in the existing industrial :a'rks (Science and Industry Center, Olson, Winnetka). PC P. 13, New Goal. Fully develop existing industrial parks. " CS P. 13, New Goal. Promote continued industrial development in order to create on expanded employment base and opportunity within New Hope. .- TRANSPORTATION POLICIES - . CG P. 15, General 6. Focus the transportation system on activity centers within the community and in neighboring communities. PC P. 17, Streets and Parklr~ No. 11. Minimize and reduce the demand and resulting'space requirements for parking through the adequate provision of pedestrian, bicycl'e and trdnsit facilities and through land use development coordination, such as the concentration and/or consolidation of for example, higher density housing with proximity to shopping, employment, recreational activities. PC P. 17, Mass Transit No. 1. Cooperate with the Metropolitan Transit Commission and local mass transit companies in efforts to create markets and improve transit service on the local scale. PC P. 17, Mass Transit No. 4. Encourage developers to integrate transit rider convenlencest such as shelters, into their developments. TC P.17, Pedestrian/Bicycle No. 1. Accord pedestrians and bicyclists right-of-ways ~ separated from motorized trai:fic at a minimum along arterial and collector streets. When physically and/or economically feasible and in compliance with state law~. separate pedestrian and bicycle trafflc. COMMUNITY FACILITIES POLICIES -. TC P.18, Parks and Open Space New Policy (,add after No. 2). Design and maintain parks with proper lighting, landscaping, shelter designi etc. to ensure a high degree of public and property safety. CG P. 18, Parks and Open Space, No. 4. Ensure the provision of an appropriate balance between active, passive and cultural recreational areas and activities, tailored to the needs of the total population throughout the community. l'C P.20, Governmental Buildings end Pu~!Tc Fac~!'.'ties, New Policy (add after No. 4). Design and maintain ali public buildings to be resistant to person and property crime opportunity while maximizing public and city useability. HOUSING POLICY PLAN " PC P.5, First Goal. Expand hou terms of cost and type to achieve a more diverse population profile (with respect to age, income and household type) and hence to help ensure on-going community stability. HOUSING POLICIES -- PC P.5, No.' 5. Delete in full. -. PC, CG P.5, No. 6. ~ensity inc~entives shall be offered for the devel6pment of mid-denslty~, owner-type units, such as townhouses, quadramlniums, patio homes and cluster housing. ~'Ge(~~~king, mid-density housing can be defined as any density greater than normally found in neighborhoods of single family detached homes and lower than that found in apartment developments. Also, mid-density development, by its very naturet generally represents "owner type" housing .) PC P.6, No. 13. Existing scattered undeveloped single fatally residential parcels shall be developed in a manner compatible with surrounding development. PC P.6, No. 14. The City shall encourage development ol: the large;' remaining undeveloped single family residential parcels at a mid-density in order to help maximize opportunities to diversit:y housing choice. PC P.6, No. 16. The City shall encourage any commercial or industrial zoned land converted to a residential classi£ication to be developed at mid-density to provide additional ho. using choice. PC P. 6, No. 19. Delete in full. PC P.~, No. 20. The development ot: owner-type housing £or Iow and moderate income households shall be encouraged. PC P.7, No. 21. Delete in full. - PC P.7, No. 22. Low and moderate income housing programs shall be coordinated with et:Forts o~ the Metropolitan Transit Commission and local mass transit companies to " improve bus seivice, PC P.7, No. 24. In order to take full advantage oF existing and £uture public housing - programst a local Hous['ng and Redevelopment Authority (H~,A) shall be established and- utilized to implement low and moderate income housing goals, housing rehabilitation goals, etc. j- PLANNING COI~MISS ION MINUTES April 6, 1976'- I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, April 6, 1976.. The meeting was called to order by Chalrma~ Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Steve Ryan (Midwest Planning) Absent: London (excused), Craigie (excused), Pakonen 3. PLANNING CASE 76'15 -'REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 5849 CAVELL AVENUE - O. S. BABEL PETITIONER. Mr. Babel stated, that he was requesting the variance to allow him to construct a double garage in the backyard of his home and to allow him to have a straight drive-in from the street. He intends to con- vert the existing attached single garage to a dining room, removing four feet from the side of the existlng garage.- In response to a question from the City Manager, Mr. Babel stated that the 1½ feet was from the lot line to the wall. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Babel stated that there would be a 16 foot garage door on the East side, facing the street; that the man-door would also be on the East side; that he intended to replace the driveway with a 20 foot cement drive, moving the driveway and curb cut over two feet; and that the siding on the house and!garage would be the same, either matching the exist- ing or replacing th~ house siding. Commissioner Herman indicated his concern over the dimensions of the lot and house and the dimensions noted on the survey which was dated 1960. He also questioned the closeness of the man-door to the corner of the garage and the garage door. Discussion followed. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Babel noted that the chain link fence was 6" from the lot line on his property and that the stakes had been located when the fence was installed (about four years ago). .Discussion held between the commissioners and Mr. Babel about the. distance between the house on the South and Mr. Babel's property (10 feet), the need for adequate room between the houses for emergency vehicles, the proposed driveway and the curb cut. Mr. Babel noted that the neighbors to the South of his property had expressed no objections to the con- struction and that he wished to position the garage in this spot so as much of the backyard as possible could be used. There was no one in the audience regarding this case. Commissioner Gustafson moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 76-15~ ~equest for Variance in Sloe- yard Setback~to I/2 foot from the eave tine. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Commissioner Herman amended the motion to Include approval continqent upon: I. A current registered survey being presented to the Council which showed the actual house location and set-backs, with.~he intent of increasing the 1½ foot setback to the greatest dimension practicable based on the results of the survey~ and 2. That the South end of the existin~ garage that is beina cut back and the proposed garage.be treated with an exterior siding to match that of the basic siding of the house. Commissioner Gustafson second. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Commissioner Herman noted that the cost of such a survey would be about $75.00 and that there should be no difficulty in obtaining such a survey during the time remaining before the Council meeting. Discussion about Mr. Herman's recommendation. Voting in favor of the amendment: Herman, Christensen, Cameron Voting against: Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: London, Craigie, Pakone~ Motion passed: PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 - ~INUTES APRIL 6, 1976 3. Voting in favor of the amended motion: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, GUstafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Craigie, Pakonen Mdtion passed. Chairman Cameron informed Mr. Babel that it would be desirable for him to have the survey completed to present to the Council on Monday ~¥ening. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-16 - REQUEST FOR REZONING~ APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLATt LOT VARIANCES ON QUEBEC AVENUE, NORTH OF SUNNYSIDE PARK - RAY PERRY~ PETITIONER. Mr. Perry stated that he was requesting the rezonlng from LI to SF to allow the property to be platted for single family development because it was located next to the park and was a land-locked piece. He added that originally the property had been zoned SF and that the water and sewer lines were al'ready in. Discussion fol owed about the number of and the types of variances that would be necessary to develop the proposed plat; whether or not there were alternative divisions possible in the plat; the possibility of platting the property into I0 lots instead of 12; and the potential price increase of the lots should the plat be reduced to 10 lots. The City Manager noted that there were seven lots that would require variances as the plat was proposed. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron as to what use he would make of the property were he not granted the rezoning, Mr. Perry stated he would attempt to sel it for LI development. During a discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Perry regarding the required variances on the pro- posed plat, the possibility of moving the cul-du-sac to the East, the possibility of constructing condi- miniums or Town houses, and the cost of the proposed homes, Mr. Perry indicated his willingness to ex- plore alternative lot divisions that would not reqo~re variances, but noted that he did not think the neighborhood would be in favor of townhouse development. He added that he intended to build homes valued at between 45 and 50 thousand dollars. He stated that he felt reducing the lots to I0 would increase the cost-$2°000 per lot. Additional discussion held about the need for variances with a 12 lOX plat, the feasibility of a IO lot plat, the possibility that additional time might allow Mr. Perry to develop a proposal that would not require variances, the possibility of re-positioning the cul-du-sac and who was to construct the homes. The concensus of the Commissioners seemed to be that they were in favor of the rezoning, but could not agree with the plat as proposed. They again expressed their concern about the number of variances that would be required-with the proposed 12 lot plat. Mr. Perry indicated he could go back to his engineers to ascertain whether a different platting could be presented but noted that they were forced to work around existing water and sewer lines. He added that he would build some of the homes and hoped to complete the project within the year. Discussion continued as to the advisability of tabling the petition to allow Mr. Perry to attempt to work out an alternative solution. Mr. Robert F. Carlson, 7613-49th Avenue 'North, commented that he had no great objection to the rezoning, but felt that the lots should be adequate in size in comparison to the surrounding property. He added his opinion that because of the park the developer should fence the entire North side of the property. He noted that this property was a natural piece and was one of the few places left in New Hope that was a natural sanctuary for birds and rabbits. He wondered if adding the property to the park and leaving it In its semi-natural state had ever been considered? Mr. Harold Miller, 7620-48th Avenue North, commented that he agreed that ten lots would be preferable to twelve. He stated that while he agreed with Mr. Carlson's statement that it was a natural nature situation, it was a so a natural dumping ground and as it was now, not the best "eye" situation. Discussion held as to whether the neighbors with the extra large lots had any intention of dividing their property at some future time and the possibility of tabling this request until the next Planning Commission meeting. Cgmmi~l~ner Christensen moved to table Planninq Case 76-16.- R~quest For Rezo~inq and Approvai of the Proposed Plat~ until the meetin~ of April 20th. Commissioner Herman second. Voting In favor: Herman, Christensen° Cameron, Gustafson,'Gundershaug Voting against: None .Absent: London, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - APRIL-6, 1976 5. PLANNING CASE .76-17 - REQUEST KOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO'PERMIT A DRIVING SCHOOL AT 2738 WINNETKA AVENUE - ESSE DRIVING SCHOOL~ PETITIONER. Mr. Esse stated that they also ran a driving school. They have been operating'in New Hope and recently learned that they needed to have a Special Use Permit-to operate a school. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Esse noted that the hours of operation were from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily and i~ the s~,mmer the hours would be from 9:00 ~.m. to 3:00 p.m. He added that at the present time the classes usual'lyhad a maximum of twenty students but that in the other school they sometimes had as many as 35-40 students at a time. The students are picked up at the high schools during the regular school year in small vans. There is no parking problem since the students do not drive. In response to further questioning, Mr. Esse stated that the school consisted of two, three-hour sessions, and the office hours were 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.~ At the present time they had no office facilities in the New Hope location but hoped to employ a receptionist to handle phones during the summer. Mr. Frank Balma, part owner' of the building, noted that arrangements had been made with the apartment building next door to provide additional parking facilities. The building has 36 parking spaces. The school employes two instructors at each'school. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Balma noted that the building was presently 75% occupied with 9 tenants, and 20 people permanently employed in the building. He noted that with a full occupancy the parking spaces, would be completely filled, but that he did have a written agreement with the owner of the apartment building, Mr. Elmer Lamphere, to use the aPartment parking lot as reserve space. Commissioner Gustafson moved to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit to Permit a Drivinq School at 2738 Winnetka~ sub,iect to annual review by staff and specif~in§ that class room hours durinq the school year be 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and durinq the summer 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Herman second. Voting in favor: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-18 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXPANSION PLANS AT 7528 42ND AVENUE NORTH - FOREMOST, INC., PETITIONER. Mr. Allan Fredendall, President of Foremost, stated that they were requesting permission to construct an addition to their present building and needed a variance on the rear yard setback of 15 feet. Commissioner Herman reviewed the Design and Review concerns. In response to questions from C. ommissioner Herman, Mr. Paul Steiner of Foremost, stated that the addi- tion would be 80 feet wide and 86 feet 8 inches long, the ceiling would be the same height as the present building. The addition would be used for an extension of their present operation, the manufacture of cab'inetry components. Mr. Fredendall noted that they ultimately hoped to increase their personnel by six people but at the present time they employed approximately 26 people on two shifts. He added that Electronic Industries presently used part of the Foremost property for a driveway to the rear of their yard which was used as a parking lot. The drainage easement is directly to the North. Mr. Fredendall p'resented a letter from Ware Manufacturing to Foremost, stating that they had no objec- tion to the addition. (copy of letter attached to official minutes). in answer to a question from Commissioner Herman, Mr; Fredendall stated that there were 34 parking sites. The Commissioners reviewed the revised parking plans as distributed by the City Manager. The parking spaces on the boulevard had been removed, the curb cuts were shown on the drawing and 34 parking spaces were Indicated. Further discussion held on the existing parking situation, the size of the stalls, the drive aisle, the maneuverability in the area and the adequacy of the parking space size. The addition will be of concrete block, conforming to the existing building. The lighting will be basically the same as now with perhaps the addition of one or two exterior lights. Mr. Fredendall stated that there would be no excessive noise, no fumes and that the trash was collected in a dumpster provided by Rodney Elvine. The addition should not pro9ide any trash problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4 ~ APRIL 6; 1976 6. Discussion between the City Manager and Mr. Fredendall about the alley, and whether the property owners in the immediate area had discussed the vacation of the easement. ~'~' Mr. Fredendall stated that ~othing had been done other than informal discussion, but they would like to have it vacated. The Clty Manager noted that something should be done about the alley, since it is a mess, not graded and should be cleaned up. The petitioner stated that the alley area would be graded as part of the work on the addition. Further discussion about boulevard parking and snow removal. Co~missioner~Herman moved to recommend .a~p~oval-of Plannig~ Case 76-18t includin~ a variance fo~ a rear yard setback to 20 feet and approva of a variance in the par~ing requirements from 35 TO 3 spaces~ub- ,iect to the followin~ conditions; a. That the four parking stalls on the North,or rear,be eliminated. b. That the 9plante of the rear area,of the site~ includinq the alley easement be §raded and paved. c. That.all parking stalls~ existing and new~ be marked in accordance with the ordinance at 9'x 19'. do No parkin~ be permitted on the boulevard paving with proper signs indicatinq such. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed.' Chairman Cameron declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. 7. PLANNING CASE 76-19 - REQUEST FOR REZONING SF TO MR~ WAIVER OF PLAq-FING. LOT VARIANCES~ PUD APPROVAL AT ~-~ ¥~KON/XYLON~ SOUTH OF 28TH AVENUE - BLAINE CAREY~ PETITIONER. Mr. Blaine Carey stated that he was requesting the rezoning to permit him to construct double bungalows. The property is across from apartments and he felt the doubles would provide a buffer between the apart- ments and the single family dwellings. They would be in the $80,000 range. He planned to live in one unit himself. The units would rent for apBroximately $450 per month and would be offered for sale. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission must be convinced that the criteria for rezoning had been met before consideration is ¢iven to other requests. Mr. Carey stated that the doubles would be half the density of the four-plexes across the street,would have fe~er children because the tenants and owners would be in the 40-50-60 age range. In his opinion, if the property had been ideal for single family dwel ings it would have been built on five yea~s ago. He added that he felt that there was a need for double dwellings in the area. Discussion about the rezoning and the danger of losing control of the development once it was zoned MR. Mr. Carey questi.oned whether or not he could put up a bond guaranteeing that he would put up only double bungalows. Commissioner Christensen noted that the Commission was currently involved in the review of a new zoning code, which would enlarge what could be offered to builders and contractors in regard to the rezoning of land and creating new zoning districts, adding that if the property were rezoned to MR now, there was no way to prevent Mr. Carey from constructing a multiple apartment complex on the site. Mr. Carey noted that he had received VA approval for a mortgage commitment based on the potential rezoning. Discussion followed of the proposed zoning ordinance, the policy plan and housing plan and the recommenda- tions of those plans regarding the rezoning of property in the City. Mr. Wolfgang Schroeder, 2756 Yukon, presented a petition to Dr. Cameron with 65 signatures of residents that were opposed to the rezoning from SF to MR. Mr. Schroeder questioned why, when there was approximately 10% of the land in New Hope left to be de- ~ veloped, was the Commission considering rezoning land to higher density. Chairman Cameron noted that inasmuch as there was so ittle land left in New Hope, it was their charge to be especially careful about the development of that land. Commissioner Christensen noted that the zoning code had not as yet come up for a public hearing, but that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - APRIL 6, 1976 7. it would be presented to the Commission shortly. He added that one of the things the new zoning ordinance was trying to accomolish was to be more selective and to give the City more control over what is developed and where, i.e. MR is wide open at the present, but with the proposed codes,'there will be a district for single family restdence, townhouse, medtum density development, high density development and that the goal was to attempt to protect everyone. Discussion followed about the policy plans and the potential zoning code revisions. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he felt the citizens should be aware that the City of New Hope had directed the consultants to prepare a rough draft, which the City did review and approve of a revised General Policy Plan and Housing Plan, indicating the types of guidelines they would like regarding the use of open space and the type of housing they would like to see in the City. Mr~ Dick Peterson of 2733 Yukon, questioned whether or not they were sure that Mr. Johnson had actively tried to sell the property for single family homes. Mr. Carey commented that he had had his office in Midland Shopping Center and on 15th and Douglas since 1960, and that he had personally tried to se I the property. Mr. Peterson further stated that he felt that Mr. Carey was more concerned with the higher profit motive in doubles than singles, than with the best use of the land, and that the neighbors were concerned with the neighborhood. He stated that he felt it was an excel ent neighborhood ana that the Commission should seriously consider denying the rezoning. Comment was made by Mr. Schroeder that inasmuch as single family homes were being built i.n the area, he felt that with a little more effort, the lots could be sold and developed as. single family. Mr. Carey questioned whether or not anyone at the meeting would purchase a single family home on this property. Mr. Sau Bernick, 2725 Aquila Avenue North, exoressed his opinion that rezoning to a higher density would create more traffic with the added dangers to the children in the area, that the doubles would not neces- sarily be purchased by older citizens, but more than likely by younger fami ies which would in turn act to crowd the schools and that the rezoning would be detrimental to the single family residents now in the area. He added that he did not feel the inabilitv to sell the lots represented a lack of market, but rather a lack of effort. He was opposed to the rezoning and saw no need for a buffer zone. He was con- cerned with the lack of guarantee that the lots would be developed into only doubles and wot apartments. Mrs. Linden, 8416 28th Avenue, commented that she did not feel there was enough room for a duplex on 28th and Yukon. Chairman Cameron declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Herma~ noted that he felt it necessary to acknowledge the status of the planner's efforts and that the revised ordinance proposals included a particular zoning that applies to doubles. The issue at this meeting was a straight land use problem, but it would be another issue it they were dealing with the revised ordir~ance,which might warrant a tab lng motion in this particular case. Commissioner Gundershaug agreed with Commissioner Herman in that the present rezoning request would leave the development wide open and that is not what the Commission wished for the neighborhood. Chairman Cameron raised the question of whether a tabling would be in order, since the Commission had no way of knowing how long it might be until the revised zoning code were adopted. Commissioner Christensen moved that Plannin§ Case 76-19 - Request for Rezoninq to SF from MR~ be~denied. Commissioner Gundershau~ second. Voting in favor of denial: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against{ None Absent: London, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. 7a. Chairman Cameron.noted that there was another case to be considered that did not appear o~ the agenda. PLANNING CASE 76-13 - REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL ON FLAG AVENUE EXTENDED AT 42ND - 45TH - DR. IRVING ~ERMAN~ PETITIONER. The City Manager noted that at the City Council meeting of March 22, the petitioner had appeared for p'lat approval. The concensus of the Council was that they were in agreement with the neighbors who had attended the meeting to request a cul-du-sac off 45th Avenue North at Flag Avenue extended. The Council, however, felt that it should be sent back to the Planning Commission to ascertain if they had specific reasons for recommending that-the street be oDened to 42nd Avenue vs. a cul-du-sac. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - APRIL 6, 1976 · ?ao The City Manager presented the new plat for the Commissioners to review. He suggested that the procedure, if the Commissioners had no objection to the cul-du-sac off 45th, be that they say so and then the 'ssue would be back before the Council on Monday evening April 12th, and the neighbors will be notified of this. Commissioner Herman commented that the proposed cul-au-sac was the longest one he had ever seen and asked about the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around in a cul-du-sac. The City Manager aoted that one reason for not extending cul-du-sacs ong distances was that you generate "x" number of cars that can go only one way and that there is also a problem ~hould there be a major uti- lity break or a major catastrophe reauiring emergency vehicles to reach the far end of the cul-du-sac. He added~ however, that in this aarticular case this wou d not be a ~roblem because the area could be reached overland from 42nd. He further noted that this cul-du-sac was about the same length as the two to the East with the exception that those areas had houses facing on to 42nd. Mr. Ryan stated that the general rule of thumb was that if you could help it, not to make a cul~-du-sac any longer than 500 feet, because in addition to the reasons stated by the City Manager, depending on the topography it would be essentially a dead end with limited visibi ity, and the s'ze of the cul-du-sac 'might be more of a concern depending upon the size of the emergency vehicles that the City employed. Dr. Herman noted that the City Council had requested that a sidewalk be installed from 42nd Avenue through the cul-du-sac and he had agreed to this. The sidewalk to be maintained by the City. Discussion followed about the area and its accessibility and the neighbor's concern and opposition to through traffic, the difficulties during the winter months of negotiating the hills up to Boone and the corner facing 42nd, which had been condemned to allow access on to 42nd at Flag. Commissioner Christensen made a motion that the Council proposal be accepted as indicated on the plat. Motion died for lack of a second. Further discussion. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion that the Commission mov~t the proposal of the Council for the cul-du-sac. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Herman, Christensen, Gustafson Motion failed. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion that the Commission indicate to the Council that they had found no new or additional criteria to chanqe their original recommendation° Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. OLD BUSINESS 8. Commissioner Gustafson reviewed the changes in the sign ordinance that were proposed as a result of the requests from the Commissioners at the last meeting. Lengthy discussion was held about these changes. Another item discussed was wnether or not the state energy conservation legislation did actually affect the sign ordinance requirements in regard to window signs. Concensus was that the energy conservation code did not apply to the ~ew Hope ordinance. The following changes were recommended for inclusion in the Sign Ordinance. Section I - Subd. B~ 13½ Si~n, Logo - Any letter, character, or symbol used to represent an entire word. or group of words~ d~noting the name, trade or purpose of any business. 2. Section 5 - Subd. E~ c: All ground signs shall conform within the maximum sign area, maximum sign height and maximum letter height provisions in relation to the street classification~as contained in the following table, except that logos as defined shall be exempt from the maximum letter height restriction, Maximum Structure Street Classification M~ximum Area (Sq.Feet) Maximum Letter Hei§ht (Inch} Hei§ht (Feet) Collector 40 8 15 Minor Arterial 75 I0 20 Principal Arterial 200 20 30 PLANNING COMMI SS ION i~INUTES APRIL 6, 1976 8. 3. Section 5 - Subd. G~_3. a. Shoppi'ng centers containing .more than four (4) separate and distinct occupancies may erect only one (I) ground sign per street frontage (single or double faced) to be used as an identification sign for the shopping center. Individual Dusinesses within the shopping center may not be advertised thereon. Said grQund sign may not exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area. nor thirty (30) feet in height and must be set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet from all property lines. b. Multiple occupancy structures other than shopping centers, or shopping centers having four (4) or less separate and distinct occupancies, may erect ground signs in accordance.with the provisions of Section 4 E 3 ~f this Ordinance and may identify each separate and distinct occupancy on said ground sign. Commissioner Gustafson moved to recommend acceptance of the Siqn Ordinance as revised. Commissioner Gundershauq secono. Voting in favor: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. Discussion held between the Commissioners as to the_advisability of a member of the Commission attending the Council meeting on the 12th. Concensus was that Commissoner Gustafson should attend the meeting, not to present the Sign Ordinance, but to be available to answer questions, should the need arise. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee I0. Commissioner Christensen reported that the Land Use Committee had met to discuss the new Zoning Code. He requested that the Commissioners review carefully the first 48 pages of the code for discussion at the meeting of April 20th. II. The Design and Review Committee had met on March 23, to review the Foremost expansion and the proposed rezon!ng on 28th Avenue. ON-GOING BUSINESS 12. Mr. Ryan noted that the Sub-division Ordinance is presently being typed, and that the other portions of the plan document will be in a draft form by perhaps next week (sub-district studies, etc). Mr. Ryan stated that the Metropolitan Council had been granted some new powers by the legislature. In- cluded in the planning act is a mandatory housing element. The Metropolitan Council wants projections and quantifiab e housing goals for Iow and moderate income housing, including the time span involved. Mr. Ryan noted that the housing plans should include a direct recognition of the Metropolitan Council housing allocation plan regarding Iow and moderate housing and an implementation program clearly identi- fying the timing and staging. To correct these problems, it wi I be necessary to analyze whether or not the thoughts and desires of the Commission have changed in relation to housing and determine whether or not they wish to take a stand at this time or include the appropriate language in the plans.immediately. Mr. Ryan further noted that in view of the fact that New Hope had done such a good job of identifying the problem areas, the Metro Council might take a disgruntled view if the City failed to follow through with any changes. He added that it was impreatiVe that the Planners be given the direction the City wished to take before they did any further work on the overall Master Plan for the City. Discussion followed about the Possible results to the City should they fail to implement the Metro Council requirement, the time frame involved for implementation of these specified goals, and whether it would be more advantageous to the City to comply now or wait until a later time. Mr. Ryan noted that fai, lure to ultimately comply with the Metro Council standards could result in non- qualification for Federal funding or being legally charged for failure to comply with the laws, o~ at the least harassment from the Metro Council for failing to comply. The City Manager noted that the Master Plan of the City would have to be submitted to the Metro Council for review and approval. The decision would have to be made at this time whether the Commission/Council wished to make the revisions to implement the Metro Council Housing goals or make the adjustments in per- haps three years. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES o 8 - APRIL 6, 1976 12. The concensus of the Commissioners was to direct the Planners to proceed in the planning process ~'~ and to include the quantitative housing goals and standards as part of the plan. The Commission and Council could and would review these provisions as part of the regular review process. N~W BUSINESS 13. The Council minutes of March.22, 1976 were reviewed. 14. Commissioner Gustafson requested that the Planning Commission minutes of March 16, 1976 be corrected as follows: Page 3, Paragraph 6 - Correct "Ho~don" to "London Page 6, Paragraph 9 - Change "Codes and Standards" Committee to "Land Use Committee,. The Commission minutes were then accepted as corrected. 15. Chai~an Cameron noted that the interviews would be conducted on April 20, 976 for the vacancies on the Planning Commission. There will be 13 candidates for interview. Chairman Cameron thanked Commissioner Herman for his years of service to the Planning Commission and wished him well as a Councilman. 16. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. ~l~espectfully submitted, ~oyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 20, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on April 20, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7{30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Fresent¢ Londonw Christensen, Craigiew Cameron, Gustafson~ Gundershaug Absent: Pakonen Chairman Cameron noted that he had received a letter of resignation from Commissioner Herman and re- quested that it 5e included i'n the officia record, (attached to official minutes).. PUBL-~C HEARINGS 3. PLANNING ~ASE 76-16 (CONTINUED FROM 4-6~76)_~;_~RE~~R REZONING> VARIANCES AND APPROVAL OF PRELIMI- NARY PLAT ON QO~BEC-AVENUE'A~ 48TH ~ RA~ PERRY~'P--~-]~I~; The City Manager distributed the revised plat proposal to the Commissioners.. Mr. Perry stated that in'response to concerns expressed at the last meeting, they had moved the cul-du- sac 15 feet to the East'to give better setbacks to Lots #6 and #7. He added that he felt that "L" shaped homes could be designed to fit on those two lots. He further noted that he had discussed changing the water easement and sewer line with the Public Works Director, but that he had felt they should remain as they were. Discussion between Commissioner Christensen and Mr. Perry about the lot sizes, the variances that would be required when construction began and the frontage requirements in cul-du-sacs versus single family lots. Mr. Perry noted that the lots all met the required 9500 square foot minimum. The City Manager stated that the cul-eu-sac requirement was a 40 foot frontage. In res0onse to a ~uestion from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Perry noted that he expected the houses to be in the $50,000 range. In answer to further euestions about Lot #1, he staTed that he would expect that they would build an "L" shaped home with the garage facing Quebec Avenue on that lot. Mr. Harold Miller, 7620 48th Avenue North, questioned how close the home on Lot #6 would be to his home, since his lot abuts Lot #6 at the rear. The answer was approximately 55 feet, since the house on Lot #6 would be built 35 feet from the lot line. Mr. Miller added that he felt this was the kind of development that the neighborhood had been after for about II years and that they were behind Mr. Perry in anything they could ~ive with. They would be happy to have residential development there. Mrs. Robert Carlson, 7613 49th Avenue North, stated that she had thought that Mr. Perry was supposed to come uo with a plat for ten homes. Chairman Cameron noted that this had been one of the suggestions at the previous meeting, but that econo- mie feasi'bility entered into this decision by Mr. Perry. He added that the Commission could not dictate and that he felt that Mr. Perry had made a reasonable attempt to cut down the number of variances required. Mrs. Carlson then commented that she felt that if there were to be such small lots, ?here should be a fence across the back. Commissioner Christensen commented that he felt that at the orevious meeting the Commissioners had been concerned about the number of variances reeuired in the proposed plat, but that the size of the lots had not been really of concern. He added that the other neighborhood lots were really very large. Cemmissioner London asked for clarification of what variances would be required~ Lot #1 would require a variance from the °0' frontage requirement; Lots 4-9 would require variances at the building line; and Lots 6 and 7 would require variances as far as their depth. Commissioner Christensen moved to recommend approval of Planninq Case 76-16 - Approval of Preliminary Plat for Lyncroft Addition as revised on the second plat as of April 20th~ includinq the variances and also recommended approva4, of the Rezonin~ from LI to SR. Commissioner Crai~ie second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Gustafson Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. PLANNING COIVJ,,JISStON ~NUTE.S APRIL 20~ 1976 NEW BUSINESS 8. Chairman Cameron noted that because of-the number of applicants present for the Commission to inter- view, he was suggesting that this item-on the agenda be moved ahead. This would eliminate the need for the applicants to remain for the entire meeting. Commissioners indicated this would be agreeable to them. The app icants that were interviewed were: Brian L. Anderson 8524 33rd Avenue Howard E. Atchley 5828 Gettysburg Circle Bernie Bartos 4881 Boone Robert H. Blank 4404 Boone Avenue James A. Edwards 8803 32nd Court Glenn M. Farmer 9201 Northwood Parkway Randee Kyrola 8401 North Meadow Lake Road Gerald H. Otten 4057 Flag Avenue North Kent E. Richey 8400 29th Avenue Each applicant was interviewed separately. The? were questioned in regard.to their personal background~ their reasons for desiring appointment to the Planning Commissio~= their current involvement' in other organizations (civic or po itical); any po itical aspirations they might have; the availability of their time to attend up to five meetings a month; whether or not they felt they would have sufficient objec- tivity in issues before the Commission that might involve friends or neighbors; what changes they felt should be made in the City; what problems they felt New Hope should work to solve; their opinions on sign restrictions and their fee ings on the proposed City Center. Fol owing the interviews, the Commissioners discussed the candidates at length. Commissioner Christensen moved that the names of Mr. Brian Anderso~t Mr. Howard Atchley~ and Mr. Bernie Bartos be forwarded to the Counci for appointment to the Commission~ with Mr. Kent E. Riche¥ to be the first alternate. Commissoner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafso~ Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS ~ Commissioner Gust~fson requested that the report of the Codes and Standards with'regard tO the Council comments on the sign ordinance be discussed first. He stated that the sign ordinance had been se~t back to the Commission for further review and in his opinion the decision should be made immediately as to whether the Commission would act on the ordinance at the present meeting or whether it should be tabled and sent back to Committee. In response to questions from the Chairman, Commissioner Gustafson noted that in view of the time al- ready spent on review of the ordinance, he felt it was best TO move the Sign Ordinance back to Council immediately. He added that he was concerned about the lateness of the hour, and felt that the questions raised about the ordinance by the Council deserved the Commissions full attention. Commissioner Gustafson moved to chanqe the order of the Agenda. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Mo~ion passed. 5o Codes and Standards Commissioner Gustafson noted that he had attended the Council meeting. He stated that there had been considerable discussion about two portions of the'ordinance - the section on b.illboards and the section regarding letter size on window signs. The Council had requested that the Commission review again the billboard portion of the ordinance and also the restriction to 9 inches of the letters on window signs. He noted that many Of the same peo- ple were in attendance at the Council meeting as had been at the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Gustafson further commented that he felt that considerable time had been spent already on the Sign Ordinance, both in committee meetings and in regular Commission meetings. He then referred to a comment made at the Council meeting indicating that the. portion of the ordinance relating to billboards ~as unconstitutional. He wished to clarify that the ordinance was in no way unconstitutional because it neither specifically banned billboards~ nor did the City have a practical ban by making the restrictions on the billboards so narrow that they cannot exist. PLANNING COI~II$SION - 3 ~ MINUTES APRIL 20~ 1976 5. Commissioner Gustafson stated that in addition, there had been discussion by some of the sign company representatives about the need for the local merchants to be able to advertise through the billboard media. He stated that he had investigated the billboards that are now in New Hope and wished the in- formation to be in the record regarding the location and type of advertising. The four billboards are: I) 42nd/Quebec cigarette advertising 2) 42nd/Soo Line Crystal State Bank 3) 42nd/Maryland Edina Realty 4) 42nd/Maryland cigarette advertising He commented that he did not feel that any billboards which might be located on Highway #18, would be a draw for any local businesses. Commissioner Gustafson further stated that the GB zone had been the only zone allowed for billboards in New Hope since the 1960~s, and that~ in his opinion, this was the proper zone. Chairman Cameron commented that he felt the Commission agreed with him, The City Manager clarified for the Commissioners, that at the present time there were two sites available for billboards and two GB sites that had vacant buildings and would have that option in New Hope. Commissioner then stated that considerable time had also been spent at the Council meeting in discussion of the size limits of letters on window signs. Commissioner Gustafson then proposed that the Sign Ordinance be returned to the Council subject to the following: First~ that the Council be aware that the Commission had re-reviewed the billboard section and considered it appropriate as originally submitted~ that a General Business District is the appropriate district for ~illboards; that the City has sufficient area available for billboards in GB Districts for'local needs; and that the proposed billboard section thus reflects the characteristics of the City that they wi. shed to continue. / Secondly, that the Commission had re-reviewed the general standards of the sign ordinance and recommanded that the portion on window signs be changed to read: In no event shall the size of the interior window sionaqe exceed twenty per- cent (20%) up to ~ maximum of 125 squa[e feet~ of the entire window area of the one ( ) side of ±h~ buildinq upon which said siqns shall De displaved. Interior window signs shall not be of the gaseous tu~e type nor shall they be illuminated~by interior liqh~ing directed toward the ~indow. Advertising'signs that are clearly intended for temporary display o~ly~ may ~e a~ffixed to a window or located inside a window surface visible to the ~eneral public~ provided that the siqn~area conforms with the formula allowance out- lined in this subdivision. The allowable sign area for a window advertisin~ si~n is in addition to the total permitted wal siqn area as regulated in Section 5~ Subd. E~ I. Window sipns other than for advertising~ such as busi- ness identification~ ,or any si~n which is permanently affixed to a window~ shall constitute a dual purpose si~n and thus be regulated under both the 'above and the provisions of Section 5~ Subd. E~I of this ordinance. Discussion followed about the recommended changes. Commissioner Gustafson noting that the reasoning behind the changes was that this would allow the small businessman to use advertising copy that came from their suppliers, allow for hand done signs, but still avoid the clutter of signs over the total window area. Furthe~ discussion about the elimination of the letter size restriction and what the Council had quested that the Commission do in regard to the ordinance. Commissioner Crai~ie moved that the Si~n Ordinance be returned~to the Council as amended~ with a recom- mendation for adoption. Commissioner Christense~ second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. 4. Land Use Committee Commissioner Christensen commented that in meetings with th~ committee and with the staff regarding procedure in the review process, the decision had been made to treat the Zoning Ordinance as a new PLANNING COMMISSION , MINUTES - 4 - APRIL 20~ 1976 ~ 4. ordinance and review it from beginning to end on that basis. Inasmuch as the Commissions had all reviewed the beginning portions of the ordinance prior to the meet- ing, the decision was to review the document page by page raising questions as they arose. Chapter 4, Subd.B The Board of Adjustment and Appeals was defined as the City Council. Section 2p Subd.B (5) In regard to the restriction in pounds of vehicles allowed to be serviced which was printed as 9,000 gross° Mr. Licht pointed out that State regula- had increased this figure to 12,000 pounds. Subd.B (30) "single owner name" clarification that the intent was to indicate a single corporate structure. (44) Discussion on terminology - Mr. Licht noting that "subsidized housing" is publicly controlled. He recommended that this portion remain as printed. (48) Recommendation that this be changed to "'. .... not more than four (4) persons not so related maintaining a common household .... (112) Suggestion that word exterior be added to the designatio~ "separate and individual front and rear entrances". Section 3, Subd.C (4a) ' Discussion held about the legality of limiting ground cover to "evergreen" with regard to re0uired fencino or screenino. (5) Pot ution Standards - Mro Larson noted that the State regulations regarding this subject are at present only advisory an~ not mandatory, Once adopted by thi~ ordinance, they would have the effect of law. Subd.E Discussion as to the reduction of recuired sizes of individual units which was recommended in the new ordinance. Subd.E (6) Discussion about possibility of removin~ "efficiency" units from designation in the ordinance. Mr. Licht noting that they are not obsolete and are in- cluded in FHA and HUD regulations. Concensus to allow to remain. Subd.F (4g) Mr. Licht nc±ed that there were some recommended changes in the required parking spaces in ~he new ordinance. They were: Single and Two Family and Townhouse - One (1) enclosed space plus one (I) open space. Multiple Family Dwellings - One (I) enclosed space plus one and one auarter (1¼) open spaces. He added that the fee!lng of the Planners was that three was excessive. Discussion between the Commissioners about the recommended reduction and whether or not this was sirable, especially in multiple dwel ings. Commissioner Christensen noted that at th~ next meeting (May 4th) the review would be of the proposed new zoning districts. He requested that the Commissioners thoroughly review this portion of the or- dinance before that meeting. 6. The Design and Review Committee has been re-scheduled for Thursday~ April 22, 1976 at 4:00 p~m. Chairman Cameron stated that Mr. Bernard Herma~ will continue to attend these meeting~ for a few months in an advisory capacity until new members are assigned to the Committee~ Commissioner Christen- send will assume temporary Chairmanship of the ~esign and Review Committee until a new Chairman .is designated. He will continue to serve as Chairman of the Land Use Committee. ON-GOING BUSINESS 7. Mr. Licht stated that w~thin one to one and one half weeks there will be a draft'of the Comprehensive Plan forwarded to Mr. Larson for review; the Subdivision Ordinance is now ready for staff review; and the Housing Maintenance Code has been reviewed by staff and should be available shortly, The Community Improvement Program will fol ow'the processing of the Comprehensive Plan. NEW BUSINESS 9. The Council Minutes of April 12, 1976 were reviewed° The City Manager noted that Case 76-!5 had been tabled to a Iow the new owner to the South to 6e notifie~ of the requested sideyard variance. Case 76-19 - Request for Rezonin~ for Duplexes - had been tabled until June to allow luther review of the new Zonin~ Ordinance before acting on the dualex question. PLANN I NG COHM I SS I ON MINUTES - 5 - APRIL 20", 1976 9. Mr. Larson also wished the Commissioners to note that there had been discussion at the Council meet.lng hegarding the possible regulation of the parking of recreational vehicles and buses. Mr, Licht commented that in his opinion, a recreationa'l vehicle ordinance should be considered as a separate ordinance and not included with any othe~ Commission agreed ~his would probably be the best procbdure if the Commission desired to get into the matter later. 10. The Planning Commission minutes of April 6, 1976 were approved. II. Discussion held about the tennis challenged as proposed by the Council to the Planning Commi'ssion. No action taken at this time. Some of'the Commissioners reported that the Wong's Restaurant in Midland had apparently installed an illegal sign. The City Manager noted he would have this checked. I2. The meeting was adjourned at I1:55 p.m. Respectfully submit~ed~ Joyce Boeddeker Secretary COTTLE ° HERMAN ARCHITECTS, INC. mohara ~.. Cott~e, A~A Bernard Herman, AIA 2101 Henneloin Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 tel. 612-871-2615 Ken Johnson, Associate April 16, 1976 Dr. Robert Cameron Chatr~nan, New Hope Planning Commission gl17 34 1/2 Ave. No. flew Hope, Minnesota Dear Bob: This is to offer my belated resignation f~om the Planntng Commission, effective April 7, 1976, due to my appointment to the Council· These past three and one half years on the Commission have been satis- fying and qutte educational for me. I strongly beleive that the Planning Commission is a key element te the success of municipal government and I look for~ard to our continued Involvement in the affairs of New Hope. Sincerely, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY I0, 1976 I. A special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, was held at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, on May I0, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 6:08 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Anderson, Atchley, Cameron, Christensen, Craigie, Gundershaug, Gustafson, London, Pakonen Absent: Bartos PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. The soecial meeting had been called to consider PLANNING CASE 76-27~ REOUEST FOR SIDEYARD VARIANCE, I PETITIONER~ THOMAS GRAHAM. The petitioner was ~resent to oresent the case. He ex01ained that he t had aurchased a vacant lot between 3300 and 3222 Flag and was proposing to build a new nome on the lot. ! The lot had been surveyed and he had sold his present home with an occu0ancy of August 15, 1976. When ~ the house location on his new lot was staked, it was found that a major tree had not been shown cor- ~ rectty on the survey. In oraer-to save the oak trees On the new lot, the house needed to ~ . be moved South. Mr. Graham then presented a aew site Dian on which the garage had been"tipped" so" ~ that the structure could be moved North with setbacks proposed of 8 feet (10 required) on the South and 7 feet (5 reaUired) on the North. Mr. Graham also aresented a letter from Mr. Hay (3222 Flag) ~ stating he had no objection to the variance. Mr. Gustafson raised several questions in regard to moving the house further North -- thus closer to the trees. Mr. Graham ~xplained that it could~be moved but a change from what was shown would increase the chance of the trees being killed. United Tree Service. according to Graham, estimated that the front tree had at least a 50% chance of I'ving now and the rear 90%. Any move would decrease the chances of survival, Mr. Cameron noted that another alternative was to cut two feet off the house. Mr. Craigie questioned if the house could be "fliDoed" so the garage was on the South side. Discussion held on location of some of the smal er ash and elm, would they be affected? Petitioner pointed out that some of the smaller trees were already moved, If the house was "Slipped" the larger elm near the street would be affected and end uo with blacktop on three sides. Mr. Cameron ~uestioned i~ it was not true that the City was trying to keep trees and was it not be~ter to keep trees in the ~ront for the view of the street'users,, etc? Therefore, the variance as proposed was more logical since to move would increase the risk to the 20" oak. Mr. Atchley asked if any consideration had been given to cutting the size of the house by two feet. Mr. Graham said "yes" but because of his time factor, he simply did not have time to redo the plans. Mr. Christensen discussed variances and basis for ne~d to show hardship. The problem here was a need to save the trees -- house was too large to fit between. He noted Graham had been honest in noting house probably could be cut back but had the time bind. The choice was simole, the trees vs. the setbacks. Mr..London 0uestioned what the specific variance was, given the discussion about different locations, The oetitioner noted - 2 ~eet - so he could go to within B feet of the South line instead of the I0 qu[red. Mr. Graham noted that if the need for the setbacks was to separate the structure, there would still be at ]east 8 feet between his house, as proposed, and the Hay house. It would be a greater distance to house to the South. Mr. Gustafson 'moved~ second by Chr. istense~n~ ~o recommend ~pprov~l of Planning Case 76-27 with a two foot setback variance on the South side. Voting in favor: Anderson, Atchley, Cameron, Christensen, graigie, Gundershaug, Gustafson London, Pakonen Voting against: None ABsent: Bartos Motion passed. NEW BUSINESS 4. Chairman Cameron read a letter from Mr. Larson by which the Commission had been challenged by the Council to meet in a tennis match during tennis week; Some discussion held about the challenge, who could play, If staff people could b~ involved, the use of a bicentennial color - red/white/blue balls, etc. Concensus was that Commission would accept challenge and did offer to meet Council in a match at a time and format as chosen by the Council. 5. Chairman Cameron then led discussion on variances. Comments were made as to use of variance, need for guidelines, or did we have, what staff thought about variances~ the problems or advantages with letting some people get to Commission while others would not go through process~ the feeling that improvements to homes were perhaps good~ as opposed to a variance simply to make it easier to run business. No conclusion drawn. 6. The Chairman reminded the members that a movie on signs was to be Shown at 7c00 p0m, at the Council meeting and that everyone was 'nvited 5o attend, 7. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, m_9~ion to ad iourn was ma~de by Craigie~ second by Christensen~ carried or risinq vote, Meeting was ad,iourned at 6:45 p.m.. Respe.~.~~i'ed Acting Secretary PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES MAY 4, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Comm[s§ion was held at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota._ The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson[ Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Lopdon, Pakonen CommisSioner London arrived at 9:30 p.m. 3. The City Manager administered the Oath of Office to the new Commissioners: Mr. Brian Anderson, Mr. Howard Atchley, and Mr. Bernard Bartos. Chairman Cameron welcomed them to the Commission. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-12 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASS LAKE ROAD AND BOONE AVENUE - DICK ERNST, PETITIONER The City Manager distributed copies of a revised proposed site plan. Mr. Ernst stated he was proposing to construct a two-level building on the property, a single level facing Bass Lake Road, and a double level from the rear with access from Boone AYenue. He plans to lease the upper level as office space and the lower level as a combination office/warehouse operation. In response to a question in regard to the plan he submitted to the Commission, Mr. Ernst stated that he had formerly planned to lease to retail type tenants and that in the present facility he planned to lease only to the type of tenants al owable in the industrial district. The City Manager noted that the plan as presented was different from the plan shown to the Design and Review Committee. Mr. Ernst stated that since the Design and Review Committee meeting he had made arrangements to share the driveway access off Bass Lake Road with the Post Publishing Company. He further stated that Mr. L'Hereault of the Post had recuested that Mr. Ernst make it clear to ~he Commission that this sharing of the ~riveway involved a slight site plaa change for the Post property -- the elimination of 3 parking spaces and about 30 feet of green area on the East of their property. Mr. Ernst said that the plan was basically the same as had been presented to the Design and Review Committee. The building had been moved South to accommodate the green area at the front of the buiiding, thus eliminating a variance and the building was shortened six feet to allow for a 22 foot driveway on the East. The same landscaping was proposed and the exterior of t~e building and the exterior lighting would remain the same~ Commissioner Christensen noted that Mr. Ernst had already answered some of the concerns expressed by the Design and Review Committee with his presentation of the new site plan. In response to questions from Commissioner Christensen~ Mr. Ernst stated that he hoped to attract the engineer, attorney, insurance agent type of tenant. He agreed that the access from Bass Lake Road would most likely be used by people desiring to reach the ~pper level of the building. Commissioner Christensen expressed his concern with the possibility of truck traffic at the Bass Lake Road access an~ whether there was suff'icient room for large trucks to maneuver, as well as the diffi- culty involved in turning eft off Bass Lake Road. He further noted that at the Design and Review meeting, the suggestion had also been made'that some of the parking spaces at the front of the build- ing be moved to the rear. Mr. Ernst note~ that he had included two handicapped parking sp~ces for each level, but had left the location of the refuse storage the same. The exterior of the bui ding is to be face brick on the ' North, East and Wes± elevations, the rear elewtioh to be a mixture of face brick and break off block painted. There wil be a wood mansard roof on all four sides extending over the walkways on the North and South about six feet to provide protection from the weather. There would be a natural cedar fac- ing on the mansard with under mansard lighting directed toward the building. There will be two stair- ways that will allow access between the upper and lower levels of the building from the parking, lots. Mr. Ernst n~ted that the driveway was directly opposite Cave I Avenue and that the County when it in- stalled a median on Bass Lake Road would have an opening at Cavel , with eft turn lanes providing a four way intersection. The City Manager commented that it was his u~derstanding that the County felt that combining the drive- ways made a better case.for having the median cut, if a median were constructed~ but that at this time there was no assurance that this will be done. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the recently installed driveway at the Post Publishing Building PLANNING COI~ISSION - 2 - MINUTES MAY 4, 1976 4. and what would become of this driveway? ~-~ Mr. Ernst stated that this driveway wo~ld be removed and reinstal ed at the time that he put his park- 'ng lot in, to create a 26 foot drive. Discussion then fo lowed about potential tenantsp the division of the building interior, the anticipated maximum number of tenants and whether the space would be leased before the building were completed. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he would be categorically opposed to any future zoning changes.to allow a retai type of establishment and that he also was of the opinion that more of the parking should be removed to the rear of the building. In resgonse to questions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Ernst said that he could have as few as two tenants or as many as 12-15 and that the interior would be total y flexible to accommodate tenant needs. He added that at the present time he had no signed leases but did have letters of interest from some busi- ness people. In response to further questions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Ernst noted that the doors and windows on the North wall would be insta led after the space is leased. He stated he was aware that there were restrictions on the type of tenants that he could lease to in that particular zoning. In answer to a question from the City Manager, Mr, Ernst stated that the building was 50 feet deep~ and that a typical bay could be as little as 800 feet or as much as desired by the tenant. Mr. Ernst further stated that the tenants that lease the lower level would have control over the parking spaces in front of their bay, to a Iow trucks to make deliveries There are 25 parking spaces on the South tier which he felt was sufficient to handle employee parking. Further discussion regarding truck traffic involved in de iveries and pick ups, the turn around space for the trucks, the parking areas suitable for trucks, access problems from Bass Lake Road, how trucks would be able to maneuver in the North parking area and the space requirements anticipated to be needed by potential tenants. Discussion then centered about the bui din~ position and why it had not been positioned further to the North with the majority of the parking to the South. Mr. Ernst stated that one reason for. the building position was that there was additional property to the South that they might wish to develop or to enlarge the present bui~ing at a future time. He added that the upper level, oriented toward Bass Lake Road will hopefully attract the public. This was one of the reasons for the front parking. He did not feel that one row of parking in the front would be sufficient for these needs. The driveway into Boone Avenue was discussed as well as the advantages of having a wider driveway at that point, particulaEly if the lower level were to be basically warehousing. Concerns were also ex- pressed about the fact that both cars and trucks would be using the common driveway off Bass Lake Road and the potential dangers involved in the cross access for people coming out of the Post parking area. Mr. Ernst noted that the County had verbally agreed to a 26 foot driveway from Bass Lake Road to el'lmi- nate scme of the problems, adding his oD nion that anyone coming out of that driveway would have to drive with caution. Discussion then centered on the landscape plan. Mr. Ernst noted that he had submitted a plan originally but had not changed it with the introduction of the revised plan. He was willing to return to the Commission with a more detailed lahdscape plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson,Mr. Ernst stated that he felt the square foot cost to the tenants would be from $3.00 to $7.00 depending upon their needs. Tn answer to a'question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Ernst s~ated that he felt there would be a mini- mum of 25 feet of width in the space rented to each tenant in the upper level. Hr. Dennis Holland, 8716 Bass Lake Road, commented that in his opinion people ~ttempting to turn off Bass Lake Road would not be looking for other traffic in the driveway, but would be concerned about the traffic on Bass Lake Road. He further expressed his concern about any access off Bass Lake Road, feel- ing that the access should be from Boone. He also was concernea about the parking in the front stating that he felt the building appeared as if it was set ~a for retail traffic. He further stated that he did not understand why even tenants, as well as employees, could not enter from the back of the bui-lding. He said he was basically concerned about the appearance presented to the single family area across Bass Lake Road. ~ Mrs. Barbara Brandt, 580 3ecatur Avenue, questioned whether or not the. neighborhood could Pe assured that at no future time a Seven-II type of store would be a lowed on the corner. Chairman Cameron noted that at this point the zoning of the property would not permit it. Mr. Max Green, 5800 Boone Avenue North, expressed his concern about the future tenants of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - MtNUTES MAY 4, 1976 4. He also questioned whether the City of New Hope should gamble on the fact t~at once the building were constructed, acceptable tenants would move into the building. Further discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Ernst about the possibilities of facing the office on the upper level toward the South; the conveniences for tenants and customers with offices facing to the North; the oepth of the proposed office bays; and the landscaping plans. Commissioner Christensen moved to recommend Denial ~f Planninq Case 76-12 - Request for Construction Plan-Approval with Variances at the Southwest C~rner of~Bass Lake Road and Boone. ~Commissioner Craiqie second. Commissioner Craigie stated that his reason for supporting denial was the truck traffic and the lack of a truck loading area and turn-around area. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he did not believe that the North exposure was the appropriate place for the number of parking spaces proposed, feeling that they should be removed to the rear of the building. Voting in favor of denial: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie~'Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-20 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESS©RY-BU'ILDING AT 8337 50TH AVENUE NORTH - CL~D~ B~D~,.~E~ITIO~E~R, Mr. Tom Hi99ins, 8329 50th Avenue North, stated that he was a friend of Mr. Brodt, who was in the hos- pital recoverin9 from back surgery. He stated that Mr. Brodt would like to construct a garage-like building, 22' × 20', behind his garage and within setback reduirements. The building would be 220' over the code limitations. It will be a framed building with a trussed rafter roof, the exterior to match the existing sidin~ of the home and the roof to match as closely as ~ossible. It will be on-grade, with a concrete slab and is to be used for the storage of recreational vehicles. Mr. Higgins stated that, in his opinion, the addition would not be distracting to the general area and would give him, as the neighbor,more privacy. Chairman Cameron requested that Mrs. Sharon Brodt come forward and confirm ~r. Higgin's statements re- garding her husband's intentions for the addition. Mrs. Brodt confirmed that the bui ding would be used only for storage and would match the existing dwel - lng in regard to exterior finish. She further stated that there would be no driveway to the building. There was no one present in the audience concerning this case. Commissioner Gustafson ma~e a motion to recommend approva of Planning Case 76-20 - Request for a Vari- ance for an Accessory ~ui d!ng 20'-x22', Sub,iect to the bui.lding having the same type of sidinq and color as the house. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London~ Pakonen Motion ~assed. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-2 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 6000 RHODE ISLAND -.JOHN PETERS, PETITIONER. Mr. Peters stated he was requesting the addition of a double garage to his house extending 2 feet closer to the front of the property than allowed by ordinance. He added that the garage wi I have the same type of overhang as the house and will be of the same color and siding. The addition is to be built by Mr. Ed Dooley. In answer to questions from Commissib~er Gustafson, he state~ that the garage will begin about 6 inches behind the window~ on the South side of the house, and will extend back 14 feet. He further noted that he ~lanned to remove ~ sections of fence and butt the fence into the garage. The extra garage spaces is needed for storage purposes. The garage will have a 16'flush type overhead door~ with qne window and one service door at the rear of the garage. The driveway will be the same width as now, but reduced in length. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend a~proval of Plannin.g Case 76-21 - Request fo~ Variance in Sideyard Setback at 6000 Rhode Island, subject to the exterio_[r 9~ the garaqe b~ing the same color and si.'din~ as the house and the continuation of the existin~ roof line. '~Commissioner Bartos second. Mr. Peters presented a letter to the Commission in which his immediate neighbors stated that they had no objections to his request. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 4 - MAY 4, 1976 6. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Anderson, Gustafson~ Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, ~akonen Motion passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 76-22 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE N GARAGE SIZE AT 8100 40TH AVENUE ~ ROBERT ANDERSON, PETITIONER Mr. Anderson stated he was reeuesting an extension off the back of the garage, along the same ine of the house,that would have the same exterior. The roof will be hot pitch and gravel. 3uring discussion, Mr. Anderson noted that the extensio~ wi I be used only for storage, that he did not plan a window to the rear because he would be unable to see the window from the house and was concerned about vandalism, that he intended to leave the existing garage watt but enlarge the service door, that the drainage flows to the West along the back yards, and that the siding would match the house~ Commissioner Gustafson made ~ motion to approve Planning~Case 76-22 - Request for Variance in Garaqe Size at 8100 40±h Avenue~ sub,iect.to the roof construction bein~ as proposed and that the siding be identica~ in color and material to the existinq house. Commissioner Atchley'second. Voting in favor: Bartos~ Chris~ensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. 8. PLANNING CASE 76-23 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SIDEYARDAND FRONT SETBACK AT 3304 GETTYSBURG NORTh, ROLLA MARTIN~ PETITIONER Mr. Martin stated he was orooosing to extend the "L" section of his rambler.six feet closer to the cul-du-sac. This would extend the bedroom ant closet space. ~he siding would be re-used and he in- tends to add rough cedar on the North side and masonite siding on the South. They plan to remove the one window and put it o~ the side to satisfy the window space requiremen± for the s~aare footage. Mr. Martin 0resented a picture for the Commissioners to view, illustrating the neighbor's home in rela- tion to his own. He added that the addition woule have ooured footings, but no basement. Commissioner Gustafson moved to recommend approva of Plannine Case 76-23- Request for Side and F~ont Variances~ sub,iec~ to the condition that the siding be the same as the existin~ house. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. 9. PLANNING CASE 76~24 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN~SIDEYARD SETBAGK AT 5436 RHODE ISLAND - CORDELL BENNETT, PETITIONER. Mr. Bennett stated that he was requesting a six foot variance on the North s~de of his home. He is 0rooosing to extend his house 0'8" toward the street. The house will be approximately two feet closer to 55th than the house next door. The addition's~first floor is garage, expanding the existing garage to a double. There will be two bedrooms and a bath extended across the top. The roof wil be replaced and the siding of the entire house will be changed. Mr. Al Lehner, 5444 Sumter, stated that he could see no reason whatsoever where the addition might cause a traffic problem and that he would hope that the Commission would gFant the variance.. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Bennett said he had lived in the home for 13 years and had no olans to move 'n the near ~uture. Commissioner Gustafson moved to recommend approval o{ Planning Case 76-24 - Request for Sideyard Variance at 5436 Rhode Island - subject ~o the conti-~uation of the existinq~roo~ line and that the sidinq be the same col'or and type as the remainder of ~ee house. Commissioner Cr~igie second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 5 ~ ~qlNUTES MAY 4, 1976 I0. PLANNING CASE 76-25 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 6058 YUKON AYENUE - HAROLD THOMP- SON, PETITIONER Mr. Thompson stated he was proposing to add an attached garage/family room to his Oresent house. The addition will be 34' x 24' and will replace the present detached garage. He is reauesting a one foot variance because the addition would extend to within four feet of the side lot line. In answer to auestions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Thompson stated he planned to change.the sld- 'ng on both the existing house and the addition and also to re-roof. He intends to saw the existing slab to install frost footings, and leave the slab in position. There will be a 18' overhead garage door and a service door between the house and overhead door. No additional curd cuts will be required. The overhang of the addition wil be a continuation of the overhang on the house and will come to within two feet of the lot line. In res0onse to a Question from the Chairman, Mr. Thom0son said that the addition would be located approximately I0 feet from the neighbor's house to the South. Mr. Thompson noted that he had discussed the addition with his neighbor to the South and that he had expressed no objections and that he was not aware of the neighbor having any plans to sell his home. Commissioner .Craigie indicated he had spoken to the neighbor to the South and he had expressed no ob- jections to the addition. Commissioner Gusta~son moved to recommene approval of Planninq Case 76-25 - Variance in Sideyard Set- ~a~k~ subject to the continuity of the sidinq and roof.. Commissioner Craiqie second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson~ Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Londo'n~ Pakonen Commissioner London arrived at 9:30 p.m. Ii PLANNING CASE 76-26 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FENCE HEIGHT AT 4i24 GETTYSBURG AVENUE - HARLAN ROSS, PETITIONER. Mrs. Doris Ross stated that the reason for requesting a'variance in fence'height was that.there was a hi I on the South side of their property. They desired to have a fence high enough to guarantee that their dog would not be able to jump over and in order to have the top of the fence level,it was neces- sary to have extra height in a portion of the fence. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mrs. Ross stated they intended to completely fence the back yard and that the fence would be redwood. Discussion then centered on the place that Mr. Ross intended to join the fence to the house; how far forware toward the front they intended to extend the fence~ whether or not the neighbors had any ob- jection to such a high fence; and the fact that aT the highest point of the fence, it would be approxi- mately 13 feet from the neighbor's home. Mr. Richard Carlson, 4117 Flag Avenue, commented that he had no objection to the fence, but wondered why New HODe did not have a requirement that the fence posts face toward the inside of the fence. He added that if the fence posts were to face his property, he would object. He added that, in his opinion, opinion, it was poor policy not to require that fence posts do not face neighboring propePty. Mr. Ross indicated that he did intend to place the posts toward his property. Commissioner Christensen noted that a wide range of variances had been granted by the Commission re- cently, but this was the first to be based on the size of a dog and he objected to granting such a variance. Mr. Ross commented that he had observed houses where the fence had sloped with the land or where an attempt had been made to fill in the bottom and.that, in his opinion, this was more unsightly than an even high fence. Mr. Ross further stated that in the past they had experienced problems with a dog, and that another reason for'the high fence was to avoid future problems with any of the'neighbors. Commissioner Anderson questioned why the'fence could not stop at the rear corner of the house, thus avoiding the need for a ten foot fence. Mr. Ross noted that he would have to as~ for at east an e!ght foot fence even if they did stop the fence at the house. Commissioner Anderson indicated he was concerned about the aesthetics of the high fence. PLANN I. NG COIvJlVJI. SS ION I~I]NUTE~ - 6 - MAY 40 1976 I0. Mr. Ross stated that his neighbor intended to join his rail fence at the garage. Commissioner Gustafson noted that one of the options of the Commission in granting variances was that special circumstances or conditions that affect the property are such that strict application of the ordinance would deprive the homeowner of reasonable use of his and. In his opinion, the housing of any dog on that land was a reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Gustafson moved to'recommend approval of Planning Case 76-26 - Request for Variance in Fence Height~ to provide a fence from the Southwestern corner of the house to the Southeastern corner of the property line~ that variance to vary accordin~ to the heiqht requirements needed to meet those two particular points~ and that the variance also inc ude the provision that the fence posts must be on the inside of the fence. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Further discussion the~ held regarding.the position of the fence, how important it was to Mr. Ross to extend the fence to the front of the house, and whether the immediate neighbor realized that Mr. Ross intended to move the dog run to the side by the fence. Commissioner Craiqie moved to amend the motion to require that the fence stop at the Southeast corner of the house. Ccmmissioner Atchley second. Voting on the amendment: Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Christensen Abstain: London Absent: Pakonen Amendment passed. Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gusta~son, Gundershaug Voting against: Christensen Abstain: London Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. · An informal discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding the granting of variances. Chairman Cameron recessed the meeting. The meeting was reconvened at'lO:O0 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 13. Chairman Cameron stated he felt that the Zoning Ordinance should be given 30 minutes, for discussion at the meeting with additional review/discussion to be held at the next meeting. Commissioner Christensen raised the question of setback distances and at what point they should be reviewed and discussed. Concensus was to review setback requirements at a future time. The review of the Zoning Ordinance began with Page 49. In resoonse to a question from Chairman C~meron.regarding a ma0 illustrating the districts, Mr. Ryan noted that the ma0 would probably not be drawn until the ordinance had been completely reviewed and. the comprehensive plan studied. Page 50. Decision to delet~ "Oltv Co~Jnc~l" from the designation for Board of Review, in the event that at a future time there might be a completely separate Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Mr. Ryan noted that the planners had outlined uses throughout the ordinence,specifically for example, on page 52 where structural requirements had been attached to conditional uses, in addition to the regulations in Section 20. Considerabl~ discussion followed on the age restrictions included in the section on foster childrdn care. Mr. Ryan noted that the age indicated was a State regulation. The Commissioners felt that the maxi- mum age should be eliminated from the ordinance, inasmuch as there were situations where it did not apply because of the fact that many foster children over 16 years of age were still in school and still assigned to homes. Commissioner Craigie commented that he had personal experience that Hennepin County.placed children to the age of 18. PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 7 ~ MINUTES ~IAY 4, 1976 13. Subdivis'ion B, (2) Recommendation to change restrictive portions to "State and Hennepin County regulations. Discussion then held on the definition of parking space. Commissioner Gustafson expressed his con- cern that the ordinance does not sgecify paved or graveled areas as parking space, feeling that a park- . lng space on the grass along the garage is not a parking space as defined. Mr. Ryan noted that this was covered elsewhere in the parking section. Discussion followed on recreational vehicles and how they should be controlled. The concensus was again that this should be covered by a separate ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance review concluded at Subdivision D (2). Commissioner Christensen suggested that the Commissioners diligently review the remainder of the ordi- nance before the next regular meeting, taking into consideration the fact that while questions should certainly be raised, the ordinance had been prepared by ex0erts, in conjunction with staff. He added that it was important to conclude the revision of the ordinance as soon as possible. 14. Design and Review Committee had met on April 20, 976 to review Planning Case 76-12. ON-GOING BUSINESS 15. Mr. Ryan reported that the planning contract was moving ahead. There would be a meeting on May 5, to begin staff review of the sub-division ordinance. Another meeting to be held shortly on a continued review of the proposed maintenance codes. The Plan Document is nearly complete including specific references to the City Center Plan. Mr. Rvan distributed copies of a new section covering Fencing an~ Screening which he would like discussed at the next meeting 'n preparation for inclusion into the ordinance. This would be inserted into Subdi- vision C, Section 3 -- Fencing and Screening. NEW BUSINESS 16. The City Manager noted in review of the Council Minutes of ADril 26th, that the variance on Cavell Avenue (76-15) had been approved, with the change that the variance was changed to three feet after consultation with the new neighbor. He further noted that the Sign Ordinance adoption had been tabled for one month to allow reorese~tatives of fha sign companies to present, in writing~ their comments anc reactions to the Sign Ordinance to the Council. Discussion fo lowed. 17. The Planning Commission minutes of April 20, 976 were reviewed and accepted as printed. 18. Chairman Cameron announced the new Committee assignments: Design and Review: Christensen - Chairman, London, Pakonen Land Use: London - Chairman, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Bartos Codes and Standards: Gusta~son - Chairman, Craigie, Anderson, Atchley Chairman Cameron then announced that there was also a need for a new Assistant Chairman. Commissioner Craiqie nominated Paul Gustafson for that position. Commissioner Bartos second. Nominations were closed and Commissioner Gustafson was unanimously selected for this position, Chairman Cameron indicated that the Mayor had requested that the Commission hold a.specia meetinR on May I0~ 1976 to consider Planning Case 76-27. The meeting to be scheduled ~t_6:00 p.m. He requested that as many members of the Commission as. possible attena this meeting. Discussion followed with regard to precedent setting for special meetings. Commission expressed' strong concern that this type of procedure in cai lng special hearings aot be used. Commissioner Gustafson requested that he be allowed to review the comments fro~]the sign.company representatives when they were submitted to Council. The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ovce Bo~dd~ker Secr~tar~ -.. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 18, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on May 18, 1976 at the City Ha I, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m, 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie~ Came'ron, Anderson~ Gundershaug Steve Ryan of Midwest Planning Absent: Bartos, Gustafson (excused), Pakonen (excused) COMMll-FEE REPORTS 3. There was ao report from the Codes and Standards Committee 4. Discussion was held on the time frame for ~inishing the review of the Zoning Ordinance~ the Subdivision Ordinance, Maintenance Ordinance and City Plan, as well as the length of time that the Commission would have the services of the consultants. The City Manager noted that as far as the subdivision ordinance was concerned, the greater part of the ordinance was procedural, with the exception of the section on Dark dedication. He added that in regard to the Community Development Plan, two areas that should be examined carefully would be the proposals for correction of problems and the recommendations for the remaining undeveloped parcels of land in New Hope. The City Manager suggested that a special meeting be held between the Planning Commission, the City Council, the advisory commissions and the citizens groups to discuss the final plan. Mr. Larson further commented that the Housing Maintenance Ordinance would need to be reviewed very care- fully since, if adopted, this would add a new element to City responsibilities. Discussion then held about the procedures to be followed and the concensus of the commission was that additional meetings should De scheduled as soon as aossible to al ow the commissioners to arrange their schedules and to allow time f.or aotices to ae mailed regarding the joint meeting. The following meetings were scheduled: May 27th, Planning Commission Review of Zoning Ordinance June Ist, Regular Planning Commission Meeting June 8th, Meeting between the Council, Planning Commission, Advisory Commissions and Citizens Groups regard- ing Community Development Plan June 15th, Planning Commission review of the Maintenance Code and Subdivision Code as proposed. The continued review of the Zoning Ordinance began on Page 52. Section 5 - "R-I" Single Family Residential Subd.C -- clarification of "Permitted Uses" requested ~- if a use is not listed in a district, it is not permitted. Subd.D(2)(q) -- Discussion centered on vehicle definition, whether or not there should be a definition included in the Section of Definitions, and whether or aot in this instance tne ordinance should state "passenger" vehicles. Mr. Ryan is to develop_a definition. Section 7 - "R-3" Medium Density Residential Subd.B (3) -- This section which relates to boarding home - foster children will be chan~ed to refer to State and County regulations. Subd.C ( ) -- Discussion covered permitted uses, and the fact that ~permitted uses" are carried forward from one district to another, only when specifically stated. Mr. Ryan noted that th~s procedure was included to make the ordinance more systematic. Section 8 - Subd.D (3) -- Discussion centered on the proposed apartment density bonus. In response to a question from Dr. Cameron, Mr. Ryan stated that this w~s a standard recommendation of their firm. He added that a I cities do nots - however, specifica Ily state the bonus. In discussion of (c) Mr. Ryan noted that the "fee-free" designation would guarantee that the apartment owner would provide these spaces in addition to the rental garage spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION ]~ ~ MINUTES - 2 - MAY 18~ 1976 4. Section 8 - Subd.D (4)(b) - Discussion then covered the fact that the restriction requiring transit services within 400 feet of elderly housing would severely limit locations in New Hope. Mr. ~yan commented that studies had been conducted that indicated that 400 feet was about as far as the elderly would walk for transit service, and that it was not impossible to anticipate that the transit companies might rearrange routes to accommodate complexes of the elder y, Subd.D (6)(ai - Suggestion made that this section ~eg!~ ~hat required licenses be obtained for group care facilities Secti6n 9 - Subd.D (4) - The residential office district and how the number of offices and retail out- lets would be centre led, other than by sign restrictions, was then covered. Mr. Ryan commented that in his o0inion the sign restrictions, as well as the gross permitted area of the building allowed for the purpose would have the effect of restriction. Discussion then held on a mae that would illustrate the proposed zoning districts, and when such a map might be available. M~. Ryan noted that the map could not be prepared until the suggested districts had been reviewed and the master plan was completed. The City Manager noted that he felt the Commission should be completely aware of the districts and what would be permitted in them, and the eotential mixing of districts. He added that the citizens would be most concerned about the changes regarding potential down zoning of existing districts. Mr. Larson further noted that at the conclusion of this review, when the Ordinance was adopted and when the map was prepared, every section of the City will be zoned under the new ordinance. All existing districts would be converted to the new classifications and some districts would be changed based on the plan. Discussion then followed on proposed m!xtures, i.e. offices on the lower level - apartments upstairs, and the advantages and disadvantages, as would be permitted under the R-O. Mr. Ryan noted that this was basically a European conceot - the mixture of'uses in one district. Mr. Ryan added that he felt that as the areas of the City were reviewed in relation to the districts, the 0roaer zoning of districts would be obvious. In response to questions from the Commissioners, he stated that the zoning districts would be the recommendations of Midwest Planning, but subject to review ane adoption by the Commission and Council. Commissioner Christense~ noted he would need to leave soon and commented on the fact that at the Design and Review Committee meeting of May 18th, there were severa cases considered that he {elf the Commission should be aware of, in relation to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed, and the proposed City Center. Commissoner London concurred with Commissioner Christensen stating that he felt the Commissioners should be very aware of the districts and what would be involved, when they considered the requests of Country Kitchen, Mr. Ernst's office/warehouse, Glodek Mortuary, and the Junior Achievement building. Discussion then held on whether there was any justification in delaying some planning requests until such time that the new ordinances had been ado0ted and whether this would be legal. The City Manager stated that if it were a reasonable moratorium, both as to length of time and to the basis for the moratorium, some delays could be used to provide an opportunity to complete the planning process. Section I0 - "B-I" Limited Neighborhood Business District. Subd,B (~) - Discussion held regarding the wording defining convenience grocery stores, and whether this should be clarified in the ordinance and whether restrictions limiting the size of these stores should be included. Mr. Ryan to re-write the lanquage of this section. Section II - "B-2" Retail B~siness ~istrict~ Discussion covered the term "low intensity" and what type of area this would represent (Midland), "High Intensity" would be the "Dales" or an identifiable "downtown" area or shopping center that would draw from a larger area.than the surrounding neighborhood. Mr Rya~ noted that the intent of the term was to indicate the intensity of the activity in the district, not merely the intensity of one isolated business. Commissioner Christensen left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MAY 18, 1976 4. Discussion continued with regard to the categories of business districts and what would be allowed .in each. For example: B-I -- Bass Lake Road/Winnetka - cleaner, PDG, beauty shop B-2 -- Typically for New Hope residents - local commercial (Mid[and) B-3 -- Auto oriented businesses I-I -- Technical schools, tr8i~ing schools, etc. Considerable discussion followed over which districts would include such businesses as liquor stores, small restaurants, take out food establishments, hamburger type restaurants, and the differences between a printing establishment versus an insty print or quick copy business and how determination would be made of which district each belonged in. Concern was also expressed over existing businesses -- whether or not there should be some type of grand- father clause in the ordinance, or whether it might not be preferable to make the adJustments to the orainance qow that would cover the existing businesses not in the proper zone.under the new district divisions, rather than to amend the ordinance at a future time. Concensus was that Mr. Ryan should include "duplicatin§ services" in the ordinance as a separate category. Dr. Cameron left the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Craigie assumed Chairmanship of the Commission. After additional discussion abou~ the business districts, the concensus of the Commissioners was that they should further review the districts in relation to the existing shopping areas in New Hope, apply the suggested ordinance revisions to these areas, and continue the discussion of the ordinance at the meeting on May 25th. Consideration was then drected toward the restaurants that were located in small centers now, that after code changes would not be permitted uses, i.e. Burger King (B-3) at Midland Shopping Center (B-2) and that Sully's would be B-3, but the bowling alley, also serving food; would also be B-3 under commercial recreation. The City Manager then emphasized to the Commissioners that at the public hearings on the proposed zoning changes, it would be the map that would prove most interesting to the citizens and that it was very impor- tant that the Commissioners be able to answer all questions regarding zoning changes and the reasons for these changes. 5. Commissioner London reported that the Design and Review Committee had reviewed five cases on May 18th, and requested that the Commissioners carefully review Page 67 of the Zoning Ordinance, when they receive their agenda packs outlining the planning cases to be considered on June I. ON-GOING BUSINESS 6. Mr. Ryan referenced the Community Development Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the Housing Maintenance Code that had been distributed ear ier in the meeting. He commented that the errors in the Community Development Plan were printing errors that were presently being corrected and that new copies would be forthcoming. He added that the Maintenance Code contained some very definite policy considerations that if adopted would r~quire enforcing, but stated that the recommendations had been coordinated with the building code, zoning codes and national documents. Mr. Ryan added that it does regulate many areas that are not controlled by ordinance at the present time. The City Manager commented that the Housing Maintenance Code should not be reviewed lightly by the Commissioners, since it would have more of an impact on the citizens of New Hope, than anything else proposed. In response to a question from Commissioner Atchley, the City Manager noted that the City's spraying of dandelions in parks had alwats been of the minimum amount. The upcoming meetings of the Planning Commission were re-stated for the record: May 25th, 1976 - Planning Commission Review of Zoning Code June I, 1976 - Regular meeting of Planning Commission June 8, 1976 - Planning Commission meeting with Council, Adivosry Commissions and Citizen Groups to review final draft of Community Development Plan. June 15, 1976' - Planning Commission review of Sub-division Ordinance and Housing Maintenance Code. PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES - 4 - MAY 18, 1976 NEW BUS INESS 7. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of May 10, 1976 noting that Mr. Perry had received approval for an I lot plat~ that the special use permit for the Sunsltine Factory had been renewed.,, and that the request for a I0 foot fence on Gettysburg had been tabled until May 24th, to al Iow the Council to review the site. 8. The Planning Commission minutes of May 4~ 1976 were approved as printed. The Planning Commission minutes of May I0, 976 were reviewed. Commissioner Craigie referenced Item 5p Page 2, as being persona comments made by him and expressed the opinion that since they were personal fee ings, they perhaps did not repre, sent the majority of the Commission's opinion, as stated. The minutes of May lOth', were approved pending this correction. 9. Commissioner Craigie noted that a problem existed at the Poste Haste Center/, regarding the use of the area between the berm buffer and the fence as a party area by teen agers, creating noise, litter and harassment of neighbors. Commissioner Craigie also noted that the fence at the edge of the property did not go to the end of the corner lot by the exit and that th~ owners of the property were constantly being harassed by many young people walking across their property a~d littering. Complaints by the owners ±o the young people have resulted in more harassment and vandal ism. The City Manager noted that the new owners of the center were most cooperative and stated he would contact them and see if they would be willing TO meet with the Commission regarding these problems. II. By unanimous vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30-p.m. Respectful ly submitted~ Jo~yce Boeddeker, Secrotary PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES MAY 25, 1976 I. A special mee'fing of the Planning Commission was held on May 25, 1976 at the City Hall~ 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hopew Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by ASsistant Chairman Gustafson at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL was taken: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen~ Craigie, Gustafsonw Gundershaug Steve Ryan, Midwest Planning and Research Commissioner Anderson arrived at 7:33 p.m. Absent: Atchley, Cameroon, Pakonen 3. Chairman Gustafson noted that inasmuch as the meeting had been called to a Iow the Commission to con- tinue its review of the proposed Zoning Code, he would turn the meeting over to Commissioner Christ~nsen of the Land Use Committee. The review of the Code, began with Page 63, Section 9, "R-O" RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT Subd.D(2) Commissioner London questioned the term "leased" offices and whether this was a neces- sary term -- should it make a difference whether the office was owned or leased? Decision to e iminate "leased" from the description. D(2)(d) "minimum of conflict" as a restrictive phrase was also questioned by C~mmissioner London as being a difficult thing to control. Mr. Ryan noted that it was a general criteria ~haf, hopefully, would provide an indicator of areas of concern, and alert both prospective applicants and the Commi_ssion to poten~tial problems '~hat must be considered. Decision to leave as is. D(2)(f) Typing error, reference should be to S~bdivision "H" rather than "1" ~(2)(I) Addition of term "subject to the same conditions as allowed in"R-2~ Discussion then centered on whether medical offices, clinics and hospitals should be located in the LI district, as a permitted use. Concern was expressed about the amount of traffic this type of use generated, and the distinctions between laboratories and clinics and hospitals. Mr. Ryan noted that the RO district was not designed as a SF buffer zone but as more a transitional zone between high density residence and Io~ density business. He further commented that hhe Comm'ssioners should avoid the possibility of restricting a district to the extent -that a desired use could not be developed. Concensus of the Commissioners was that this section should not be chanqed as to permitted uses. Commissioner Craigie again expressed his concern that a large clinic or hospital did nOT belong next to a single family residential district. He requested that the "R-O" description include the words ~high or mid-density" preceding "residential~' in , '~ Section 9 ~ Subdivision A ~ Purpose. The City Manager noted-that there were trio visitors at the meeting, who were in attendance for a school assignment, t~e explained the purpose of the special meeting and identified ~hose in attendance for their' benefit, Subd.D(4)(b)(d) Commissioner Chris~ensen questioned the language of these two sections regarding retail activity, feeling that the two sections were contradictory. Mr. Ryan to correct the meaning. D(4)(e) Vtith reference to the restriction of sign size in this section, Commissioner Chrisfensen questioned whether it should not bo included in the sign ordinance. The City Manager noted that this was a restriction conditional upon the }articular use in this district. Mr. Ryan commented that this was more restrictive than the sign ordinance and was felt to be necessary as a condition in deve oping a building that was both residential and commercial. ~Section I0 ,~Lbd.B(3) Essential services were defined as basically utilities. The City Manager suggested that the Commission begin 'their review with Section 13 - "B-4" and work back to "B-I' because the lists of uses would be heavier in "B-4" and more restrictive in lower districts. PLANNING COMJ~ I SS-I ON MINUTES - 2 - MAY 25, 1976 · 3. Section 13 - "B-4" COMMUN TY BUSINESS DISTRICT A considerable amount of time was spent in discussion of the permitted uses for this district. Of special concern were the repetition of some of the uses from the B-3 District, and the question of whe- ther such uses as veterinary clinics, pet stores~ small restaurants, and off-sale liquor stores should be included in the district. The City Manager commented that he felt the Commissioners, in reviewing the four commercial districts, should look specifically at the district definition and the use list. He added that careful considera- tion should be given as to whether some of the permitted uses should really be eliminated from the lower districts, i.e. sewing machine repair and small electrical repair shops. In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos about basement beauty shops, it was noted that this would come under the Home Occupation'Ordinance. Following discussion, concensus seemed to be that a veterinary clinicr without an open kennel, did be- long in a B-4 district~ (New Hope's pet hospital would thus be in the correct district, a ~ennel with ~pen runs, however, would belong in an industrial district. The City Manager noted that at the present time dog kennels were not permitted in New Hope and 'veteri- nary services were permitted only as special uses in the LB district. Further consideration was given to permitted uses in each district, with regard to existing uses in New Hope shopping centers, and whether they should be grandfathered or whether the use lists should be changed at the present time to include some of these uses. Mr. Ryan commented that there were two choices: leaving Midland as B-2, which in his opinion it should be, and amend the use list; or change Midland to a B-4, which would not require amending the use list, but would include uses that were not in line with the more limited character of the shopping center. Discussion regarding the definition of the districts, local.neighborhood traffic centers, and centers which would draw from a larger area then followed. During consideration of "insty print" type operations, Mr. Ryan commented that it might be desirable for ordinance inforpretation to classify this activity by other than process, since these processes were con- stantly changing. The drawing area for prin~ing type activities, the volume involved, and how restrictions on volume could be controlled were then covered. Concensus was that this use should remain ~n B-4r since this would not preclude the coin operated copy machines often located in lower districts. The City Manager noted that all dry cleaning type establishments were now regulated by Fire Code as to location and type of process. He suggested that this type of use be written in terms of the process_ ~mployed. Discussion then centered on "dry good stores" versus fabric stores; whether this type of store included other types of sales; whether the type of store could be controlled by size restrictions in the lower districts; and the range of types and sizes of stores that would come under this category. Consideration of the apparent conflicts of permitted uses regarding electrical repair and applicance stores in the two districts, i.e. a drug store or hardware store could sell TV sets and appliances in a B-2 district, but a TV store or small appliance store would be required to locate in a B-4 district. Concensus was that interpretation was needed on an individual basis and that repair operations should be allowed as an accessory use. Further consideration then given to the classifications of the shopping areas, and whether the use lists should be amended, or whether the shopping centers should be rezoned to accommodate existing uses; whether or not the intent was to eliminate the non conforming uses in certain areas, or whether they should be allowed as conditional uses; and the fact that imposing these restrictions might be a hardship on the existing business that is non conforming ("loss of value"). Commissioner London suggested that perhaps the procedure should not be to water down the districts, but to take a look at each use on an individual basis, not in relation to whether or not it existed in an ~'~- area but as to where the use should be located, to determine whether or no~ the use would be"permit~ed" or "conditional" in a given district. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he ~elt that consideration also needed to be given to the size of an operation in regard to the district, i.e. small appliance/repair shop versus large dealer(Kennedy and Cohen type). PLANNING COMMI SS ION MINUTES MAY 25, 1976 3. A final review of the B~4 permitted Use list was conducted with changes recommended as be!o~: (2) antique shop~ eliminate "Nift shoR" from category (3) amusement places ) ' (4) auto accessory stores ) ·eliminate because repetitious, permitted in "B-3" (7) bowling alleys ) (6) Changed - ~.ooks~ office supplies, and stationary, to be permitted in B-2 Addition - Office Equipment to be ~ermitted use in B-4. (10) Copying services - permitted in B-4, but conditional in B-2 (14) Dry Goods Store - eliminated in B-4 Allow Fabric Stores in B-2 as conditional (15) Electrical appliance stores to be allowed as conditional in B-~ (22) Record Stores eliminated - to be allowed as permitted in B-2 (23) Sewing machine sales/serVice eliminated - to be allowed as permitted in B-2 (26) Custom manufacturing and repair - eliminate "and shoe repair" from this category Addition of veterinary clinics as permitted uses with indoor kennel, and public qaraqe.. The section on AUTO ORIENTED BUSINESS (B-3) was then reviewed. Subd.B(3) commercial recreation uses Following discussion of the definition of these uses, it was recommended that vehicle racing for amuse~ent~_· jump centers, boat rentals, fire arm ranqe_s, amusement rides~ -~nd indoor theaters be removed from the list of accepted uses. The City Manager, in response to a question from Mr. Ryan noted that there are presently two provisions for the operation of carnivals in New Hope: I) If set up as a separate commercial operation - could be a temporary special use 2) If set up as a promotional use in connection with a shopping center, it can be an accessory use licensed by the City. He added that the new ordinance does not specifically control amusement rides but that this should be included as in the present ordinance. Mr. Ryan to so amend the new code. In response to questions, Mr. Ryan noted that the B-3 District is theoretically a spot zone, to accommodate intersections etc., where you would accommodate gas stations, motels, fast food operations, and businesses accessory to automobile travel. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Ryan clarified that all fast food franchise Operations are "conditional uses". D(2)(k) Discussion held on the need to control and reduce noise and who would determine when to regulate. The City' Manager noted that the ordinance did include 5erformance standards as guidelines. D(3)(d) In response to 8 question 'from Commissioner London, Mr. Ryan noted that the minimum sizes stated for lot area for motor fuel stations, etc. were recommendations designed to accommo- date the average-sized franchise gas stations and was an attempt to legislate out the "very very small" franchise operations. He added that gas stations generate more traffic than any other business and since they were most often located on corners, the size restriction was an attempt to control the traffic at intersections. Following additional discussion, concensus was to leave the restrictions as to size in the ordinance. B-2 - RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT The permitted use list in the B-2 District was' then reviewed, Lengthy discussion was held on banks, finance companies, credit unions, savings and Ioans~ and 'i'h'~hich dist¢ict they should be allowed as permitted uses. Concensus was that these should be permitted uses in B-4 and conditional uses in B-2, (7) camera and phot%graphic sup]~lies~ changed to be conditional in B-2 - ~ermitted in B-4 (9) delicatessen ~ to be e iminated as ~ 9ermitted use B-2. RETAIL BUSiNESS_DISTriCT (continued) (11) frozen food stores ~ eliminate as a_permitted._use. (19) ice sales - eliminated a~ a__permitted use (22) Changed to read ~- "Meat market but not including locker storaqe", (25) Changed to read ~- "When accessory to principle use~ Dlumbi~g~ t~Le~yi~ion~ rad]n~ e~L~ctr!ca.L sales and such repair as are accessory uses to the retail establishment permitted within this district". (27) public garage - eliminated from B-2 - included as a ~ermitted use in B-4 After additional discussion, particularly regarding the advantages of allowing small restaurants in the B-2 district, and off-sale liquor operations and where they should be permitted, the following uses were recommended to be included in the B-2 district, 'Fabric Store Conditional Off-sale Liquor Conditional Copy Service Conditional Banks Conditional Sewing Machine Sales/Service Conditional Small Restaurant Conditional Book Store/Stationery Permitted Electrical/Applicance Conditional B-I LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT The B-I District was reviewed, with no new recommended changes. However, at the meeting of May 18th, when reviewing Section I0, SuUd.B(4) the Commission had recommended that Mr. Ryan re-write the language of the section as it pertained to the definition of convenience qfc-. cery stores. L-I - LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT The permitted use list in the L-I District was reviewed: (11) ~ewelry manufacturinq - eliminated - feeling was this was included under ([4) Discussion held on (I).~adio/tetevision - whether it included antenna farms~ studios~ etc? - languafle to be clarified in this section of the ordinance (6) Essential services - clarified as meaning utility buildings et¢. (9) E imination of word "and" changing to read "camera and photographic manufacturing and processing". Commissioner Gustafson questioned where imited retai sales in industrial areas was covered in the new ordinance? Provisions for limite~ sales are to be added to the section as included in the existing__~T_d~na~ce. Following discussion of identifying laboratories by type, decision made to e iminate (5) laboratories (13) "office establishments" eliminated from designation "Office" added as a separate category to ~ermit?ed use list (4) addition of word l'processing" to this section and eliminate (9) as repetitious The City Manager noted that as the Commissioners reviewed the upcoming sections of the ordinance on the FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT and -;he WETLANDS DISTRICt, that ~hey probably would need to spend only a limited amount of time on these, since the regulations were basically outside the control of the City. He further recommended that the Commissioners give special care in review of Section 19~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, before the next meeting. The review of the Zo,~ing Ordiaance wil be resumed with Page 97. Mr. Ryan requested that the Commissioners review the proposed Landscaaing Section very carefully, since this wi I replace the coverage in the present draft. Commissioner ChPistensen re-stated the need for careful review of the section on the PUD, and stated that the review of the Zoning Ordinance would be completed, following the disposition of the Planning Cases at the meeting on June I~ 1976. Following unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 10~25 ~.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES JUNE I, 1976 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June I, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7~30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London~ Christensen, Pakonen Craigie, Atchley, Cameron. Gus~afson Gundershaug Absent: BartoS (excused), Anderson 3. PLANNING CASE 76-12~ REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BAS~ LAKE ROAD AND BOONE~ DI. CK ERNST~ PETITIONER. Mr. Ernst, the petitioner, distributed revised plans to the commissioners. Mr. Ernst stated that as a result of his meeting with the Design and Review Committee,' the Planning Commission and the Council, he had 'ncorDorated some of their reccmmendations 'n the new proposal. These changes included{ moving the building to the North and eliminating a tier of parking in the front of the building(which increases the green area between the building and Bass Lake Road, (a minimum of 20 feet to as much as 57 feet on the wide area of the triangle). This eliminates the variance request in the front of the building. The width of the Easterly driveway had been increased to 22 feet. The trash enclosure had been moved to a more central location, a Boone curb cut and internal driveways designed to accommodate truck move- ments in the rear aarking lot, truck loading berths were provided along the sidewalk on the back side of the building~ and the number of parking lot lighting fixtures were reduced from 15 to 8. Mr. Ernst added that he had had an architect prepare the new ~roposal, but that there was no basic change in the plan from what had been presented to Design and Review. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that Mr. Ernst had commented on most of the concerns of the Design and Review Committee. These included the need for additional truck maneuverabi[itv aT the South end of the site, the reduction of the parking spaces 'n the front of the building, the elimination of employee park= lng in the front of the building and the exposed conduit on the exterior of the building. Mr. Christensen noted that there was sti I a concern about the shared driveway with Post Publishing and trucks tunning in- to the site from Bass Lake Road. Discussion between Mr. Christensen and Mr. Ernst about the front of the building. Mr. Ernst stated that they had not installed a berm, fee lng that the depreseed parking lot would sufficiently screen the park- ing from the residences across Bass Lake Road. Mr. Ernst stated that he was aware of the need for a sign plan and that he intended to submit such a sign at a later date. In answer to a questidn from Commissioner Christensen. Mr, Ernst stated that he felt that 40 spaces was the minimum parking he could provide in the front of the building, to properly serve the tenants of the upper level. He had provided two handicaoped parking spaces in the front of the building, but had not as vet determined where there would be handicapped parking in the rear of the building. Commissioner London noted that another concern of the Design and Review had been the semi-trucks or large vans making deliveries to the rear of the building but entering from Bass Lake Road.into the front park- ing lot, making the turn and then needing to go through the front parking lot and down the narrow East dr~¥e~ Discussion then held about the number of tenants and the minimum size of the bays (20-25 feet in width) and the type of tenants Mr. Ernst hoped to secure. Mr. Ernst indicated he did not intend to comalete the bays as to doors and windows, etc. unti such time that they had been rented, enclosing the area with temporary materials until such time that the building was occupied. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Ernst indicated that he had several people interested in signing leases for the space and foresaw no difficulty in filling the building, The City Manager noted that an area zoned LI did not permit medical type offices in the building. Mr. Ernst commented that he would lease to whoever was compatible with the ordinance and in response to questions from Chairman Cameron, said he felt optimistic about being able to fill the space. Discussion then centered on the driveway that will be shared with Post Publishing and the fact that while it would ~e extra width (34 feet) there woul~ still be a aroblem as far as channe ling the traffic in the area. It was felt, perhaps by the use of a median that outgoing traffic should be forced to the right, and the ingoing traffic to the left. Discussion then centered on the possibility of channe lng the truck traffic entering from Bass Lake Road; the type of tenants M~. Ernst hoDed to lease to and whether or not the tenants on the upper evel would require truck deliveries; the minimum number of parking spaces to be required; the problems that would be created by any type of truck de ivery in the office area; and how PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 2 - JUNE I, 1976 3. Mr. Ernst could guarantee that there would be no employee parking in the front of the bull.dingo Further discussion was held about the safety factor involved with the common driveway, the pros and cons of perhaps installing a permanent division 'n the driveway~ versus striping the drivewayt the difficulty for a semi-truck in negotiating the turn from Bass Lake Road if a permanent median was installed. Mr. Ernst expressed his opinion that the driveway would not be any more hazardous than many other drive- ways in New Hope and that he would post signs stating that employee parking was not permitted in the front lot. He re-stated his feeling that the Parking facilities requested were the minimum needed and that he could, if necessary, make employee parking at the rear, a condition of the lease. Mr. Dennis Hollan, 8716 Bass Lake Road, asked how much the parking lot would be depressed (answer was four feet)'. He then stated he appreciated the reduction of the barking spaces in the front of the building, but questioned whether or not there was such a thing as wholesale carpet sales any more and felt that the carpet store would require large trucks as wel as being a .retail sales operation. He further added that he did not know how they would be able to prevent employee parking in the front, and he felt that 40 spaces were enough to support a retail ~ype of facility and that the safety problem would exist as long as they allowed parking in the front. He stated that he felt it was only in the suburbs that people expected to be able to park in front of a business operation, and that in the downtown area people never questioned having to park and walk to a business establishment. Mr. Max Green, 5800 Boone Avenue North, agreed with the statements made by Mr. Holland, and wanted to go on record as opposed to this development, stating he felt it was more of a retai establishment than the type of use that New Hope was trying to establish on the site° Mrs. Barbara Brandt, 5801 Decatur Avenue, stated she also agreed with Mr. Holland and Mr. Green, feeling that it was ~ore of a retail type of business layout since there were no corridors o¢ any interior layout. Chairman Cameron questioned whether it would be possible for Mr. Ernst to delete the 16 Northerly parking spaces and leave just the immediate parking in front of the building. If it was shown at a later time that he needed the parking, the exDansion spaces would be there. If.at this state, he would indicate that this was future parking, the Chairman felt this would be a reasonable compromise for this stage of develop- ment. Mr. Ernst indicated that he had been thinking of building a concrete curb around the parking lot, which could be eliminated and the area landscaped at this time. He added that he was on a tight schedule, would like to get the building under construction. He added that this might be a wise solution to the question, but that he was convinced that he would have no difficulty in obtaining the kinds of tenants that would be an asset to the neighborhood and maybe, after the Commission saw the mix of tenants° they would not ob- ject to the additional parking. Additional discussion with Mr. London suggesting that perhaps the two Easterly parking spaces could be eliminated, making a diagonal curve to allow better access off Bass Lake Road. Hr. Ernst noted he would post the front lot to eliminate large truck parking. Commissioner Craigie questioned whether Mr. Ernst would consider increasing the handicapped parking by two or even three spaces on the North side because of the natural architectural barrier that existed be- tween the lots. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 76-12 - Construction Plan Approval for an Office/Warehouse on the Southwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone with the followinq conditions: I. That the plan be amended in time for the City Council meetinq to provide 24 parking stalls now on the front lot and that the 16 Northernmost spaces would be eliminated. 2. That there be no exterior exposed conduit on the buildinq. 3. That landscapinq be indicated in the area where the ~ront parkinq spaces had been'eli, mi'nated. 4. That the parking lot at the North be si~ned~ notin~ "no employee parking". Commissioner Pakonen second. Mr. Ernst indicated he would put in two more handicapped spaces in the lot. Discussion followed on striping of the driveway -- Mr. Ernst stating that this would be done by County direction. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie~ Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson~ Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson ~otlon pa~d. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JUNE I, 1976 4. PLANNING CASE 76-28 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE AT 4508 AQUILA AVENUE{ TIMOTHY MEYER{ PETITIONER. Mr. Meyer stated that he was requesting permission to construct an additional garage of 16 x 24 feet which would bring his total garage area to 735 square feet, 35 feet over the maximum. He intends to use the garage for storage of his pick-up truck and other items that he presently stores outside. His present garage is a tuck-under garage. The aew garage would have a 7 x 9 foot door and a separate entrance door in the front. It will have a hip roof, similar to the residence and will be shingled and sided to match the residence. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Meyer stated that he had no home occupation, would use the garage strictly for storage, that he would use the existing curb cut, angling the driveway to the left to enter the door of the garage. The driveway will be blacktopped and he intends to also blacktop over the present driveway. The present garage will continue to be used as a garage. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Planninq Case 76-28~ Request for Variance in Garaqe Size~ sub,iect to the same roof line and the same type of siding and color as are on the house. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie,-Atchley, Cameron, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos~ Anderson Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-29 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT 5635 WISCONSIN AVENUE NORTH. VERNON STUHR{ PETITIONER. Mr. Stuhr stated that he was requesting the special use permit to a Iow him to re3air and service sewing machines and vacuums in his garage as he had been doing for several years. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Stuhr stated he wished to operate out of the garage attached to the house, that the other structure on the adjacent lot was strictly for storage. He stated further that he sold machines only on request, that he was an authorized dealer for several machines. He aoted that he used mainly small tools, with the exception of a grinder, and that the only employees were himself and his wife. n a typical day, he would have one or two customers at a time. He stated that he had no truck deliveries as he picked up the parts himself. In response to Questions from Mr. London, Mr. Stuhr said the attached garage was 18 x 24 feet~ that no outside people were employed, and that he would have perhaps 3 or 4 customers a day. In response to questiQns from Commissioner Pakonen, Mr. Stuhr stated he usually parked his work truck either on the lot or in the driveway and that basically he parked it there for'advertising purposes. This was the only type of advertising he did. The truck is marked with advertising for the business. In answer to a question from Commissioner Atchley, the City Manager stated that retails sales were not allowed from a home except through the granting of a special use permit that allowed this. During a discussion relative to neighborhood opinion of his business, Mr. Stuhr noted he had received no direct complaints. The City Manager commented that there have been complaints received at the City Hall periodically regard~ lng the legality of the business. In answer to a question from C~mmissioner Craigie regarding the frequency of machine sales. Mr. Stuhr stated he aerhaps sold two machines a month. During a discussion about the existing signs and what type of signs were permitted, the City Manager noted that under a home occupation as an accessory use, there were no permitted signs and that with a special use the Commission would need to took at the sign problem and determine what would be allowed. Any sign is a violati(..n of the sign ordinance During a discussion about the zoning of Mr. Stuhr's adjacent lot, Commissioner Gustafson noted that he felt that discussion of this problem should be delayed until such time as the new zoning districts in the City were established. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approvaI of Case 76-29 - Special Use Permit for a Home Occupation at 5635 Wisconsin~ sub,iect to: I. Annual review by staff 2. That the truck be parked on the driveway in front of the attached qaraqe 3. That a sinqle directional siqn be placed on the house and 4. That the one and only other si~n~ be the one existin~ on the vacant lot indicatin~ sales of sewing machines. Commissioner Crai~ie second. PLANNING COM~41SSION MINUTES ~ 4 ~ JUNE I, 976' 5. Commissioner Pakonen expressed his concern about the size of the sign on the vacant lot and indicated his opinion that there were alternative ways to advertise. He also commented that advertising signs had not been permitted in other home occupation permits. In response to questions from Mr. Pakonen; Mro Stuhr stated that he occasionally had advertised in school papers, but that was all. Commissioner Pakonen amended the motion to eliminate the directional sign and the advertisinq si~n on the vacant lot. Commissioner London. second. Further discussion held abQut the sig~s on the property° Voting on the amendment to eliminate the signs: Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Pakonee Voting against: Craigie, Atchley0 Cameron, Gustafson; Gundershaug Absent: Bartos, Anderson Amendment failed, Commissioner Gustafson amended the motion to include that the ~irectional sign by the sign that currently exists on the structure. Commissioner Craiqie second. Voting in favor: Pakonen, Craigie~ Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson " Amendment passed: Commissioner Pakonen amended the motion to eliminate~ the sign on the vacant lot. Commissioner Atchle¥ second. Voting in favor: Londo% Christeh's~n0 Pa'konen~.Atchley, Cameron Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Cra~gie ~ Absent: Bartos, Anderson Amendment passed. Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Pakonen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug; Craigie Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-30 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE AT 3540 WINNETKA AVENUE, HOLY NATIVITY LUTHERAN CHURCH~ PETITIONER. Mr. Ken Jensen represented the church. He stated that they were requesting a variance that would permit them to have a third sign on the church property. The sign is located near the church proper on the cor- ner of 36th and Winnetka. They feel that the sign has a humanitarian type of message,that is changed approximately once a month. It is an offshoot of the more common type of sign that announced what the preacher is to speak about on Sunday. They feel that is is a unique sign because it is not intended to attract new members to the church, it is non-denominational, and is intended to promote conversation and thought. The sign has been in place since '71-'72 and has received a fair amount of press attention. The church feels it provides a service to the community. They are not challenging the fact that it needed a variance but were requesting that the Commission'give serious thought to the granting of the variance. Chairman Cameron announced that he would remove himself from the discussion because his family belonged to the church. In a discussion as to the incorporation of the message sign with the other two signs, Mr. Jensen noted that he felt this would defeat the purpose of the sign= A considerable ength of time ~as then spent on discuss?on of alternative solutions to having three signs, ~-~ whether or not the church would be willing to choose two of the three signs, the precedent that would be set for future requests if message signs were permitted as third signs, the possibility that the sign was a po±ential traffic hazard, the fact that the sign was the first of its type to be located in New Hope and the popularity of the sign in the community. Commissioner Gustafson expressed his opinion that at the time of the discussion on the sign ordinance, all segments of the community had had the opportunity to appear and express their opinions and concerns about the regulations. He added his feeling that the ordinance should perhaps be amended to allow this PLANNING COt4VlISSION MINUTES - 5 - JUNE I, 1976 6. ty~e of sign rather than to grant the variance. He noted that the ordinance presently al owed two signs, of 20 square feet each, and did not specify what would be on the signs. He added that he had heard no reasons at the present meeting to establish that because something was first; it was sufficient reason to grant a variance. Further discussion between the Commissioners as to the merits of this variance request; the precedent that granting this variance would set; the effect of this sign on the City~ whether or not the message sign should be permitted with the removal of one of the other signs as a condition; whether this sign could be interpreted as aaverti'sing; past sign requests from other churches in the community, and whether or not the sign should be considered as a "public service message". Mrs. Ginny Untiett, 3300 Hillsboro stated that she was not a member of the church, but that she felt it was an asset to the community, expressed good will and should be allowed to remain. Mr. Steve Keswin, 3417 Independence Avenue, asked what the ordinance regulation~ were regarding signs (2 signs of 20 square feet each). He stated that he also was not a member of the church, but that he felt the sign not detrimental and was preferable to signs advertising gas prices. He felt it was a great sign. Mrs. Mary Kangas, 4060 Oregon, stated that she passed the sign quite often~ felt it was not a traffic hazard or a 3roblem, because while it did attract your attention, you were most often stopped at the semaphore. Mr. Paul Swenson. 3333 Ensign Avenue, stated he was also in favor of the sign, thought that it was an asset, provided a public srevice and felt that the statement that it could be a traffic hazard did not apply,, since the sign had been in position for perhaps five years and he was not aware of any comments that it had been a traffic hazard. Commissioner Craigie stated he wished to response to some of the comments expressed. He felt it did bring an "image" to the church, it was selling at east ideas, and he was concerned that the Commission be in- volved in ruling on signs that they liked or did not like. He felt this was a nebulous area for the Com- mission to become involved in. He noted that the two entrance signs were basically directionall and ques- tioned why one of these signs could not be removed thus eliminating the need for a variance in number of signs. Mr. Jensen noted that this was an option, but that to agree, to this condition, he would have to return to the church for instructions. Commissioner Gustafson commented that the City had a sign ordinance in existence that had been recently reviewed and that the ordinance was very specific in what was allowed. In his opinion, the proposed sign ordinance should be revised to allow each and every church to have a third sig~ on their property, or else the ordinance should be enforced as written. Commissioner Gustafson-made a motio~ to recommend denial of Case 76-30 - Request for Variance of the Siq~ Ordinance at 3540 Winnetka for Holy Nativity Church. Commissioner London second. Further discussio~ between the Commissioners regarding the option of the church choosing two of the three signs o~ the property; the need to look at variance requests on an individual basis; the danger of signs becoming out of contral in the City, as is the case '~ neighborin~ cities and the responsibility of The City to enforce the sign ordinance. Commissioner Craigie moved to amend the motion to state that the requested variance be denied~ but that any two of the three existinq signs could remain. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting on the amendment: Voting in favor: Craigie, Atchtey Voting against: London, Christensen~ Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Abstain: Cameron Absent: Bar:os, Anderson Amendment failed. Voting on the motion ~) deny. Voting in favor: Craigie, Gustafson Voting against: London, Christensen, Pakonen, Atchley, Gundershaug Abstain: Cameron Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion failed. Commissioner Craiqiethen made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 76-30 subject to the remaining in its present location and subiect to annual review by staff. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Crhistensen. Pakonen~ Craigie, Atchley, Gundershaug Voting against: Gustafson Abstain: Cameron Absent: Bartos~ Anderson Holt!on pass~, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6 - JUNE I, 1976 7. PLANNING CASE 76-31 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE AT 3431 AQUILA~ VERNON ANDERSON~ PETITIONER. Mr. Anderson stated he was reauesting permission to construct an additional garage of 22'8" x 22' at the rear of his existing garage. He would then have garage space 99 sauare feet over the maximum allowed by code. He restores old cars as a hobby and does not like to have them stored outside. He would have the same type of peak as on the existing garage and would use the same type of siding and same color as on the house. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Anderson stated that the back wall of the existing garage would be removed to provide one long garage; that he reconditions the cars for his own use; is not in the business; uses no chemicals of an explosive type; has no intention of expanding the shop area; and uses no welding equipment other than hand held butane torches. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 76-31 - Request for Variance in garage size at 3431Aquila~ subject to the continuation of the existing roof line and the use of the same type and color of siding as on the existing structure. Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: Pakonen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Atchley Absent: Bartos, Anderson, London, Christensen Motion passed. 8, PLANNING CASE 76-32 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 861 55th AVENUE NORTH,~ NEW HOPE NURSING HOME~ PETITIONER. Mr. Frank Pattee, architect for the project, stated that the nursing home was interested in adding a two story building to the home consisting of 1200 souare feet on each floor, located between the South and North wings of the home. This will be used for support facilities for the staff and include a lounge, classroom, ocker space. On the upper level will be one large open space for use in arge group acti- ties, such as church services. Commissioner Christensen noted that Mr. Pattee had appeared before the Design and Review Committee. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen~ Mr. Pattee stated that there would be a three foot high unit placed about 40 feet from the edge of the building on the robf 8nd he.felt it would not be.,..:- u extremely noti.cebble from the road. In answer to questions from Commissioner Craigie about the exit possibilities from the two floors in case of an emergency, Mr. Pattee noted that each flor exited on grade from different sides of the facility. The second level exiting to the East and the first evel exiting to the West on grade, He added that the building would be constructed according to code, Commissioner Chistensen recommended approval of Planning Case 76-32 - Request for Construction Approval aT 8611 55th Avenue North. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London. Christensen, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson, Pakonen, Gustafson Motion passed. 9. PLANNING CASE 76-33 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 7601 42ND AVENUE NORTH - JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT, PETITIONER. Mr. David Griswold, of Griswold and Rauma Architects, reminded the Commissioners that at the time that the YMCA building had been before the Commission, mention had been made of the Dossiblity that Jr. Achieve- ment might desire to be located in an addition to the"Y" building. He added that Jr. Achievement had re- cently made the decision to proceed. Mr. Griswold introduced Mr. Ron Cody: of the Jr. Achievement organization to answer questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Cody stated that the kitchen was included in the six meeting rooms; that the hours of operation would be 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; and that the Jr. Achievement operation would be basically independent of the "Y" operation. The main entrance to the building will be on the South side of the structure since Jr. Achievement wished a separate ~ntrance from the "Y" entrance. In response to concerns expressed about the trees that would be displaced by the addition, Mr. Griswold indicated that they would be relocated on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES ~ 7 ~ JUNE I~ 1976 9. Commissioner Christensen questioned whether the 50 parking spaces indicated for the J~nio~ Achievement addition would be sufficient if there should be 6 companies meeting at the same time~ as well as adult advisors who would arrive in cars. Mr. Cody indicated that Junior Achievement had determined their parking needs independently of the "Y" needs. He stated that there would be a maximum of six Junior Achievement companies meeting on any one meeting night, which would mean a maximum of 120 youngsters a night. There were 3 adult advisors to each company as well as two staff members. He then noted that 65% of the youngsters involved were sophomores who would not be able to drive and that 50% of the students were usually bused to the location from their schools. These ~igures were based on past experience in other locations. This was what had determined the aumber of parking spaces requested. Discussion then centered on the sidewa k at the West side of the building and the potential for the area to become a hang out as it is a relatively hidden area since a fire door opened to this area ~rom the "Y". Mr. Griswold noted that it was necessary for a door. but that there had been consideration given to eli- minating the vestibule inside to make it less of a potential hang-out area. Discussion held on the possibility of the door being'only a fire exit or emergency door. Ur. Griswold noted this would be possible', but that the door was under surveillance and that installing a door without exterior hardware would eliminate its use as an access when the "Y" wished to use the Southern end of the site. In response to questions from Commissioner Christensenp Mr. Griswold noted that there were lights all along the West side of the Junior Achievement building and also lights at the entrance as well as the lighted JA logo on the sidewalk side of the building. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Griswold noted that other than the lights in the parking lots, there were no plans to have security control, i.e. cameras etc. 24 hours a day. He added that one of the ~eatures of the "Y" building was a long spine down the center which was completely open, allowing vision from any point up and down the mall area and to the rear area of the outside'i allowing the rear area to be under surveillance during hours of operation. In response to questions regarding storage of combustibles in the kitchen area, Mr. Griswold stated that this was an area that he felt would have to be resolved by staff. Mrs. Mary Kangas, 40'46 Oregon, commented that she was present to protest the granting of any permits of any kind to any organization until the damage done to the rear end of the property was corrected. She added that originally when the "YMCA" was given permission to build there, word had been given that the South end of the property would remain in its natural state. She said it had not been, and she was ob- tecting to the total d~struction of the property. Originally there were three swamps and a duck pond and none of them were left. There were holding ponds and with no place for water to go, it might flood their basements. She was also concerned about the wild life, ducks left with no place to nest or raise their young. The ducks have been all over the yards and have eaten $45 worth of gold fish from her yard, She restated her feeling that the ponding area should be returned to its natural state. Mr. Griswold noted that the large pile of dirt would-be' removed from the site at the end of construction. He stated that the construction has proceeded exactly as proposed, adding that if Mrs. Kangas was refer- lng to the material South of the site, this had been placed there, unbeknownst to them, before the con- struction of the "Y" began, when the road was built. The City Manager noted that there were three separate parcels involved: one, the YMCA site, second the road, and third,the Old Dutch Potato Chip parcel. There were 200 yards of material placed on the road easement and the Old Dutch site from the road construction. He further stated that a certain amount of ponding area would have to be retained. Miss Adrian Kangas, 4046 Oregon,stated that she objected to any construction that destroyed the wild area. She added that it used to be great to go back there and be quiet and collect your thoughts. She suggested that the Commissioners go back there and see what has been destroyed. Mrs. Kangas commented that if they could know for sure that the ponding area would be retained and an~ area for wildlife be returned they would not ~bject to the addition. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Plannin~ Case 76-33 - Request for Construction Approval - with the stipulation that the sidewalk~ which is now placed in a position of bein§ strictly secondary~ be eliminated,, that the lighting will be continued on the West side~ and that appropriate security mea- sures will be maintained and that the trees di.splaced by the addition will be located elsewhere on the property. Commissioner Pakonen se~d, Chairman Cameron expressed his opinion that the sidewalk was a good idea, and ~ince the sidewalk would be plowed in the winter with the door used as a fire exit from that end of the building, the sidewalk would be necessary. PLANNING CO~vlISS!ON MINUTES ~ 8 .~ JUNE I 1976 9. Voting in favor: Christensen~ Pakonen~ Craigie Voting against: Atchley~ Cameron~ Gustafson~ Gundershaug~ London Motion failed: Commissioner London moved for approval of Case 76-33 - Construction Approval for the JA Building as Pro- pRsed~ with the stipulatio~ that the trees be relocated elsewhere on the lot. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Further discussion about the creation of a loitering area and whether or not the staff Should review the parking situation after a period of time to determine whether or not the parking space was adequate. Commissioner Gustafson amended the m6tion to include that the staff review the parking situation after one year of use and make a determination if the space was adequate. Commissioner C¢aiqie second. Voting on the amendment: Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Pakonen~ Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bar:os, Anderson Amendment passed. Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: London, Pakonen, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafsono Gundershaug Voti.ng against: Christensen Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. lO. PLANNING CASE 76-34 - REQUEST FOR REZONING LB TO RB - COUNTY #18 and 36TH AVENUE - LUNDS~ INC.~ PETITIONER Mr. Dwayne Joseph, stated he was with the Dorsey offices and ?epresented Lunds;'lnc.-.He noted that Lunds was the operator of locally owned grocery stores and real estate and that they were requesting the rezon- lng to construct a convenience shopping center that would be similar to their.present operation in Minne- ~-~ tonka. They are proposing to develop ao0roximately 70,000 square feet on the site -- 35,000 of it grocery store, I0,000 drug store and the balance of it other related uses. They {eel the 0resent zoning category doesn't fit the site as shown by the ~act that there had been a failure of anything to develop to date. He commented further that they were not presenting plans or layouts at this time because they wished the Commission to act on the zoning issue first. If the ruling were ~avorable they would hire architects and 01anners and be wi'lling to meet with the City staff and community representatives in order to lay out a development plan for the shopping center that they feel would best utilize the land. He noted their opinion that a number of the people in opposition to the proposa would be in opposition to any proposal for the property. He added their feeling that the substantial capital investment they were willing to make on the site would be the best use for the site, adding that they were aware of the City Center plan for bew Hope, but did not feel this answered Lund's needs. Mr. Joseph further noted the fact that the area across the street was zoned for retail business and ex- pressed his opinion that there was a substantial demand for a superior grocery facility in the community. Chairman Cameron noted that the only issue that the Commission was being asked to consider, was the rezon- lng, stating that a rezoning could only be granted because of a mistake in the original zoning or because the conditions in the area had changed, Mr. Frank Piche man, 3708 Jordan, noted he was the Chairman of the Economic Development Commission for the City of New Hope. He spoke in Oehalf of the request, He added that the area is LB, and is always going to be developed something less than residential. He added that the charge of the Economic Develop~ ment, was to locate new business and attem0t to lure them to New Hope. He felt it was important to realize that when good businesses were interested in locating in New Hope, they should fry to bring them in. He added that the Economic Development Commission felt Lunds was a cadillac in the retail grocery area, was a high class opera±ion and wanted to' see them in New Hope. Commissioner London requested that Mr. Joseph speak more specifically to the criteria for thinking there was a mistake in zoning. Mr. Joseph noted the RB zoning across the street and their feeling that the site in question is similar to it in every respect, and that in terms of the change in circumstances, the development of the City has expanded substantially and there is a need for this type of commercial'operation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - JUNE I~ 1976 I0. In response to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Joseph noted that he did not feel it would be in the scope of a regional shopping center and while it would certainly draw from Plymouth and Golden Valley, he did not feel it would draw from a much larger are~adding that any use of the property would generate traffic. Commissioner London noted that in the completion of the City Plan, they had strongly recommended dis- couraging any further spot or lineal commercial development and also wanted to insure that any develop- ment of scattered open parcels is accomplished in a manner that would he p to develop more functional development patterns. He added, his opinion, that they were talking about much more than a local centeg something that would draw from a wide area. Chairman C~meron asked if Lunds had ~onsidered any other site in New Hope. Mr. Joseph noted that they had, and had looked ~t the downtown center, so to speak, but felt that this site was far superior. Commissioners Cameron and Gustafson noted that the City of New Hope would welcome a Lunds store in New Hope, but that a case could not be made for a mistake in the orginal zoning of for a significant change in the area. Mr. Don Metz, 9024 Northwood Parkway, stated he was a representative of the Northwood-Hidden Valley Executive Committee and presented a prepared statement expressing their opposition to the rezoning. (attached to official minutes) Mr. Steve Keswin, 3417 Independence Avenue North, noted that Lunds was not a "small business, that they lived in a cadillac area, and he did not feel it would he p the area as far as property values were con- cerned or in noise control. In answer to a question from Mr. Keswin, the City Manager stated that townhouses could not be Iocate~ on the property, but that multiples could. Mrs. Mona Krohn, 32nd and Hil sboro, stated she was concerned about the traffic and the fact that she felt felt the store would devalue her property. Mr. Ron Schally, 9121 36th Avenue North, expressed his opinion that the Economic Development Commission should spend more time looking for people to move into New Hope that were consistent with the zoning 'n effect. He felt that while there might be a commercial need, he felt that the need might be greater 'n Plymouth. He further gave his opinion that as County #18 was completed any undeveloped property along #18 would be attractive to business. Mr. Frank Kris, 9133 35th Avenue, stated that they were aware that the property was zoned LB, but that the hours in limited business were usually 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. but with a retail estab ishement the hours would be longer, noting some stores stay open 24 hours a day and that the traffic would be constant. Mr. Charles Dillerud, Planning Director from the City of Plymouth, stated that they were all aware of the problems on #18 and 36th Avenue and asked the Commissioners to consider the change in traffic that might result with this development. Traffic was not very heavy at this intersection. Another citizen noted that there were five grocery stores within 8 blocks of the area and another store was not needed. Mrs, Untieff, 3300 Hil sbor Avenue, noted that as a previous resident in Crystal, they had experienced the necessity of requesting a stop light because of traffic problems and the subsequent death of a child, and she could foresee the same thing happening in this situation. Commissioner London commented that in his opinion there had been no case presented for an initial mis- take and no case had been made for a substantial change in his opinion. Commissioner London made a ~otion to recommend denial of Plannin§ Case 76-3~ - Request in Chan§e of Zoninq from LB to RB~ because there had been no case made to support either a mistake in original zoning or substantial change in the area. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against~ None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. Chairman Cameron declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 10:55 p,m. by Chairman Cameron. PLANNING COiV]MISSION MINUTES - I0 ~ JUNE I~ 1976 PLANNING CASE 76-35 - REQUEST FOR REZONING AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 40½ AND JORDAN - MARVIN GORDON~ PETITIONER. Mr. Gordon stated he was requesting a rezoning and approval of a ~lat that would include 9 single family lots and 6 multiple lots to be used for duplexes. The duplex lots would back up to #18. Commissioner London commented that he felt that the Commission should address |tse f to the rezon[ng first. The City Manager noted that Lots 5 and 6 would be rezoned MR and I/2 of 0 and Lots 11-15 would be rezoned from MR to SFo n answer to questions from Commissioner London as to why Mr. Gordon felt that the area had changed to warrant rezoning, Mr. Gordon commented that he felt that the majority of the people in the area would prefer that it be residential. He noted that there was bad swamp land between the SF residential and his property which would be difficult to bui d on.. He felt this develo0ment would be good for the area~ Mr. London then commented on the fact that lots 13~14,15 were only 20 feet wide at the rear lot line. Mr. Gordon noted this was true, but that the lots were approximately 175 feet dee0 and there would be no problem in placing a house on the lot. In a discussion about the access to the area 40½ and Jordan, Commissioner London noted that there was a oroposal presently before the City Council to install a 3-way stoo sign at 40½ and Flag. He added ~hat complaints had also been received regarding the traffic on Gettysburg off 42nd. The City Manager commented that at the present time the MR lots would need to be developed under PUD requirements. Discussion then followed about Outlet A. Mr. Gordon noted that there was a possibility of his develop~hg this parcel as townhouses or in connection with the 0roperty located to the North. He felt it would remain multiple, adding he had discussed joining the property for development with Mr. Fletcher. He has no actual plans at the present time, The lot could also support a multiple apartment building. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the possibility of construction a road through to Gettysburg rather than the cul-du-sac, Mr. Gordcn stated he had considered it but that the land was bad in the area where the extension would be needed. Commissioner Craigie noted that he liked many things about Mr. Gordon's elan, including the fact that the buildings would be owned rather than rental units, but he was concerned about the establishing of a deaJ end street that would be shared by both duplexes and single family residences, He questioned Mr. Gordon's failure to include Outlet A in this development plan. Mr. Gordon stated that the duplex development would be in the 60-70 thousand dollar ~ange and the single ~amily homes in the 45-60 thousand dollar range. Jerry Gwin-Lenth, 9217 40½ Avenue, stated he wished to speak to the criteria for changing zoning, namely that there had been a mistake originally. He noted that the entire area was now zoned single family and in his opinion, zoning the property MR in the first olace was a mistake. He felt the same reasons applied to Outlet A. He added that he felt that the majority of the residents fet the same way and would be much more receptive to the plan if Outlet ~ were zoned SF also. This would reduce the concern over additional traffic. He suggested that Mr. Gordon consider altering the intersection at 40½ ane Jordan, perhaps straightening out Jordan. He felt more consideration had to be given to the traffic flow in that area. Mr. Tom Wilder, 9224 40½ Avenue North,noted that his home backs up to Outlet A, and he finds merit in the plan. He realizes that ii was zoned multiole and agreed there was a traffic problem,,but felt the traffic problem would be considerably more if the whole oiece were developed MR, as it is presently zoned, He wished to go on record that although he was not crazy about Outlet A, h~ was in favor of the plan. Mr. Dick Henry, 9325 40½, asked about specific plans for the development. Mr. Gordon stated he .'id not have s0ecific plans as yet, but that the homes would be similar to those in the area and in the $45-60 thousand dollar range. The du01exes would be in the 65-70 thousand dollar range. Mr. Henry questioned whether this was not what the single family homes in the area were selling for at the present time. Mr. Gordon noted that he did not intend to bui d the homes himself but would sell to another developer. Commissioner Gustafson commented that the Commission had no authority to specify the price range of the houses to be constructed on those lots and that the economic conditions at the time of building would make the final determination. Mr, Charles Dillerud, 4148 Gettysburg, stated he felt the zoning appeared to be reasonable. He was PLANNING COMMISSION · MINUTES ~ II - JUNE I~ 1976 II. concerned with 'the plat. He noted he was concerned about the cul-du-sac since it would limit their options in the future development of the remainder of the property. He suggested consideration be given to extending the road to the North property line of the parcel-. He requested that the Commission keep that option open. Discussion between Mr. Dillerud and Dr. Cameron regarding his suggestions. Mr. Ditlerud noting the street could be developed with a temporary cul-du-sac, so it coul~ be extended in the future. Mr. Randy Schostag, 9309 40½ Avenue, expressed his concern, as well as that of his neighbors, for the i-. total development of the area. They would like to see a total development concept that included Out- lot A. They would also not like to see any multiple development in the area. At the present time they are very concerned about the cul~du-sac development and the kind of traffic that would be generated and would like to have same indication of how that land will be developed in the future. He also expressed concern about the intersection of Jordan and 40½. Mr. Willard Nelson, 4057 Ensign Avenue. stated he had lived in New Hope since 1967 and that since that time, Council has been looking at that area and the traffic patterns and that they have been waiting all that time for some positive action on what is going to be done with the intersection of 42nd/Gettys- burg. His feeling was that no changes should be considered in that area until the traffic access that will be available to the area is determined. Mr. Nelson further noted that there are several homes on the South side of Northwood Pond with inadequate sewer systems. He questioned whether, until there is positive proof that the sewer system in New Hope is adequate, they should be putting additional burdens on that system by adding new development? The City Manager stated that while he personally could not assure the adequacy of the system, the engi- neers say that with the new lift station the system is adequate. Chairman Cameron noted that over the past years he had spent many hours trying to get some positive de- velopment in this area, adding that the Commission had to assume that Gettysburg was going to stay the way it is, without any lights, and deal with the problem the best way possible. Mr. Dan ~iller, 9000 40½ Avenue, commented that he was concerned about the fact that every time it rained, the people on the South side of the pond had problems with the sewer system,.yet the Commission wanted to add more people into the same system. Mr. Nelson questioned how the sewer system could be adequate if people had three feet of sewage in their basements? He questioned how they could consider adding people to an inadequate system, feeling it was a critical question. Chairman Cameron noted that the sewer system was a sepadate issue and that all the Commission was consider- ing at this time was a ~quest for rezoning and suggested that Mr. Nelson take up the problem of the sewer system with the City Council. Commissioner London noted that as a resident of 40½ Avenue. he agreed that there was a definite problem. with traffic in the area, but added that there was a Traffic Commission currently working on this parti- cular problem.. He further stated that he felt the proposed plat had a lot of merit and it would certainly reduce the traffic flow from what it would be were the area developed into multoples. He was, however, still con- cerned about Outlot A. Mr. Gordon stated in answer to further questions that he would most likely sell the property to just one developer. The City Manager, in answer to a question from Commissioner Atchley, noted that the MR area as zoned would not be limited to duplexes, but could be developed into 17 units per acre as it is presently ~ zoned with a PUD development. Commissioner Craigie commented that he liked the fact that the MR lots were positioned against #18. Further discussion held between the commissioners as to whet~er they oould ~approve the rezoning and not the plat and their concerns about Outlot A. Chairman Cameron commented that, in his opinion, there had been a change in the area, because when the property was originally zoned, Highway #18 was a two lane road. Commissioner London moved for denial of Case 76-35 - Approval of Preliminary Plat - based on the concerns that had been expressed with Outlot A and its future development. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Atchley, Gundershaug Voting against: Christensen, Pakonen, Cameron, Gustafson Motion died for lack of a majority. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12 - JUNE I, 1976 II. Commissioner Pakonen made a motion to table Case 76~35 until_ July 6th~ to give Mr. G~rdon more time to consider what he could do with Outlot A. Mr. Gordon requested permission to speak° stating that he very frankly was interested in keeping the zoning of Outlot A multiple at this time. He hopes to incorporate it with the property to the North 'n the future. He stated he felt he had given up a lot.of land zoned multiple for this plat and he thought it only fair for him to ask that Outlot A remain multiple. Commissioner Craigie commented that he could keep it multiple but still incorporate its development into the piece he wished fo develop at this time. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Gordon noted it was multiple now and he felt it was a arge enough piece of property to develop as a separate unit if he did not develop with Mr. Flet&her's property. Further discussion between the Commissioners regarding Outlot A, the traffic flow, the existing zoning of the parcel, and the lift station. Commissioner Gustafson noted that, in his opinion, the property presently MR had unlimited potential for develo0ment as MR. He did apt feel that the Commission could change that, and that regardless of the plat layout, the traffic would still have to be channeled in the same direction Gettysburg. He added that he felt that if the rezoning were justified, he did not see what Outlot A's current status had to do with the rezoning. Commissioner Gustafson recommended approval of the rezoning. He then proposed tabling the preliminary ~!~t approval to allow Mr. Gordon to go back and determine if he could devise a better way to handle traffic at Jordan and 40½. Motion died for lack of a second. Further discussion followed about Outlot A. Mr. Gordon noted that part of Outlot A has seven feet of peat on it. Commissioner Atchley made a motion to accept the rezoning and the plat as stated. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Pakonen made a motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning,and to Table the Approval of the Plat. Commissioner Gustafson second. Discuss'on followed about the legalities of approving the rezoning without approval of the plat and whether this could be done. Voting in favor: Pakonen, Gustafson. Voting against: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron. Craigie, ~undershaug. Motion fai ed. Commission London moved to table Case 76-35 until July 6th to allow M~. Gordon to consult with staff in regard to the Jordan Avenue/40½ intersection. Commissioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: London. Pakonen, Atchley, Cameron] Gundershaug Voting against: Christensen, Craigie, Gustafso~ Motion passed. Commissioner Christensen commented on the fact that in the past, the Commission had sent forward to the Council, cases where the vote had been tied. He questioned the lack of consistencey of the Commission. 12. PLANNING CASE 76-36 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACKS AT 8405 EAST MEADOW LAKE ROAD~ STAN AND MARY ERICKSON~ PETITIONERS. ~ Mr. Erickson commented that when he had ~irst submitted his reeuest, he needed a variance for his garage, but that since that time he had come to an agreement with his neighbor to change his lot line. He pre- sented a new drawing to the Commissioners that illustrated that his neighbor would give him 17 feet in the back and he would give the neighbor 3 feet in the front and then straighten out the lot line, and split the property between the two houses. He added that presently everyone ignored the existing pro- perty line. This would also allow him to bring his garage ahead only 10 f~et and he would then need only an 8 inch variance, Chairman Cameron asked if Mr. Erickson had c~ecked out the technicalities of this action, PLANNING COMMISSI'ON MINUTES ~ 13 ~ JUNE I, 1976 12. The City Manager, in answer to a question from the Commission, stated that it would cost Mr. Erickson $27.00 for a waiver of platting from the City, but he would need a survey for specific le'g~ descrip- tions of both parcels as they were to be replatted, Discussion about whether the Commission could grant a variance on the condition that the lot line would be changed, the time involved in completing the legal work for a re-platting, the precedents that had been set in not granting conditional variances in the past, and the necessity of having the legal work completed before the request for a varianc~ were considered. Commissioner London commented that he did not think it would be possible to get the technical work com- pleted in time for Mr. Meyer to return to the June 15th0 meeting. The City Manager noted that it was not an easy task to divide property'~ that the lines had to be exact, and would need certification by a surveyor and the petitioner should have,his attorney review the action. Commissioner London made a motion to table 76-36~ Request for a Variance in ~etback~ for two weeks. Commissioner Pakonen second. The City Manager noted that if Mr.Erickson could get the legal work completed this week the request could be aubl-ished the week of June 7th. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Motion passed. 13. PLANNING CASE 76-37 - REQUEST FOR REZONING AT GETTYSBURG AND BASS LAKE ROAD - PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY~ PETITIONER. There was no one present to represent Prudential. However, the City Manager noted that the man who had made the application was an independent appraiser and may not have notified the company of the hearing. He recommended that the Commission consider the request. Chairman Cameron commented that the rezoning was basically a ~ech~icality. Commissioner London noted that he had visited the site and that the parcel in question was well landscaped and was a park-like area and he could see no reason for +he rezoning to not be approved. Commissioner London moved to approve Planninq Case 76-37 - Request for Rezoning from GB to LB at Gettys- bur§ and Bass Lake Road (Northwest Corner). Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Pa~onen~, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Motion passed. 1.4. PLANNING CASE 76-38 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT BASS LAKE ROAD AND SUMTER~ KADEK ENTERPRISES~ PETITIONER. Mr. Dick Larson~ architect, was present and introduced Mr. Thomas Glodek of Kapala-Glodek funeral homes the owner of the property, Mr. Larson noted that the aroperty was zoned for limited ausiness and they were requesting a special use permit for a funeral home on the property. They are proposing a bui ding of approximately 6000 sqaare ~eet on the first level, the basement to be a little smaller. He added that there was a problem with curb cuts on Bass Lake Road. The median had be~n left short of the intersection, but Hennepin County is reluctant to grant two curb cuts on Bass Lake Road, feeling that the second curb cut should be on Sumter Avenue. He added that New ~ope had an agreement with Cr~'~tal that would not a Iow curb cuts on Sumter. The petitioners agree that the curb cut would be better on Sumter. They do have access to Winnetka Avenue through an easement across the property presently owned by Frank's nursery. However they felt that simply forced the traffic to detour to Winnetka and then use an already heavily traveled intersection. Chairman Cameron noted that the Planning Commission could not do anything about curb cuts, that this was controlled by Hennepin County and the Council. Commissioner Christensen clarified with Mr. Larson and Mr. Glodek that the nlans before the Commission w~re essentially the same as those presented to the Design and Review Committee. Mr. Larson noted that they had received a prel'minary denial from Nennepin County for two curb cuts, but PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 14 ~ JUNE 1~ 1976 14. since they found they could not obtain a curb cut on Sumter they had not as yet filed a formal applica- tion for the additiona curb cut on Bass Lake Road. They had discussed the possibility of obtaining a curb cut on Sumter with the City Manager of Crystal, and Crystal fel't this request had merit and that there would be no problem with the agreement as far as Crysta was concerned. Discussion roi owed between Mr. Glodek, Mr. Larson and Commissioner Christensen regarding who had the authority to grant curb cuts and whether the Planning Commission could or should recommend .action to the Council regarding the curb cuts. In answer to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Larson stated that their construction plans would not significantly change the building placement regardless of which curb cut they received. If the cut were allowed to Sumter, they would simply extend the driveway to Sumpter. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether Mr. Larson did not feel it would be better for the oroposa to the City of Crystal requesting the curb cum on Sum~er, to come from the aetitioner rather than from the City of New Hope? The City Manager acted that he had already informally reeuested that Jack Irvino, Crystal City Manager bring up the issue af the next Crystal Council meeting. Further discussion held on procedures. Commissioner London commente~ that the proper action might be for the Crysta Council to see the plan, and have some idea of the lan0sca0e plans in order to make their decision on granting the curb cut. Mr. Glodek noted that Crystal had seen the plan and their only comment had been that 'they wished the driveway moved forward on the lot. Mrs. Karen Worth, 5612 Sumter, noted that the driveway to Sumter would come right out at the same place as her driveway and she would ike to see "resident parking only" allowed on the street and landscaping to discourage people from parking and walking over to the funeral home. Mr. Juliah Laliberte, 5559 Sumter, commented that they had owned their 0ropert¥ since 1953 and he felt that the piece of property as it stands is the biggest eyesore in the City of New Ho~e. It looks'lousy. He added his opinion that it was the most appropriate thing in the word to bury the dead on that corner. Mrs. L~liberti,5559 Sumter, commented that they had exaerienced aroblems about the entrance to their home from Bass Lake Road with Henneain County and she hoped that these gentlemen would have better luck with Hennepin County than they had. The City Manager urged the Planning Commission to give the petitioner some direction as far as what the landscaping should be'. Additional discussion then centered on the curb cuts, landscaping and the number of parking spaces pro- posed and the type of buffer that might be necessary toward Sumter. n answer to a re0Jest from Commissioner Gustafson, Commissioner Christensen listed the following areas of concern of the Design and Review committee.'noting that it was not the responsibility of the Commission to grant curb cuts. I. Curb cuts on Sumter would have to be obtained from the Crystal and New Hope Councils. 2. Curb cuts on Bass Lake Road would have to be obtained from Hennepin County. 3. Were 40 parking spaces enough -- with seating for 200 people, and there was no information to tell the Commission what should be required. He further noted that Mr. GIodek was the one with the experience in these matters, and if he felt 40 spaces were enough, perhaps this is what should determine the number. 4. The additional landscaping on the Ease side of the building had been discussed at Design and Review, and the proper type of landscaping to serve as a buffer should be determined by the architect. The City Manager noted that the Commission could require a fence and/or a natural material berm or buffer as they desired. Additional discussion among the Commissioners as to adequate buffering to protect the residents on Sumter, the parking lot layout, the landscaping, and whether the petitioner should appear again before Design and Review on June 22nd. Commissioner Christensen recommended that Case 76-38 - Request for ~pecial Use Permit- be tabled until June 15th, until the issue is resolved regarding the curb cuts on either Bass Lake Road or Sumter. ~ommissioner Atchley second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 15 ~ JUNE I~ 1976 14. Voting in favor: London~ Christense% Craigie~ Cameron~ Gundershaug Voting against: Atchie~ Gustafson Absent: Bartos~ Anderson~ Pakonen~ Motion passed. 15. PLANN't~NG CASE 76-39 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND VARIANCES AT 42ND AVENUE/- COUNTRY KITCHEN PETITIONER. Mr. Dave Gustafson, representing Country Kitchen International, stated they wished to establish a res- taurant in New Hope. He added that they had been interested in New Hope for about a year~ but until re- cently financing had not been available. He noted that their sign would conform to the ordinance~ they anticipated not adding to the traffic pro- blem, but wished to capitalize on the traffic that is already in the area; thoy are willing to provide whatever landscaping the Commission requires, including trees~ arrangements had been made to lease park~ lng space from Developers Diversified -- the K-Mart lot. They felt New Hope was a good spot for a sit~ down family restaurant,that was moderately priced because the City did not now have one. Chairman Cameron commented that, in his opinion, it' would be precipitous for the Commission to.act on this proposal until they had seen the final City Plan and it had been adopted and he felt the request should be tabled. Commissioner Gustafson noted that Mr. Gustafson had met most of the questions that had been raised at Design and Review and he agreed that decisions should wait until the final City Plan was approved. He noted that two basic questions must be answered: I. Is the restaurant too big for the site? and 2. Parking Discussion among the Commissioners and Mr. Gustafson regarding the §ize of the restaurant, the number of seats planned, the percentage of green area planned, the fact that the Commission should wait to make a decision until the City Plan has been adopted and the fact that when the City Plan were adopted, if it recommended a different use for this property, the Commission would be obl'iged to respect and enforce the plan. Commissioner Christensen recommended tabling Case 76-39 until the August 3~ 1976 meeting. Commissioner Crai~ie second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Atchley0 Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson, Pakonen Motion passed. 16. PLANNING CASE 76-40 - REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION AT 4301 NEVADA AVENUE DOUGLAS GOSSARD~ PETITIONER. Mr. Gossard stated he was requesting a special use permit to allow him to establish a small printing shop in the garage of his home. In answer to questions from the Commissioners, he stated his equipment would be a small printing press (AB Dick type), capable of printing I0,000 sheets an hour. He does not plan to have any walk-in trade and hoped to work with medium sized companies on a contrac type of assignment, printing flyers, forms, brochures, etc. It would require I00 amp service and he would install 200 amp in the garage. There would be a regular schedule during the week. Supplies would be delivered once a week in a small truck, he would make de- liveries from his station wagon. Mr. Gossard presented an illustration of the garage noting that in the ~all he ~oped to apply for a permit to install a heating plant. He noted that on occasion, salesmen might stop by. This would be his sole business. He would be the only employee with his wife'a assistance and perhaps at a future time a part-time helper. He plans to use the'entire garage space. He stated further that he planned to install a heating room and build a small garage in the fall. The City Manager noted that City ordinance required that there be at least a single car garage avail.- able on the site. Ih answer to questions from Mr. London regarding the tractor, trailer and ~lat bed presently in the yard, Mr. Gossard stated he was going to put the tractor behind the house and hoped to sell the trailer. He stated that the equipment would not generate any more noise ~han that found in the average office and that the closest building was I00 feet away from his garage, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 16 - JUNE 1, 1976 t6 Commissioner Gustafson ~ade a motion to recommend approval of Case 76-40 - Special Use Permit for a Home Occupation at 4301 Nevada Avenue, subject to the following conditions: Construction of the heating plant and garage to be completed by October I, 1976 if the business is to continue. 2. Anaual review by staff 3. Deliveries of bulk material shall not exceed one a week and that nick up and deliveries out of the finished products be in a station wagon or other sma I vehicle. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting ir favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson, Pakonen Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 17. There was no report from the Desigr and Review Committee 18. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 19. There was no Report from the Codes and Standards Committee ON-GOING BUISNESS 20. New copies of the City Plan had been distributed ear ier in the evening. NEW BUSINESS 21. The City Manager noted that there were four items at the last Council meeting that the Commission should be aware of. I. That fhe Council had asked if anyone from the Commission would be i, nterested in serving on the Committee for Medicine Lake Road options. Chairman Cameron requested that Mr, Atchley serve on the Committee as a Commission representative. 2. Blue Boy ce Cream Manager had appeared before the Council to request an amendment to the ordinance regulating the age of the persons operating pinball machines. Council had requested that the Com- mission review this issue. 3. Council had also requested that the Planning Commission should look at the issue of what type of encroachments should ae allowed on City property (i.e. fences on boulevards, otc). 4. Council requested that the Commission establish the type of tennis match they would prefer so the Council could determine the number of people it needed. Chairman Cameron noted it was too late to discuss these items at this meeting. 22. The minutes of the May 25th, Planning Commission minutes were reviewed. Commissioner Craig'e amended the minutes as follows: Page I, l'tem 3, Paragraph 4. "Commissioner Craigie again expressed his concern that a large clinic or hospital did not belong next to a single family residential district. Asked that the R-O description include 'high or mid density' before 'residential~ in Section 9 - Subdivision A - Purpose. The minutes of May 18th, were accepted as printed. 25. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at :38 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary The followinL~ statement is the Northwood-Hldden Valley Homeowners' Association Executive Committee's position on Rezonlng Request, Case #76-34. The executive committee of the Northwood-Hidden Valley Homeowners' Associati&n believes there is no evidence to support rezonin~ the southeast corner of 36th Ave. N. and County Rd. 18 from Limited Business to Retail Business; and. that a~e~e of the criteria for rezonlnE have been met. ~~ 0onditlons in the area have not changed in such a way that rezoning is warranted--all print growth was anticipated at the time of the original zonin~~) No error was made when this parcel was zoned Limited Business. We feel that the present zoning is consistent with and proper for the residential character of our neighborhood, and urge the members of the Planning Commission to deny this request. We ask for denial because those conditions which caused the homeowners association to oppose resorting of this parcel in the past, still exist. Our concerns are these: (1) The lack of a buffer between area homes and the proposed, large retail business development. (2) The affect of additional retail business traffic on 36th Ave. N., and especially on surrounding residential streets. (3) The large numbers of school children who must pass through this area on their way to school. (4) The unpredictable futuPe of the parcel if it were rezoned to retail business. The homeowners' executive committee feels that the New H0pe~' Planning Commission and City Council have acted wisely and respon- sibly in denying past requests for rezonlng this parcel of land, and it is our hope that tonight's rezonlng request will also be de~ 1 ed. MEETING ON CITY PLAN June 8, 1976 The meeting was called to order by the City Manager, Harlyn Larson. He requested that th~se assembled sign in, indicating who they represented, in order that the City would know which groups had been reached. He noted that there were extra conies of the City Plan available for those ~ho had not already received one. He requested that they De returned TO the. City, when no longer needed. Mr. Larson stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the draft of the proposed City Plan. The plan is To carry out the policy statements that had been recently a~opted. He stated that, hopefully, the formal public hearing, before the final adoption of the Plan, will be held in June. Mr. Larson then introduced Mr. David Licht, President of Midwest Planning and Research, and bis associate Ms. Barbara Sennes, stating that Mr. Licht would review the proposed Plan and answer any concerns that the assembled group might nave. After the meeting, it was hoped that the representatives would return to the Public Hearing with any feedback they had gained. Mr. Larson further commented on the difficulties that had been experienced by the City in getting the citizens involved in the Planning process. Mr. Licht stated that the origina charge to Midwest Planning had been to review three areas of concern: I. An update of the 1960 Comprehensive Plan - which had been followed ve'ry closely by the City until the present time. 2. A Housing Plan - which is now a mandatory element based upon land use regulations. 3. Ordinance revision - review of the sign, subdivision, zoning ordinances and the creation of a housing maintenance code and a non-residential maintenance code. The process of reviewing these concerns included a tactica report, a planning inventory and a market study. The tactical report was based on identifying issues of prime concern, i.e. the utilization of' the existing undevelope~ land, the creation of a City Center and the preservation of the existing housing stock, the per- plexing problem of the irregulat boundary between Crystal and New Hope, the correction of a strip pattern of commercial development, needed transportation improvements, and the maintenance of the fiscal balance of the City. In the policy plan they had attempted to address these issues. The first effort had been to identify where they were going. This had resulted in the Concept Plan (page 32). The concept plan basically revolved around an ~t~empt to create units wi.th n tha City, in terms of the neigh- borhoods that exist and to make them self contained units~ emphasizing pedestrian type traffic and maintain- ing open space. The second concept, The City Center, again attembted to create a diversity of cultural, financial, commercial and housing type of activities that would lend themselves to the creation of a focal point for the community. The third concept, dealt with the industrial development that exists in the City -- concentrating on existing industrial parks, attempting to make them self contained to achieve the maximum financial return for the City. M~. Licht noted that the Po icy Plan, which had been adopted by the City Counci ih March, had been subjected to considerable community exposure which included review and extensive discussion, through meetings held with the City Commissions, neig~borhoo~ groups and special interest groups. The concept plan is a result of these meetings and the input gathered from them. The changes recommended in the Land Use Framework, are a consolidation and a coordination of uses based~upon the economic study and are basically recommendations to change zoning from either industrial or commercial to a housing situation. The changes recommended were based on: I. The land utilization and marketability study -- what can the private market absorb. 2. An economic analysis of what the tax return to the City would be. 3. What physical relationship could be created, of a compatible type of relationship. Land Use was divided into three areas, industrial, residential and commercial activity (diagram on page 41 indicates density assumptions) in regard to housing. Low Density I-4 units per acre Mid Density 6-10 units per acre High Density 11-15 units per acre Mr. Licht noted that the major concern in regard to residential development had been the preservation of the existing housing stock. New Hope has a high quality of housing, with only scattered sites that show some signs of deterioration. 2 - June 8, 1976 The Planners suggest more preventive maintenance (A housing maintenance code to be before the Plannihg Com- mission on the 15th) in an attempt to prevent problems, before they start. Secondly, they recommend that a communication and coordination network be estab ished between the City and the neighborhoods. Thirdly, they suggest recognizing and even pro~oting neighborhood organizations so the Cit~ could work with the groups, in a self-policing type of mechanism. Mr. Licht noted further, that there's a need in New Hope, Dase~ on the mandatory planning legis'lation re- cently ~assed, to address ow and moderate income househo ds, as we I as housing for the elderly. Policies have been established, but they are basically refering to participation in Section 8 Housing, which is a federally funded subsidy program (i.e. elderly housing under construction in Robbinsdale). New Hope is presently participating in the Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program grough the Metropolitan Housing Agthority, which is administered on a scattered basis, providing for assistance within conventional units. The Planners are also suggesting that an HRA be created to specifically address the housing needs in the City. In regard to commercial development, concern was noted over: I. The strip tyep of development as has occurred on Bass Lake Road and 42nd AVenue 2. The spread of commercail dvelopment versus the dollar that is available within the City to support that commercial development 3. The need to prevent over intensification of commercial d~velopment ~n one area, Mr. Licht stated this issue was addressed in the 3rd Chapter of the Planning Inventory. The Plan attempts to address the levels of commercial development which should fit into the City (page 39). I. Ne!ghborhood convenience type of activity. (Recommend market study on the part of a developer to demonstrate that he does have a client of consumer here to serve). Protection of single family residential areas from this type of development. 2. High-way Commercia -- this does exist, their concern was with the traffic flow, since this type of enterprise as a rule exists on main thorofares, excessive curb cuts (the zoning ordinance addresses this in specific fashion). 3. The City Center - attempting to create a focal point of the community as well as the commercia center of the community. 4. Industrial based on the land utilization study they feel there is an over-abundance of commercially zoned land in the City. Because of the availability of such areas throughout the metropo itan area, it was felt that commercial activity in the future should concentrate along #18 and the Science Industry Center. Sporadic industrial zoning should probably be changed to a different land use. The Plan also addresses Transportation (page 56). This is based on a metropolitan classification system indicating what wilt happen and the function of individual streets. This is similar to the plan adopted by the City in 1974. There is one disagreement between the metropoli- tan standards and what the Planners recommend. This is Medicine Lake Road - which the Planners feel should function as a minor arterial rather than a collector as recommended by the Metropolitan Council. Hennepin County also disagrees with the designation of this street. The designation is important in terms of the improvements that will be made in regard to signatlization etc. The Plan reflects recommendation of the 1974 Study (page 58) and recommends additional signalization at 42nd/Quebec, 42nd/Nevada and the installation of pedestrian signals at Winnetka and Terra Linda and Winnetka and 55th. In terms of mass transit, the report reflects the Metropolitan Transit Commission recommendations° The City does not have much control over this, other than encouraging what they would like to come in. In regard to parks and ppen space, Mr. Licht noted that the City is almost fully developed in terms of the plans that have been prepared, but that were recommending the establishment of additional small recreational areas. Schools are a major issue within the community. In particular, in relation to enrollment and it's potential decline. What will become of the existing facilities is~ and will be, a major issue. With the adoption of the Plan, the City does have the right to review expenditures of the School District, in ~erms of what they - 3 - June 8, 1976 will happen to a school facility if it is closed. They did not feel they were in the position to recommend to the district what they shou d do -- but in terms of public investment, these issues should be analyzed. Govermental buildi, n§s - City Hall and St.~ Jacobs -- the fee lng was that these facilities were basically adequate with the proposed of a need for additiona maintenance facilities and facilities for storage of equipment. This activity should go into industrial parks. When St. Jacobs Hall becomes u~graded, they recommend that it be maintained adequately. Utility systems present no basic problem, in their opinion. Mr. Licht stated that the City had been divided into ~istricts or planning areas (page 65) and are identified specifically by area, with recommended development for the district. The major focus, according to the Planners, should be on the undeveloped areas of th~ City -- this being the major charge with whcih they dealth. There recommendations are based on: I. marketability 2. the economics of the City 3. land use compatibility (transportation compatibility) Mro Licht then referred to the illustrations of the Site Locatigns (page 106). The Site Plans were reviewed individually. SITE PLAN #1 (62nd Avenue/County #18, West of Gettysburg - 8.77 acres presently zoned commercial). A neighborhood convenience center and apartments are proposed with the balance of the site to be left open. Open land to be essentia ly ~ublic with access to be pedestrian rather than vehicular. The convenience center has bee~ positioned at the center rear of the parcel to provide bufferi~ng for the SF residential. Commissioner Gustafson questioned how the residents of the area would be informed about the recommendations for the parcel? Mr. Licht suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission should determine how and when the individual areas were to be notified, at their meeting on the 15th June. Mrs. Eichenberger requested clarification of the area under discussion. Commissioner Gustafson indicated it was the area North of the creek. Mrs. Barbara Brandt, 5801 Decatur, suggested that perhaps if the buildings were positio~ closer to Highway~ #18, and more buffering included, the residents would be more receptive to the proposal. Mr. Licht, re-stated that'these proposed plans were merely recommendations and that specific development plans would all need to come before the Planning and Zoning Boards for consideration and approval-. He noted that the site plans would remain on the walls of the Council Chamber for the next few weeks for review by Commissions and citizens. Commissioner Gustafson indicated his feelings that the proposed use was aot unreasonable, but questioned the traffic flow on Gettysburg, commenting that the elimination of throug~ traffic at 60th/Gettysburg, might be more accpetable to the residents. He questioned the need for more commercial activity on that spot when there was commercial activity a block and a naif away in the next co,unity. SITE PLAN #2 (Science and Industry Center) Mr. Licht noted that they recommend that the park be fully developed by bringing offices, etc. into the area. SITE PLAN #3 ~Area bordered by Louisiana and Pennsylvania, North of the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Southern railroad - and abutting Crystal). Presently zoned Gl. They recommend a mix of single family and two family homes, constructed on cul-du~ sacs, with park development o~ both sides of ~he parcel to gain the bestoutiliza~ tion of the land. In addition, they suggest buffering the area from the railroad with a "single loaded street" with the SF residences at the North end of the parcel. SITE PLAN #4 (North of 49th, East of #18 and South of Olson Industrial Park - 12.4 acres) Currently zoned industrial. Recommendation is for a mix of patio homes, townhouses and limited apartment development with the higher density toward the North -~ traffic to flow to 49th. - 4 - June 8, 1976 SITE PLAN #5 - (Rauenhorst site, South of the railroad tracks and West of Winnetka - 25.8 acres). Current!y zoned industrial. Recommendations are for a mix of townhouses and patio homes. SITE PLAN #6 - (Area South of 49th and East of #18 - 19.76 acres) ~urrently zoned multiple. Recommendations for a mix of housing, including patio homes, townhouses and apart- ment development. The proposal empties all traffic on TO 49th and avoids entering the existing single family development. SITE PLAN #7 - City Center (Zealand to Winnetka from 42nd - 46th, then South to 40th, Bordering the RR tracks to 42nd, then Quebec to 45th) Ilustration on page 88. Mr. Licht indicated the existing uses on the illustration and stated they were re- commending an entertainment area, a retail type of activity, apartments, etc. Mr. Licht stated they had tried to achieve a concept development ~or the entire area, with movemen~ directed at pedestrian traffic. Councilman Enck questioned the suggestion for a controlled environment in the area. Mr. Licht stated they were suggesting the possibility of tying the existing K-Mart with the New Hope Center and any future development with some type of walkway. He noted] this again was a concept, indicating that the owners of the properties were presently discussion possibilities for the area. Mr. Eichenberger suggested that the illustration needed a legend to allow identification of individual areas° Mr. Licht indicated that there is presently interest in the expansion of the area and that the Planne[~s concern was that development not preclude coordination of the entire area. Ne added there needed to be cooneration between the various owners of the properties. The development would be under a PUD. Commissioner Craigie raised the issue of the many cur~ cuts in this area and whether or not this could be ad- dressed. He questioned the advisability of e.~tablishing a large parking area in the vicinity. Mr. Licht commented that the curb cuts have been reduced in the proposals and the owners already contacted and that they also are interested in solving this problem. The City Manager noted that Hennepin County is currently studying all of the curb cuts in this area. Mrs. Eichenberger, questioned who ha~ indicated that there was a need for a City Center or that there was any desire for one. She indicated that, in her opinion, it was a ridiculous concept~ She further expressed her concern for the traffic in the area, and whether it was specia interest groups that were pushing for' the City Center. She expressed her feelings about.the length of time it had taken to ge? the revised sign ordi- nance adopted. Discussion followed~ Mr. Licht indicated that the advis~bi ity of the City Center had been the concensus of about 99% of the public officials and civic and citizen groups contacted. He stated that many meetings had been held reviewing the plan. The feeling had been that it would improve the existing area. He added that the City Center would per- form a different function than the neighborhood type of center and would fil additional types of needs, i.e. recreational, cultural~ in addition to commercial. Mr~ Licht noted that Mr. Gustafson could perhaps answer Mrs. Eichenberger's questions on the sign ordinance. Councilman Enck commented that this Plan was an analysis of the discussions that had been going.on all year and the the idea was to prohibit additional satelite.type development that might prove detrimental to the plan. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the policies and issues and the sign ordinance had been discussed at great length. That the question was not, who had originally proposed the City Center, but whether or not it was appropriate and i~ it was a good idea? Mrs. Eichenberger again questioned where the input had been received from that indicated that there should be a City Center. Commissioner Craigie commented that the City Plan was a result of all of the meetings on the policies and plan~ as suggeste~ and discussed through the pas~ months. It was a result of the questions and the issues that had been raised through these discussions. Mrs. Eichenberger then commented on the fact that citizen participation in the planning process had been poor, as far as she was aware, and that is was fine if you could determine that it was a g~od thing for fhe City, but it was not fee, but used taxpayers money. She further questioned the Community Development Grants and how this money was to be spent. Commissioner Craigie noted that the Community Development Grant had been desigaated to be used for planning stuay and research, to allow the review of outdated plans and ordinances without such a review being the entire financial burden of the municipality. - 5 - June 8~ 1976 Commissioner Gustafson commented that the money being available from the Federal Government made it possi- ble for the work to be accomplished through the use of volunteers, and a small ~staff and allowed the City to purchase some professional help for the planning and review process. Further discussion followed. Commissioner Gustafson then stated that while the Planners had proposed changes and made recommendations, it had been the Planning Commission and the City Council who ultimately made the decisions regarding these suggestions and only after much study and lengthy discussion of the issues. Councilman Herman indicated his feeling that the discussion was becoming counter-productive. Mr. Licht then stated that based on action of the State Legislature of this year, the r~view process that the City was presently engaged in, was now required by State Law~ SITE PLAN #8 (Bordered by #18 and South of 42nd - 21.11 acres). Presently zoned LB. Recommendation for a mix of single family homes, townhouses and limited apart~ ment development. It is a transitional type of use. Commissioner Atchley questioned whether or not the soil had been examined to determine whether or not this type of development was suitable for the suggested uses. Mr. Licht noted that there were soil problems.in some areas. Borings had not as yet been completed, but this was one reason for the suggested combination of uses. In response to questions from Mr. Jerry Harrington regarding placement of the different types of dwellings on the parcel, Mr. Licht commented that these were recommendations for use of the total area, but that the details would, of necessity, have to be determined by the developer. The total area, however, should be de~ veloped as one unit. Mr. Schostag then questioned the traffic flow in this area, the curb cuts and the traffic problems. Mr. Licht indicated that this was currently under study, but felt that even though there might be traffic prob= lems, the Iow density and mid density was an acceptable solution for the area. Co~aissioner Lond asked whether they had considered potential traffic problems when the proposals were recom- mended. · Mr. Licht noted that they were dealing with major streets and major intersections~ and for the most part had dealt with traffic as it is today. He added that they had not given any consideration to proposals for addi- tional signs, etc. in individual neighborhoods. SITE PLAN #9 (Southwest corner of 42nd/Boone - 7.27 acres) Presently zoned SR The recommendation is for mid-density townhouses. The Southeast corner of the site for a ponding area, to be left open for access and recreational activity. A clustering type of concept in an attempt to make the best use of the site. SITE PLAN #10 (Located at the Southeast corner of #18 and 36th A~enue - 3.1 acres) .Presently zoned commercial. Recommendation is for a mix Of townhouses and apartment development. Mr. Pichelman questioned the changes in zoning as recommended By the Planners. He noted that he understood that the zoning could only be chan~ed because of ano riginal error or because of a change in conditions. He wondered how they intended to convince the existing owners of the property that the zoning should be changed. Mr. Licht commented that this was one reason for approaching planning from the a~ea of economic development. Chapter 3, of the City Plan indicates what is presently marketable in the City of New Hope. Much of the land zoned industrial/commercial at this time is not moving. He further indicated his feeling that the City would need to approach the owners on the basis of the return to the City and the return to the individual. He indicated his personal ka~Iedge of areas in other cities presently zoned industrial, whose owners were at~ tempting to get the zoning changed to multiple, because there was a larger market for this.type of development. Mr. Harrington commented that one of the reasons ~or the industrial parks not developing more quickly, was the very sub-standard soil. Mr. Licht agreed that this was perhaps partially true, but that they should realize also that there are at least 56 industria parks in the metropolitan area, not totally developed, which presented competition to New Hope's industrial parks. SITE PLAN #11 (North of Presidential Estates~ South of 30th Avenue between Hillsboro and Flag A~enues - 7.34 acres), Presently zoned MR. Recommendation is for a mix Of townhouses and patio homes. - 6 - June 8~ 976 SITE PLAN #12 (Bordered by LoUisiana and the railroad tracks, South of 30th ~venue and bor- dered by Crystal -- 35.99 acres) Presently zoned LI. Recommendation is that the zoning be changed to accommodate a mixture of patio homes and townnouses with open space rpovided on the site. It recog- nizes the surrounding'single family development and buffers it from the industrial area. Mr. Rollie Martin asked why the Planners had recommended changing the majority of the zoning To mid-density rather than single family development. Mr. Licht noted that this was determined by the marketabili'ty based on the land utilization study, on the lack of housing choice presently in New Hope and on an evaluation of what would produce the best return to the City. Discussion then centered on the fact that in a few years there would not be the same market for single family housing in New Hope because of the fact that the major portion of the original development had occurred at the same time. The families will continue to grow at the same rate and there wi I dot be the same needs ~ or sf housing. Mr. Schostag asked about the sources used to determine the valuation figures in individual districts. Mr. Licht stated that this had been determined by their real estate research and reflected what is in the neighborhood today anc that the valuations are relative to the City of New Hope. The City or area tends to reflect the value of that area. '~ Further discussion held regardiDg the changing of existing zoning. Mr. Licht then re-stated the reasons for the recommendations made in the City Plan. I. Land utilization and marketability 2. Cost benefit relationship to the City 3. Land use compatibi ity In answer to questions from Mr. Martin~ Mr. Licht noted that the costs generally held true 0ecause these fi- gures did not change rapidly. Mrs. Eichenberger commented that, in her opinion, the whole plan was based on the metropolitan area and in relation to New Hope and Crystal ann failed to consider the relationship to the State or Country. She ex- pressed her concern that perhaps the Planners did not have a lot of information that they should have, espe- cially in relation to housing needs with respect to mid-density and high-density housing. Mr. Licht indicated that there was a Housing alan to be available shortly, noting that his concern when work- ing for the City of New Hope had To be what the City of New Hope wanted or did not want. This is what they had responded to. ~e added that in terms of demand and utilization, the City had no influence on this what- soever, but that this had been determined by the money that is spent in the metropolitan area. Councilman Enck questione~ the lack of includion of cost per acre in regard to the parks in the Table on page 2, 1976 Per Capita Residential Expenditures. ~r. Licht noted that this could be included, but that this was influenced by whether the land had been ac- quired by donation or whether there was a cost involved in the acquisition, Commissioner Craigie expressed his concern about the number of areas where apartments were indicated as suit- able development, versus the large number of apartments presently located in New Hope. He wondered whether it would not be possible to restrict some of the larger apartment development in favor of the townhouse or patio home development since this type was usually owner oriente~ He felt that this was preferable from the City's standpoint to a tenant arrangement. ~r~ Licht commented that there we,'e definite ways of dealing with owners of oroperty to encourage the desired type of develcament. How this would be dealt with in terms of nroce~ures, would be another ouestion. He expressed his concern that the new ordinance be adopted and stated that procedure could be determined at a later time. He felt it was not practical to hold up the whole zoning ordinance and the whole comprehensive plan in order to determine procedure. Further discussion follo~'~d on this issue~ the rezoning of parcels and the subsequent benefit to the City, the fact that the potential rezoning of these parcels must be communicated to the citizens of the area, and how ~his might best be acc~nplished, Additional consideration g'ven to recommended development and exist- lng soil conditions on individual parcels. ~r. Schostag questioned how when the rezoning had been accomplished, both in the City Center area and other undeveloped parcels, the City could be assured that individual business men would go along with the recom- mended type of development and whether aft the rezoning, the City and the citizen groups would have lost control. Mr. Licht noted that part of the control would come under the new regulations. He stated that there must be some move made to get the property owners involved in the commercial area of the City and to get them' to agree that there would be major benefits in the City Center Plan. He indicated that this process was already underway. One way for the City to retain control was in their action on requests for rezoning. What regulates and gives a sense of direction are the policies in the City Plan. Mr. Harrington asked if there was any type of schedule or period of time for the Plan to be. implemented? He also questioned whether there would be a general tabling of requests for changes in use until the Plan is approved. Mr. Larson commented that in the case of the Civic Center, a case had Pecently been tabled for sixty days. Commissioner Gustafson noted that in terms of the Planning Commission, it would be a question of short term delays, to allow the Commissio~ to thoroughly talk the Plan through. Mr. Licht commented that they hoped to hdld a public hearing in June, which would include more public discus- sion. It was his recommendation that these hearings be held as soon as possible and that if the City wants more neighborhood discussions held. this could fo Iow. The important part o~ the Public Hearing is that it allows the document to be forwarded to the MetrcDolitan Council. The Metro Council then has 90 days to re- view the document and make comments and after that period of time the City can adopt the Plan. Mr. Pichelman noted that on Page 6, there was a recommendation for a major hot, l/mote at the intersection of 36th and #18. but that he found no mention of SUCh a suggestion in the Plan and recalled no past discus- sion of such a use. Ms. Sennes no~e~ that the recommendation was a result of the tactical study and because of the location of the property along #18. The market study, however, did not indicate any real potential for this use. Mr. Pichelman referenced the fact that in the cost benefit analysis, privately owned or patio homes were preferable to apar~ent development and wuestioned why the Planners would even consider recommending more apartments. Mr. Licht noted that it again was a result o~ marketability and Inad use compatibility -- what was the market? Mrs. Brand asked how these proposed changes would be publicized, to gi~e the citizens sufficient exposure to the Plan. The City Manager noted that they hoped to have extensive Post coverage in regard to the Plan. That tonight's meeting had been simply to present the Plan to interested groups and Commissions, fo stimulate conversation, and that, hopefully, those assembled would return to their groups and Commissions and discuss the Plan fur- there, returning to the Pub ic Hearing with additional in~ut. He added that a great attempt had been made 'to involve people from all areas of the community but that it had proven difficult to gain their involvement. He emphasized again, that the City wished the people here, but how to manage this was the question? Mr. Larson noted that the Planning Commission would be discussing what direction they would go next at their meeting on the 15th June. An additional attempt wil also be made to contact those people designated as community leaders, to gain their participation. Commissioner Herman expressed his concern that publishing the site plan "examples" in the ?ost, might lead the citizens of individual areas to assume that this was actually "what would occur" in their areas, rather than realize that these were recommendations only. He felt this might~lead to very strong public reaction. Mr. Larson commented that this would~ at least, get the citizens to the meetings. The Commission would need to decide what process they wished to use. Discussion ~ollowed about the alternatives to be used to inform the citizens about the proposed changes and about the City Plan an~ whether it should ~e at individual meetings by area, or with one large meeting held perhaps in another location. Mr. Larson noted that Dave Licht and Barb Sennes would be available after the meeting to answer further questions. Mr. Larson emphasize~ again~ the importance of getting the word to the citizens between the present time and the Public Hearing on the City Plan. He added that if any Commis-ion or grouo wished a representative of'the staff, Planning Commission or Midwest Planning to~.meet with them, they should contact him. Mr. Llcht noted that all of the proposed site plans would be left on the walls of the Council Chambers ~or public review. The meeting was adjourned at 9;45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker Secretary PLANN I NG COMM I SS ION ~ ~IlNUTES JUNE 15, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on June 15, 1976. The meeting was cai ed to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson~ Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Bartos(excused, Craigie(excused). 3. The City Manager reported that both of the scheduled public hearings would need to be tabled until the meeting of July 6th, 1976. PLANNING CASE 76-36 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 8405 EAST MEADOW LAKE ROAD. Mr. Larson noted that Mr. Erickson was unable to complete the necessary legal work in time to attend the meeting. He will appear on the 6th July. PLANNING CASE 76-38 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE/CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT BASS LAKE-ROAD AND SUMTER The petitioners in this case were to meet with the Crystal City Council on June t5, 976. Inasmuch as they were not sure that they wou~d be able to return to the Planning Commission meeting while it was stil in session, they decided to appear at the July 6th, meeting. The petitioner had appeared before the New Hope Council on June 14th. The Council had indicated that they would be agreeable, if Crystal agreed, to the Sumter Avenue curb cut. Commissioner London made a motion to table Planninq Case 76-36 and Plannin~ Case 76-38 until the meetin~ of July 6t.1976. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundersbaucj Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Craigie Motion passed. 3a. Chairman Cameron stated that Mr. Dave. R elmer wished to address the Commission in regard to the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. Reimer noted that he was one of the owners of the Poste Haste Shopping Center. He was concerned about the possibility that the proposed zoning changes might limit the permitted uses of the center to those generally found in a convenience type of center. He further stated that he wished to present a statement as to~the effect the rezoning might have on their operation of the centert before the ordinance was adopted. The City Manager noted that as proposed, the center would probably be a B-2 zoning, which would be pri- marily a ~imited, Iow intensity type of use. He added that the owners of the center had been engaged in an extensive search for new tenants and were in the process of attempting to broaden ou~ to include more than the neighborhood type use. Mr. Reimer noted further that they have been involved in trying to upgrade the center and to solve the existing problems. In spite of this upgrading they have still been unable to attract tenants. He added that, at the present time, they are talking with some prospective tenants that would be other than con- venience type uses, i~.e. Radio Shack, women's clothing store etc. His concern is that if they are not allowed to rent to people who are interested in the Center, there would be the danger of losing their investment in the shopping center. In response to a question from Dr. Cameron, the City Manager noted that at the present time, the property is zoned RB~ which is a wide open district, but that the suggested zoning is B-2, which is more restric- tive. Mr. Larson noted that the worst thing that could happen at this point was they might become a non- conforming use. This would prevent them from expansion, or in the event of a fire, from replacing the facility. Mr. Larson further stated the owners had been told that the Planning Commission was concerned with ~he future of Poste HasTe and that if they wished to appear before them and present their concerns they could de so. Mr. Reimer noted that his only suggestion..was that the Commission carefully consider the limitations that they might be imposing on centers such as Poste Haste, before the ordinance is adopted. He added that he was not requesting any type of commitment, but simply that the Commission think about their particular case as ju~one of several pieces of property in the City that might be simi'lar y affected by the new code. Mr. Licht commented that he felt Mr. Reimer's concern was valid, because i~t was an area that eventually would have to be considered by the Commission. He added that he felt it was important for the Commission to first establish the text, however, to state what is important for the future of the City from an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JUNE 15, 1976 3a. objective standpoint. Application of the ordinance could be determined at a later time. He added ~hat if a shopping center's operating successfully today, it was his opinion that it could tocontinUea different as a center, type of because use. the center acts as a unit, until such time that the center would change Mr. Licht then said that he felt the Commission's concern should be directed at what the zoning Should be When the map is completed. He felt that Mr. Reimer's concerns were premature. Lengthy discussion followed regarding the procedures involved should a non-conforming use request per- mission to operate in a shopping center or industrial area. Also of concern was the future, of an exist- ing business that became non-conforming upon the adoption of the new zoning districts. Mr. Licht noted that a zoning could not be downgraded for s ' if a business vacated from a shopping center, a similar useix months(Paragraph 8, Page 20)° For example, could move in within six months and be con- forming. Concensus of the Commission was that Mr. Reimer did not have a problem at the present time and would not have until six months after the adoption of the ordinance. Chairman Cameron noted that there would still be plenty of opportunity for Mr. Reimer and others to exo press their concerns at the time ~f the Public Hearings on the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, ~OMMITTEE REPORTS Concen'sus of the Commissioners was to complete the review of the Zoning Code. 7. The review began with Page 97 with consideration of the portion pertaining to PUD development. Mr. Licht noted that, within the ordinance, a PUD could occur in two fashions: I) as a conditional use -- to allow only the activities permitted in that particular zone 2)in introduced one area as a district -- intent to combine use activities, a mix of use types allowed Sect. 19 (B)(4) Discussion held about "predetermined reasonable standards" and who would determine these standards. Concensus was that restrictions would come from the ordinance with additional restrictions as might be imposed by the Planning Commission and Council. (B)(4)I. Discussion centered on whether or not the Municipality's Code could be more restrictive than the State Code and the dangers of the code becoming too res- trictive° Mr. Light noted that these restrictions had been included to provide additional protection fo the City. In response to a question from Commissioner Pakonen, Mr. Licht noted that the ordinance had been reviewed by the City Attorney and that he had fe t there was no problem with this section° o (B)(4)7. Discussionlities and uses.ab°ut terminology which included specific references to types of uti- Commissioner Loneon requested that the words "including but not limited to" be inserted into this section. ' .(B)(4)13. Request tha~- words "Plannin~ Commission" be eliminated from this item, to maintain consistency in the ordinance. (C)()(b)adequateDiScussiOnaccess.regarding required "200 feet" as frontage.and the need to provide NP r~ec_ommendation for chan~e. (D)(I) Consideration then given to the requirement for an application confere0ce and whether this eliminated the need for Design and Review. Mr. Licht noted that this was an additional step in the process, designed to avoid the chance of a developer coming before the Design and Review Committee with incomplete plans. In response ~o a request from the City Manager, Mr. Licht reviewed the process involved i~ applying for a PUD. He noted that there were Several stages, designed to bring the developer along within reasonable means. o PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JUNE 15, 1976 7. The stages are; I. The Application Conference 2. General Concept Plan -- which provides an opportunity for the developer to submit a basic plan to the City 3. Development'Stage -- where the developer provides a specific plan for the Planning Commission to base its recommeno~tions to Counci on. 4. Final Plan - to serve'as a complete, thorough and permanent public record of the PUD Mr. Licht noted further, the advisibility of the developer being required to sign an acceptable de- velopment plan for the balance of the property~ in the case that only a portion were to be initially developed. Discussion between the Commissioners ~nd Mr. Licht about the development stages for a PUD, Sect. 19 (B) 2. Discussion on the requirement for formal acknowledgement of the application for a PUD by the Planning Commission. Mr. Licht noted that this requirement was to keep the applicant from proceeding without proper preparation~ and that this requirement would also serve to protect the City from the appeal process, should an inadequately prepared application be submitted. Discussion followed. The City Manager commented that the ordinance will provide an additional step in the review process, before it reaches a public hearing -- I) administrative review, 2) Planning Commission general review, 3) Public hearing Additional discussion held about the rationale for the extrap step in the review process and whether er not the Planning Commissio~ should be involved in formally acknowledging the submission of an applica- tion. Mr. Licht noted his personal opinion that a decision should not be made on petitions immediately upon the close of the Pub ic Hearing, but that the Commission should allow additional time for study of the request. Sect. 19 (D)(c) Considerable discussion held on the word "simultaneously" in relation to consideration of planning applications by the Planning Commission and Council. Interpretation determined to mean consideration of two plans simultaneously, not an attempt to rush the process. (D)(3)(d) 6. "Zoninq Administrator" was defined as the "Building Official", (D)(4)(c) Commission Anderson noted that as of August I, 1976 the fitle of Register of Deeds would be changed to "County Recorder" and that "Register" should be "Registrar of (D)(2)(b) Suggestion made to chan~e, scale designation to "= 200' to provide for consis- tency throughout the ordinance. Sect.2Ot(A).~ Commissioner Gustafson questioned the inclusion of fee schedules in the ordinance. The City Manager noted that the restrictions for conditional uses are basically the same but are a little tighter in their controls. (C)(2) The City Manager noted that the ordinance was changed in this section to prohibit re-consideration of a petition for a conuitional use by the Commission or Council for at least 6 months from the date of denial. Mr. Licht stated this had been included to prevent the overburdening of the Commis- sion and Counci . (C)(3) The City Manager noted that non use of conditional use permits had been a problem in the.past. This hopefullyt will correci this problem. Mr. Licht emphasized that the Commissioners should review Section 21, Subdivisions C and D very care- fully. Section 23 Discussion regarding fees. The City Manager noted that the intent of this section had been to cover the costs involved. The ordinance requires that all City time be covered by the fees. The current schedule is uniform, regardless of whether the request is simple or complicated. In his opinion, this is unfair. Hr. Corrick is reviewing this portion, feeling that there are some problems. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JUNE 15, 1979 7. Section 23 Mr. Licht expressed his opinion that the general tax levy should.not have to bear the burden of individual property improvements~ or rezonings, He felt it was not reasonable to charge the same fee for a simple request (additional storage) as for a complicated request (large construction project that could cost thou- sands of dollars to research. He felt it should be the property owner's respon- sibility and each applicant should be charged the cost of processing his request. The City Manager noted that another option under consideration was to charge a high deposit, with the possibility that some of the fee could be returned. Commissioner Gustafson expressed his concern over the time spent with applicants, and the money involved, if the applicant should for some reason stop the process and the request never reach the Commission. Mr. Licht noted that there was a public relations factor involved and that it was the City's responsi- bility to answer general questions as received. The City Manager noted, however, ~hat once the application was received and a legal notice sent for pub- lishing, there was a cash commitment and the fee Drocess began. At this point staff time wou d have to be subtracted from the fee in the event that the petitioner changed his mind. The City Manager called the Commissioner's attention to Page 22, which increased the permitted garage size to 900 square feet~ Mr. Licht then indicated his feeling that there should be a P~blic Hearing held on the text of the ordi- aance as soon as possible. He added that the adoption of the ordinance text should be considered obj~c~ tively before the submission of the zoning maps to establish the tex~ as formal policy, Mr. Licht further noted that Midwest's contract terminated on the 10th ~f July. He suggested that a public hearing be held on the Zoning Ordinance on the 6th July. He will prepare an addendum, prior to this time listing the changes that-had been suggested in the current draft. The City Manager indicated his agreement with this suggestion. The Chairman confirmed that the meeting on the 6th of July would be a public hearing on only the text of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Licht remarked that work was progressing on the zoning maps but that this would be a time consuming process. The map would probably not be ready for public hearing until the Ist of August of September. The time element wit be partiall% determi.ned upon the approacn taken in regard TO notification of citi- zens about the proposed changes. The City Manager noted that the options were to simply go ahead and reclassify the and in the City~ matching existing zones with the closest new zone. The City would then not attempt to force the Compre- hensive Plan until the property owner or a ~eveloper initiated a proposal. The other option would be to try and make an attempt now to rezone in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. This would require taking some time with individual areas and conducting detailed discussions regarding the proposals. Discussion followed about procedures to be followed in notifying owners and residents, both in regard to the process involved, and the responsibility to inform the citizens of the potential change. 8. The City Manager commented that the immediate concern should be to establish the Public Hearing on the City Plan. He proposed that this hearing be held on the 29th June. He felt that notices should be sent to those people who had already expressed concern with the Plan. He added that it would be neces- sary to rely on neighborhood contacts also. The property owners would be notified and an article will appear in the New Hope-Plymouth Post explaining the purpose of the meeting on the 29th. Mr. Licht commented fhat the first step, before getting into the rezoning would be to get a resolution accepting the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that this acceptance was not irrevocable, but that once the Plan had been accepted it could then be forwarded to the Hetropolitan Counci for review. The Metropolitan Council required a 90 day review period before T~e City could adopt the Plan. During this time, additional meetings could be held, input gained and, if necessary, amendments could be made to the Comprehensive Plan. He added, that in his opinion, the meetings on the zoning changes will bring out a large proportion of the citizens and that they will probably gain more input than from the hear- ing on the Comprehensive Plan on the 29th. Mr. Licht then stated that new guidelines were being established by the Metropolitan Council that would require each municipality fo have an approved Comprehensive Pla~ by 1979. It was his opinion that New Hope~s Plan would also satisfy any new requirements established. Commissioner Pakonen questioned whether or not any provision had been made to retain Mr. Licht after the present contract expires? The City Manager noted that it had been discussed. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 5 - JUNE 15, 1976 8. In response to a question from Co~missioner Gustafso~, Mr. Licht noted that relatively minor changes to the Comprehensive Plan, after it had been submitted to the Metropolitan Council, would probably not require re-submission. The decision, however, ~is the Metropolitan Councils. Commissioner Gustafson requested further discussion on the foremat to be used for notifying the resi- dents. Concerns were expressed as to the point in the process, that meetings and discussions would be held on the proposed zoning changes. Mr. Licht indicated that he did not feel people would get too upset at the prospect of downzoning of pro- perty, indicating that for the most part the zoning would ne the same or downzoned. The City Manager indicated that whether or not the zoning that individua neighborhoods might prefer on undeveloped property was realistic, they still should be allowed the opportunity to come in and express their feelings. Further discussion held about the necessity of notifying citizens and the practical~i~ty of attempting to contact all area5 on an individual basis. Mr. Licht indicated his opinion that the City could not financially al ow the citizens to dictate what individual properties were zoned, since for the most part they would prefer everything to be zoned single family. He felt that the rezoning should not be a threat to anyone except the property owners. He sug- gested that perhaps there could be an article included in the next newsletter addressing the issues of rezoning. Com~'ssioner Gustafson indicated his concern over the neighborhoods that did hot have strong neighborhood organizations and how they would be heard. Mr. Licht indicated he felt that what the City could afford to do also must be a consideration. He again stated the ~ssibilitythat the Comprehensive Plan could, at some future timer be amended. In response to a request from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager stated that prior to the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, he ~ould propose: I. A major article in the New Hope-Plymouth Post 2. Notices to the owners of the vacant land 3. Notices to the people in the planning areas that the City knows are interested and to representatives of individual groups. Further discussion followed about the advisability of notifying arge blocks of citizens individually about the meeting on t.he 29th, with the expectation they might a I wish to express opinions at the meeting. meeting. Concensus appeared to be that the Public Hearing should be held on the 29th on the Comprehensive Plan, with notices sent as indicated above by the City Manager. Individual district meetings to be held dur- ing the summer, to allow everyone that so wished, the opportunity to express their opinions on the proposed rezonings. Commissioner Pakone~ moved that the Public Hearin~ on the Comprehensive Plan be established for June 29th, with notification to be as outlined by. the City Manager. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London~ Christensen, Atchley, Cameron~ Anderson, Pakonen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Craigie Motion passed. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron regarding the Council's position ih the process, Mr. Licht noted that the City Counci would take action after the Public Hearing and after the Plan had been reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. The City Manager noted that on July 6th~ the Public Hearin~ on the text portion of the Zonin~ Ordinanc~ would be held. A general aotice to appear in the New Hope-Plymouth Post and specific notices sent to the areas that would be most concerned, i. e. shopping centers, etc. NEW BUSINESS 9. Chairman Cameron requested that the ~roposed Sub-division Ordinance be reviewed by the Land Use Committee and that the proposed Maintenance Code be reviewed by Codes and Standards prior to the establishment of Public Hearings on these two ordinances. Commissioner Gustafson scheduled a meeting of the Codes and Standards Committee for 6:30 ~.m. June 22nd. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES o 6 - JUNE 15, 1976 9. Commissioner London scheduled a meeting of the Land Use Committee for 6~30 p.m. June 22nd. Both meetinqs to be held at the City Hall. I0. The Commission minutes of June I, 1976 were approved with the fo lowing corrections: Commissioner Pakonen wished to have the minutes indicate that he had been in favor of the sign at Holy Nativity Church (Case 76-30) on the grounds that it had a public information message. Commissoner Atchley requested that his vote be recorded as "Nay" on the final motion to recommend approval of Case 76-30. Commissioner Anderson requested that he be credited with an excused absence for the meeting of June 19 because he had been out of town. II. Discussion then hele regarding the items that had been referred to the Commission for review, by the Counci 1. They were: I. Review of the ordinance as it applies tO the age limit for the operation of pinball machines by minors° 2. The issue of encroachment upon public property (i.e. fence on boulevard on Flag Avenue and 40th)~ Discussion followedo Commissioner Gustafson indicated that the Codes and Standards Committee would review these two issues as soon as possible. He stated he felt it would be impossible to have a recommendation before the first meeting in August on the pinball machine question. The issue of encroachment on public land would take at least 60 days. Discussion then centered on the tennis match between the City Council aha the Planning Commission. The decision made to have a doubles match. Commissioners London, Christensen, Gustafson and Craigie to be the Planning Commission representatives. The match will be held on the 23rd of Junet on the Civic Center Courts. The participants will be noti- fied by the City Manager as to the time of the match. 12. In review of the Council meeting of June 14th, the City Manager noted that Lunds had requested a table for two weeks; that the Sign Ordinance Vote had been tabled until June 28th, due to a 2~2 split; and that the petition by Dick Ernst ha~ been sent back to staff for the drafting of a resolution with findings of fact for denial. It will be back before the Counci on the 12th of July. He noted that there had been a request 15y two young people to paint house numbers on curbs, Out that this had been denied. 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at I0:2 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce 13oeddeker Secretary PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ' MINUTES JUNE 29, 1976' I. A special meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 29, 1976 at the City Ha I, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The purpose of the special meeting was to conduct a public hearing on the final draft of the Comprehen- sive Plan for the City. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL was taken: Present: London, Atchley, Craigie, cameron, Anderson, Gundershaug Absent: Bartos (exc~sed), Pakonen (excused), Christensen (excused), Gustafson (excused) Commissioner Gustafson arr'ived at 9:20 p.m. 3. Chairman Cameron stated that the purpose of the meeting was to hear comments from interested citizens on the Comprehensive Plan in general, without spending a great deal of time on individual areas that had been recommended by the Planners for change. He added that the City anticipates holding approxi.mately six public hearings that would allow discussion regarding specific areas. Dr. Cameron then turned the meeting over to Mr. Licht, of Midwest Planning and Research. Mr. Licht noted that the Public Hearing was an attempt to get.public reaction to the Comprehensive Plan .as a whole. He referenced the public meeting that had been held on June 8th, 1976 and stated that an a0ditional reason for the present meeting was that at its conclusion, the City could then forward the. Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. There wou d then be at least a 120 day period before the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Licht then reviewed the Comprehensive Plan in detail, i'llustrating the ~as recommended ,pr pote~tial change in zoning through the use of slides. Following the review, the Chairman declared a recess to allow the citizens present the opportunity to examine the illustrations of the large undeveloped-properties (on walls of Council Chamber) and their suggested use, as recommended by the Planners. Mr. Licht iodicated that he would answer questions from the citizens. Chairman Cameron reconvened the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Chairman Cameron restated that the Public]Hearing was on the Comprehensive Plan as a whole, and that there would be at lea~t six public hearings following the present meeting, in which individual areas would be addressed,during the next few months. Chairman Cameron re-emphasized that the recommendations, as presented, were the result of the Planner's best judgment for the future of the City of New Hope. Mr..Licht restated that the purpose of the meeting was to start a legal process and allow referal of the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council. This review by the Metropo itan Council was required by law. He added that as pact of the review process, cities that bordered New Hope would also receive copies of the Plan. Upon the completion of the review process, the City Council will hold at least one final public hearing, before final adoption of the Plan. Mr. Licht restated that there would be neighborhood meetings held in the near future, before the final adoption of the Plan. Mr. Douglas Peterson, representing Hewett Peterson, indicated that they had an interest in several pieces of property in New Hope. He expressed his opinion that the soil conditions on the property in Site #1 (62nd/#18) were atrocious, primarily swamp. He suggested that the Planners should get together with the City Assessors to ascertain what the land had been assessed at, and what it could be sold for~ Mr. Peterson further commented on t~e fact that for years they had been paying taxes on their properties as assessed,and attempting to play by the rules as far as development. He questioned changing the rules at this point and recommending new uses for these properties. He stated that he felt that to change the rules in the middle of the game was a little hard on the property owner. Mr. John Gabrielson o~ Coldwell-Banker Company stated that they tended to differ with the report. They are very optimistic concerning the industrial potential of the land in New Hope. He indicated that they are hand lng the property owned by Knutson and Olson, West of Boone Avenue. He indicated his feel- ing that the Northwest corridor is a Number One growth area, stating that there was minimal land in New Hope and very minimal available buildings. He stated that there was a great need for speculation type of buildings. 1_ PLANN I NG COMM I SS ION MINUTES - 2 - JULY 29; ~976 3. Discussion followed between Mr. Gabrielson and Chairman Cameron and Commissioner Craigie about the Olson Industrial Park and the Knutson property in the Science Industry Center and why, if it was such prime land, the owners were attempting to dispose of the property? Mr. Gabrielson noted that there had been a severe recession the last couple of years affecting indus- trial development° Mr. Randa I Schostag, 9309 40½ Avenue North, suggested that perhaps ~'land use compatibility~' should be the Number One priority in the determination of land use in the City. He noted that, in his opinion~ the upswing had not as yet run its course. Mr. Jerry Harrington, 7400 42nd Avenue North, commented that he had developed about 300 units in the City over the years. He indicated that he had been attending Council meetings over the past I0 years. He remarked that there had been several projects before the Council for some of these undeveloped pro- perties through the years that had been denied because of improper zoning, and now questioned the re- commended change of use? He stated that the soil tests on some of the property had turned potential buyers away. He referenced the property at 49th Avenue and #18 (Southeast quadrant) indicating that ·his property has 27-28 feet of peat. He stated that he was against decreasing density. He questioned whether the Planners had checked with the owners about the value of the land, noting that one reason for property being undeveloped, was the bad economic cond. iti~n ~.iqh b~ existed in the construction industry the past two years. ~ollowing further discussion, Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission must consider not only what is good for the land owner, but what is good for the future of the City~ Mr. Licht indicated that a great many of the~issues as raised had been considered by the Planners~ that they recognized that much of this land was marginal, some with poor soil, and that this had influenced their recommendations about future land use. He indicated that the Planners were also aware of the market value of industrial land, and how it was moving, both in New Hope and other suburban areas. He stated that industrial land was aot moving in New Hope. Mr. Jim Matthews, 4624 Virgina Avenue, commented on the City Center area. He stated he was a home owner living in the area adjacent to the site for the City Center. He questioned what they intended to locate in the area that would be any better than presently exists? He commented on the condition of the Center and the general condition of the area, questioning whether any of the shops are doi~ng very well and in- dicated his feeling that generally the area was a dump. He commented that he was also concerned about potential traffic problems, should the shopping area be expanded, and stated that he did not wish addi- tional people wa.lking through his yard. Chairman Cameron indicated that the City Center Plan was a concept. Mr. Matthews indicated his feeling that New Hope was a bedroom community with no need ~or a bright light center. Chairman Cameron noted there was also a need in New Hope for a commercial-recreational center, other than'K-Mart and Red Owl. . ~o Matthews stated his concern that the land woul~ become a commercial slum. A citizen asked how the homeowners would be notifed about the pending neighborhood meetings° In response to a question fr~ the Chairman, the City Manager noted that, hoaefully, '~he contacts in the individual neighborhood groups will inform their groups. The City will do its best to notify the residents that they feel wilt be concerned. He further indicated that apathy has been rampant through- out the entire planning process and that even with individual notices being sent, it had been difficult to get citizen participation° - Mr. Larson restated ~he City's intention to hold combined hearings. He indicated that there would be additional Post coverage, neighborhood group leaders would be contacted~ and that individual notices would be sent to those people within 350 feet of a proposed rezoningo The City Manager indicated that copies of the City Plan were avai able for purchase at $5.00 and that they also could be checked out at the City Hall, for short periods of time, to be returned following review. In response to a question from Mr. Schostag, Mr. Larson confirmed that the text of the Zoning Ordinance will be considered at the Planning Commission meeting on the 6th July~ and ~ha~ the actual mapping pro- cess will be conducted on an area by area basis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JUNE 29, 197~ 3. Mr. Wolfgang Schroeder, 2756 Yukon questioned the length of time it would take to resolve these problems? Chairman Cameron indicated that the Planni0g Commission intended to devote as much time as was necessary to the ~ssues. The City Manager noted 'that there was no way that they could hope to satisfy everyone in the City, but that the important thing was to allow people the opportunity To comment on the Plan. He added that at some place down the linet the discussions would have to be cut off. At that time, the City has two choices: I. Go ahead and adopt the Ordinance, with the new map, and fight over each issue, or 2. Consider what the Plan says, bu~ use a direct transfer of zoning at this time, and then make indi vidual judgments at the time that specific proposals come before the Commission and Council. Mrs. Barbara Brandt, 5801 Decatur Avenue, asked at what point the zoning of the land would actually change? The City Manager noted that the proposed Zoning Code included a list of districts. The commercial dis- tricts had been split up to give more control in limiting use ists. Everything in the City will be rezoned to comply with the new designations. Some of the zones will be direct transfers, other areas will involve changes. The new map will be considered later in the year. Mr. Roger Damerow, 6060 Hillsboro, asked whether there was any significance in the numbers of the dis- tricts (i.e. #1 vs. #10), The City .Manager stated there was not, the neighborhoods had simply Been numbered to begin in the North- west corner of the City. Discussion followed between Mr, Harrington and Mr. Licht about the zoning changes that had recently been made in the City of Robbinsdale. Mr. Licht indicated that the Robbinsdale progra~ had been basically one of what was compatible land use, and that 'an attempt had been made to balance out the system. He indicated that that one of the best tax returns for a City would be apartments. Mrs. Kranz, 3043 Louisiana, wondered if she would get a rebate for her property, if they changed the zoning? Mr. Licht questioned whether, or not Mrs. Kranz would want to sell her property as LIt He noted that there were at least 56 industrial parks in the metropolitan area, many of them not completely developed. Further discussion. The City Manager noted that there was a Maintenance Code under review by the Commission, which would be acted upon in the near future. He stated that the Pla~ was a concept, and that it was the responsibility of t~e City to enforce the new codes, and the City's responsibility to determine what was best for its future. The Public Hearing was closed. Discussion then folto~ed about the public meeting schedule. Concensus was that this should be deferred until Tuesday,July 6th, at which time staff would have a recommendation as to the number of meetings that would be needed. Suggestion made that the individual area meetings be tied in with the rezoning map meetings, and that a schedule be set up that would be reasonable for all concerned. Mr. Licht indicated that he felt the Commission should officially refer the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council at their meeting on the 6th, and then attempt to hold all of the individual meet-. ings during the 120 days that the Metropolitan Council requirud for review. Discussion held about the need for ~he residents to be allowed to pa~icipate, and the actual number of areas that might cause concern (perhaps 12); the means to be used to alert the residents to the meetings; and the fact that these meetings could extend through September. Mr. Licht indicated that he would have an addendum ready on changes in the Zoning Code, for the Commis- sioners for the meeting of the 6th July. Commissioner Gustafson indicated that the Codes and Standards Committee had completed its review of the Maintenance Code at their meeting of June 22nd. Commissioner London noted that the Land Use Committee had completed its review of the Subdivision Ordinance at its meeting on June 22nd. With unanimous ~onsent, the meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. PLANN I NG COMM i SS I ON MINUTES JULY 6, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the New Hope City Hall, New Hope, Minnesota on July 6, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:39 p.m. Chairman Cameron apologized to those assembled for being late. He had been unavoidably detained. 2~ ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: - London, Crai§ie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Absent: Bartos, Christensen (excused), Atchley, Pakonen PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 76-35 (continued from 6-1-76) REQUEST FOR REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AT 40½ AND JORDAN--MARVIN GORDON, PETITIONER Mr. Gordon stated that ne was requesting the rezoning and plat approval to allow him a plat that would consist of 9 single family homes cul~du-saced off Jordan and 40½ and 6 double bungalows that would back up to County #18. The City Manager noted that there had been two considerations,the last time Mr. Gordon had appeared before the Commission, regarding the access to the property -- the intersection at 40½ and Jordan and the possibility of the road being extended North or East. The feeling of staff was that a simple ad- justment at the corner of Jordan/40~ would make a right angle intersection at a critical point and eliminate the problem of the curve. This type of intersection could also be signalized if it proved to be necessary at a future time. Commissioner London noted for the record that Mr. Gordon was requesting a rezoning of the North half of Lot 5, and all of Lot 6 from SF to Multiple, and the North ~1/2 of Lot I0~ and Lots 11, 12, 13, and 14 from MR to SR along with approval of the preliminary platt Commissioner Lo~don reviewed the concerns that had been expressed at the meeting of the Design and Review Committee. They included the traffic oroblem, the intersection at Jordan and 40½ and the fact that lots 13-14-15 were narrow at the rear lot line. He noted, however, that as Mr. Gordon stated, at the buildine line of those ots, the width was adequate. The Commission had also expressed concerns about Outlot A and suggested its development be included in the plan at the present time. Mr. Gordon noted that he had spoken to the owners of the property to the North of his parcel and that while there is a possibility of combining the properties, he was also considering building two six unit townhouses on the property, with a private road going into the property from Gettysburg. No decision has been made. to date on Outlot A. Discussion followed about the amount of land in the current proposal (6 acres) the possibility of a berm being constructed between Highway #18 and the homes and what Mr. Gordon's plans would be if he did not receive the plat approval. Mr. Gordon noted that if he did not receive plat approval he.would not proceed with the rezoning at this time. The City Manager commented that Mr. Gordon wishes to rezone the property now, but that he had stated he would not develop the six lots facing #i8 until the new zoning code is adopted, since at that time he could develop the property with townhouses without going PUD. This parcel would be an "R-2" under the new zoning code. In response to questions from Commissioner London, Mro Gordon stated he expected the single family homes would be in the 50-60 thousand dollar range and that they would be owner property, not rental. He plans to sell the~lots to a developer. Discussion followed between the Commissioners about the legality of requesting a traffic control, lat the intersection of 40½ and Jordan as a condition of the approval of the petition. Chairman Cameron noted that he did not feel this was one of the Commission's prerogatives, inasmuch as the City did have an active Traffic Commission and a Police Department to recommend such signalization if it were determined necessary. Commissioner London no%ed that if Mr. Gordon did not receive the rezoning, as the property was presently zoned he couid construct apartments of up' to 17 units per acre on the property. In answer to a question from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Gordon noted that he was not hauling fill from the area, but was, in fact, looking .for some more. He re-stated that he had been in contact with the owners of the property to the North but that no decision had been made by them as to development plans. PLANN I NG COMM 1 SS ION MINUTES - 2 JULY 6, 1976 3, Mr. Randy Schostag, 9309 40½ Avenue North, questioned Mr. Gordon about the soil problems that prevent the extension of Jordan Avenue. Mr. Gordon answered that there was 22 feet of peat at the lift station and that the soil gets worse as it goes down. He further stated, in answer to Mr. Schostag, that he felt it would be less difficult and less expensive to construct homes on Lots I and 2 than to extend the road, considering the soil condition. Chairman Cameron noted that this was essentially the same plat that had been reviewed on June Ist. He further stated that the request had Peen tabled at that time, to allow Mr. Gordon additional time for study' of the problems, not denied. Mr. Schostag commented on the fact that the Comprehensive Plan in its recommendations for this area had suggested two concerns: I. The need to preserve the existing neighborhood 2. The need to keep the traffic development minimal He further stated that the concept plan emphasized two points: I. Retaining the SF development in the area and 2. Extending a through street across Outlot A Both of these concepts were to allow a smoother traffic plan. Mr. Schostag indicated that two of the other residents agreed with his feelings'about the plat, that the plat as proposed presented essentially the same problems as it had on June tst, and that as a resident of the area he was requesting that the Commission not approve this plat. Mr. Mike Wilder, 9300 40½ Avenue, stated that he was for this plat for the simple reason that as the pro- perty was presently zoned, they could develop 17 units per acre, and he would rather see 6 doubles and 9 singles than apartments with up to I00 units. He noted that while there were some problems with the cor- ner, what would the problems be with apartments in the area? He added he felt the proposal was a good one. Mr. Tom Wilder, 9224 40½ Avenue, stated he wished to also go on record as being in favor of the proposed plat. He added that it was his understanding that legally Mr. Gordon could come in and construct apart- ~ ments on the property. He f~lt it was certainly preferable to have 9 singles and 6 doubles to a develop- ment of 17 units per ~cre. He noted he had walked back into the area in question and felt that homes could be built that would blend into the area. Mr. John Mosey, 9225 40½, noted that one of the concerns of the area residents was the traffic problem at 40½. He added that while the City had been responsive to the problem, there were perhaps 50 children ]i.n the area. He wondered why there could not be a cul-du-sac at the end of Lot #1 (Jordan)? Discussion followed about the potential traffic problems as exist today, that might develop in the future and possible solutions. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission was responsible for protecting everyone's best. i. nterest and not just one small area. Commissioner London made a motion to recommend approval of Planninq Case 76-35, Request fnr Rezonin~ of the North I/2 of Lot 5~. all of Lot 6 from SF to MR, and the rezoninq of the North half of Lot I0 and ~ots I1~ 12~ 13~ 14 from MR to SF~ with the condition that the intersection at Jordan/40½ be corrected as illustrated on Map B (presented to the Commission July 6th) and granting the variances on Lots 13, 14, 15 at the rear setback line. Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos~ Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-38 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT BASS LAKE ROAD AND SUMTER - KADEK ENTERPRISES, PETITIONER. The City M~nager stated that the petitioner was not present. They had not received permission from the Crystal Council for a curb cut on Sumter and that ~hey were presently working with the County on the question of curb cuts on Bass Lake Road. He suggested that the Commission table this case until the first meeting in August. ~. Commissioner London moved to table Planninq Case 76-~8 until August...3~ 1976. Commissioner Gundershauq s~cond. · V6ting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. PLANN 1NG COMM I SS ION · MINUTES ~ 3 - JULY 6, 1976 5. PLANNING CASE 76-36 (Continued from 6-1-76) - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE CASE 76-46 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AT 8401 and 8405 EAST MEADOW LAKE ROAD - CLAUSEN AND ERICKSON~ PETITIONERS. Mrs. Erickson and Mr. Clausen were present regarding this request. Mr. Clausen stated that they were requesting the waiver of platting to change the lot line to allow Mr. Erickson to build a garage and to move the lot line out of his driveway. Commissioner London noted this was the second time that the petitioners had appeared. He noted further that the petitioners had presented a survey which met the legal requirements for a waiver of platting to al'low the Ericksons to construct a garage with a I I/2 foot variance in the side yard. Mr. Clausen stated that he had given up 17 feet on the back of the property and Mr. Erickson had given up 15 feet on the front. This straightens out the lot line. Both garages will be on the same side. Commissioner London moved to recommend approval of Planninq Cases 7,6-36 and 76-46~ Request for a Waive~ of Plattinq and Variance in Sideyard Setback at 8401 and 8405 East Meadow Lake Road. Commissioner Gundershau~ second. Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-41 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW TRUCK PARKING AT 7205 62ND AVENUE NORTH - RONALD CHAPMAN~ PETITIONER. Mr. Chapman stated that he was requesting permission tb park the tractor portion of his truck in his yard. He stated that since his previous appearance before the Commission, he had attempted with no suc- cess, to find a place to park his truck. He noted that there had been complaints to the City and he had received tickets for illegal parking. He questioned whether the weight of his tractor/trailer was any greater than a large motor home which is parked in the neighborhood and expressed his opinion that his truck was not harming the street any more than this motor home. He added that since the wiring had been moved for the new addition to his home, he could now pull the tractor back into the yard behind the fence. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Chapman stated that he was an owner-operator, that he hauled loads for Emory Freight. He stated he was probably home 3-5 times a month, and usually no later than I0-11 p.m. The trailer portion is usually parked at Austin, Minnesota at the packing house. He re-stated that he had attempted to locate a place to park his tractor/trailer, noting that the time of day when he was in and out of the area, was late enough so that there were no children out to be in danger. In answer to 'questions 'from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Chapman noted that the only maintenance he did on the truck at his home was to grease and change oil -- the normal work that an owner might do on a car. Discussion between Mr. Chapman and the Commissioners about his efforts to locate another parking spot for his tractor/trailer. Commissioner Gustafson commented on the fact that parking of tractors/trailers in residential neighbor- hoods was against City Ordinance. He wished Mr. Chapman to understand that whatever decision the Com- mission made on his case, would also affect ail other areas of the City. Mr. Chapman noted in response to a question from Mr. Gundershaug that he never had the thermal unit plugged in when he was home. He re-stated that he never had the tractor/trailer at home more than 5 times a month -- some months the trailer was never there. Mr. E. Smith 7203 62nd Avenue North and Mr. Medard Kaisershot, an attorney representing Mr. Pramann, 7227 62nd) were present. Mr. Kaisershot read statements from the following people expressing opposition to the~petition: (state- ments attached to official minutes). Mrs. Ethel Anderson 6201Maryland~ Brooklyn Park Mr. and Mrs. James 7105 62nd Mrs. Barb Prestige 7121 62nd Mr. and Mrs. Pramann 7227 62nd Mrs. Mae I Gullickson 7307 62nd Mr~ Yoraway 7115 62nd School District #281 Mr. Smith noted he was not in favor of the variance and does not believe in running a commercial business from a residential area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 6, 1976 6. Mr. Kaisershot stated that they did have pictures to illustrate the condition of the yard and the man- ner in which the truck was parked. The pictures were distributed to the Commissioners for review. Mr. Chapman requested permission to respond to. the statement that he parked his truck in the yard on Sunday and did maintenance work on it on Sunday. He stated that he was 'n Syracuse, New York every Sunday, except for the most recent one when he had stayed in town to attend the Planning Commission meet- ing. He stated he had "logs" to pro'~e this. Me added further that some of the pictures that had been presented were "old" pictures and not taken during the last two weeks as indicated. In response to a question from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Chapman stated that the Rambler was parked in the front yard because of the current construction on his nome. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he wished to comment on the fact that a similar situation to Mr. Chap- mans had occured in nis own neighborhood and that as a resident he had been against such truck parking. He wished to commend Mr. Chapman's diligence to work and the job that he performs, and also his diligence in attempting to locate his truck. However, in keeping with the residential character of the City of New Hope, he made a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 76-41 - Request for a Variance to Allow the Parkinq of a Truck Tractor~ sub,iect to a 30 da_~ 9race. period~, comm~nqin~ July 12, 1976~. to' allow'Mr. Chapman time To find an alternate faci ity to park his tractor. That grace period is suDiecm to the followin~ restrictions: the TracTor on ) will be parked at the a~aress during the next 30 day period, and that the tractor arrive and depart during daylight hours. Commissioner Crai~[e second. Voting in favor: London~ Craigie~ Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos~ Atchley~ Christensen~ Pakonen Motion passed. Discussion between Mr. Chapman and Chairman Cameron regarding his appearance before the Council. Mr. Chapman indicated he would be out of town. Chairman Cameron recommended that someone ~epresent him. 7. PLANNING CASE 76-42 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REAR YARD SETBACK AT 3425 YUKON - ROBERT AAKHUS~ PETITIONER Mr~ Aakhus stated he wished to construct a 12 x 16 foot deck and a 12 x 16 family room on the rear of his hom~. In addition to the extra room, this would give him an entrance to the back yard. Upon com- pletion of the construction his deck/family room would be 25' from the neighbors garage. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Aakhus noted he had lived ~in the home for three years and that the reason for extending the 16' dimension into the yard was that this way he could pre- serve the windows in the kitchen and bathroom. Mr. Aakhus stated he intended to use the same type of siding and that the roof line would be perpendicular to the roof line of the existing ho~se. He added that he had discussed the addition with the neighbor and had received no opposition. Commissioner Gustafson recommended approval of Case 76-42 - Request for Variance in Rear Yard Setback at 34?5.. ~kon~ sub.iect i-o the continuation of the same type of sidinq and color of siding on the addition as on the house and that the grade in the backyard be m~[ntained to preserve drainage. Commissioner Gundersbau§ second, Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Christensen~ Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. 8. PLANNING CASE 76-43 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 59TH/WISCONSIN - BERYL JETTE~ PETITIONER Mr. Jette noted that he had been before the Commission approximately a year and a half ago with a plat proposal which included seven lots. At that time, the Commission had felt that seven lots was too many for.the property and had suggested he attempt a different solution. Mr. Jette ~aid he had looked at many different possibilities, but that when road costs were considered, the individual lot cost became too high. Commissioner London asked about the access to Lot 4 (off ·North Meadow Lake Road) and questioned whether this plat was efficient land use, considering the large size of the lots? MF. Jette responded that they had tried many different divisions, noting again that the Commission had · previously felt that seven lots was over developed. He also commented on the fact that the way the existing house.was positioned also r~t~i~ted ±he division of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 ~ JULY 6, 1976 8. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Jette indicated he did not anticipate any difficulty in selling the lots and had already had people look at them that were interested in buying. There is street access to each lot. Discussion about the possible extension of Xylon Avenue at some future time. The City Manager indicated that the City would probably never extend Xylon since it would be quite costly to develop and would not be consistent with the policy of keeping traffic out of neighborhood areas. Commissioner London recommended approval of Case 76-43~ Approval of Preliminary Plat at 59th/Wisconsin. Commissioner Gustafson secohd. Commissioner Craigie stated that he agreed with the fact that this was under utilization of property. He added that, from his point of view, he preferred the '74 plat of 7 lots as opposed to ~he present proposal. He stated it woud be better from the City's point of view and from the housing stock point of view and the land would be better used if more and smaller lots, and consequently smaller homes, were developed on the property. Further discussion between the Commissioners regarding land utilization. Voting in favor: London, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Craigie Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. 9. PLANNING CASE 76-44 - REQUEST FOR PARKING CHANGES AT 4730-40 QUEBEC AVENUE ~ HARRY DEAN~ PETITIONER. Mr. Dean stated he was employed by Northwest Industrial Realty and that he represented the Chicago Cut- lery Company who were in the process of purchasing the Ken Wise Building. He stated that they were requesting additional parking because although the original I~yout indicated 36 parking spaces, in reality there were only 29 usable spaces. The company employs between 30-35 people. They have had the architect rearrange the existing stalls and are requesting 40 on site stalls. In answer to q question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Dean noted that they intend to use the existing curb cuts. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether Mr. Dean thought the owner would De willing to pro- vide additional plantings on the berm area, at least in the Northwest portion that is being cut down, to give additional screening? Chairman Cameron noted that only about 15% of the area i's now in green~ indicating that additional trees would make the site more attractive and pleasing to the area. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about providing handicapped aarking. The City Manager indicated that even though the general public woul~ not be visiting the building, handicapped parking must be provided. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Case 76-4~ Request for Additional Parkinq~ as indicated~ suD.iect to the stronq suggestion tha~ the petitioner obtain a copy of ?he New Hope plant- in~ ~uidelines and make every..attempt to plant the proposea new berm ~o allow screeninc for the resi- dents to the North and West~ and that handicapped parking be provided. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson~ Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. Chairman Cameron suggested that the petitioner have a landsqape ~lan t~ present to the Council at ~the meeting on the 12th July. Chairman Cameron declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m. I0. PLANNING CASE 76-45 - CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES AT 8201 54TH AVENUE - UNITED HARDWARE., PETITIONER. Mr. David Bartol, Project Manager for Rauenhors~ Corporation, represented the ~etitioner. He noted that accompanying him were Mr. Warren Goldberg, President of United bardware, Mr. Earl Nye, Operations Manager of United Hardware, and Mr. Jerry Bailey, a profeesional landscape architect. Mr. Bartol noted that in 1960, United Hardware had receive~ a building permit for an ultimate building of 415,000 square ~eet and parking space for 200 cars. They are now asking for a 75,000 foot addition bringing the total to 371,000 square feet and for parking spaces for 312 cars. PLANNING COMMISSION · MINUTES - - 6 - JULY 6, 1976 I0. Based on the original approval, the company had a signed a 25 year lease with specific options to expand. Because of code changes, the company is now requesting two variances, one for lot coverage and one for parking. The maximum number of .employees, with the addition, will be 250. The maximum number of people on the premises at one time would be 200. Because of the variance request, Mr. Bartol indicated that they had provided excess parking and were willing to provide additional landscaping of the site. Mr. Bartol requested that Mr. Jerry Bailey present the landscaping proposal. Mr. Bailey presented landscaping plans for the Commissioner's review. He noted that in addition to the existing landscaping, they are proposing to add a Zabili honesuckle hedge (36" on center) in front of the parking lot and new addition; more trees in front of the building (3" caliber Marshal Green Ash) and also adding 8 foot blue spruce trees and three honey locust trees. Commissioner London noted that United Hardware had met with Design', and Review. He stated that there were three variances being requested: Io A variance in the number of parking spaces from the required 439 to 312 A variance for parking in the front of the building 3. A variance in lot use: green area from 35% to 10.6% and building coverage from 40% to 65%. In response to questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Bartol noted that the building materials would be essentially the same as now exist, that the loading docks would be interior docks, that the addition would include a manager's office and restrooms in addition to the warehouse area, no roof top equipment, and that they were requesting one additional curb cut. Discussion then centered on the existing on-street parking, what type of interior remodeling will be done and the type of lighting to be installed on the addition (security lighting to be continued as' presently exists). Chairman Cameron raised the question of snow removal and how it will be handled? Mr. Nye indicated that the snow had been hauled away in the past, and that if necessary it will be in the future. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson regarding office space, Mr. Goldberg noted that at t.he present time there is a cafeteria to the West of the building. If they are allowed to expand, the cafeteria will probably be moved further West and the present cafeteria will become office space. He stated that at the present time they have 91 permanent employees and II permanent part-time employees. They anticipate that the office staff may be increased to 115'in the future. Commissioner London recommended approval of Case 76-45 includinq the followin~ variances: a reduction i.n the. parking stalls to 312~ a variance to permit employee .parking in the front of the building~ a reduction in the green area to 10% according to the plans as submitted on July 6~h, w.i~.h the addition ae;pFo~osed; a minimum of 2½". caliber trees and rooftop screening as necessary; with no snow to be piled on The premises; and no employee parking on the street. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Further discussion held on the number of parking stalls to be provided, the anticipated length of time the company anticipated remaining in New Hope, the car~ that presently park on the street, what steps the company will take to insure that employees will not park on the street and the crowded conditions of the present parking lot. Mr. Nye indicated that as of July 6th, employees parking in the street had received notices to cease such parking and that they would do their best to police Chis on-street parking. Mr. Goldberg indicated that they had every intention of staying in New Hope indefinitely, and that if at some future time they needed to expand he would establish a satelite distribution center in another area. During additional discussion about snow removal, the City Manager noted that there were City Ordinances which covered snow removal. Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron~ Anderson, Gustafson~ Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos~ Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. II. PLANNING CASE 76-47 - REQUEST FOR REZONING~ W'AIVER OF PLATTING AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL AT THE CORNER OF XYLON AND 42ND - NEW HOPE STATE BANK~ RETI.TIONER. Mr. Denny Williams, President of the Bank~ noted that Mr. Robert Pope and Mr. Mike Morell, the archi- tects,would present the proposal. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 7 - JULY 6~ 1976 II. Mr. Pope presented drawings to the Commissioners, noting they had been revised as a result of the meet- ing with the Design and Review meeting. Mr. Pope stated they were proposing to construct a drive-up facility on the corner of Xylon and 42nd. on a parcel occupied by K-mar. They are proposing, a six lane drive~up facility and intent to use the existing curb cuts on the K-Mart site. Parking has been eliminated on the North side and a few spots in the area of the walk-up window. The first phase of construction will include only three lanes, but even with the construction of the additional three lanes, the green.area will not be dimi. nished. The ~uilding will be 800-1200 square feet, of masonry and glass,with a wooden canpy. There will be two exterior building lights as well as a lighted log. They intend to berm the area and plant trees (7 flowering crabs and 7 sugar maples). They are propos- ing to use polic.e flower and wood chips as ground cover. He further noted that they ahve been working with Barton-Aschman on the traffic patterns. They intend 'to have traffic enter the site from 42nd or from Xylon, move South or West into the drive-up. There will be one way traffic through the lanes, and I0 parking spaces for walk-up customers. Discussion followed on the traffic patterns, the stacking capacity, the amount of time involved in individual transac.tions (Mr. Williams indicated that the average transaction time was I I/2 - 2 minutes), and the number of employees they anticipate in the facility (2). Mr. Ldndon noted that the construction of this banking facility was compatible with the proposed City Center concept as designed by the Planners. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Pope noted that'the curb cut on Xylon was 330 feet from the intersection. He added that the idtersectionat Xylon and 42nd would be signalized in the future. The City Manager confirmed that this should be completed in 1977. Discussion between Commissioner Anderson and Mr. Williams about the traffic that would generate from the facility, and the fact that perhaps this facility would be busier than the main bank. Concern was again expressed about the stacking in the lanes. Mr. Williams indicated that the equipment would be automati'c and that if the volume demanded~ they would, of course, use additional employees, inasmuch as the secret to success in banking is convenience to the customer. He further indicated that if traffic were a problem, he felt it would be in the stack~ lng rather than at the exit. In response to questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Williams noted that the bank hours now were · 7:47 a.m. to 7:47 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 12;00 noon on Saturday. Considerable discussion followed about the traffic problems that could arise during busy times, i.e. Friday evening, and whether the bank would be willing to provide police control should the traffic situation, following staff review, deem this necessary? Mr. Licht commented that it would be to the bank's advantage to provide a smooth operation. Commissioner London recommended approval of Case 76-47~ Rezoning'from~RB to GB~ Approval of the Waiver of Plattinq~ and Construction Plan Apprgval~ sub,iect to there being no additional curb cuts and that the landscape pi'an as submitted to the Planning Commission be the same plan presented to the Council on the 12th. Commissioner Anderson second. ' Commissioner Craigie indicated that he was uncomfortable with the traffic flow and felt it would have been much better if the traffic had been aimed at the Xylon exit. Voting in favor: London, Cameron, Anderson, Gundershaug Voting ~gainst: Craigie, Gustafson Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. 12. PLANNING CASE 76-48 REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL OF A STORAGE BUILDING FOR NHAA EQUIF~I.~NT 7 - 'WEST OF THE SWIMMING POOL PARKING LOT - NHAA~ PETITIONER. Mr. Rod Sanders, President of the NHAA, stated they were. requesting permission to construct a storage building fqr the NHAA equipment at the West of the swimming pool parking lot. The building will be 24 x'36 f.eet and will be a modular units He indicated he did not feel there would be any traffic problems in relation to the pool since most of the activity would be on Saturday mornings and the basic activity will be three times a year, when one sport ends and another begins. The plans before the Commission were not the exact plans but Mr. Sanders stated that plans with exact specifications would be provided them when they ordered the building. Mr. Sanders further in- dicated that they were stil.t in the process of negotiating financing and were not presently in a PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 8 - JULY 6, 1976 12. position to hire an architect to certify the plans. The interior of the building will be completely finished with one restroom and a stairway to the lower level. They plan no windows on three sides and did not feel they needed a sidewalk if the City did not require one. The front door would be a solid steel door, the rear door would be of an emergency door type. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Sanders stated he did no, feel there would be easy access to the roof. Following the statement that the proposition had not been reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission, Chairman Cameron expressed his opinion that it might be good politics to do s. The City Manager noted thai it was his understanding .that the Park and Recreation Commission had dis- cussed the proposed building at their last meeting. Discussion then held on the NHAA plans for financing, and the allotment of the land. Mr. Sanders indicated that the City Council would be discussing the financing on the 12th. He noted that there were two basic proposals: one, that the City own the building on a lease back basis, the other plan would be the NHAA leasing the land for a dollar a year, with the financing of the building to be handled by the association. Maintenance and insurance costs will also be handled by NHAA. He stated that ~lans have been made To assess the members of the association an additional two dollars per year, per individual participant, to cover the financing° Commissioner London aoted that the Design and Review Committee had felt there were several problems with the proposal: I) there was no landscaping plan~ 2) lighting, 3) windows, with meshing, 4) sidewalk, and 5) the fact that the plans had not been approved by a registered architect. Discussion held about the exterior finish and the need for compatibility with the surrounding area. Chairman Cameron indicated nis feeling that the entire proposal was a little "iffy" at the present time, with one decision being dependent upon the next. Mr. Sanders indicated that they already had received concept approval from the NHAA Board of Directors to expend the money (approximately $20,000). What he now needed was approval from the Planning Com- mission and the City Council so he could return to the board to work out the details of the financing and order the building. Commissioner London expressed the opinion that it was difficult for the Commission to recommend approval of a proposal when they had not seen actua 01ans, had not seen a landscape proposal, and did not have approval for the use of the rand. He indicated his feeling that the Planning Commission must be con- sistent in its requirements and follow the ordinance restrictions. He felt the NHAA proposal involved a reshuffling of procedures. Commissioner London also inquired what plans the NHAA had for connecting to sanitary sewer and the cost? (approximately $3600). Mr. Sanders commented that they did nave Board approval and also a method as to how the association was going to finance the building. They now had to obtain the.financing. They cannot obtain financ- ing as an association without Council approval. Mr. Sanders further noted that they do have a storage problem and a time problem. They are presently using a facility that is inadeqaate ane they are already past due in vacating. They need the addi-' tional facility to run the program for the City. He added that they are talking about 60~90 days from the time they order the bui ding unti they can use the facility. Chairman Cameron stated that the Planning Commission does not react to requests to help plan buildings or g've direction, but that they reac? to actual plans. Mr. Licht indicated that he felt that the Commission would be receiving more and more~requests for concept approval, with the petitioners returning to the Commission with specific requests. He felt it was unfair to expect a developer to go through the entire planning process without some indication that the Commission agreed with the concept. Further discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Sanders about the building being compatible with the surrounding buildings, the need for landscaping and whether or not the structure should have windows. ~ommissioner London made a motion to approve, as a general concept, the construction plans as discussed for the NHAA storage building, with the stipulation than an appropriate set of plans, certified by a registered architect, be presented to the Design and Review Committee and the Planning Commission, prior to the introduction of any building. That along with these plans be submitted a landscape plan, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - JULY 6, 1976 12~ that if windows are provided with the building~ that adequate security by way Of- scEeen meshing (~.S op.posed to chicken wire) be pro~i~ed.~ that the exterior of the building .be compatible with the surrounding buildings~ either of brick or sawn cedar. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen · Motion passed. 13. PLANNING CASE 76-49 - CONSIDERATION OF TEXT OF PROPOSED ZONING CODE - CITY OF NEW HOPE~ Pk-TITIONER Mr. Licht noted that the Commissioners had received copies of his addendum to the Zoning Code and that inasmuch as the Code had been reviewed by the Commissioners in detail, it might be wise to open the meeting to comments from the citizens and he would attempt to answer their concerns. Commissioner LOndon commented that it should be noted that only the text of the Code was being con~ sidered for adoption at the present meeting. The·mapping Qf the districts would come at a later date. Mr. Jerry Harrington, 7400 42nd Avenue North, raised a question regarding the parking requirements for two family, multiple family and elderly dwellings. He noted that the existing ordinance requires 3 parking stalls. He felt this·was high for elderly hous~ lng. He commented that the Federal Government only required a 25% parking requirement (I to 4). He also questioned why there was the requirement for an additional back up space per unit? " Mr. Harrington noted that he felt that in the interest~of obtaining elderl'y housing in the City, this should be changed to I per 4. No developer, he felt,would be interested with this restriction. Discussion followed between Mr. Licht, the Commissioners and Mr. Harrington about pa[king needs, espe- Cially for elderly housing. Commissioner Craigie noted that he had had occasion to vist many elderly housing areas and that the parking facilities were rarely filled, even with visitors. Commissioner London made a motion to amend Section 3 (F) (m) to read "one space for every three units, plus one reserve space per every three units". Commissioner Craiqie second° Further discussion about whether this was a fair Solutio'n with Mr. Licht commenting that he felt it was,. because the City would still be protected by the requirement for reserve spaces, should they become necessary° Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed~ Mr. Licht referenced his memo of June 30th, in which parking requirements for single family, two family, had been changed to one space enclosed plus one space open and multiple family had been changed to one space enclosed and one, and one quarter open. Commissioner Craigie. moved to amend Section 7, Subdivision B(I) recommending, this be stricken and placed Under Subdivision D~ making multiple family dwetlin~ structures containing 12 or less dwellin~ unit~ a conditional use in "R-3". Commissioner Gustafson second. Commissioner Craigie noted that he felt this amendment was.necessary i.n keeping with~the City's intent to restrict the addition of housing to owner-type housing. He was not suggesting a total moratorium, but felt control should be maintained. Mr. Licht stated he totally disagreed with this position, feeling there was no reason to go this route. He added that if you wanted FHA financin~ ~oday, there was little or no p'roblem in obtaining ~it if you planned to live in·one unit of a complex. Financing is not as available for units that are to be strictly rental. Further discussion between Mr. Licht and Mr. Craigie about the amendment and the differences in control between a permitted use and a conditional use. Commisioner Craigie amended his amendment to include that it be listed as Item #4, under conditional. uses, with the condition that persons ownin~ the buildinq occuRy one unit. He stated his reason for the amendment was to prevent areas designated "R-3" from being populated with nMmbers of apartment buildings. PLANN NG COMMISSION MINUTES - I0 ~ JULY 6~ 1976 13. Further discussion discussion between Mr. Licht and Commissioner Craigie, Commissioner ~raigi? withdrew his motion. Commissioner London made a motion to recommend approval of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance Text~ date~ February 1976~ as amended as the J~y ~h~meeting; and also as amended in"the'memo from Midwest Plan- ning dated June 25th~ aha as in the Manager's Notes for the meetinq, of July 6th. Commissioner Gustaf- son second. Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 14. The Design and Review Committee met on June 22, 1976 15. Land Use Committee met and reviewed the Subdivision Ordinance, which will be before the Commission in the near future. Copies of amendments to the ordinance as proposed were distributed. 16. Codes and Standards Committee met and reviewed the proposed Maintenance Code. Copies of the amendments to the ordinance as proposed were distributed. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Codes and Standards Committee will meet at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 13th, to discuss the regulations as they apply to infringement upon City aroperty. Mr. Gustafson asked the City Manager if they would have a report from the City ~ttorney at that time? ON-GOING BUSINESS 17. The City Manager noted that staff recommended that six meetings be held to review the zoning districts pt the City. He added that Mr. Licht will be retained to attend these meetings. Following discussion the Commission agreed that these meetings wil be held on: 27th Juty~ lOth August~ 17th Augus% 24th Au~ust~ 31st August~ an~ the ~th September; with one final meeting held for adoption. The City Manager indicated that there would be fhree types of problems in ffhis review. I. The areas where you have a major controversy 2. Trouble with the zoning transfer,~ou lose a li~tle bit and you gain a little bit 3. The problem where you have a major area with no public controversy, but where you want to enforce the Comprehensive Plan and the property owner objects. Discussion as to whether it would be possible to put a time limit on these meetings. Concensus was that this would not be possible, b~t that an attempt should be made to control the amount of time taken by individual presentations. Inasmuch as it appeared that there would be difficulty in obtaining a quorum, the Planning Cgmmission meeting scheduled for the 20th July will be cancelled. The City Manager. distributed zoning maps showing both a direct transfer and carrying out the Comprehen- sive Plan to the Commissioners, emphasizing that they were wor~ing maps for review prior to the hearings, In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Licht noted that when there were two choices for a district, the recommendation was to go to the highest use. The Housing Plan was distributed. Commissioner Craiqie made a motion recommending that the Co~prehensive'Plan.~e submitted to the Metropo~ Iitan Council~ informing them that there may be subsequent changes followinq the citizen meetings. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Camerop~ Anderson, Gustafson, Gundersh~ug Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed NEW BUSINESS 18. The Council Minutes of June 28th, were reviewed. The City Manager noting that the Sign Ordinance ~ad been adopted. 19. The Commission Minutes of June 15th, 1976 were approved. 22. The meeting was adj.ourned by unanimous consent at 12:31 a.m. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES JULY 27, 1976 I. A special meeting of the Planning Commission was h'eld on Tuesday~ Ju y 27th~ 1976 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Gustafson at 7:30 p.m, 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen~ Craigie, Atchley, Gustafson, Anderson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Absent: Cameron 3. Chairman Gustafson noted that the purpose of the special meeting was to allow the citizens and property owners in the area South of 36th Avenue North (Districts 24-30) to express their opinions in regard to the proposed zoning changes as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He requested that those interested in speaking come to the front of the chamber and identify themselves by name ahd address. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Larson, City Manager. The City Manager noted that the Planning Commission and the Planners had been working on the Comprehensive Plan for about one year. The hope is that the final Plan will be adopted within the next three - four months. He added that there had been poor citizen participation, although interest groups and those citi- zens living in the areas in which changes were recommended had been notified. He added further, that in an attempt to inform all concerned, the City had been divided up into six areas in order to hold additional public hearings. He stated further that there was no significance in the manner in which the districts were numbered, they had simply begun the numbering at the North end of the City. The City Manager noted that there were three major areas of controversy in the areas, under discussion tonight. (I) 36th/#18 - which is now zoned LB - the recommendation is to zone R~3~ which is a mid- density residential. (2)~ Louisiana and 30th - presently zoned LI - recommendation is to zone R~3~ a mid-density residential. (3) Area between 27th and 28th~.West side of X~lon - presently zoned SP ~ recommendation is to change to an R-2, to provide a buffer area. Mr. Larson further npted that there were two Planning Cases pending at the present time in these areas: one was at 27th-28th/Xylon for a duplex development on Xylon; and the othe~ on the East side of Hillsboro at 36th, for a medical clinic requiring a change in zoning to LB (under the present ordinance). Mr. ~ar~On t'hen turned the meeting over to Mr. David Llcht, President of Midwest Planning and Research. Mr. Lich~ noted t~at the major charge to Midwest Planning had been to update the City's Comprehensive Plan, which was 16 years old and out of date. They were also to revise a number of ordinances, includ- ing the Sign Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. They also drafted a Sub-Division Ordinance and a Hous- ing Maintenance Code. He noted that there was presently a mandatory planning law in effect~ which they had tried to address. Among the issues concerned in this law was Housing. He then reviewed the process Midwest had followed in their study of New Hope. Mr. Licht stated that the Land Use had been divided into three categories: residential~ commercial and industrial. ]n regard to residential~ they felt tH~r~ ~ould.be an expanded housi~g'chdi~e in the City ~ there is a lack 8f midZdensity housing available. In industrial, they feel there is an excess of land, and t~at mu~h of the land will remain v~c~nt if it is not changed to some type of activity for which there is a demand. They further recommend a housing maintenance code and the establishment of an HRA. In regard to commercial activity, they had attempted to divide the City into three areas: (I) a neighborhod or sub-community type of service center (2) a highway or auto oriented type of service activity (3) the City Center - to be the focal point of commercial, cultural and governmental activity Mr. Licht then listed the density formula: Low I-4 units per acre Mid 6-10 units per'acre High 11-15 units per acre. With the use of transparencies, Mr. Licht began the review of the district~ under consideration. District #24 - bordered by 36th,27th~ Boone and County #18. The recommendation for the undeveloped portion (currently zoned commercial) at 36th/#1B is for mid-density residential buffering single family. The land at 30th/Flag-Hillsboro is recommended to be a mix of townhouses and patio homes. PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 ~ MINUTES JULY 27, 1976 3. District #25 - No changes recommended.. Concer~ was expresseo over maintenance in the area. District #26 - Industrial - because of land use compatibility they feel it is one of the few areas that should receive a lower priority than the areas along #18. District #27 - Contains a mixed use ~f land and includes Midland Shopping Center. They are recommending Midland be a neighborhood or community type of center. There should be access improve- ments made in the area. The land South of 28th on Xylon, because of the'density of the area, is recommended to ~e mid-density to provide a buffer zone. District #28 - No change of land use recommended, but feeling was tha~ with potential.improvements of Medicine Lake Road, concern should be directed at access problems. District #29 - Currently zoned industrial. They recommend a change to mid-density residential primiarily to be accomplished under a PUD. District #30 - Currently zoned industrial, partially developed. The recommendation is that this area remain as presently zoned. In summary, Mr. Licht noted that the recommendations of Midwest were based on three criteria: I) what the private market demand is for various activities and land utilization 2) what the tax return to the City would be 3) land use compatibility Chai rman Gustafson restated that the proposals as presented were concepts, not spec i.fic plans for develop- ment, as recommended by the Planners. He then opened the meeting to bubl ic comment. District #24 Mr. James Wieland, an attorney, with the fi~m of. Geimer, Rice and Arnold in St. Louis Park, stated he re-- presented the estate of C.T. Holberg - and was concerned with the_property at County #18 and 36th Avenue,' Outlot #1, of Holberg Heights, in which the estate owned an undivided one half interesf. He noted that the estate would like to go oh record as. opposing the-downgrading of that particular piece of and for the following reasons: 1) They did not feel the rezoning from LB to R-3 would serve the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan and that the character of that particular stretch of land was determined by its proximity to #18 and also by the large amount of truck traffic on 36th Avenue going toward the industrial area at 36th/Winnetka. 2)Because of the existing business activity and the traffic involved, they felt that thi~ particular piece of property would not ever be suitable for residences. 3)Zoning down to a residential use would result in the estate holding a piece of pro- perty that is not, in their estimation, marketable in its present zoning. Mr. Wieland noted that, in-their opinion, changing the zoni_ng would.nor lead to an improvement of the ~ public welfare. There'would be a taking of something of value from. the estate', which they would then regard as compensable, since th~ estate would lose something that it is not their'duty to give the citi- zens of New Hope. Commissioner London noted that in the event of a direct transfer, the property would become an R-O (Residential/Office) District, meant to be a buffer zone. Mr. Wieland indicated that the estate would object to either change. In response to a question from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Wieland indicated that, in his opinion, in its present zoning, the land was marketable. He added that it was commercially oriented lando Discussion followed about the size of the land (approximately 6 acres) and the other owner of the property. Mrs. Pat Vomhoff, 3041 Gettysburg Avenue, expressed her concern that adequate consideration be given to the traffic flow from 36th toward Medicine Lake Road. She added that the existing traffic on Hi llsboro is dangerous for pedestrians and bikers. Commissioner Londo~ commented that traffic considerations are always discussed during the review of any development proposal and that there is an active Traffi~'~Commission in the City that also reviews these concerns. District #25 " The City Manager noted that this was an existing developed property. There was no one present regarding this district. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 3 - JULY 27, 1976 3. District #26 No one present about this area -- no change recommended. District #27 Mr. Paul K'laverkamp, represented Midiand Shopping Center. He noted that they were disappointed in the 'recommended zoning for the center, feeling that it was unnecessarily restrictive because it would be a drastic change from what they are now permitted to do, and that they would be put at a distinct dlsadvan~ tage because the City of Golden Valley directly across the street haC the same zoning as was presently on the property. He added that they did not feel they were being treated fairly in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner London noted that these concerns had been considered when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Klaverkamp noted that they were requesting that they be a B-4 because then-they would have the poten- tial to lease to whomever desired space in the center. Mr. Licht noted that existing business would be grandfathered in, under the new ordinance. Mr. Klaverkamp noted that he understood this, but did not wish to have to come in everytime a tenan~ changed. Commissioner Anderson commented that in the discussions held by the Commission in regard to the Midland rezoning, additional uses had been adCsa that were felt to be compatible and that an attempt had been made Dy the Commission to be cooperative with the center's needs. Mr. Klaverkamp stated tha~ he understood the concept but that it seemed to them that'Midland would be a good case for an exception. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Klaverkamp about the process involved in the determination of the proper zoning for specific areas and the procedures involved in change of occupancy under the grand- fathering clause. Mr. Klaverkamp stated that he would like to have the Commission reconsider the B-2 zoning. Mr. Dick Larson, 8932 Northwood Parkway, commented on the potential in change of life style in the next 20 years, particularly in regard to environmental concerns and wondered if it would not be more desirable to have smaller shopping areas, located closer to residential areas. Commissioner Pakonen commented that he felt that perhaps if the energy problem becomes even more acute, an argument could be made that there would be more mass transit than presently exists and a City Center would be more economical. Chairman Gustafson agreed with Mr. Larson's concern about future lifestyle, noting that this was one of the main reasons for the City's going through the development plan in an ai~rempt to update .the City Plan. Mr. Bob Gerber, 8400 27th Place North, stated he lived tO the East of the vacant land on 27th/Xylon and felt that the land was suitable for single family units. He opposed the zoning as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan which would convert this property to R-2. He stated that they had been before the Com- mission on several occasions when rezoning had been requested but that they did not feel an R-2 was neces- sary in this end of New Hope. He felt there had been limited marketing efforts. They do not want another multiple unit on the street and feel it would be a potential nuisance an~ create additional traffic. - Mr. John Fahning,8309 28th Avenue,spoke to the same concerns. He questioned Mr. Licht on the reasons for recommending duplexes for this property. He lives at the rear of the property. He stated he had checked five years ago when he purchased his home and was told it was single family. He would prefer that it remain single family. Mr. Licht commented that in breaking the zoning at the rear of a lot you had better screening potential than at the front, where you had to consider sight lines. Mr. Wolfgang Schroeder, 2756 Yukon, questioned whether the issue was the saleability of the lots in ques- tion, maintaining that he knew of builders that would like those lots for building single family dwellings. Mr, Blaine Carey, 3410 Winnetka, noted that he was the purchaser of the property in question. He stated that he intended that the two lots on Yukon would be single family. The four lots that are indicated for R-2 have already been appraised for $80,000 and the dwellings would be owner occupied. He responded to the comments against doubles by indicating his opinion -that doubles occupied by older owners might have complaints against younger single family dwellers who used their lots. Mr. Satersmoen, 2748 Yukon, stated he had purchased his house wi.th the idea that they would remain single family, indicating that he had been promised by the City that it would remain that. way. He stated that every time a builder requested rezoning, the Commission had refused. PLANN I NG COiVtM I SS ION MINUTES I 4 - JULY 27~ 1976 I 3. District #27 (continued) Mr. Dick Peterson, 2733 Yukon, stated he was not in favor of the rezoning. He questioned the issue of the marketability of the land. The particular four lots had already been purchased when the petitioner had appeared before the Planning Commission. At that time the neighborhood had presented the Planning Commission a petition with 50-60 signatures expressing oppoSition TO the rezoning. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan tended to look at the whole program not just one area and in this area you didn't have community support and he felt this was important. Chairman Gustafson noted that the process just completed had been a complete re-examination of the total City and the recommendations for the present vacant property indicate the best potential use going for- ward. The charge of all previous Commissions and of the present Planning Commission until the time that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted would be to fulfill the requirements of the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Satersmoen indicated his violent objection to the consultant's recommendations and did not see the need for a buffer zone. He violently objected to any change in the zoning. Commissioner Craigie indicated his opinion that the main criteria used in this parcel was the inability of single family homes to be screened from the higher use that would b~ directly across the street ~rom their front yards. The screening of the front yards of the new buildings would be severe y restricted. Mr. Peterson stated he disagreed with this statement, because how could you know until the land had been on the market that it was saleable. The previous owner had not tried to develop the property. Chairman Gustafson indicated that the Commission's responsibility was to look at the Plan in regard to the benefit to the entire City. n response to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding purchase of a single family home across from the apartments, Mr. Peterson stated he did not fee it was a valid question, since how could you know until you made the decision. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Commission had to look at not what the market would bear but whether a particular ~ype of development (i.e. Iow cost single family) was desirable for New Hope. ~-~ Mr. Schroeder noted the rezoning of the property on 28th/Xylon. He indicated that the owner of that prom Derty, Mr. Wilson, had stated he would have loved to build on that whole area because he Knew he could sell the homes. Discuss'on between Mr. Schroeder and Commissioner London about the reasons for granting a rezoning. The City Manager noted that the objections.to the rezoning should be listed for the record° Mr. Peterson stated t~ey objected to the rezoning because of the additional density, traffic problems and the upkeep of doubles. Mr. Schroeder noted that in 6-1-73 he moved into the neighborhood. Previously he had checked with the Village and been told that it was going to remain single family. .He felt that he had relied on the Vil- lage and he did not want to live by doubles. He added that by changing the zoning, the residents had no choice but to move out. Commissioner Gustafson noted the existing criteria for changing zoning in the City, stating that previous '. Commissions had to go by these criteria. This speaks mo any decisions made in the past. The present Commission is responsible for a review of the entire City of New Hope, including the property in question, and to determine what is the most appropriate use for the majority of the large open parcels within the City. Mr. Schroeder stated that he felt the Commission owed it to the people in the area to leave it zoned single family. Mr. Fahning, asked Mr. Licht if it was his feeling that the property in question had been zoned mistakenly based on the criteria for a rezoning? Mr. Licht answered that he did not necessarily bel'eve a mistake had been made but that one of the concerns of the Planners had been that there was not a diversity of housing in New Hope to meet the needs of the people. Within that context there were a variety of types of housing that could be put into the community. Their feel. lng was that in this particular area, duplexes would be a compatible choice with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Licht further noted that in terms of density, a single family dwelling needed at least 9500 square feet of lot, but a double needed 14,000 square feet of lot. He added tha~ duplexes would come under the maintenance codes of the City, which would guarantee maintenance~ Single family homes did not neces- sarily guarantee proper.maintenance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JULY 27, [976 3. Chairman Gustafson stated that he hoped that the people interested in District #27 felt that they had had an ample opportunity to express their opinions and indicated that further comments could be directed to the Commissioners via telephone. Commissioner Christensen noted that the wh~le concept is that there are roughly 400 acres still to be developed in New Hope. The City is develope0 approximately 90%. All of the forecasts for the future indicate that the population maximum has just about been reached, and that according to the Metropolitan Council, the trend is now downward. The studies already show that the demand for residential units in New Hope is going to increase but that the type of housing demanded will change. We will become an older community of two person families. He added that he hoped the impression had not been given that the deci- sions made would be arbitrary, since the Commissioners also lived in New Hope, but they must also rely on the expertise of the ~rofessional planners. He added that area concerns will be considere¢. PLANNING CO~ISSION MINUTES - 6 H JULY 27, 1976 3. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Larson regarding the engineering report prepared by Orr-Schelen. Commissioner Crai§ie moved that the Pub ic-Hearin§ be closed. Commissioner Atchley seoond. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Gustafson, Anderson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Cameron Motion passed. 4. In response to a question from Co~issioner Craigie, the City Manager indicated that the Country Kitchen petition would be before the Plannin~ Co~ission at their meeting on August 3rd. 5. The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Joyce ~oeddeker, Secretary PLANN,NG CO ,SS,ON MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 3, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairma~ Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson. Absent: London, Crai§ie (excused), Anderson (excused), Pakonen (excused), Gundershaug (excused) Commissioner London arrived at 7:33 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. .PLANNING CASE 76-39 (TABLED FROM 6-1£76) REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL ON 42ND AVENUE NORTH - COUNTRY KITCHEN~ PETITIONER. Inasmuch as there was no one in attendance to represent Country Kitchen, Commissioner Christensen made a motion TO table Case 76-39 unti~ later in the meetin9. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: None Absent: London, Craigie, Anderson, Pakonen, Gundersh~ug Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-50 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE A.T ~901 AQUILA - HERBERT KATH~ PETITIONER. Mr. Kath stated that he was requesting the variance in garage size to allow him to build a detached double garage of 12 x 24 feet, which when combined with his present garage would give him 164 square feet over the maximum allowed by code. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Kath noted that the roof would be hip as on the dwelling, but that the siding would be of the same color but not the same material since the house siding was metal and the garage siding would be hardboard. The garage will be 12 feet behind the existing garage. Mr. Kath further stated that the garage would be used for storage of vehicles and boats, that are current- ly stored on the driveway. The garage will not be usea for any type of home occupation. He intends to use the existing curb cut. In answer to questions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Kath stated that for the present he intends to use the existing garage as garage space. In the future, perhaps in 5 years, he hopes to convert it to a family room. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 76-50~ Request for Var.iance in GAT.age Size~ at 5~01 Aquila sub,iect to the same roof'line and that the sidin~ would in general appear- ance match the siding currently on the home. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: None Absent: Craigie, Anderson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-51 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 6033 QUEBEC AVENUE - NORBERT MUEHLBAUER, PETITIONER. Mr. Muehlbauer stated that he wished a 3 foot sideyard setback because he wishes to move his existing · garage forward and attach it to the North side of his house. Behind the garage will be a family room with a basement and beside the family room will be a six foot storage room. The building will actually be about four off off the ot line, but Mr. Muehbauer requested the three foot setback in the event the construction came a f~w inches closer to the line. The roof line will be the same as the existing roof and the siding will be the same as there wi I be suffi- cient siding remove~ from.the old garage.to cover the addition. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Muehlbauer stated that the present garage is 2 I/2 feet from the lot line, and tha* the existing concrete pad will become the patio. The storage area by the family room will be used strictly for storage, mainly bicycles. Mr. Muehlbauer has no plans to conduct a a business from the s~orage area. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Muehlbauer noted he had received ao objections from his neighbors, adding that there was sufficient space between structures to allow emergency vehicles to enter the back yard. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - 2 - AUGUST 3, 1976 5. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Plannin~ Case 76-51~ Request for Vari. ance ~a Sideyard Setback~ To allow the reconstruction of a garage~ storage area and family room; sub,iect to the utiliza- tion of the same siding? same color and a continuation of the existin~ roof line. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: None Absent: Crai~ie, Anderson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-52 - REQUEST FOR WA~IER OF PLATTING AT 35TH/HILLSBORO AVENUE~ EARL WILSONt. PETITIONER. Mr. Wi son stated that he was requesting a waiver of platting to divide an exi~sting lot and combine it with a parcel from the Ella Addition to make a new lot. Commissioner London noted that in Planning Case 75-14, this problem had been considered. At that time the triangle piece had been unavilable but the Commission and the Counc.il had requested that this be combined when the Ella Plat was approved, when the lot could be obtained. Mr. Wilson noted that ne was 'n effect seeking permission to combine two residues into one Iot~ Commissioner London made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case. 76-52~ Request for Waiver of Platting for The lot on the North ana South side of 35th Avenue and Hi Isboro~ to allow it to be combined with the exception in Ella Second Addition To form one lot. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: None Absent: Craigie, Anderson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Motion passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 76-53 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 55TH/BOONE - NEW HOPE NURS NG HOME, PETITIONER. Mr. Frank Pattee, the architect for the addition to the nursing home, was present. He stated that the or- dinance calls for a .20 ~oot setback from the property line for parking lots. They already have the ~ase in ~or the parking et three feet from the property line. They ~ad been smop~e~ while in the process of installing the parking lot, ~y fhe inspectors. The parking et nad been position in fhis manner to avoid losing any trees. He noted that parking for the other wings of the home were all located three feet from the property line (on 55th and on 54th). He added that if the pa~king lot had to be move~ to the South, they would lose all of' the trees that are eft. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr, Pattee, about the trees, how many~ what type they were and what condition they were in. The Commissioners, Mr. Pattee and the addition contractor reviewed'the site pi.aris of the property~ Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Plannin§ Case 76-53t Request for Variance in Parking Lot Setback~ on +he basis of trying to save the trees on the property~ and to allow the pe- titioner to Ioca~e the parking lot 3 ft.from the property line on the street side at 55th/Boone. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: None Absent: Craigie, Anderson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Motion passed. 8. PLANNING CASE 76-54 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING~ SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT RETAIL SALES, VA~:IANCE N PARKING AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL FOR A BUILDING AT WINNETKA AND WtNPARK DRIVE - PARK EDGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY~ PETITIONER. Mr. Stuart Radsom, an attorney representing Mr. Ted Wong and Mr. Herb Wong~and Mr. Bertram Getsug~ head' of Park Edge Construction were present. Mr. Radsom stated that Mr. Ted and Mr. Herb Wong were the owners of United Noodle Company and that they were proposing to construct a factory type building. He noted that they were requesting the special use permit to allow a small sales type~operation in approximately I/lOth of the building. The building wi I be 22,500 square feet and the sales area would be 30~ x 50'. PLANN 1NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 3 - AUGUST 3, 1976 8. Chairman Cameron noted that there were a number of items to discuss and they would need to be handled separately. Commissioner Christensed noted that Mr. Getsug had met with the Desiga and Review Committee regarding these proposals and that at the time of that meeting, Mr. Getsug had not had the answers to some of the concerns raised. Commissioner Christensen stated that the special use to allow retail sales could be granted only for the sales of products manufactured on the premises. He questioned whether or not the 0etermination had as yet been made as to wha~ type of products they wished to sell. Mr. Getsug noted that they wished to sell some products manufacturee on the site and some that would be import items. Commissioner Christensen stated that this was one item the Commission was very concerned about, since the ordinance clearly stated that only products manufactured on the premises could be sold. Discussion followed about the interpretation of the ordinance.in regard to retail sales. Commissioner Christensen questioned whether or not the owner would still be interested in locating in New Hope, if he could not have a retail sales outlet, for other than his own products? Mr. Radsum introduced Mr. Herbert Wong, one of the owners of United Noodle. Mr. Wong indicated that perhaps there was no sense in going further, since the products involved were imported items and there was no way he could produce them. Commissioner Christensen restated that at the Design and Review Committee meeting this had been expressly stated that the special use would be granted for sales of on-premise manufactured items only. Mr. Getsug requested that the discussion of the retail sales be discontinued at this point and the other items of concern discussed. Commissioner Christensen agreed and questioned what had been done about curb cuts as far as the Count~ was concerned? Mr. Getsug indicated he had not as yet contacted the County but that the curb cut on Winnetka was notp- absolutely necessary. Commissioner Christensen then referenced the parking noting that this zone did not allow employee parking in front of the building. He added that parking requirements would also depend upon the type of rentals the building would have. In answer to a question from Mr. Getsug, Mr. Christensen noted that if there were to be no rentals and no retail sales, employee parking could not be in front of the building without a variance. He added that the number of parking spaces required would be partially determined by the use of the rental space and the type of tenants. Commissioner London stated that these items of concern: I) retail sales, 2) parking, 3) curb cuts, 4) ighting, 5) landscaping, had al been listed for Mr. Getsug at the Design and Review Committee meeting and that he did not feel this should have to be done again. He felt it was incumbent upon the petitioner to come before the Commission with a full proposal. Mr. Getsug questioned why they could not appear before the whole Planning Commission to get some further information if they need it, arid they do need it. The owner still does not have any further leasing; he thinks he wantsoffices but perhaps could do without them, if necessary. Commissioner London noted that the Commission's position was not to help them design a building. They were to come before the Commission with a proposal. Mr. Getsug noted that their proposal was before them but that the Commission did not "go for" variou~ portions of the proposal and they had to decide. Commissioner Christensen restated that all of these questionable items had been discussed at the Design a~ Review Committee meeting. He felt that the petitioner had had sufficie'nt time to come up with the answers to the following questions: I. Retail sales -- no outside.products brought in 2. Curb cuts -- is the County going to provide? It must be illustrated on the plan. 3. Parking -- employee parking cannot face Winnetka without a variance 4. Updated lanscape plan ~ no change since appearance before Design and Review 5. What would be done with the property to the North ~- where is the road going? is an easement required? 6. How will refuse containers be treated? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - AUGUST 3, 1976 8. 7) Retail trade - wi I require a sign plan ~-~ No retail trade - what type of sign wil be on the factory? 8) What kind of lighting will be on the building? 9) Handicapped parking spaces -- where will they be located? 10) What kind of installation and screening wi I be on the roof? Mr. Radsom requested that the petition be continued, o~ tabled, at this time 'n order to allow the petitioners to regroup; Commissioner Christensen noted that all of the items mentioned aT the present meeting, or noted to Mr. Getsug at the Design and Review meeting, must De resolved when they appeared before the Planning Commis- sion in a month. He added that if Mr. Wong decided ne could not operate without retail sales and did not wish to proceed, he ~nould notify the City Manager. Commissioner Chrissensen suggested that the peti- tioners plan to ~ppear again before.the Design and Review Committee. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to table Planning Case 76-54 unti September 7th. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos,'Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Voting agai~lst: None Absent: Craigie, Anderson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Mot[on passed. In response to a question .from a citizen, the City Manage~ noted that the most recent official traffic survey on Winnetka Avenue would probably be the 1975 Count. ' 9. PLANNING CASE 76-55 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL-AT 45TH/WINN~TKA~ NYSTROM CONSTRUCTORS~ INC. ' PETITIONER. Mr. Ron Krank, of Korsunsky-Krank Architects, represented the petitioners. He stated that they were requesting approval of a t37,000 square foot shopping Center to be located at 45th/Winnetka. He presented drawings for the benefit of the Commissioners and citizens, illustrating what is planned. Mr. Krank noted that The center would include three anchor businesses: a home care center of approximately 23,000 square feet, a supermarket of approximate y 35,000 square feet, and a drug store to be located on the Northeast corner. There will be a central mall with a core running through the building. There will be three main points of access for the customers -- one from Winnetka and two from 45th. The building' meets code'as far as zoning, parking, setbacks and landscaping. The interior stores will have entrances from the mall, with the exception of the restaurant which may require an exterior entrance as well. They plan to have a pylon sign at the main entrance and will allow the main tenants - the hardware store, the supermarket, drug store and restaurant - to sign on the ex- terior of the building. All other tenants would be reauired to sign only on the inside. The exterior bui ding materials will be brick, wood and either precast stone panels or epoxy and glass. They plan to have some type of pyramid arrangement at the center court to provide a raised area. The interior court will be good sized, and sufficient to be used for community functions, art fairs, etc. Commissioner Christensen noted that the petitioners had appeared before the Design and Review Committee. In response to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Krank noted that they had retained Ruvelson and Associates to design the sign ~ an. Mr. Krank added that he felt that the petitioner's sign re- quirements wou d perhaps be more stringent than the CityWs. Mr. Krank stated that the roof top screening would be of a wooden type, turned at an angle to pick up the treatment used at the entrances. Mr. Krank felt that snow removal would not be a problem. The client had additional land next to the site and it had been their experience that often one parking area of a · center was not used as heavily and snow could be piled there. Discussion followed about the landscaping and the need for protection of the home owners to the East.. Mr. Krank noted that there was provision for a five foot area of landscaping and trees, before the parking began.. Discussion between the Commissioners and'Mr. Krank then centered on the existing shopping center and any potential plans for joing the two centers. Landscaping and signing in the entire City Center area was also discussed with the feeling expressed by the Commission that this should be coordinated if at all ~ possible. Mr. Jim Nystrom, owner of the property under discussion, was present. He noted that the gentleman sit~ lng with him was Mr. John Rockford, representing the firm that managed the New Hope Center. Mr. Nystrom noted that their fee lng is that the two centers can work OUT the problems invo ved in combining or join- ing the two centers. He stated that they could not state definitely that this would occu'r, but that they were trying, and felt that sometime in the future this would be accomplished. ° PLANNING COMM SSION - 5 - ~INUTES AUGUST 3, 1976 ' 9. Mr. Rockford noted that their firm was presently involved in solving the existing problems of the New Hope Center, but he did agree that sometime in the future (perhaps 3-4 years) integration could be accomplished. Mr. Nystrom assured the Commission that cooperation between the two centers did presently exist. Mr. Krank indicated that he understood the problems involve¢ in the storm sewer and controlling the water flow into the system, and that after talking to their consulting engineer, he did not foresee any problems in accomplishing this. In discussion about the curb cut on Winnetka, Mr. Krank indicated that positioning of the cut would be no problem -- Hennepin County reauirements must be met. The City Manager indicated that the City's main concern was that the driveway be positioned to avoid lights from the cars using the exit from shining into residence windows. In answer to questions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Krank noted that negotiation~ were nearing finaliza- tion with the three anchor businesses. He felt it would be premature to indicate who they were. Mr. Nystrom noted that they could not sign leases until approval had been received for the Center. He indicated further, that interest had also been expressed in the leasing of other shops for the center. Discussion then covered the future possibility of joining all of the sites in the area, either by means of a covered walkway or connections through.buildings; traffic flow between the areas, tru~k traffic and possible solutions. No conclusions reached. Discussion then held regarding restaurants in the area and whether or not there was a danger of too many restaurants for the area to support. Mr. Krank and Mr. Nystrom indicating through the discussion that generally an area could support severa different types of restaurants. Considerable discussion was held about snow removal, the possible solutions to this problem, and what could be expected of the petitioner by the City. Mr. Nystrom stated that the property will be kept as clean as any other property in the City. The City Manager noted that that City Ordinance does require that if parking becomes a problem, snow must b~ removed from the site. Commissioner Gustafson suggested that Mr. Krank obtain a copy of the new Sign Ordinance of the City. He further questioned whether any consideration had been given to a living hedge to attempt to control blow- ing material along Winnetka. His opinion was that this should be considered. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, the City Manager indicated that if approval were given ?o this case, the ~etitioners would only need to return to the Comm'ssion if major changes were made in the plans, and at the time that they presented a sign plan. Mr. Randy Schostag asked for a restatement of the types of businesses to be included i.n the center. Mr. Krank noted that there will be a su0ermarket, a drug store, a home care center or hardware store and a restaurant, in addition to smaller stores. Mrs. Russell Magnuson,7860 44th Avenue, expressed her concern fo~ the future of the New Hope Shopping Center. She indicated that they believed in supporting ocal business. She also was concerned that 44th might be extended, creating traffic problems. The City Manager indicated 44th c~ld not be extended. Mr. Nystrom indicated that their intention to not to destroy the existing center but to eventually inte- grate the entire area. Cbmmissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 76-55t Construction Approval for a Shopping Center at 45th/Winnetka, with the fei owing stipulations: I. A sign plan will be submitted for approval. 2. Roof top screening w'll be provided 3. The Eastern driveway will be so aligned to provide the least disturbance ~o the residents on Winnetka and the City staff will have the opportunity to review the drive ocation. 4. That the deve oper provide the necessary changes in the storm sewer and pondin~ areas sub,iect ~o the approval of the City Engineer. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: None Absent: Craigie, Anderson, Pakenen, Gundershaug Motion passed, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - AUGUST 3, 1976 I0. PLANNING CASE 76-56 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN PARKING AT 4125 OREGON AVENUE - FIRST LINE ENGINE~ Mr. Randy Kyrola distributed illustrations of what he proposed to do on his site. Mr. Kyrola referenced the meeting a month ago, in which the residents on 0regon Avenue had requested that "no parking" signs be installed. Since these si9ns would present parkin9 problems for Both Mr. Hanson and Mr. Kyrola, they had drawn up a proposal which would, by providing continuous blacktopping, 9ive Mr. Hanson two more parking spaces and Mr. Kyrola fou¢ more. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Kyrola indicated that'the parking spaces would be striped. There would be a drive through between the two parkinq lots. This was clarified to mean that continuous blacktop would be provided between the two lots --all one.parking lot. Discussion followed between the CoMmissioners and Mr. Kyrola about the number of cars that were. on the site belonging to employees, the other vhicles on the property at the present time, the requirement for striping of the parking spaces, and whether or not Mr. Hansen's intention was the same as Mr. Kyrolas in regard to the parking. Mr. Kyrola indicated that Mr. Hansen could not attend the meeting but that he was willing to go along with the blacktopping plan, as presented. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Kyrola stated he would not object to the "no parking" signs on Oregon, if he could obtain the additional parking spaces. Commissioner London questioned Mr. Hansen's property and whether or not there had not been a sti. pulation made when Mr. Hansen had been before the Commission, that there would be "no employee parking" signs installed in front of his building. He indicated that there were no signs in evidence at the present time. The City Manager indicated that the City had no intention of installing sidewalks along the property. Side walks would probably only go in if they were petitioned. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion'to recommend approval of Plannin~ Case 76-56, Request for Variance in Front Yard Setback anc Permission TO Blacktop to the Curb aT 4125 Oreqon and 740 42nd Avenue, and to Install Permanent Pre-cast Curbing Five Feet from the Backside of the Curb, sub,iect to:- I. The permanent installation of the precast curbs 2. Striping to be provided on the premises and maintained 3. Subject TO annua review of staff 4. Sub.iect to installation of "no pahkin§" signs on. Oregon Commissioner Bartos second. 3. Inasmuch as no one had appeared in regard to Case 76-39 (Country Kitchen)¢ Mr. Christsnseh made a motion to table Planninq Case 76-39 until September 7th. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting i.n favor: Bartos, ChrisTensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson Voting against: London Absent: Craigie, Anderson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS I. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 12. Commissioner London stated that the subdivision ordinance had been reviewed and would be before the Commission shortly. 13. There was no report from Codes and Standards. NEW BUSINESS 14. The Council minutes of July 12th, and July 26th, were reviewed. 15. The Commission minutes of July 6th, were approved as printed. Chairman Cameron questioned why the Council Minutes did not indicate, in reference to particular planning cases~ what the recommendations of the Planning Commission had been. Commissioner Atchlev noted that he had attended the meeting on Medicine Lake Road Options on July 30th. PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON MINUTES - 7 - AUGUST 3, 1976 15. Mr. Atchley stated that the engineer from Hennepin County had made a good presentation] ~He noted that the Council had recommended that the road be improved to a four-lane road. He felt that the Commission should also go on record as supporting this, Discussion followed as to whether or' not this was a proper move on the part of the Planning Commission inasmuch as they had not received official input on the problems, and what the delays were as far as Golden Valley was concerned. Mr. Atchley indicated that the soonest the road could be improved was 1980. 16. Commissioner Gustafson noted that in the past, the City Council had directed the Planning Commission and the Codes and Standards Committee,to review and determine whether or not the C~ty should develop a policy and a procedure to allow the private use of boulevard areas. The benefits as indicated to the committee were that it would allow for fuller use of yards and for decorative treatments. There was some discus- sion in regard to the problems for the City. Those problems related to accident cause (i.e. forcing people out in?o the street) and the City being held liable. If a permit system were instituted to allow encroachment on To ~e boulevard area~ a permit could ask for release of City liability, but that did not necessarily mean that The Cit¥'would escape the liability. Fo lowing review, the Codes and Standards Committee dig not strongly object or favor a lowing the use of the boulevard. They were, therefore, proposing that the Planning Commission send forward, to t~e Cimy Council, a proposa~l that they not allow encroachment upon the boulevard areas within the City, and that if any special circumstances were to arise,the City Council couldzin its wisdom/by special decree, allow encroachment upon the boulevard. Commissioner Gustafson added that the Committee had felt that while there could be some good things as a result of allowing such encroachment, ~here was no way to allow the good things to go mnrough while stopping the bad. The Committee did not think the trade-off was great enough to make the potential liability wothwhile. Discussion followed between the Commissioners. Commissioner Gustafson requested that at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, they consider pass- ing on to the City Council, their amendment which would be for enforcement of the codes of the City as ~hey exist today -- which would allow no encroachment upon City boulevard oropert¥. He added that any such special treatment unaer circumstances unknow af the present time, be dealt with by the City Council, as those specific cases arise, and that the Commission saw no need at this time mo handle such problems. Discussion fo lowed about the route to be followed should a citizen wish to use the boulevard area, as well as decorative ~ences and rockas as positioned in some areas to prohibit people from trespassing on individual property, and who was responsible for the maintenance of the trees, bushes, etc. located on boulevards. Mr. Vince Ella, aske~ what had been decided on Planning Case 76-~2 as he had arrived at the meeting after this was discussed. Chairman Cameron noted that the petition had been approved an~ would be before the Council on August 9th. 17. Upon unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectively submitted, Joyce Boeddeker. Secretary PLANN lNG COMM 1 SS I ON MINUTES AUGUST 10:1976 I. A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August I0, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: London (excused), Pakonen 3. Chairman Cameron stated that the purpose of the meeting was to continue the hearings being held on the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning proposals. He added that the City had been involved in this review for the past year. Dr. Cameron noted that a public hearing had previously been held on the entire Comprehensive Plan and the new Zoning Ordinance, to which the public had been invited. At that time, the decision had been made to conduct additional public hearings in which all of the neighborhoods would be invited in smaller groups. The districts to be considered at the present meeting were districts 5,9, and 12. Chairman Cameron introduced the City Manager, Harlyn Larson, to give additional background. Mr. Larson noted that the 30 neighborhoods as illustrated on the map were determined by the natural neigh- borhood, as formed by major streets, obstructions or railroad tracks. The City was simply divided and number from North to South, with no significance involved in the number sequence. He commented on the fact that although the Commission had worked on the Plan for a year, there had been a general lack of interest from the community, although attempts had been made to invite discussion and comment from the citizens. This was the'reason that the Commission had decided to conduct additional smaller neighborhood meetings, to give further opportunity for concerns to be expressed. He further noted that the schemes on the walls of the Council Chambers were concepts, not actual development pro- posals and that at. the conclusion of the neighborhood meetings, a final adoption of the Plan would take place (late September or early October). Mr. Licht, President of Midwest Planning and Research, stated that the original charge to Midwest had been ?o updaYe the City's Comprehensive Plan. They had also revised a number o~ ordinances such as the Sign Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. A new Sub-division Ordinance and Housing Maintenance Code had also been drafted. Mr. Licht stated that the land use had been divided into three categories: residential, commercial and industrial. In regard to residential housing, Mr. Licht noted that there was little or no. housing choice in New Hope, since housing was either single family or high density. The Planners felt there was a need for mid-den- sity housing. He pointed out that the population of New Hope was generally aging at the same rate and would reach retirement age at approximately the same time and thus desire a different type of dwelling. They felt this future need should be considered. He also referenced the fact that the State Legislature and the Metropolitan Council had recently enacted legislation requiring planning and the provision for greater housing choice. In regard to commercial and industrial development~ they felt that there was an over emphasis on land in this classification and that this land was not developing and should be perhaps converted to different uses. Mr. Licht said they were also suggesting the development of a City Center in New Hope, to concentrate commercial~ cultural and governmental facilities in one area. Using slides, Mr. Licht then indicated the areas under consideration at the meeting. He emphasized that the illustrations of development possi- bilities, were concepts not firm proposals. District #5 Science Industry Center Midwest Planning suggests~that the center should be the first priorityof the City in terms of industrial developme.nt. They recommend ~hat the City make a direct effort toward development of the industrial park. One of the concerns sh uld be the maintenance of the undeveloped property. They also recommend that the City take a more direct role in terms of public relations in encouraging companies to move into the center. This is a direct transfer of zoning from the present ordinance. The Planners also suggest that office type of activity be emphasize in this district. District #9 Area from railroad tracks to 49th~ East of #18. This district is now zoned industrial. It also includes a number of municipal facilities. The proposal for this vacant parcel of land, based on market studies, would be to transfer that land from industrial to residential. The athletic field and ponding area create a natural buffer. Development could include higher density at the Northern end of the property and lower density close to 49th. Mr. Licht noted that he had met with the owners of the property and that they had indicated they were not interested in downzoning the undeveloped parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - AUGUST I0, 1976 District #12 - Largely devel.oped area from 49th to 42nd. The main issue is in the Northwest quadrant. They are recommending that this area be developed into high density along 49th, moving into a decreased density at the Southern end of the parcel. Mr..Licht noted that the pending area and soil conditions would in part influence the position of housing in the area. They are recommending that there be separate access into any development of the area. The City Manager noted that at the Council meeting on August 9th, the final plat had been accepted for the ho~sing development at 45th and Gettysburg. Chairman Cameron opened the meeting to comments from the citizens assembled. District #5 Mr. Jensen, representing Stimulation Technology, 9440 Science Center Drive noted that his company manu- factured pacemaker systems. They are concerned about the inclusion of radio and television facilities and antenna farms in the I~1 District% 'which they feel ~re inco~p~ti.ble'w-i~b ±heir business. The company moved to New H~pe 1½ years ago and have a 9 year lease on the property. They were in the processing of investigating the doubling of their facilities and extending their lease but upon receipt of the notice of the proposed zoning change they had stopped the process. Mr. Jensen added that they found the two businesses -- tv facilities and the manufacture of pacemaker systems -- completely incompatible. He added that any operation of that type within 1½ miles of their operation was too close, i.e. an example in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where patients with pacemakers had them c~ase operation because of interference from a tv station. He noted that in the manufacture of such systems, interference would be of an even more critical nature. Mr. Jensen added that when they decided to locate in the Center, they had checked the area with electronic instruments and felt there would be no problem. Discussion followed about the means possible to shield an operation from such interference, and the eco- nomics of this; the fact that ~he Ci'~y of Plymouth was located ~irectiy across #18 from the Science In- dustry Center and New Hope had no control over any development that might occur in Plymouth, i.e. Bell Telephone in Plymouth. The City Manager noted that the ordinance could be amended to include tv, radio stations and antenna farms as conditional uses in the I-1 district, or the ordinance could be changed to permit them only in the I-2 district. Discussion then centered on other types of industries that would affect the manufacture of pacemaker sys- tems -- radar, high arc welding activity etc. -- and whether or not the Commission could impose restric- tions on many businesses for the benefit of only one. Mr. Jensen noted that they were a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, that he had contacted legal counsel in New Brunswick~ New Jersy and had been requested to make a presentation to the Commission in view of the information they had. He added that they were regulated by the FCC and the FDA. He noted that if the zoning were changed~ and someone proposes to put up a I0,000 watt transmitter the commission would hear from them again. The Chairman thanked Mr. Jensen for his comments and noted this would be considered. He also noted that the City probably could not protect one specific type of industry when so many things could affect it. District #9 The City Manager noted a letter that had been received from Howard Dahlgren and Associates, in which they object~ on behalf of the landowners at 49th/#18, to the proposed rezoning of this district (letter at- tached to official minutes). Chairman Cameron read the letter for the benefit of the Commissioners. Mr. Licht noted that h? had met with the several owners of the property in question. He had suggested that presentation of a unified plan for the development of the property would be advisable. He noted that the owners had stated that for the first time in ten years, they had received some interest in de- veloping the property. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Licht noted that he had indicated to the property owners that they should present a development plan by October. Mr. John Gabrielson~ represented Bob Olsen of Olson Concrete Company~ owners of Olson Industrial Park. The property is presently zoned LI. They were concered about setbacks in Outlet B in the NE quadrant, should the zoning be changed to residential. Mr. Licht defined an outlet as an unbuildabie lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINHTES - 3 - AUGUST I0~ 1976 3. District #9 Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Gabrielson ~bout the possibilities of combining the outlots with existing lots, the soil conditions of the property, and the reasons' the property had been designated an outlot originally. Mr. Gabrielson indicated that the owners intended to proceed immediately in getting the two outlots platted. District #12 Mr. Licht noted that they were recommending the open area be developed residential with high density close to 49th~ decreasing the density to the South and providing a buffer between the existing single family residential. The City Manager noted that he had met with the owner of the property and they were anxious to develop the property soon. They had expressed no objection to the mid-density zoning. Their intention was fo take detailed soil borings of the entire parcel to locate problems. Mr. Larson added that the owner had been more interested in perhaps constructing duplexes rather than high density apartments at this point. Mr. Shrank, 4716 Hillsboro, questioned whether the recommendations involve a change of zoning. Mr. Licht noted it did because of the new names for the diatricts. If it were a direct transfer the property would become R-4 which allow complexes of 12 units and'up. The City Manager stated that the present zoning of the property was MR which a!lowed apartment develop- ment. Mr. Licht added that the present ordinance would allow anything from a d~plex to an 80+ unit.complex. The concept of the new ordinance is to split the levels, to give the City more control. They are sug- .- gesting that the area be an R-3, and that it develop as a PUD, which would allow a mixture of density and a transition. In response to a question from Mr. Shrank, Mr. Licht noted that there was a major setback indi'cated for the portion of the parcel next to the single family development. Partly because of the soil problems, and partly because it was easier to screen and buffer at back yards than front, He added that the pro- perty was not undevelopable but that they based their recommendations on three things: market demand~-- stronger demand for mid-density; revenue return versus expenditu[e to the City; and land use compatibility. Discussion held about the property,between Mr. Shrank and Mr. Licht, regarding the soil condition, the need for perhaps clustering development in certain areas of the parcels, and the reasons why the owner might be willing to develop at mid-density rather than high. Mr. Licht stated that in his opinion, the Twin Cities were reaching their peak as far as apartments were concerned. The City Manager indicated that financing was not readily available for apartments at the present time. The owner evidently feels he could move mid-density development. Mr. Stewart Gallant, 4708 Independence, noted that 150 feet back from the Southern border of the property there was a drainage ditch. He indicated he was in favor of the rezoning to R~3, but felt the Commission should be aware that the people in the .area had experienced flooding problems. Discussion followed between Mr. Licht, Dr~ Cameron and Mr. Gallant regarding alternatives in working around the soil problems, procedures involved in PUD development and the fact that the suggested zoning was~ in the opinion of the Planners, the best solution. Mr. Tom Grimme, 4717 Hillsboro~ questioned whefher regardless of neighborhood opinion, the property was going to be rezoned? Mr. Licht stated that as the property was presently zoned, it would allow multiple family development on the entire parcel. The new Zoning Ordinance had been designed to give the City more control. If the owner of the property were to be granted the maximum rights that he has now, it would be zoned R-4 a~ he could develop high-density apartments. If it is zoned according to the Comprehensive Plan, it would be a minimum of R~3, which was a lower density. In answer to ~. question from Mr. Grimme as to why it could not be rezoned R-I, Mr. Licht indicated that a right had be~n granted to the owner in terms of development and also because of land use compatibility. Discussion between Mr. Licht and Mr. Grimme about property owner rights. Mr. Grimme expressed his concern for the protection of the single family home owners. Dr. Cameron asked how long Mr. Grimme had been in his home? Mr. Grimme replied five years and Dr. Cameron expressed t~e opinion that the property had been zoned MR then and Mr. Grimme knew what the land behind his property was zoned when he purchased. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - AUGUST I0, 1976 ~ 3. Discussion then centered on the buffer zone between the existing single family and the proposed develop= ment, and at which point buffering was most effective. .~ Commissioner Gustafson stated that from a planning and a land-use standpoint it was more effective to change a zone at the rear of a lot, because greater buffering and screening could be provided° Mrs. Majory Ostrom, 4885 Flag Avenue, questioned where the road was located as indicated on the sug- gested plan. Mr. Licht noted that there were two rows of single family homes between the roads, and that there was extra space provided far buffering all the way around, as illustrated on the proposed concept plan. Mrs. Kosmek, 4833 Flag, questioned whether the buffering would be in addition to the easement? She was informed that the buffering would be in addition to the utility easements~ Mr. Gallant asked for clarification of "essential services". He was informed they were the lines to bring gas, water, electrical aha sewer services in. Buildings would need specie permission. Mr. Dean Olson, 4733 Gettysburg, asked for a definition of buffering. Mr. Licht stated that the type of buffer was a matter that was left to the discretion of the City. He noted that the City had a Design an~ Review Committee which reviewed situations that might require buffers° He added that buffers could be in the form of fences, landscaping berms and plantings. The City Manager noted that a buffer was designed to provide sight protection, not to stop people. Mrs. George Zubeck, owner of the vacant lot at 49th and =lag, questioned, whether her property could be rezoned to allow a double bungalow? Mr. Larson noted that she could petition for this and come before a public hearing, but she might prefer to wait until the new ordinance were enacted before applying° Chairman Cameron noted that there was a specific routine to follow in requests for rezoning and that Mrs~ Zubeck should contact the City Manager. ~_~ Mr. Rosenberg, 4877 Flag Avenue, indicated two concerns aboul the development of the area. One was that the water run-off not be interrupted, and second tha? there be buffering from the new street. Commissioner Christensen commented that the purpose of the meeting had been to a Iow the citizens a chance to comment and to be aware that if they kept the zoning exactly as it was, it would be R-4 an~ apartments could be develoned. The recommendation of the Planners was that it be downzoned to an R-3. There being no further comments, Chairman Cameron closed the public hearing, noting that the comments wou d be considered when final action was taken. 4~ Discussion then held on the proposed maintenance code~ Commissioner Craigie questioned Section 304, and whether or not pool maintenance should be included. The City Manager noted that the City does nave a s~aarate pool ordinance that provided protection. He indicated, however, that it might be a good idea to include nools in the maintenance code. Commissioner Craigie indicated this had been discussed in Committee. Commissioner Gustafson stated that fhe Codes and Standards Committee aad reviewed the Maintenance Code and were prepared to review it with the Commission. Discussion followed. Concensus was that the Maintenance Code should be carefully reviewed with discussion scheduled ~or the meeting of August 7th. Commissioner Gusfafson indicated that, in his opinion, most of of the code invo ved the normal type of problem that the owner would handle and maintain. He felt the en- forcement of the inspection provision -- whether once a year- at time of sale etc., would call for consi- derable discussion. The City Manager confirmed that in addition to the zoning proposals, the Maintenance Code and the Housing Plan would be reviewed at the meeting of August 17th. 5. Discussion followed regarding the request of Country Kitchen to appear before the Commission on August 17th.~'~, Chairman Cameron noted he had spoken to the representative from Country Kitchen. The City Manager indicated there would probably be no citizen opposition to this request. Concensus of the Commission was that Country Kitchen could appear on the 17th~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - AUGUST I0, 1976 6. Commissioner Christensen commended Mr. Licht for his presentation to the Commission and citizens regarding the proposed zoning changes. He further expressed his opinion that the site plans were confusing to the citizens. Mr. Licht disagreed. He stated he felt the site plan created more realistic comment at the meeting than had previously been encountered, and this made it valid. He added that if nothing else, the plans gave a basis of discussion and in turn afforded the Commission input. Chairman Cameron indicated that he felt the point had been emphasized several times to the citizens that the plans were merely concepts and not final development plans. Discussion held between the Commissioners about future meetings and the need to be sure that the citi- zens understood exactly what was allowed in the present zoning and what would be allowed in the future zoning. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1976 I. A. regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 17, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2, ROLL CALL was taken: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Absent: Anderson (excused) 3. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Cameron stated that there was a meeting in June that involved the entire plan and that the meeting tonight concerned only six of those districts. He added that input from citizens was desired concerning the different neighborhoods. A final general meeting will be held to cover all the dis- tricts before the Commission brings its recommendations before the Council. Dr. Cameron stated that he would hear from the districts i~ the order that they are listed on the agenda. He added that since they concern mostly the people who own property, he would like to hear from them first, and then he would hear from the residents. Chairman Cameron recognized Mr. Licht, President of Midwest Planning and Research, who presented the plan and zoning applications as now proposed. He gave a general background. He stated that there were documents that go into more detail than he would at this meeting; they are available at the City Hall. He stated that the project was started about a year ago and that the main concern was to ook at updating the 1960 plan in terms of future developments, establishment of a City Center, housing, the financial balance of the City, the vast amount of non-taxable land, and a balanced land use for the future. The first element Midwest produced was a policy plan, this was an initia direction for the City to take. This policy plan was approved by the City. Based on this policy the concept recommended was that New Hcae should develope toward the unit neighborhood type land use. Land use should act as a compliment, not a hinderence. The land was divided into residential, commercial and industrial uses. Licht also stated that the three (3) types of housing were defined as: I. Low Density: I - 4 units per acre; 2. Mid-Density: 6 - I0 units per acre: 3. High Density: II - 16 units per acre, apartment style The plan cai s for more mid-density housing choice to the community, and stresses preservation of existing housing. The concern 'n commercial land use was that it not exist to the point where the total amount is detrimental to the community in general or to one another. There was a proposal of three catagories: I. Neighborhood type - On the edge of a residential neighborhood; 2. Highway oriented leve - With highway convenience; 3. City Center - 42nd Avenue and Winnetka, the focal point of activity in the City. Mr.- Licht went on to state that the f'inal category is the industrial development question. He added that there is vast amount of land that will not be developed simply because the demand is not here any more. There was a recommendation to reduce industrial land areas. Mr~ Licht went on the des- cribe each district: District I0 is basically a residential area, with the exception of the industrial parcel off Winnetka. We are calling for preventive maintenance on a neighborhood basis. We are recommending on the vacant industrial property that town houses/mid-density housing take place. This would serve as a transition between the existing railroad and industrial to the north and the single family homes to the south. It would also serve to provide housing per the policy plan. District II is the area from Winnetka over to Louisiana abutting the City of Crystal. There is industrial land on the north and an apartment complex on the south at 49th Avenue. It would be difficult to mix in another type of use 'n this district. The apartment complex in this district is in good condition, but continued monitoring of this complex will insure that it remains at a quality level. The industrial land, because of the present development, is recommended to stay industrial. District 14 is a totally developed area f~om 49th to 45th Avenues. There are some areas of poten- tial deterioration, but not what is considered severe and is mostly environmental problems, not structural. The only significant undevefoped parcel of land is currently being planned as single family housing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2 ~ AUGUST 17~ 1976 District 15 borders on Quebec Avenue on the west, the railroad on the east~ 49th Avenue on the north, and 42nd Avenue on the south, and is another totally developed district. Signalization is called for at 42nd and Quebec Avenues. Continued landscaping is needed because of the industrial backing up to the single residents to the east. There will be a demand for traffic control because of the industrial traffic. District 16 has a number of different uses with commercial along 42nd Avenue and a mix of apartments and single familydweltings. Traffic safety will be a concern on 42nd Avenue and should be monitored° Signalization along 42nd may be needed. District 21 has industrial uses and includes a cemetery. There were no changes recommended for this district. District 22 runs south to 36th Avenue from the railroad and east to Crystal. It has multiple family dwellings along the southern bo~der; the rest is primarily composed of single family homes within the area. There are no major changes here, but a need for continued maintenance, and a concern with traffic problems that exist along 42nd Avenue. District 23 is the Creamette~ plant and office north of 36th Avenue. We are concerned not with a change in activity, but rather maintenance and landscaping to be sure the residential to the east is protected. Mr. Licht then turned the meeting back to Chairman Cameron. Dr. Cameron asked if anyone was interested in District #10 and would like to make any comments. Commissioner London stated, as a reminder, that the pictures on the walls are just concepts and not definite plans° They are just proposals and have not been accepted by the Commission. Dr. Cameron proceded to remind the public that these are concepts of what could be done and not what will absolutely appear on that property. They did represent what could be thought about, in terms of the density and what would be good for the City. DISTRICT #10 A member Of the audience inquired as to how the land is zoned at this fime~ and what development proposal had been made. Commissioner Craigi~ ~tated that Midwest Planning re-evaluated the land that the proposals have been made on. It is not something that a land owner has brought before them to further his or her own interests. Commissioner Christensen stated that several companies appeared before the Planning Commission. The Commission selected Midwest Planning and Research to come in and run a.study like this. None of the recommendations are approved at]this time, Midwest Planning gave recommendations. Another meeting will decide what will be handed to the Council. The final plan will be based on what is said by the public and the Commissioner's decisions. New Hope now has 400 acres that are undeveloped. We are now looking at what is best for the City, should it stay how it is or be changed? One of the things that Midwest Planning determined,]through study, is that the homes of New Hope are all about the same age° When the young move out the old stay. New Hope will become an older community, but with good planning and development people will want to move into New Hope. Density and the total number of people in a household will diminish but more homes will be needed to accommodate the young moving in. Different housing will be needed considering projections of New Hope's future. Tom Higgins, 8329 50th Avenue North, inquired as to what the zoni. ng is now and what is planned. Mr. Licht stated that the land is recommended to be zoned R-e, mid-density residential. It is not Limited Industrial. Mr. Higgins then inquired about the plans? Chairman Cameron replied that the City has not come to a final decision on the land as yet but that the land is zoned light industrial. Rauenhorst owns the land in question. Mr. Bob Worthington~ a representative of Rauenhor~t Corporation stated that Rauenhorst will pursue the light industrial and oppose the R-3 recommendation. Chairman Cameron reminded the public that there have been no final plans presented -- these are only tentative plans and the Commission only suggests a plan to the Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - AUGUST 17~ 1976 Chairman Cameron stated that when the Commission was ready to mak~ their recommendations to the Council they will be based on the Commission's judgement, not necessarily on Midwest Planning~s proposals. Mr. Worthington went on to say that he thought the burden of proofs'should be on the people who wanted the change. He thought that he should not have to give proof of why Industrial should be kept. He wanted more information as to why the land is proposed to be changed to residential. Chairman Cameron asked how long Rauenhorst had owned the property and how long it had been vacant? Mr. Worthington stated that RauenhoWst~had owned the property for four years. He added that the zoning and the recent recession had also narrowed their options, but this should not be confused with non-interest There just has been no activity. Chairman Cameron stated that Midwest Planning simply gave us ideas of what New Hope's needs are. Commissioner Gustafso~ stated what New Hope's housing goals are and what was necessary to implement these goals to extend housing choice in terms of cost and type and to obtain a more diverse population profile with respect to age, income and household type and hence to insure an ongoing community stability. The policy also included brining enough new units into the housing inventory to match the net increase in household numbers as well as to offset losses in housing units. He further noted that the public hearing was to provide an opportunity for the public to air their concerns. Mr. Worthington stated that the Commission were not experts and that Rauenhorst was expert in the develop- ment of industrial property. Therefore, Mr. Worthington recommended no change. Commissioner London stated that the City must look at the long range plans for the community and what would happen in the future. He added that he wanted input with the landowner to make as strong a case as he could to help the City in making the right choices. Mr. Worthington stated that the Rauenhorst property had the RR track and streets that can carry indus- trial traffic; he added that with careful planning there could be a nice transition from residential to industrial in 'such a way that it will benefit the community. If the transition is well planned and well designed it will provide the types of benefits that the New Hope community is looking for, Chairman Cameron noted that the land had been zoned LI since 1960 and has not been developed. Commissioner Pakonen stated that there is a lack of mid-density land in new Hope and a surplus of indus- trial land. He added that it is not advantageous for the City fo have more industrial land. Mr. Worthington stated that it seemed to him that the Commission wasn't interested in anything he had to say. Commissioner Gu~tafson stated that the purpose to this'meeting was to find facts, air opinions, discuss, and allow people to speak. Commissioner Craigie inquired as to what this piece of property had as advantages over other land that was closer to a highway? Mr. Worthington stated that it has RR, in a good community, good soil conditions, access and good price. Commissioner Christensen pointed out that all of the Commissioners were citizens of New H~pe and that they were volunteers who would like to see New Hope stay a growing community. He added that they were just trying to get some discussion goi.ng between the neighbors and that they only wanted what was best for the community. Mr. Ted Kroening, 8400 50th Avenue North, inquired as to what had gone into the idea recommended by the planner for the area between 50th and 51st and the railroad tracks? Mr. Licht stated that in his study he came up with various reasons for housing on certain land: I. Economic return to the City 2. Compatibility of land use 3. Overall market demand The conclusion to recommend mid-density housing for this land was that it could exist as a transition area. Mr. Licht stated he felt there was a need for owner occupied mid-density housing. Mr, Kroening stated that New Hope needs all of the revenue it can get. He thought that New Hope should keep industrial on this property~ He suggested rezoning everything except the 25.81 acres, because of the railroad. Mr. Bob Cady, 8417 50th AVenue North, stated that he lives very close to the Tool Compancy on the West and thought they were very good neighbors. He also stated that he doesn't like the congestion he sees in other areas and would prefer the land to stay the same. He also inquired what the density of New Hope was in comparison to other suburbs? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17~ 1976 Mr. Licht replied that New Hope is less dense in terms of population than Robbinsdale or Crystal but has a higher density than the community to the West. Mr. Bill Goldman, 8308 50th AVenue No.rth~ inquired as to the meaning of conditional and permitted uses? Mr. Licht stated that a permitted use is an automatic principal type of activity and conditional uses are those with stipulations that must be met. Permitted accessory uses are those such as garages which must go through the building department for a permit but are permitted as a right with a principal use. Commissioner Gustafson pointed out that this district was recommended to be R-3. Mr. David Eggert, 8424 50th Avenue North,stated that the apartments were more Of an eyesore than the Rauenhorst building. He added that Rauenhorst, as a rule, develops a nice piece of property. Commissioner Gustafson stated that a major part of the overall Comprehensive Plan calls for attention to maintenance and occupancy ordinances for the total community. Mr. Dan Bakken, 8361 50th Avenue North, stated that he thought everyone at the meeting was concerned with the quality of their neighborhood and inquired about a rent subsidy program. Mr. Licht suggested that Mr. Bakken get a copy of the Housing Plan. There is no intention at this time to promote a Federal Iow cost housing project on this site. Mr. Roger Storkamp~ 8350 50th Avenue North, inquired as to what affect the railroad has on the housing in the area? Mr. Licht noted that they were attempting to pull away from the railroad to minimize the impact. Ms. Mary McDonald, 8401 50th Avenue North, inquired about who would want to live so close to the railroad? Chairman CameFon stated that there really is no answer to her question and added that with every home there are advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Lyle Heier, 8321 50th Avenue, stated he was opposed to multiple dwelling and inquired as to the sud- den change in policy. He added that the multiple dwellings in New Hope are potential eyesores. Mr. Daryl Norby, 7908 50th A~snue, inquired as to the meaning of essential services? The City Manager stated that essential services are utilities -- gas, water, sewer -- the energy services. Ms. Jeanne Kaufman, 5017 Wisconsin, inquired as to whether there are a~y areas in New Hope that are zoned for multiple bu~ not developed? The City Manager stated that the hearing did mean that rezoning will be done now. If the Plan was accepted it could be used as a basis for looking at proposals as private developers brought them before the Commis- sion. Ms. Kaufman inquired about a bridge over the railroad that she had heard was proposed several years ago. Mr. Lyle Heier, 8321 50th Avenue, stated that 50th was not cut through when he bought his lot. He had also heard about a bridge going over the railroad tracks. Mr. Thomas Higgins, 8329 50th, thought that the Commission was doing an excellent job in planning this small parcel. He added that he is in favor of keeping the land as light industrial and letting Rauen- horst develop the land. He felt that they would do a good job. Ms. Joyce Goldman, 8308 ~50th Avenue, addressed the ~ublic, as she asked if they really wanted'Rauenhorst to stay because they thought they could do something good, or because they thought nothing would happen. M. Eugene Finkenaur, 8345 50th Avenue North, stated he preferred light industrial, looks at unknown in multiple dwellings and is opposed. Mr.. Rex Stromquist, 5041 Wisconsin Avenue, stated that he hau a dumpster abutting his property on one side and did not want multiple dwellings on the other side. He added that multiple dwellings became run down too fast, faster than a single family home. He wanted to take a vote of those present to see how many were there and who was or was not in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Cameron declared a recess at 9:10, noting Mr. Stromquist should take his vote at this time if he wanted to do so. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Gustafson stated that in terms of what is proposed in the light industrial area - R-3, there were going to be some.favorable things happening and some not so favorable, but what had to be con- sidered by the Commission was what was going to be the most beneficial to the City of New Hope. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1.7~ 1976 Mr. Rex Stromquist stated that when he took a count he found that there 47 people present from District #10. No one was in favor of the proposal. One lady present stated that was not true, she had not voted on being in favor or opposed. She was only indicating she was from the area --- there were others in the same position. Chairman Cameron noted that the vote results would be considered on that basis. He then asked if there was any more comment on District #10. District #11 Chairman Cameron inquired if anyone would like to comment on Area #11. There was no one present] District #14 Mr. Don Murphy, property owner at 7725 45½ Avenue North,-stated that the map was not correct. There was an apartment building across from 45th Avenue which had drive access, but the street did wot go through. He also stated that there was a park close to the apartment building which was paid for by the residents of that area -- $40 was his assessment charge -- and he was worried about the apartments putting up a fence which would prevent the children from getting to the park. Chairman Cameron inquired as to what that had to do with the zoning of the land? Mr. Murphy stated that he just did not want a fence to go up by the apartments. He also pointed out that it might be possible to cul-du-sac 45½ to cut down traffic and to vent the apartment traffic out through the park to Quebec Avenue. District #15 Chairman Cameron asked if anyone wanted to comment about District #157 Mr. Murphy stated that the more landscaping the better, if some trees were planted, the ugly green building would be screened. District #16 Chairman Cameron asked if anyone had anything to comment about in District #167 Mr. John Day, owner of the property at 71 8 42nd Avenue, asked if it was possible to be up-zoned, to allow him more flexibility as to what he could put on his nroperty. He has only 175 feet of frontage on 42nd and a lot of the allowed uses are ruled out and he is left with very few uses for his land under the pro- posed B-3 zoning. A'letter from Mr. Day, dated August 12th, was given to Chairman Cameron and the City Manager, concerning District #16 (letter attached to official copy of minutes). Mr. Day stated he would prefer a B-4 zoning. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Day if he had looked at other types of zones? Commissioner Craigie asked Mr. Day to look at B-2 and B-3 and state which he-would prefer. Mr. Day stated he did not want either -- asking for B-4. District #21. There was no one present in regard to this district. District #22 Mr. Randy Kyrola, inquired about the B-3 zoning proposed for his ot. He is currently zoned GB. He does major auto repair, not permitted under B-3, which includes minor automotive repair only. He would like the zoning to be upgraded to have major automotive repair added as a use to the B-3 zoning. Mr. Licht stated that if zoned B-3, he could continue as long as he operates the business. Mr. Kyrola inquired as to what would happen in I0 years if he should decide to sell out? Mr. Licht stated the change in zoning goes with the land and is not affected by ownership. The City Manager noted Mr. Kyrola had two problems if made non-conforming: I) if his st~op should burn down he could wot rebuild and 2) if he would like to expand, he could not. District #23 There was no one present in regard to this district, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1976 Commissioner London made a motion to close the public hearing on Districts #1.~, #11t #14, #15, #16~ #21, #22, #23. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug~ Pakonen Voting Against: None Absent: Anderson (excused) Motion passed. Chairman Cameron declared the public hearing closed. 6. Chairman Cameron inquired if the matter of the Country Kitchen Restaurant should be moved upon the agenda? Commissioner Gustafson moved to move Item 6, Planning Case. 76-39, the proposal of Country Kitchen up on th~ a~enda for consideration at this time. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion passed. PLANNING CASE 76-39 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AND CONSTRUCTION_ PLAN APPROVAL ON 42ND AVENUE - COUNTRY KITCHEN, PETITIONER Mr. Dave Gustafson, representative of Country Kitchen, stated that he appreciated being placed on the agenaa and apologized for missing the last meeting. Mr. Gustafson stated +hat he thought the restaurant was the best use for the property. There would be no parking proolem, it would be an asset to the areA. He requesmed that ne be allowed to go before the City Counci with the approval of the Commission. Commissioner Christensen stated he had a few questions to verify for the record. In response Mr. Gustafson stated it would be a 104 seat restaurant basic plan; aarking would be no pro- blem; the hours of operation would be 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight Sunday through Thurday, and 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. The main entrance would face 42nd Avenue Morth with emergency exits on the East and Morth wails. The Northern emergency exit would also ae use~ for delivery of supplies. Commissioner Christensen asked about landscaping and if additiona changes had been made? Mr. Gustafson stated that he wanted the Country Kitchen to look nice a~d right for New Hope. They had changea the origina landscaping proposal and wou.ld add any additional plantings wanted. In response to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Gustafson replied that there would be a fence around the entire refuse area° Mr. Gustafson further stated that the sign would be 50 square feet, with 82 square feet allowed. He also stated that there are to be lanterns on the bui ding going around the sides for exterior lighting. Commissioner Craigie inquired at to where trucks would unload and what type of truck would be coming in to the loading area? Mr. Gustafson replied that the trucks will unload at the North end of the building and that vans will be used mostly. Commissioner Gundershaug asked .~hether there would be parking spaces designated for handicapped people? Mr. Gustafson replie~ that there were provisions for handicapped parking -- that this was mandatory. In response to a question from Commissioner Atchley, Mr. Gustafson said that truck deliveries would not block traffic. in response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Gustafson indicated the position of the rear door and described the screening. He further added that they would make any changes required by the City of New Hope -- if no further requirements, the landscaping would be just as it was on the plan. Commissioner Gustafson expressed concern that the concrete pier jutting out, would leave enough room for traffic on the drive between the K-Mart and New Hope Center Stores, Commissioner Gustafson requested that the record show that there is no known relation between himself and Mr. Gustafson. Mr. Gustafson stated that the roof top equipment would be screened by the design of the roof'. ~ Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether Mr. Gustafson had a formalized sign plan? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17f 1976 Mr. Gustafson stated they did not have a sign plan because Country Kitchen has a new logo and has changed their sign. He is aware that the sign must be approved and meet City Ordinance. Commissioner London stated the plan for the City Center concept indicates that this parcel not be devel- oped but be devoted to parking, as part of an overall parking scheme. He added, to remind the Commis- sion, that this is just a concept and that they do not have to be held to that concept. He expressed the personal opinion that the Country Kitchen would fit in, in that spot, and complement the City Center. Commissioner Gundershaug agreed with Commissioner London, adding he liked the overall plan. Commissioner Atchley stated that there would be so few uses for that parcel that the Country Kitchen would be one of the uses that would fit in nicely. Commissioner Bartos also stated that he felt it would fit in with the planned proposal of the Shopping Center. He also added that he supported Commissioner London's statement. Commissioner Christensen made a motion recommendinq approval of Case 76-39 - Approval of Construction Plans for Country Kitchen, with the stipulation that if a transformer is mounted on a pad to the North of the buildinq~ that it ~e enclosed with the same type of materia used to enclose the refuse container. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion passed. 4. Commissioner Gustafson introduced Mark Johnson, an associate of Mr. Licht. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt the Commission's discussion should center on enforcement of the Code, and not so much on the writing of the Code. He also wanted to make sure that everyone understood the purpose of the Code. He further noted that the Code would be rev"ewed, page Dy page. Chairman Cameron stated that he thought they should limit the time spent on discussion of the Code to one half an hour. Commissioner Gustafson began the.review of the proposed Maintenance .Code. Page I - no comments PaRe 2 - applicability was questioned Page 3 - Chairman Cameron inquired if the definitions were standard? Mr. Johnson replied that they were pretty much standard and remain consistent. Chairman Cameron stated that there is history behind most of the definitions that can be re led upon. Commissioner Gustafson stated that they did have a series of definitions and suggested that Mr. Johnson review and changed them to be significant. Page 4 - Commissioner Gundershaug inquired if maintenance was described for swimming pools, sidewalks or steps. Mr. Johnson stated that he had a Minnesota pamphlet on swimming pool regulations ann that side- walks and steps are exterior maintenance. The City Manager stated that New Hope has a separate Swimming Pool Ordinance. The aools are inspected and operators are trained. These regulations did not apply to pools for single family homes. Page 5-10 - No questions Page II - Commissioner Craigie inquired as to the chemicles of swimming pools and prevention of rotting water. Commissioner Gustafson and Commissioner Christensen shared in Commissioner Craigie's concern. Commissioner Craigie inquired whether residential regulations belong here or in the Swinm~ing Pool Ordinance? It was decided that if changes were to be made, they should look into swimming pool regulations as a separate item later; 304.1 It was recognized in the snow removal description that they are tal~ing about the responsibility of removal of snow and ice within only a multiple family residence or commer~i~l'area,'not sidewalks on private property. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt steps are an important part of the building as far as maintenance is concerned -- if they deteriorate they don't look good and can be a safety problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - AUGUST 17~ 1976 Commissioner London stated he felt that residents, in some cases~ should be required to remove the snow and ice from sidewalks in front of their homes. The City Manager explained current City regulations and policy on sidewalk clearance. Pages 12-14 -- No questions Commissioner Christensen questioned Page 14, as it relates back to Page I0, where the temperature stated is 68° and on Page 14, where it is 70°. Mr. Johnson went on to state that one temperature is the standard for heating as a utility and the other describes heating as a condition for owners of occupied buildings to maintain, Commissioner London commented that this was a minor point and suggest the review proceed. Pages 15-16 - Commissioner Pakonen inquired as to how many houses in New Hope today would live up to these standards? The City Manager stated that a few would not, but for the most part they would -- there is a general problem with bedroom windows. In answer to a question from Commissioner Pakonen regarding putting a room in a basement, the City Manager stated that you could not sleep in the room, unless there was a window or an exit that met standards. Page 19-20 - no questions Commissioner Gustafson reauested everyone to reconsider page 16, because it happened to affect him (402.). He questioned water tight wa Is and deterioration of the walls.. Commissioner Christensen expressed the same concern° It was decided that this was an area of general concern and that the inspectors would need to fook carefully at the actual affect of the regular'ion. Page 21 - Commissioner Christensen questioned the common ro I-type towel -- did it meet standard? rage 22 - The definition of vehicle was questioned as not 5eing very clear -- why did the ordinance no~ define vehicle? Commissioner Gustafson stated the committee would develop a definition. Commissioner London stated, the opinion the ordinance should include recreational vehicles. A typing error in Section 405.3, the word "escapes" was noted by Commissioner Pakonen~ rage 23 - no comment Chairman Cameron questioned whether fence design, to keep the bad side on the inside, should be regulated nere. Feel'rig was that this should be a provision of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Christensen noted the last sentence, about directed snow or water across the street. Discussion held with concern expressed about ~eaning and enforcement problems. Commis.sioner London stated that he thought they should pass and let the inspectors worry about that. Page 24-25 - no comment Commissioner Christensen inquired as to how maximum occupancy standards could be enforced? The City Manager noted tha~ complaints would probably be the only way to detect such vio- lations. Commissioner London inquired as to inspection on sale being mandatory. He felt that inspec- tion should be mandatory upon sale to determine that the house had been prcperly maintained. Commissioner Gustafson stated that on Pages I - 25, there is nothing that a common sense type of individual would not want in his home or for his property. From Section 600, enforcement of ~ne ordinance is covered. Commissioner Gustafson suggested that the review stop at this point and that everyone re- view Section 600, for a complete discussion at the next meeting. Commissioner London suggested that the Subdivision Ordinance'also be reviewed at the next meeting. Commissioner London moved that the Housinq Plan also be tabl.ed until the next meeting. Second by Commissioner Gustafson. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Pakonen, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Anderson Motion passed. Chairman Cameron reminded the Commission that somewhere along the line, all 30 districts would have to be considered and some tough decisions made. He asked everyone to keep and study all of the minutes. Commissioner Bartos stated that there were only three sections that would give them any problem and that they know what they are, so the major decisions are not really that many. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. There were no committee reports. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - AUGUST 17, 1976 8. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of August lOth. I0. There were no comments from the Commissioners, staff or public. I . Chairma~ Cameron inquired as to how many Commissioners and their wives are attending the Mayor's party at the Municipal Pool on August 18th. He apologized for ~ot announcing this ear Jer. There were four Commissioners planning to attend. 12. The meetin§ was adjourned at 11:30 p~m. on motion by Commissioner Londo~ second by Commissioner Chris- tensen ana carried by voice vote. Commissioner Craigie inquired as to why the City Hall did not provide handicap parking? Mr. Larson stated that it was only because restriping had not been done. Respectfully submitted, Sue Herder Acting Secretary ~62~ Drew Averse North Fdnneapolis, ~nnesota ~22 August 12, 1976 Nm. Harlyn G. Larson City ~.~nager City of New Hope hbO1 Xylon Avenue North New Pope, l~nnesota ~28 Dear ~,~. Larson: I am in receiot of your notice that the City of New Hope proposes to change the-zoning of property I o~uu at 7118 ~2nd Avenue North from GB to B-~. This change would seriously affect the value of this property as the size of the site does not lend itself to the few permitted uses under the B-~ zoning classification. Under the proposed change I would be prevented from developing the site for retail p.~_~poses which i feel is the ~:~st logical and the best use of the land. In view of this, I respectfully request B-~ zoning for this site which would give me flexibility in the development of this property and at the same time allow improvements compatible with other co~nercial development along ~2nd Avenue. Thank 3.~u for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ~John J. Da~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1976 I. A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August~l~ 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Ho~e,Minnesota. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen ~bsent: Anderson (excused), London (excused). 3. Chairman Cameron stated that the purpose of the special meeting was to continue the public hearings to allow the citizens from the districts involved i~ potential zoning changes, as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, a~ opportunity to express their opinions. Chairman Cameron further noted that the City had been involved in the study for over a year and with the help of Midwest PI-anning an~ Research had updated the 1960 Comprehensive Plan. He added that there were approximately 400 acres of undeveloped land in New Hope ana that the Comprehensive Plan, when finally aaopted, will guide the future development of New Hope. Chairman Cameron then announced the districts to be reviewed at the meeting were #1,2,3,4,6,7,8. He further stated that the Plan consisted of recommendations for the best use of the land remaining in the City, that the illustrated developments for individual areas were merely concepts and not firm de- velopment proposals, and that the purpose of the meeting was not for the commissioners to defend these recommendations but to allow the citizens to express their concerns. Chairman Cameron noted that they would first receive comment from the land owners of the properties to be rezone~ and then the citizens of the districts. Chairma~ Cameron then turned the meeting over to Mr. David Licht, Midwest Planning and Research. Mr. Licht noted that he would like to first ascertain which districts the citizens assembled represented and he would t~en limit his presentation to those districts, in an attempt to conserve time. It was decided to review Districts #1, #6, #7, #8. Mr. Licht then stated that the original charge to Midwest Planning had been to update the City's Compre- hensive Plan (adopted in 1960). They had also revised the Sign Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance and drafted a new Sub-Division Ordinance and Housing Maintenance Code. In their study of the City, attention had been given to the best use for the undeveloped land, the tax base (New Hope has a large amount of non-taxable land, which is reflected in the cost of government),~ and the lac~ of housing choice (basicatly~single family and high density available). Mr. Licht noted that because Ne~ Hope had been developed at approximately the same time, the population would age at the same time, creating a need for housing other than single family. They had also been concerned that maintenance of commercial, apartments and single family be insured~ to avoid a general deterioration as has occurred in other-cities. The Comprehensive Plan, which had been adopted by the Council in March of 1976, was a reflection of the year iong studies conducted by Midwest and was the consultant's interpretation of the Policy Plan and the direction that the City wished to go in future development. Land Use had been divided into th.ree categories: residential, commercial and industrial. Mr. Licht stated that there was a lack. of housing choice in New Hope and t~e Planners feel there is a need for housing of a mid-density type. They recommend conversion of some of the industrial land, because in their opinion, there is an over emphasis of industrial land. The City Center concept is an attempt to concentrate commercial, cultural and governmental facilities into one area. He added that the districts had not been drawn on an arbitrary basis but in dividing areas had attempted to pick an existing unit, whether residential, commercial, or industrial. He also re-emphasized that the purpose of the meeting was to gain insight from the citizens, that the plans as presented were his interpretation of what would be good for the City. He requested that the citizens not be antagonistic to the suggestions but simply state their opinions and that the Commission was conducting the meeting to gain this input. District #1 A primarily single family area. ~Housing is considered to be extreme y good.and the major issue was the undeveloped land in the Northwestern quadrant at 62nd and #18. Under the 1960 Comprehensive Plan the entire parcel had been zoned RB. Because of changes since 1960, including the change in the access point to #18, they suggest that there be a reduction of the zoning of this parcel -- retaining the commercial at the Northern end and developing multiple family, in a limited nature, to the South of the commercial area. They see this as a buffe[ to both the commercial and single family. Because of the poor quality of the soil in the Southern portion of the parcel, they suggest that the density be concen- trated to the North, with buffers created between the single family homes to the East and that there be a major type of open space created at the Southern end of the parcel. They also suggest that any access into the area from the South, be pedestrian only. They are suggesting conventional apartment development, not subsidized housing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - AUGUST 24~ 976 ~ District #6 This is a large area, bordered by Boone, Winnetka, Bass Lake Road and 54th. The main concern in this area is residence maintenance, ~n Terms of maintaining quality and upgrading where necessary. They recommend that the open parcels be developed in conjunction with the primary characteristics of the district. District #7 Winnetka, Crystal border, Bass Lake Road and the railroad tracks to the South. A single family neighborhood with limited convenience shcpping. There are a substantial number of homes of a lower value but the majority of these are well maintained. Limited park is available to the area. The major ~ssue and recommendation, is for maintenance throughout the neighborhood. The open land is suggested to be developed Iow density single and maximum two family density. The City Manager noted that there were some specific zoning concerns of the citizens along Bass ~Lake Road that had been combined with District #7 for purpose of notice. District #8 Area bordered by Boone, Winnetka, 54th and 51st and the raj road tracks. There is a large parcel of land at 54th and Boone, currently undeveloped. The suggestion is for the develop- ment of some residences, but that the open land zoned industrial be deve oped for that use. Mr. Licht noted the two zoning mans on the walls of the Council Chambers, suggesting that perhaps the citizens could view these maps during a break and he would subsequently answer specific questions for them. He added that the Zoning Ordinance had been change~ in terms of classification. One of the options is what is termed "direct transfer" which would be to conve yto the property owner, the maximum right that he has at the present time. In the case of residential zoning, the present ordinances provides two districts -- SF and MR~ The new pro- posal includes five residential zones in an attempt to create additional control for the City. Mr. Licht re- emphasized the fact that the land recommendations are "concept only", and an attempt to point a direction. t is up to the individual developer to conduct more detailed studies of a specific area. District #1 Chairma~ Cameron no~ed that-ihe C~nmiss~on had receive~ a etter ~rom Mr. Roger Derrick, a land owner in the area, in which ne expresse~ his objection to Uownzoning of the portion of the property at 62nd, feeling that ti~e Northern portion should have the highest commercial designation. He added that they were in agree- ment with the downzoning of the Southern portion of the property (letter attached to official minutes). Mr. Dick Silva, ~133 Gettysburg Avenue North, ~tated he represented the people in District #1, and presented a petition to the COmmission that included 300 names expressing their opposition to the Comprehensive Plan which cai s for'the area to be rezoned from RB to B-2, for the following reasons: 1. The high density 'housing being proposed would ~e situated in an area furthest from any police protection. 2.The high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.Such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dan- gerous degree. Mr. Silva noted that the petition showed that they had hit every street in the area -- everyone was concerned, not just the people on the fringe. Commissioner Gustafson asked Mr. Silva what comments had been made to the residents when the petition was presented in terms of the type of project that was proposed? Mr. Silva noted that there were 10-15 people circulating the petition and he could not state what was said. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether the possibility of subsidized housing had been suggested? He then stated that ~wo things should be made clear --- I) that a I of the residents of the area did not sign the document, and 2) that other comments than stated on the face of the document had been indicated to the home- owners. Mr. Silva commented that he did not know what had been said by everyone and that he had said there were in excess of 300 signatures~ not everyone in the area. Mr. Licht questioned the statement made, that the proposal would increase the traffic in the neighborhood. One of the concepts that na~ tried to highlight was that~the proposal tried to orient the traffic away from the neighborhood and secondly from a technica basis, the entire site as presently zoned was commercial, and commercial generates a higner traffic volume t~an multiples would. Single family homes, in his opinion, also generate a higher traffic volume than multiples, per unit. Mr. Silva questioned this statement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - AUGUST 24, 1976 Mr. Licht repeated his statement that single family units hav~ a higher traffic volume per unit, but that their concern in trying to put forth this.plan~ was that they feel the site is over intensified. In 1960 the site had been indicated as a commercial center or portential shopping center because of the anticipated access to County Road #1~. This changed in the years since that Plan had been adopted, and as a consequence the Planners felt that putting in housing would reduce the traffic going on 62nd. He noted that if the entire site were commercial, they would find much more traffic, both on 62nd and into the neighborhood. Mr. Silva noted that "housing" they wouldn't mind, but they didn't consider this housing. Mr. Licht asked if he would prefer mid-density? Mrs. Joan Morin, 61st Avenue Circle, asked who presently owned the property? Chairman Cameron noted that the letter which had been read into the record was from the Derrick Land Company. Discussion followed about a proposal for the property as made several years ago. Mrs. Morin questioned why the area could not be zoned for single family homes as the surrounding area? She questioned how the land could be suitable for apartm&nts if it were not suitable for~single family? Mr. Licht noted that it was his understanding that the Southern portion of the site was not suitable for single family housing and was in a large portion peat. He added that this land had been zoned commercial for a number of years and he was sure that the current owner had purchased the land at a commercial level not a single family level. He added that the single family owners had protections under the zoning of their property and that the owner of a commercial property also had protection. He noted that the Planners had attempted to find a reasonable solution for all concerned. Mr. Silva questioned whether any of the Commissioners lived in District #t? He was informed that two of the Commissioners did. Commissioner Gustafson and Commissioner Gundershaug indicated that they lived in District #1. Mr. Silva asked where the two parks were located in District #17 He was informed that Liberty Park and the park on the school site were the two. He further questioned what the buffer would be on the East. Mr. Licht indicated that they were speaking of a landscape buffer, or an open space to provide buffering. Chairman Cameron iintroduc~d the petition as part of the formal record of the meeting(attached to minutes) Mrs. Povroznik, 8710 60th Avenue, requested that the gentlemen explain how the traffic was going to enter the area, indicating that she felt they would not go on 62nd, since there was no shopping there. She felt there was already enough traffic on Boone Avenue. She stated that from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. there was more than enough traffic. She also questioned the statement that multiples would not create more cars than single family, feeli.ng this was not true. Mrs. Povroznik also expressed concern with the school situation, particularly Hosterman Junior High, stating that there are already a lot of children in the area, all scheduled to attend Hosterman and that they did not need any more children in the area. Mr. Nils Sundquist, 5955 Hillsboro and Mr. Donald Baker, 6049 Hillsboro addressed the Commission. Mr. Baker distributed recommendations to the Commission which indicated the feeling that mid-density was preferable development (attached to record) Mr. Sundquist commended the Commission and Mr. Licht for taking on the job of updating the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the suggestions'of the.document. His comments included the opinion that mid-density would pro- vide the greatest return to the City and the fact that the quality of the area would perhaps encourage a de- veloper to construct high quality mid-density housing. He then addressed the recommendation of the Northern portion of the property b~ing left commercial and the fact that there would definitely be more traffic with commercial development. He also expressed his opinion that if the parcel were such a good piece, it would not still be vacant. He indicated his feeling that it would not be practical to put a 40~000 square foot convenience center on the property. Mr. Licht noted that included in the recommendation was a statement that before any type of convenience cen- ter were constructed, a market study should be conducted. Discussion between Mr. Sundquist and Mr. Licht regarding the potential traffic ~hould the vacant parcel be developed into commercial. Mr. Sundquist expressed his opinion that mid-density (i.e. townhouses) would be better for the neighborhood, as well as providing a more satisfactory return to the City. He stated he hoped the Commission would consider this when they made their decision. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - AUGUST 24, 1976 Mr. Donald Baker, stated he was a resident of a close proximity to the area in question and he was not in favor of a high density unity with a convenience center. He added that if something of a medi'um density would prove more of a tax benefit To the City, it would Keep bim happy. Mr. Stan Lessin, 6009 Gettysburg, stated that there was a terrible drainage problem in the area and more people in the area w'll put a lot more water through. He noted the the one Commissioner in the district living in that area lives on the highest ground in the area and probably did not have water problems when everyone else did. He added that he did not want a shopping center or apartments in the area. Mr. Alan Huber, 9121 61½ Avenue North, questioned the type of security that there would be if a shopping center were d~veloped? He added that there was a high crime rate now and questioned whether there was any potential that there would be a nigher crime rate? Mr. Licht noted that he had not made a study as to whether there woulc be a higher crime rate~ and added that he felt there was a lack of understanding on the part of the citizens -- that a shopping center could be built on the parce today. The property exists, is zoned for commercia , aha what is actually being proposed is a reduction of zoning. The existing zoning gives the property right, this was done a long time ago. A citizen asked whether, if the land were going'to De rezoned, why it couldn't be down zoned to single family? Another citizen noTem that he felt that was what the people were asking for, a downzoning to single family. Mr. Licht stated that he recognized that, but that the property owner also has a right to develop the land today, as it is zoned -- which in this case would be a shopping center. He added that it was a monetary situation. There was a given right to develop the property as zoned. He suggested that a single family owner had this right anm a commercial property owner also had this right. Mr. John Orey, 6141 Gettysburg, suggested t~at the owner be told to deve op it as it was zoned now. Mr. Silva noted that it was his belief that Brookl'yn Park wa~ planning to build a shopping center on 63rd and that no one in their right mind would put in another snopping center a block away. Mr. Dick London, 6031 Ensign, commented that in regard to the traffic problems, they were al gui ty of ~aking short cu~s. The a~dition o~ high density housing woul~ put ali o~ fbe ~raffic through the area and ~-~ they had enough problems already. He commen~e~ that if it were to ~e aev~loped in~o a shopping ar~a there would be vacancies within two years and there would also be more crime d'ue to the vacancies° Commissioner Gus~afson commented that, as a resident of the area and having been involved in securing the stop sign at 60th and Gettysburg, he would attest to the transportation problems in District #1. He noted that there was a definite problem in the area but whether it was the potential townhouse development in the other community% or increased traffic in the community, he felt that along with the zoning, the Traffic Com- mission should look at th~ possibilities of directing the traffic out of the area. He added that this would require also that the neighbors to the North direct the townhouse access to 63rd, when it is proposed. Chairman Cameron noted that if the only access to the property was off 62nd, he did not see how it would in- crease the traffic on 60th or on Gettysburg? Several citizens indicated the traffic would increase because people would take short cuts. Mrs. Linnea Steere, 6050 Ensign, stated there was enough of a traffic problem in the area now, people do cut through as no one takes the longest route. Discussion between Mrs. Steere and Chairman Cameron about possible routes in and out of the area. Additional loud discussion between Commissioner Pakonen and many citizens regarding the effectiveness of stop signs and routes that were presently taken in and out of the area° Mrs. Susan Staloch, 6048 Hillsboro, expressed her concern for the children of the area that walk to school, st~ould there be additional traffic. Commissioner Craigie noted that there were always problems with children walking to school. He added that while there would be problems with a convenience center, the problems with a major shopping center as is presently allowed on the parcel, with the truck traffic etc. would be a much heavier problem than a conveni- ence center or apartments. This would be the alternative to downzoning. Mr. Dennis Melby, 6117 Gettysburg, commented that he felt one reason people drove on Gettysburg and 60th, was because they did not have to watch for the police as on Boone. Mr. Ed Elling, 6101 Ensign, asked for clarification of the acreage of the commercially zoned area. Mr. Licht responded that they were proposing the reduction of the commercial zone from 9 acres t~ approximately 3 I/2 acres with the balance of the site to be a residential or apartment type complex. He added that there was no way to statistically prove that the proposed reduction in zoning woul~ create more traffic than what is presently allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - AUGUST 24, 1976 Mr. Licht pointed out that the Planners had attempted to find a realistic utilization of the land -- to reach a compromise between what the property is zoned now and what the neighborhood wants. Mr. Elling asked if the Council had any idea what the area across 62nd would be developed? · Concensus of the citizens was that it was scheduled to be townhouses and that the children of that area in Brooklyn Park would also be attending District #281 schools. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether the citzens had received a copy of the use list stating what was permitted in the district? After ascertaining they had not, he read the list of permitted uses in a B-2 zone for the benefit of the people assembled. Commissioner Craigie indicated that in the letter from Mr. Derrick, he had stated they did not wish to be restricted to the uses allowed in the down zone. Mr. Silva commented that they did not really believe that there was going to be a shopping center in the area because there was going to be one up the street. Mrs. Provoznik questioned why the property had not been rezoned when the access had been changed. Commissioner Gustafson noted that when the land was zoned in 1960, certain parcels were set aside for various types of development. When the overpass was move~,this may have done the owner more harm than anything the. City had done or potentially could do. This was his opinion. Mrs. Provoznik stated she felt that when the property owner had lost the access to #18, he should have del cided that maybe he should sell it for other than commercial use. The City ~anager stated that the City could not go in and rezone, just because they wanted to rezone. They have the same problems as a property owner attempting to change zoning. The City has some rights, defendable in a court of law, based on the Comprehensive Plan, on downzoning the property. It is proposed to go from a B-4 to a B-2. He added that the people must realize that there are soil problems and, in his opinion, there was no way that the court would uphold a rezoning to single family. The City cannot rezone simply because it wants to but must prove its case based on sound planning concepts. Mrs. Provoznik noted that in 1961 the residents of the area had petitioned that no apartment buildings be built North of Bass Lake Road because of the experiences with the apartments on Bass Lake Road. Since then, there have been two complexes built. It seemed to her that regardless of whether you signed a petition or not in New Hope,, they just go ahead and do what they want. She added that she really did think that there would be a definite traffic problem if apartments went in. D~scussion followed between Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Larson and Mr.'Licht about the changes of the land being zoned to provide mid-density hoqsing for the Southern parcel. Mr. Sundquist requested that the Commission try to make the justification for the downzoning to mid-density. Commissioner Craigie questioned whether, if the only way to get the property downzoned was to reimburse the property owner -- would Mr. Sundquist be willing to pay a special assessment. Mr. Sundquist stated he would be will'ing, if it could be proved by a survey, and through consultation with real estate representatives of the area, that the property could be sold for the asking figure. The land owner would have to justify that the land ~ould be sold for the asking figure. Mrs. Morin questioned why if the property were so valuable, nothing had been developed up to this time? Commissioner Gustafson responded that he felt the change in access to County #18, was the current reason that the property was sitting there undeveloped. Discussion between Mrs. Morin and Commissioner Gustafson about the property; the reasons why it had not been developed; who should suffer the loss - the owner of the property or the residents of the area - should high density housing be constructed on the site? Mr. Roger Derrick, the owner of the property in question, stated he wished to clarify some of the issues raised by the citizens. He stated that they had owned the proper~y for about two years. The previous owner had been Standard Oil. He added that the property had been zoned commercial for a long time, and that it had been the previous owners who had been involved in attempt to place subsidized housing on the property. Mr. Derrick commented that he felt the New Hop~ Planning Department and Midwest Planning had attempted to work out a solution that would be acceptable to the entire community. He noted that he had informed Midwest Planning that he would like to work with the Ci~fy if possible, He added that there is a zero market for apartment building at the present time. He also noted the poor soil and the wooded area in the Southern area of the site. He added that soil work was very expensive and he felt it would be unfortunate to destroy the woods. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - AUGUST 24, 1976 , Mr. Derrick stated that the amount of money it was feasible to put into a property to make it buildable, depended entire y upon the use that was planned. It was not feasible to have to spend a great deal of money to consTrucT single family homes. He noted that the proposal to attempt to route the traffic to 62nd, was in his opinion good. He added that they were open to suggestions. Mrs. Prokoznik asked whether since Mr. Derrick seemed to be pushing apartment development now, did he have someone ready to move in? Mr. Derrick stated that it was not just now, that the planners had been working on the Comprehensive Plan for over a year. Commissioner Craigie pointed out that Mr. Derrick did not participate in the drawing of the proposed site development included in the Comprehensive Plan. This was a City action, in an attempt to update the 1960 Comprehensive Piano n response to a question from Mr. E ling, Mr. Derrick stated he did not own the land across 62nd. n answer to a question from Mr. Lessing, regarding whether or not his company had attempted to change the access to the freeway~ Mr. Derrick responded that his company did not own the property at that time~ Mr. Lessin wondered why, if they had to build mid or high density housing they did not build housing for the elderly? Mr. Derrick responded that housing for the elderly depended on the market, adding that constructing elderly housing was difficult without the government becoming involved. n response to question from Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Derrick stated that it was not economically feasible to bui d only mid-density housing on this property. ~rs. Steere asked what the profits on the property had been up to now? Mr. Derrick stated none. Mrs. Steere then questioned whether something..was tional discussion. Mrs. Prokoznik wondered why he had purchased the property in the first place? Mr. Derrick stated they purchased in order to.develop the property. In response to .further questions from Mrs. Prokoznik, Mr. Derrick stated that it was the City's plan to con- struct apartments -- he thinks it's a good idea. Mr. Si va questioned whether Mr. Derrick felt it was better to develop according to the City's Plan or to leave it zoned as it was. He added that they (the citizens) did not think it would ever be developed into commercial. Mr. Derrick thought there was potential for a shopping center on the site. Mr. Donald Baker, 6049 Hillsboro, asked when'Mr. Derrick had suggested that the p~operty be zoned as. recom- mended by the Plan. Mr. Derrick noted now, at this meeting. Mr. Derrick wished to restate his position on the zoning, which was that whatever the City felt was best for the property, they were 'n favor of as long as it was economically feasible. Mrs. Gloria Helland, 9101 62nd, stated she was also concerned with the 70 acres across the street,'as well as with this narcel. She added that New Hope had been most helpful to them when working with Brooklyn' Park. She added that Brooklyn Park now proposed that most of their access to the apartments be off 63rd, and if they could be so considerate, why couldn't New Hope? Mrs. Midge Long, 6101 Gettysburg, asked how the sewer was going to handle additional people in the area? The City Manager noted that there were two problems in the North end of town. One of the problems is-solved by the installation of the new lift station in the Science Industry Center. The infiltration problem in the North end of town would be very costly to solve, and he did not know if this could be done. Mrs. Steere questioned whether the purpose of the Planning Commission was to find out ~hat the citizens felt. Chairman Cameron noted it was. She then questioned whether or not they were going to change anything or did it not make any difference what their feelings were? Chairman Cameron noted that when the Commission had heard from all of the districts of the City, they would sit down and look at all of the input and make their recommendation to the Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - AUGUST 24, 1976 Mrs. Steere commented that she was not concerned with other districts, only District #1. Discussion between Chairman Cameron and several citizens about the procedures to be used in making recom- mendations on zoning changes. Chairman Cameron noted that there will be a notice in the Post when the final recommendations are scheduled TO be presented to the Council. He stated he did not feel that that meeting would be a public hearing. Mr. Jim Crandall, 9120 61st Circle, asked if the recommendations would be in writing when presented to the Council. The Chairman noted that he assumed that the review would be conducted district by district when considering changes in the Plan. The City Manager noted that the origina schedule was for a final meeting to be held on the 21st September on the Plan, and that there will be a written document which will take the current Comprehensive Plan and indicate whether they accept the recommendations regarding individual districts, or whether they feel they should be changed. n answer to a question from Mr. Silva, Chairman Cameron noted that the Council gets copies of all of the minutes from the public hearings for their information. Mr. Pat Nerby, 6054 Hillsboro, asked who had received letters about the public hearings? The City Manager stated that people within 350 of a potential rezoning had been notified; people involved through special interest groups and neighborhood groups were informed; and there were detai ed reports in the paper (New Hope P ymouth Post). Chairman Cameron noted that the City had used every available means to communicate and he did not think the citizens could expect the City to foot the bill to send out 15,000 letters. Mr. Terry Henry, 6079 H Ilsboro, asked Mr. Derrick what the average value of a single residence type lot in New Hope was, and how many lots he felt a piece of this particular parce's size could Provide? He also noted that the homes in his area were built on pilings because of substandard so'l and tha+ the buyers had absorbed the cost because of the ~esireability of the area. Mr. Derrick noted that when a developer is going to divide property, he adds up the costs and subtracts t~ose from the price he could get from the lots. If ne comes up with a negative figure, he is not goi. ng to build. Mr. Elling questioned whether Mr. Derrick~had any specific idea of how he wi.s~ed to develop the property? Mr. Derrick stated that at this particular time, there was no one ready, to buy the land for either apartment use or commercial use. It is all a matter of economics, adding there was also the cost of installing roads into the property as well as facilities for water and sewer. Chairman Cameron declared a recess at 9:35 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m. District #4 The City Manager read a letter from a property owner, expressing the opinion that a I of the commercial property should be zoned B-4. (letter attached to record) Mr. Larson also stated he had received a communication from Ponderosa Restaurants, which would be zoned B-3, stating they felt they should be a B-2. District #6 Mrs. Natalie Stuhr, 5635 Wisconsin Avenue, questioned "modification from direct transfer" indicated for her property on the map. Mr. Larson noted there were two lots on Bass Lake Road and Wiscon-in Avenue. The one to the West is zoned MR and the one on the East side is LB. A direct transfer would make them R-4 and R-9. The Stuhrs vacant lot is MR and their homo is SR. Mrs. Stuhr stated they were requesting that the lot on Bass~Lake Road be zoned B-2 rather than R-4. Mr. Licht noted that this would give them much more maneuverability than they had right now, indicating that under the direct transfer, they were attempting to equate what presently existed. He questioned whether the Commission would want to go above what was thene now. He noted that it would be ~ossible to submit a request for a rezoning to the Commission. Discussion between Commiss'oner Craigie and the City Manager about the zoning for the two lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - ' AUGUST 24, 1976 The City Manager noted that the Stuhr's front lot was zoned MR but was too narrow to develop as MR, the lot on the street side was LB, which would "direct transfer" to an R-O. The house was SR and would become ~-~ an R-I. He stated that the present code did not permit the mix of uses they wanted. Mrs. Stuhr noted she understood that a formal rezoning petition would have to be made,before the Commission could consider ner request. She just wanted her concern aDout the lot and the zoning to be made part of the recora now, so the Commission would be on notice. Mr. William Pilgrim, 1029 Plymouth Building, represented the Jewett family. They own the property on the . South side of Bass Lake Road between Maryland and Nevada Avenue. He stated that the Jewett's have been pay- ing taxes on this property since the Civil War. The property has peen zoned RB, without any restrictions. The property has been assessed aT its highest investment and the taxes for the last seven years came to $31,000. The assessed market value since 973 had ~een placed at $150,000. He added that the appraisers and brokers who had examined the property have stated that with few exceations, the only thing that would stand the cost per square foot, would be a restaurant or a beauty shop and that most of the other uses in the B-2 category woula probably not be feasible. He stated that the assessors have been taxing the property according to the highest use and now the recommen- dation seems to be to lower the use and this would probably in turn reduce the value .of the property by around one third. He recognized that it woula be possible to apply for a Special Use, but this would De granted at the discretion of the Council and should they not agree with the Commission, it would be taking away a right from the property owner. This particular property already has a non conforming use, the car wash, on approxi- mately one third of the two acre site. Mr. Pilgrim stated he felt it was unfair for the City to tax the pro- perty on the highest and best use and then not let the property be developed to the highest and best use. Mr. Pilgrim stated that they were requesting that the Commission reconsider the zoning on this property, to allow them to have all of their options open~ Discussion between Mr. Pilgrim and Commissioner Craigie about the uses permitted in B-2 and B-4. Mr. Jewett noted that they were really interested in selling the property~ They had delayed selling to allow his mother to finish out her life in net home. He added that there had ~een many buyers interested in the property aut his mother wished to remain in the house. They were merely trying to get their costs out. Discussion between the Commissioners, Mr. Pilgrim, Mr. Jette, Mr. Licht, an~ the City Manager regarding the ~-~ ots along Bass Lake Road; what a direct transfer from RB to B-2 would allow as development; the fact that the car wash is located on the property but that the property had not oeen divided; the fact that a restaurant would not be a permitted use under B-2; and the the reasoning behind the zoning for this property. Mr. Licht noted ~hat the property must be subdivided before a building permit could be issued since the or- dinance allows only one principal activity per lot. He added that a beauty shop was a permitted ~se in the B-2 zone and a restaurant could be a conditional use. Commissioner Gusta~son requested that Mr. Pilgrim state exactly what he felt was being -aken away ~rom the property under a B-2 zoning. Mr. Pilgrim stated they were taking away the rights for a B-3 and B-4. Further discussion ~bout the use lists, and whether or not the rights they were concerned with, had really been theirs under the RB zoning. Mr. Pilgrim requested that he be mailed a copy of the current use list. Mr. Jette stated that he would like to see the property zoned B-4. Commissioner Crai~ie moved that the Public Hearinq be closed. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen. Voting against: None Absen?: London, Anderson Motion passed. Commissioner Gustafson then questioned whether the zoning designation for the Prudential property had not been changed and was incorrect on the Map. The City Manager indicated that the zoning had been changed. Commissioner Gustafson then questioned where they were, with the B-2 classification? The City Manager expressed the opinion that the B-4 classification should nave been designated as only for the City Center; then the B-2 classification could be shown to be more of a direct RB transfer. Discussion followed about zoning and it's affect on assessments and about the best procedures to be used to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - AUGUST 24, 1976 inform the citizens what could legally be on the property under the present zoning and what would be per- mitted under the proposed zoning. Feeling seemed to be that the citizens might not be s~ upset about po- tential rezoning if they fully realized what could develop on the property as currently zoned. Commissioner Craigie suggested that before the final meeting on the 21st, the Commission sit down and discuss the input received and whether or not there were alternative courses open in regard to industrial property. 'Commissioner Pakonen stated that he recalled that the Chairman, when they were discussing policies and goals, had cautioned them to "think hard" because all decisions would, in the future, hinge on these policies. A very clear goal of the City had been stated as the need to provide more varied types of housing, and one of the best places to get this from, was in the industrial areas. The City Manager noted that at a previous meeting, Mr. Jim Miller from IDS Mortgage Company, had expressed objection to the rezoning at 30th/Louisiana. He is now proposing to send a letter to the Commission, via Mr. Larson, withdrawing his objection. Further discussion between the Comm'issioners, as to whether or not they were premature in changing some of the industrial zoning to provide additional housing and whether economic conditions had influenced the slow development of these properties. Mr. Licht cautioned that it was importan~ to provide balanced development in the City. Discussion held about the scheduled September 14th, meeting. Decision to hold as scheduled. 4. Commissioner Christensen noted that he would prefer to cover the final five pages of the Maintenance Code at the present meeting. He added that he felt they could not continue to delay discussion and that they owed the time to the Committee who had already spent much time on review of the Ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he did not feel there was that much remaining to cover, but that decisions would have to be made regarding enforcement strategy, in order that the review could be completed and a public hearing scheduled. Commissioner Gustafson noted that there were three strategies recommended in the memo from Mark Johnson. I. A complaint response, 2. A house to house regular scheduled inspection, and 3. A point of sale inspection. The third strategy would be in addition to the annual review of commercial and apartment property, in an at- tempt to have an inspection of property every time.a unit was sold. Commissioner Gu~tafson stated he understood this was the method used by St. Louis Park and that there was no specific requirement required in that City. The City Manager stated that it was his understanding that St. Louis Park actually issued a certificate after the inspection. Commissioner Gustafson commented that it was his understanding, however, that there was no police action in- volved and no requirement that a private homeowner had to come to the City Hall and obtain a permit before he could sell. Discussion followed about possible policing action to insure that a home was in fact inspected; how you could enforce maintenance; and whether cooperation could be gained from MLS realtors and lending institutions. Commissioner Christensen stated that door to door inspection was out of the question because of the costs of such inspection. In his opinion, this would also be an invasion of privacy. He added he could anticipate at a future time, when the housing stock was older, that they might have to resort to this but right now he felt it was not necessary. He added that he would like to see a point of sale certificate that pro¥ided when a house was put up for sale, it was inspected and a list made of defects. This would not get involved in an invasion of property. Commissioner Atchley questioned whether the"point of sale inspection" would be any advantage to the person selling the house. Commissioner Christensen stated he felt that if a seller had a certificate stating the house was in good con- dition, this would help the seller obtain the price he desired. Further discussion between the Commissioners. Commissioner Atchley questioned the liability of the City, after such a certificate were issued stating that the house complied with code, if the basement were to flood or the walls cave in, etc.? Commissioner Christensen felt this would not be applicable. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Code stated that the New Hope Inspector had covered items that were visible, as far as certification. Discussion about what type of things would be inspected. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - I0 - AUGUST 24, 1976 The City Manager noted that there were building codes established, both State and local that would provide standards. 0 Additional discussion as to procedure, costs involved, means of enforcement of the Code, and the fees to be paid by the owners, for the annual review of all rental and commercial property and point'of sale inspec- tions of residences. Commissioner Gustafson moved that a public hearing on the Maintenance Code be scheduled for the second meet- ing in October. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atcbley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: London, Anderson Motion passed. Commissioners Pakonen and Atchley noted that they would be unable to attend the meeting September 31, 1976. 5. The meeting was ad.journed by unanimous consent'at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JOyce Boeddeker Secretary PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1 .) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed woUld be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name Addre s s PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed--to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this aree to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood bUsiness) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area .furthest from any police protection; 2.) ,the high density housing being proposed would · be situated in an area furthest from protection · of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name Addre ss ~'~,./., . PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for '.thi~' area to be r~zoned from its present .Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following rea son s: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name //'] ] .,, ;'~ ,,~,, '-.~./~oz~ ~o.-~.. ..... Address PETITION o , We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present.Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed__would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name i? Addre s s PETITION , ' We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive 'plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present.Retail Business .(RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following rea sons: 1 .) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2.) .the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire dePartment. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Na me Ad dress ! / 0 PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following rea sons: 1 .) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2.) .the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name Addre s s PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1 .) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name Addre s s ~,, PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present ~Retail Business (RB Shopping Oenter Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our exlstant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. ~ame Addre s: PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan Which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following rea son s: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2.) .the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Na . Addre s s PETITION We, the District 1 home owners groUp, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following rea sons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2.) ,the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name Addre s s PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present ~Retail Business (RB Shopping Genter Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) On the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 9..) ,the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name Addre s s PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed.to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Genter Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following rea son s: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2.) .the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Addre s s . , o/o ..... PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 o).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department° 3 ~) such high density housing ~vould increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree ~ Addre s s 'zo-o PETITION ', We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present.Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department.. 3.) such high density housing.would increase the traffic through our existant.neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name Addre s s PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are o_p_posed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present .Retail Business (RB Shopping Genter Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department, 3,) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree, Name Addre s s . , PETITION We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Genter Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1 .) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2 .).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Addre s s PETITION · We, the District 1 home owners group, are opposed to the comprehensive plan which calls for this area to be rezoned from its present Retail Business (RB Shopping Center Area) to B-2 (neighborhood business) on the 62nd. Ave. side, and R-4 (Multiple dwellings) on the south end , for the following reasons: 1.) the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from any police protection; 2. ).the high density housing being proposed would be situated in an area furthest from protection of our fire department. 3.) such high density housing would increase the traffic through our existant neighborhoods to a dangerous degree. Name Addre s s OBJECTIVE: To evaluate best use of 62nd Avenue, County Road 18 8.77 acre site RECO>~ENDATION: Using the cost/benefit analysis the enclosed would indicate best use to be mid-density. JUSTIFICATION: Reference: Community Development Plan Report No. 4 May 1976 1. Page 3 "In terms of projected needs and demands, an analysis of housing demands has indicated that the ten year projected demand will surpass the supply of resi- dential developable land area under present zoning." 2. Page 5 Community Issues - "Lack of mid-density residential development." 3. Page 16 "Ensure that neighborhood convenience centers are provided with convenient accessibility for both motorists and pedestrians." 4. Page 31 "As cited in the second Community Development Plan Report (November 1975), this residential street pattern which discourages through traffic and thereby increases privacy and safety within neighborhoods, has played an important role in creating a more desir- able, attractive and safe residential environment. In this regard, the development of remaining open land should be done in a manner which respects the integrity of existing neighborhoods, thereby not altering their pedestrian orientation and scale." 5. Page~ 37 "Report No. 2 indicated a need for 935 additional housing units in New Hope by 1985, an average annual absorption rate of 94 units. No additional major investment in supportive services such as parks and open space, schools, fire and police protection and utilities are anticipated in order to accommodate these units." 6. Page 40 "However, based on the forecasted need for new housing units during the next decade as well as the policy of providing housing choices to accom- modate a greater diversity~of'life styles, mid- density housing will be encouraged on larger open parcels. It is further recommended that mid-density housing be developed on a planned unit basis." 7. Page 12 "Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which offer a broad and full choice of housing types. Maintain and where necessary, strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. Protect residential neighborhoods from penetration by through traffic." "Although this parcel is presently zoned for retail business use, factors including overall retail business absorption potential, residential land demand as well as desired land use patterns and relationships, indicate the desirability of mid-density residential development as an alternative to retail business. Nils E. Sundquist 5955 Hillsboro No. Donald E. Baker 6049 Hillsboro No. COST,3ENEFIT ANALYSIS - RESIDENTIAL US~ COSt-~ENEFI[ A~LY51S - ~M~7 T~e: Single F~mil7 Un,ts Per ~re: 4.0 U~ Cla~: C~merciel C~ucH~ Va{~aH~ Per Unit; $45,0~ ~uildi~ Ar~ ~ .25 FAR: Tot=J Valerian: J j ~ ~7 ~, 00~, OD bnd Valuation (1975):(~ ~8;00o Ownership ClassJ[]cat[~: Homestead Total Land a~ ~[Jd]~ Value: ~ss~ Val~tion Per Unit: $16,2~ A~sed Valuation: C~W Taxes Received Per Unit: $239.94 Total Ci~ Taxes ReceTved: Tatcl City T~es Received: ~ ~3 ~e~ D Number of Acres: P~uJati~ Per Unit: 3.25 City Ex~ndlt~es Per Acre: Numar of Units: ~ ~ Tota~ City Expendi~res: Totct P~JJation: il ~ CTR~ ~x~Jtures Per Capita: $~.46 Bene[if (C~t) to C[ty: Tm~J C[~ Expenditures: ~ ~, ~ (Total Tax~ Received L~S Total [x~nditures) Total Tax~ Received Less rata Expenditures) Density T~:G, 1~ rTo~)Unlts Per, Acre: Valuation Per Un[~: 522. 500 ~ns]~7 Type: Mid Units Per Acre: 8 Total Un[fs: Total VaJ~t ion: ~,,::~aHon Per gn~t: ~2,5~ Ownership CJcssificaHon: Non-Homest~d Tstzt Ve[oetion: ~ Z~/ ~,~o Assessed V~luation ~er Unit: $9,000 C.-.zersh[p Class[HcaHon: Homest~d City Taxes ReceNed Per Unit: S133.30 Total City Taxes ReceR, ed: ~e~sed Vaiuatlon Per Unit: S15,2~ C:'v Tax~ Received Per UnTt: S225.13 Population Per Unit: 2.0 T-r=[ City Taxes Received: ~ [~ff ~ IO Number oF Units: Fatal Popular[on 1 P::~lzt?cn Per Unih 2.5 'City Exgenditures Pe' C:~itc 5~.46 ~.mber o{ Units: ~O Total Cih/ Exaenditures: ~ ' .. T.:~] Peculation: I C~-'.' ~x~e~d]fures Per Capita: S64.46 Benefit C~ ro C~t-' T~':] ~' Total Taxes ~ece?ve~ ~ess Total Exoend[tures ~ ,'/ ~xpend[tures ~ I I ~ Z ~0, ~0 T:-:! T~xes Received Le~ Total Ex~epdifures~ ~...~,%n:z C~css~f[cation: Non-momestecc ; . : : : - . A~:=ssea '.-'Muation Per Unit: 59,000 :.,, ~~ E' :xes Rece~vuC Pe~ Unh: S133.30 ' C'- E-2e~z'rures Pe~ Za~[ta- 564.40 -:'z Tx,=: ~ece~,.e~ ?ss Tota F.:end~tL~es / ..... - DERRICK LAND COMPANY '1 I I I I I H 1770 SHELARD TOWER, MI'NNEAPO'LIS, MINN. 55426 I II I I [~ ] .... I I t I I ,~= PHONE 612/546-2276 17 August 1976 Harlan Larson City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North "~_ New Hope~ Minnesota 55428 RE: Planned rezoning ' ©utlot 1, Allan Hills Addition. New Hope, Hennepin County, MN~? Dear Mr. Larson: During the past year I have had num~e..rous conversations and meetings with Barbara Sennis and Greg duMonceaux of-~'Midwest Planning, and as you may recall I met with you last month. A~ti' of these meetings were designed to determine the best use of the prop~rty. I enumerated many times the owner's willingness to cooperate in' _.a~y plan that the city determines is best for the area so long as such 'a pI~n does not have strong negative economic consequences. I noticed in the, letter of 12 Augus,~ ~1976 from the city of New Hope advising us of the public hearing tha~ the 3~' acres fronting on 62nd Avenue North is to be zoned down to.~n~ghborhood business. This would be a severe blow to the potentia~ _.development of the property. As I have said before, we are willing to r~zone the southerly five acres to multiple assuming that such a rezoni~g would allow approximately 16 units per acre. The northerly 3~ acres shdhld have your highest commercial designation. That does not necessarily mean that it will ultimately be developed that way, but that portion~J~should have the same potential for development as it does now. May I hear from you as s~on as poss£ble~ Sincerely yours, DERRICK LAND COMPANY - - --Roger D. Derrick ~' President LAND BROKERS RDD:jl :':"~': AND DEVELOPERS cc: Greg duMonceaux · COMMERCIAL Midwest Planning ?-~" m INDUSTRIAL ~ RESIDENTIAL \ - FARMS MAJESTIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP. 245 GREAT NECK ROAD GREAT NECK, NEw YORK 11021 516-466-31o0 212-895-7650 August 18, 1976 Mr. Harlyn G. Larson, City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, Minn. 55428 Re: Property of Gould Investors Trust currently used as Ponderosa Restaurant, located at 7112 Vass Lake Road,~, New Hope~, Minn. Gentlemen: We have received notice of the change in zoning from R~to B-3. Although B-3 suits our current operations very well, it is an artificially restrictive category with what appears to be unfairly limited use. It would appear that B-2 zoning would be a much more fair and reasonable zoning. I am not at all troubled about the next several years, but this highly restrictive use would probably prove to be most inappropriate several years in the future. Looking at this matter progressively, it ~,~uld appear that B-2 zoning is more appropriate and we would certainly appreciate your consideration of such zoning. I note that B-2 zoning does permit restaurants and as such would not be inconsistant with current use. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours, MAJESTIC PRORERTY MANAGEMENT CORP. Presideng JG/dlc KRkUS -ANDRRS0N, Inc. REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION August 18, 1976 Mr. Harlyn Larson City Manager 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 5S428 Dear Mr. Larson: I am in receipt of your new zoning classification list of permitted uses. I feel quite strongly that you should give additional consideration to your distribution of uses on Bi through B4. I think you will find in talking with most shopping center owners and developers that a great deal of flexibility is needed today to develop successful projects and I see no reason why any and all retail-oriented stores in business to sell specific goods and services can't fall under one classification. This should be with exception of large item sales, manufacturing, repair, etc., such as boats, motors, motor cycles, and public garages. Items of this type I would well realize the city should have some control over. I personally would suggest .and like to see possibly the same categories included,' but broken down where office buildings~ hotels, motels and the like fall under one category. Any retail-oriented manufacturing, repair, amusement rides, large item sales such as recreational vehiclesf boats, motors, etc., fall under another. Possibly some of these items should require a special use permit' at all times. I am sure that you and your staff have put a great deal of time into this study and it does become very difficult making suggestiv~ changes in a short letter. ~ would like and suggest that if you have any interest in my comments that we meet to discuss them and possibly a meeting with other shopping center owners and developers in your community prior to public hearing may be in order. As I look around at all the centers that we own and manage in the Twin City area, I currently have a substantial crossover of use in all class- ifications and not necessarily just in the larger centers, I am sure you realize that upon application for zoning, developers are not fully aware of all uses within a commercial development and would hope that Continued . 525 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55404 PHONE: 612 ~)32-7281 Mr. Harlyn Larson Page 2 August 18, 1976 you could well appreciate the difficulty and burden that would be placed on the developer and.tenant requiring him to come back to the city for a special use permit because of his type of business. Again, if I may be of any assistance, please feel free to call. Very respectfully yours, KRAUS-ANDERSQN, INC. Daniel . Enge.ls~a Vice-President DWE/bb PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 31, 1976 I. A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 31, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401X~lon Avenue North, City of New Hope, Minnesota. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Atchley(excused), Pakonen (excused), London,Gustafson Commissioner London arrived at 7:40 p.m. and Commissioner Gustafson arrived at 7:45 p.m. 3. Chairman Cameron gave some background on the study that the City had been conducting with the assis- tance of Midwest Planning and Research, for the past year, in an effort to update the 1960 Compre- hensive Plan. He noted that the City had been divided into 30 districts, and that the Commission had been conducting individual district meetings to'gain input from the citizens regarding the proposed zoning changes as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He added that Midwest Planning and Research had drawn up suggested development plans for the larger areas of undeveloped land remaining in the City. These had been drawn with the goalsffor the future of the City in mind. He emphasized that the illustrations were simply suggestions and concepts, not firm development proposals. Chairman Cameron further noted that District #13 and District #17 were to be reviewed at the present meeting and that the Commission would like to hear from the land owners first, and then from the citi- zens of the surrounding areas. He then turned the meeting over to M~. David Licht, President of Midwest Planning and Research. Mr. Licht noted that when the study was initiated a year ago, there had been a number of charges given to them by the City. These included a study of the undeveloped land in the City -- they had made recom~ mendations for this land, in the form of concepts only. The City Center was another major emphasis. They had also revised the Sign Ordinance and the.Zoning Ordinance, as well as drafting a new Sub-Divi- sion Ordinance and a Housing and Maintenance Code. Another concern had been the preservation and main- tenance of the quality of development that now exists in New Hope. The City had been divided into three categories: residential, commercial and industrial. The study had revealed that the City had a lack of mid-density housing which could shortly become a problem, inasmuch as much of New Hope had been developed at approximately the same time and would, therefore, age at the same time. This would in turn create a lack of. housing for the families of de- creasing size, as well as the young people starting out in homes of their own. As far as commercial, the City Center concept was recommended as an attempt to concentrate the cultural, governmental, and commercial activities in one area in an effort to give New Hope an identifiable down- town area. In the review of the industrial land, the Planners felt that New Hope had an overabundance of industrial land which had gone undeveloped for many years and they were recommending that some of this land be downzon~d, to provide for some mid-density housing. Mr. Licht used transparencies to illustrate the areas under discussion. District #13 is bordered by Winnetka, Boone, 49th and 46th and Rockford Roa~.~ The Planners recommend preventive maintenance for District #13, t~ protect the area from deterioration. District #17 - The Cit~ Center In referring to the City Center, Mr. Licht said they are not referring to only a commercial area, but to a mix of activities including retail and financial, and the municipal functions which presently exist. They are suggesting improvements to the municipal area, includ.ing handicapped facilities, additional landscaping and the upgrading of St. Jacobs Halt.~ Their suggestions.~Qr this general area are basically for an increase of the exist lng uses. They would hope also for coordinated signing and landscaping. Mr. Lic~'- restated that the Plan was a concept for .the area. Commissioner Christensen commented that the suggested development was the recommendation of the con- sultants at this point, and noted that the owners of the property had not been involved in the plann- ing stages. The Commission was conducting the public hearings to gain citizen input. Mr. ~nie Ode?~e, 8116 49th'Avenue North, stated he was a concerned taxpayer, and questioned how much the land for the City Center would cost, and who was to pay for it? He also asked what the density of traffic would be around his area, feeling that traffic was heavy enough now. Mr. Licht answered that the City was not involved in the purchase of any land. He stated that the land in the City Center area already existed, but that they were attempting to put together a concept for the area and encourage the landowners to develop their property in accoFdance with the City Center PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 31, 1976 3. concept to create a coordinate~.area. The traffic would be oriented toward 45th~ not through the resi- dential area on 46th. Mr. Ron Frame, 8501 -'~6th Avenue, asked whether they were recommending that the land ~outh of 46th be developed into a higher density commercial than presently existed? Mr. Licht noted that this land is now zoned commercial and a relatively high density. The B-4 would be a recognition of that. The concept would provide a connection between existing commercial development and future development to avoid the nee~ of getting into a car to go from one area to another within the City Center. Discussion between Mr. Frame and Mr. Licht about traffic patterns of people coming South on Winnetka from 49th and further North and the routes they might take to avoid the stop signs° Mr. Licht indicated his feeling that people would probably come To 42nd and into the shopping area from Boone because 49th with its many stop signs discouraged traffic from Winnetka to Boone. Mr. Frame indicated he felt that much of the traffic would drive down 46th Avenue. Mr. Licht stated that should the traffic become a nroblem there were means of solving the problems the planning effort was not a static one. Discussion followed about the solution to traffic problems in the area of the Target Store in Crystal, where some streets had been dead--ended To cut down on through traffic. Mr. Licht noted that most of the surrounding area to Target was zone~ commercial - even where tnere were residences, ana could at some future time be developed into.commercia uses~ Mr. Licht further noted that they had looked at the potential traffic patterns and were trying to facili~ tate it toward 45th and towar~ Xylon and Winnetka. Additional discussion on this issue. Chairman Cameron indicated that the Commission would review all input received from the citizens before making any recommendations regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. John Dean, 4556 Winnetka, asked whether a developer could come 'n and Buy three lots at 46th and Winnetka, tear the houses down and build apartments? Mr. Licht stated that the land was zonee SF and it wa s unlikely that this would nappen because the land woule first nave to be rezoned. Mr. David Micka, 8300 46th Avenue, stated there was a lot of traffic on 46th at the present time and he felt that the people from the North use 46th to come to the swimming pool and City Hall. The City Manager noted, in reference to the question from Mr. Dean, that ~ecause the area was zoned SF it did not mean that a developer could not come in and request a rezoning, but it was not an automatic thing° Mr. Doug Hebeisen, 8048 46th &venue, asked what was proposed for the vacant land across the street from his home and wha~ the present zoning was? The City Manager answered that it was presently zoned MR but there could no~ ~e more apartments placed on it because of the density of apartments already there. The City has an easement over the entire area for a ponding area which wil be i~nrove~ to handle the storm water. It will probably De upgrade~ when the new center comes in. It will not be developed for any more buildings. Mr. Frame asked whether in the development of the total concept for the area, any thought had been given to the potentia deterioration o~ apar~men~ complexes~ Did the Commission nave any plans to insure main~ ·enance of the existing complexes since to him it seemed ridiculous to upgrad? the current area if the apartments were allowed to deteriorate? Commissioner Gustafson, s~ated that at the conclusion of the last meeting of ~he Planning Commission. a proposed Maintenance an~ Occupancy Code had aeen sent forward for a ~ub ic aearing which would provide for an annual review of apartments and a Maintenance Code which woul~ require ~ainTenance of existing commercial and rental propermy in the City. In addition to that, it also proposes a "point of sale" insnection of private homes in an attempt to in- sure that a ~inimum standard would ~e adhered to in the City of New Hope. Commissioner Craigie noted that in writing the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the attempt had been made to insure that futuPe developmeHt woQld include owner~-type~home~, even in the mid-density townhouse area. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission was concerned with looking out for what they felt were the best interests of the City of New Hope. PLA'NNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - AUGUST 31, '1976 3. The City Manager noted that the. tentative da~e for the public hearing on the maintenance Code is the 19th, October.' Discussion between ~ Commissioners, Mr. Licht and the citizens regarding the traffic on 44th and their problems in exiting on to Winnetka. The citizens felt that they had problems now and with the addition of a stop sign on 45th, they would never get out. Mr. Licht indicated that perhaps synchronization of the stop lights would facilitate this problem and give them the break necessary to exit. Mr. Hebeisen stated that he understood that Nystrom Constructors had received an initial permit to build a major shopping center on 45th and he was wondered if, as a community commission, they were concerned about the fact that this center will include another major grocery store? He expressed concern about the possibility of three major grocery stores in the area and how they would all "live". He was also concerned about future vacant buildings, or the present shopping center losing its major tenants and the resulting deterioration of the area. Mr. Licht noted that a study had been conducted as part of the inventory work on land utilization to determine where the market might be. The City is not in the position of influencing whether or not a business wishes to go into an area. However, there has been a degree of coordination between the exist- ing center and the proposed new center. From the standpoint of competition in supermarkets, there is a varying degree -- a certain supermarket will cater to a certain clientel. Proximity does not neces- sarily indicate economic downfall, it depends upon what type of clientel they are trying to reach Red Owl will cater to one customer, K-Mart will cater to another and the new sgpermarket will cater to a different customer. Commissioner Christensen stated that there is a Design and Review Committee, as an associate to the Planning Commission, and one of the reasons for its existence is to have a potential developer come be- fore the Committee to discuss landscaping, general building layout, and also to inform the person of existing business in New Hope that he might wish to consider before deciding to locate in a specific area. Mr. Odette questioned whether the decisions reached on property would be determined by the Commission or Council or by a public referendum? Chairman Cameron noted that the public hearings would all be reviewed as to input and the Commissioners would then recommend action to the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Don Murphy, 7745 45½ Avenue North, wondered whether they had discouraged new owners from coming into the City? Chairman Cameron noted that the Comprehensive Plan discouraged developmen~of the shopping center type in areas other than the City Center. Mr. Murphy expressed concern that the existing centers would lose tenants and the City would be left with a shell containing nothing but a giant flea market. Commissioner Gustafson noted that at the present time the property owners have all of the rights of the broad class of their particular zoning. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, they were attempting to break down the zoning into more specifi'c classifications. In terms of the competition, Commissioner Gustafson noted that traffic generation was not necessarily a negative thing, but could be a positive influence. Mr. Jim Mathews, 4624 Virginia Avenue, questioned whether, when it. comes time for the new shopping center to move in, did the City have an ordinance to guarantee that the shopping center area parking lot would be kept up. He noted that presently there was stuff blowing all over the neighborhood from the present New Hope Shopping Center. Chairman Cameron noted that New Hope presently had one of the toughest ordinances around. There was no way that the City could guarantee there would be nothing blowing around. Mr. Mathews commented on the debris and glass that exists behind the hardwarestore and the grocery store in the present center. The City Manager noted, that there was a problem with the New Hope Center and that one solution~ is the development of a good strong, and prosperous center where the tenants insist the property be kept up. There are problems with absentee ownership and tenants who cannot afford expensive maintenance charges. Discussion followed about means to enforce proper maintenance. Mr. Licht noted that the proposed Maintenance Code would attempt to address this problem. The solution is good tenants with concern for the property. Mr. Murphy noted that one of his concerns was the shopping carts scattered up and down 46th Avenue and Winnetka Avenue. He noted that the police had told the Environmental Commission that they should put pressure on the people from the center. He noted that there were perhaps half a dozen carts in the pond at the present time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - AUGUST 31~ 1976 Chairman Cameron closed the public heari, ng. 4. Discussion was then held regarding the Housi. ng Policy Plan. Chairman Cameron questioned what specifically the Housing Policy Plan.committed ~he City to? Mr. Licht answered that the policies had been approved by the City Council. They set a direction for the City. The underlining philosophy is that at the present time New Hope does not have a major housing problem, but the first action should be to get the housing maintenance code i. nto action. This addresses the major problem of maintenance, which is the potential of a problem. The City does not have this problem today° Another phase, as the. planners see it, is for the neighborhoods, perhaps with some City assistance, to go out and get projects going to ensure maintenance. The group within the City to handle this, should be a Housing and Redevelopment Authority. This is the body of a City that should accept the responsibility of effecting this type of coordination. In answer to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Licht stated this was part of the overall Comprehensive Plan and that as part of the new mandatory planning legislation recently enacted,' the City must have this type of plan. Chairman Cameron asked for further questions and comments from the Commissioners° Commissioner Craigie questioned whether, in regard to the proposed rezoned land to provide additional housing choice, it could be the plan to negotiate with a developer through an HRA and through the use of a PUD? Mr. Licht noted that first the policy must be established, and then proceed with implementation. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Licht as to whether the Housing Policy Plan should have been the first consideration. Mr. Licht noted that the policy plan had been adopted on the 22nd, Marbh. The subsequent hearings had bee~ to gain citizen input about the proposals for the direction the City desires to go in the future. Additional discussion about the preliminary meetings up to the point of accepting the Comprehensive Plan and the very poor citizen participation that had resulted, even though individual notices had been mailed and announcements had appeared in the papers. The meetings had averaged 20 people per meeting. Mr. Licht expressed his feeling that on~ of the reasons for the greater citizen participation at this point, was because once a policy such as a new ~oni~g proposal is illustrated, as on a map, the citizens tend to feel that the proposal is now hard fact and react to it, not realizing it is merely concept° He added that at least, this finally created some citizen participation in the planning process. Mr. Licht noted that ~he Commission could now accept the plan, or recommend that changes be made, but they must first review the input and then in looking at the overall plan, and with the goals of the City in mind, determine how it will balance out. The City Manager stated, in answer to a question from Commissione~ Gusta~son~ that the Policy Plan had been adopted by the Council as aoworking policy. Commissioner Gustafson stated that merely because there had.been opposition~expressed to some of the Plan, it did not necessarily, alter o~e policy or one goal, or how the Plan 'should be finally implemented, otherwise a lot of time had been wasted. In his opinion, when the'Commission said "this was it", this was it. Discussion between Commissioners Christensen and Gustafson ~bout the established goals and poli~ies, their implementation, the citizen opposition to some of the.concepts and whether or not the public reac- tion should be interpreted as meaning that some of the policies and goals were wrong. Mr. Licht noted that the goals and policies can be applied. -He was not aware that anyone had actually attacked the goals and policies. Commissioner London disagreed. He stated that while people did not object to specific goals and poli- cies, they appear to object to these policies as applied to specific areas. Almost of all of them were very consistent in their feeling about including mid-density in their areas. ~hey want the neigh- borhood to maintain the same character as it now has. Additional discussion held about the citizen reaction to the concept plans and the goals and policies ~'~ for the City, the need to review these issues and perhaps re-assess the goals and policies. Mr. Licht indicated that he also felt that the goals and policies should be reassessed following the end of the public hearings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - AUGUST 31, 1976 4. Commissioner London made a motion to recommend that consideration of the Housing Action Plan be delayed until the conclusion of the public hearings on the Community Development Plan. Commissioner Crai~ie second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Pakenen Motion passed. Commissioner Gustafson stated he wished to make the point that the housing goals and policies should be reviewed prior to the final public hearing on the implementation of th~se goals and policies so that they could stand behind the policies and goals in whatever form they are approved. He added that the Commission must develop a set of goals and policies they they intend to adopt or when they are done, they will have no goals and policies. He added his opinion that sooner or later the Commission had to move from what the Consultant said, and the feedback from the community, into what they felt was the community direction. He felt this should be done before the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He felt it was important for the Commission to determine exactly where they stood in regard to the im- plementation of the goals and policies and the zoning before they could go along with the Comprehensive Plan. Additional discussion between the Commissioners regarding the policies, the proposed zoning alterations, the need for the Commission to take a stand on the Comprehensive Plan and the need to assess the citizen reaction. The fact that the citizens seem to want only signle family housing in their neighborhoods and whether or not some of the language of the goals and policies might be too strong for the present time was also covered. Commissioner Gustafson re-stated that he felt the Commission must agree that the goals and policies are the right thing and they they were going to stand 'by them, or implementation of the Comprehensive Plan would not be possible. Commissioner Bartos stated he felt that the Commission had wasted a lot of time and effort if- they did not take into consideration all that had been said. He felt the Commission was reaching the point where they must make a decision, even if they were not all popular decisions. The City must have a plan that can be implemented. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he had not objections To reassessing the goals and policies but he felt that before the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission should be in agreement with what the policies and goals are, that the City is going to be working toward. He added that he felt the Commission must decide whether or not they believe in the Comprehensive Plan. Concensus was that the meeting of the 21st September, should be spent on re-examining these goals and policies. 5. Review was then conducted of the proposed Sub-Division Ordinance. Chairman Cameron clarified that this was in effect a platting ordinance. Changes were recommended as follows= : . Page I -- Change to "county recorder'~ Eliminate the word annotated 4 -- Discussion of definition of word "outlet" Mr. Licht indicated research is currently b~ing conducted in this area 6 -- "A", paragraph #1 -- Addition - "officially submitted" 7 -- ,B" - Change from present requirement -- after approval of concept, "MUST" submit final plat within I00 days. "B-I" "ALWAYS" must submit a copy of the final plat for review by the Cemmission unless re.- quirement is waived by Commission "B-2" - Addition - "submit to the Planning Commission and City Council'"~ 8 -- Change -- to "recorder" Change -- "200' changed to I00' re remain consistent II -- "4D" -- Change - When developer owns land adjacent to a proposed development area, he MUST submit a sketch to the Commission illustrating coordination with the adjacent property.' 15 -- Addition -- "grade must be shown on final plat. Mr. Licht noted that he felt the discussion had centered on the proof being shown that the crown of the street was at least 18 inches below the garage floor -- demonstrated on the final plan. 16 -- "500' cul-du-sac" -- change from existing to guarantee that a cul-du-sac was very evidently a dead end street. Mr. Murphy noted that some cities have a maximum number of lots on a cul-du-sac. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - AUGUST 31, 1976 5. Page 17 ~- Discussion centered on "half streets" and whether a City should accept a "half street" ' 2 --Tbe City ~anager noted that at the present time, the City did not require any dedication of land from developers for parks. Commissioner Gustafson questioned who determined which 10% of the land was dedicated to the City? Mr. Licht noted that the City determines -- whether they want land or cash. Discussion held as to when this dedication would take place~ if such a requirement applied to a PUD - it did not; the fact that the land stil remaining in the City was generally pro- blem land; whether this applied only.to residential platting -- it did not; whether or not this could now be recuired when it had not been requirea of previous developers? and the need to treat alt in an equal manner regarding land decidation. The practicality of developing an area with a PUD for only 7 or 8 lots and the desirability of land dedication were also discussed. Commissioner London made a motion to eliminate Section 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance with subsequent sections To be numbered accordinqly. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor; London, Bartos, Christens~n, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson~ Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. Page 24 - "A-I" - Change - "meet alt ~equirements and certification by the treasurer" "A-2" - Change -" I/2 times the original cost" for bonding requirement 26 - "D" - Paragraph 6 - reworded to get around the requirement for a boulevard tree. Discussion followed about reauiring a boulevard tree, or option to require a tree without specifying placement, maintenance requirements involved. Concensus was to leave paragraph 6 as is. Commissioner London made a motion that a public hearing 0e held on the Subdivision Ordinance on the 19th of October~ 1976. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cra~gie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed. 6. Chairman Cameron referenced the review made by the Codes and Standards Committee and the subsequent com- mission discussion regarding the problem of encroachment on public property, i.e. boulevards, by private citizens. Commissioner Craigie noted he wished to make a statement because he had not attended that meeting. He felt that development on the boulevard, with the conditions as imposed by the City of Minneapolis,should be allowed. Minneapolis allows encroachment but requires a certificate of insurance so that any liability would be covered by the property owner. He added that he felt that to not allow any encroachment in New Hope would create a hardship for those people who have already developed to the boulevard, and that this gave people the full use of their lots. Discussion followed about the difficulties of enforcing such a requirement, the setting of the amount of insurance, the paper work that would be created, the means of conduc'ting a yearly inspection, and the danger that the insurance pa0ers would have To be filed with the City, creating more paper work. The fee involved in the 'nsurance requirement would also eliminate some people from developing. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommena to the City Council that a reasonable enforcement of the setback requ. irements~ that did not allow encroachment on the boulevards be mane. If special cir- cumstances require a variande of the setback requirements, then the norma variance procedures should be followed. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Craiqie made a motion to recommend that the ?ssue of encroachment on boulevards be referred back to the Codes and Standards Committee to draft an ordinance to allow prop.erty owners to encroach on boulevards with the requirement that there be a certificate of insurance, Second Dy Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Anderson expressed his concern with the problems that would be involved in enforcing re- moval of existing encroachments. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the term "reasonable" in his motion would al ow some latitude. He also noted that allowing the encueachment was a violation of the rights of the City property and that such encroachments were affected by the existing setback requirements. Discussion between the Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - AUGUST 31, 1976 6. Voting in favor: London, BartOs, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson Voting against: Gu~tafson, Gundershaug Absent: Atchley, Pakonen ~ Motion passed. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that the intent of the motion was that the Codes and Standards Committee go back and review this problem and draft an ordinance regarding encroachment on public property? Chairman Cameron confirmed this. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he wished to step down as Chairman of the Codes and Standards Com- mittee as of the present meeting. Chairman Cameron refused to accept his resignation. Chairman Cameron then appointed Commissioner Craigie, as Chairman of an ad hoc committee to study the problem of encroachment further. The City Manager noted that Mr. Licht would not be able to attend the meeting of September 21st, and questioned whether the Commission would lik~ to use that meeting to further review and prepare recommen- dations resulting from the public hearings that were nearing completion? Discussion followed about the procedures to be followed in accepting the Comprehensive Plan as presented or recommending changes in certain areas. The concensus was also that the Commission should agree and have a firm understanding of what the' Comprehensive Plan was recommending, before the issue was presented at a final public hearing. 7. The meeting was adjourned unanimously at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING COI~MISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7t 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 7, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:31 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Atchley, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Absent: Bartos (excused), Anderson (arrived at 7:.35 p.m.) 3. PLANNING CASE 76-54 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3~ 1976 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING~ SPECIAL USE P~RMIT YARIANCE~ CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT WINPARK DRIVE AND WINNETKA~ - PARK EDGE CONSTRUC- TION~ PETITIONER. _ ...... -- ~ - There was no one presen~ to represent the petitioner. Commissioner London made a ~otion to deny ..Pl~.nnin~ Case 76-54. Commissioner Atchley secona. Commissioner London noted for the record, that the reasons for denial inc.luded the fact that w~en the petitioners appeared at the Planning Commission meeting on August 3rd, following their appearance at the Design and Review Committee meeting, there were several areas of concer~ that the petitioners ap- parently did not see.fit to correcT. These included: retail sales, curb cuts, landscaping, ingress and egress, sign plan, exterior lighting, handicapped parking. He added that they apparently did not see fit to attend the present meeting either. Voting in favor: London, Atchtey, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-57 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 780 45~ AVENUE NORTH - RUSSELL TAFT, PETITIONER. Mr. Taft stated that he was requesting the variance to permit him to 'ncrease the size of his garage from 14' x 22' to 20' x 22'. This would involve a variance of 6". He also .i. ntends to build a patio door onto his house to allow for the future construction of a deck. In response to questions from Commission Gustafson, Mr. Taft indicated that the roof line would be the same as on the existing house,.and that he will use the same type an~ color of siding, He added that the only reason for the addition is the desire for a two car garage -- there were no commercial uses intended. In response to quest,~ons from-Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager stated that sideyard setbacks were to assure separation for fire protection and to allow-light into buildings and to provide access for emergency vehicles. The legal fire separation is now three feet. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Plannin~ Case 76-57 - Request for Variance at 7801 45~ Avenue~ subject to the continuation of the roof line on the existinfl garafl~ a~d the same. color and type of siding. Commissioner ~undershau~. second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-58 - REQUeST'FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 6000 QUEBEC AVENUE - ~AMES PETITIONER. Mr. Slais stated that he was requesting the variance to allow him to construct a garage in his backyara and use the existing ¢:riveway. He does not now have a garage and the proposed structure will ne 24' x 2~'. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Slais noted that he wished to position the gar- age to allow use of the existing driveway, and to save as much of the green area as possible. The City Manager confirmed,-in answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, that the two lots across 60th from Mr. Slais' lot were City owned and were used and must be maintained for a pending area -- they would never be built upon. Discussion centered on snow removal on that section of 60th Avenue, where the snow was piled; the plow- ing required if the exit were to be on. 6Oth. In answer to a question from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Slais stated tha? the garage would be used for car parking and storage only. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - SEPTEMBER 7~ 1976 5~.~Discussion centered then on alternatives for positioning the garage in the backyard, the problems of using the existing driveway, should the garage be repositioned, and the distance from the property line of the existing blacktop (7 feet). Commissioner Gustafson made a mo~ion to recommend approval of Planninq Case 76-58 - Request for Variance in Sideyard Setback of 13 feet aT 6000 Quebec Avenue. Commissioner Christensen second. Commissioner Gustafson stated he felt it important to record the reasons for granting the variance were to maintain as much of the yard as possible and to allow the use of the existing driveway. An additiona concern was that the denying of the variance might cause the City additional costs for snow plowing of 60th Avenue, should the entrance to the garage be from 60th. Additional discussion regarding the granting of a variance when such a large lot was available, and the type of siding and color to be on the garage. Voting in favor: Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafs~n, Gund~rshaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: London, Atchley Absent: Bartos Motion passed. Chairman Cameron suggested that Mr. Slais have .i. nformation regarding the type of siding and the color to be used to be included in his presentation before the Council on 9/t3/76. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-59 - REQUEST FOR V~RIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 8417 39th AVENUE - ROGER JOHNSONt PETITIONER. Mr. Johnson stated he was requesting the variance to enable him to enclose an existing porch at. the rear of his garage. There is a I2' x. 20' slab. He stated that it was his understanding that the setback on sideyards was five feet, but that his garage was located four feet from the lot tine. His neighbors home was ten feet from the line. He wishes to construct a permanent room on the slab and there will be no windows or doors toward the neighbor's home. Hi~s neighbor had written a letter stating he had no objections to the addition. The addition will also act as a screen for the neighbor's patio.. In answer to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Johnson stated that the siding would be the same as on the existing structure, that the footings were adequate to support the addition, an~ re-confirmed tn~T there would be'no winnows or doors facing West. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Planning Case 76-59 - Request for Variance in Sideyard Setback at 84t7 39th Avenue - To allow the enclosure of an existin§ .por.c~ sub,iect to there bein~ .no doors or windows on the West side. Commissioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen', Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain: Gus~afson Absent: Bartos Motion passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 76~60 - REQUEST FOR'VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 4509 OREGON AVENUE NORTH - MYRON MA~ENKE.t PETITIONER Mr. Malenke stated he was seeking the v~riance in order to provide access to a brick barbeque from his recently completed rear deck. The addition would encroach six feet into the sideyard setback. He already has the fireplace and pit in, due to the fact that he misunderstood the requirements before he built them. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Malenke stated he wished to extend the four feet on the other side of the fireplace to allow him to walk around the fireplace, all on one level. He has existing patio doors off the house on to the rea~deck. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Plannin~ Case 76-60 - Request for Variance in Sid~yard' Setback at 4509 Oreqon Avenue~ to within six feet of the lot line. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting i~ favor: London, Atchley, ~hristensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain: GustafSon Absent: Bartos Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES - 3 - SEPTFjvlBER 7, 1976 8. PLANN NG CASE 76-61 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM MR TO TR AT GETTYSBURG AND 40½ AVENUE - MARVIN GORDOn, PETITIONER. Mr. Gordon stated that the City Council had approved his preliminary plat for the adjacent property~ subject to his obtaining ±he down zoning for Outlet A. He was now requesting this down~oning so that he could proceed with the development of his plat. In answer to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Gordon stated that the access would be a turn- around road from Gettysburg. In answer to further questions, he stated that it was classified as a turn-around because it was a pr'rate road and not a cul-du-sac off a public road. He is anticipating constructing I0 units on the property. .... Commi~sione[ Lon0on reminded the Commission that Mr. Gordon was before them pursuant to an agreement reached with the Co~missioh and Cit~'Council~regardi~g the rezoni~g of Outlet A, along with ~he plat-- _ ting of the property to the North of Outlet A, earlier this year. Mr. Randy Schostag, 9309 40½ AVenue North, requested clarification regarding the downzoning of the property, and the fact that there was no plat presently under consideration. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the issue before the Commission was strictly a rezoning. Mr. Jere Gwin-Lenth, 9317 40½ Avenue, asked about the plat and when Mr. Gordon might request the platting. Mr. Gordon stated he already had a prospective plat, but he was not ready to start it this year. Mr. Gwin-Lenth asked how many SF units the property could accommodate? Mr. GOrdon answered 6 or 7. Mr. Gwin-Lenth stated he wished tc ~ake the point, for the record, tha~ ~ecause of the property in the area being primarily zoned SF, he felt it was a mistake to rezone Outlet A, anything but SF. He added that because The area hag developed solely as SF over the past years~ he felt that the change in charac- ter in the area would warrant a development now solely of SF residential. He further maintained that in view of the traffic problems, developing this property in any other way than SF residential would add an undue burden to the trafficsituation and present a clear and present danger to the health, safety and wetfare of the people in the entire area. He noted that the public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan for the people in his area had not as yet been held, and he re0uested that any action on changing the zoning on any development in the area be postponed until these hearings are held. Chairman Cameron stated he felt Mr. Gwin-Lenth should understand that Mr. Gordon was appearing before the Commission strictly at the request of the Council, as a condition of his previous plat approval. Commissioner Gustafson referenced Mr. Gwin-Lenth's statement about the change of character in the neigh- borhood and questioned how many single family residences had been developed in the area, other than as originally zoned? H~w much had actually changed from the original zoning? Mr. Gwin-Lenth answered that there was a difference between what was expected to occur and what had occurred -- there have been no single family residences that he knew of, constructed on MR property. He added that, in his opinion, the development that had occurred in the area was single family and not multiple -- this represented a change in character. lb answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen; Mr. Gwin~Lenth stated that he knew when he moved into the area that the land was zoned MR. Commiseioner Ch~istensen noted that according to that zoning, at any time someone could have come in and constructed apartments. He questioned why all of a sudden, rather than three or four years ago, they feel that the character of the area had changed. He added that in the downzoning, the Commission is saying, I0 instead of perhaps 33 units,could be constructed on the property. Mr. Gwin-Lenth ~oted that he had been in the area only a year, but he assumed that had Mr. Gordon come in earlier to build apartments, there would have been similar feeling in the neighborhood. The City Manager clarified that there was no plat approval involved, in the petition before the Commission. Mr. Dean Evans, 4108 Gettysburg, questioned Mr. Gordon's statement that he could build six or seven homes on the property. He stated that previously Mr. Gordon had said the lan~ was too poor for a road, how could he now construct that many homes? He felt there was probably room for no more than three homes.' Mr. Gordon commented that he had to have approval not only from the City, but from the adjoining property owner, to put a road across the property. Mr. Dean added that he felt a monster had been created since there was no way for the traffic to exit except on Gettysburg ~which was a traffic hazard now. He further stated he did not think it was fair to the residents who live on Gettysburg, nor was it safe for anyone. Mrs. Evans, 4108 Gettysburg, stated she wished to' second those feelings. She said Gettysburg seemed to PLANNI. NG COMMISSION MINUTES - 4- SEPTEMBER 7, 1976 8. be turning into a major artery. She added that she had been before the Traffic Commission requesting signs for the children and it seemed ~ike it hadn't done any good. -he children don't have a chance out in the street. Mr. Schostag, stated that as a resident of the 'area, he wished to go on record in favor of the down- zoning. However, because he was in favor of the downzoning, did not mean that he felt the downzoning should stop at this point. He further requested that the minutes of the Traffic Commission, the Plan- ning Commission and the City Council for the past three months De forwarded to the Hopewood Hills Home- owners Associationp c/o John Mozey, 40 ½ Avenue North. The City Manager, in answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, stated that even if Mr. Gordon were to get approval for the rezoning at this time, he would have to appear before the Design and Review Committee _ an~d Commi~ssion be~fore he could bui Id on the property. Chairm~n Cameron closed the public discussion on Case 76-61. Commissi..o~er Christensen stated that he felt it would be difficult to consider this rezoning request be- fore the hearings had been held in regard to the zoning changes in connection with the Comprehensive Plan. It was his opinion that this case should be tabled until after those hearings. Mr. Gordon noted that this rezoning was per the request Of the Council -- his plat had been approved subject to his applying for this rezoning. He cannot finalize his plat until Outlot A is rezoned. The Council is to consider his plat on 9/13/76. Discussion between the Commissioners regarding ~he rezoning, the public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan for this area, the fact that tabling this petition would delay Mr. Gordon!s plat finalization~ the problem that tabling would create in the ordering of the utility installation in the proposed plat; the need for ordering utilities before the good weather ends; the traffic situation in the area; the burden that was being placed on Mr. Gordon and the fact that Mro Gordon was acting in response to a re- quest from the Council-in requesting the rezoning. The City Manager commented that if the rezoning didn't get completed, the plat could not be fi led. The public hearing on the comprehensive plan for this area will be held on 9/14/76. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Goraon noted that a two-week tabte would hold him up. The ~o~d is drawn and the final plat is ready. The property is ready for utilities now, the City would hope to install them this fall. He requested that the Commission send his request forward to the Counci I. Commissioner Craigie noted that should the request for rezoning be denied, or if the recommendation is made to the Counci I to approve'the plat without Outlot A being rezoned, there would be nothing to prevent Mr. Gordon from devloping his property into apartments. The City Manager noted that if the Commission was talging about SF for Outlot A, the street would have to be extended around':'ther-e. For all practical purposes this would'be practically impossible unless the plat approved earl ier was to be rejected. Chairman Cameron noted that they had already el iminated any possibility of Joraan Avenue going through to 42nd. Further discussion between the Commissioners regarding the public hearing ~or this area in consideration of' the Comprehensive Plan in relation to the proposed zoning Change. Commissioner Craigie commented on the fact that this area had been discussed 4 or 5 times, including a special meeting. The Comprehe. nsive Plan recommendation is not feasible because there is no way the road can go through on Jordan. He felt Mr. Gordon had given a number of concessions, that the number of units to be developed on the ent.ire parcel had been drastically reduced. He added that he felt if it were to be postponed until after the public hearing on 9/14, it would only be fair to Mr. Gordon if his petition were considered as one of the first issues on the 21st, so that he cc~uld proceed to the Council. The Cha~'~man noted that they would take this issue up on the 21st, not wait until the whole process was ,~omp I eted. Mr. Gordon commented on the statements that Outlot A was not suitable for SF, but that they were still holding up tl~e decision, even though the Council had said he should do this. Wasn't the next suitable use townhouses? He did no~ know where it could go, other than townhouses? Chairman Cameron noted.that Mr. Gordon had done everything that had been asked of him. Further discussion followed about the time involved for utilities to be instal led on the property, ~nd the problems'of delaying the decision another two weeks. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - SEPTEMBER 7~ 1976 8. Commissioner London made a motion to table Case 76-61 for two weeksa to al ow input from the public hear- ing on the 14th SepTember~ re~ardin9 districts [8-19-20. Commissioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: LoDdon, Christensen, Craig ie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: Gustafson Abstain: Atchley Absent: Bartos Motion passed. 9. PLANNING CASE 76-62 - REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE RENTAL OF TRUCKS AT 6113 WEST BROADWAY~ ROBERT SY_VESTER~ PETITIONER. There was no one present regarding this request. Commissoner Gustafson tabled~Case 76-~2 unti-t the end of the meetin~- Commissioner C~ai~e seconhd. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion passed. I0. PLANNING CASE 76-63 - CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAl AND VARIANCES AT PENNSYLVANIA AND BASS LAKE ROAD - HESKIN AND ASSOCtATES~ PETITIONERS Mr. Heskin stated he was representing Taco Bell. They were proposing to remove the boarded up oil sta- tion from the site and construct a Taco Bell Restaurant. The building would be located in the Northwest corner of the lot to allow the maximum amount of parking. They require a rear yard variance from 35' to 20' to provrd~ the necessary parking. He added that at the Design and Review meeting, the suggestion had been made to move the structure far- ther forward. Mr. Neskin had checked again with the Chicago office, but it would be impossible to move it forward and have sufficient parking space. He stated that Mr. Murphy, of Hennepin County, had requested that they i.~crease the dri_veway to 26 feet. They are reducing the number of ~riveways to one on Pennsylvania an~ one on Bass Lake Road. They will both be located at least 75 feet from the corner. .... The building would be built out of slumpstone material, the trash enclosure would be 12' x 8' and also of the slumpstone material, combined with redwood. The original landscape plan had been felt to be in- adequate by the D and R committee. He has now had Mr. Samuelson do a total re-landscaping and they are adding a fence along Pennsylvania, three fee* high of redwood, with Japanese yew bushes to protect the residences from the lights but not obstruct visib'ility. In response to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Heskin stated that it was a company owned operation, that there would be a 40 seat dining room, two handicapped spaces would be provided and the~e will be 25 parking spaces with a sidewalk around the building. They plan to use live plantings and there will be exterior lighting around the building. The equipment on the roof will be screened. Deliveries should normally be between 8 and [I a.m. Approximate operating hours are II a.m. to II p.m. In answer to a question from Commissioner Atchley, Mr. Heskin stated ther~ would be a limited menu of 8-10 items, prepared for the customer as he waited~ not pre-assembled. They expect that 80% of their business will be sit-down business. In answer to questions from Commissioner Pakonen, Mr. Heskin stated there wou~d be a six foot redwood stockade fence, that the lights will be of a double headed mercury vapor type, aime~ at the parking lot. Should it prove to be necessary, they would shield them. In answer to questions fro~ the Chairman, Mr. Heskin stated he did not feel that odor control would be a problem. The hamburger will be fried perhaps three times a week with the remainder of the foo~ kept 'in cold storage. They must meet the State polution standards. They will have a stainless steel hood with grease filters and traps over the range and the fryers. In answer to questions from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Heskin said that signing was handled by a separate sign company but that the sign ordinance would be complied with. Mrs. Joyce Fish, 5608 Pennsylvania stated she would be looking out her picture window at the restaurant. She was concerned with the exits on Pennsylvania, the street was plenty busy now, with traffic from Crystal Towers. She stated that she had talked to the engineer at Crystal and he had talked with the attorney and tAey told her she could make up a petition and block off the exit from Pennsylvania. She added that a 3 1/2 foot fence was nothing and as far as smells, you can walk down Bass Lake Road and you can:_smell odors from all of the food places, so he (Mr. Heskin) couldn't say there would be no odor. She further stated that the traffic was already bad, would get worse and they would mainly get the young kid traffic whipping' down the street. P~ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - SEPTEMBER 7, 1976 10. Commissioner Christensen asked how they liked Io~king at the boarded up Mobil Station? Mrs. Fish noted that she did not like that either. Mr. Fish commented that they had also attended the meeting opposing the ugly station that was shoved down their throats. He added that it was a monument to greed, in his opinion. He asked what would block the lights from the cars at the exits on to Pennsylvani~ He questioned why that corner should be commercial since it degrades the whole block? The Chairman noted that they could not argue the zoning, because that has been there many years. Mr. Fish asked if they could close the exit on Pennsylvania. He did ~o? feel that corner was the place for a Ousiness -- he ¢idn~t want anything that would cause that much traffic. Mr~ George Humphrey,s5748 ~Pennsylvania~asked who th~street~belonged to? He~fhough~ it betonged~to -- Crystal. He then asked if Mr. Heskin had permission from the City of Crystal to exit on to Pennsylvania? The City Manager noted that the property had been zoned some commercial or another since 1954o Mrs. Delores Dunn, 5732 Pennsylvania, noted that the street was loaded with kids, and the traffic was a problem now. They do not need additional traffic,do not want to see anything going 'n that would create more traffic than they have now. Mrs. Sally McFarland, 57th and Pennsylvania, noted that the children throughout ±he area are walkers to Thorsen school, and they have the heaviest traffic on their streeT. She also was concerned about the three foot fence not doing any good, and the mess that would result in their yards as a result of a restaurant. It wit attract young people and they don't need any more young people. There is not a home on the block that wants the restaurant. Mr. Ronald Biskel, 5~33 Pennsylvania, stated that there already was a lot of church traffic and church parking on Pennsylvania and the restaurant would just add more traffic to a situation that is now in- tolerable. Mr. Jack Anderson, 5700 Pennsylvania, referred to the question of whether he liked looking at the boarded-up station, saying it was a lot quieter than a restaurant would be. He suggested New Hope tear ~-~ eown the station and build a $65,000 home on the property -- ~here would be their revenue. He asked if you could not go back down on commercial property and construct a home. Commissioner Gustafson answered that a p~ivate developer could come in and request a change in zoning to build a house, but there were rights built into the commercial property allowing it to be developed according to the existing zoning. He added that the only reasons, this issue was before the Commission was because of the request for a rear yard variance. Additional discussio~ regarding fhe traffic and the parking situation with the church. Mrs. Dorothy Gobalt, 5624 Pennsylvania, stated she did not believe there was enough space for parking on that lot. The Chairman noted that the parking provisions met the City's standards which were quite tough. Mr. Fish commented that the Commissioners, in their considerations, were not considering the neighborhood or what was good for the neighborhood. CommiSsioner Christensen restated that the land had been zoned commercial since 1954, that the owne~' also had rights for developing the land, and that the only reason for the appearance before the commission was because of the variance request. Mr. Heskin stated they did not wish to upset the residents and noted that all of the changes made in the. original plans had been at the request of the Design and Review Committee and the Commission in an attempt to give the residents more protection. If there were anything else they could do to'please the residents, other than moving out, they would do so. He added that they would do their best to con- trol the behavior of their customers. They only wished to be good neighbors. Additional discussion about operating hours. Mrs. Dunn asked whether Pennsylvania was a Crystal or New Hope road? Chairman Cameron noted that it was probably split down the middle, and if this was the case, the deci- ~ sion about the development would be New Hope's decision. A citizen asked why New Hope did' not know where their line was~ The Chairman stated they wanted to be sure they agreed with Crystal about the boundary ine. Mrs. Fish commented on the statement that the Commission would not allow the development unless ade- quate parking could be provided. She noted they had allowed Cavanagh Insurance to build, and they used both sides of the street for parking. PLANNING COMMI. SSION MINUTES - 7 - SEPTEMBER 7, 1976 I0. Mr. Biskel asked if the residents had any recourse regarding solving the traffic and parking problems on the street~ Chairman Cameron asked exactly what the traffic problem was on that street. Mr. Biskel stated that the street, especially on Saturday night for about I00 yards down from Bass Lake Road, had cars parking on both sides of the street, from the church and tha~ there was in effect only one way traffic -- if a car were leaving the street on to Bass Lake Road, another car could not enter. The discharge traffic from a restaurant would compound the problem, Discussion followed about the traffic situation, whether it is New Hope's or Crystal's problem~in regard to the church parking, the curb cuts and the parking on the street. The City Manager, in~response to a question from Commissioner Atchley~ noted that the only issue under consideration by the Commission was the 15' variance request. Discussion then centered on the fencing requirements, the advisability of requiring higher fencing and the affect on visibility problems that might cause additional hazards. Commissioner Christensen made a motion ?o recommend approval of Plannin~ Case 76-63 - Approval of Construction Plans and Variance in ~earyar~ Setback at Pennsylvania ana Bass Lake Road~ with the condi- tions that the fences~ as discussed by Mr. Heskin be included~ that there be one curb cum on Pennsytvanin and that ?he hours of operation be tl a.m. to tl p.m. Commissioner Craiqie second. Additiona discussion about hours of operation, re relation to other establishments in that area of Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Pakonen amended the motion to exclude the specific operating hours. Commissioner Gustaf- son second. Voting in favor: Atchley, Gustafson, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: London, Christensen,.Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Bartos Amendment failed. Voting on the original motion: Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion passed.' II. PLANNING CASE 76-64 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN FRONTYARD SE-TBACK AT 7319 62ND - IRVING ~ERM^N, PETITIONER. Mr. Irvin Efron represented Mr. Herman, stating he was his partner. He was asking approval for a variance for the placement of a storage shed that already existed. He stated he did not realize that a permit had been required to install a prefab hut. They had but-~ed it up to the trash area. He was asking permission to leave it where it was. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Efron stated the shed was used to store hoses, lawn mowers, repair equipment, etc. Mr. Reino Ahonen, 7325 62nd, Manager of the apartment complex stated the site was chosen because it was close to the existing trash enclosure. Mr. Efron noted that there were additional storage buildings that were the propertY Of so~ ~ the tenants. He added that there were three or four of them at present. They were used for overflow storage, bicycles, etc. Discussion between the Commissioners, Mr. Efron and Mr. Ahonen regarding the position of the shed and the fact that by moving it a few feet it would not have required a variance; the potential for every tenant to want his own storage shed and whether or not the s~orage shed in 'question might present a worse appearance in some other location on the site, and whether or not Mr. Efron would be willing to enclose the storage shed in the same materials as the storage enclosure. The City Manager noted that the apartment complex had been given permission about two years ago to posi- tion the trash enclosure in its location. Mr. John Traczyk, 7311 62nd, stated that he had called the City Hall when the shed was being put up. He had requested permission to install a shed in his front yard and was turned down. There are 6 stall sheds on the property now. Why should the apartment be allowed a shed, when he was not? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - SEPTEMBER 7, 1976 II. Mrs. Nielsen, 7315 62nd, stated she lived next to the apartments. She said she hag been requesting a ~-~ fence for I0 years. She questioned what the regulations were in regard to fences. .Every other apart- ment complex had a fence between the SF residences and the apartments. They have simply refused to do anything about it. The City Manager stated there was no legal requirement that there be a fence between apartments and single family residences. In response to further questioning by Mrs. Nielseh, he stated that the apartments with fences have usually gone in under a PUD, or because they have a parking lot with more than six cars within 30 feet of the houses~. Mrs. Nielsen expresse~ her concern over the children in her yard also, tramping her flowers and being in her driveway. She added that she felt it was up to the apartment owner to install a fence. The Chairman restated the fact that there was not much the City could do in requiring the apartments to install a fence. He noted that this was not the case before the Commission at the'present time° Mr. Ahonen stated that they were not aware of any ordinance at the time that they allowed additional sheds to be installed by tenants. He added that after receiving a citation for their shed, they were given the option of moving the shed or applying for a variance. This was the reason they were before the Commission. .Mr.-Traczyk noted there was plenty'of room in the back for the shed, it did not have to be in front. Mr. Efron stated that they did not own all of the property at the rear of the complex° The Chairman commented that all the City could say was, where they could not put the shed, not where they should put it. In answer to q eustion from Mr. Traczyk, the Chairman-noted that you could not position a shed closer than 30 feet from the front lot line, which in most private homes eliminated the possibility of a shed in the front yard° Mrs. Nielsen noted that the swing sets were also moving forward and she didn't like to listen to that noise either. If there were a board fence, there would be a sound barrier. Mr. Orin Gwin,stated he would also like to see. them put the storage shed and the garbage enclosure in the rear yard. Mr. Efron stated the front was the only place that the dumsters could reach, to collect the garbage. Mr. Ed Smith, 7203 62nd, stated 62nd was not the most beautiful street in the world and requested that they at least try to keep the front a little bit clean so that the neighborhood would look better. Commissioner Gustafson recommended approval of Planning Case 76-64~ Variance in Front yard Setback at 7319 62nd Avenue North~ subject to the repair of the existing fence aroune the trash enclosure and the addition of a like screening around the storage shed. Commissioner Anderson second. Further discussion regarding the need for some type of control regarding storage sheds and the number -So be allowed as well as the locations allowed, and whether the petitioner w~uld consider getting rid of the tenant sheds, a~ well as how necessary they really were. Mr. Ahonen stated that he hoped that the Commissioners could see an improvement in the complex since the present owners took over. He stated he wished that the neighbors would contact him if there were problems, before they contact the police. Commissioner Pakonen amended the motion to include that the number of storaqe sheds not be increased from what it now is~ and as tenants move out~ they wilt take the sheds with them and they will not be ~eplaced by new ones. Commissioner Crai~ie second. Voting on the amendment: Voting in favor: Atchley, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: London, Christensen, Cameron, Anderson Absent: Barto~ Amendmen~?p~ssed. Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: Atchley, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None. Absent: Barto$ Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - SEPTEMBER 7, 1976 12. PLANNING CASE ?6-65 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE N SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 4316 BOONE AVENUE - MILTON KOTTKF, PETITIONER. Mr. Kottke stated he was requesting a two foot. variance in the sideyard to allow him fo increase the width of his garage to 20 feet to give him a full double garage. In answer to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Kottke stated the garage addition would have the same roof line, siding and color as the existing garage. He added that he could not ex?end the garage ?o the rear because he already hag a patio in back. The garage will be used for the storage of automobiles and other storage. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Larson regarding the distances between the two houses, and whethe_r or. not there ~ere o~her_~wellings ~s close aR_these two., The suoject of_adequate_room~for em~er- - gency vehicles was also covered. The City Manager noted that the minimum fire code separation was three feet. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Planning Case 76-65 - Request for a Variance of Sideyard Setback at 4316 Boone Avenue~ sub.iect to the continuation of ?he roof line of the existin~ house and the sams color and texture on the addition~ as on the existing house. Commissioner Gustafso~ included the request that the petitioner attempt To minimize the roof overhanq on that side of the house to as little as possible. Comm'ssioner Gundershauq second. Commissioner Atchley commented that.he was not convinced that granting of this variances was in the best interests of the City of New Hope. Additional discussion regarding access between the houses in case of emergency. Voting in favor: Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafso~, Gundershaug, Pakonen. Voting against: London, Atchley, Anderson Absent: Bartos Motion passed. 13. PLANNING CASE 76-66 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE AT 3924 WISCONSIN AVENUE - WILLIAM AND GLORIA KOTZ, PETITIONERS. Mr. Kotz stated he would like to build an extension on to the back of his garage that would exceed the maximum square footage allowed by approximately 106 square feet. Th~ extension will be 20 feet wide by 18.3 feet deep. The extension will be straight back from the existing garage. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. <otz stated that the ridge of the existing garage runs horizontal to the street and the ridge of the addition would run perpendicular, but blend in. The siding would be the same. The puroose of the addition is to provide additional storage and work space. Mr. Kotz noted that he dabbled with restoring antique motorcycles. There would be no sales. He is a member of the AMC. Mr. Kotz stated he planned to open up a 4 or 6.foot door between the two units and that the addition will be heated. His present garage is heated and he intends to move the unit to the addition. He added that the work on the motorcycles was mechanical, ~ut not noisy. Comm'ssioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend appreval of Planning Case 76-66 - Request for Varianco in Garage §ize at 3924 Wisconsin Avenue~ sub,iect to the roof line beinq reasonably similar~ althouqh perpendicular to the house and being of a simitar siding ane color as the homn. Commissioner Crai~ie second. ' Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson. Voting against: None. Absent: Bartos Motion passed. 14. PLANNING CASE 76-67 - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AT PENNSYLVANIA AND THE SO0 LINE TRACKS - ROGER SCHERER, PETITIONER. Mr. Scherer stated he was proposing a plat of 18 lots for single family homes, with the road along the railroad tracks, using cul-du-sacs to provide a minimum of lots facing the tracks. In answer to questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Scherer stated that the lots all exceeded the mini- mum size standards. He stated that he would like to finish just half the road bordering Crystal but if necessary would install the entire road. He added that in regard to the landlocked piece of land to the West, he would be willing to give the City the easement to the property. The Manager noted that the easement would be across the Southern boundary of Lot 2, Block I. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -I0 - SEPTEMBER 7~ 1976 14. Discussion then held on "Soo Line Place" with the suggestion made by Commissioner London to increase the lot sizes by narrowing the street to 50 feet. The City Manager indicated that this would be feasible and desirable. Mr. $cherer stated that the plat would be sold to Diamond Construction, who has already approached mortgage companies regarding the property. He indicated that he felt the lots would be in the $12~000 range, in view of the high special assessments on the lots. ($7,613). Mr. Bob Collison stated that he lived in the last house on Pennsylvania. He expressed concern that there would be a lot of people ~e-selling their houses because of the noise from the railroad tracks. He also was concerned about additional traffic in the area. Mr. Richard Beckfeld, 7323 52nd Avenue North, was concerned about the high hill on the West portion of the property and the water that might run into their lots. Mr. Scherer noted that he rea ized that there were topography problems but that he felt the engineers an0 the road people could worry about them. He realized that there was an obligation to the neighbors to not oamage their property. Mr. Beckfeld also questioned the cost of the homes, inasmuch as the lots were to be so costly, how would they sell? Mr. Scherer noted that he had developed some houses in Golden Valley that had a worse land situation than this area, including railroad tracks. Mr. Buland Wiess, 5046 Oregon, asked what Mr. Scherer's intentions were regarding the trees on the property? Mr. Scherer stated that some of them would have to be removed but he would hope to save as many as possible. Mr. Glen W'icklund, commented on the dust from the concrete factory, stating this would not add to the feasibility of construction $70,000 homes. He was also concerned about the park at ~he end of Louisiana and the potential traffic making it difficult for small chi dren to cross the street. Mr. Fesner noted that if a road were put in, there was a park with a fence at the Louisiana exit, and the fence would be right at the road level. The Chairman Stated that the fence would probably have to be moved. Mr. Fesner then asked about the hill that~creates a sound barrier from the tracks, on the Eastern edge of the area and whether it would remain? The Chairman stated that the disposition of the hill would be at the recommendation of the engineers, depending upon what was necessary to get the water out. Mr. Leroy Loomer, 7113 52nd,commented on the high hill that butted his property. He was concerned about the results when part of the nilt was cut down to develop the property and how the remaining material would be held back. He felt they were creating a hardship for the property owners. Mrs. Betty Loomer asked if the Commissioners realized that her property went up to the top of the hill -- and wondered how this would be handled? The Chairman commented that'it would be handled some way - - that they would not be able to hurt her property. Commissoner Christensen commented that there was no simpler zoning than single family residential. He added that if they wanted to keep the buffer zone, they should buy the land from Mr. Scherer. Mr. Fesner asked whether once the land were platted and sold to a developer, could the developer change the layout of the plat? The Chairman stated they could not. Mr. Scherer was proceeding in the correct manner by platting the property and then selling it to a developer. Mr. Scherer asked if the citizens would rather have the land industrial? Concensus was they liked it the way it w~s -- undeveloped. Mr. Lloyd Johnson, 5231 Pennsylvania, asked Mr. Scherer if he had ever approached the New Hope City fathers about purchasing the land for park purposes. Mr. Scherer said he had not. PLANNING COFNISSION MINUTES - II - SEPTEMBER 7, 1976 14, The Chairman noted that this would not be feasible -- New Hope has about all the park land it needs. Hr. Fesler commented that there were many New Hope chilare~ using the Crystal Park. The Chairman commented that he was sure there were also many Crystal childre~ using New Hope parks -- the cities shared. Mrs. Agenes Duchay, 5212 Pennsylvania, asked if there was any other way to empty out the traffic than the two streets? Discussion betwee~ Mr. Scherer and Mrs. Duchay -- concensus was there was no other way to route the traffic that wa feasible. Ccmmissioner London recommended approval of Case 76-67 - Approval of the Preliminary Plat with two -modifications to the plat: t) that there would be an easement ~o the City ~f New'Hope over the ~ Southerly 18 feet of Block I~ Lot 2~ and 2) that Soo Line Place_Re decreased TO a 50 foot road from ~ 60 foot .[oad~ and Lots 6 and II given added depth and the others chanqed accordingly. Commissoner Craigie second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting.against: None Absent: Bartos Motion passed. .9. PLANNING CASE 76-62 was removed from the table. There was still no one representing the petitioner. Commissioner Craigie maae a motion to postpone discussion of Case 76-62 until the meetinq of October 5t 1976. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no committee reports. NEW BUSINESS 18.The Council Minutes of August 27, 1976 were reviewed. 19.The Commission Minutes of August I0, 17, 24, and 31st were approved as printed. 20. Commissioner Gustafson asked about the items of the zoning ordinance concerning explosives and whether they had been included. The City Manager stated that Mr, Licht was preparing a memo regarding this. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned Ahether or not the issue of storage sheds a± apartment complexes should be investigated? The Chairman suggested that at a future time, the City Manager could fill Mr. Gundershaug in on the history of storage sheds i.n.the City of New Hope. 22. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, e Boeddeker, Secretary.. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 I. A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the city Hall~ 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on Tuesday, September 14, 1976~ The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Gustafson at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Atchley, Gustafson, Anderson, Gundershaug Absent: Cameron (excused), Pakonen (excused), Craigie, Christensen Commissioner Craigie arrived at 7:33 p.m. and Commissioner Christensen arrived at 7:37 3. Chairman Gustafson stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission meeting was to review three dis- tricts -- #18, #19, #20. He stated that the City had ~een reviewing the.1960 C~prehensive Plan for the past year in an effort to update it. The City had received a grant from the Federal Government to allow them to obtain the services of Midwest Planning aha Research, ?o assist in this review~ Because the Comprehensive Plan, which had~been followed very closely by the City, was 16 years o1~ the determination had been made that a review of all of the open land remaining in the City would be appropriate, in order to determine if the developmen~ of the City had changed to such an extent that the land might ~e better zoned f~r differen~ types of use. Midwest Planning and Research had conducted this review and had come forth with a series of recommendations for changing land use in various areas of the City. Mr. David Licht, President of Midwest Planning and Research, then gave some background in terms of the research that had been conducted during the review process. He stated that one of the ma~or concerns had been to address the utilization of the remaining undeveloped 400 acres in the City. Another element had been the concern for a City Center. A third element naa been the preservation of the development ~hat exists today, ~articularly in the area of housing~ In March of 1976, a Policy Pla~ had been approved. Those policies set the direction of how the City would develop~ This was direction in the written sense° The Commission was now considering the mapping element. Mr. Licht noted that the numbering of the ~istricts had been arbitrary, but that in drawing t~e boundaries of the districts, they ~a~ attempted to define th~n by major street or pnysical ~ivisions or by neighborhood areas. Mr. Lich~ emphasized that the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for s~ecific areas of undeveloped land were simply concepts. In the area of housing they were recommending maintenance of what e~ists to~ay. They felt there was some concern regarding housing choice. He noted that there was a need for fami les of decreasing size to have housing available to them, without the necessity of moving out of ~ne City. There is also a lack of housing for the young beginning family. The Planners recommend that mid-density housing be provided, i.e. townhouses, condominums, etc. They recommend owner-occupiea housing not feder- ally subsidize~ housing. They fee that the City has an abundance of commercial property an~ recommena coordination of commercial activities. They have recommended three levels of commercial activity in the City -- the neighborhood center; the City Center as the major focus; and highway oriented commercial activity. The Planners also feel that the City is over committed to industrial land. They state that the land should be devoted to activities other than industrial development. They suggest further that the land to be developed as commercial should ~e oriente~ toward Highway #18. Mr. Licht inquired as to how many people were ~resent in regard ~o District #18 (the majority of the audience); District #19 (none); and District #20 (one). Because of the distribution o~ citizens con- cerned with these districts, it was decided to accept citizen comment in reverse oraer. ~r. Licht then reviewed the districts. District ~18 This is predominantly single family, goo~ quality housing. Recommendation is for maintenance and pre- servation, perhaps controlled on a neighborhood basis. There is commercial develo~menm in the Southwest ~uadrant (Poste Haste Center). They recommend that the center be zoned B-2 (Neighborhood Center) under a direcm transfer. In regard to the vacant land in this district the Planners had been influenced by three factors: I)what the private marke~ dement was? 2) whaf would be the bes~ tax return to the City: 3) and use compati- bility. He noted that the development proposals were "conceot" not hard line drawings. There are 'two major areas of undeveloped land in this district ~- for the area at 42nd and #18 they were suggesting a single family buffer toward the South, with mid-density going N~rth and at the middle of the site (owner occupied townhouses) with high density toward the Northern portion of the site. He noted there had been no acceptance of this by the Commission, The other, undeveloped parcel is at 42nd/Boone. For this area they recommend mid-density townhouses to accommodate the poor soil on the site. They recommend clustering of the townhouses because the pending area must be maintained. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 3. District #20 This is primarily single family with some commercial in the Southeast corner, it also abuts Crystal. They recommend some pathway easements to gain ~ccess to the parks. There are no other recommendations other than maintenance and preservation of the housing stock. Chai~ma~ Gustafso~ reminded the citizens that at the present time, the Commission was considering the recommendations of the Planners. The purpose of the public hearing was to allow the citizens an oppor- tunity to express their views. ~e also pointed out tha~ the owners of the property being considered for rezoning had certain rights regarding development of that property as allowed under the current zoning. He then requested that the owners of the parcels where a zoning change is proposed soeak first. When they finished the general Rub ic would have a chance to speak. He further requested that all of those people desiring to address the Commission, come forwar~ and identify them§elves by name and address for the record. District #20 Mrs. Brenda Clark, 7909 37th Avenue, sta'ted she and her neighbors were concerned about what type of buildi, ng was planned for the site next to the radio station? Mr. Licht stated he had no idea of any specifc proposal was pending. The City Manager stated there were no proposals before the Planning Commission and haven't been for many years. The zoning is such that it would permit small offices, mortuary, animal clinic, multiple resi- dential. Mrs. Clark noted that she and her neighbors were concerned about the possibility of an apartment building coming in. The City Manager stated it was a permitted use, but that if anyone did come in with such a proposal, they would appear before the Commissio~ and that the adjacent property~owners would be notified. District #19 There was no one present. District #18 Mr. David Reimer stated he was one of the owners of the Poste Haste Shopping Center at 36th/#18. He was concerned a0ou~ The propose¢ B-2 zoning and how this might affect their center. He stated that they presently nave five tenants that would be c assified under the conditional use zoning in the new ordi- nance and he was concerned with what would happen to them. Mr. Licht noted that the uses would be grandfathered in. The right would remain, that ah existing use could be replaced with a "like" use and that a prospective tenant in the conditional use category would need to appear before the Commission. If they were to negotiate with a B-4 tenant for the B-2 center, a rezoni, ng would neee to ~e requested. Mr. Reimer stated that they did not object too strenuous y to the B-2 zoning because it really coveree the purpose of the center. He referred to the difficulties experienced with management of the center, and their efforts to upgrade it. He expressed the concer~ that an% more restrictive limitations than presently in force would ham0er their efforts to obtain desirable tenants, i.e. toy store or clothing store, an~ ultimately ~ecrease the value of the center. Mr. Peter Hitch, 9400 Cedar Avenue South, noted that he was also involved as an owner of Poste Haste. He noted that while they ~o no~ anticipate the uses typically permitted u~er a B-4, they were concerned with 10-15 years from now whe~ the cen~er might be sold, that an investor might ook very negatively upon the zoning. He added that in discussions with ~ealtors, the feeling had bee~ ~hat the downzoning would have a negative effect. Commissioner Craigie asked whether there was a square footage maximum that, for example, a toy store would need to move into the Poste Haste Shopping Center. Mr. Reimer answered that because of the size of the bays, a toy store going into Poste Haste would be small. He added that he felt their center would appeal to the boutique type of store. They will ob- viously be looking for tenants that could· use smaller bays, such as paint stores, home furnishing, etc. It is the value concept that concerns them in regard to a change in zoning. Commissioner Christensen asked whether Mr. Licht was suggesting that Poste Haste be downzoned? Mr. Licht responded "no". Commissioner Christensen then asked which specific business permitted under the R-4 classification Mr. Reimer was interested in having included as conditional uses under the B-2. ~r. Reimer listed: antique shops, coin and philatelic, copy and printing of the insty print type, clothes rental~ leather goods, jewelry and weari~ng apparel. Mr. Reimer commented that B-2 was pretty much of a parallel zone to RB, but there were some additional PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 ~ SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 3. restrictions included that he would consider a type of downzoning from what they now have. Mr. Licht answered that it was not necessarily a down zoning to change from a permitted use to a condi- tional use, you are merely imposing more restri'ctions. If you meet those restrictions, however, you are entitled to the activity. The purpose of the Commission and Council is to make sure that you meet those conditions. The attempt had been made to be as objective as possible in the categories. Mr. Reimer noted~that they were not requesting more zoning than they presently had. They have no inten- tion of seeking high intensity uses, but desire to include desirable uses in the center. He added that he felt some of the permitted uses in a B-4 would fit into their center. Mr. Licht suggested the option of going into a PUD District, which would open it up to a.l~most any use, subject to the review of the Commission. Mr. Jerry Harrington, 7400 ~42nd Avenue, stated that since his last meeting with the Commission regard- ing the four parcels at 42nd/#18, he had executed a purchase agreement with Mr. Carpenter and had v verbal agreement with Mr. Collier. These are the two parcels on 42nd Avenue and Gettysburg. They have also reached a tentative agreement with Mr. Gordon, subject to the downzoning from MR to TR on his pro- ' perty. This will put the entire corner under one owner. He proposes to bring in a high densi~ty develop- ment at the North, with Iow rise. toward the South. The property that they hope to acquire from Mr. Gordon will either be built as townhouses or left as open space. He stated that the~ are against downzoning. The present zoning permits 18 units to an acre and if they just trade from MR to R-4, it would be twelve or more, rather than from MR to R-3. Under the R-3 zoning they would not be adverse to having an HRA set up within the C~ity and having the difference between the new zoning and the existing zoning reimbursed to them in cash. This would reimburse for the years of paying taxes on the higher density. As soon as the two pieces are under purchase agreement, he intends ire come before the Commission with a proposal for the entire parcel. Mr. Charles Collier, 3215 Harbor Lane, asked whether they would be left landlocked on their parcel, if they did not sell to Mr. Harrington. Tl~e City Manager stated that the City had no intention at the present time of condemning any land to -provide road right-of-way. As far as the land that had been cut off by the highway, those owners had al ready been compensated. Mr. Collier noted that only the front parcels had received payment~ the back oarcel had not. He was con- cerned with being landlocked if the parcels were developed separately. Commissioner London noted that the new Subdivision Ordinance requires that when a development proposal is presented, a developer must indicate how the surrounding land will fit into the development. Mr. Licht stated that if the land was not already sub,divi~led, this would not be true. Mr. Licht added that the proper place for determining access was when the land was subdivided into the existing parcels. One potential Mr. Col lier~has, is if the land were to come before the Commission for a rezon ing. Mr. Licht informed Mr. Collier that LB, which his property was zoned, would allow apartments. There would be no rezoning required. Mr. Marvin Gordon, noted that he~ has received approval for a preliminary plat with the understanding that his remaining two acres, adjacent to Mr. Harrington's property, be rezoned for townh6uses. He has a pe- tition pending on this. Mr. Jere Gwin-Lenth, 9217 40½ Avenue, stated that after having attended several meetings arguing in favor of the lowest density development for the area, he was somewhat in a state of shell shock to hear someone propose an R-4 development for even a portion of that area. He asked how many total units the undeveloped land would contain if'the present zoning were maintained? He then asked if there were any City standards designating "high rise" and "low rise"? Were there any limitations? Mr. Licht noted that a Iow' rise would be a three story apartment as suggested here. HE added that what had been proposed by Mr. Harrington for high rise was housing for the elderly -- this would not be auto- matic but would'be a conditional use. The only maximum height under a conditional use would be what the site could sustain. Mr. Gwin-Lenth then stated there was a very bad traffic problem on Gettysburg and on 40½. This problem will be increased somewhat by the addition of 15 more units in Mr. Gordon's proposed plat. It Was diffi- cult for him to assess what the affect of apartments would be without know the exact number of units involved, b~t the affect would be negative. The problem was serious now~ as these streets are not arterial streets. Traffic normally does not go to 42nd, but comes down Gettysburg to 40½ and up Jordan. He added that he seriously doubted that the streets as they now exist could support any more traffic. He stated that he realized they could not deny reasonable development to the owners of the property, but in view of the way that the paroperty had developed over the years, i.e. single family residential, that any development other than single family residential would present a clear and present danger to the health~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTBS - 4 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 ~ 3. safety and welfare of the citizens of the area. He added that he felt the Commission would be remiss if it permitted any development of the intensity as proposed by Mr. Harrington. He added that he would not complain too much if they put tow~houses up on the top of the hill, if there were enough single family residences between, but to allow the zoning to go as is, or increase the allowable use as proposed by Mr. Harrington, would be totally untenable and unfeasible considering the existing land use of the area. Chairman. Gustafson s~ated'that at the present meeting there was' going to be no approval or disapproval of any item -- it was an open public hearing being held to gain citizen input only. He added that the R-4 zoning, as a result of a direct transfer, did exist at the present time. They were not introducing any new zoning to this property° It would be the land owner using the property as currently zoned. Mr. Gwin-Lenth stated he had not been clear on that fact. His comments on feasibility, however, he felt were still valid. Mr. Charles Dillerud, 4148 Gettysburg, stated that he was a city planner in another city. He stated that since they were dealing with a new Comprehensive Plan and a new Zoning Ordinance New Hope was in fact starting with a clean slate. He added that a Comprehensive Plan must be the basis for a zon- ing ordinance but that the zoning ordinance was not an end unto itself, but a toot to implement the plan. The capabilities of the community facilities to absorb the land uses that may or may not go on any property, i.e. public utilities, water and sewer. With respect to the land at 42nd/Gettysburg, he questioned why they now have an R~4 on'a portion, LB on another portion and parcels cut off from access. He stated that as he perceived the situation as a citizen, he felt that much of the Comprehensive Plan had been based on an intersection system at 42nd/#18 that was very different from presently existed. Basically there was substantial access for the entire area when #18 was a two lane road. He questioned whether the decision to go to a full cloverleaf at that intersection did not have a substantial beating on what the comprehensive plan sce- nario should be, regarding this area? He requested that they should just consider the traffic pattern. He questioned whether or not the 1960 Comprehensive Plan had contemplated single family homes along Gettysburg and 40½, or had 40½ even been considered in the alignment that it now has? .~. He then questioned whether the R-3 zoning, or mid-density, was in fact appropriate. He maintained that a rather substantial change in land use i~ad Occurred since the initial zoning. He felt the use was so substantial that a change in zoning was dictated. He further suggested that unless it could be proven that 42nd/Gettysburg could function under an R-3 zoning, he felt that an R-3 was overkill. He hoped that the Commission'was not resting too much on the rights of the property owners of theSe vacant parcels. He asked where those rights had come from in the first place? They came from the City and were based on a Comprehensive Plan. He questioned ifthere was a new Comprehensive Plan, based on a different set of reasoning, what would happen to those property rights in the opinion of an attorney? Mr. Dillerud further stated that should the recommendations of Midwest Planning be accepted by the Commission regarding land use, he felt the ~ommission should realize that the plan be- fore them was not cast in concrete, but was merely symbolic of the type of development theY would like to see on the parcel -- mid-density housing and an R-3 zone. He added that the Midwest recommendation was based on Gettysburg functioning as a collector. He noted that he had suggested previously that perhaps another approach to Gettysburg was possible. He illustrated his approach on the map. Mr. Dillerud then referred to a pPactice proposed by some planners to have developers endeavor to provide a transitional development on their own property. He noted there was no transitional zone at the North end of this property. He then referred to a suggestion made previously that the area could be developed under PUD. He stated there were advantages to both the City and the developer in going PUD. He suggested thgt in some way the Commission guarantee a buffer between the single family by spec!fying an R-I zoning along Gettys- burg in one tier and placing the other units on the balance of the property, -- the key being transition. He added that "they"are there now, is it fair for to be confronted by these plans? He stated that the one solution would be to redesign the North end of Gettysburg. He added that there had been no guaran- tees in the past to an owner -- development is a business like any other -' there is no guarantee of profit. Zoning is given based on a plan and can be amended based on a plan. He then questioned even considering PUD on this property feeling it should be limited to R-3. Mr. Licht asked to clarify a number of points. He noted that the North end of the property was zoned LB which does allow some commercial activity as well as apartments. The MR zone allows multiples. The concept which had been put forth to the Plahning Commission suggested direct zoning. Using a trans- parency illustrating R-3 development he noted that Mid density is basically 6 to 10 units per acre, while the existing zoning would be 15 plus. They are suggesting a reduction in density. The use of a PUD would allow the balancing of the density from one portion of the site to another in an attempt to minimize the impact. He further emphasized they were dealing with a concept, not a hard line. He added that the Commission could impose a PUD District in total. This was built into the ordinance. The City has that option. He noted that the traffic situation had been looked at in terms of their PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 3. proposal. He commented on the fact that this was the seventh meeting the Commission had held, and the issue was not finalized. There had been substantial inpdt and that from her on, the Commission had to consider the City as a total and evaluate the ~nput, which had been diverse. The whole point of the hearings had been to gain input. Policy decisions must now be made in terms of the land use. The point he tried to make was that all concerns would be looked at by ?he Commissioners before the process was completed. Mr~ Mike Malik. 9101 404 Avenue, stated he had been a resident of the area for about 7 years and had been a spokesman for the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Association and was a member of the Traffic Commis- sion for the City. He added that the homeowners group had been started because of the problems they foresaw in this area, primarily about the time of the #18 development. He noted that 40½ and Jordan are the primary roads around Northwood Lake. There is a considerable amount of pedestrian and bike traffic on the streets and the traffic problem is their basic concern. It is heavy now and wi I be heavier no matter what type of. development goes on the and. The higher the density, Tne higher the traffic and the more safety factors involved. Gettysburg and 40½ are both bus routes resulting in more children in the morning and late afternoon hours on the streets. He aoted also the potential fire and safety problems that could result in high deveto0ment for the area. He stated his feeling that the intersection at 42nd and Gettys~ burg was not a safe intersection. Mr. Malik commented that in his opinion, considering the minimum~number of roads in the area, the only thing they could foresee would be a complete downzoning to a single family type of development. The more traffic, the harder it was go'ng to be for everyone to get in and out. He added that "we are the community" just by the nature of having peen there the longest and what was best for the "community: had to be determined. Mr. Licht requested permission to comment, He stated that one of the things suggested to the City was the creation of a housing authority to be concerned with the Housing Plan. He felt that another thing to be considered was "land right". What had to be looked at also was the long run cost, and the philosophy of the City. Mr. Bob Guerin, 4140 Ensign Avenue, stated he was concerned with the eeve opment proposed for 42nd/Boone. He questioned now close townhouses could come to their property? Mr, Licht noted that they were suggesting PUD in terms of clustering. It could potentially be as high as 70, but if developed uneer a PUD there were controls. In al owing clustering, there was usually a trade off, in which the City could request a lesser density. In response to another question from Mr. Guerin regarding the aossible price range, Mr. Licht stated that the City was not getting into ~ subsidized type of unit, or in controlling the market. The City does not dictate to an individual what he must develop -- it would be a market determination. He suggested that "for sale" units might have a price range of $45-50,000. He added that he was not aware of any developer currently interested in that area. Mr. Bill Mulligan, 8832 41st Avenue, expressed interest in the same plot of land. He asked whether if the property were to be rezoned, there would be notice given to the neighborhood? Mr. Licht stated that if a rezoning were proposed, everyone within 350'had to be notified, as required by State law. Mr. Mulligan asked if there were any adjustments made in regard to land use because of topographical conditions? Mr. Licht noted there was a density trade -- the overal density was not changed but it could be more con- centrated. The idea, in concentrating densities, is to obtain the utilization in terms of open recrea- tion space with the units at the other end. Mr. Randy Schostag, 9309 40½ Avenue, pointed out that at the first public hearing held on the Comprehen- sive Plan, the Commission had mentioned the lack of public interest in the Plan. He stated that he felt it had been demonstrated at the present meeting what the community input was in District #18. He re- quested that the people from District #18 raise their hands (perhaps 40-50 people). In regard to single family homes on the Marv Gordon property as proposed by Midwest Planning, he asked how many were willing to adopt this plan (perhaps 25 hands). He then stated that he felt Mr. Licht had done an excellent job in terms of the concepts that he had ori- ginally outlined. He added that the study had stressed land use compatibility as well as traffic. He stated that he felt his neighbors had stressed both of those aspects --- feeling they had been sufficiently concerned to show that the City possibly had legal justification toward giving serious consideration to total downzoning of the entire site to single family. At the very least, he felt ~hey should consider that that they probably had legal justification to adopt ~he plan as recommended by Midwest Planning. He said the the neighbors were willing to g~ along with Mr. Licht's plan as it applied to the Southern portion of the site with a road extending Jordan all the way to Gettysburg. Unlike most of his neighbors, he did not believe that the Mary Gordon plat had been finally approved -- that there was one more step to go. This plat does not meet the criteria because it involves multiple family dwellings. Outlot A, in fact, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1~76 3, totally violates it by suggesting townhouses. Mr. Schostag further suggested that what the neighbors had said, that essentially the ideas may look very gooa on paper, was that they had already seen this paper 'llustration violated. They have seen a conceptual drawing, and if they are wil lng to take these concepts, that if this was a pub ic hearing ~hey ~ould like to not only be heard from, but woule like mo hear from the Commission what tools they would use in adopting or sticking to, whatever proposal, or picture, policy or concept they attempt to propose to us. He noted that Mr. Mozey had previously submitted a number of plans regarding the area which embraced not only the concept of the type of desirable housing but the types of desirable streets. The traffic is one of the major considerations of the area and the Planning Commission must also poten- tially address itself to that, before any further ~ats are approved, or before any further rezoning or development is approved. Mr. Dean Evans, 4108 Gettysburg, stated that he had been before the Commission in the past. He refer- enced the cul-eu-sac, that the residents had felt should be a through street, limiting any access to the North. He thought that this was the time for serious consideration to be given to downgrading the entire property to R-I. That is the only suitable and acceptable plan To the residents of the area. Ne noted that qe felt that severa mistakes had been made on this entire plot of land. He does not feel they are eliminating the pro01em but are merely postponing it. He further stated that the traffic on Gettysburg at the present time is unbearable, but they now propose having at leas~ three more streets f~eding onto Gettysburg. He does not understand their logic and thinking ~with such planning. Mr. Cecil Pettigrove, 4116 Gettysburg, stated he felt it shoul'd be obvious to the Commission what the ne'ghborhood felt should happen in the area -- he wondered whether there was any sense in their being there, 's real consideration going to be taken of their feeling~? Chairman Gustafson stated he could only answer for himself. The public hearing was an opportunity for new ideas and thoughts to be presented to ~he Planning Commission, in terms of how the site could best benefit the total City of New Hope and that minds have no~ peen made up as yet, in terms of these questions. He added that the conce0t relates to "if the zoning is that", the kind of development could go on the pro- perty. The road ayou~ and proposed development a~e just concepts as i lustrated by the Plan. Commissioner Christensen stated that in reference to "citizens of New Hope" the Commissioners were also "citizens of New Hope", wno have volunteered their time to try and make ~ne City as good as they ~hink it could be. From the point of view of the Commission, he felt no one had made their mind u~ a~ this point -- Mr. Licht had been hired as a consultant and these were ~is recommendations. He noted 'n con- clusion ~hat, in his personal view, f~e ~ishoJ to compliment District #1C, for the input presented at mne meeting, 'n an adult-like manner. Mr. Bill Guernsey, 4133 Ensign Avenue, stated that his ho~e was right in the middle of the mwo projects and Ensign had been proposed as the only street to get a stop sign should the area develop nigh intensity. He stated his feeling that this was now a landlocked area that would not al ow any heavier density than R-I because of the traffic. No one was looking forward Yo more traffic. He, therefore, urgea the Com- mission to sto~ dilly dallying. This was the time to ma~e a step,even if it cosms a law suit, an~ zone it R-I, keeping it residential. Any zoning above R-I is going mo hurt everyone. He felt the gentleme~ who are the property owners of tne undeveloped and would stand to lose a lot ess than the property owners if the land were rezonea. He requested that the Commissioners think about now they would like the traffic to go through their neighborhood. Zone it R-I and they will thank them forever. Mr. Di lerud noted that ne wished the record to be complete. 'He questioned the City mandating a PUD District. He asked tne following questions be considered. I) Under the R-3 zoning, is it true there could be "x" number of 11 unit apartment buildings on that portion of the lan~ without any more puolic hearings? 2) He hoped that the Commission, in adopting any of the ideas presented in regard to the property, be cautious ana not ~o it because the neighbors wanm something, but because im was good planning. 3) Have you considered, or would you consider, the conce0t of officially mapping a street right or way. He requested their support of the contention that there have been oodles of changes in conditions, that they do not have a collector street that serves the area directly, and no access from #18 and 42nd in considering the zoning. Mr. Licht noted that an R-3 zoning does not necessarily ~andate ~he PUD. They have, however, introduced into the ordinance another option, a PUD district. He said an R-3 zoning could result in II-unit build- ings over the site. He further stated that official mapping was one way to go. This involved the City providing that a right of way aad to be arovided, even if there was no subdivision. Mr. Malik requested that the spokesman for the Commission advise the people what their 'nput would be, before it goss to the Council. Does ~he Commission nave the power to judge such things as zoning? Chairman Gustafson noted that as the Planning Commission they were the investigators of the consultant's recommendation. They, in essence, wil recommend to the Council what the Commission feels is best for all of the districts, me added that the foremat for the fina hearings haa not as yet been determined. He supposed there would be a discussion, by districfs, of the recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 3. Commissioner Craigie noted that the public hearings ha~ been held to gain input from the citizens re- garding the Planner's recommendation. Then, thoe Commission will make their deliberations and will make their recommendations as what they~ as a group, feel is best. There is a lot of the process involved before they. come to any decisions. Commissioner Bartos commented that the input from alt of the meetings would be considered before the Commission made any decisions. Mr. Dean stated he felt that it should be brought up that one week from the present meeting, the Commis- sion was going to be deciding whether or not Outlot A was going to be downzoned to R-3. If that is zoned R-3, Mr. Gordon proposes to sell the property to another developer who intends to put ten condo miniums on the property. He thought the audience should be aware of the meeting on the 21st, that it will have a great deal to do with what Midwest Planning wants to do to the community. Chairman Gustafson stated it was not what Midwest Planning wanted to do to the property, but what the Commission recommends to the Council in terms of the balance of ~he property. Discussion between Mr. Dean and Chairman Gustafson. Chairman Gustafson noted that the reason for delaying the d~scussion on Outlot A, had been to allow the neighborhood the opportunity to attend the public hearing on the entire property. Mr. Dean requested that all of the residents attend the meeting on the 21st, when Outlot was discussed. Mr. Don Murphy questioned whether the meeting on the 21st, would be a public meeting or a public hearing? Commissioner Craigie noted that it would be a public meeting. The input had already been gained through a great volume of testimony from the neighborhood. This does not mean that~if there is new information it would not be allowed to be presented. Commissioner London stated it was his understanding that the matter had been tabl~ed to allow the citizens an opportunity to give their input regarding the proposal for the entire property. The discussions from .this meeting would be considered also. All information has been taken in the two meetings. Chairman Gustafson noted that the actual motion recommended tabling to allow input at the present meeting .from the citizens. Mr. Dean stated that the Planner's proposal for Qutlot A is R-I and that is what t~e major concern of the Commission should be. He further noted that his understanding of the meeting last week, was that the Commission was to hear the output of the public and look very seriously at the overall plan. The public has now made it clear that they want R-I for the area. Mr. Mali~ asked whether Mr. Gordon's table petition was not for a downzoning? When he determined this was so, he commented that everyone should be~aware that the portion of land was now zoned a higher den- sity than R-3. If Mr. Gordon withdrew the request, it could be developed ara much higher density. Mr. Dean stated this was not true. If the area were not downzoned, he could not get his plat. Mr. Malik noted that Mr. Gordon's property had been, for the most part, all zoned higher than Outlot A. The downzoning had been a concession on Mr. Gordon's part, to the neighbors request for a~lesser density. Mr. Dean said it was a non-acceptable downzoning. Mr. Malik noted he was not arguing the point, but it was not what "they" were asking for, it was what Mr. Gordon had requested. He did not feel that the Commission had the power to tell Mr. Gordon what it had to be. He felt that the feeling of the neighborhood was that Mr. Gordon could be told what to zone the land, when in reality he had come before the Commission to request a downzoning. He felt this prin~ cipal should be understood. Mr. Dean stated that if the Council does not downzone the property, then the cul~du~sac was not approved. Commissioner Craigie stated that the cul-du-sac had already been approved by the Commission and recommended for approval to the Council. The Council had added the stipulation to downgrade Outlot A. The feeling had been that there had been so many concessions made by Mr. Gordon on the cul-du-sac, that speaking for himself, they should let the Outlot go. The Council had said go back and get it downzoned and had sent the request back to the Commission. if it should not be rezoned to R-3~ the decision could still be made to allow the cul-du-sac to go through and allow Outlot A to remain as presently zoned. Commissioner London noted that the Commission only advises the Council. The Council does not necessarily go along with their recommendations. The Council makes the final decision. Mr, Schostag felt it was important that the Commission realize that at least some of the residents did not express their conflict with the proposed development of the cul-du-sac, because they understood PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - SEPTEMBER 14~ 1976 3. that the property would be downzoned to R-I. The fact that the downzoning would not be to SF had tak~n~ a few of his neighbors by surprise. Apparently it was their misunderstanding, but he felt there was gamesmanship involved. Chairman Gustafson noted he did not feel it was worth comment that someone was "thinking that something was going to happen". The Planning Commission had never made any recommendations or promises in terms of Outlot A. Mr. Dean ~tated h~ felt somewhat deceived by the Commission because they had looked at a proposal -- Chairman Gustafson noted it was a concept. for single family residences, when next week the Commission would be considered R-3. Chairman Gustafson noted that in terms of the discussion of the previous week, the decision on Outlot A had been postponed to a Iow input from the citizens in terms of the development of the entire parcel. The discussion that was tabie~ was on a specific proposal for Outlot A, by a developer. This entire public hearing ana all of the other public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan related to what would be ~est for the total City. He added that his understanding was that the Commissioners wished to hear input from the citizens in terms of the total site, before they ma~e any decision on a specific parcel in the site. Commissioner London'noted that the discussion at the present meeting had been scheduled long before Mr. Gordon had come before the Commission with his request. This meeting was scheduled as a public hearing on Districts #18, #19, and #20. The Commission had felt it important to gain this citizen input, as long as the public hearing was so c ose to Mr. Gordon's appearance before them. The input at the present meeting was on the total property, not necessarily what Mr, Gordon was requesting. That input had been received at the last meeting. This input wil also be considered in regard to the downzoning. Mr. Pettigrove asked whether they were limited to an R-3 recommendation? Chairman Gustafson said that if the zoning for Outlot A went through next week; it could go in two steps, down to R-I at some future time, but in all fairness he thought this would not happen. Commissioner London stated his understanding that next week they would review Mr. Gordon's request for Outlot A, recommend approval or disapproval of that r~quesT. The Commission cannot tell Mr. Gordon that it should be a different classifica-~ion. The Commission would react only to Mr. Gordon's requesT. Discussion followed regarding a tentative plat for townhouses by Mr. Gordon, between the Commissioners and Mr. Dil erud and why Mr. Gordon was willing to give uR a level of zoning. Commissioner London aoted that the Commission looked at requests for rezoning in view of everything that could be built on a particular property within the zoning a~nd then makes their recommendation. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the resolution of the Outlot A problem was introduced at the City Counci meeting, although it had oeen discussed by the Commission as a potential problem. Commissioner Craigie reestated that the downzoning had been a tack-on of the Council, to make sure that they could Ioo~ at the entire property owned by Mr. Gordon, rather just one parcel. They wanted to see all of the pieces together. Commissioner Gustafson noted that Mr. Gordon was not the owner of the property to the North of his site. Commissioner London noted that the Commission had originally asked if Mr. Gordon had any plans for Outlot A, because they were concerned about its remaining vacant when he developed his plat. Commissioner Craigie maee a motion to clese the public hearinq. Commissioner zondon second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gustafson, Anderson, Gundershaug Voting against: Christensen Absent: Cameron, Pakonen The public hearinq was closed. Commissioner London noted this had probably been the most orderly presentation heard in all of the meet- ings-and because of this, great input had been received. Commissioner Bartos agreed it was very orderly, and also not wired as previous meetings had been. 4. There were no further reports from the Commissioners. 5. Mr. Licht stated he felt that the Commission should wait for Mr. Larson to get back before they de- cided on a foremat for additional review of the districts. He indicated that the City Manager was going to prepare a summary of the input. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - SEPTEMBER 14~ i976 5. Mr. Licht stated that the Maintenance Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance were scheduled for public hearing on the 19th, October. ° Commissioner London commented that perhaps the Commission should indicate to Bi I Corrick that they would like to have him present at the next meeting, or at least submit to him questions that the Commission had regarding proceeure in changing zoning -- whether they can arbitrarily zone one portion one classification and another portion a different classification. Mr. Licht noted that the legal advisor could advise them about "land right". He could offer alterna- tives but the basic must first be established. They should find out what the attorney could defend. Commissioner Anderson agree~, adding that he felt the issue should also be'before the public -- to inform them what the Commission can legally do, i.e. 'n an unpopular d~cision the public should know whether or not the Commission can egall¥ change to what they think an area should be. Commissioner London stated he.felt it important that they find out whether in terms of zoning now and at future times, they could go from an R-4 to an R-I, and what criteria they must meet? Commissioner London moved that the City Attorney be requested_ to be present af the meeting Of Se~tem~ ber 21st~ and orin~ with him a written memorandum about how he feels about the following bas. lc issues. I) Whether the Commission cant in fact~ rezone a piece of property to a lower density or a different zone than it would oecome under a direct ~ransfer? 2) If the Commission could rezone ~n this manner, whether certain criteria must be met? 3) Whether they could nave different zoning classifications on one piece of proper~y (one piece of vacant land~ with one owner)? Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gustafson, Anderson, Gundershaug, Christensen Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Pakonen Motion passed. Commissioner Craigie commented on the fact that the Commission was going fo look at two zoning plans - one for direct transfer and one fol owing the Comprehensive =lan. He felt that never once in all of the public hearings, had the Commissioh commented to the p~ublic that "look the metropolitan area needs mid-density housing'~ what is your reaction to that? Had qot asked for reaction to the issue that was the basis for the whole Comprehensive Plan -- that we needed a variety of housing types and that the City needed to have mid-density. Commissioner London stated that when they had considered the oolicies and goals they had been considered iin the abstract. "Lets do this for the community ~n general", but it real y doesn't hit home until you see it down on paper as to how it affects the community and your own neighborhood. You can took at an area in the abstract if its not your area. This is the purpose of re-reading, re-evaluation, and re-assessing the goals and policies set last spring. They may apply to a ot of areas in the metropoli- tan area, they may not apply to th~ City of New Hope, or we may not want to apply them. Perhaps they can work within the same goals a~d policies and achieve what they want, but considering the input he sometimes doubted this. Commissioner Gustafson stated that it was still his opinion that the Commission would have to go back and look at the goals and policies t~at they want for the City and talk about how they are going to implement them, before making any zoning recommendations. Commissioner Bartos commented that he felt it had been pointed out to the Commission by th~ residents that no one wants mid density or high density in "their area" -- there is a bit of a problem coming up. He added that they kept hearing about traffic, and~ he can appreciate traffic since he lived on Boone, but by the same token, the children in his area do not play in the middle of the street. He stated he could buy part of the concern regarding traffic, but not all of it. 6. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 21, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7;30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Absent: Gustafson (excused, Craigie (excused), London London arrived at 7:39 p.m.; Cra'igie arrived at 8:04 p.m. 3.. PLANNING CASE 76-38 - (CONTINUED FROM 7-6-76) REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE~PERMtT FOR FUNERAL HOME AT SUMTER AND BASS LAKE ROAD- KADEK ENTERPRISESt :ETITtONER. Mr. Glodek and Mr. Richard Larson, the Architect, represented the petitioner~ Mr. Glodek stated they were requesting the specia use permit to allow the construction of a funeral home at Sumter and Bass Lake Road. He noted that thev had met with the Design and Review Committee for the second time and ~hat most of their original concerns had been satisfied. They hope to begin construction yet this fall, depending upon the weather. They plan to construct a basement ~nd first level funera chapel, approximately 12,000square feet on both levels. The site is approximatel~ 80,000 square feet, with a 60 foot frontage on 3ass Lake Road. They will nave three, ingresses and egresses --- one on Sumter - 60 feet back from B~ss Lake Road; one on Bass Lake Road - probably 200 feet from the Sumter corner; and one on Winnetka - approximately 260 feet North of the corner of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. There wi. II be 73 parking stalls, and a 20 foot area of shrubs and a divider to block headlight glare from view of the residents on ~?mter Avenue. The City Manager confirmed, roi owing a question from the Chairman, that there were no variances involved, that the curb cut on Sumter was new Hope's decision, that the petitioner hag met with Crystal and that a representative of Crysta had appeared at The last New Hope Council meeting and felt this was a compro- mise use for t~e corner. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that Mr. Glodek had appeared before the Design and Review Commmittee on Tuesday afternoon and agreed to the conditions regarding the ingress and egress, the parking stalls, and the shrub divider as had been noted by Mr. Glodek. In answer to a question regarding the adequacy of the parking stalls, Mr. Glodek stated that at their existing facility they had found That there were an average of 3-4 people per car. At this facility they have only 38 off-street stalls and have never had a comp aint about on,street parki.ng. He added that there was room to the West on the site, should additional parking be necessary in the future. He verified that there coul~ be two services at a time. UsUally services would be at 0:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., which from a traffic point of view are down times. Evening servi.ces are normally later in the evening. Commissioner Christensen stated that there was an agreement between Mr. Glodek and the City (per request of Crystal) that funeral processions woul~ exit either from Bass Lake Road or from Winnetka. The only exception to this would be if there were two funerals being conducted at the same time. This might occur perhaps two or three Times a year. Mr. Glodek confirmed this. In response to a question from Commissioner, the architect stated that they are proposing an opaque hedge of a variety of green plantings, mainly evergreen materials that would be serviceable both winter an~ summer. He further stated that they would assure the Commission that the plantings would protect the residents on Sumter Avenue from head ight glare. There wil also be adequate screening for the rooftop equipment, of a material other than cyclone fencing. Commissioner Christensen state~ that there will be two signs, one on Winnetka and one on Bass Lake Road. Mr. Larson, the architect,°stated they will be two ow type ground signs, within the sign ordinance regu- lations. They have not as yet designed the signs. There will be no signs on the building itself. The lighting for the parking area will ae of a iow leve type t'minar, in the range of 12 feet arrangee around the perimeter. The light wil be directed into the lot with no spill out into the residential area. Commissioner Christensen noted that there had been an agreement between the petitioner and the Committee that the green area would be sodded rather than seeded. The architect confirmed this. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Glodek noted that all trash would be handled from the in- side of the building. Commissioner Atchley expressed concern about the drainage~ noting that at a previous meeting the public had been concerned with this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2 - SEPTEMBER 21~ 1976 3. The architect noted that the site plan indicated the drainage would be directed toward the North and West, where it could be picked up in the New Hope storm'sewer system and holding pond areas, rather than going into Sumter Avenue. The City Manager noted that the City Engineer had approved the concept of the drainage. Final plans must be submitted before final approval. There was no one in the audience regarding this case. Commissioner Christensen made a mot,on to ~recommend approval of 76-38 - Request for Special Use Permit to allow a Funeral Home at Bass Lake Road and Sumter~ with the fo lowing stipulations: I) that there be a hedge ~rovided at the East property line~ to be cohstructed of plant materials to be determined by the architect~ the purpose of whicn will be to buffer the residential buildings to the East from the glare of headlights~ and ~ 2) that there also be a variety of other landscaping utilized both in that buffer and at other points on the premises. Commissoner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against; None Absent: Craigie~ Gustafson Motion passed. .; 4. PLANNING CASE 76-61 (CONTINUED FROM 9-7-76) REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM MR TO TR - MARVIN GORDON~ PETITIONER. Mr. Gordon stated he felt that this request bad'been pretty much discussed already at previous meetings. He added that the lan~ owners to the North had requested an option on the land. He had felt this might be an advantage since this would then finish aa the whole area. He had not, as yet, given this cptian. He added that ~ne Council nag requested that he downzone the property to TR. Chairman Cameron asked what the resu.~t had been of Mb. Gordon's appearance before the City Council ~n September 13, 19767 The City Manager noted that the Counci~ had tabled the consideration of the plat until their special meet- ~_~ lng on the ~2 Setpember, in order to obtain the Commissio~ action from this meeting. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission had received a letter signed by four citizens of the Hopewood Hills area, in regar~ to the downzoning. (letter attached'to the official minutes). Commissioner Christensen.stated, for the benefit of the record and the Commission, that Outlot A was pre- sently zoned MR and that with such zoning Mr. Gordon had the right to construct multiples on the property. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen regarding The number of townhouses proposed for Outlot ~, Mr. Gordon said he thought ten. He does not plan to begin development for the next six months. He added, in response to further questions, that if he were to develop the oro~erty single family, he could build two homes on Gettysburg, but could not build any more until there.was a road. He would need a road with the adjoining property to al ow him to construct another two units. He stated that if he were allowed to construct townhouses, he could then put in a private road ~o service them. Mr. Bob Miller, Attorney for qarv Gordon, stated that one answer to the question of a private road for single family was that the North/South depth o~ the property was only 150 feet. Using 60 feet for a road would leave only 90 feet in depth, tf the City were to condemn 30 feet to the North it would give them 120 feet. However, he added they would probably object to that also if the City were to put the condemnation costs back on to the property. ~ Commissioner Pakonen asked what the new Comprehensive Plan proposed for that property? The City Manager noted that the Comprehensive Plan for that area shows an extension of a road along the North side, centered on the North property line of Outlot A, leaving 120 feet of depth~ proposed for 6 or 7 single family lots. Commissioner London asked whether the zoning of the land would make any difference in regard to the nego- tiations between Mr. Gordon and the landowners to the North? Mr. Miller noted that it would ~ave to be zone~ either MR or TR - single family would be a different ~'~ picture. In answer to a question from Mr. Bartos, Mr. Gordon stated that the price range of townhouses would be in the 40-50 thousand dollar range ahd single family homes would probably be 45-55 thousand dollars. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 4. Commissioner London noted that the disposition of this petition had been tabled to allow public input at the meeting of the 14th Septemberjon the Comprehensive Plan. The intention had been to allo no further public comment at this meeting. -_. Chairman Cameron asked if anyone present had any new thoughts to give, regarding Case 76-617 No one responded. Commissioner Christensen confirmed with Mr. Gordon that he did not intend to develop Outlot A, for at least six months. He then questioned whether it might not be expedient to wait until the Comprehensive Plan had been reviewed from a City-wide point of view, with the idea that whatever the property owners to the North were to do, they could not proceed until the Comprehensive Plan had been approved? He noted it was difficult for ~im to separate this one parcel of land from th~ decisions to be made on the total Comprehensive Plan. He was in favor of tab lng Case 76-61. Mr. Corrick, the New Hope City Attorney, commented that any downzoning would be an advantage to the City. He stated that they would not be Drecluded from requesting a further downzoning in the future, but an argument could be made against them, that they had just rezoned the property. He added that if Mr. Gordon and his attorney would make a commitment that they would not make this argument, this was as far as they could go~ Mr. Miller indicated that they would not make this commitment. Commissioner Craigie indicated his feeling that any downzo~ing from MR was to the City's advantage, but if the Commission made a commitment to TR, he felt they should'keep the commitment, f th~ rezoning were to be viewed by the petitioner as a commitment, ne did not think the Commission would be in a posi- tion to request future downzoning. He did not feel they were at the stage where they should limit them- selves. Commissioner AndErson stated that he felt a crucial question the Commission had to consider, was how far they could legally go -- was R-I r.eally an option? The Chairman noted that all that could be done at the present meeting was to approve or deny the request for rezoning from MR to TR. '-' Commissioner Anderson noted that if they should deny, holding out for something better', they might not get away with it. The legal advice may be that one step is about as much as. the Commission-cad get in consideration of economic loss factors, etc. He added that the Commission was thinking R-I, but R-I ma~ not be a practical choice. This's a legal question he felt the Commission~should De considering. Commissioner Craigie noted that he felt the Commission was trying to broaden this issue into a discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. He felt they should go logically through the Comprehensive Plan. The Chairman noted that two weeks earlier, the Commission had recommended platting of a piece of property without one mentioning the Comprehensive Plan. About a month ago the Commission had recommended approval for six lots by the golf course and there had not been much talk made at that time of the Comprehensive Plan. This dis did not stop the Commission from allowing platting of those pieces of property. He stated that, in his opinion, to suddenly throw this up as a major crisis and recommend that everything should come to a halt because of the Comorehensive Plan, was a rationalization. He added that there was'a point to be made regarding what will eventually be done with this oiece of property. When Mr. Gordon had appeared before the Commission the first time, they had approvea and there had even been a number of residents who though~ that this was a reasonable use for bis property. .All the Commission was discussion now was the property being held hostage. Commissioner London disagreed. He did not fee that a I they were talking about was the one parcel of and. They did not n any way attach any conditions to Outlot A when approval was g'ven to the Prelimi- nany Plat. Had the Commission known that conditions were to De attached by the Council, perhaps they would not have given plat approval and the change of zoning. · Chairman Cameron questioned what the options would be if the rezoning were to be denied? Commissioner London stated he felt the City Council could either approve the plat with no conditions on Outlot A; they could approve the platting and set their own conditions as far as Ou~lot A; or they could deny the entire matter. He felt that in view of the comments made at the present meeting it was more sig- nificant than just Outlot A, it also concerned the property to the North. Commissioner Pakonen noted that the Commission had approved the Preliminary ~lat with no conditions. The Council had imposed the conditions regarding Outlot A. He felt that if the downzoning to TR were approved the Commission would be cutting its future options. Commissioner London agreed, noting that he felt they must look at Outlot A in view of what was going to take place with the parcels to the North and what affect this wil have on City development. He felt PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 4. that rather than rezone the land now and in a few weeks discover that in relation to the entire Compre- hensive Plan the zoning was inconsistent and request another zoning change, it might be better to wait and look at. it all together. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether there was not a problem of uti ity installation involved in the approval of the plat? Mr. Gordon stated that water and sewer installation were in the process for the preliminary plat and it was important to get them in yet this fall. This was why he hoped the Commission would pass the zoning on to the Council. Commissioner London commented that it was his understanding that regardless of what the Commission de- .cided about Outlet A, the decision would be made by the Counci on th~ plat and the utility-installa- tion could then proceed. Chairman Cameron stated it was not quite that simple. The Council sti I had to approve the original request for the plat and they wil not Go this until Outlet A is taken care of. He added he did not feel the Commission had much choice. Mr. Gordon was just doing what the CiTy Council had requested. Commissioner Atchley noted he agreed with a large part of the co~mments' made by Commissioners London anc Cra~gie but asked whether it would be that much of a problem to downzone the property to TR now and latter make the final determination as to what it should ul-timately be zoned whea the Comprehensive Plan was adopted? Chairman Cameron noted that all Mr. Gordon was ~sking for was a change of zoning but this is holding up his previous request for platting that had already been approved Dy the Commission. Commissioner Atchley confirmed that if the zoning were to be left as it is, Mr. Gordon could begin con- structing multiples on the property. These would be of a much heavier density than TR. Mr. Miller commented that, economically, Mr. Gordon would have to do this in his his opinion. He was already making some trade offs by lowering the density. He added that if the Commission's intent was to downzone the property to TR with the fu.ture intention of aownzoning to SF, he hoped they would tell them, to al Iow them to protect their economic interest. Discussion between the Commissioners an~ Mr. Miller about this possiblitv. Commissioner London questioned how the zoning of the property to TR would affect any future zoning of the property? He felt they would be stuck with the TR zone, and that if they determined that the entire par- cel should be SR he did not feel they would be able to rezone Outlet A from TR To SR. Commissioner Pakonen did not agree with this statement. He ~aid the Comprehensive Plan was yet to De dis- cussed in total. It was MR qow and when the final decisions on the Plan are maae, ~e did not feel this would stop them from ultimately rezoning SR. All they would be saying is that they feel it should be downzoned. He did not see how they were cutting any options. Commissioner London stated ne felt they would be because of the close proximity of time. He did not wish to exclude this option at a later time. He then asked the City Attorney what his opinion was in regard to rezoning 'n two steps, Could they rezone it TR and then in a few weeks rezone it SR; if fol- lowing consideration of the entire Comprehensive Plan they felt this was the desired classification? Commissioner Pakonen commented that in view of the fact that the Commission had recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and that The Council had subsequently put conditions on the approval and sent it back to the Commission, ana plus The fact that by zoning the parcel to TR they might cut their options of ever having it zoned SR, perhaps it should be sent right back to the Council for a decision. The other option would be for the petitioner to agree that if the Commissioner grants a TR, it is not going to cut its options at a later 9oint to further reduce the zoning. He felt that if it was so very ]mportnant TO get the water ano sewer in during The next 30 days, it would be a small enough price to pay. He felt the Commission was being aushed into a decision that the don't have to make. ~lr. Gordon noted that the p~operty was presently zoned multiale, and be rezoning it to townhouses he had already cut the density to half. This was voluntary downzoning on his Dart. He wondered what the difference was, if he made no further commitment than the people TO the North made. The decision was going to affect not only his property 9ut the property to the North. He could not get a loan and he agreed that the property was being held hostage. The Preliminary Plat ana Outlet A were already tied together by the Council. Mr. Miller stated that he felt that the Commission could legally do this but he felt it was unfair to treat Mr. Gor~on in this way. Mro Gordon stated that he had no idea this request would be held up at any point -- it was a downzoning and requested by the Council. He was willing to give this. However, if they downzone the property to the North they were going To take him along with it as ~e has only the two acres. The TR zoning would already cut his density to one half. ~LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5 '- SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 4. Mr. Miller noted that they would not voluntarily allow the .Commission to downzone the property to SR. Mr. Corrick commented to Mr. Miller that all the Commission was asking was that he not use the down- zoning to TR as an argument against any future downzoning to SF as recommended under the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Miller commented that Mr. Gordon had made committments, and economic investments based on existing zoning and now the Planning Commission seemed to be looking at the situation as if they were starting fresh and aPt dealing with a person whc.has made economic committments in reliance on existing zoning. Just because of the response of some citizens that had also made their economic investments based on the existing zoning. He added he did not think that the feeling that they could extract $10,000 from Mr. Gordon and expect aim to smile about it, was fair. Chairman Cameron stated he did not feel this statement was fair to the Commission. The Commission is very concerned about the total Comprehensive Plan for the City. Taeir concern revo ves their ability at some time in October to 0e able to come back and say this piece of property ought to be rezoned. The fact that on SeptemDer 21~ it was zoned one way should not affect future downzoning to SR. Commissioner London made a motion to deny Case 76-61 - Request for Rezon~nq from MR to TR based on the fact that Dy approving the request~ they would Oe precluded From reconsidering fhe zoning of that parti- cular piece of property and changing the zoning at a future date, Commissioner Pakonen second. Commissioner Craigie questioned whether it would be appropriate to recommend that Outlot A be considered separately from the preliminary plat in view of the fact that the Council had not been involved in the discussions regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner London stated he did not wish to make' this part of his motion because apparently the City Council had felt strongly enough to make this a part of their approval. They could wrestle with the problem. Commissioner Atchley said he disagreed with the motion because .the 0etitioner had come before the Com- mission with a request for a downzone, tf this were denied, how could the Commission, in a month or so, justify saying it should 0e downzoned. If they agree the parcel should be something less than multiple, they are at least headed in the right direction. Commissioner London said if they did this, they would limit their options. Commissioner Pakonen questioned whether or not Mr. London wished the motion to include a reference to the Comprehensive Plan adoption in regard to The denial. Commissioner London noted that he did not want to cut off the Commission's Potions. He did not feel it necessary to include mention of the Com0rehensive Plan in the motion. Commissioner Christensen noted that his big concern in denying the motion was that the parcel would be still zoned multiple and if between the present meeting and fhe time that the Comprehensive Plan were adopted, Mr. Gordon were TO sell to a developer, there would be no way to prevent the construction of multiples. He was ~ore concerned about this possibility. Commissioner Anderson stated he favored a motion to approve the request unaer the old Comprehensive Plan, .stating they were acting under the mandate of the 1960 Plan. He restated that he was not sure that the Commission could g~t away with rezoning the property to R-I or R-2. The Chairman noted his concern that the Commission was conjuring up many possibilities that may not hap- pen -- he felt that inasmuch as the deicsion had not as yet been maae regarding procedure toward imple- menting the Comprehensive Plan -- there was no question of giving up options when the final decisions had not been reached on the entire Plan. He felt the issue was a question of downzoning a piece of pro- perty from MR to TR under the 1960 P an. The City Manager noted that while technically, the 1960 Plan had not 0een amended, there had been a comprehensive rezoning in 1966 in this area. He felt it should 0e made clear that it was the 1960 Plan as changed by the 1966 modification of the plan that served as the basis for the present zoning. Commissioner London expressed his concern that were the rezoning to be granted, an argument would be made at a future time, that the Commission was aware at the time that they rezoned to TR, what informa- tion was included in the Comprehensive Plan. What then would be the rationale for requesting a downzoning? In answer to a question from Commissioner Craigie, the City Manager noted that a moratorium could be declared on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan, but not on just. one piece of property. The moratorium would have to be placed on the entire City. Commissioner Craigie expressed the possibility of, if the rezoning were denied, this could be used as an argument for not only Outlot A, but the property to the North remaining R-47 He added that they presently have the opportunity to downzone to an R-3 and he felt this is what should be done. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 4. Mr. Miller asked permission to make a remark for the record. It seemed to him that the Counci was say- ing that they wanted the parcel downzoned to R-3 and the Planning Commission was taking the opposite tack. The petitioner was caught inbetween -- between the rock and the hard place. He stated that per- haps they would rather it be zonea R-4. He stated he would like the record to reflect this fact. Commissioner Christensen asked whether if the land were left MR, could construction be held up because of the Comprehensive Plan discussions? The City Manager restated that all construction in the City of New Hope would have to be held up -- not j~$t one isolated site. The Chairman called for the vote. Voting in favor of denial: London, Bartos, Pakonen ~-~ Voting against: Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: GustafSon Motion denied C~mmissioner Crai~ie moved to recommend approval of 76-61~ with the ~nderstandin9 that the Plannin~ Com- mission sees that this is a case unaer the 1960 Comprehensive Plan as amended in 1966 and does not limit !~ options as they 9o int final consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Atchley second. Commissioner Christensen stated again, for the record, that he felt they were being put into a corner they did aot have to go in to, and that he feint that a decision did not have to be made Tonight. He still was in favor of tabling. Voting in favor: Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: London~ Bartos, Christensen, Pakonen Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. The Chairman noted that the Council will consider Case 76-61 at their special meeting on Wednesday, September 22, 1976 at 7:00 ~.m .... Chairman Cameron I~t the meeting at 8:45 p.m. ~-~ Cc~missioner Christensen assumed Chairmanship of the meeting. 5. The City Manager noted, in answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen that the Commission had three items aefore it. To begin discussing the Comprehensive Plan in terms of policy; to begin looking at specific issues;and to gain Mr. Corrick's input on the whole issue of rezoning. He added that ~he summary sheet distributed to the Commissioners ear ier in the evening had been compiled to indicate the areas of concern as expressed at the recently completed publ.ic hearings. Commissioner London commented on his motion of the previous week requesting that Mr. Corrick attend the meeting to answer specific questions regarding zoning changes an~ t~e legalities involved. Mr. Corrick commented on the term "land rights" as used by Mr. Licht. He stated he assumed that this referred ~to the right of the property owner to protect his investment in land. He noted that there were three specifi~ questions included in Commissioner London's motion. I. Could the Commission establish different zoning classifications on one piece of property, with one owner. Mr. Corrick stated this was possible but there would have to be separate usable p~rts, the end result would ~ave to be an intelligent usable whole. ~-~ 2. Could the Commission rezone a ~roperty t~ a lower density, or a different zone~ than it would be as a result of a direct transfer of zoning classification? · Mr. Corrick stated that the law in ~innesota was not too clear o~ this issue. What the Commissio~ was talking about was the right of the community to balance out the rights of the property owner and the community right. Basically every zoning case had to be decided on the basis of its own fa~ts. Each ca$~ had to be analyzed on its own merits. He referenced a summary from the AMERICAN LAND PLANNING LAW, regaraing the stage in the planning and construction of a development that it could be stopped by a zoning amendment~or other action? There is a scarcity of law on the question of protecting a purchaser of property who holds it for a number of years before developing. Most of the cases have been decided on other grounds, but courts seem to be sympathetic to the rights of the property owner. The basic question -- Can you downzone? -~ is yes, you can downzone but it is ike playing with nitro- glycerin and you do not know how it will come out. The results will depend a great deal upon the judge's PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 soclal philosophy. "The courts held that any start in planning of a project gave a vested right to proceed as against a subsequent zoning amendment, is clearing substantial and environmental harm would result." On the other hand, a local government reacting to popular pressure is quite likely to do harm to a private developer, particularly on a project which is well.along at the time. "Clearly,through the stages of having a bright idea and naving the land already purchased~ as well as an architectural planning proposal, very few courts would say that you couldn't downzone? He stated he disagreed with somewhat with the author, especially in regard to the Minnesota courts. It would take a judge that was rea ly developer minded to say that with the investment and development aspect, you would have some problems in going ahead with your rezoning. Mr. Corrick added that there is a lot of case law stating that ~f a developer has gone as far as having ~foundations in, you can't stop him. He cited, however, a 1953 case in St. Paul where no vested rights · had been found for the developer, even though he already had his foundations in, ann St. Paul proceeded to rezone the property. Commissioner London then questioned whether if, for example, the Commission had denied the rezoning in Case 76-61 and the developer had quickly put in foundations for buildings and the Commisson subsequently rezoned the property, would the developer not have proceeded at his own risk, since he was aware of the Commission intention? Mr. Corrick stated this would be in the ".fight" area, where each side woul~ have to make out its own p~oof. The City Manager noted that in the City of New ~Hope this could not be done since the Comm'ssion would have needed to review the foundation stage through De Design and Review process. Discussion followed regarding the grounds for rezoning and the need for their validity and the grounas for refusing a building permit in a case of this type. Mr. Corrick then referred to another reference to "changes in rules made during the course of liti- gation'' -- "assuming that the developer nas not proceeded far enough to obtain.a vested right, if during the course of litigation, the municipality passes a zoning amendment which would make the project ~llegal, such action would serve to stop the project". Hr. Corrick noted that he felt that courts were much more sympathetic to developers and land owners. Commissioner Craigie asked if, from the court's point of view, there was a way for the City to neutralize this, if they were to consider compensation? Would this give the City more of an equal status? Mr, Corrick noted that compensation is generally thought o~ as a third view in zoning. There is the legislative, and the judicial and this would be the third. You would not De making use of a police power to rezone, you are buying, There were two cases in the state in 1962. One hinted very strongly "while it is -.... is true that a number of courts have held that the issuance of a permit to erect a structure for a per- mitted use, unaer a zoning ordinance does not create a vested right, that cannot be cut off by subsequent amendments, we feel that in justice, the better rule is to give full accord to the property owners, based upon interest, therein arising out of comprehensive zoning ordinances". The case arguea strongly against the right to cause a property owner economic osso "When zones are established, citizens buying and relying on restrictions provided by law, have a right to the permanency that the law should afford". This theory was ~pproved in 1962. Mr. Corrick aaded that this applied to the point of getting a permit for a structure. Commissioner London questioned where this decision would stand in regard to recent court decisions regard- ing comprehensive plans? It is now a requirement that a municipality review its comprehensive plan in light of the changes that have taken place over the last 15 years. He questioned whether, if a downzon- ing is based on the comprehensive plan, they are not in just as strong a position as if they based a denial for.a, rezoning on the comprehensive plan? Mr. Corrick answered "no" because you have given.in the first place, and now you want to take away. He further commented on the same case which stated "it is settled that purely aesthetic considerations do not form a sound basis fer destroying a definite value or nullifying a value of interest in property without compensation therefore to the owner". The City Manager stated that specifically 'n answer to Mr. Craigie's question, what they are really say- ing is that he has MR, which because he can have 16 units to the acre's worth "X" number of dollars, in terms of compensation you are looking at the market value of the land with the MR zoning. The value, to a degree, comes with the zoning. Discussion fo.llowed regarding compensation to a developer. Mr. Corrick noted that it would probably be based on the difference of value of land that could support for example, 16 units per acre versus 4 units per acre, excluding taxes. Principals would be the same as for a condemnation. The City Manager stated that the problem of compensation would come about only if the Planning Commis- sion were to adopt the Comprehensive Plan and implement it by downzoning and could not justify to a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -.8 ~ SEPTEMBER 21~ 1976 5. court the reasons for downzoning~ Then you have the question of whether yo~ want them to go back to an R-4 or did you want the R-I badly enough to pay the difference to buy the developer out? Mr. Corrick noted that what would most likely happen~ howeverw was that this section of the ordinance would be thrown out. Commissioner London confirmed that it was Mr. Corrick's opinion that basically the Commission would have to meet criteria in order to downzone property as set in the Plan, i'n the same manner that a petitioner must meet criteria when he comes in to request a rezoning. Discussion about the term "aesthetic" in regard to the mentioned court case as a basis for a change in zoning. Mr. Corrick commented that, in his opinion, this referred'to specific cases. Commissioner London commented that he did not feel "aesthetic" was a valid criteria for a zoning change. The question was then, to establish valid criteria for the Commission to meet, in rezoning property. Commissioner Christensen questioned whether in the case of a developer voluntarily requesting a down~ zoning, had he not given away his rights to the higher zoning? Mr. Corrick answered that economic duress would be involved'in s~ch a case, Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. CorPick regarding criteria for rezoningt the need to esta- blish in court valid criteria and the need for both sides to prove the criteria for a downzoning. The City Manager stated that in downzoing in response to the Comprehensive Plan, each parcel would have to be considered separately and criteria proved on each parcel for the downzoning. Mr. Corrick then referred to a.1975 case which stated "that a municipality has a right to determine whether changing conditions or the public interest demands an exercise of the power to amend the zoning ordinance and the power to select the powers that are necessary for that purpose". Mr. Corrick noted that the court had been particularly concerned in this case that the rezoning would lower the claimant's property value. "The simple fact that certain property values may decline, is not in itself sufficient to invalidate, a proposed rezoning; values are not in and of themselves a test as to whether a zoning ordinance is valid, they are factors to be taken into consideration in an evaluation of the total merits to the community. The welfare of the general public is of paramount importance to the pecuniary state of the indivi0ual". He then noted that the more things that are considered and involved in the decision to substantiate a re~ zoning, the better the case would be. It was then established that economic loss was only one criteria to be considered in regard to a rezoning, other factors included engineering opinions, traffic studies, community opinion, as well as professional planning opinion. Mr. Corrick stated he did not want the Commission to lose sight of the impact involved in going from MR to R-2 or R-I, in terms of the economic loss. There is a large difference in the value of the property. A middle ground must be found between the community and the developer. Commissioner Anderson noted that, in his opinion, the City had received input Only from Mi.dwest Planning and the citizens, and ~efore they could hope to defend a downzoning, they would need much more study and input or would be o~ very thin ice in court. Discussion between Commissioners Anderson an~ Christensen about the methods involved in establishing criteria to support downzoning. Commissioner Anderson restated the need for the estab ishment of proper criteria and the proper ordinance wording to support a decision to down zone a property, in the event that a decision had to be defended in a law suit. Commissioner Craigie asked whether using neighborhood issues, i.e. traffic, congestion, etc. as criteria for a downzoning, considering also that there may have been changes in ,he area causing these issues, would be sufficient in themselves to allow a drastic rezoning? Mr. Corrick doubted very much if by themselves they would be strong enough. A problem piece of property with a potential serious economic los, would require proof of traffic problems, through traffic studies also. He was not even sure if that would be enough. A I sorts of things were necessary to prove criteria particularly in the case of a large economic loss to a developer. The City Manager noted that to use traffic as an issue, the design capacity of the'street would have to be considered, the capacity of the intersections, the actual amount of traffic on a street would all have to be studied. Discussion then centere~ on the established goals and policies of the City, versus a subsequent desire PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - SEPTEMBER 21~ 1976 5.' to act in a manner contrary to these goals, and the 'need to have consistency between goals and actions. Concensus was that the original goals and policies must be reassed by the Commissioners before the final review of the Cc~prehensive Plan could begin. The necessity to be able to implement the goals and poli- cies made it most important that the policies and their implications be based on solid reason. Commissioner Anderson wished to confirm that before the Commission co~ld lower a density in any given area, they had better have a pretty good list of fairly scientific~ well studied out, backed up reasons to do so. Mr. Corrick stated this was his feeling. The City Manager noted that the tommission should not forget that,at this point, the Comprehensive Plan was still a "work document".and would be so until the entire plan had'been officially adopted. At that time, there would have to be firm reasons for going against the recommendations in the Plan. Discussion then centered on the background documents prepared in the process of establishing the Compre- hensive Plan and the input that the inventory and market studies had given in regard to the City. The need, for example for the City to provide'mid-density housing. Another decision to be made concerned the information gathered and the subsequent recommenaations of Midwest Planning, and whether this was the direction that the Commissioners felt the City and its citizens wished to go over the next years. The direction of the City in relation to the Metropolitan Council and its established prior.i'ties were also covered. Mr. Corrick noted his concern that the Commission be sure that they related the information presented in the preliminary documents to their decisions regarding specific areas of concern wi, thia,the City. Discussion followed about potential disagreement over goals and policies as established by the City in regard to Metropolitan Council policies and how,this might affect the City. The City Manager. noted that the Comprehensive Plan was being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council under the old review process, not under those to be established in connection with the new legislation this year. He added that the policies and goals as adopted earlier were excellent in terms of the Metropoli- tan Council. The one area in which the City is lacking is in adequate housing choice. Commissioner Craigie then asked whether, if the Commission were to zone a particular area into a PUD Dist#ict, would one of the landowners have cause to come before the Commission to say that he coutdnot get together with the other landowners and what was it worth so he could sell. Mr. Corrick stated it would be very possible for this to happen, legally he was sure the Commission could not force cooperation. Discussion followed regarding PuD and the possibilities of establishing a PUD District. The City Manager noted that he did not see how you could make the PUD 9istrict work without the property owners consent. He felt the Commission would be fooling itself, even if they could write the legal rules in the ordinance. All you would be doing would be setting up a flexibility. The City Manager noted that there were two different kinds Of PUD~, one was an overlap district, where you:.had a residential district and you wanted to eliminate some of the requirements in terms of the regulations ana setbacks, but you are still working within the basic districts; the other PUD would De a separate district which becomes, a contractual zoning, can mix up uses and other things, but the City and the developer would have to sit down and decide what would be where, within the entire district, without any preconceived ideas. The problem is that there is no way to make this work if the prcperty owners did not want,-to cooperate. Mr. Corrick noted that he had not seen many cases on PUDs but quoted an author who called a PUD a contract spot zoning and both of these were bad. Commissioner Christensen asked whether the fact that~ there was an abundance of industrial land in New Hope and the surrounding area was a sufficient reason for downzoning? The City Manager stated he felt Mr. Christensen's,point was well taken but in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the City does have more industrial land than is really needed or wilt probably be developed. There is documented need for a variety of housing and the only place this land could come from is the industrial land. On the other hand, if a developer states he can develope the land as industrial now, you would have an argument Trying prove it should be downzoned. Commissioner Craigie questioned whether permitted uses in particular zones, such as certain store types, could be limited to a certain floor size? Mr. Corrick indicated he did not see this as a problem. Discussion about conforming uses and non-conforming uses in different categories of shopping centers and what the time limit would be that a use could remain vacant before it could be replaced with a like use? PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - I0 - SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 ' ~ln response to a question from Commissioner London regarding the possibility of one non-conforming use .taking the place of an existing non-conforming use in a part.icular district, Mr. Corrick said it ~-~ would have to be a like use, not a non-conforming use of a different type. The City Manager stated you were talking about individual special uses~ a shopping center was not a use. Me added that as long as he was administering the code, one non-conforming use would not be allowed to automatically replace a different non-conforming use. They would need to petition for an amendment to the code. Commissioner Bartos asked whether an owner'of a store that was non-conforming could sell the store to another owner, who would in effect be purchasing the good-will already established? 'The City Manager stated it could be sold as the same use but.not a different non-conforming use. Commissioner Chris~ensen thanked Mr. Corrick for his attendance at the meeting anC his help in resolving some of the questions of the Commissioners. 6. Commissioner Christensen reported that the Design and Review Committee had met on Tuesday afternoon to consider three cases. 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 8, There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 9. There was no report from the ad hoc committee on boulevard encroachments. I0. Commissioner London stated he was quite upset wi.th the Council action in re,ation to the Mary Gordon petition. HE felt the Council had not left the Commission much choice. Commissioner Pakonen noted that he did not think that the Council had any other issue in mind except the disposition of Outlet A. Commissioner Gundershaug noted a past planning case when the Council had taken further action in the dis- position of a case and the Commission had objected to not being given the opportunity To comment, j Commissoner London stated he was-not concerned that they had referred the case back to them, but that they had referred it back with conditions attached. II. The Planning Commissio~ minutes of September 7, 1976 were approveo as printed. 12. Mr. Mike Malik asked if he could be allowed to address the Commission. He stated he was with the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Group. He wished to add .that he felt that the Council had reacted in response to a long standing concern of this group in regard to owering the zoning 'n the area of Outlet A. He added it had been a concession on Mr. Gordon's part to go along with the downzoning. He stated that whi e it was not what the group would ultimate_ly tike to see on the property, it was a step in the right direction, particularly in view of what might come up. He noted that the area had bee~ con- cerned about th~ zoning for a tong time. In answer to a question regarding the traffic in this area, the City Manager noted that there had been traffic counts taken on a twenty four hour basis within the last few months. Concensus was that these figures would be helpful when the discussion began on this area in regard to the Comprehensive Plan. The City M~nager noted that there were no more scheduled meetings for consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. The Maintenance Code and Subdivision Ordinance are scheduled for public hearing on October 19th. F~llowing discussion, the concensus of the Commission was that they should take some ~ime to ref ect on the past public hearings, review the input individually an0 than at the meeting of October 19th, decide at which point the c~nsiderations should ~egin again in regard-to the Dolicies and goals and their implementation i~ regar0 to the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Craigie asked for volunteers for the Committee on Boulevard Encroachments. Commissioner Atchley and Bartos volunteered. Commissioner Anderson indicated he would attempt to attend. A meeting was scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on September 23rd, at the City Hall. Commis§ioner Atchley noted that he would be out of town for the meeting of October 5th. The meeting was adjourned,by unanimous consent, at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, yce Boeddeker, Secretary September 21, 1976 Chairman, New Hope Planning Conlnission and Commissioners City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Gentlemen: · It is our understapd~ng that the public he~ring on the Gordon Rezoning Case has been concluded, and, therefore~ we wish to respect the rules of procedure and refrain from verbal presentation before the Commission, unless otherwise requested. We believe that during the numerous recent hearings on the Grodon Plat, the rezoning of Outlot A and the Comprehensive Plan, with respect to District 18, that we have presented both substantial evidence of affected property owners' personal views on this matter and substantial technical evidence suggesting the existing M-R zoning of Out- lot A is in error and that the petitioned T-R zoning would also be in error. Consistent with the apparent facts of the case before the Commission, the affected property owners respectfully submit two requests for Commission consideration, as follow: 1. That the September 21, 1976 Commission agenda sequence be adjusted for consideration of the Comprehensive Plan prior to consideration of the Gordon Rezoning petition. The comprehensive plan should be the primary basis for zoning action. Any action on the Gordon petition would appear untimely in view of the pending Comprehensive Plan. 2. That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the Gordon petition for reason and initiate a Comnission petition to rezone Outlot A from M-R to S-R. Initiation of a rezoning action by the Planning Commission is consistent with provisions of State Statute (MSA 462.356 Subdivision 4). We respectfully suggest the following stated reasons for the denial recommendation: 1. The hearing record provides insufficient evidence that Mr. Gordon presented and substantial factual reason to support the petitioned action other than to expedite approval of a related preliminary plat by the City Council. 2. The petitioned T-R zoning, as well as the existing M-R zoning of the subject parcel, are both inconsistent with the proposed New Hope Comprehensive Plan when said parcel is considered independently, as petitioner proposes. 3. Substantial evidence has been presented at hearings on said proposed Com- prehensive Plan in support of changing conditions on lands, including the subject parcel. These changing conditions, relating to traffic circulation and impact on surrounding existing land use, may result in a comprehensive plan finding that neither M-R nor T-R zoning on the subject parcel is in the best community interest. Gentlemen, we respectfully suggest that the current M-R zoning of Outlot A is clearly in error as the result of substantially changed conditions affecting and affected by development of the parcel. It would appear that T-R zoning would be equally in error with respect to type of resulting development (attached living units) if not necessarily in degree (number~of units). The Commission may, and considering the circumstances, should initiate a petition to rezone Outlot A from M-R to S-R. Once the Comprehensive Plan for this area, including Outlot A, is adopted, let the recommendation of that plan be the basis for the zoning of the parcel. If T-R (R-3) zoning is, in fact, in the best community interest as reflected by the adopted plan, a rezoning from S-R (R-l) to T-R (R-3) will be even more logical than the currently petitioned M-R to T-R without plan basis. A firm plan basis is now apparent other than expediency. Si ncerely~vours, 5~~ ~ ~269 HOUSF~G, REDEVELOp~NT, PLANN~-G, ZONING 462.~57 rs Under subdivision 1. ~ charts, tables, and other ; with and to assist in the development of the comprehensive municipal plan. In A municipality may Pub ~} irs planning activities the planning agency sh~ll take due cognizance of the p/an- ~i n,no activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public agencies. ~ingmatterS'mattersmaYwit31indiStriburet~, mentsThe planningwhenever necessary.agency shall periodically review the plan and recommend amend- to finance its planning ~ Subd. 2. Procedure for plan adoption and amendment. 'Che planning agency may appropriate mon~e~ ~ ,.-nay, unless otherwise provided by charter or ordinance consistent w/th the mu. t and gifts for plann~n~. ~i~ nicipa/ charter, adopt and amend from time to time a comprehensive municipal · ~ plan as its recommendation to the governing body. The plan may be prepared ad s+ -~ governments er ~ and adopted in sections, each of which relates to a major subject of the plan or to tep ing activities au. ! a majcr geographical section of the ~nunicipa!ity. T~he pose amendments to the comprehensive municipal plang°verningby resolutionb°dYsubmittedmay pro- ' to the planning agency. Before adopting the comprehensive municipal plan or any S~on 1. Planning a4ren~ section or amendment of the plan, the planning agency shall hold at least one pul> a planning agency. A ~ iic hearing thereon. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall ~Y two-thirds vote of all ~ be published once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten [halt be advisory, except ! days before the day of the hearing. The proposed p/an, section of the plan, or s 462.351 to 462.364. by i amendment shall be transmitted to the governing body prior to the publication municipal charter. Th~ of the notice of hearing. Adoption and amendment of the comprehensive municipal ay' or may not include ~ plan or of any section thereof shall be bv resolution adopted by a majority of all the members of the planning commission. A copy of the plan or of any ission may be provid~,l i' section or amendment thereof adopted by the planning agency shall be certified ~uctUregoverning°f thebody.mUnicipal~ to the governing body of ihe municipality· ~rmmg commission ad. ~ Subd. 3. Adoption by governing body. U1Tless otherwise provided by charter, ~m governing body and ~ the governing body may by resolution of a majority of its members adopt and ~.y be provided with an ~ amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof so recommended as the official nunicipal departments. I municipal plan upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed by ordinance. ming body of any rn,.b Until so adopted by the governing body, the plan shall constitute only the recom. r an official map shall i mendation of the planning agency. , The board shall have. [1965 ~ 670 s 5] ~ctb ?2.359, subdivi. 462.356 PEOCEDD'RE FOR PLAIV EFFEC~UATIOI~; GE~EIIALL¥, Subdivi. _/rig -,Y may provide sion 1. lieeo~enda~ons for phm execution. Upon the recommendation by the I adjustments or tha.~ planning agency of the comprehensive municipal plan or sections thereof, the plan- ~/ttee of the plannin,~ ning agency shall stfdy and propose to the governing body reasonable and prac- md it nmy provide an ticable means for putting the plan or section o£ the plan into effect. Subject to eI~ other duties as th:, the limitations of the fo]lowing sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, regulations for the Subdivision of land, an off}cia} map, a he board, the govern, program for coordination of the normal public improvements and services of. ide that the decisions the municipality, urban renewal and a capital improvements program. ~ct to judicial review Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or i later judicial review section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed eals and adjustments ti-itt] the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the crested parties as is municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement hail within a reason, be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any ;rye a copy of such other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality tLntil after ~ appear at the hear. ~t~_e planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital ~ions as may be in- unprovement and reported in %writing to the governing body or other special the conduct of pro- district or agency or political subdivision concerned its fundings as to compliance : g/ring of oaths to of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement w/th the comprehensive mu board shall provff~c- nicipal plan. Failure of the planning a~,enc: ~ ' ' such other period as may be designated by thi ~ of its meetings, its ~ days after such a reference, or s. Y to.report on t~.e proposal ~vithin 4 :din~. ~e final orden · governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of tiffs subdi. :as ~oard of ad- ~ vision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote dis. ~uthorizeda apt~al Orbypetitionit has ~ Pense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its jud~ornent it finds and report to thc ~ that the proposed acquisition or disposal of ' has no relationship to the co .......... real property or capital imr ~,~1965 ¢ 670 ~ 6] ,,~P~=~u~ve municipal plan. P ovement ~' OlV COM~RE. t 462-357 PliOCEDUIiE IvOl~ pLA~r EFFE visio~n L Authori for zo ' * CTUATION; ZONL~V - - - and review. The i ...... ~ nm~. For the purnose ~* ........ ~ G. Subd~ [an. In discharging I [,,¥~us aha general ~velfare a m,,,,~-~,,~+- ~__v~,m,oung the public h~alth-*saf :e. the planning ac* / height, bulk, number of stn~; .... -~ ..... :~-~,?. ~,uy oy ordinance re~ulat~ +*.~ ~,_~_a{.~ty, xxc~, ~lze OI Ollxll~llngs and other structures the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density ~ msu~,~ conformity and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, 46?,~a-~ HOUSING, RED~OP~, I'LANNING, ZONING 5270 5271 HOL~S dus~, residence~ ~creafio~ pubic activi~es, or other p~poses, and ~e uses of land de~ ~e obtai~g of su for ~ade, indust~, residence, recreation, agric~t~e, forest~, soft conse~ation, sion or pl~n~g board: water supply cq~e~afion, conservation of shcrel~ds, as defin~ in section 105.~, ~sals of ~e gove~ing flood control or other purposes, and may establish s~nda~s and proced~es rc~ of the co~uni~, to lat~g such u~s. ~e re~lations may divide the municipality into ~st~c~ or zones have conducted a public of sui~ble numbers, shape and ~ea. ~e re~latio~ sh~I be unifo~ for each class ~ of which hearing publi~ or k~d oi buil~gs, s~uctures or land and for each class or kind of u~ ~roughout general circ~a~on at such dis~ict, but the re.la.ohs in one distri~ may ~ffer ~ ~o~ ~ other d~ ~ hoeing, which no.ce tricts. The ordinate embod~g these regulations shall be known as ~e zoning ~ shall have reported ~o ore--ce and sh~ ~nsist of te~ and maps. A city may by ord~ extend ~e ~ons in writ~g. appti~tion of its zon~g re~latiens to unincorporated ter~to~ l~t~ ~t~n two Subd. 6. AP~ ~les of i~ limits in ~ ~?~t~n, county or town which has adopt~ adjustmen~ may more noncontiguous municipa~ties sonable conditions im~ zoning re~lations; pro~uaea ~a~ wnere have boundaries less th~ four ~les apar~ each is author~ed to control ~e zoning justments has the follo~ of land on its side of a l~e equidistant between the ~o non~onfi~o~ m~cip~i- ~ (1) To he~ ~d de ties unless a town or ~unty in the affected area has adopted zoning regffiations. _~y ~ order, requ~ement, d~ ~W may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same e~ent as il ~e enforcement of the such properW were situated within its corpora~ limits, until ~e counW or town (2) To hear ~ues board adop~ a comprehensive zon~g relation which includes ~e area. ~circums~nces~St~ces whereuniquethei al re ~ements At any t~e after the adop~on of a land ~ Sub~ 2. ~ner ..~ .- - ~-,-~ ...... for me Du~ose of ~g out ~e such vari~ces only plan for the m~cipm~w, the p~annm= a~,.~:, policies and goals of the land ~e plan. may prep~e a proposed zo~g o~ with the spi~t and ~d submit it to ~e governing body ~th its recommendations for adoption. Su~ ~e gove~g body as j~t to ~e requ~emen~ of subdivisions 3, 4 ~d 5, the gove~g body may adopt is not pe~t~d und~ ~d amend a,zofling ordnance by a two-thirds vote oi all its mem~. person's lm~d is locateC Subd. 3. Public. h~1ngs. No zoning or.nonce or amendment ~ereto sh~ mit as a variance the ~ adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by ~e pla~g agency or lng. The board or gore by the gove~ing body. A notice of the time, place and p~ose of the h~ing sh~ grant~g of va~anc~ be pub~shed in the o~cial newspaper of the munici~lity at least ten ~ys prior to [1965 c 670 s 7; 196~ the day of ~e hear~g. ~en an amendment ~volves ~anges ~ dist~ct bounda~es ~ t973 ~ 559 8- I, ~] aff~g an area of five ac~s or less, a sitar notice shall be ~a~ at least ten 4~58 PR~ days ~fore the day of ~e hearing to each owner of ~ted prope~y ~d property ~TIONS. Subdi~ si~ated ~vhoily or partly within 350 feet of the proper~v to which the amendment no.tic, ~d safe deve~ relates. For the pu~o~ oi giving mailed notice, ~e pe~on respo~ib!e for mail~g promote ~e pub!ia h the notice may use ~y appropriate records to dete~ine ~e names ~d ad~'esses of may adopt subdg~sio: o~ers. A copy of the notice and a 5st of the owners and addresses to ~vhich ~e ~d design rcqu~ ~fice was sent sh~ be attested to by the responsible posen and sha~ be made a ~ dures for plat approve ol the ~cords of ~e proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to ~dividual ~g autho~ty. Subdi~ prope~y owners, or delects in the no~ce shall not inva~date ~e procee~gs, pr~ gove~ng body is th ~ded a bona fide aRempt to comply with this subdivision has be~ made. resotutionaU~°rity iSextendan agentthe Subd. 4. ~en~en~ ~ ~en~ent to a zon~g o~ce may ~e ~itlat~ by the gove~g ~Y, the pl~g agency, or by ~ti~on of ~ect~ prope~y te~ito~y located o~e~ as defied tn th~on~g o~an~. ~ amendment not ~itiated by ~e which has adopted plam~g agency shad be relerred to the ptann~g agen~v, if there ~ one, for noncon~ous m~i~ s~dy and report and may not be acted upon by the gove~ing bo,dy ~til it h~ authored to cont~ r~elv~ the recommendation of the planning agency on the propos~ amendment wlth~ this area. or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of re~erence_ of the amendment ~' proposedSUbd' 2.subdivisionTerms ~] out a repo~ by the pla~ing agency. Subd. 5. A{nendment; cer~in cities of ~he f~s~ cl~s. ~e pro~sions of tt~s In estab~s~ng req~, subdivision apply to cities of the first class. In such cities amendments to a zo~g shall take into consid~ ordinance shall be made in conformance ~th ~is section but only after there sha~ of the development have been filed in the o~ce of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of ~v~ ~: to the approval of an~ ~i~s of the severM descriptions of real estate sit'ate %vithin 100 feet of the total - di%~sion regula~ons conti~ous des~iptions of real estate held by the same owner or any parW purchas- ~ %vhich streets shall ~g any such contiguous properW within one year preceding ~e r~uest, a~d after ~ or piping, water, sew ~e a~ative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the mem~rs of the governing pro.de, or author~e body of any such city. The govern~g body of such city may, by a t~vo-~irds vote of : in l~eu of the comple~ its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written con. em~g body or platt~ sent whenever the planning commission or planning board of such city shall have ~ deposit, certified checl made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40 acr~, factow to it. to assur, ~thin which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the exis~g a~ally constructed ordnance would take effect when adopted, ~-~d shall have' considered whether ~e ~ gove~g ~dy or pl number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alterations ren- ~ pal~ty may enforce PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 5~ 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Mope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to oraer at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Atchley (excused), Christensen (excused), London, Pakonen (London and aakonen arrived at 7:37 p.m.). 3. PLANNING CASE 76-62 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT TRUCK RENTAL AT 6 13 WEST BROADWAY - ROBERT SYLVESTER~ PETITIONER. Mr. Walter Nichols stated he was representing Mr. Sylvester who had been unable to attend. He added that he was ~he Manager of the Pfleider Corporation, the owners of the facilities a? 6113 West Broadway. They were requesting the special use permit to allow them to park three rental Ryder trucks at this address, as an additional use to the service station. Mr. Nichols noted he woul~ ~e glad to answer ~uestions from the Commissioners but stated he was limited as to knowledge because this type of thing was customarily handled by a differen~ department of the corporation. Commissioner Gustafson asked where, specifica ly, they intended to park the trucks on the property', Mr. Nichols stated they would be paFked in back of the facility proper. Discussion then followed as to what was the ~ack of the proper~y, whether the trucks would be parked by the fence on 62nd, how the trucks would gain access ~o the rear of the property, and whether they would oe parked on the ~lacktop? Commissioner Gustafso~ noted that the diagram submitted with the application showed the trucks parked next to the street an~ not behind mne gas station. Mr. Nichols note~ that the angle might be misleading in referring ~o "rear" of the facility. There was access to drive completely arouna the f~cility. In response to questions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Nichols noted that the Pf eider Corporation had been in existence for 35 years. The station had pre- ¥~ously been operated Dy Gulf. The station is owned by the Corporation and wi Iae as permanent as ~he corporation. It has been operated for !ess than a year -- the gasoline facilities for less than two montns. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission could only react to a specific request from the petitioner. He then suggested tha~ a representative of the Corporation appear before the Commission with a firm plan for the truck rent~l operation that included exactly where the trucks wou d ~e parked, where the access would be and all other pertinent detai s. Commissioner Gustafso~ suggested that before the petitioner re-appear before the Commission he obtain a copy of the City Ordinances as they relate to truck rental, an~ ~e aware of the City regulations as · o fencing/screening an~ other requirements as they ~ertain to truck rentals and special use permits. Commissioner Gustafson made a motisn tO table Planning Case 76-62 - Request for a Specia Use Permit at 6 13 West Broadway unti the meetinq of October 19th~ 1976. Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Craigi~, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Christensen Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-68 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AT 7900 61st AVENUE NORTH - GRACE HUBBARD, PETITIONER. Mr. Earl Hubbard spoke on behalf of the owner and petitioner, Grace Hubbard. He stated that what they were petitioning for was to move the lot line on the West I0 feet further to the West, giving lot ~3 a 90 foot frontage and lot #4 a 127 foot frontage. The main purpose of this request is to compleme~.f the existing landscaping ana contour of the land on lot #4, where the home is located, and to protect the trees that have been there for up to 40 years. It will also permit the ot6~r ot to be sold at some future time. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that there were no variances involved, only a waiver of platting. Commissioner London clarified that Lot #4 would be 127' x 129' and Lot #3 would be 90' x 129'. Both lots would be well within the size requirements of the City. Commissioner London recommended approval of Case 76-68 - R~uest for Waiver of Plattinq at 7900 61st Avenue North. Commissioner Bartos second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - OCTOBER 5, 976 4. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Pakonen, Craigie, Cameron~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: At~hley, Christensen Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-69 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 5401 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - DONALD PIERCE~ PETITIONER. Mr. Pierce stated that he was ~equesting the variance to three feet on the sideyard to a Iow him to bui d a garage. He has a water problem in the back yard, due to drainage from neighboring yards through his yard, which prohibits him from 01acing the garage further back. The variance would allow him to place The garage a minimum of six feet from the house and avoid blocking the windows of the kitchen. ~n answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Pierce noted that he did not oresently have a garage and that The garage when built would ~e used strictly for storage of vehic es. There would not oe any type of shop or home occupation involved. Mr. Pierce further stated that he felt reducing the size of the garage by two feet would imit the enm trance of the vehic es. The garage will be finished with masonite siding, oainted the same co or as the house, with the same Type of roof line, although the garage will not be as high as the house. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of Case 76-69 - Reques~ ~or Sideyard Variance at 5401 Quebec Ave~ue~ suoiect to the same roof line as on the house aha that the sidin~ color would be identical ~o the house. Commissioner Gundershaug secone. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Pakonen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting.against: None Absent: Atchley, Christensen Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-70 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLA~ FOR =OSTE HASTE SHOPPING CENTER 36th AVENUE AND HIGHWAY #18. Mr. meter Hitch represented Tri-Poste Associates, owners of the shopping center. Mr. Hitch stated that in light of the residential areas to the North ~n~ East of the shopping center, they were not requesting additional signage on these sides but were o~anning to concentrate the signage on the West and South sides of the center. He was requesting that the tenants on the East ane South be given exposure on the South ~nd West sides~ within the given ratios of the sign ordinance. The second prooosa was that the tenants on the East and North be g'ven the opportunity to place a small sign on the pylon sign. At the present time the pylon eoes not support al of the tenants at Poste Haste Square. This has made it difficult to attract potential TenanTs to the center, because they do not have any form of exposure. Mr. Hitch added that Poste Haste die not present the normal situation of a shopping center. It cannot support tenancy just because it is a shopping center. It is a convenience type of center which re les a grea~ dea on the imoulse type of buying. Exposure to this impulse type of buyer is imperative. He adde~ that there was a thire proposal, not included on the plan submitted earlier, which would aid a potential tenant in achieving exposure. They had 0een approached by a dentist, who was interested in moving into the area but ne was concernee as to The e~posure that he might have. The dentist has problems under the ethical res'~raints of his organizati'on and fee s he cannot have a sign on the pylon ane was asking whether the Commission would consider a small, free standing, sign that would fall within the restrictions of the den~al association. Chairman Cameron asked if Mr. Hitch was including this request within ~he proposal before the Commission at the present time? Mr. Hitch indicated he would like to. The dentist's tenancy had been proposed after the original appli- cation had been submitted. The dentist ~eels that ne must ~ave some type of exposure along 36th Avenue. Mr. Hitch noted tha~ after the petitioner's appearance before the Design and Review Committee, the sug- gestion had been made that they ~eet with the Co~es and Standards Committee. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Hitch stated they were somewhat in a hurry in regard to approval of the sign plan. One tenant had a sign that he wished to have installed as soon as possible. The Chairman noted that this was the first time that the Commission and subsequently the City Council would be acting on an overall sign plan for a shop0ing center uneer the revised sign ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - OCTOBER 5, 1976 6. Commissioner London commented that the Design and Review Committee had suggested that this proposed sign 01an be reviewed by Codes and Standards because they, as a committee, did not feel familiar enough with the new Sign Ordinance to judge the proposal. Discussion between Commissioner London anH the Chairman regarding this request for Codes and Standards to meet with the petitioner. IT was suggested that this would perhaps become more common in the future in 'mplementing the new Sign Ordinance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Hitch noted that he could be ready with a spe- cific proposal on the dentist's sign by Tuesday, October 12th. He added that he would like to meet with someone '~n regar~ to this request. The City Manager confirmed that there was no way a second ground sign could De installed without a var'ance being obtained. Commissioner Gustafson proposed that his Committee meet on October 12th, at 8:15 with Mr. Hitch to dis- cuss the sign plan for Poste Haste Center. Chairman Cameron commented on the fact that he felt that the oetitioners, upon purchase of the shopping center should have been aware of the restrictions imposed by the New Hope Sign Ordinance. Mr. Hitch commented that at the time of the purchase the signage had seemed TO be sufficient. It was only when they had determined how distressed the center was, that it had become more important to'obtain additional exposure. Discussion between the Chairman and Mr. Hitch about The existing signs and the fact that the tenants on the East and North will also require signs on the South' and West sides of the center. In answer to a question from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Hitch stated that the missing portions of the pylon sign would be replaced. Commissioner Pakonen noted that dentists usually ~perated on a referral system and wondered whether a temporary sign might be sufficient for the dentist? Mr. Hitch noted that this might be an alternative since the dentist was concerned with initial exposure. Discussion followed regarding the need for a joint meeting between the Design anc Review Committee and the Codes an~ Standards Committee to review the sign plan. Concensus was that this would not be held at the present time. Commissioner Lo'ndon noted that when the petitioner appeared before the Codes and Standards Committee, he should have the entire proposal prepared and pretty well finalized as to everything they were requesting. Commissioner Gustafson ~ade a motior to table Case 76-70 - Approval of a Comprehensive Siqn Plan at Poste Haste Square - until the meeting of October 19tht 1976 in order to allow the petitione[ and the Codes and Standards Committee to meet to review the plan. Commissioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos~ Pakonen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Christensen Motion passed. The meeting between the representatives of Poste Haste Square and the Codes and Standards Committee was then set for 8:30 p.m. on October 12~ 1976 at the City Hall. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. Commissioner Gustafson noted that Codes and Standards had not met but would have a meetinq at 7:00 p.m. Qn Tuesday, October 12, 1976. commissioner Craigie stated that the Sub-Committee on Encroachment on City Property had met. He pre- sented a list of recommendations (as attached) that the Sub-Committee wished staff to consider in the drafting of an ordinance regarding encroachments. He then reviewed these recommendations. The recommendations included the need for the homeowner to demonstrate a "need" for the encroachment, short of a legal hardship but more than aesthetic; that the encroachment not infringe on sight lines of either pedestrians or vehicular traffic; that it no~ interfere with street maintenance or snow removal; that the homeowner provide proof of insurance coverage, naming the City as the insured person; and that the encroachments be handled under a permit system similar to the variance procedure. Discussion followed about these recommendations. The Commissioners expressed concerns about the opinion of the City Attorney in regard to enforcing such an ordinance, the amount of insurance coverage to be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - OCTOBER 5~ 1976 7. required ($50,000 suggested), whether or not this was an issue that could come under landscaping, the difficulties of determining whether or not an encroachment was "necessary", the differences between a lowing man-maee encroachments versus those of a natura type, and whether or not the City might have a responsibility to replace the encroachment should it require removal for some reason,i.e, sidewalk installation. Commissioner Anderson raised the question that the act of issuing a permit to encroach might in turn make the City iable because they had allowed the encroachment. Chairman Cameron suggested that perhaps no encroachment should Be a lowed at all. Commissioner Craigie suggested an additional meeting of the Committee on Thursday~ October 7th. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 9. Commissioner London reported that the Design and Review Committee had met at 6:30 p.m. on 10/5/76 to review a request that will be before the Commission on 10/19/76. NEW BUSINESS I0. During a discussion of the Counci minutes of September 27th, the City Manager noted that the City Attor- ney was presently drawing up a resolution that would snow "findings of facts" to support the denial of the Taco Bell petition. He further noted that the Marv Gordon petition had been approved as requested and that the funeral home had also been approved for Bass Lake Road. I1. Commissioner London referred to his statements made at the end of .the Planning Commission meeting of September 21st, in which ne had expressed his distress at Case 76-61 bei'ng sent back to the Commission. He added that since that time he had done some research into the matter and wished to express his apolo- gies for his statements. He had not originally understood the Council"s reasons for referring the peti- tion back to the Commission. He now understood them. The minutes were accepted as printed. 12. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt the Commissioners should discuss the procedures to be fo lowed in the upcoming final review of the Comprehensive Plan, before they began the process. Was the Commission going To take the route of forcing the new zoning and end u0 in court? The City Manager noted that first the Commission must adopt a plan and before that, the policies, and then determine now they were TO be implementeC -- do they rezone on a direct transfer using the Plan to then react to specific developments or do they rezone on the oasis of the Plan. Considerable discussion followed between the Commissioners as ?o whether they should review the policies as previously adopted first, or attempt to review them 'n connection with specific zoning recommendations as il ustrated on the zoning maps. n response to questions fbom the Chairman, the City Manager stated he felt that at the meeting on October 9th, the Commission should re-affirm the policies ane goals in terms of what they want for the City. The Commissioners shou d do hard personal thinking between now and that meeting in preparation for this policy review, n discussion of the list of 37 potential'areas of concern in~egard to the proposed zoning, the c~ncensus was that solutions to so~e of these concerns might be resolved through additional study and 0ossible revi- sion of the use lists for the various districts. The feeling of the Commission seemed to oe that, as much as possible, the district classifications should be reviewed separately as they will affect the en- tire City (i.e. all types of residential, industrial, type of housing desi~ee, and business/shopping areas). The City Manager restated his opinion that on the 19th October the Commission's first step should be to decide whether or not they wish to amene, recommend acceptance of, or throw out, the recommendations as contained in the Policy Plan. Then apply the policies to specific areas of the City. The policies.must be reviewed, discussed further and a determination made by the Commissioners as a group, which direction they felt the City should go in terms of future planning. 'The Chairman requested that the City Manager prepare an index of the input received in relation to the Comprehensive Plan by category i.e. housing, commercial and industrial, to assist the Commission in reviewing the goals and policies ~or the City. Discussion held on this approach'. No concensus reached on specific methods for further review. Commissioner Gus-fafson agreed that Codes and Standards wo~ d review the "use lists" before the meeting of October 19th. 13. The City Manager noted that if any of the Commissioners wished to attend the "Understanding Community Development""course offered at North Hennepin Community College on Thursdays, the City would pay the fees. 14. The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted~ oyce Boeddeker~ Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Ccmmission was held on Tuesday, October 19, 1976 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Ch~istensen, Pakonen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Atch ey (excused) PUBLIC HEAR NGS 3. PLANNING CASE 76-62 (CONTINUED FROM 10-5-76) REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT 6113 WEST BROADWAY - ROBERT .SYLVESTER OF THE PFL~IDER CORPORATION, PETITIONER. The City Manager reported that the petitioner had requested a further delay in their apperance before the Commission. Commissioner Gustafson moved to table Case 76-62 until the meetinq of November 2t. 1976. Commissioner Gundershau§ second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: ^tchley Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-70 (CONTINUED FROM 10-5-76) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ^ COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN WITH VAR ANCE FOR POSTE HASTE SHOPPING CENTER - 9400 36TH AVENUE NORTH. Mr. Dave Reimer re~resented Poste Haste. He noted that Mr. Hitch ~nd Dr. Boger were also in attendance. in answer to questions from the Chairmad, Mr. Reimer stated that they had met with the Codes and Stan- Oards Committee regarding the comprehensive sign plan. Mr. Reimer noted that they were reauesting a temporary free standing sign in addition to the tota sign approval. This sign would accommodate the dentist, Dr. Boger, who desired to rent space in the center. He noted that Dr. Bo~er was restricted by the dentist professional organization .in signage. Dr. Boger presented a sketch of his proposed sign for the benefit of the Commiss'ioners. The sig~ will be basically of redwood, with a name Dlate of approximately 20'~ by 30" with 5" and 3'! letters. Dr. Boger stated that he felt that in moving to New Hcne he would need exposure. The space he is interested in is on the West side of the center. He is not al owed to have any type of illuminated sign, which wou d eli- minate putting his name on the pylon; he is also restricted from using etters more than 7" in height which would eliminate a sign on the canopy· He ae~ee that he has been practice with another dentist for two years, lives in New Hope an~ thus would like ~o locate his office in New Hope. He further stated he was not allowed ~o advertise and could only contact present patients in regard To his new office. In establishing a new practice, exposure was imperative, in his opinion. In response to questions from the Chairman, Dr. Boger noted that inasmuch as most dentists in the area are stil accepting new patients, to move into a professional building with 7 or 8 other dentists would nOT ~e helpfu to building up a new practice. He felt that most dentists moved into professional build- ings after they were established. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Dr. Boger noted that he would prefer to piace the new sign 15-20 feet West of the Py!on. He presented the Cdmmission with a copy of the section of the dental rules and regulations that pertained to advertising (copy attached to official minutes). In answer'tO a'question;:~r6m Commissioner Pakonen zegarding newspaper aevertising, Dr. Boger noted that he was allowed one ad, 2 days running, announcing his new office and t~at he could contact his present patients in regard to the new location. Mr. Reimer commented that because of the location of the shopping center it had been difficult to lease space because there was exposure only to #18 and 36th Avenue. They felt it was necessary for any tenants ocated on the South and East to also have exposure· They are proposing that all existing signs remain subject to the ordinances in effect now. They further propose that all new signs should be erected on the South and West walls. In attempting to make all signage uniform the owners will require that all bottom edges of signs must abut the edge of the mansard roof line; that there be 4' between the signs aha that the square footage for all signs not exceed 15% of the total wall surface. Al future signs will have to receive the ap- proval of the owners of the Center. They are proposing that the store owners not facing West and South be al.lowed to place signs on the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1976~ 4. other sides.of ~he structure providing they conform to the estab ished criteria. The only additional sign proposed for the South side at this time is a 3' x 8' sign for State Farm Insurance. He added that in addition they were requesting the Temporary free-standing sign for Dr. Boger. ,e added that a tenant who alreaQy had two signs would De requ're~ TO replace the sine sign with a 2'x6"x6" bubble sign at the end of the amortization period. Mr. Reimer noted that in requesting the variance for the dentist's sign, they felt that the conditions were unique Oecause of the restrictions imposeQ Dy the dental association. He felt that the pur0ose of the sign was not solely to create value, but to enable the use to survive. They further feel that the location of the dentist in the cehter would provide an additional solia use for the center and not be obnoxious or endanger the neighbors 'n any way. They are further requesting a variance to allow one tenant to have two signs because of the unusual de- sign of the shopping center. The City Manager noted that there were a couple of other points involved in the sign plan request. The Ole Piper sign was 105' whereas they were limited to I00'. There are also several tenants who have per- manent signs on their doors or windows that should De considered as part of the total wall signage. In answer to a question fr~m the Chairman, the City Manager stated that he felt that in approving the comprehensive sign plan, the variances should be noted as granted. Discussion then held regarding existing signs at the center and the point at which they would be brought into conformance with the new code. Mr. Reimer indicated that he woule prefer that the existing signs run to the end of the amortization period. At that time they would either replace the signs or request a variance to the code. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he would like to see an il ustration of the full proposal before he voted on the request. Discussion followed regarding the difficplty in visualizing the total sign plan without a complete pro- posal to review. Suggestion was maee that the variance for the dentist's sign be considered as a separate issue. ComMissioner London noted that he felt it was difficult to "hear" a proposal rather than "see" i~ and in his opinion a complete proposal should be presented. Mr. Reimer stated that the overall request for a comprehensive sign plan remained the same, with some revisions and they had not realized they should prepare a complete illustration. Further discussion, The Chairman stated he felt it would be impossible for the Commission to vote on the sign plan until they hae seen an illustration of the complete pro0osal. Commissioner Gustafson maee a motion to table the comprehensive sign plan portion of Case 76-70 until the meeting of November 2nd. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Pakonen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: C~aigie, Anderson Absent: Atchley Motion passed. Further discussion followed about the proposed dental sign, covering the length of time that the s'gn should be allowed, who would maintain the sign, the exact location of the sign and the materials to be used for the sign. The sign to be of reewood or a similar quality of ,.;ood, maintained by the center owners. The Chairman noted that the sign would have to come under the r~strictions of the City's ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend approval of the variance for a temporary dentist si~n aT Poste Haste Square to oe located 25 feet West of the base c{ the pylon_sign for a period of three years~ to be of no ~ore than The maximum dimensi'ons as 'llustr~ted on the exhibit submitted by the petitioner. Commissioner Craiqie second. Further discussion between the Commissioners. The Chairman noted that he felt this set a dangerous precedent for the future; feeling there was, in his opinion, no justification for the additional sign. ~-~. Commissioner Craigie noted, for the record, that he felt there were a significant number of things in- volved in this sign variance, other than the financial aspect. Commissioner Anderson noted he felt it would be far less harmful as a temporary sign now, than when the amortization period ~a~ expired. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - OCTOBER 19, 1976 ~ 4. Commissioner Pakonen commented that he did not like the idea of a temporary sign, but when there were restrictions on advertising, as in the case of the dent}st~ he reit the variance was'justified. Commissioner London stated he felt that three years was too long a period to allow a temporary sign. He was in favor of 18 months or 2 years. Commissioner Bartos agreed with this. Commissioner Bartos amended the motion fo allow the temporary sign for no more than 24 months. Com- missioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor of the amendment: London, Bartos, Pakonen, Craigie, G§stafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Cameron Abstain: Christensen Absent: Atchley Motion passed. Voting on the amended motion: London, Bartos, Pakonen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Cameron Abstain: Christensen Absent: Atchley Motion passed. Further discussion regarding a potential change of tenancy and the affect this might have on the temporary sign. Commiss'oner Loneon amended the amended motion to state that the temporary ground sign was approved .for a period of two years or the length of time of Dr. Boger's tenancy~ .whichever came first. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Pak~nen, Crai§ie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Cameron Abstain: Christensen Absent: Atchley Motion passed. Chairman Cameron informed Mr. Reimer that he should have the complete comprehensive sign plan including revisions, to the City Manager by the 28th October for distribution to the Commission. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-71..- REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AND-CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 5017 BOONE - NORDI.~ PRESS, PETITIONER. Mr. David Bartol, repffesenting Rauenhorst Corporation, who will construct the bui ding for Nordic Press, was present on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Bartol introduced Mr. Jake Jacobson and Mr. Olaf Bjorkedal from Nordic Press. He stated that Nordic PreSs was considering building on a lot just to the West of their existing build- 'ng. They will aee~ a variance to al ow.parking in the front of the building.' They feel the position of the cul-du-sac as it ~uts into the lot presents a hardship. It serves as_a service road for Nordic Press ana Keelor Steel and wi.II never be extended and has very little traffic. They are planning extensive landscaping and have consulted a landscape architect who recommended Creating some hills on each side and included a large number of large plants -- 7 ash, 3½" in diameter, several Austrian Pines and crab trees. They have endeavored to use larger shrubbery to screen at the eye level. The proposed plantings will not grow much higher than 6 feet. Commissioner Christensen noted that he felt there were three variances involved. One for the parki-ng 'n the front of the building, one for the width of the driveway and one for green space. The driveway 's proposea to be 45' wide and 28' is the limit without a variance. Mr. Bartol noted the green space had been changed so they meet the 35% requirement. He added that the width was needed in the driveway to allow the trucks to maneuver into the docks.. Commissioner Christensen asked Mr. Barto to explain why the owners preferred the second building 'to be 'totally separate from the existing structure. Mr. Bjorkedal responded that in view of past experience, they felt it more desirable to have the 'buildings separate, in the event that their business did not expand as much as they anticipated. They would than be able to rent the second bui ding until such time as Nordic Press again required more space. The building will be a warehouse, constructed of block with the brick matched as closely as possible to the present bui ding. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - OCTOBER 19, 1976 5. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Larson stated that as long as the new build- ing remained a warehouse they had adequate ~arking provided. At the time that it became another use, or was converted to office space, there would be a'problem. Mr. Bartol noted that there would be no equipment on the roof, there would be two truck docks of an in- ferior Type, that the turn around will be in the cul-du-sac and that the trucks will back into the bui d- ing. There will be security lighting of a mercury vapor type along the front and -ne ~ormal entry lights. There will be no additional sign. All refuse containers will be inside. The City Manager confirmed that 51st Avenue will never De extended to the West because the area is a permanent ponding area. Commissioner Bartos commented that, as a neighborhood resident, he felt that Nordic Press kept their premises in a very nice manner and that the cul-du-sac behind the building was barely visible from Boone. Commissioner Christensen recommended approva of Case 76-71 Request for Variances allowinq for a 45 foot driveway and parkin~ in the front of the buildinq and Construction Approval aT 5017 Boone Avenue. Com- missioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-72 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND FRONT YARD VARIANCE AT 50TH/HILLSBORO - STABEN COMPANY~ PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Olson of the Olson Concrete Company, the general contractor for the bui ding, was present on be- half of the petitioner. The aroposed building is a 27,000 square foot multi-tenanT warehouse. They were requesting a variance in the front yard setback to allow The entry structure to project into the setback area. It's an open entryway that would project II feet into the setback area. He added that there are soil problems to the East and it would ~dd expense to-have to position the builaing further back. tn answer to questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Olson stated he did not anticipate leasing any por- ~-~. tion of the building for only office space. He added that the green area ~rovisions had been ch.anged to bring them into conformance. Mr. Olson noted that there were 37 parking spaces. The City Manager stated this was a sufficient number of spaces unless the petitioner were to develop the mezzanine area.at which time they would require 42 spaces.. Mr. Olson stated this was at the present time an optional second floor only. He added that there is suf- ficient paved area to allow for additional parking, the area would simply neee to be re-striped for more vehicles. Commissioner London confirmed that the entrance will be off Hillsboro and the traffic will follow a U- shaped pattern. Parking will be in the rear, with entrances to the leased areas from the rear. Handi- capped parking is provided in the front with the visitor parking. Discussion followed regarding exterior refuse containers, with Mr. Olsor stating no plans had been drawn, they plan to leave it up to the tenants. The lighting wi I be 4 250W mercury vapor lights in the front and rear. Mr. Olson noted that there is about 14 feet of poor soi'l where the building is to be located and it becomes steadily worse toward ~ne rear of the site. There wil be berming in front of the visitors parking area as well in the front of the building toward Hillsboro around the walk area. The walkway w'll be concrete and the genches of cedar or redwood. The exterior of the building wi I be of ~lock'- the lower 1/2 of a.n embgssed block with the upper I/2 of plain block ~n a stacked pattern. Discussion regardint potential exterior refuse storage and how it might be screened. The rooftop equip- ment will be screened )rom Hillsboro by the entryway structure. Commissioner London recommended approval of Case 76-72 - Request for Approval of Construction Plans and Front Yard Variance of II feet at 50th/Hillsboro~ ~ith The provision that at least two refuse areas be desiqnated at the rear of the bui dinB and that any roof top equipmenT be screenea. Commissioner Crai~ie second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Pakonen~ Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion passed. · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - OCTOBER 19, 1976 7. Chairman Cameron opened the public hearing on the proposed Maintenance/Occupany Code. He asked the City Manager to give a brief presentation. Mr. Larson noted that he felt it was important that the public realize that at the time that the discus- sions and study regarding the new Comprehensive ~lan for the City and the Policies and Goals to be established for the City were held, concern had been expressed that there was a need To be sure that the housing stock, as wel as the commercial and industrial property, would be maintained 'n a manner that would prevent future aeterioration. Following discussions of various groups, the decision had been that the best way to handle this would he with a maintenance code. · He stated that the definitions contained in the Housing and Maintenance Ordinance aad been coordinated with the terms usee in the other City ordinances, in particular with the zoning and building codes. The ordinance covers all three areas -- housing, privately owned and rental; commercial; i. ndustrial; as well as institutiona types of buildings. The document sets up minimum standards in such areas as plumbing, heating, square footage required for occupancy and standards that have to De met as far as exterior maintenance of parking lots, etc. snow shoveling, etc. There are different ways that the ordinance could be enforced. One would be To simply have the document on file in the City Hall, and wnen a complaint is submitted the inspectors would have guide ines to de- termine violation. Another way would 0e to actually go up and down every street and inspect dwe lings. Another way would be on a spot inspection basis, when a ewelling began to ook run down, an inspection would be maee. The fourth alternative would be to 'nspect a nouse when it was sold, with a certificate issued stating whether or not iT met the minimum standards. In the case of rental properties or busi- ness licenses, an inspection could be made at the time of the annual icense renewal. Commissioner Gustafson noted that in their study of such an ordinance, the Committee had found that in terms of enforcement, where cities h~d adopted a "po.int of sale" inspection it had proved to be an asset to the seller. Chairman Cameron declared the public hearing open on the issue of the Hous'ng and Maintenance Code for public input. Mr. Ervin Halvorson, 4304 Boone, stated he was primarily concerned with the portion of the law that re- nted to private residences. He noted that ne had read the law ane felt it was the most unconstitutional document that he had ever seen in his entire life. He added that when he had taken a copy of the Post article around to his neighbors, the comments had ranged from "unbe ievable", "unconstitutional", to they aren't going to come into my house", or "You can't be serious". He added that this was against the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and an individuals "riqht to privacy". He added this was about the most capricious and ~bitrary law that he had ever read.' He noted that the introduction tried to justify the law on human values, and in his opinion, the only purpose of the law was to maintain property values. He added that he nad liked living in New Hope and had thought human values were important here, but he didn't think so anymore. He felt this law was the same as the reasons behind a gun control law -- to catch the minority they were going to aggitate and irritate the majority. He then questioned the com0atibility of the City Manager's summary with what ne had read him- self. In comments regarding other cities and similar laws enacted fo control 'blight, he felt it would never work. Mr. Halvorson further stated that "no, one was going to com~ in and inspect my house". He then read some quotations from Legion Magazine that referred to government solving all problems for citizens. He added that, in his opinion, that 'n issues of this type, it was not what the government did that worked, but what the people did. He added he had had much experience with inspectors, had not allowed himself 'to be pushed around in the past, and no one should attempt to come to his door now. He thanked the Commission for listening to his remarks. Mr. Lowell Carpenter, 6056 Rhode sland Avenue North, stated he agreed with the premise of the ordinance, - but felt that al references to private residences should be taken out of it. In answer to a question from Mr. Carpenter, the Chairman noted that for the last 15-18 months, New Hope had been undergoing a complete revision of the entire planning structure. As part of this total process, several new ordinances had been drafted. This ordinance is the type of thing that most cities were mov- ing toward. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the purpose of the ordinance was very definitely set out in point 1.02 of the ordinance. Mr. Carpenter re-stated that he agreed with the purpose but questioned why it had been written in.this specific fashion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - OCTOBER 19, 1976 ?. Chairman Cameron noted that the fee lng had been that it would be easier to start now to'maintain the auality of housing stock than it would be 20 years from now. Mr. Carpenter stated he felt there was a better way ?o do this, by using buil'ding codes, if people take care of their houses,.values Go not go down. The Chairman noted that this was an "IF". Mr. Carpenter questioned the position of the Director of Protective InspecTion as the ultimate arbitrator when he had no standards to follow, as well as the appeal orocess noted in the ordinance° The City Manager noted that the inspectors could enforce only the minimum standards in th~ code. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Carpenter regarding who set the standards and the Director's position as enforcer of these standards. Mr. Car o'enter auestioned 202.7 where condition as "unsightly or offensive" were listed, but that there was no indication who would define these cogditions. The City Manager ~oted that there would be the inspector's interpretation versus the owner's° If there was disagreement, the proper place for deciding was in the appeal process an~ finally in the courts4 Mr. Carpenter then questioned the lobby sign stating that the City supported equal opportunity housing, noting that generally minorities had larger families, and according To the code, his nome with three bed- rooms would not aualify in square footage for h~im to sell to a minority with a large family. He rewstated bis feeling that every reference to pri~ate residences should be removed from the coae with a separate ordinance written relating to the health aspects. Cc~missioner Anderson requested that ne be allowed to clarify for the citizens that the ordinance had not as yet been adooted by the Commission or the Council. The meeting was a oublic hearing ~o gather input from the citizens regarding the ordinance. All the commission was considering was a proposed ordinance. The Chairman noted that the Commission was not in session to defend~ the ordinance, that the meeting was a public hearing to gain input before de~isions were made. Mr. Leo Derus, 4616 Virgina, stated he was opposed to the ordinance on historical, constitutional and ~ technical grounds. Historically, he felt the history of New Hope hadn't beer as good always as it appeared to him to be right now. He noted that he was impressed with the conduction of the meeting. He ~eferenced past allowances that he ~elt had been granted to developers. He added it would be a serious misuse of privileged infor- mation for the building department of the City to use such information regarding violations against the current occupants of the buildings. He did not mean to say they would do this, but ne felt it was a poss~- bil~ty . Constitutional y the ordinance is deficient 0ecause it invites abuse of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and tWe lOth Article of the State of Minnesota Constitution, in regare to illegal search and seizure. Fina ly, it would require a large expense for additional inspectors. He eld not think it fit the mood of the people. Mr. Don Melar, 4216 Boone~ stated he wished to second many of the comments made ear ier, particularly in regare to costs. He felt that an ordinance of this type might be a gooe idea, but he felt that this particular ordinance went too far. He urged the Commission to defeat the ordinance. Mr. Carl Demoke, 3917 Maryland, stated that he believed that in the face of the statements in regard to the economics of the ordinance, he wondered that the Commission had seriously considered whether they mioht be trying to enact something that would create a vas~ duolicity of services that already exist in the City. He stated that there were good men in the insoection eepartment, why was the commission seeking to add something that will cost extra dollars when the City does not have adequate people to handle the present work load? How many more people would be required with the adoption of the ordinance? He recom mended that the ordinance be. defeated. Ms° Jan Lapinsky, 59 I/2 ./Winnetka stated that people on a fixed income try to keep up the standards of their ~ome within their incomes, but she did not feel they coul~ ask these people to spend more money just because of the Cit.'s new standards. She expressed her concern that in some cases if these people on ~ixed incomes were requiree to make costly repairs, they would have to leave their homes. She felt it was an invasion of all peopl~ as well as the people on fixed incomes. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commissioners would take into account the comments ma~e ~y the citizens ~-~ at the present meeting, ~hen they m~de f~rther deliberations on the housing and maintenance code. A deci- sion on the code would be made at a future time. Commissioner Christensen commended the citizens for their comments. He added that the Commission h~d in- vestigated other communities with ordinances sim'lar to the proposed maintenance code. From a personal PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - OCTOBER 19, 1976 7. stanapoint, ne stated at the time he purchased his own home h~ had taken the realtor's statements regarding the condition of his home, only to'discover there was a difference in some cases between what had been said and what actually existed. He added that he was in favor of a certificate that would be available to the home owner and the buyer stating whether or nor the nome met minimum codes. It would not necessarily mean that the owner had to do something about it, but aT least the buyer would have this information available to him. He noted that a 'final decision had not Been reached by the Commission regarding the ordinance but the ordinance would establish a common Bond between The buyer and the seller. Further discussion held between the Commissioners regarding the best way of enforcing the proposed ordi- nance, the advantages of the different alternatives, the advantages to both the Buyer and seller of a "point of sate inspection", and the fact that The main purpose of the ordinance was to attempt to pro- tect the health and safety of the citizens, and whether deficiencies should be reauired to Be corrected or whether disclosure was sufficient, and the fact that it is a responsibility of the City to enact a maintenance code. Commissioner Gustafson noted that at the time of the district meetings, at almost every meeting, someone Drought up "what was the City going to do to protect me? None of those ~eoBle were in attendance at the present meeting. This feeling on the part of many of The citizens was another reason the housing and maintenance code was being proposed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson, the City Manager noted that there were three or four obvious problem areas in the City at the present time in regard to compliance with the new code, ie win- dow size, basement bedrooms without exits, etc. He added that he felt the present staff cou d handle ~point of sale" inspections. The City would propose a fee to cover this type of inspection of $15-20. Discussion then covered houses built under previous codes that do not presently conform. The City Mana- ger confirmed that if a dwelling had a built-in deficiency but was being properly maintained the City would nave no cause to enter the picture. Chairman Cameron referred the Housing and Maintenance Code back to the Codes and Standards Committee. 8. Chairman Cameron opened the Public Hearing on the Subidivision Ordinance. The City Manager noted that there were nb major changes from what had been practiced in recent years, but that this code was ar update of the current ordinance. There had been some considerations in the area of park dedication and the screening along major arterial streets. There was no one in the audience in regard to this ordinance. The Chairman close~ the public hearing on the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner London suggested that the Subdivision Ordinance be referred back to the Land. Use Committee. The Chairman so ordered. The Chairman declared a recess. Commissioner Anderson left the meeting at 10:22 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:30 p.m. ON-GOING BUSINESS 9. Discussion was then held on the goals and policies as adopted in March of 1976. The Commissioners had conducted individual reyiew of these policies prior to the meeting. #11 - page 13 -- concensus was that this approach seemed to be a reasonable alternative. #3 and #5 - page 12 -- discussion covered whether these two items were in conflict with each'other, as wel as the fact that New Hope had a larger proportion of high density housing thaa surrounding communities and whether or not the CiTy wished to discourage such development. Concensus was to eliminate "high density'~ and ~dd an "s" to development. Discussion then covered the extent that New Hope desired to encourage mid-density housing in the area, the amount of undeveloped and still in the City and the type of development it is suited for, the fact that there had been much citizen input that was pro single family only, the cost of and in the City and the Bossibi ity of the young and the elderly ever ~eing able to acquire such land, and the responsibility of the City to arovide diversity in housing. Commissioner London expressed his concern over the emphasis on mid-density without any real statement as to the need for additional single family housing. #23 - page 14 - - discussion covered "encouraging" subsidized housing and whether this really was one of ~he goals desired f~r the City. Concensus was to leave in, that the City must assume some responsibility in this area and that in the area of future housing owner-occupied development should be encouraged. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - OCTOBER 19, 1976 9. The ~ommission then discussed how future meetings should be conducted in regard to their final review of the Comprehensive Plan, and the methods to be used in zoning changes. Concensus was to review the City district by district, considering the impact on the ~roperties and the City in terms of direct transfer of classification or 'n some cases a change of zoning as proposed by the Comprehensive Plan, as well as tRe citizen input already received. Commissioner Gustafson requested a cost/benefit ratio analysis 6f all properties that might be critical areas, to assist in the Commission's decision on the zoning classifications. Chairman Cameron noted that he felt it imperative that the Commission oe consistent in its implementa- tion of the zoning classifications. He requested that the City Manage~ out ine a plan for the Commission to follow in their review. COMMITTEE REPORTS. I0. Codes and Standards had met with Poste Haste Center on 10/12/76. Another meeting will be held shortly. II. No report from the ad hoc committee on boulevard encroachments. 12. Land Use will be meeting shortly to re-assess the Sub-Division Ordinance. 13. Design and Review had met on 10/19/76 To consider two cases to be presented to the Commission on 11/2/76. NEW BUSINESS 14. The City Manager reviewed the Council Meeting of October 12, 1976. He noted that the Council had taken action To enter into Two contracts with Midwest Planning. One is to 0rovide technical assistance as needed, and the second to broceed with research into the City Center concepT. Midwest has already begun to interview all people with an interest in the City Center area, either owners or occupants of commer- cial estab ishmenTs and property.. Tb~y will report their findings to the Commission and Counci in order that a decision may be made as soon as possible on whether or not to proceed with a design planning effort. The Council also approved the two planning cases sent forward to them by the Commission. 15. The Planning Commission minutes of October 5, 1976 were accepted as printed. 17. Commissioner London made reference to the fact that during the current political campaign there had been a great deal of vandalism invol~ing political signs, which proved very costly to'the candidates. He suggested the po~sibility that before another elect.ion year, some study be conducted in regard to the enacting of an ordinance that would provide a penalty for such destruction. 18. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, e Boeddeker, Secretary RULES AND REGULATIONS Die 46 ha Section 150A. 11, subdivision 1 of the'Act and shall be grounds for disci- %pline under 150A.08, subdivision 1. ~;~ (b) The title on a building wherein one or more dentists practice shall be /v. sed as an address only. DE 45 Professional Advertising There shall be no public advertising by dentists other than as provided for herein. Dentists shall be permitted to insert a professional card in the local press, ha programs and in yearbooks, providing that such professional card shall contain the name of the dentist and his title or degree using the abbreviation "D.D.S." or "D.M.D." only. Institutional advertising promoting dentistry generally, by dental associa- tions and groups is encouraged and approved, provided individual dentists are not advertised therein. A dentist shall be permitted to use signs to ad- vertise his name, the fact that he is engaged ha the practice of dentistry, the location of his office and his office hours. These signs shall be limited to a total area of not more than,~i~,Q..~s~o~u~a__re~mch~ and shall not ,contain.letter. s too. re than e~2~~~ signs shall not t~e specially illuminated or ~ ~-~onz~'&ting properties or char- acteristics. No 'sign shall be perm. itted t~ hang over or beyond the edge of the public 'thoroughfare. Within ,'dakt~v~(3~ays immediately following the opening of an office, changing lo~s, association or type of practice, announcement Cards may be mailed to bonafide patients and members of the-~h-'~alt~ sclen'~'~professions and placed in the local press for not more tha~,,? ~9,~nse'cutive issues, but such cards shall_ not be greater ha size than &i.°~lj~5~!¢rnminches nor more than~tw--columns in width ~n,t f .... a~.~qept~/S~ach announcement cards s~all state only the den*,~'~";'o ~.e.~e~e~o~r~_a~ny_ s~P_eci,_alty as ~rec?gn'.tzed,by the B. oa, r,d, o~ce location, tel~ ° e~ho'~n~e~'~ ucuuo~ am~ umce hours, t'rolesslonal caros snail not be greater in size than ,$5}:o. inches ~y three and one-half inches and shall in-lude erR,, the denq , de~e~~%cataon, telephone number and office hours. Residence telephone number may be included. Telephone listings shall be confined to the local telephone directories. Such listing shall be limited to the dentist's name, dental .degree, "D.D.S." or "D.M.D.' using the abbreviation only, any sp.ecialty to which the dentist confines his prac- tice exclusively, office location, residence and- office telephone numbers, residence address, and hours during which the telephone will be answered. DE 46 Display of Name and Certificates (a) Every licensed dentist or dental hygienist shall post and keep con- spicuously displayed his name, license certificate and annual registration certificate in every office wherein he practices, in plain sight of his patients, and if there is more than one dentist or dental hygienist practicing or employed in any office the manager or proprietor of such office shall post and display or cause to be posted and displayed, in like manner the name, license certificate and annual registration certificate of each dentist or dental hygienist so practicing or employed therein. In addition there shall be posted or displayed near or upon the entrance door to every office wherein dentistry is practiced, the name of each and every dentist prac- ticing therein and such names shall be the name of the person inscribed upon the license certificate and annual registration certificate of each dentist. Co) Every,~ticensed~ ,:- : . dentist,, upon. changing h~s' place of business shall ,Wj~urm.sh the secretary-treasurer of the Board wi~ m.s n_ ~ ~..~.~'?.e_~,:i_ '~pYacticing ctentist shall inform the Board of his office addreSs('~)' '%~ ~- - O~ese.~ed for future me.. 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1976 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 2, 1976 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue NoTth, New Hope, Minnesota 2. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Gustafson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Atchley Absent: Cameron (excused) 3. Mr. Mike Malik, stating he was a re0resentative of the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Association, submitted a petition that expressed the concerns of the residents of his area regarding the proposed zoning at 42nd Avenue ana County Road #18. The petition was accepted and placed on file for reference in future discussions. 4. PLANNING CASE 76-62 (CONTINUED FROM 10-19-76) REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR RENTAL TRUCKS AT 6113 WEST BROADWAY - ROBERT SYLVESTER~ PETITIONER. Mr. Willard Nichols, Manager of ~he Pfleider Corporation, stated that they were requesting a special use permit to allow them to store and rent three Ryaer trucks, at the service station at 6113 West BroaJway. The argest truck would be 22 feet, to be used for local rental ana one way hauling. The hours of operation would be between 7 a.m. and I0 p.m. daily. Any trucks returned to the ocation in excess of the three specified, will be removed within 24 nours as specified. They wi I be parked on the concrete surface located on the West side of the service station. This area provides drainage away from the total parking area. The yard area immediately in back of. the station will not 0e affected 0y the location of the Trucks. The tota station area is lighted with controlled illumination all night. The area for the truck 0arkirg will oe designated by yellow striping. .In addition to these three spaces, there are spaces for eight vehicles on the opposite side of the sta- tion. There will be no unloading or loading to contribute to a noise level unfavorable to the area. The Truck parking area would represent I'ess than 4% of the tota area and they will keep the area clean and maintai~ned at all times. lne station is owned by the Pfleider Corporation of Anoka, Minnesota. They have been in the business at Anoka for the past 35 years. It is their intention to maintain this station and conduct the business and work with the community so that it is to the mutual benefit of the community and the company. Mr. Nichols noted that there was also a Ryder representative in attendance~ to answer further questions. In response to a question from Chairman Gustafson the Ryder representative noted that a 22 foot truck would be a two ton vehicle, with a gross weight of 23,000 pounds. I~n answer To further questions, Mr. Nichols noted that the station would be open from 7 a.m. to I0 p.m. but to the best of his knowledge, truck rentals occur mostly between 8 a.m. and 4 or 5 p.m. He added that the fence around the station was a 5 foot basketweave fence. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether they would at any time have trailers at the location? The Ryder representative stated "no" Ryder only rented trucks. He further stated that they would pro*ide signs for the station within the City Code. Chairman Gustafson noted that it might be wise for the petitioner to pick up a copy of the New Hope sign ordinance to ascertain exactly how the signs would have to comply. Discussion then centered on the harking spaces avaitabl~ for vehicles other than the renta trucks and whether or not, in view of the number of cars presently on the site at one time, there would be room for truck parking? It was noted by the petitioner that there was screening between both the apartments and the house and the station. In response to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Gary Schwartz, the representative of Ryder Trucks in Roseville, stated that the comoany presently had rental trucks at 20 locations in the Twin City area. However, they ha~ nbne in the Northwestern area. The closest outlet at the present time was located in Plymouth, at #494 and #55. He added that one of the reasons for selection of this site was its easy accessibility aha the fact that the station was owned by the Pfleider Corporation and would be a stable location. Mr. Schwartz further stated that there was a central number at Roseville where people could order a particular size of truck for specific areas. The trucks were then delived to the station. He added that the number of trucks at a given time would vary, but probably there would be only an 18 footer parked most of the time. The trucks are rented for both local use and one way hauling. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1976 4. He noted, in answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson that the problem of truck accumulation was handled by the manager and himself, it was their responsibility to move tnem within .24 hours. He felt this was no problem because the trucks.could be moved easily. Discussion then centered on the visibility of the trucks from the residential area and the apartments, especially if the trucks wer~ I feet in height. Commissioner Gustafson auoted the City Code in regard to the criteria for special use permits for truck rentals referring. To the removal of excess trucks and the visibility to adjacent residential property. He noted that in the case of the Code "shall" was mandatory, o Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 76-62~ Request for Special Use Permit for the Ren- tal and Storage of Three Trucks~ of a maximum size of two tons~ as 6113 West Broadway~ subject to the trucks being'parked nexT to the trash enclosure on the Northwest siae of the building and that the trucks be rented or returned durin~ the regular posted hours of operation of the station. Commissioner Craigie amenQe¢ the motion To include that the.parkin~ lot be striped to indicate 8 parking spots on the lot in addition to the striping for the three trucks. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Discussion followeo about the amendment, whether there should be more guarantees from the petitioner 'n regard TO general cleanup of The station before a special use is granted; the need to insure that the parking areas be striped; and the f~ct that the station site was poorly maintained at the present time. The City Manager noted in response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson that the striping of park- ing areas was required by Code. Voting on the amendment: Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson° Atchley Voting against: Bartos, Pakonen Absent: Cameron Amendment passed. Further discussion followed regarding the general appearance of the station; the fact that the site was located on two very Busy streets; the fact that should all parking spaces on the site be in use there was no other place for cars to park; the code restrictions regarding screening of trucks, and whether or not a five foot fence could adequately screen an eleven foot high truck. Voting on the amended motion. Voting in favor: Anderson Voting against: London, Bartos, Christensen,' Pakonen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Atchley Absent: Cameron Motion failed. Commissioner CraiRie moved to recommend denial of Plannin~ Case 76-62 ~ecause there was not adequate screening to park the trucks and because there woule not be adequate parkinR on the lot. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Atchley Voting against: None Absent: Cameron Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 76-70 (CONTINUED FROM 10-19-76) COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN WITH VARIANCES AT POSTE HAS~E SHOPPING CENTER. Mr. Dave Reimer reviewed the revisions of the proposa for the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the Commis- sioners. Mr. Reimer noted that it was the owner's feeling that in a shopping center such as Poste Haste, it was important to identify the tenants for the general public. They do not feel that the oresent sign plan accomplished this purpose. He added that they felt the stores located on the East and North were r¢-~lly hurt by their lack of exposure. He further stated ~is opinion that there is a lack of uniformity in the signs at the center at the present time. They are requesting the variance to allow one or more stores to have two signs, feeling this woul'd be of great benefit to both the shopping center and the community. He did not feel that the proposed signs would create any type of nuisance or hazard to the community. Mr. Reimer noted that the intention of the owners was to bring all signs into conformity with regard to size and t~pe as the amortization period ended .for the existing signs. Discussion then followed about sign sizes and locations, including existing window signs; and whether PLANNING COMMISSION MIN~ITES - 3 ~ NOVEMBER 2, 1976 5. the plan as submitted should indicate which 'signs were existing and under the amortization schedule. The request that the maximum size of IO'x 4~ and the reasons for permitting signs of a smaller dimen- sion, rather than requiring complete uniformity of sign size was also considered. In answer to a question from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Reimer stated he did not feel the entrance sign on Jordan Avenue was imperative, but that they would like to have it remain. The triangle identification signs for individual businesses on the East side, to De placed .directly above the individual business entrances woulC De restricted to 3' x 8" x 8". Commissioner Gustafson made a morion to approve Case 76-70 - Request for Approval of Comprehensive~'Si§n Plan at Poste Haste Shopping Center includin9 the variance for a seconc siQn. on the East and No~th sides of The Center as inoicated on Page 3~ Section 3 of the petitioners Comprehensive Sign Plan (as amtached). The petitioner ano the Plannin9 Commission also to agree that all non-conforming signs on the property be deatf, with by the amortization schedule of the applicable sign ordinance. Commissioner Atchley second. Discussion continueo abou~ the inclusion of the variance in the motion; whether the variance nermitting the free standing dentist's sign, approve0 at a Previous meeting, should also De included in this motion; and whether or not the dor0an Avenue sign Should be specifically mentioned in the-ordinance. Aisc con- sidere0 was the flexibility of the proposal in regard to the 4' x I0' signs and the possibility of many different sizes of signs, even though none exceeded the maximum of 4' x I0'. Commissioner Craigie moved to amend the proposed sign plan~ as submitted by th~ petitiqner~..to include asterisks by .Item .2a~]). Ole Piper Inn; 3a~ I) PDQ~ 3) Stretch and Sew~ and 5) ~ilon si~n at fhe 36th Avenq~ e~tran.ce, TO indicate that ~nese signs are non-conforming signs~ existing unoer the amortization schedule. In addition 6) the Jordan entrance sign~ an0 7) the temporary dentist's sign.are, to .be added TO the list of si~.ns. Commissioner London second. Voting on the amendment: In favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug~ Anderson, Atchley Against: None AbsenT: Cameron, Pakonen Amendment passed. Additional discussion regarding the imp ications of the sign proposal and its amendments. Commissioner Craigie then moved to amend the proposal .~y adding the following language: Page 3, 2) g) - "No new siRns adv.ertising any establishments on the West wall~ of any size other than 3' x 8" x 8-" may be added" Commissioner Anderson second. Discussion then covered this amendment and its impl~ication~. Commissioner Cragie then withdrew his amendment~ with .~h~ permission of the secon0. Commissioner Graigie then amendeU Page 3~ item 3 of the proposed sign plan to read: "the secoQd sign must De ~rian~ular sign. The ~riangular sign mu..st b~. attached directly over the tenant's front door- way on ~ne un0erside of the mansar0 roof overnanq and mus~ ~e of the exact size and specification as the existin~ Radio Shack sign on the center's East side (3' x 8" x 8") Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Atchley Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Pakonen Amendment passed: Commissioner London then amended Page 3, Item 2) (b) to read: All signs shall be ten feet long and four feet high (10' x 4~) Commissioner Anderson second. Further discussion followed regarding sigas of a smaller size than 4' x I0' and the fact that the new ordinance, while estaDlishing maximum; did not specify exact size on an individual sign request. Mr. Reimer requested that his preposa be changed to read: Page 3. 2. (b) All signs, not listed above as existing or proposed, shall be ten feet long and four feet high (10' x 4'). Commissioner London ~ithdrew his amendment~ Voting on the amended motion. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Atchley Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Pa~onen Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - NOVEMBER 2, 1976 Chairman Gustafson declared a recess. The meeting was reconvenee at 9:22 p.m. 6. PLANNING CASE 76-73 - REQUEST FOR CHANGE ~ APARTMENT PROJECT AND VAR ANCE IN PARKING ~T 6007 - 6051 WEST BROADWAY - JOHN FISCHER~ PETITIONER. Mr. John Fischer, co-owner of the aoartment complex, Hidden Park Prooerties, stated that they were requesting the variance in p~rking because they wished to convert the four "Floriaa Rooms" into four additional one bedroom units. At the present time these rooms were unusec ane totally wasted. He added that while the complex was presently at a "break even" ooin?, they could use ?he additiona in- come. The ~ooms are 75~ comoleted, with kitchen and bathroom area seoarated, but no fixtures. They also nee~ the addition of oartitions to create the bedroom area. He felt that they had adequate and even excess parking. He felt that this was in 0art due ?o the fact that many of their tenants were elderly, who had either one car or none. Their future policy will be to rent only to aaults. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the "Florida Rooms" were originally intended to be recreational foetus. Mr. Fischer noted that this was so, but they had never been used as such and did not have any equipment of any kind in Them. The apartments had been purchased from_Skyline Bui ders ane the rooms had not been used prior to the time of their purchase eitner. The City Manager noted that the original plans had included tnese rooms as recreational rooms, with kitchens ane bathrooms included. Mr. Fischer stated they had never been.'use~ as such -- there were ao appliances ins?alle~ and the plumb- ing was merely roughed i~5~ ~.~ The City Manager commented, 'n resoonse to questions, that the tenants of the building had not received no?ice of the public hearing because only property owners received official notice. Commissioner Pakonen ~aised the ques{ion that adult and senior citizen tenancy might fin~ more need for recreational type rooms. Mr. Fischer stated that he ~ett that rooms of this type, with game equioment etc., even in luxury apart- ments did not get the ~ype of use that they were intended for. The rooms were not in use when the build- ings had oeen ourchased and as of now they find them a complete wasme. He was tookin§ for ways to gain additional income. Mr. Andy Hanson reeuested permission To speak. He stated that he was a part owner of the complex. He noted that across the street, in Broadway Vil.lage, which was all adult tenancy, the recreational facili- ties were not used .by a large percenmage of the ~enan?s. When they had purchased the units, the rooms were not in use. The highest rent in the comolex is $210 ~or a 2 bedroom apartment with garage° These are not luxury units ane he did not feel recreational rooms would oe of any use. Mr. Fischer noted that he had found that in his 15 years of experience, this type of recreational facili- ty did not get maximum use. He felt that they had an excess of parking, nad no trouble filling the units, and would ike to complete these units for rental units. The City Manager asked whether the easement of 5200 feet was included in the land area -- if not, he did not fee that the petitioner had enougn .land area to a Iow the additional fou~ units. If they did not have sufficient square ~ootage another variance would be requi, red ane the City would ~e obligate~ to send additional notices regarding this variance, t was mandatory that variance requests 0e published. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 76-73 until December 7th.~ at which time the Commission would review the request be the petitioner~ including mne additional variance request. Commissioner Crai. gie second. Additional discussion held about sending notices to the residents of the apartment complex, about the conversion of the rooms and the fact that the present tenants had not rented their units assuming that they would ~ave any recreational type facilities at their d'is~osal. Concensus appeared to be that the tenants should receive notification of the next public hearing. Voting in favor: London, Bartos~ Christensen, Pakonen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Atchley Voting against: None Absent: Cameron Motion passed. The City Manager note~ that the petitioners would need to request the additiona variance. Commissione~ Pakonen left the meeting at 9:40 p~m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - NOVEMBER 2, 1976 7. PLANNING CASE 76-74 - REQUEST FOR REZONING~ PUD~ VARIANCES FOR TOWNHOUSE APARTMENT PROJECT AT WISCONSIN AVENUE ~ND BASS LAKE ROAD - BOISCLAIR CORPORATION~ PETITIONER. Mr. Frank Dunbar represented the Boisclair Corporation. ~e noted that they were proposing a project for New Hope that i~ one segment of a'four project total consisting of the 47 units proposed for New Hope, 34-48 family unit project for Crystal with I10 unit elderly project for Crystal and a 45 unit pro- ject proposed for the City of Robbinsdale, which has been submitted for funding to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. They are requesting a rezoning for a portion of their property from MR to TR and a PUD request on the com alete site, as well as a variance on the parking for ~he townhouses from 2 enc osed garages to.one enclosed garage and two outside spaces per Townnouse unit. Mr. Dunbar then presented Mr. Richard Larson, the architect for the project. Mr~ Larson stated the~ were proposing a 41 unit apartment building and a six unit townhouse project. The apartment breakdown was 22 one bedroom units, of 650~700 square feet; 3 two bedroom units just over 900 square feet; 6 three bedroom units ranging insize from ~000 to 1,100 square feet. The townhouse units are ail three bedroom and are a little over 1,200 square feet each. The construction will De wood frame, with cedar alywood exterior paneling. The apartments are of a gallery type, in which each unit opens directly to the outside with no centra hal s. The units are ar- rangea in a quadrangle with a square in the middle which gives access to the balconies in the front and makes it possible for tenants to see whats going on '.e. children playing in the courtyard. Mr. Larson's associate, Mr. Lonny Andersdn, then gave a slide presentation that included pictures of the area from various angles, as well as il ustrations of the site plans and the proposed exterios of the complex. Mr. Dunbar noted that should they gain approval for the PUD, they could then adjust the angle to 45 de- grees in the placement of the townhouses, which would allow more opportunity for landscape buffering. Commissioner London noted that the Design and Review Committee ha~ been concerned about the exterior treatment of the ~u Idings, in particular the vertica connections in view of the weather extremes ex- perienced in Minnesota. The petitioner answered that while this particular design had ~ot been used previously in this area, it had been built extensively in the P~cific Northwest, which he felt had even more severe moistur~ pro- blems than Minnesota. The pet'itioners felt that this desi'gn..was preferable, with its exposed stairways and balconies to enclosed corriUors. Mr. Dunbar note~ that this is to be developed primarily as a family comolex. It had been in their opinion preferable to have ~dividual entrances to the units. The stairways are short, and the ground level units will be the three bedroom units. In response to Commissioner London's concern about the lack of storage space, Mr. Dunbar noted that the garages were I0' x 20' and included a large hanging area, adding ~o the storage snace. The garages are all private; divided by partition. He add@d that in response ~o a concern of the Design and Review Committee in regar~ to ventilation, ?he deck had been removed in townhouse units, the roofline altered, and windows placed to provide cross ventilation. There will be ~umpster type trash enclosures, screened from view. Mr. Dunbar stated he had met with Mr. Murphy of the Hennepin County Highway Department regarding the driveway out ?o Bass Lake Road. Mr. Murphy ha~ suggested that the driveway be 36 feet in wi'dth, with two lanes of egress and one ingress lane, striped and arrowed but without a permanent median. Mr. Anderson noted that another-reason for the 45° orientation of the townhouses was that this would afford more landscaping possibilities than with the ~ownhouses running parallel to Wisconsin Avenue. They now have cna curb cut ~nd an extensive area in front for landscaping and berming to separate the townhouse unit from Wisconsin Avenue. The North side of the townhouse unit would have additional berm ing. The area between the townhouses an~ the apartments would be bermed where possible. There is an exist- ing gra~e difference aetween the townhouse area and the apartment driveway. They intend to install a tot lot in the courtyar5 area. The architect, Mr. Larson, stated that, in his opinion, there would be no problem in installing under- ground utilities. Discussion then followed between the architect and Mr. Chrismensen regarding the PUD request -- whether they were in fact asking for more density than the zoning allowed, the variance in parking facilities for the townhouses and the lack of specifics regarding the recreational area or tot lot. The petitioner noted that they were requesting one tess enclosed parking space for the three townhouses because they felt two were unnecessary an~ also an additional financial burden. There will be thr~e total parking spaces. He further stated ~nat the tot lot would nave equipment of some ?ype but at the present time he was not preparea to detail these facilities. They were restricted in part by the fact that they were not sure exactly how much the federal funding agency would approve. They will not ap- prove until the City appoves, and they may not approve as many items as the City requires. If this were PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6 - NOVEMBER 2, 1976 7. to occur, they would have to appear before ~he Commission with additional requests. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he felt the petitioner should clearly define what their intentions were in regard to the tot lot and what they would include. Any variance from that intention, when they returned for their secondary review, would nave to be reconsidered by the Commission. The architect noted that if there were soecifc items reauired by the City, they would com01y when formed of these specifics. It had not been the petitioner's intention to ignore any requirements. Mr. Robert T. Strop?, Vice President of Boisclair Corporation, responded to a auestion from Commissioner Christensen by stating that there was a simlar project located in Burnsville at the intersections of County Roads #42 ane #5, near the Homart Shopping Center. The material used is basically the same, Tne application is different. The material proposed for this development has been used very readily in the Twin City area on apartment buildings. It is similar in that the upper level is treated the same way, with the gallery type of design. Additiona discussion followed about the PUD and what was involved. Mr. Stroot, clarified the two areas in which the Commission felt the petitioners had not responded to their request for a PUD -~ these were the recreational area and the screening between the townhouses and the apartments. He stated that he felt he could commit the cor0oration to providing ~ recreational area, of a tot lot type, of the size as indicated on the landscape plan. This would basica ly consist of the types of things you see now in apartment struc~ures, but more of the landscape, architecturally treated natural material treatment. With regard to the separation between the MR and TR areas, they would include as part of~their proposal, treatment of the area based upon either a recommendation from staff or from the Commission. T~ere is presently no fencing planned for the property. The architect further stated that the road into the property is presently planned To extend to the property line ~o allow fur turning and two way traffic. Mr. Anderson noted that there was five fee± for green area from their property line and the pavement as planned. The present Country Club parking lot extends on ~ro the petitioner's property. There will also be a curb cut located 50 feet from Bass Lake Road to a~low tenants To erive into the Country Club parking lot without driving out on to Bass Lake Road. There will be fi ~ added to the site, where the grade becomes higher toward Wisconsin Avenue. The stairways will be maintained by the manager of the complex. They 01an no roofs over the entrances to the a0artments or over the stairways. Th'ere will be small curbs on either side of the green area at the property line. Discussion was heed on the possible need of screening to protect the tenants of the existing apartments from headlights; the possibility of berming at the property line to prohibit driving across the green strip, whether or not the green areas will be sodded or seeded (petitioner..noted they ,~ould use sod), and the drainage. The City Manager noted that the ~ngineer was still looking at the drainage problem with a final determ'- nation to be forthcoming. The petitioner restated that the tras~ recepticles will be totally fenced, with the same basic materials as used on the exterior of the units. There will be lighting on the garages and by the walkways entering the complex, probably of a mercury vapor wall type. The lights will be directed down. Mr. Dunbar stated that the funding will be under the Minnesota 'Housing Financing Agency. They presently nave a letter stating that the entire project'of four sites has been selected for feasibility and will be given interim and final'financing. Mr. Stroot noted that they had already had the initial, intake meeting with the State. The State had been presented with basically what had been presented to this Commission. They are currently awaiting the minutes of that meeting. This part of the project has been approved 'n concept. The basic funding for the project is the Seciton 8, Rental Subsidy Program. A direct subsidy payable to the tenant by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The tenant rent is subsidized 'down to 25% of their income. Income limits have been established for each family type. Th'e range's from $6,000 for a one oerson family To $15,500 for a family of 6 members. The driveway to Bass Lake Road will be curbed on both sides. Mr. Stcoot stated they would be willing to provide some screening between the driveway and the apartment building but they were limited as. to type because of total area to the property line and visibili%/ needs at the end of the driveway. Mr. Stroot noted they were presently in the processing stage with the State but would, hopefully, begin construction by March. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - NOVEMBER 2, 976 7. Mr. Joseph Digatanoj 5605 Wisconsin Avenue North, asked for clarification of the designations TR and PUD. He further asked wno would be doing the subsidizing of the rents. He was informed that~R was townhouse, PUD was Planned Unit Development and that the federal government would be subsidizing the rents~ and the agency ~hey would be dealing with would be the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. They have control over the ooeration and adminstration of the project. The funds come from the federal government through the Department of Urban DevelopmenT, through the area office for HUD. Mr. Digatano then questioned whether any part of the surrounding area would then be subject to federal control. He was informed no. He requested review of the procedure To Be followed in obtaining a ~ variance from the City. Mr. Digatano then stated that in his opinion, rezoning of that area has worked to the detriment of not only him, but to the t~o gentlemen who had accomplanied nlm to the meeting. He felt the Commission should ~e very cautious before they rezoned, because ne felt it would bring problems to everyone on that street. Mr. Art Grapentin, 5619 Wisconsin, stated that when the property had been rezoned the first time, there had been an understanding that there would never be a curb cut on Wisconsin Avenue. He felt they were going back on the word that had been given to the residents of the area. The City Manager noted that the origina rezoning had been back in '67 or '68. There have been several projects proposed for this property since then, and each time there had been much discussion and concern expressed by the residents of Wisconsin Avenue regaring curb cuts. The present proposal for TR would involve six units in contrast to the four units that would be permitted under SR ane would not permit any MR access. Commissioner London stated that although many of the questions of the Design and Review had been an- swered by the petitioner, he was still concerned about the landscaping between the townhouses and the oa0artment complex, tne andsca0ing along Tne Country Club Market, the proposeG fencing along the entrance from Bass Lake Road and a specific plan in regard to the tot or. He was also concerned abou~the ex- posed stairways. He felt also that there was a nee~ for additional security lighting and that perhaps the plans should include specific plans for security lighting. Commissioner Craigie~noted that there had aeen no attention given to recreational facilities for older children. The architect noted that they had looked at the problem of the older_child, but because the site was located so close to a school campus had felt the tot ot more necessary. They are planning on directing the recreationa facilities to the children of below school age. It woul~ be virtually impossible in their ~pinion to provide an active play area for o der children on the site. He further noted that they were beginning to run into some time problems, because they could not proceed in ~ealing with the housing finance agency until they received City approva . Concern was expressed by the.commisssioners as to the need for a definite driveway and exit proposal and the dangers of an exposed three story stairway. Commissioner London made a motion to table Case 76-6~ until the meetin§ of November 16th. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen~ Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Atchley. Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Pakonen Motion passed. 8. PLANNING CASE 76-75 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL AT PENNSYLVANIA AND BASS LAKE ROAD - TACO BELL~ PETITIONER. Mr. Ronald Heskin represented Taco Bell. He distributed building plans for the Commissioners review. Mr. Heskin then noted that the construction plan as presented had ~een submitted to the Commissioners earlier but with a different site plan which had required variances. This nad been recommended for denial. They have now reworked the site plan, using Pennsylvania as the frontyard and Bass Lake R~ad as the sideyard.so they now require no variances. He further noted that they ha~ Peen turne~ down by Crysta on a curb cut request on Pennsylvania Avenue. They are now requestint a curb cut only on Bass Lake Road which has been verbally approved by Mr. Murphy of Hennepin County° The unit would be set 35 feet off Bass Lake Road. A 35 foot setback is required from Pennsylvania and there is presently 68 feet in the rearyard setback. The plans have been drawn by a Minnesota architect, Ed. Vogt and Associates as has the landscape plan. The landscaping has been change~ to meet New Hope reqairements. They are requesting Puilding plan approval, no variances. Commissioner London noted that the Design and Review Committee had been concerned about the screening of the headlights from the residential area. They were also concerned' about the access to and from the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - NOVEMBER 2, 1976 8. Commissioner London then referred to the request made by the 'City Council on September 27th, for the Commission to review fast food establishments in the City and their restrictions. He then noted that a moratorium had oeen olaced on the acceptance and consideration of fast food establishments by the City Council pending the outcome of the study to be done within the City. He stated that the pre- sent hearing had to be viewed only as gaining input from both the petitioner and the public. In keep- ing with the wishes of the City Council, he did not Think there could be any motion to either approve or disapprove the current proposal. The Chairman noted that there had been several people who had called concerning this case, Put because it had been indicated that the Council had recommended the study of the overal fast food outlet question by the Commission, these people had pot attended the meeting. Mr. Heskin asked whether there was a time limit set on the moratorium? Commissioner Craigie ~oted that, as a Commission, they did not have any specific instructions regarding the moratorium. He suggested that any specific questions Mr. Heskin might have should be directed to the Mayor or the Council. Chairman Gustafson noted that the minutes of the Council meeting were a matter of public record and available to anyone. He added, in referring to the Council action, that the Planning Commission had not been given a specific date for responding to the Council's request. He added that he was sure that the Commission would respona in an expeditious amount of time. In answer to a duestior from Mr. Heskin, Chairman Gustafson stated that the public meeting to discuss h.is request had been scheduled before the moratorium had been placed py the Council. Because of this, the hearing had been held as scheduled. The City Manager noted that the people.who had cai ed City Hail had been concerned about the fact that Taco Be I had another recuest on the agenda when they had been previously denied. Mr. L~rson stated they had been told that Taco Beel could apply as often as they wished, but he had noted the moratorium. He added that he would assume that these people would be back at the Commission meeting at such time that the issue was again on the agenda when recommendations had been made. The Chairman noted that the ~oratorium was tne reason that the Commission could not reach a conclusion either for acceptance or denial of the petitioner's request. Mr. Heskin noted that ne could understana the Commission's position put that Taco Belt had the property under purchase agreement and have expended considerable sumes, not only on the purchase agreement but also on surveys ana site Plans being redone. The purchase agreement is going to expire. This was his reasons for questioning the length of time of the moratorium. He added that working with the staff of the City, he had been led to believe that there was novariance rquired. He noted that it had previously been mentioned that if they changed the position of the building there was nothing that could be done to StOD their progress -- this statement had been made to some of the Crystal residents who were object-. lng to the proposal. On that basis the necessary changes had been.made. They felt they were ttying to do this in the best interests of all concerned. It was his understandJ, ng that they were under the ori- ginal application. He requested further clarification of the moratorium. The Chairman noted that the moratorium was directed against all applications for fast food restaurants. The Commission had been asked to study the entire issue of fast food restaurants in the City. It was his opinion that the City Counci] was going to await the Commission's findings before making any fur- ther decisions. The Commission cannot respond to Mr. Heskin's request because of the moratorium. Mr. Larson responded to Mr. Heskin's ~omment that the City had not requirea an additional filing fee. He noted that the same building plans were used. These had been reviewed before so the concern was just with the site plan. The petition was considered a new petition but the plan check fee was for building plans in connection with building code. This was a new planning case because the pre¥ious request had been denied. The Council was presently delaying the adoption of a "Resolution Presenting Facts for Denial" because of the new request. Additional discussion followed about the moratorium between Mr. Heskin and the Commissioners. Mr. Heskin requested that the motion ~ade. by the City Council be read into the minutes. Chairman Gustafson read the motion which states: "Motion by Councilman Herman, second by Councilman Hokr that a moratorium be placed on the acceptance and consideration of applications for fast food outlets pending response from Planning Commission to review the code as it pertains to fast food outlets." The City Manager clarified that the motion had been intended to include the moratorium on the pending app ication also. ~r. Heskin asked for clarification of the fact that the plans did meet the uniform building code and had been approved by the Building Department of the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - NOVEMBER 2, 1976 8. The City Manager answered that he could only assume so. Discussion followed regarding procedures followed in preparation for Planning Commission appearances, as well as meetings held with Design and Review before previous Planning Case on Taco Be I. Mr. Heskin noted that in the or'ginal motion for approval of the previous case, there had been a require- ment for a curb cut on Pennsylvania. It was not possible to position the building in the sa~e way with such a curb cut. Commissioner London moved that Case 76-75 be tabled until the Planning Commission had reviewea the fast foo~ operations ir the City of New Hope and given their re~ort To The City Council an~ the moratorium was lifted. Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Atchley Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Pakonen Motion passed. OLD BUSINESS 9. The question of a special use permit for an animal clinic on an LB lot at Wisconsin and Bass Lake Road was next consiaered. The City Manager noted that there had been a s~ecial use ~ermit issued approximately four years ago for the property. The property is now in the process of being sold to another party and questions had been raised in regard to the Comprehensive Plan ano whether or not the special use permit was stil good. Mr. Gary Persian, the attorney representing Dr. Gary Gibbon who wishe~ to purchase the property at 8119 Bass Lake Road, then addressed the Commission. He stated that the problem they were concered with was that Dr. Gibbon intende~to auild an animal cli. nic on the site using the same site plan as had been pre- viously approved but not necessarily the same building. He added that Dr. Gibbon was planning on moving ahead with this purchase if he could obtain informal approval of the the Planning Commission regarding the special use permit. He would then ~roceed with obtaining an architecT. They were concered that if they closed the sale, and did not start construction immediately, they woul~ be in troub e because of a possiDle rezoning under the Comprehensive Plan. IT is presently zoned LB and they would use the special use and variances that had previously been ap- aroved by the Council. They were seeking some sort of approval from the Commission. Comm'ssioner Gustafson asked for clarificatipn that they were proposing development for the property that was identica to what had previously been approved. Mr. Persian stated there was no deviation of site plan. They intended to use the exact same layout ~of the building, including setbacks. The City Manager noted that a working set of plans had been submitted with the earlier Planning Case. He gave a copy of these plans to Mr. Persian. He further noted tha~ he felt it was quite important that the ~revious plans be adhered to, both regarding the site plan..and the exterior and floor plan. He noted that a great deal of time had been spent previously and there had been neighborhood concern regarding the clinic. Discussion followed regarding the procedures to be fo lowed, the advisability of approving the request as it had been areviously presented and the fact that the petitioner woul'd have To return to the Commis- sion should ady changes 'n the original plan be desired. Concensus was that if the original plans were followed, the Commission had-no further cause to act at this time. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he felt that should the Compr.ehensive Plan eventuall~ determine that this property be zoned differently, the specia use would not be taken away. The City Manager disagreed, noting that if construction had been started at the time that the zoning were recommended for change, the building could ~roceed but i= would become a non-conforming use. If rezoneU and the new district did not permit this use, rights would, or at least could, be lost. Further discussion regarding the timing of obtaining a building permit in relation to a potential zoning change. Concensus was that the Commission could not hold up all ~evelopment in the City until such time that the Comprehensive Plan were approved. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 1:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ J6yce Boeddeker, Secretary Novea~,~sr 2 ~ 1976 reasons for %be flc~m~'~.fliaa of zoning this area % R-i, The tsaffic ..e.g,.stud :)y any other ~onin~ ~a~e~y resi~ ents ~ ~ t~'~,~ following circm~tances: Nor+h ~.ms recently dsva!op~, instead of a ~ ori~ffina!}y planne~ by Henna, pin Cc~ty, possible access tc ~ '~ Ave. ~; s~v,?r?! streets, (Hills~, l~?endance~ Jo,~lan), This ~ &v,mu'? .~ a :~t, reat Us~ for w,~Iking, [~eg'gin~ and bik~n~ PETITION P, EG:'~J1DtNG ZONI.NG OF VAC/4NT I~ROPERTY AT ~-IB SOUTiIEAST CORNI'~R O1: 42nd AVE. AND C,qUNTY ROAD #18 lfe the people of' the ..tlopev.~oo~ Ilills ]lomco;.mers' Association and concerned residents of New !lope ~re oppos¢d to the zoning of nnything other than R-l, i.e., single rcsi,4ents, {n th- no-,~ yacht area of the S.E. corner of County Road ;~18 r, nd 42nd Ave. North. The traffic ~:cneratcd b~ any other zoning wou~d definitely be intolerable ~nd hazrrdous to the safety of the residents on thc intcrn;~! streets as no additional through'streets can possibly be created bur:~]cning the existing streets ~.zi:h ail' additional traffic flow. !~c feel that it is the obligation of the Nc~, llope Council ~d city management to consider .and support the interests of the homeowners and provide us x,~ith safe and adequate streets so as not to endanger the lives of the man~ young children within this lovely New Hope area. Name Add ress 5. 8. 0. PETITION I,Eo~.. I~G ZONING ~-~F VACANT t:P. OPERTY AT THE COxNJ2R O~~ 42nd ;\VE AND ,~. UNiY ROAD ~18 SOUTUEAST 'TM"~ " . ~a "' . 7ie the people of the Hoper.rood Ilills i~omer.,vraers' Assoc{ation ~n,~ concerned resi:%nts of :-:e~',' !lope ,-.re opposed to the zoninj of anything othe~ than R-!, i.e., single residents, {n ~h,', no,,~ vacrmt area of the S.B. corner of County .. Road ~1,8 ~nd 42nd Ave. North. The traffic ?cneratcd b~' hny other zoning · n~o~.erable and haz::rdous to ~he safety of the residents ~.:ou2d definitely be ' ~' ~ on thc interred! streets'as no additional through streets cmn possibly be created lmr::et~ing the existing streets xvirh ali additional traffic flow. !~e feel that it is the obligation of the Ne~, Hope Council and city man%genent to consider and support the interests of the homeo:-:ners and provide us with safe 'and adequate streets so as not to endanger the lives of the many young children within this lovely New Hope area. Add res s 4. PBTITiON i~Eg>JlDING ZONING OF VACANT I'ROPBR~-~Z AT ~{B SOUT~IEAST 'CORNER f)l~ 42nd AVE. AND C~ItNTY ROAD #18 "::e the people of the .Hope',~ood lIills" - ' ~.~omeo~..~ers ~%ssociation an,~ concerned resi~lents of Xe~.~, Hope ;re opposed tn thc zonin~ of nnythin~ other th~n R-!, i.e., single residents, tn th,~ not? ~nc~t area of the S.~. corner of County load ~18 r, nd 42nd Ave. ,,~orth. '~e traffic ,~'~n~r~t~d,~ ~... b~ ~ny other zoning l.Jou~d.def'j, nl'~-l.y~t~ be intoTeralile and hazr:rdous to the safety of the residents on thc interm-.], streets as no ?.ddition:~l through streets c;o't possibly be created bur,iening the exist:~nt, ~ streets x?ith all additional traffic flo~,~. l:e feei that it is the obligation of the Ne?~ llope ~ouncil and city management to consider and 'support the interests of the homeo:-,ners and provide us ~ith safe and adequate streets so as not to endanger the lives :of the many young children ,>~ithin this lovely New Hope area. ,-,ame Address 8. 12 13 15 PBTITION ,,E,.~P.R...ING ZONING OF VAC;hNT ]:ROPERTY AT ~B ~ORNLR OF 42nd AVE. AND CaUN'fY ROAD ~18 SOUTHEAST ~ ' ':e tile people of the Hope:..,ood !Iills l!omco,:raers' Association and concerned residents of :,:e:v llope pre opposed to the zoning of anything other than R-l, .' '~"~ ,n,- . vacant area of the S.F~. corner of County 2oad ~:1.8 r. nd 42nd Ave. North. The traffic r:eneratcd by any other zoning v,'ou:d definitely be intoCerable and hazrrdous to tile safety of the residents otre,z,s as no addition;,1, throu:xh streets can possibly be on thc ~ntcrncl * -~ . created burdening the e,,~,,tlng streets with all additional traffic flow. !",e feel that it is' the obligation of the New Hope Council ad city management to consider and support the interests of the homeowners and provide us with safe and adequate streets so as not to endanger the hives of the many young children within this lovely New ltope ares.. Name Add tess PETITION REG>JlDING ZONING QF VAC/~NT FROPERTY AT THB SOUTHEAST' CORNER Ot: 42nd AVS. AND C~,UN'£Y ROAD #18 ;~ornc ,,-~.lers' Association and concerned ',.'e the ?eople of tile Hope~,!oo~ IIills" reol.,cnt~o'-' ~ of :ew qope. are opposed tn the zoning of anything other than R-1. _, i.e., sinale. ~.c' s;~l ......... ..... t.>, {n tl~c no~,r vacrmt area of tile S.E. c~rner of County load 3]18 vi],! 42nd Ave. }.*orth. The traffic :emery. ted by any other zoning wotCd, definitely be ln~o~.erable' ~- ~ and hazardous to the safety of the residents on thc intcrni:! streets gs no ?.ddition~.]. through streets c,~n possibly be crcated bur:.icning the existing strects with all additional traffic flol,~. %:';e feel that it is the obligation of the ~{e~,: llope Council ~r.i city management to consider and support the interests of the homeo?:ners and provide us with safe end adequate.~ireeis so as not' to ~,..,,.~--'~ngor,~_ the lives of the many young children ,,~ithin this lovely New Hope aree.. Add tess PETITION ~IEG,.'iR P I NG SOUTT-IBAST CORNt~R Ol= 42nd AVE. Ah'D C.~.UNTY ROAD #18 ';e the peop%e of the }!opewood !Iills ]Iomco~..n~ers' Assoc].ation an,~ concerned residents of :,Te:',, !Iope ere opposed tn thc zonin~ of anything other than R-!, ~.e., single residents, {n th~ no~,, vac~ area of the S.B, corner of County 2ozd ~?18 ~.nd 42nd Ave. >gor~h. The tr~ffic caners, ted by any o~her zoning wouTd definitely be intolerable and hazrrdous to the safe~y of the residents on thc intcrn;~! s~ree~s z%s no ~dditiona] throu~lh streets c;~n possibly be created bu::enlng the existing s~rec%s ;~,ith all additional ~raffic f]oz~. ]'{e feel that it is the obligation of the ~e~, Hope Council ~d city management to consider and support the interes%s of the homeo~,ners and provide us with safe and ndequa~e streets so as not ~o endanger the lives of the many young children within this lovely New Hope area. ?.~ame Adc] ress ' _ :o PBTITION ~,t~.~.)I,~G ZONi~..!G O~ VAC~XT I:ROPER~f AT 'DIE SOUTHEAS'r ~ORNER OF 42nd ,'WE. AND COUNTY ROAD #18 ile the v. eop!e of the Hope~...:ood IIills ]Iomcov.mers' Assoc{ation an,~ concerned resi:!cnts of New !lope ore opposed to thc zoning of snything other than R-!, i.e., sine, In residents, {n th~ no? yacht area of the S.B. corner of County. :load ¢18 r, nd 42nd Ave. North. The traffic f~eneratcd by any other zoning would 'definitely be intolerable and hazardous to thc safe~y of the residents on thc intern;~! streets as no additional through streets can possibly created burdcninf~ the existing streets with all additional traffic flow. he feel that it is the obligation of the New llope council and city management to consider and support the interests of the home~.mers and provide us with safe ~nd adequate streets so as not to endanger the lives of the many young' children ,.,~ithin this lovely New ]tope area. .... 3~. ~me' ~ / ~ _ Address 1!. ~ ~ ~" F.~~- '. ~-) -- ; -i - ' ' PBTITION" ~ ' ~' ''~ aEc:01_,I~:~ ZONING OF VAC>J<T IROPBR2~f AT ~dB SOUT;IEAST CORNER OF 42nd AVE..~ND CaUbFFY ROAD #18 - tie the people of the Hope;-/ood !Iills llo~mo~-mers' Association an,4 concerned residents of :-;e,',' Hope are opposed tn the zoning of anything other than P.-!, i.e., single, re,_~,n'~ ...... ..... t,>, %n th~ no,,r vacant area of the S.E. corner of County Road 418 r. nd 42nd Ave. }~orth. The traffic :cneratc:d b~ any other zoning would definitely be intolerable and haz:,rdous to the safety of the residents on thc intcrm-~! streets as ~to addition21 through streets c,3t possibly be created burdening the ~'= ~ ~ e..1.,tln~, streets ~,ith a].l additional traffic flow. kc feel that it is the obligation 0f the New llope Council and city management to consider and support the interests of the homeo:.mers and provide us with. safe and adequate streets so as not to endanger the lives of the many young. children within this lovely New !lope area. Name.. Add tess . . _ _ . .....~?... ~,~,,~ "' ' _ .~o ~: ~~,~ .~/, ~. > / -,. / f'. , , .-- ~ ~ ' .. ~/. . z'-' . ~. - "- ' y- " , ~'. .~ , ~~~j~' " ' D ' m ~/ , ' L~_ IEI~"ITIO" .... '=~"0 ~T"~G ~o,'~,- ~, , ZcsNI~iG. (3F V.\C;PiT I:'ROPliR ~/ AT 'i~IE SOUT}IEAST C.~RNt.:.R O1: 42nd AVE. AND '~, I~N~Y R~AD t~18 t';e the people of the Hope='ood llills ::o'~eo-...mers' 2.ssociation a.n,~ concerned resi:.!en~s of :~e~': :lope are opposed - ~: ........ 1;,, th,- vac~mt e. rea of the S..E. corner of County i.e., sine, lc Road //t8 on,! 42nd Ave. North. The traffic :cncratcd by any other zoning ln~o.,erable and hpzirdous to the safety of the residents v~ou~-:t definitc!y be ' on thc intcrm'-! o~re,:~o r:s no a. fldition¢l through streets c;,.71 possibly be created bur ]euinf.[ the existing., stre::ts '..?i:h all add{tional traffic flow. i:e feel that it 5_s the obligation of the :e,.z l[ope Council an:i city nanagement to consider an~ support the interests of the homeo:.,ners and provide us with safe an~ z~equate streets so as not ro end,get the lives of the ma_ny young children ~rithin this lovely New liope area. Name Add res s X . . .' Ot d ' O ~,' PETITION iIE$>JIDING ZONING OF VACANT t;ROPER~-g( AT TIIB SOUTHEAST CORNER Ol: 42nd AVE. AND -?~UNTY ROAD #18 tie the people of the Hopev-,OOd Ilills ]lo~..aeo,-n~ers' Association and concerned re$i:!ents of :e:',' !lope ~re opposed to the zoning of ~nything other than ~.e., single residents, {n th,~ no,, yacht area of the S.B. corner of County lozd :718 ~nd 42nd Ave. North. The traffic :eneratcd by any other zoning would definitely be intolerable and hazrrdous to the safety of the residents on thc interm:! streets as no addition:~l through streets c~,gt possibly be . e..~..,t.lng streets with.ali additional traffic floxv. created bur~Zening the ~'= ~ l:e feel that it is the obligation of the Ne:..z llope Council and city management to consider and support the interests of the homeo:-:ners an.~ provide us with safe and adequate streets so as not 'co endanger the lives of the many young children ~ithin this lovely New Hope area. Name Address · /'~z ,,:~ ' - ~, ~, '. ' .... . ~ .... ........ ~ .... ~( ~ , --~'~ ' ~V'- ' '." ~ ..... /:. ', - ' '~ .. ~ ' " ~ ,,,- ..--. ". . ~:, . . ,· ? ,~,c:."' ~ y~~:::, . ... ~ .... ~ } ~ , / '7 ., . ~.j~ '-:~ , . ----. .~~~. ~ /d- ,..~'~'~-'~ ,,- ~ ~ .... _ _ PBTITI©N ilEG:'UIDING Zf)NING oF VACANT ]'~ROPERz~Y AT ~FdB ~c~q ..... O,- 42nd AV~. AND '... UNCY ROAD ~18 SOUTHEAST '~:~m~ lie the people of the Hopewood Ilills ]lomeo~-.mers' Association an,~ c~ncerned re:;idents of :-:e',',' !tope ~re opposed tn thc zoning of.anything other than i.e., single res~ ..... ~s, %n th~ now vacamt area, of the S.B. corner of County 2oad ~?18 and 42nd Ave. NOrth. The traffic r-enerated by any other zoning wouTd definitely be intolerable and ha. zrrdous to the safety of the residents on thc interred! ~treets as no zddition¢l through streets czo't possibly be creates bur2en~ng the e.,~..,t~n~. ~, streets w~:h all additions. 1 traffic flow. :,e~ Hope Council and ci~Sr management fie feel that it is.the obligation of the" to consider and support the interests of the homeowners and provide us with safe an:! ~.dequate streets so as not to endanger the lives of the many youn~ children within this lovely New Hope arez. Name Address - ~ ...... ~ ' PETITION tl.EGARP, ING ZONING ¢)F VACA/;T t'ROPERTY AT SOUT!IBAST QORNER OF 42nd AVE. AND COI~NTY ROAD #18 Xe the ?eopl'e of the !-topewoo~ !Iills Hor..~co~..mers' AssocSation and concerned resi:!cnts of :~e~',' !lope are opposed to the zoninj of anything other than i.e.; sin~l.e residents, ;,n th~- no,,~ vacrmt e. rea of the S.B. corner of County load ~1.~ c,n,~ 42nd Ave. North. The traffic r'eneratcd by ~ny other zoning ~:'otlJ. d definitc!y t~e intolerable and hazr:rdous to the safety of the residents on thc internr:! streets ,.s no zddition:~l through streets can't possibly be create.2 bur.ienin~% the existing streets wi~h all additione,1 traffic flo~,~. l~e {eel thnt it is the obligation of tl~e New IIope Council m~ city management to consid, er and support the interests of the homeo:-mers and provide us with safe and r~dequa~e streets so as not to endanger the lives of the many young' children ~,;ithin this lovel~ Ne~, Hope are~.. . ~?.:me [ ~dd.re~s .' / ~ - ~ . ~: '. : ...-. ; . ' .. ...... ~ '~ ' ,. · ~.~ , , ?4d._ I . _ .. 17. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .... NOVEMBER 16, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commis'sion was held on'Tuesday, November 16, 1976 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order, by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. .. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present': Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Atchley, Gundershaug Absent: London, Pakonen PUBLIC HEARINGS · 3. PLANNING CASE 76-74 (CONTINUED FROM 11-2-76) REQUEST FOR REZONING, PUD, VARIANCES FOR TOWNHOUSE/APART- MENT PROJECT AT WISCONSIN AVENUE/BASS LAKE ROAD - BOISCLAIR'CORPORATION,PETITIONER. The City Manager noted that he had received a request from Mr. Frank Dunbar of the Boisclair Corporation to postpone this request until the meeting of December 7, 1976 in order to allow them to gather all of their cost figures. Commissioner Christensen moved to table Case 76-74 until the meetinq of December 7~ .1976. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Atchley, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion Dassed. .~.~ . ~ The City Manager commented that Mr. Dunbar had asked that the Commission forward any further comments they might have regarding Case 76-74 to Boisclair, aefore the December meeting. Discussion then centered on'the CommisSion's concern about the safety of the open stairways to the third floor of the apartments, especia ly during the winter months. Chairman Cameron welcome~ Mrs. Dorothy Hokr who was 'n the audience to observe the meeting. Commi.ssioner Christensen noted the trade-offs wh!ch are usually a part. of a PUD. He commented on the need for additional berming between areas ana the nee~ for a more detailed plan for the proposed tot tot. Mr. Larson no~ed that the aetitioner baa indicated 'they were areparing a complete response to those issues. He also noted that the neighbors were concerned about the relationship of the Wisconsin Avenue driveway to their nomes -- ights, etc. OLD BUSINESS 4. The Chairman stated that he felt it was very important that the Commissioners determine the procedure to De followed in the final review of the Comprehensive Plan as wel as the new zoning classifications as proposed. Discussion held on the implementation by direct transfer of current zoning with development applications being maae to respond to the Comprehensiye Plan or as an alternative, attempti.ng to rezone now, based on the Cemprehensive Plan.. The City Manager noted that he felt it was important that the Commission first amene the Comprehensive Plan as written, if they felt this was necessary, and then determine the means to be used to implement the new Plan --- how to apply the new zoning plan. Chairman Cameron confirmed, through questions of the City Manager, that the Commission, i.e. the City, would have to ~e able to present a substantial egal case in justification of any change of zoning as it now exists basee on the Comprehensive alan, because of the potentia need to defend the action ]n court. - Considerable discussion roi owed. Concerns expressed included the fact t~at a landowner of an indu'.- trial property might be able to develop the property within a reasonable length of time as industrial, and whether the Commission was justified in arbitrarily decieing that a propert~ should be converted to mid-density housing; the means to be used to determine what a classification should be when original zoning district would be divided into more than one classification under the new code; and the ne~d to make some revisions in the use lists of the zoning classifications. The potential legal problems for the City, under the two options, were reviewed. The City Manager noted that the City, through the Comprehensive =lan, 's committed to providing addi- tional housing choice. He added that when the concept was ado0ted, the Commission would still need to look at each piece of property to determine how it should be zoned. The goals and po icies of the Com- prehensive Plan must be established, with the final zoning map being used in implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - NOVEMBER 16, 976 4. Discussion then covered the dangers of a 50/50 approach; rezoning where property owners were agreeable, leaving others until they applied for develooment~ the fact that the Commissioners had to decide whe- ther or not they really believed what the Comprehensive Plan stated and were going to stand behind it; the need to establish criteria for zoning changes; and the need To make a firm commitment to the Com- prehensive Plan when it was amended. Concensus was that the CommiSsion would review each district, taking into consideration any input that had been received am Tne pub ic aearings from lana owners ana citizens. When the Comprehensive Plan review's completed and t~e Commission has determined the direction they wish the City to go,'the means of implementation of the Plan wi I be decided. Discussion then was held on the Com0rehensive Plan proposal. It was decidea to proceed as in the pub lc hearings starting with the Public Hearin~ of July 27, 1976 which covered Districts 24-30. DISTRICT #24 The City Manager noted that there were.two may'or vacant parcels of land in this district. One is at the Southeast corner of 36th/#18 and the other the North naif of the property at 30th/Flag Avenue. The 36/#18 parcel is now zoned _B. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that it be changed TO provide for mid-density housing. Under a direct transfer it wou d be R-O. Commissioner Craigie stated his feeling that the City had made more than an adequate commitment to high density development (R-4). He added that he felt that if the Commission decided to change zoning from industrial or bdsiness to residentia , there should be no additiona R-4 aevelo~ment. He stated that 38% of the residents of New Hope are ~ow in renta housing and that the City snould avoid, if possible, any additional apartment dwe lings~ Discussion then centered on the permitted uses of the LB zone (medical facilities, office buildings, apartment ~uildings); the R-4 zone (c.lubs, lodges, multiple family units, with office/commercial as a special use); ana the R-3 zone (multiple dwe ling units of less than 12 units, boarding homes, day care centers). Discussion also covereo which zoning classification would best serve the interests of the City in its goat to nrovide additiona nousing choice in the City. Commissioner Craigie moved that ~q~e Commission indicate its support ~or a .rezonin~ to R-3~ as illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan for Site #10. Commissioner Gus?a~son second. Further discussion. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission should take note that the property owner was opposed to the change 'n zoning. Commissioner Craigie Fe-stated his motion to recommena that the Planning Commission adopt as its policy District 24~ as written on Page 99, with a zoning use of R-3 for Site Plan #10. Commissioner Gustafson second. The City Manager noted that the DistricT #24 write-up included the parcel at 30th/Flag Avenue which is presently zonea MR. Plans were approved for develooment of this parcel in February '73 for town house development. The property was never rezoned. There is currently some indication that this development may be about to proceed'. Discussion then he d regardin'g the Saliterman property and the fact that the neighbors had been against any rezoning for the property. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Anderson~ Craigie, Gustafson, Atchley, Gundershaug Voting against: Cameron Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion that Site Plan #1.1~ in District #24~ ~e ap?roved as an R-3 zone. Commissioner Anderson second. Commissioner Atchley clarified that the Commissioners were voting only on the zoning designation and not on a specific development Blan. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Atche y, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - NOVEMBER 16, 976 4. DISTRICT #25 The City Manager noted that District #25 would be a direct transfer because there was no vacant land in the district. Commissioner Anderson moved to aaopt the proposal for District #25 as indicated in the proposed Compre- hensive'Plan. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Atchley, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Mot'on passed. DISTRICT #26 The City'Manager noted that the church property had been rezonea about a year ago to correcT the problem of a non-conforming use. He wished the Commissioners to be aware that this would have to be considered at some time again, to avoid the church becoming a non-conforming use. He suggested that this could be handled by making the church property R-O. Commissioner Gustafson mane a motion for approval of District #26 as written in the Comprehensive Plan, with The aaaition of the approval of the zoning of the cnurcn property as a direct transfer, based on the present zoning. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Craigie, Gustafson, Atchtey Voting against: None Absent: London, P~k'~nen, Cameron, 'Gundershaug Motion passed. .. DISTRICT #27 : " The City Manager stated that there were'two major issues in District #27. One is the ~roposed mid-den- sity along Xyton. However, this is a dead issue inasmuch as it has already been before the Commission and the Council and mid-density denied due to strong neighborhood feeling. The other issue is the speci- fic zoning that wil be appllied to ~idland Shopping Center. A direct transfer would make Midland a B-2, which the owners feel restricts their operation. Commissioner Craigie auestioned whether it would be possible to make Midland a PUD District, stating his feeling that Midland was not actually-only a neighborhood center. The City Manager noted that this could be done under the proposed zoning ordinance which provides for a Commercial PUD. CommisSioner Gustafson moved that the test as written for District #27 be approved with the exception that in Paraqraph #1~ on Page 103, the sentence beginning with the words "T~e only area where the future land pattern" and enaing with "this area oe developed aT mid-density" be eliminated. Commissioner Christensen second. Discussion regarding the final zSning of Midland and the possible revision of the use list. Concensus was that in effect, the question of Midland would be in abeyance until the use ist had been revised. Votin§ in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Craigie, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen, Cameron, Atchley Motion passed. DISTRICT #29 The City Manager noted that there were basically 30 acres now zoned.industrial in this district. Over the years ~here have been proposals for rezoning the land that have not been approved. There are three different owners -- two of the owners, Mr. Pazandak and Mr. L~for, are on record as being opposed to any rezoning. As proposed the industrial would aecome mid-density housing. Discussion aboum the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for this area; the proof that.would need to be presented by the City to justify a downzoning; the need for a buffer between the Crystal resi.den- rial and the industrial; and the danger of the land lying vacant for another ten years if left as it is. Comm ssioner Bartos moved tha~ District #29 be approved as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan~ with a recommendation for an R-3 zoning because'the industrial lanc has not developec TO the ~eqree that the ~i.ty would like an~ that this would provide an opportunity for mid-density hOUSing in the City, that property owners nave indicate~ in the past their feelinq that the land na~ been mis-zoned~ and that the sTreet system in the area was not adequaTe to service an industrial use. Commissioner Chris- tensen second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - NOVEMBER 16, 1976 4. DISTRICT #29 Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Craigie,'Cameron, Gustafson, Atchley, Gundershaug Votin9 against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. DISTRICT #30 The City Manager noted that this'district included a small industrial park owned by Peter King. There has been recent indication that the area is on the verge of development. Commissioner Christensen recommended t~at District #30 be approved as written in the Comprehensive Plan on Page t04. Commissioner Crai~ie second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Atchley Voting againsT: None Absent: London, Pakonen, Anderson Motion passed. 5. Second ~earing - Comprehensive Plan - Auqust 10~ 1976 - Districts 5 - 9 - 12. DISTRICT #5 . The City Manager noted that at the 0ublic hearing for this dis*riot, the only comment had been from the gentlemen who was concerned about the use list for this district which included antenna farms. His concern was for The effect this use mighT nave on his electronic sysTem business. Commissioner Craigie made a motion to approve the recommendations for District #5 as stated in the Compre- hensive Dian. Commissioner Gustafson second. Discussion centered on the possibility ~f the City encouraging additional development in the Science Center area and whether-there was any means to enhance the area and prod development at a faster pace. Feeling was that the Commission needed to indicate to the Council their concern that this area not be a lowed to deteriorate, in view of ?he amount of vacan~ saace presently existing in the center. With the approval of Commissioner Gustafson as the second, Commissioner Craigie recommendsd that the motion also include an indication that *he Commission felt that the encouragement of future devel~?zs~n~t of this area be a very hign priority of the City ana that there was a need to emphasize the use o~ ~'ffice developmen? and construction of a gateway concept. Concensus was that the City Manager should reword the text on t~is.area to clarify the Commission's intent; per the Commission's direction. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the motion not be voted upon until the final wording of the plan text had been completed. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt there woul.d De no problem in approving the motion, subject to the rewording of the text ay the Cit~ Manager, rather than tabling. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen,' Craigie, Cameron, Atchley, Gundershaug Voting against: Anderson, Gustafson Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. DISTRICT #9 The City Manager stated that the owners of the property at the Southwest corner of the district had ex- pressed opposition to the rezoning to R-3. They have a proposal pu~ together which will be before the Commission formally at the December 7th, meeting. This proposal will include a plat for the area North of 49th Avenue. There will be several industrial lots on the interior with a small commercial area on the corner of 49th/#18. Discussion followed as to Commission action to change zoning versus a arooosed development plan and whether this would hinder the owner's proposal. Until the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the owner wou d be able to proceed under present ordinance restrictions. Concern was expressed by the Commission as to the soil conditions of this parcel, as well as the appropriateness of mid-density housing in that particular area because of its near.ness. TO the. existing .industrial. Commissioner Christensen moved *o table final action on District #9 until the proposed development plans were reviewed. Commissioner Gustafson second. PLANNING COMMISS ON MINUTES - 5 - NOVEMBER 16, 1976 5. DISTRICT #9 Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen,-Gustafson, Atchley, Gundershaug Voting against: Anderson, Craigie, Cameron AbsenT: London, Pakonen Motion passed. Commissioner Christensen noted that this corner aT 49th/#18 i_n~.District #9 naa been a controversial are~ and ne felt the need TO take another trip through tiae area. DISTRICT #12 The City Manager noted that at the 0ub ic hearing there had been considerable confusion as to what was being proposed for this area, on the oart of the neighborhood. The property owner, Scherer Brothers Lumber Company, had stated on one occasion that they ha~ no problem with the proposed R-3 zoning. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve District #I2 as ~ecommended in the Comprehensive Plan on Paqe 82~ includin9 the Commission's recommendation for an R-3 zoning on this parce (SiTe Plan #6). Commis- sioner Atch ey secona. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Cameron, Gustafson, &tchley, Gundershaug Voting against: Craig ie Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. Commissioner Gustafson reported tha~ the Codes and Standards Committee had met on Tuesday, November 9th', to review the list of action items before them and will have another meeting at the City Hall on Thurs- .day, November 18, 1976 with the representative of Boy Btue~ regarding the pinbal ordinance and other issues. Comm' ssioner Gustafson added that followiag the meeting with the representative of Boy Blue, the Commit- tee would attemot to write an ordinance to handle the pinbal problem. They will also re-examine the use lists of Tne Zoning Code To aeveloo a set et criteria to aid in determining how they could 0e better structured. They will review the Maintenance Code once more and shortly move for adoption of this 'ordi- nance. The ad hoc committee will bring the issue of boulevard encroachments before the full committee once aga i n. 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 8. Commissioner Christensen noted that there would be a meeting of the Design and Review Committee on Tues- day, November 23, 1976. NEW BUS I NESS 9.The Council minutes of November 8, 1976 were reviewed. O.The Commission minutes of November 2, 976 were accepted as printed. II. The City Manager noted that there will .be a meeting on the 29th November at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hal regarding the prooosed City Center. Mr. Licht, from Midwest Planning, wit give a report on their confezences with the property owners and occupants of the City Center area. This meeting will include the members of the City Council, the Planning Commissior and the Economic Development Commission. Chairman Cameron urged the Commissioners to make every effort to attend this meeting. 12. After a brief discussion.~ tl~e Commission agreed unanimously to cancel the meetinq of December 21~ 1976 due to the holiday season and conflicts of schedules. 13.The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ JZoyce Boeddeker, Secretary ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1976 OLD BUSINESS 4. District #28 The City Manager stated that one of the main problems.in this.district was that there were exiting problems on to Winnetka. Commissioner Gustafson noted that there was not much the Planning Commis- sion could do at this time in regard to this. Commissioner Craigie stated he felt it still had to be passed on. Commissioner Gustafson stated he felt it was inappropriate at this time. Commissioner Christensen moved that the Planning Commission accept the language as proposed for District #28. Commissioner Bartos second, Voting in favor.: Gundershaug, Bartos, Christensen, Anderson, Craigie, Gustafson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen, Atchl,ey, Cameron Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on Tuesday, December 7, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Atchely (excused), Pakonen (excused), Craigie PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 76-74 ~ REQUEST FOR?~.ZO~_!~P. UD_~__~VARIANCE FOR A TOWNHOUSE/APART~!ENT PROJECT ON WISCON- SIN AVENUE AT E}ASS LAItE ROAI] - BOISCLAIR CORPORATI~_~ PETITIONER. Mr. Frank Dunbar represented Boisclair Corporation. He noted that at the earlier meeting, concerns had been expressed about H~e proposed landscaping, the tot lot area, tile definition and type of lighting to be provided and the definition of the stairways. Revised plans were distributed to the Commissioners. In response to the concerns about the buffer between the townhouse area and the apartment area, Mr. Dun- bar stated that an extensive amount of berming and plantings were now indicated for this area at the Western boundary between the petitioner's property, and the Country Club property and they propose a row of landscaping, as well as the curbing. The inner courtyard design will give a couryard appearance but provide some buffering around the edge to provide privacy for the residents of the ground floor apartments. Chairman Cameron requested that Mr. Dunbar review the total concept plan for the benefit of the audience and the Commissioners. Mr. Dunbar stated that the project will consist of 47 units, 41 apartment units -- 13 two bedroom units, 22 one bedroom units, and six three bedroom units -- and six townhouses located on the Eastern end of the property with an exit on to Wisconsin Avenue. The project will be Section ~ subsidized housing. The apartment complex will have two outdoor Darkin~ spaces and one garage parking space per unit and the townhouses will have two outdoor stalls an~ one ~n- terior garage stall. They are requesting a variance of the City Code to allow only one interior s~all instead of two for the townhouses. They are further requesting that the section for the townhouses be rezoned from MR to TR and are request- ing a PUD for the entire project. In response to questions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Dunbar noted that a requuest had been made to the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency for funds, granted through HUD, for Section 8 on the rental portion. They have received a letter stating that funds had been set aside for the project and have proceeded with feasibility studies contingent upon the requirements set up by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The corporation had attended one initial intake meeting with the Agency to review the design. The subsidy would allow qualified people to pay only 25% of their income for the housing, with the re- maindeb of the rent fo be subsidized. Qualifications require that the first priority be given to han- dicapped, the second to people displaced by government action of any kind, and then on a first come first serve basis, according to qualifications est6blished by HUD regarding income and family size. Interim and permanent financing would come through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. They will en- ter into a forty-year lease with the Agency. Boisctair Corporation wi!l sponsor, develop and manage the project, under the jurisdiction of the Agency. There will be yearly review periods. Qualifications include 'income requirements of a maximum income of $9600 for one person and $15,500 for a family of six. The project would be open to everyone, not just New Hope residents. Mr. Bob Boisclair, President of the corporation, stated that :!~ey are aiming at the moderate to middle income group of tenant. The project, however, is program to be 100% qualified renters. In respons~ to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Boisclair noted that the New Hope project was tied to three other developments. The total project was proposed to the State Agency under a sin- gle mortgage concept. ~ After the' project receives initial approval, the individual projects are pre- sented to the cities involved for project approval. Discussion followed between Commissioner Gustafson and Mr. Boisclair regarding the original total pro- ject as submitted to the State Agency and the amenities that had been changed in the individua sections of the project~ i.e. the proposal for New Hope. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - DECEMBER 7, 1976 3.. Mr. Boisclair indicated that they were the same proposals. Commissioner Gustafson noted some discre- pancies between the plans. Mr. Dunbar stated that the plans as presented to the New Hope Planning Commission were the plans that had been submitted to MIFA. Mr. Boisclair noted that the subsidies will be paid directly to the tenant and not to the corporation. The City Manager slated that this was essentially the same type of project already running in New Hope under the Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program. The only difference would be that the proposed project will include the entire complex for subsidy on a mortgage guarantee, while the present plan is on an isolated unit basis. Mr. Boisclair noted that they had already received approval for the project for Robbinsdale, but that the portion planned for Crystal was being presented to the Crystal Council on 12/7/76. The units will always be rental units, including the townhouses. in answer to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Dunbar noted that i~ addition to the New Hope project, there will be two projects in Crystal - one a I10 unit elderly housing building, 7 stories high, and a similar 48 unii family complex at 32/Nevada. There will be another 48 unit projected lo- cated in Robbinsdale. Mr. Dunbar confirmed that ~he one bedroom units will have 650-700 square feet, the 13 two bedroom units about 900 square feet and the six 3 bedroom units would range in size from 1000 to I100 square feet. The townhouses will be 3 bedroom and consist of 1214 square feet each. The buffer toward Country Club Market will be five feet wide. They plan to use Persian Lilacs 5 feet in height. The berm between the townhouses and the apartments would be three feet high wi~h landscaping on top of this (909 road elevation to 9t2). The driveway to Bass Lake Road will be 36 feet wide, with ~wo 12 foot lanes ~or egress and one 12 foot lane for ingress (per the County recommendation). The driveway will be stri.ped and arrowed but will not have a permanent median. There will be a five foot fence between the driveway and the existing apartments, constructed of cedar and of a design that will conform to the design of the buildings. The fence will be started 15 feet back of Bass Lake Road to provide open vision lines to the West. The tot lot will be in the interior courtyard. The lot will consis of cedar poles~ tire swings, a rope climbing area, a mound of logs to climb on and a bench for sitting. The area will b'e I. andscaped on the rim to provide some privacy for the apartment units. They are presently proposing that the galleries from the unit exits wilt be open, with a stairway en- closed on three sides. The front to be plexiglass to provide security. This proposal will satisfy City codes in regard to fire safety. The City Manager noted that there appeared to be no initial problem with the drainage of the site. The lighting plan was then reviewed for the Commissioners. Mr. Dunbar noted that there will be an in- candescent light at each entryway which will give one candlefoot of light. The light will radiate our to cover the entire area but not impose on the adjacent properties. They prefer the incandescent to the mercury vapor type light because they feel it is less harsh and gives more of a residential appearance. Commissioner London expressed hi~ concern about the lack of lighting in the area between the garages and apartment units. He further noted that the Commission had previously been concerned with the type o~ terior treatment proposed and potential moisture problems with the vertical joints. The architect noted that this material and treatment had been used in the Pacific Northwest, adding that they also had to satisfy the mortgage lender as to materials used, and he did not feel that they would ~ authorize any type of m~.~erial that would not hold up for at least 40 years. Mr. Dunbar noted that they were subject to an annual review of the premises by MIFA and it would not be ~ to the petitioner's advantage to use any materials that would not hold up over the years. Mr. Boisclair stated that they were restricted from selling the complex for at least the first fifteen years and that the mortgage was set up to eliminate the possibility of separating the four projects or the townhouses from the MR for future sale. Discussion followed between Commissioner Gustafson~ Mr. Dunbar and Mr. Boisclair regarding the total project plan as submitted for the State review and the differences between this plan and the plan that was presently before the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1976 I. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held at the City Halt, 4401Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on Tuesday, December 7~ 1976. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Atcheiy (excused), Pakonen (excused), Craigie PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 76-74 - REVUES1-FOR RE~O~.~P. UD_~__~VAR~IANCE FOR A TO~NHOUSE/APARTMENT PROJECT ON WISCON- SIN AVENUE AT BASS LAKE ROAD - BOISCLAIR CORPORATION~ PETITIONER. Mr. Frank Dunbar represented Boisclair Corporation. He noted that at the earlier meeting, concerns had been expressed abou{ the proposed landscaping, the tot lot area, the definition and type of lighting to be provided and the definition of the stairways. Revised plans were distributed to the Commissioners. In response to the concerns about the buffer between the townhouse area and the apartmenk area, Mr. Dun- bar stated khat an extensive amount of berming and plantings were now indicated for this area at the Western boundary between the petitioner's property, and the Country Club property and they propose a row of landscaping, as well as the curbing. The inner courtyard design will give a couryard appearance but provide some buffering around the edge to provide privacy for the residents of the ground floor apartments. Chairman Cameron requested that Mr. Dunbar review the total concept plan for the benefit of the audience and the Commissioners. Mr. Dunbar stated that the project will consist of 47 units, 41 apartment units -- 13 two bedroom units, 22 one bedroom units, and six three bedroom units -- and six townhouses located on the Eastern end of the property with an exit on to Wisconsin Avenue. : The project will be Section B subsidized housing. The apartment complex will have two outdoor parking spaces and one garage parking space per unit and the townhouses will have two outdoor stalls and one in- terior garage stall. They are'requesting a variance of the City Code to allow only one interior stall instead of two for the townho~ses. They are further requesting f~at the section for the townhouses be rezoned from MR to TR and are request- ing a PUD for the entire project. In response to queskions from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Dunbar noted that a requuest had been made to the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency for funds, granted through HUD, for Section 8 on the rental portion. They have received a letter stating that funds had been set aside for the project and have proceeded with feasibility studies contingent upon the requirements set up by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The corporation had attended one initial intake meeting with the Agency to review the design. The subsidy would allow qualified people to pay only 25% of their income for the housing, witb the re- maindeP of the rent to be subsidized. Qualifications require that the first priority be given to han- dicapped, the second to people displaced by government action of any kind, and then on a first come first serve basis, according to qualifications established by HUD regarding income and family size. Interim and permanent financing would come through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. They will en- ter into a forty-year lease with the Agency. Boisclair Corporation will sponsor, develop and manage the project, under the jurisdiction of the Agency. There will be yearly review periods. Qualifications include income requirements of a maximum income of $9600 for one person and $15,50~ for a family of six. The project would be open to everyone, not just New Hope residents. Mr. Bob Boisclair~ President of the corporation, stated that they are aiming at the moderate to middi-~ income group of tenant. The project, however, is program to be I00~ qualified renters. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Boisclair noted that the New Hope project was tied to three other developments. The total project was proposed to the State Agency undef a. sin- gle mortgage concept. ~ After th~ project receives initial approval, the individual projects are pre- sented to the cities involved for project approval. Discussion followed between cOmmissioner Gustafson and Mr. Boisclair regarding the original total pro- ject as submitted to the State Agency and the amenities that had been changed in the individual sections of the project~ i.e. the proposal for New Hope. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 DECEMBER 7, 1976 3. Mr. Boisclair indicated that they were the same proposals. Commissioner Gustafson noted some discre- pancies between the plans. Mr. Dunbar stated that the plans as presented to the New Hope Planning Commission were the plans that had been submitted to MIFA. Mr. Boisclair noted that the subsidies will be paid directly to the tenant and not to the corporation. The City Manager stated that this was essentially the same type of project already running in New Hope under the Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program. The only difference would be that the proposed project will include the entire complex for subsidy on a mortgage guarantee~ while the presen? plan is on an isolated unit basis. Mr. Boisclair noted that they had already received approval for the project for Robbinsdale, but that the portion planned ~or Crystal was being presented to the Crystal Council on 12/7/76. The units will always be rental units, including the townhouses. In answer to questions from Commissioner ~hristensen, Mr. Dunbar noted that in addition fo the New Hope project, there will be two projects in Crystal - one a I10 unit elderly housing building, 7 stories high, and a similar 48 unit family complex at 32/Nevada. There will be another 48 unit projected lo- cated in Robbinsdale. Mr. Dunbar confirmed that the one bedroom units will have 650-700 square feet~ the 13 two bedroom units about 900 square feet and the six 3 bedroom units would range in size from I000 to I100 square feet, The townhouses will be 3 bedroom and consist of 1214 square feet each. The buffer toward Country Club Market wilt be five feet wide. They plan to use Persian Lilacs 5 feet in height. The berm between the townhouses and the apartments would be three feet high with landscaping on top of this (909 road elevation to 912). The driveway to Bass Lake Road will be 36 feet wide, with two 12 foot lanes for egress and one 12 foot lane for ingress (per the County recommendation). The driveway will be striped and arrowed but will not have a permanent median. There will be a five foot fence between the driveway and the existing apartments, constructed of cedar and of a design that will conform to the design of the buildings. The fence will be started 15 feet back of Bass Lake Road to provide open vision lines to the West. The tot lot will be in the interior courtyard. The lot will consis of cedar poles~ tire swings, a rope climbing area, a mound of logs to climb on and a bench for sitting. The area will b~e !andscaped on the rim to provide some privacy for the apartment units. They are presently proposing that the galleries from the unit exits will be open, with a stairway en- closed on three sides. The front to be plexiglass to provide security. This proposal will satisfy City codes in regard to fire safety. The City Manager noted that there appeared to be no initial problem with the drainage of the site. The I!ghting plan was then reviewed for the Commissioners. Mr. Dunbar noted that there will be an in- candescent light at each enfryway which will give one candlefoot of light. The light will radiate out to cover the entire area but not impose on the adjacent properties. They prefer the incandescent to the mercury vapor type light because they feel it is less harsh and gives more of a residential appearance. ~Commissioner London expressed his concern about the lack of lighting'in the area between t~e garages and a~artment units. He further noted that the Commission had previously been concerned with the type of ex- terior treatment proposed and potential moisture problems with the vertical joints. The architect noted that this material and treatment had been used in the Pacific Northwest, adding that they also had to satisfy the mortgage lender as to materials used, and he did not feel that they would authorize any type o~ material that would not hold up for at I -ast 40 years. Mr. Dunbar noted that they were subject to an annual review of the premises by MIrA and it would not be to the petitioner's advantage to use any ~ateriats that would not hold up over the years. Mr. Boisclair stated that they were restricted from selling the complex for at least the first fifteen years and that the mortgage was set up to eliminate the possibility of separating the four projects or the townhouses from the MR for future sale. Discussion followed between Commissioner Gustafson~ Mr. Dunbar and Mr. Boisclair regarding the total project plan as submitted for the State review and the differences between this plan and the plan that was presently before the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - DECEMBER 7, 1976 6. Mr. Kochaver noted that they had not yet determined if there would be roof-top equipment, but it this were added, they would provide suitable screening. Trucks will drive into the buildingf'ro~the North, load and unload, and exit from the South on to Winpark Drive. The drive will be one way to the South~ and out on to Winpark Drive. Discussion then centered on the front parking lot. Mr. Dick Cordell, Engineer~ noted that the parking lot plans had been changed to include only ten spaces with parking only on the building side. The curb cut is 20 feet wide which will be more than adequate for one-way traffic. There will be no additional signage and trash will be collected on the inside of the building. They are proposing an additional outside light on the North and South elevation and two on the West. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 76-78 - Construction Approval for an Addition at 7709 Winpark Drive. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 76-79 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE AT 7124 LOMBARDY LANE - NORTHERN LAND AND REALTY COMPANY, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that at the time the property had been originally developed, in the I960's, a waiver of platting had not been obtained. The property was now in the process of being sold and this action was to correct the situation and to allow the City records to show that the property division had been officially approved. The total density of the area is OK. There is no change of use involved and the lot has already been created. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to .approve Case 76-79 - Request for Wavier of Platting at 7124 Lombardy Lane. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. Commissioner Christensen left the meeting at 9:35 p.m. ON-GOING BUSINESS Sa. Commissioner Gustafson' reviewed a proposed addition to the Comprehensive Plan text for District #~. The amendment is a result of the Commission's concerns for this area and the City Manager had been requested to prepare a paragraph to be included in the Plan, that would express the feeling that development in this area should be encouraged by the City. The addition to read: "In that District 5 is a highly visible industrial park with excellent exposure to County Road #18 and Bass Lake Road, it is felt that the area has potential for major regional multi-tenan~ office development and that this type of development should be encouraged. In order that the potential of the park be fully realized it is further suggested that a "gateway" be developed in the Bass Lake Road/#18 intersection area to establish a positive image for the park and the community." Commissioner Gustafson moved that the p. roposed text be approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for District #5 (p.age 73). Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London~ Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Abstain: Anderson Absent: Atch!ey, Craigie, Cameron, Christensen Motion passed. 8b. The City Manager stated that this item was on the agenda to keep the Commission informed of the proposed status of the devel6pment in District #9. At a previous meeting, action on the district had been tabled pending proposed development plans. The property owners now plan to appear before the Commission at the meeting of January 4, 1977. 8c. A review of the Comprehensive Plan, Districts I0, II, 14, 15,.16, 21~ 22~ 23 - previously reviewed at the public hearing on August 17, 1976 was then held. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - DECEMBER 7, 1976 8c. DISTRICT #10 Discussion centered on the recommendations of the Planner that the property by the railroad tracks (Site Plan #5) be rezoned to provide for mid-density housing and the fact that there had been much citizen comment on this proposal at the meeting of August 17, against the proposal. Concensus of the Commission seemed to be that there had perhaps been some confusion on the part of the citizens as to what was actually being proposed for this property. The property is presently zoned industrial. Further discussion held on the desirability of this property as industrial and whether or not the Commis- sion could in any way insure access, in the event of the future development of the site. The City Manager suggested that the language in Paragraph 3, Page 78, on this District could be stricken and a new paragrph substituted to read: "With respect to lhe protection of residential quality, it is recommended that the large undeveloped parcel in the NE quadrant of the District, presently zoned for industrial use, be given special consideration in terms of adequate buffering between the single family residences and any industrial development that may occur. Buffering should in- clude extra setbacks, berming, and plantings. Access should be directly to Winnetka and every e~fort should be made to develop the total site in one PUD development". Commissioner London made a motion that Paragraph #3~ P~_g_~ 78, be stricken and the paragraph as writ- ten by the City Manager be substituted and that the amended Plan text for District #10 be adopted. Commissioner Bartos second. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt it important for the Commission to recognize what the use lists for that zoning allowed, and that also that the residents realize what could legally be developed on this property should it be zoned I-2. Voting in ~avor: London, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Gustafson, Anderson Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen, Christensen Motion passed. DISTRICT #tl Fpllowing review of the plan as proposed, Co~missioner Gu~dershaug moved that the recommendations for DisTrict #11, as written in the Comprehensive Plan. ~e 9pproved. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen, Christensen Motion passed. DISTRICT #14 Following review of the Plan as proposed, Commissioner Gustafson recommended approval of the recommenda- tions of the Comprehensive Plan as they refer to District #14. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in ~avor: London, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen, Christensen Motion passed. DISTRICT #15 Following review of the text as proposed, Commissioner Bartos moved that the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to District ~15.~ be approved. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Cameron~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen, Christensen Motion passed. DISTRICT #16 ': Discussion on the recommendations for the SR residences in this district and the fact that there are ~-~.~ mixed uses in this district. Concern was expressed that rezoning the SR might encourage premature sale of the properties,which are well maintained, and could remain SR for several more years. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve the language and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to District #16, with the exception that the sentence on Page 87, beginning "On a long range basis" ................ end endin_9_wi.:~h "portion of the district" be stricken from the text. Commissioner Gundershaug second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - DECEMBER 7, 1976 Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen, Christensen ~otion passea. DISTRICT #21 Following review of the text as proposed, Commissioner Gunaersnau~ recommended approval of the Compre-- hensive Plan as it relates To District #21. Commissioner Lonaon second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen, Christensen Motion passed. DISTRICT #22 Discussion held regarding The recommendations for this district and whether the use lists should be amended TO handle any minor problems existing in this district. Concern was exFressed tha~ the repair garage would De a non-conforming use. Concensus was that this existing use should be accommodate. Commissioner Anderson maae a motion for approva of the Comprehensive Plar as it relates to District ~22. Commissioner London secona. Voting ir favor: London, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen, Christensen Motion passed. DISTRICT #23 Commissioner London commented on the fact that wnen he had been camoaigning recently, several residents of Tnis area had stated that Creamette had not followea through as far as requirements imaosed by the City. The City Manager noted that there had been a long history on this issue with some confusiom as to what naa originally been reauired. Commissioner Gustafson maae a motion to ~pprove the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to Distric~r #2-~. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bart~s, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting a~ainst: None Absent: Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen, Chri'stensen Motion passed. Chairman Cameron expressed his concern a0oum the amoun~ of time that aad already been soenf om the (~ prehensive Plan ana the amount of work that still remained to be accomolished. He requested that i-he Commissioners arrangetheir schedules so that the Commission could meem every Tuesday after the first the year~ in an effort fo speed up the review process. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. Commissioner Gustafson noted that Codes and Standa~es had met an~ were ready to submit an ordinance re-- garding encroachment on City boulevards. The ordinance was distributed. He requested fhaf the Commissio~ be preparee ~o discuss and act on this proposed ordinance at the meeting on January 4th, in preparation for sendin~ it =orwarc to the Council. Commissioner LOnaon added that ne ~elt the Commission should be prepared to either pass or reject the ordinance, but to no~ sena it back to committee. Commissioner Gustafson that stated that the Codes and Standards Committee also recommended that the Com- mission be prepared To act on the propose~ Maintenance Ordinance on January 4th. The Committee had reviewed this ordinance again ana was recommending its adoption, assuming that enforcement would the basis of "point of sale" or "complaint". He then noted that ~he Committee was 0reoaring a proposed ordinance ~o deal wimn the 0ro~lem of ainball machines. This would be oresen~ed to the Commission a~ ?ne meeting of January 18th. He added that on the upcoming schedule o~ the Committee, was The assigned review of "fast food" restaurants in res- ponse to mne moratorium imoosed by the Council. O. Commissioner London indicated ?~a? the Subdivision Ordinance had been reviewed by the Land Use Commit~ree one ~hey recommend that the Commission review one ac~ on this ordinance on January 4~ 1977. I. There was no report ~rom the Design anc Review Committee. NEW BUSINESS 1.2. The Council minutes of 11/22/76 were reviewed. 13. The Commission minutes of 11/16/76 were approved as printed. 15. The meeting was aejourned ~y unanimous consent at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo¥ce Boeddeker, Secretary